Horror Classics: Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966)
Christopher Lee Returns
Despite the absence of Christopher Lee, 1960’s Brides of Dracula was a critical and commercial success. With that in mind, you’d think that the guys over at Hammer Studios would’ve continued along that route with Van Helsing hunting the Count’s acolytes. Obviously, however, they didn’t or we wouldn’t be here.
No, for the third outing in Hammer’s Dracula series, they brought Christopher Lee back as Dracula. Lee would reprise the role — albeit reluctantly — for a further five films after Prince of Darkness.
The film’s story and screenplay were written by Anthony Hinds and Jimmy Sangster respectively. James Bernard, who had worked on both 1957’s Curse of Frankenstein and 1958’s Dracula, was brought in to do the music. For the photography and set work, Hammer brought in cinematographer Michael Reed and set designer Bernard Robinson.
With all these Hammer legends in place, the producers needed one more thing; a director. It didn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out who to call either, they brought in long-time Hammer collaborator Terry Fisher. I wasn’t able to find much more on the film’s production but it seems to have been a bit on the rough side especially with regard to the script.
There are two different versions of this story, Christopher Lee said that when he read the script he hated the dialogue and refused to speak a single line. Jimmy Sangster, who wrote said script, said that he never wrote dialogue for Dracula at all.
Either way, the film was released in 1966 to a somewhat mixed reception, although it’s gotten more love in more recent years.
The Story is Pretty Good
Ten years after the events of 1958’s Dracula, the Count is dead but his legacy is still felt by the locals. A family of four is on a tour of Transylvania when they meet Father Sandor at an inn. He tries to warn them off of going to the town and then tells them to stay away from the castle.
I wonder what castle he could be talking about. Well, guess where they end up? Yep, they end up at Dracula’s castle, where they meet one of Dracula’s servants, who later kills one of them and resurrects his master. Once resurrected, Dracula does what Dracula does and goes after the remaining family members, Charles and Diana, and causes problems for everyone.
What I Liked
So, was there anything to like about this one? Well, yeah, actually there was quite a bit that I liked.
Get Greg Seebregts’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
The performances were all pretty good. Barbara Shelley does a great job as the sort of uptight, prim and proper Englishwoman. She starts out as constantly argumentative and complaining, once she encounters Dracula that changes and she’s more like a seductive temptress.
Suzan Farmer plays Diana and she’s the typical pretty blue-eyed blonde. Her performance is just as good as Shelley’s, she could’ve made the character the stereotypical dumb blonde that we see so often nowadays, but she didn’t. Instead, she plays Diana as a mature, but humorous woman — not some dummy with nothing between her ears.
Francis Matthews plays Charles Kent — Diana’s Husband — and he’s very…plain. There’s no other way to describe him, when you put him next to Suzan Farmer it’s really Farmer who holds your attention. That said, he plays his role as the sort of reluctant hero very well and you want to see him succeed. Andrew Keir is great as the grumpy, but compassionate Father Sandor. You believe everything he says when he’s talking about vampires. Thorley Walters plays Ludwig who is this film’s Renfield character and he does a great job.
Speaking of vampires, Christopher Lee absolutely steals the show here. Despite not saying a single word, he chews up the scenery every time he’s on screen.
The music is pretty good, although it’s not as memorable as some of the other Hammer soundtracks. Even so, the film knows when to use it so you’re not constantly bombarded with music. The cinematography is beautiful.
What I Didn’t Like
As far as criticism goes, there are a few things that I took note of.
- First off, the costumes are very dull. They don’t stand out the way that Hammer costumes usually do.
- The film is inconsistent as far as pacing goes. Sometimes it’s ridiculously slow and other times it’s incredibly fast.
Other than these two things, there isn’t much that doesn’t work too well.
In Closing: Not a Bad Sequel
All in all, Dracula: Prince of Darkness isn’t a bad sequel. It has its flaws, but if you watch it with popcorn, soda, and friends, it’s a fun romp. Yeah, the dialogue is hokey, and some of the acting is over the top, but I think that’s what gives the film some unique charm.
Anyways, that’s my take on the film. Let me know your takes in the comments, and I’ll see you for the next one!
Originally published at https://vocal.media.
