one of my absolute favorites!

Let's be realistic.

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

I guess I shouldn't be taken aback by all the references to "Hammer," or how this film is reminiscent of their style. I guess any horror from Britain made during this period might conjure those thoughts, as I was having them myself. The style, the atmosphere, the hot women running around throughout the proceedings.Of course, I've heard "Roger Corman" too, but I haven't seen much of his work. At any rate, this is good stuff. Not quite Hammer "Dracula," but pleasing to the eyes and the finale is noteworthy. Good B-Movie fun...

In a remote village in Brittany, Count Sinistre (Hubert Noel) is reactivated as a vampire four hundred years after being buried alive for his crimes. He kills and reactivates a gypsy girl called Tania (Carole Gray) to be his bride in blood. Meanwhile, writer Paul Baxter (William Sylvester), is holidaying with friends in the village. Two of them discover the resting place of the vampires whilst exploring caves and are murdered and another, Anne (Rona Anderson), is drowned after she discovers Sinistre's secret. However, Baxter and antiques dealer, Madeleine (Diana Decker) escape back to England. But, Sinistre is close behind as Baxter has stolen his secret Talisman, a gold necklace carved in the shape of a bat. Meanwhile, we learn that Madeline is involved with Sinistre's cult and that she helped him move to England. In addition, Baxter's new girlfriend, the model Karen Steele (Tracy Reed), is in grave danger as Sinistre intends to make her his new vampire bride...Notable as the first British horror film to bring vampirism into a contemporary setting, but it is a disappointingly tame offering with little in the way of thrills or suspense thanks to Lance Comfort's flat direction and since most of its horrors take place off screen. Lyn Fairhurst's screenplay has promise with its inclusion of themes like reincarnation and witchcraft as well as vampirism. Sadly, however, they are poorly integrated into the basic plot and we are left with a mish mash of occult mumbo jumbo that make very little sense.Nevertheless, there are still some things to enjoy here. Reg Wyer's Eastmancolor camera-work is atmospheric including a beautiful shot of Tania lying in her coffin surrounded by red blossoms as the Count sets about reactivating her as an Undead. Another great set piece is a portrait of Karen, painted by Sinistre, which gushes blood when Tania slashes it with a knife in a jealous rage since she knows that Karen is to replace her as the Count's vampire bride. The film has no real outstanding merits in the acting field and William Sylvester, who was excellent in Lance Comfort's notable b-pic thriller, Blind Corner, here playing a writer turned vampire hunter is a rather dull hero. We don't think much of Baxter's chat up techniques either. At a party where he meets Karen for the first time, he invites her back to his flat by saying: "If you get hungry, I know a place where the scrambled eggs taste great. I cook with a non stick saucepan." Overall, Devils Of Darkness, is a big disappointment considering its status as Britain's first modern day vampire film and the fact that a promising plot is left woefully underdeveloped. It is a film that I would like to see remade because, with a better developed script and a stronger cast, it could well be a front rank genre offering. But, there are some bright moments and die hard fans of British horror cinema, like myself, will love it anyway as it is in itself a pleasant reminder of a period of British filmmaking that has long since disappeared.

Despite being a longtime fan of the British horror film, it was only recently that I learned of the existence of 1965's "Devils of Darkness," and now that I have seen it, I know why. This product of Pinewood Studios is a fairly undistinguished effort that just barely manages to entertain and is never even remotely chilling. In it, William Sylvester (who psychotronic-film fans will recall from such genre favorites as "Gorgo," "The Devil Doll" and "2001") runs afoul of a French vampire called Count Sinistre (born in 1588) and his immortal gypsy bride, Tania, while on holiday in Brittany. The filmmakers apparently felt that a vampire wasn't enough for this picture, so threw in a pack of devil worshippers as well, plus some voodoo trimming. Unfortunately, the resultant stew never quite comes together, and the fact that Hubert Noel as the Count is hardly a threatening presence only compounds the problem. A subplot that has him endeavoring to recover a missing talisman simply peters out by the film's end, and the picture's resolution is waaay too rushed and abrupt, I feel. On the plus side, Sylvester is as sturdy and dependable as ever, and the film's production values are fairly high. The picture contains a couple of strange British beatnik party sequences showcasing some subtly suggested marijuana consumption and lesbianism, and an energetic and atmospheric gypsy camp intro opens the film promisingly. Ultimately, however, "Devils of Darkness" turns out to be a rather tame, blah picture; not bad, but certainly nothing great. If you've seen all the horror films put out by Hammer and Amicus Studios, do by all means give it a try. This picture really is for British horror film completists only.

"Devils of Darkness" is a semi-decent Gothic entry that has a couple flaws to it.**SPOILERS**Going out rock-climbing, Paul Baxter, (William Sylvester) and Madeline, (Diana Decker) find that the trip is about to be canceled by a neighboring gypsy ceremony. When an accidental death nearly puts an end to the ceremony, she becomes fearful of a curse from the gypsies, which is soon confirmed by a series of strange events happening around them. Getting evidence that a secret cult rather than the gypsies are involved with trying to prevent him from finding the truth, he goes out to investigate and sees that Count Sinistre, (Hubert Noel) is the head of the cult and is responsible for the actions going on. Learning of their intentions with her, he races to stop them from going through with their plans.The Good News: This here wasn't that bad. It's best elements from the it's Gothic undertones. This one, when it tries to, is really Gothic at times, most notably in the opening assaults on the gypsies. The sight of the bat forcing the coffin open, which slowly opens to reveal a hand emerging from the darkness in a long, drawn-out style as oblivious gypsies party away at a camp nearby. The later attack, where the bat attacks the fleeing members in a heavily wooded area is a marvelous Gothic sequence. The catacomb hideout is fantastic, with long, dark hallways, plenty of twists and turns and the fact that it needs candle-lights to illuminate them allows for some creepy atmosphere. The scenes of the cult at the end are it's best, since there's plenty of cheesy fun to be had from these scenes. The chants, the sacrificial ceremony and the rituals that come into play are purely fun and really entertaining, and there's even some rather fun moments to be had throughout, including the preparations for the ceremony and the fight to get free, which ends on it's lone moment of violence but remains effective nonetheless. These points offer up the film's good points.The Bad News: There isn't a whole lot wrong with it. The film's main factor against it is that it's just deadly boring. It starts off great with the awakening in the coffin followed by the gypsy attack, but all that occurs from there until the end is absolutely nothing of interest. The film decides to have absolutely everything talked out, and that leads to a never-ending series of scenes where he converses with absolutely everybody about what's going on, and it leads to deadly boredom for most of these scenes. These are mostly taken out of the unending scenes of conversing with the police. It's obvious these are merely time-wasters in the plot sense, being merely answers to keep the protagonist away from the truth. That also severely limits the action as well, making it seem even duller by comparison. The fact that this one also features a vampire that rarely gets to do any sort of vampiric activities is another marginal factor. The vampire comes out here and there but on the whole doesn't do a whole lot to justify the inclusion, as the powers demonstrated seem more suited to a black magic follower over a vampire. These, though, are what really keep the film down.The Final Verdict: A somewhat decent Gothic entry, there's enough in this one to make it watchable but it's still flawed. Give this one a shot if you're into this kind of film or if there's something about that appeals to you, otherwise then just skip this one altogether.Today's Rating-PG: Violence