Featured Audience Ratings

• Michael G

  
  Dracula-Prince of Darkness isn't a bad movie about the world's most famous vampire, but its definitely not the greatest either. Having Terence Fisher in the director's chair is definitely a plus, but the story's kind of weak. The ritual by which Dracula is… More
  Dracula-Prince of Darkness isn't a bad movie about the world's most famous vampire, but its definitely not the greatest either. Having Terence Fisher in the director's chair is definitely a plus, but the story's kind of weak. The ritual by which Dracula is resurrected was probably the highlight but unfortunately it took its sweet time happening 45 minutes in. Lee does an always-superb job as Dracula and Andrew Kier was great as the badass cleric. Barbara Shelley's subtle foxiness was wasted on a whiney role and how Dracula is... stopped this time was kind of weak. Not the best Dracula movie ever, but not the worst either...

• Cassandra M

  
  Dracula (Christopher Lee) rides again in yet another Hammer entry in the Dracula franchise. This film is enjoyable horror hokum, but it has an awfully shallow story, fleshed out with a slow opening stretch and some amusing vampire lore in between the sporadic vampire attacks. Four… More
  Dracula (Christopher Lee) rides again in yet another Hammer entry in the Dracula franchise. This film is enjoyable horror hokum, but it has an awfully shallow story, fleshed out with a slow opening stretch and some amusing vampire lore in between the sporadic vampire attacks. Four British travellers are journeying through the Carpathian Alps in the 1800s. They are repeatedly cautioned to steer clear of Carlsbad Castle but, being typically stuffy and stubborn, they end up going there anyway. The castle is deserted apart from a rather zombified manservant. During the night, one of the travellers is slain by the manservant, and his blood is used to resurrect the long-dead Count Dracula. Time for another bout of blood-sucking mayhem.... Christopher Lee has a small role this time around, but gets across a good performance due to his commanding presence in the title role. Andrew Keir is also good as a priest-cum-vampire-slayer, though he has to overcome some dumb dialogue. The slow build-up is rather damaging, as it generates more tedium than chills. The opportunities for real terror are somewhat fudged too, since most would-be "shock" moments are telegraphed too far in advance. However, Hammer buffs and vampire addicts will doubtless feel more than satisfied.

• David L

  
  This film is not quite the kind of sheer perfection that you find in "Horror Of Dracula" or " The Brides Of Dracula" but is a good 3rd film in the Hammer films Dracula series As is usual for Director Terrence Fisher, the movie is extremely atmospheric and… More
  This film is not quite the kind of sheer perfection that you find in "Horror Of Dracula" or " The Brides Of Dracula" but is a good 3rd film in the Hammer films Dracula series As is usual for Director Terrence Fisher, the movie is extremely atmospheric and creepy. Fisher doesn't rely on quick cutting or sudden close-ups to frighten the audience. He is conservative with those kinds of techniques and the film is mostly built on long takes from distant angles with the frame being menaced by hideous shadows and unsafe corridors. A large portion of the film takes place out of doors, and there are many wonderful scenes set in a shadowy wood with the sun about to fall. Dracula's Castle itself is rather charming compared to most other films (this is also true in Horror Of Dracula). The interior's are lushly decorated, colorful, bright and in good repair... but you still get a sense of something unhinged.. A sense of wrongness about the castle. I think this is because the castle is so barren with only a single inhabitant (the zombie-like caretaker Klove).. It's somehow surreal for such a large empty place to be so cheery. It's a more subtle way of making the castle frightening than filling it with cobwebs and rotting woodwork. The pacing is deliberate, giving the film a hypnotic quality. At times it can be too deliberate and that is one of the movie's main flaws. I thought the fact that Christopher Lee didn't speak in this film was interesting. I read somewhere that Lee thought the Dracula's lines were just so bad in the script that the just decided to have Dracula stay silent, I will say this turned out to be a good choice. the silent Dracula featured in this film is somehow more ghostly and eerie than most depictions? You really get the sense of `undead'. Andrew Keir was also great as a practical, no-nonsense priest. The rest of the acting is pretty good with Barbara Shelley being the only other stand out and Charles Tingwell being the only performance that was lacking (although his part is so small it doesn't really matter). Compared to the first film, this film is darker and a bit more violent. A little less safe overall. Because it isn't directly based on the novel, it's slightly less predictable than `Horror Of Dracula'.. We don't know how the story will ultimately end up. I liked it a lot. Despite its flaws it's a classic in it's own right and a must see for any horror movie fan

• Stephen M

  
  Second sequel to "Dracula" which picks up where that film left off. It even begins with the final fight between Dracula and Van Helsing, a misty halo disguising the disparity between aspect ratios. Cushing does not star here and would not return to do battle with the… More
  Second sequel to "Dracula" which picks up where that film left off. It even begins with the final fight between Dracula and Van Helsing, a misty halo disguising the disparity between aspect ratios. Cushing does not star here and would not return to do battle with the arch-vampire until "Dracula A.D. 1972".

• Dr Blood  

  
  This version is not much more than a remake with some different actors and the names of the victims changed. Still good in places though, and the ending isn't bad either.

• Adam M

  
  Sequel to the seminal Horror of Dracula. A family end up staying at an old castle despite being warned of what might be in there. Obviously its not long before they find out that the castle is home to the infamous Dracula, killed in the first film but brought back to life by his loyal… More
  Sequel to the seminal Horror of Dracula. A family end up staying at an old castle despite being warned of what might be in there. Obviously its not long before they find out that the castle is home to the infamous Dracula, killed in the first film but brought back to life by his loyal servant using the blood of the first victim. This is typical Hammer Horror fair; a simple story maybe but good performances and a touch of gore make this enjoyable. A bit strange Christopher Lee not having any lines in this one but he still manages to create an air of menaces as the count.

• Henrik S

  
  An early incarnation of survival horror, the sequel to Hammer's classic Dracula pits four people against the dark overlord in his castle. Obviously, the circumstancs under which the four are "trapped" in the castle in the first place are ludicrous. Someone told them not… More
  An early incarnation of survival horror, the sequel to Hammer's classic Dracula pits four people against the dark overlord in his castle. Obviously, the circumstancs under which the four are "trapped" in the castle in the first place are ludicrous. Someone told them not to go there, so they went, end of story. Now, they are at Dracula's mercy. What follows is an opera of scream queens and dodgy fight scenes, Dracula hissing (Lee refused to say his lines, he deemed them too awful) and determined priests talking of the undead. While those movie follows the basic structure of all Dracula / Castle movies, the absence of a suitable Nemesis for Christopher Lee makes this movie below average. Peter Cushing is nowhere to be seen and there is nobody to replace him. The cast (except for the priest) is very weak, bordering on silly and I found myself wishing for Dracula to finally get it over with and slaughter those bloody fools. The sets and costumes look as nice as ever, a Victorian fairy tale with lush colours. All in all a must for collectors and connossieurs of classic horror and Hammer Horror, but on its own, not a good move. The ending is terribly scripted so do not look forward to that.<br/><br/>HX

• Emily B

  
  A decent Hammer Horror and sequel to Horror of Dracula. Christopher Lee returns as the count, this time virtually mute (Lee hated his lines so much he chose to play his character dialogue free). Barbara Shelley's character only became bearable after her vampire transformation.… More
  A decent Hammer Horror and sequel to Horror of Dracula. Christopher Lee returns as the count, this time virtually mute (Lee hated his lines so much he chose to play his character dialogue free). Barbara Shelley's character only became bearable after her vampire transformation. Yes, she was the only one who caught on that something wasn't right, but damn did she complain alot!

Read all 8 featured audience ratings