simeon_flake
It took 8 long years, but Christopher Lee finally returned to the cape and fangs after missing the first sequel "Brides of Dracula." As usual, the writers have to come up with unique ways to revive the Count after he is seemingly destroyed forever--usually a servant performing the dark ritual. This is also the movie where Lee didn't speak--the story I've always heard is that he thought the script was garbage. Nevertheless, he is still great in the role--even as a mute--and it ranks as one of the best Dracula sequels. The big highlight for me being the finale when the Count gets drowned by running water. If you like Hammer Horror, this probably won't disappoint...
Rocketeer_Raccoon
Dracula: Prince of Darkness is the second Hammer Dracula film to star legendary actor Christopher Lee as the iconic Dracula, although The Brides Of Dracula was the first sequel to Hammer's 'Dracula' (a.k.a. 'Horror Of Dracula') but since that film only had Peter Cushing reprising as Doctor Van Helsing and completely lacked the character of Dracula, Dracula: Prince of Darkness is the first direct sequel to feature the famous vampire in the Hammer Dracula series.Unfortunately it didn't quite turn out the way it should have, the biggest major fault with this film is that Dracula doesn't actually say anything apart from hissing, supposedly this was because Christopher Lee hated the dialogue in the film's script so he refused to say any of it and Hammer had no choice but to just go with it. But never the less when Dracula does finally appear at the half way point of the film, he pretty much steals the show. Acting wise I thought it was fine for 1960's standards and the movie has some real nice practical effects.Granted that the film could have been better if Dracula actually talked but with that said it's still a decent classic.
Wizard-8
I thought the first Christopher Lee Dracula movie ("Horror of Dracula") was fine, so I thought I would take a look at the first follow up. Though other IMDb user commenters have found the movie to be good to great, I thought it was somewhat disappointing. If you are looking for a lot of Dracula here, forget it. After opening with a lengthy flashback to the previous film, we don't see Lee again until more than half the movie has passed. And not only does Lee make a few short and sporadic appearances in the latter half of the movie, he has absolutely no dialogue. I guess the movie isn't terrible - it doesn't have any dull spots, the production values are fine, and the acting by the cast is decent. Still, you'll get the sense that a lot of potential was wasted by the filmmakers.
JasparLamarCrabb
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.
