Colibel Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Humbersi The first must-see film of the year.

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

Aneesa Wardle The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Spikeopath Devils of Darkness is directed by Lance Comfort and written by Lyn Fairhurst. It stars William Sylvester, Hubert Noel, Carole Gray, Tracy Reed, Dianna Decker and Rona Anderson. Music is by Bernie Fenton and cinematography by Reg Wyer.It's modern day and a secret vampire cult thrives beneath the town cemetery. Led by Count Sinistre (Noel), they search for human victims to sacrifice at their rituals."These people. This village. There's something they're afraid of."Probably afraid of being known for being in this film me thinks! OK, that's a little unfair, for Devils of Darkness is not without some merit. The production design is very nice, filmed in Eastman Colour there's a garish hue to the reds and greens that befits the narrative, even if it doesn't quite marry up to the modern day setting! The problem in the main is that nothing really happens of interest, the film is rather bloodless and devoid of mystery and peril. A plot thread involving an amulet goes nowhere, though we are led to believe it is crucial to the sinister Count Sinistre's (get it?) very being, while salaciousness is only hinted at and never expanded upon for filmic wallop.Elsewhere the problems continue with the acting. Noel is no bad actor, but his villainous Count is, well, rather wimpy, he may well charm with a touch of class about him, but he doesn't look like he could fight his way out of a paper bag. Sylvester's Paul Baxter, our hero, kind of bluffs his way through the plot, in fact he doesn't go mano mano with the Count, leaving the film desperately reaching out for some good versus evil thrust. The ladies of the piece fare better, with Decker, Reed and Gray adding some characterisations and sexiness that deserve a better movie. It's dialogue heavy, we get a rubber bat thrown in for good measure, and even though there's some nice visual touches, it is, all told, a failed attempt by Planet Films to take a bite on the horror coat tails of Hammer and Anglo-Amalgamated. 4/10

paperraven-2 I enjoyed the movie immensely. I had wanted to see it since I was a kid having read about it in SHRIEK! a short lived British horror movie mag.so, 35 years later I finally get to see it and I was not disappointed. It's not a great film, but it certainly shines above many of the horror films that were churned out during the same era (a la Blood of the Vampire 1958). The atmosphere and mood of the film is just right. The only truly annoying thing about the film to me was the beatnik-style music.Yes, it is a Hammer knockoff, but it was one of the better ones. (Even the later Hammer films were "Hammer knockoffs.")I say give it a chance! If you don't you will not know what you are missing.

MARIO GAUCI I had never heard of this one when it was announced as part of the revived "Midnite Movies" line of DVD releases paired with the renowned WITCHCRAFT (1964); frankly, I was disappointed that this obscure title was chosen over, say, NIGHT OF THE EAGLE (1962) which would have been the ideal companion to Don Sharp's film. In any case, it did seem rather intriguing from the colorful stills posted on Internet sites which reviewed the disc(s) but, all in all, it emerged as pretty goofy, with risible accents and several instances of wildly dated 60s modishness; in fact, an unexpected degree of camp is present in the lengthy pre-credits gypsy dance sequence, when depicting the 'degenerate' lifestyle of a group of ostensible bohemians (read bitchy lesbians and buffoonish, tipsy gentlemen) and the climactic Satanic ceremony! The narrative, then, provides an unholy mishmash – with little rhyme or reason – of popular horror themes: vampirism, witchcraft and, most bafflingly, body-snatching are all called upon by the oddly female screenwriter. Clearly, this was made by people with no proper knowledge of genre convention: consequently, the end result is aloof and forgettable, if undeniably good-looking (particularly prevalent are the vivid, velvet robes sported by the Satanists) and eminently watchable; in essence, this lies somewhere between the generic output of Hammer and AIP. Predictably, most of the characters initially skeptical author William Sylvester comes into contact with turn out to be members of the devil/vampire cult. In the same vein (pardon the pun!), the police inspector investigating the various mysterious deaths and disappearances starts off as hostile but gradually becomes sympathetic – not to mention, a believer in the supernatural! Unfortunately, the film's slow-moving 88 minutes (misprinted as an even heftier 124 on the DVD back cover!) are capped by a rushed and altogether weak climax.Sylvester makes for a likable if wooden lead; he had already appeared in another notable horror film DEVIL DOLL (1964) and would later feature in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968). Hubert Noel, though lacking most of the qualities one typically associates with a bloodsucker (not that "Le Comte Sinistre" sees much action in this respect – since all he seems concerned about is to recover his precious talisman!), along with Carole Gray (as the intended gypsy bride of the vampire who, for whatever reason, is jilted by him in favor of the former!), make a rather arresting pair of villains. The belatedly-introduced Tracy Reed is a striking, redheaded heroine – she is Carol Reed's niece, Oliver Reed's cousin and director Anthony Pelissier's daughter, and is best-known for portraying George C. Scott's bikini-clad secretary in DR. STRANGELOVE (1964)! Curiously enough, as I lay watching, I pondered on how it would have effected the film had Gray and Reed exchanged roles...

angus1878 this movie was shown on the b.b.c.last night immediately after clint eastwoods brilliant ESCAPE FROM ALCATRAZ, it was late ,eyes were drooping,thought a bit of horror would go down well,what a shocker (in the worse sense), with it being filmed in 1965 you automatically expect A HAMMER PRODUCTION*****THIS IS NOT A HAMMER PRODUCTION******* and boy can you tell, the acting is wooden,the women are not bad but certainly not the seductive,voluptuous type were are use to in HAMMER FILMS and the plot basically just silly and to be frank nothing really happens, needless to say it was the longest hour and a half of my life, well,tiredness got the better of me, if it was a good film i would have stuck it out, but, the awfulness took its toll and the off button swiftly was pressed.did this film give me nightmares ? YES but once i fell asleep i was o.k.watch this at your peril.............. as my mum would say "wouldn,t frighten the cat"