Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

Adeel Hail Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

Calum Hutton It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

Married Baby Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

Spikeopath Devils of Darkness is directed by Lance Comfort and written by Lyn Fairhurst. It stars William Sylvester, Hubert Noel, Carole Gray, Tracy Reed, Dianna Decker and Rona Anderson. Music is by Bernie Fenton and cinematography by Reg Wyer.It's modern day and a secret vampire cult thrives beneath the town cemetery. Led by Count Sinistre (Noel), they search for human victims to sacrifice at their rituals."These people. This village. There's something they're afraid of."Probably afraid of being known for being in this film me thinks! OK, that's a little unfair, for Devils of Darkness is not without some merit. The production design is very nice, filmed in Eastman Colour there's a garish hue to the reds and greens that befits the narrative, even if it doesn't quite marry up to the modern day setting! The problem in the main is that nothing really happens of interest, the film is rather bloodless and devoid of mystery and peril. A plot thread involving an amulet goes nowhere, though we are led to believe it is crucial to the sinister Count Sinistre's (get it?) very being, while salaciousness is only hinted at and never expanded upon for filmic wallop.Elsewhere the problems continue with the acting. Noel is no bad actor, but his villainous Count is, well, rather wimpy, he may well charm with a touch of class about him, but he doesn't look like he could fight his way out of a paper bag. Sylvester's Paul Baxter, our hero, kind of bluffs his way through the plot, in fact he doesn't go mano mano with the Count, leaving the film desperately reaching out for some good versus evil thrust. The ladies of the piece fare better, with Decker, Reed and Gray adding some characterisations and sexiness that deserve a better movie. It's dialogue heavy, we get a rubber bat thrown in for good measure, and even though there's some nice visual touches, it is, all told, a failed attempt by Planet Films to take a bite on the horror coat tails of Hammer and Anglo-Amalgamated. 4/10

lemon_magic It seemed to be William Sylvester's fate to play leading men who sort of passively manage to win the girl by letting the villain of the piece shoot himself in the foot. I always liked the guy as an actor, but had to admit that he just isn't a dynamic front man for a movie - for instance, there's a scene right at the end of "Devils" where the villain vampire has apparently just forgotten sunlight is bad for him and falls apart, and Sylvester's character "runs" to the side of his girlfriend...and he minces toward the camera like his suit doesn't fit well and his underwear is too tight. (My first impression, probably wrong, was, "Oh crap, Sylvester's gay, no wonder.") Still, I'm glad he had some success here and there and continued to find work.As other commentators have noted, the most aspect of the film that is simultaneously most memorable and badly dated are the party and bacchanalia scenes, with their suggestions of aimless bohemianism, drug use, decadent sex, weary swinging, and burned out psychedelia. It actually sort of works in the context of the film, because of the impression of corrupted hedonists everywhere makes the idea of the vampire cult seem more plausible somehow.The other think the film can't get around is the villain's crappy accent, which is surprising given that Noel seemed to have some real talent and ability.If you've run out of Hammer films to watch, this might give you some new material to see, although it would be like running out of filet mignon and having to switch to Arby's roast beef sandwiches.

ferbs54 Despite being a longtime fan of the British horror film, it was only recently that I learned of the existence of 1965's "Devils of Darkness," and now that I have seen it, I know why. This product of Pinewood Studios is a fairly undistinguished effort that just barely manages to entertain and is never even remotely chilling. In it, William Sylvester (who psychotronic-film fans will recall from such genre favorites as "Gorgo," "The Devil Doll" and "2001") runs afoul of a French vampire called Count Sinistre (born in 1588) and his immortal gypsy bride, Tania, while on holiday in Brittany. The filmmakers apparently felt that a vampire wasn't enough for this picture, so threw in a pack of devil worshippers as well, plus some voodoo trimming. Unfortunately, the resultant stew never quite comes together, and the fact that Hubert Noel as the Count is hardly a threatening presence only compounds the problem. A subplot that has him endeavoring to recover a missing talisman simply peters out by the film's end, and the picture's resolution is waaay too rushed and abrupt, I feel. On the plus side, Sylvester is as sturdy and dependable as ever, and the film's production values are fairly high. The picture contains a couple of strange British beatnik party sequences showcasing some subtly suggested marijuana consumption and lesbianism, and an energetic and atmospheric gypsy camp intro opens the film promisingly. Ultimately, however, "Devils of Darkness" turns out to be a rather tame, blah picture; not bad, but certainly nothing great. If you've seen all the horror films put out by Hammer and Amicus Studios, do by all means give it a try. This picture really is for British horror film completists only.

paperraven-2 I enjoyed the movie immensely. I had wanted to see it since I was a kid having read about it in SHRIEK! a short lived British horror movie mag.so, 35 years later I finally get to see it and I was not disappointed. It's not a great film, but it certainly shines above many of the horror films that were churned out during the same era (a la Blood of the Vampire 1958). The atmosphere and mood of the film is just right. The only truly annoying thing about the film to me was the beatnik-style music.Yes, it is a Hammer knockoff, but it was one of the better ones. (Even the later Hammer films were "Hammer knockoffs.")I say give it a chance! If you don't you will not know what you are missing.