Watch Dracula: Prince of Darkness For Free

It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

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.

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.

One of the more peculiar incarnations of the Dracula legend has a silent Christopher Lee once again playing the crazed bloodsucker. Two couples, refusing to heed the warning of wily priest Andrew Keir, find themselves in Dracula's Carpathian castle. Mayhem ensues. This classic has it all --- a creepy man-servant, a bloodletting, a bug eating lunatic and Barbara Shelley as a sexy she-vampire. It's all topped off with Lee's astounding work. He has no dialog but commands the screen with his presence. He always played Dracula as a deranged lunatic & it's very effective. Although Lee does not appear until 45 minutes into the film, director Terence Fisher keeps things moving briskly. The supporting cast, particularly Keir, Philip Latham (as Dracula's creepy henchman) and Thorley Walters as the loony Ludwig, is great. Hammer regular James Bernard supplied the suitably grim music score.

The opening of this movie shows the demise of Dracula from the first movie of the same name. This film drags some in my opinion until Dracula is raised by having his remains covered in the blood of an Englishman who is one of four idiots who stop at the castle. They had been warned not too but being modernists for that time ignore all the warnings. Even the one from the dead guys wife who had premonitions of evil. The wife is lured to the cellar where she is turned into a bride of Dracula. Now it is the younger couples turn. Oops not so fast, they use the cross to escape the castle, jump into a carriage and rush away. The carriage over turns and the young wife is knocked out. So far Dracula seems to be acting on nothing but animal instincts. He doesn't talk only hisses. Anyway the Bishop of the area comes across the scene and takes the couple to his abbey. The servant of Dracula is now shown driving a small wagon which is shown to have two coffins inside. Now I wonder just who is in them? Stopping at the abbey he tries to get shelter inside for the night but is denied. This puzzles me as I thought vampires could stand on Holy ground? Oh well what do I know? So Drac gets invited in by a nut case named Ludwig who is under his influence. The unconscious wife has recovered and opens a window to the bad guys. She gets bitten but the Bishop cauterizes it which saves her at least temporarily. The friars catch the woman vampire and stake her. So now we are down to just Drac, maybe. Ludwig helps Dracula kidnap the young wife and using the wagon race back to the castle where they will be safe. The Bishop and the husband go in pursuit, intercept the wagon, kill the driver. They save the wife but Drac's coffin slides inside the castle onto the frozen moat (?). He wakes as the husband comes to stake him, they fight for a short time, the wife takes a shot that misses but breaks the ice. Running water will kill him so he tries to run but the Bishop now uses the rifle to break up more ice and Dracula loses again.