Rating of
3/4
Like a phoenix from the ashes of a bad sequel
kcvidkid - wrote on 11/05/08
Compared to "Dracula, Prince of Darkness", Hammer's second Christopher Lee Dracula sequel is better many times over. In fact, there is a lot that I like about it, stopping short of the near-perfection of "Horror of Dracula" and "Brides of Dracula".
Director Freddie Francis makes best of the "muddy" style that took over in the 60's, following the crisp, clear beauty of massive interior sets during the 50's. Some scenese are even staged and filmed quite creatively. My only gripe is the he uses a reddish tint for the border of scenes in which Dracula actually appears; I kept thinking I was watching a bad transfer.
I loved the story this time around with its religious themes. I'm not sure it was the perfect execution, but I found it quite clever and ironic that it is a priest who does Dracula's bidding and that it is an atheist who ultimately destroys him. At least, it toys with some fairly original concepts.
And Lee himself is so much better than he was last time. Still not a constant screen presence, he at least speaks and moves in a more natural way... for a vampire. And this is also the first time I found his sexuality to be so overt, actually sharing some intimacy with Veronica Carlson before diving for the jugular.
Skin Rating = 2.5 (out of 5). Hammer Glamour?!? What about Hammer Hunks? Barry Andrews, a mop-top brunette/pauper's Hugh Grant is quite buff, and likes to show it off in his early scenes.
