Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966)

There's a lot of good you can say about Hammer's first Dracula sequel to actually feature Dracula again. It's great to have Lee back, and although Cushing is absent except in some footage at the beginning culled from "Horror of Dracula", Andrew Keir steps into a similar role in this film, and he's always an asset. On the downside, the plot is not terribly strong. The way in which Dracula is resurrected is fine, but the plot is largely driven by the main characters acting in unbelievably stupid ways. There's some dispute about why Dracula has no dialogue in this film ... Lee claimed he refused to read the terrible dialogue provided, but Jimmy Sangster claimed that no dialogue was ever written for him. Whatever the reason, it's a great move as the silent Dracula in this film seems as his most monstrous and feral.

I thought the first Christopher Lee Dracula movie ("Horror of Dracula") was fine, so I thought I would take a look at the first follow up. Though other IMDb user commenters have found the movie to be good to great, I thought it was somewhat disappointing. If you are looking for a lot of Dracula here, forget it. After opening with a lengthy flashback to the previous film, we don't see Lee again until more than half the movie has passed. And not only does Lee make a few short and sporadic appearances in the latter half of the movie, he has absolutely no dialogue. I guess the movie isn't terrible - it doesn't have any dull spots, the production values are fine, and the acting by the cast is decent. Still, you'll get the sense that a lot of potential was wasted by the filmmakers.

You know the song and dance: people are warned not to go up to that darn castle! British travelers are going through the countryside, and they hear about this castle up on a hill. They're told not to go there - why, exactly, maybe it's not entirely clear as "His" name is not invoked. But, alas, they do go there, and after being welcomed in an eerie way (everything at the table is all set up for them, and they're served by a sorta creepy butler), they stick around. Needless to say, after a ritual that involves a LOT of blood from a man hung upside down, Dracula rises from his grave - or, I should say reforms out of like the dirt and blood and ash and whatnot. Take it away, Christopher Lee, with your seductive-monstrous self! Hammer horror here, and it's fun, if not really that great. But it was the first sequel to Horror of Dracula, the film that first brought Lee to Hammer's world of Stoker, and made him iconic for millions across the world. This time he doesn't have a word of dialog - whether this was by design of the script or Lee being a (rightful) primadonna and ordering cuts, who can say, legend-fact-print-legend sort of thing - but no matter. He's still creepy and in his pacing of taking his time to reach his victims terrifying (geuinely so, there's no cheese here, not a shred). And in his way he's also kind of seductive... yes, even with those red eyes.The rest of the movie around Lee and his assistant is alright. Barbara Shelly makes for a good female foil and is beautiful. And the sets and music are spot on. Perhaps it's worth noting that characterization for the humans isn't that strong, but then is it necessary? The beats are here - the crosses, the discount Van Helsing who knows all and leads the hunt against the Prince of Darkness - and it's hard to feel much suspense in the climax when you know how it's going to go down. But it's still classy filmmaking from Terence Fisher, and it's refreshing to see a horror movie that takes its time, gives characters and sets room to breathe in shots, and you'll want to keep watching for when the Count appears.The parts are much greater than the whole... but what bloody parts!

Eight years. That's how long it took to get a direct sequel to "Horror of Dracula" made. I can't really say for certain why the wait was so extended. I'm willing to bet Hammer was eager to make another Dracula. I suspect that Christopher Lee, who has expressed contempt for the part over the years, was the real reason why. I don't know how they did it, whether it be with money or something else, but the studio eventually talked Lee into reprising his most famous role. "Dracula: Prince of Darkness," the eventual film, helpfully begins with stock footage of the 57 film. Audiences probably, genuinely needed the reminder.Picking up ten years after the last entry, the film follows the Kents: Diane, her husband Charles, her sister Helen, and Helen's husband Alan. On their vacation through Europe, they pass through Dracula country. Despite everyone – including vampire expert Father Sandor – warning them not to, the quartet continues forward. They wind up abandoned at Dracula's old castle, where the Count's one remaining servant murders Alan, resurrecting the titular Prince of Darkness. With Helen quickly turned into Drac's latest bride, Charles has to team up with Father Sandor to prevent Diane from joining the same rank.The script intentionally limits Christopher Lee's screen time as much as possible, in order to keep his fee low. This is all too noticeable at times. Dracula doesn't come back to life until the forty minute mark. Nearly the entire first hour is set within Dracula's castle. Clichés abound. The heroes ignore the obvious warnings around them. When mentioning Dracula's name at the dinner table, an ominous wind blows in, causing the candles to flicker. Helen is haunted by bad vibes, constantly telling the others she doesn't like being in the castle. Her pleas go unanswered, naturally. After Dracula finally shows back up, and turns Helen into a vampire, the survivors flee the castle and wind up in the company of Father Sandor and his monks. Then the final act of the movie is mostly contained within the ministry. It's not until the final minutes, when Charles and Sandor ride after Dracula's carriage on horseback, that "Prince of Darkness" approaches the action-packed swiftness of its predecessor.Which isn't to say the film isn't good. This one arguably packs in as many scares as "Horror of Dracula" did. Terence Fisher was a director who knew how to get the most out of his sets. Repeatedly, the camera pans around the empty sets, which is surprisingly creepy. Dracula continues to be a singularly intimidating presence. When he corners Helen, it's nearly as squirmy and rape-y as his encounter with Mina in the last film. Later on, Dracula pulls his shirt open, cutting his chest, tempting Diane to drink it. Unlike her sister, Diane seems uncontrollably drawn to the vampire's sexual charisma. Yet the one scene in "Prince of Darkness" is better then all the others. While Diane and Charles are attacked by the vampiric Helen, Dracula leaps to the top of the steps, the walls behind him glowing bright red. He easily pushes the heroes aside, ready to claim the woman. How Charles escapes, by crossing swords into the shape of a cross, is disappointing but for a few minutes, "Dracula: Prince of Darkness" is as intense and scary as anything Hammer ever did.By 1966, the Hammer formula was more firmly established. Barbara Shelley spends the first half of the film fully clothed, covered by constricting dresses. As soon as she's turned into a vampire, she slips into the Hammer uniform of a slinky, cleavage-barring nightgown. The movie might also be the goriest Hammer film up to this point. When Alan gets his throat slashed over Dracula's grave, torrents of bright red, pasta-sauce-thick blood pours out. Later on, Helen is held down and staked, the film drawing a lot of attention to her suffering. The films would get bloodier and sexier from here on.Famously, Christopher Lee has no dialogue in the film, his vocalization limited to hissing and growling. It totally works in the film's favor, as it makes Dracula into even more of an animal force. Unfortunately, Peter Cushing passed on this one, leaving the Van Helsing part to be played by Andrew Keir's Father Sandor. Sandor is an interesting character, knowledgeable about vampires while similarly trying to dismiss old superstitions. (He also has a hunting hobby and warms his behind on an open fire.) Keir is no Cushing though and he doesn't have the same chemistry with Lee. The two barely interact, truthfully. The set of victims and heroes aren't very involving though Shelley at least looks fantastic in that low-cut nightgown.After briefly featuring some action at the end, Dracula has a bit of an unglamorous fate here, falling through the ice into rushing water. The movie then abruptly ends after that, cutting to credits immediately afterwards. It's not as exciting or well-paced as the first Hammer "Dracula" joint but "Prince of Darkness" is still a good time for Drac fans.