Cineanalyst
Although others have some nice things to say about "The Brides of Dracula" (1960), the second film in the Hammer Dracula series, I found it disappointing--not least because kid-vamp Baron Meinster was a poor heir to Christopher Lee's Dracula. It was lacking in the main Hammer ingredients of blood and bosoms. It had color (although, again, too little of the red blood), decent production design on a budget, the music, a few bits of new vampiric lore for the genre and a reworking of, but which was all-too-similar-to, the ending of the 1958 "Dracula." The third in the series, "Dracula: Prince of Darkness," largely corrects its predecessor's missteps--returning to the stuff that made the 1958 original stand out. Appropriately enough, it begins with a recap of the end of the '58 film in an eye framing.As in "The Brides of Dracula," however, and unlike the '58 film, "Prince of Darkness" does delay the reveal of its star. It takes over 45 minutes before Dracula is reincarnated in the film's most gruesome sequence, involving the hanging upside and bloodletting of a corpse. This is the stuff of Michael Myers, Jason, Freddie Krueger, Chucky, etc. al. Of course, there was reincarnation in the Universal monster series, too, especially with the seemingly immortal Frankenstein creature and the Wolf Man. Anyways, there's also some sex appeal again, too, when Helen turns vamp. Moreover, the Helen character is the most interesting one this outing, especially since Lee is entirely mute this time as Drac--reminding me of the confusion the Universal series had back in the day with the voice of the Frankenstein creature. Helen begins as kind of a wet- blanket-wife type, which provides the important horror role of someone being afraid and critical of the impending doom and fantastic sites. The other three travelers are just fun-loving nincompoops. Helen's transformation is more fascinating because of this.Before Dracula's appearance, the film could best be described as falling in the horror subgenre of the old dark house, with the Count's servant Clove filling the shoes of Boris Karloff from the subgenre's namesake, "The Old Dark House" (1932). In this respect, it does well enough in creating a spooky atmosphere. Afterwards, "Prince of Darkness" largely reworks material from Bram Stoker's novel "Dracula" and includes the role of Renfield (renamed "Ludwig" here) not used in the bare-bones 1958 adaptation. Dracula's greatest strength, it seems this time, are his human servants, Clove and Ludwig. He's kind of helpless otherwise, especially when people figure out the cross trick. Father Sandor plays the Van Helsing type credibly. And Dracula picks a particularly daring invasion this time, considering his aversion to Christian icons, by making a raid on a monastery.The horse-carriage business earlier on also has the flavor of Stoker, although how the horses lead themselves while Dracula (and his supernatural powers) is still dead, I do not know. In fact, the travelers are only able to control a horse for a getaway after the Count returns. Trying to make sense of such a movie, including the continued geographical confusion of the series where Brits populate Eastern Europe, is probably a fruitless exercise; as the old cliché that one of the characters repeats, best not to look a gift horse in the mouth.Although, once again, the hero employs a makeshift cross, this is done in the middle of the picture, and the burning removal of a bite wound is recycled from "The Brides of Dracula," the ending offers a new take on vampire destruction. As Father Sandor, conspicuously as it gets, explains in one scene, vampires can drown. I wouldn't bet against that tidbit not becoming relevant in the end. But, hey, at least it was different.(Mirror Note: No mirror shots.)
rdoyle29
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.
Nigel P
Either Christopher Lee wasn't asked to reprise his famous role, or declined the offer to appear in a sequel to 1958's ground-breaking 'Dracula/Horror of Dracula' for over seven years. While he pursued other projects the world over, Hammer had continued to make a name for itself as a major horror film company.One of the most astounding aspects of 'Prince of Darkness' is that Lee's distinctive voice, which was such a hallmark of his Count, is entirely absent here; Dracula is silent. Again, it's never been made quite clear whether Lee refused to say the lines, or that he just wasn't given any. Jimmy Sangster has said 'vampires don't chat', and didn't write any for his main character. Lee, never afraid to slate Hammer Dracula productions, has said he refused the lines given him. Either way, this is a very ponderous, uneventful film. We have interesting characters like Klove, Dracula's 'manservant', and a Renfield-type called Ludwig, both of whom do not have a great deal to do and seem almost superficial. The other characters are a stuffy bunch – Helen is made a little more interesting when she becomes a vampire, but is still very mannered – especially when compared to Melissa Stribling's saucy Mina from the original. The acting is very good all round from a terrific cast, the characters just seem perfunctory. I really miss a formidable foe for Dracula. Andrew Keir as Father Sandor is enjoyable, but he is no Van Helsing.The film also suffers from 'sequelitis' in that it takes half the running time for Dracula to be resurrected (in the film's best sequence – certainly the most bloody), which means that his reign of terror lasts … just over half an hour. In the original, he had been terrorising his townsfolk for centuries.Dracula's demise is similarly cursory. It's a fairly impressive finale – even if it does make The Count appear rather foolish – but pales when compared to grisly finale of the original.
