Dracula: Prince of Darkness
Dracula: Prince of Darkness
Your probable score
?
Dracula: Prince of Darkness

Dracula: Prince of Darkness

1966
Horror
1h 30m
Two couples traveling in eastern Europe decide to visit Carlstad despite dire local warnings. Left outside the village by a coachman terrified at the approach of night, they find themselves in the local castle and are surprised at the hospitality extended by the sinister Klove. It turns out the owner, Count Dracula, dead for ten years, has been hoping for such a visit. (imdb)

Dracula: Prince of Darkness

1966
Horror
1h 30m
Your probable score
Avg Percentile 45.99% from 231 total ratings

Ratings & Reviews

(232)
Compact view
Compact view
Rated 17 Mar 2017
80
77th
If I was a vampire I would live (?) in constant fear of everything. I can't cross running water, sunlight kills me, crosses harm me. I'd just sit inside all day and oh :(
Rated 04 Nov 2018
73
61st
Lee's Dracula is amazing here. Great set designs. Been watching a lot of Hammer flicks this year and this holds up well. Such a nice colour pallete. The last like 10-15 minutes was crazy. It's obviously a little goofy.
Rated 06 Oct 2010
75
68th
Lee's silent, even more feral than last time, Dracula is really unsettling to watch. While the rest of the movie somewhat suffers from the absence of a strong Van Helsing character, there's plenty of creepy set pieces to keep you interested.
Rated 07 Jan 2023
50
26th
I don't know why I keep watching Hammer horror films. They aren't my thing, which is okay, and they all seem to blend together in some gothic mishmash. Also, after watching this, I have now realized I have almost watched all of the Hammer Dracula's. How did that happen?
Rated 02 May 2021
79
55th
Once the movie reveals the compelling mystery of how Dracula will return, some of the attempts at suspense suddenly feel slowly paced because a premonition of predictability kicks in. But it's not as bad as you'd think as the story has alot more unexpected setpieces. Unfortunately, some of the fight scenes (bc of budget?) are also poorly staged, but the script's worthy of study - quickly distinguishing 4 protagonists from one another, introducing a surprising monk & crafting a new Dracula demise
Rated 23 Aug 2017
58
42nd
(Viewed on 29/08/15): Although Fisher was a Hammer mainstay, he never really understood pacing, and D.P.O.D wastes too much valuable time setting up an ordinary plot without much pay off. Dracula's resurrection is overly delayed, and the human characters aren't well portrayed enough to justify the attention given to them. There are some strong set pieces, especially the climactic battle which is disappointingly brief, and Lee's commanding presence helps sustain interest.
Rated 18 Oct 2015
70
26th
It has its moments, but the setup isn't that good and Lee has little to do as Dracula.
Rated 03 Feb 2013
60
16th
This Hammer Dracula entry is akin to having a master painter paint a picture of a piece of lint. Director Terence Fisher, who previously did wonders with 'Curse of Frankenstein' and 'Horror of Dracula' once again shoots a beautiful film here but the story is snoresville. An uninteresting family stars in a conventional "Guy warns them not to go to a creepy castle so they go to said creepy castle anyway" story. No Peter Cushing?!? Christopher Lee not having a word of dialogue?!? A '60' I say!
Rated 23 Mar 2009
75
54th
While not up to _Horror of Dracula_, Fisher's bloodsucking sequel is still fun to watch for Lee's typically charismatic interpretation of the toothy title fiend, along with some creatively gruesome tableaux and a novel Dracula-destruction scene.
Rated 26 Aug 2008
80
68th
I'm surprised that this film hasn't been in the Criticker database before now (8/26/08). No matter. Classic-horror fans ought to dig it, and we who have seen it ought to spread the gospel. This was made back in the day when Hammer hadn't yet run out of ideas, and Christopher Lee was one baaaaaaaadaaaaaaaassssssss Dracula
Rated 04 Oct 2023
23
16th
I would love the dead of night to include bright blue skies around here. I don't see what vampires are fussed about, they seem alright in the sun.
Rated 15 Oct 2018
4
16th
Thunder and lightning, spooky castles, runaway horses... check. But no Cushing and not much Lee makes for a disappointing first 'official' sequel to Dracula (1958). Some atmosphere and a haunting final shot.
Rated 01 Jun 2017
40
19th
Passes the time.
Rated 25 Jun 2014
70
44th
Não tem jeito, Lee é mesmo e definitivamente meu vampiro favorito.
Rated 14 Mar 2014
76
53rd
76.000
Rated 17 Oct 2013
60
24th
Never has Count Dracula been so "wild" - a true beast. Liked the use of color in this one.
Rated 09 Apr 2013
60
51st
The Hammer films can be pretty hit or miss for me but the biggest disappointments have always been the Dracula series. They are not terrible but simply underwhelming. The story is okay and Dracula looks good but he's kind of pathetic at the same time.
Rated 22 May 2012
71
55th
Silly finale. Just jump, stupid.
Rated 30 Sep 2011
67
25th
One of Hammer's weaker Dracula movies and for one reason: Christopher Lee, who has one of the coolest voices, has no lines at all. Maybe they thought it would make Dracula more menacing if he didn't speak, but it does work.
Rated 13 Dec 2009
43
30th
Lee returns in his most famous role with mixed results.

Collections

Loading ...

Similar Titles

Loading ...

Statistics

Loading ...

Trailer

Loading ...