SanEat A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Uriah43 Although it has been several years since "Count Dracula" (Christopher Lee) was exposed to sunlight and burned to ashes the local villagers still maintain a healthy distance from his castle out of extreme fear. Unfortunately, two British couples have no such constraints and--even though they have been warned by a traveling priest named "Father Sandor" (Andrew Keir) to avoid it at all costs--they decide to stay the night there anyway. At first they are somewhat surprised by the hospitality shown by Count Dracula's servant "Klove" (Philip Latham). But his courtesy soon vanishes as he kills one of the guests and uses his blood to resurrect Count Dracula into this world again. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this film is essentially a sequel to the 1958 movie "Horror of Dracula" and it includes a portion of the ending so that viewers can more easily follow the story as it progresses from there. Additionally, like its predecessor, the writers have added a twist to the standard vampire traditions pertaining to killing a vampire which I found to be somewhat odd and unnecessary. But other than that the story itself was entertaining and because of that I have rated the film accordingly. Slightly above average.

Irishchatter Christopher Lee was really a good actor at playing as Dracula but he wasn't more talked about or more successful as Bela Lugosi was. I mean, Christopher Lee has the sense of being the Count but at the same time, he wasn't that good at the same time. Lets just say, he was just an alright actor but I don't think any actor will replace Lugosi's fame of being the ultimate Dracula.The setting for the film was good, it actually did give me chills and I mean, chills that you normally wouldn't feel unless it is a freaky movie. Yeah this is a bit of freaky movie like Dracula did kill a couple and was trying to kill the other couple. The horse carriage with no one on it and the couple staying in a weird looking shed was sorta creepy.Good film but not a favorite Dracula film of mine.......

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.

GL84 Arriving at a strange castle in the wilderness, a group of travelers find that their guest in the presence of Count Dracula has lured them there to regenerate himself and must find a way of stopping the deadly being.While this one might not be as classic as the original, this is still quite a fun effort at times. One of the better elements at play is the very welcome return by Christopher Lee in title role, and this is one of his better efforts. He has an extremely powerful presence here, making the Count incredibly threatening while also playing up his animal side of his character. This is due mainly to that strong performance, effectively mute but with complete physical actions alone do they make the character, easily being one of Lee's best performances. There's also quite a bit of fun here at the expense of the usual Gothic tropes, as the castle stay there is quite effective with its usual grand appearance and generally creepy lay-out and design work that are usual Hammer staples which causes this one to have that same effective atmosphere that usually captivates the viewer. That also allows for scenes like the resurrection sequence to really have a great atmosphere about it much more-so than if it were to take place in another area entirely since the actions themselves, hanging a dead corpse up over a trench containing Dracula's ashes, gutting it and then pouring the draining blood onto them which soon takes the form of the humanized count makes for a deliciously wonderful and chilling sequence that works as well due to the dank basement set where it takes place. As well, the action in the later half is truly inspiring as the conflagration at the end is exciting and features some great action bits thrown in with the assault on the church and then the action back at the castle really settling matters. There are parts here that cause this one to fall short. For one, this takes a very slow and leisurely pace to the proceedings, and that can take its toll on the viewer. Things play out for much longer than they really should, and this makes it a bit of a chore to sit through. Nowhere is this more evident than in the opening half which sets up a series of background pieces they are played far longer than necessary, and that creates some serious pacing problems. Also, Dracula is introduced into the story far too late. It's over the forty-five minute mark, and he really shouldn't be that late coming into the action. Otherwise, this one is quite a bit of fun.Today's Rating/PG-13: Violence.