Spidersecu Don't Believe the Hype

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Roy Hart If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

Catherina If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

Martin Bradley Nobody in their right mind would say that "Devils of Darkness" was a good film but this little known British vampire flic possesses its own charms even if they do belong to the 'so-bad-it's-good' variety. After an interminable pre-credit sequence in which a rubber bat bites bride-to-be Carole Gray, only to have sinister Count Sinistre resurrect her from her tomb, we cut to the chase when on All Soul's Night the so-called Devils of Darkness rise again. Yes, it's terrible in an am-dram kind of way and it does have some of the worst scenes of vampirism ever committed to film but as bad movies go it's still a lot of fun even if actors who should have know better do make fools of themselves. At least the gifted French actor Hubert-Noel does make Count Sinistre a sexy and suave vampire lending the film a very slight touch of class.

bjon1452 I'm at a loss as to how the actors were able to go through with this film with straight faces. However, two points of the film have some merit to them. The dance scene in the beginning was fabulous; in fact, it didn't fail to draw you into the movie, despite the bomb effect you are treated to after that. The only real acting that caught my eye was that of Karen, the love interest. She too came in at a time when you were about ready to give the whole thing up. Again, she had the quality of drawing you into the relationship that was being cultivated between the main characters. Other than that, it was more or less of a bad TV movie, guaranteed to give you a few good laughs.

The_Void I got this film as part of one of MGM's "Midnite Movies" double features. The second feature in the pack, Witchcraft (1964) was a good film so I had fairly high hopes for this one in spite of the low IMDb rating with it being the first feature. Naturally the two films share the subject of witchcraft, the only difference being that Witchcraft (1964) did it in an interesting way...and this film doesn't. The film adheres better to the "British horror style" that features in the films by Hammer and the other major studios, but it really has nothing on most of the movies brought out around the same time; films like this are made for entertainment and this one isn't entertaining! The plot focuses on Paul and Karin, a couple out holidaying in France. Not long after meeting a sinister French aristocrat, two of Paul's friends die and when his girlfriend mysteriously disappears, it becomes apparent to Paul that something funny is afoot. He then takes to following clues that lead to the revelation that the French count isn't what he seems!The film gets off to a promising start; we get a creepy opening sequences and then the characters are introduced, but it quickly descents into tedium. There's far, far too much talking and none of the horror elements are even bordering on being frightening, or even interesting. The film features themes such as satanic worship and vampirism and they really are wasted. The film also lacks lead performers with charisma - there's no Peter Cushing or Christopher Lee equivalent, which means we're left with William Sylvester as the good guy and Hubert Noël as the bad guy; both of which do little to interest their audience. Director Lance Comfort doesn't create much, if any suspense and the interplay between the characters is boring. The film does look rather nice which is really the only good thing I have to say about it, but that's only a small reprieve in a film so full of negative elements. Overall, there are far better films on this subject than Devils of Darkness; anyone that owns the Midnite Movies double only needs to look so far as the second feature. I have no reason to recommend this film!

santiospain This is one of those independent productions that kept appearing in the UK in the 60s and early 70s. Think Tigon and Tyburn film producers. Like many of them they made only one or two films and then disappeared again. Hammer's success with the Dracula franchise inspired this one. Its an interesting film that instead of the Gothic heavy appearance of Dracula this film transplants itself to contemporary France and England. Its starts promisingly with a gypsy wedding being interrupted by a rude bat. This is a metamorphosed form of a buried count who was interned alive for practicing the dark arts. He has arrived without an invitation to claim the intended bride as his own. This is rather heartless of him since he is taking the would be wife of one of his loyal servants. Having made her immortal he proceeds to gather a coven of worshipers as though being invincible wasn't enough for his ego, he need people to worship him too. Hubert Noël was successful at playing minor roles in film for which he seemed very suited. Here is thrown as the villain in the lead role. He may have th appearance of suave French vampire but he lacks the presence of a Dracula and his accent is an unintended joy. In addition there is Tracy Reed as the usual hapless victim and once again a minor actress is thrown into something too deep resulting in her never taking another lead role.The film ends predictably with the hero doing most of the right things. But this is a pale imitation of a Roger Corman film. I found this feature only the more interesting having read descriptions of it and seen a painting with references to the film. On a couple of film and vampire sites the then writer and psychic Stephen Armourae described the film and gave particular attention to Tracy Reed of whom he was clearly somewhat enamored including her in a column on Erotica. Later I saw an intriguing painting by him entitled 'Catherine'. Having then seen the film and the painting that appears in that as the vampire is also an artist I could see the connection and it wake me up from falling asleep. The difference being that Armourae has played & from what has appeared in print and net perhaps more a vampire better than Noel. If your in front of a TV and this comes on a satellite channel try and stay awake for Tracy Reed and a pretty hot painting of her. The rest- see a Hammer movie