It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

Although others have some nice things to say about "The Brides of Dracula" (1960), the second film in the Hammer Dracula series, I found it disappointing--not least because kid-vamp Baron Meinster was a poor heir to Christopher Lee's Dracula. It was lacking in the main Hammer ingredients of blood and bosoms. It had color (although, again, too little of the red blood), decent production design on a budget, the music, a few bits of new vampiric lore for the genre and a reworking of, but which was all-too-similar-to, the ending of the 1958 "Dracula." The third in the series, "Dracula: Prince of Darkness," largely corrects its predecessor's missteps--returning to the stuff that made the 1958 original stand out. Appropriately enough, it begins with a recap of the end of the '58 film in an eye framing.As in "The Brides of Dracula," however, and unlike the '58 film, "Prince of Darkness" does delay the reveal of its star. It takes over 45 minutes before Dracula is reincarnated in the film's most gruesome sequence, involving the hanging upside and bloodletting of a corpse. This is the stuff of Michael Myers, Jason, Freddie Krueger, Chucky, etc. al. Of course, there was reincarnation in the Universal monster series, too, especially with the seemingly immortal Frankenstein creature and the Wolf Man. Anyways, there's also some sex appeal again, too, when Helen turns vamp. Moreover, the Helen character is the most interesting one this outing, especially since Lee is entirely mute this time as Drac--reminding me of the confusion the Universal series had back in the day with the voice of the Frankenstein creature. Helen begins as kind of a wet- blanket-wife type, which provides the important horror role of someone being afraid and critical of the impending doom and fantastic sites. The other three travelers are just fun-loving nincompoops. Helen's transformation is more fascinating because of this.Before Dracula's appearance, the film could best be described as falling in the horror subgenre of the old dark house, with the Count's servant Clove filling the shoes of Boris Karloff from the subgenre's namesake, "The Old Dark House" (1932). In this respect, it does well enough in creating a spooky atmosphere. Afterwards, "Prince of Darkness" largely reworks material from Bram Stoker's novel "Dracula" and includes the role of Renfield (renamed "Ludwig" here) not used in the bare-bones 1958 adaptation. Dracula's greatest strength, it seems this time, are his human servants, Clove and Ludwig. He's kind of helpless otherwise, especially when people figure out the cross trick. Father Sandor plays the Van Helsing type credibly. And Dracula picks a particularly daring invasion this time, considering his aversion to Christian icons, by making a raid on a monastery.The horse-carriage business earlier on also has the flavor of Stoker, although how the horses lead themselves while Dracula (and his supernatural powers) is still dead, I do not know. In fact, the travelers are only able to control a horse for a getaway after the Count returns. Trying to make sense of such a movie, including the continued geographical confusion of the series where Brits populate Eastern Europe, is probably a fruitless exercise; as the old cliché that one of the characters repeats, best not to look a gift horse in the mouth.Although, once again, the hero employs a makeshift cross, this is done in the middle of the picture, and the burning removal of a bite wound is recycled from "The Brides of Dracula," the ending offers a new take on vampire destruction. As Father Sandor, conspicuously as it gets, explains in one scene, vampires can drown. I wouldn't bet against that tidbit not becoming relevant in the end. But, hey, at least it was different.(Mirror Note: No mirror shots.)

Direct sequel of "Horror of Dracula" from 1958. abounds in clichés in story that switches from predictable to already seen and back. Also it has serious lack of suspension and horror atmosphere. Though, if I didn't see all Dracula movies to date, this one would probably leave better impression, because it brings some completely new moments. At one hand, coachman leaving passengers in the middle of nowhere because he's afraid to go near the castle during the night is scene everyone know by heart, at the other hand, passengers that steal a coach to continue their journey, and then realize they can not control horses that run straight to the castle is pretty much original approach. Scenes in tavern, table made for them when they arrive in castle, their luggage waiting in made rooms, scenes with Dracula and his helpers, clichés ragged long time ago. And then great scene of chase and completely original and unexpected way to defeat Prince of Darkness. Movie is full of unconvincing scenes with counterweight in fantastic Barbara Shelley, whose beauty and acting are, in my opinion, highlights of this feature. I really like Christopher Lee, but to me he's ridiculous in this role. Few times during the movie I was thinking about giving up on it, and yet I'm very glad I did not miss awesome ending.I have really mixed impressions. Anyway, it's surely better than its prequel from 1958.6/10

There are some effective scenes in Dracula Prince of Darkness, most notably the revival of the old Count himself by his manservant. The story however, relies upon the strangers stranded in an old house they've been warned against trope, and Dracula himself is curiously sidelined for much of the movie.Gone also is the gorgeous colour pallet of Hammer's first Dracula; instead we have a fairly bland-looking widescreen film, which makes it feel more about cost-cutting than developing the series further. While Father Sandor (Andrew Keir) is an acceptable replacement for Van Helsing he isn't given enough screen time. Only Barbara Shelly rises above the material to give a good performance.Poor old Christopher Lee. No wonder he used to moan so much about the shoe-horning of Dracula into any old story. He's ill used here and doesn't have a single line of dialogue.There are some compensations however. The brutal sacrifice of one of the tourist party to resurrect Dracula is extremely well done and surprisingly gruesome, as Kensington Gore rains down upon Dracula's ashes. Also the staking of Barbara Shelly is powerful - almost a symbolic rape-scene as the clergy pin her down. And the climax is pretty good, too. Adequate if not great, then, on the whole.

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.