Despite being a longtime fan of the British horror film, it was only recently that I learned of the existence of 1965's "Devils of Darkness," and now that I have seen it, I know why. This product of Pinewood Studios is a fairly undistinguished effort that just barely manages to entertain and is never even remotely chilling. In it, William Sylvester (who psychotronic-film fans will recall from such genre favorites as "Gorgo," "The Devil Doll" and "2001") runs afoul of a French vampire called Count Sinistre (born in 1588) and his immortal gypsy bride, Tania, while on holiday in Brittany. The filmmakers apparently felt that a vampire wasn't enough for this picture, so threw in a pack of devil worshippers as well, plus some voodoo trimming. Unfortunately, the resultant stew never quite comes together, and the fact that Hubert Noel as the Count is hardly a threatening presence only compounds the problem. A subplot that has him endeavoring to recover a missing talisman simply peters out by the film's end, and the picture's resolution is waaay too rushed and abrupt, I feel. On the plus side, Sylvester is as sturdy and dependable as ever, and the film's production values are fairly high. The picture contains a couple of strange British beatnik party sequences showcasing some subtly suggested marijuana consumption and lesbianism, and an energetic and atmospheric gypsy camp intro opens the film promisingly. Ultimately, however, "Devils of Darkness" turns out to be a rather tame, blah picture; not bad, but certainly nothing great. If you've seen all the horror films put out by Hammer and Amicus Studios, do by all means give it a try. This picture really is for British horror film completists only.
39 Reviews
Terrible...but strangely enjoyable
MOscarbradley14 February 2017
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.
Atmospheric at times...but overall weak and uninteresting.
Coventry31 May 2004
Devils of Darkness has a promising sounding title, it's British and it has the typical 60's gothic theme. Yet, it quickly got ignored over the years and it's rarely ever mentioned. Probably because it wasn't made by either of the 3 biggest production companies in that time. The Brit horror industry was ruled by Hammer, Amicus or Tigon and (almost) all their production received cult followings and critics attention. Of course, that can't be the only reason because a good film would be remembered no matter who produced it. Devils of Darkness is anonymous in all fields
Not one aspect in the entire film is worth remembering. It mixes vampirism with other occult elements. A satanic cult, led by Count Sinistre, kidnaps innocent people in order to sacrifice them. An author tries to reveal the secrets and comes into contact with the leader. Devils of Darkness has an extremely promising opening sequence (even before the credits are presented) and the hope you'll see a intriguing occult horror film is falsely raised. After the atmospheric opening, the film quickly falls into boredom with endless speeches and tedious characters. The tension is pretty much non-existent and the few promising horror sequences are too succinct. The beautifully shot cult rites seem to be inspired by Roger Corman's the Masque of the Red Death, but still they're the only sequences worth mentioning. The cast isn't very spectacular, neither. Carol Gray is worth a mention since her beauty reminded me about the typical Hammer sirens. Hubert Noël, the bad guy with a dreadful French accent, is too untalented to make the film memorable and so is director Lance Comfort.
A Hammer knock-off
pninson29 September 2007
This is basically a Hammer Films knock-off, in terms of set decoration and production design. The result is a nice-looking movie with a muddled, incoherent story, weak acting, and limp direction. It's not exactly excruciating to sit through, but it's one of those films that makes you feel you could be doing something better with your time.
The plot is a mixture of vampire and devil worship, and although there are one or two good moments, there's not enough substance to make it particularly interesting.
If you're fond of campy/cheesy B-picture horror, you might want to give this one a look, but I wouldn't put it at the top of your list.
The plot is a mixture of vampire and devil worship, and although there are one or two good moments, there's not enough substance to make it particularly interesting.
If you're fond of campy/cheesy B-picture horror, you might want to give this one a look, but I wouldn't put it at the top of your list.
Mediocre Horror
Rainey-Dawn3 March 2016
This film is not grand but it's not down right horrible either - it's an in-between film - one of those movies you don't mind watching if there is not a lot on TV or you are just in the mood for something different to watch.
You can easily pass this one by without missing anything but if you do decide to watch it don't expect a lot from it. It's mildly entertaining. Watch it if you really want to see another film on the occult / witchcraft - otherwise you can pass it by.
I'm not downing this film - I found it a a bit enjoyable but there are much better films to watch and re-watch on the market.
5/10
You can easily pass this one by without missing anything but if you do decide to watch it don't expect a lot from it. It's mildly entertaining. Watch it if you really want to see another film on the occult / witchcraft - otherwise you can pass it by.
I'm not downing this film - I found it a a bit enjoyable but there are much better films to watch and re-watch on the market.
5/10
The Talisman of Count Sinistre
Uriah4320 September 2022
This film essentially begins in France with a vampire by the name of "Count Sinistre" (Hubert Noel) rising from his grave and then using a magic talisman to claim a gypsy maiden named "Tania" (Carole Gray) to be his wife. The scene then shifts to that same place with a couple of young men named "Keith" (Geoffrey Kenion) and "Dave" (Rod McLennan) deciding to explore a nearby cave. Upon doing so, "Keith" accidentally stumbles into the area inhabited by the two vampires--and is immediately killed because of it. Hearing his screams, Dave rushes in to help but, having arrived too late, is left with nothing else to do but to bring his dead friend's body back to the surface. However, when he does that this immediately causes a great deal of commotion among the gypsies who have apparently surmised what has just happened. At the same time, fearing that something is amiss, Keith's sister "Anne Forest" (Rona Anderson) and her friend "Paul Baxter" (William Sylvester) hurry to see what is going on and when they get there one of the gypsies tell Anne that an evil has been let loose and that she has been marked for death. Sure enough, she dies not long afterward but--as it so happens--Paul finds a mysterious talisman in the same area where Anne was killed. His suspicions are further increased when her coffin disappears on its way to England. That being said, what he doesn't count on is both Count Sinistre and Tania following him there with the intent upon retrieving the talisman--at all costs. Now, rather than reveal any more, I will just say that this movie bore a strong resemblance to the Hammer films of that time but suffered to some degree because its rather low budget. Also not helping matters was the fact that Hubert Noel didn't quite seem to convey the same malevolent presence typically found in the vampires of Hammer films. It just wasn't there. However, for what it's worth, having two attractive ladies like Tracy Reed (as "Karen Steele") and Carole Gray certainly didn't hurt. Be that as it may, while this certainly wasn't an outstanding horror film by any means, it managed to pass the time well enough and I have rated it accordingly. Average.
Underrated little film
paperraven-218 October 2007
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.
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.
Supernatural chiller about a writer and some friends who encounter a satanic cult while on holiday in Brittany
mwilson19762 April 2020
In this 1965 British horror film from Planet Films directed by Lance Comfort ( a prolific B movie maker, this was his final feature), a writer and some friends encounter a satanic cult while on holiday in Brittany and are pursued by the leader, a suave count who turns out to be a 400 year old vampire. It's a hum drum Hammer by numbers kind of movie despite not being made by that company. Featuring non of the tropes that made Hammers horror movies so iconic, this along with movies like The Blood Beast Terror probably helped to damage the reputation of the company, their films getting tarred with the same brush. It does however appropriate Hammers lush use of colour, director Comfort making great use of it as the cultists wander through the woods in single file in their brilliant scarlet red robes holding torches. This and a few other moments of visual flair ensure that the movie isn't entirely devoid of any charm, but unless you are a fan of obscure British horror movies you're time is still better spent elsewhere.
DEVILS OF DARKNESS (Lance Comfort, 1965) **1/2
Bunuel197611 October 2007
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...
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...
Not bad, not good--but certainly better than 3.6
planktonrules30 January 2008
In Brittany, France, there are a couple strange murders, though the local police rule the deaths accidental. One is a cave explorer and the other a young lady who is found drowned--both were British tourists. Apart from harming the tourist industry, this was also bad because in reality this was the work of a Satanic vampire cult! When their friend vows to investigate further, the bodies disappear and it looks like his investigation is at an end...or is it?
This is yet another British vampire film from the 1960s, though instead of being a Hammer Studios production, it was made at Pinewood Studios. In many ways it is reminiscent of a Hammer film, though the acting and plot are a bit less sophisticated. Still, it's not bad and is watchable--just don't expect a lot of magic or suspense. In particular, the evil Count Sinistre seems a tad wussy and too pretty to be all that threatening.
This is yet another British vampire film from the 1960s, though instead of being a Hammer Studios production, it was made at Pinewood Studios. In many ways it is reminiscent of a Hammer film, though the acting and plot are a bit less sophisticated. Still, it's not bad and is watchable--just don't expect a lot of magic or suspense. In particular, the evil Count Sinistre seems a tad wussy and too pretty to be all that threatening.
hammer lite
santiospain29 June 2006
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
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
Devils of Daylight
Stevieboy6664 December 2020
Armond du Moliere is really a 400 year old vampire called Count Sinistre and he heads a coven of Satanists in Brittany, France, with the story then moving to England. British horror movie from Planet Film Productions, I can remember being very excited by the prospect of vampires and Satanists (I love Hammer's The Satanic Rites of Dracula - 1973) but I also recall being rather disappointed with the film. I have just watched it for the second time (on a 41 year old VHS tape) and again it failed to impress. French actor Huber Noel plays the Count, he is very suave but also quite lame compared to Christopher Lee's menacing Dracula. I do not remember seeing one set of fangs and there is barely a drop of blood to be seen. The night scenes were obviously filmed in daylight (though Hammer did this too), the film is quite slow, the ending looks rushed and cheap but Tracy Reed does give some sex appeal and the Swinging Sixties party is quite entertaining. This movie was never going to Hammer a run for their money, it simply lacks bite, however it is still a reasonable watch.
Tedius witchcraft horror
The_Void17 February 2008
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!
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!
Pesky vampires bothering us in modern times!
hitchcockthelegend9 October 2012
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
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
awful
angus187831 May 2004
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"
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"
Beware of darkness.
ulicknormanowen25 April 2023
The first part,which takes place in France ,is the best;the gypsy fete ,complete with music and dance to celebrate an union ,the subteraneans ,and the appearance of Sinistre who spoils the party : Hubert Noel was a perfect choice for the sinister count:in France ,he was part of the best miniseries of the sixties :"Bephegor"; his strange ,handsome but threatening face , and his slight accent , makes him the perfect satanic whorshipper ;ditto for the commissaire , a Poirot-like sleuth who enjoys his café noir et fresh croissants chauds !
In spite of a talented actor such as William Sylvester ,the rest is not really scary and this masquerade is sometimes utterly ridiculous ;the plot boiled down to the master's woman's jealousy ,not prepared to be supplanted by an innocent young thing.
In spite of a talented actor such as William Sylvester ,the rest is not really scary and this masquerade is sometimes utterly ridiculous ;the plot boiled down to the master's woman's jealousy ,not prepared to be supplanted by an innocent young thing.
Ah vampires!
BandSAboutMovies13 January 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Director Lance Comfort lived on the fringes of British B-movies, with this effort being one of his last films. I found it on one of those old 20th Century Fox Midnite Movies double disks which are always so much fun.
Hubert Noel, who somehow shows up in both The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane and Cathy's Curse, plays a French nobleman who ends up not only being a vampire, but a Satanic vampire!
Paul Baxter (William Sylvester, Gorgo) is on vacation with three friends who are all killed by Count Sinistre on All Soul's Night. So he then does what you or I would - he heads back to England, finds a talisman belonging to the Satanic sucker and gets a whole bunch more of his friends killed.
Look for Tracy Reed (the mistress of General Buck in Dr. Strangelove), Carole Gray (Curse of the Fly), Victor Brooks (Cover Girl Killer) and Marianne Stone (Whoever Slew Auntie Roo? and the Carry On movies).
This is a rare modern vampire movie for the UK, so it has that going for it.
Hubert Noel, who somehow shows up in both The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane and Cathy's Curse, plays a French nobleman who ends up not only being a vampire, but a Satanic vampire!
Paul Baxter (William Sylvester, Gorgo) is on vacation with three friends who are all killed by Count Sinistre on All Soul's Night. So he then does what you or I would - he heads back to England, finds a talisman belonging to the Satanic sucker and gets a whole bunch more of his friends killed.
Look for Tracy Reed (the mistress of General Buck in Dr. Strangelove), Carole Gray (Curse of the Fly), Victor Brooks (Cover Girl Killer) and Marianne Stone (Whoever Slew Auntie Roo? and the Carry On movies).
This is a rare modern vampire movie for the UK, so it has that going for it.
Excellent color lensing, effective settings make for lively Brit horror.
BrentCarleton7 August 2008
Much better than often reported, this beautifully photographed British horror is a well upholstered turn down the familiar vampire path, enlivened by some delicious tongue in cheek. Directed by cult director Lance Comfort, (see Brian MacFarlane's monograph on his career) the film opens with a dazzling dance sequence set amidst a mid forest gypsy encampment, interrupted by the first burst of horror--accompanied by a swooping bat and a gust of wind.
These forest sequences are visually arresting, and include an eerie torch light parade photographed in reflection from a lake's surface.
As for the story, it concerns a modern day male vampire, (equipped with Louis Jourdan accent and beautifully cut suits) who turns out to be reincarnated from the ancient past.
Despite some dull detective sequences, (of the type that slow down Bava's "Blood and Black Lace") the picture manages an effective array of diverse settings including forest sequences, a country manor house, a catacomb lair, a jammed to the rafters antique shoppe, an artists' atelier, the reading room of the British Museum and a groovy bachelorette pad that is host to one of the screen's all time campiest cocktail parties.
Indeed, this sequence, replete with the Watusi, and Frug, and featuring an array of cigarette puffing (with holders!) extras that seem to have been recruited between takes from the sets of "Darling" and "A Taste of Honey", (one keeps looking for Julie Christie to appear) is guaranteed to elicit howls. And if that doesn't catch you, please note that Diana Decker's wardrobe had the female audience cooing at a recent screening.
Moreover, the climax, featuring a cave in which destroys the vampire clan, is well staged and shot.
Picture seems influenced by Don Sharp's superb "Kiss of the Vampire," and while it doesn't hold a candle to that stellar feather in Hammer's cap, it does emerge as an interesting and zesty contemporary take on the same theme.
These forest sequences are visually arresting, and include an eerie torch light parade photographed in reflection from a lake's surface.
As for the story, it concerns a modern day male vampire, (equipped with Louis Jourdan accent and beautifully cut suits) who turns out to be reincarnated from the ancient past.
Despite some dull detective sequences, (of the type that slow down Bava's "Blood and Black Lace") the picture manages an effective array of diverse settings including forest sequences, a country manor house, a catacomb lair, a jammed to the rafters antique shoppe, an artists' atelier, the reading room of the British Museum and a groovy bachelorette pad that is host to one of the screen's all time campiest cocktail parties.
Indeed, this sequence, replete with the Watusi, and Frug, and featuring an array of cigarette puffing (with holders!) extras that seem to have been recruited between takes from the sets of "Darling" and "A Taste of Honey", (one keeps looking for Julie Christie to appear) is guaranteed to elicit howls. And if that doesn't catch you, please note that Diana Decker's wardrobe had the female audience cooing at a recent screening.
Moreover, the climax, featuring a cave in which destroys the vampire clan, is well staged and shot.
Picture seems influenced by Don Sharp's superb "Kiss of the Vampire," and while it doesn't hold a candle to that stellar feather in Hammer's cap, it does emerge as an interesting and zesty contemporary take on the same theme.
This one is okay for a lazy afternoon where you want some mild entertainment without too much intense drama...
ccunning-7358726 February 2020
Another vampire cult movie that touches all the bases but is just okay... This one is made in a time hollywood was more 'family friendly'; no vulgarity, skin, random sex, mega-blood, gore, or slasher action. While there was some decent acting, most scenes were weak in the acting department and the photography was also weak. It is okay for a lazy afternoon where you want some mild entertainment without too much intense drama... Men remember: Hell (Literally and figuratively in this movie) hath no fury like a woman scorned! Also, when the vampire leader said, "Make the circle of one," and his vampire minions chanted, "We are one, oh master. We follow your bidding!" I couldn't help but \make the connection between Bernie Sanders and his minions...
Satan's Little Coven....
simeon_flake9 January 2018
I guess I shouldn't be taken aback by all the references to "Hammer," or how this film is reminiscent of their style. I guess any horror from Britain made during this period might conjure those thoughts, as I was having them myself. The style, the atmosphere, the hot women running around throughout the proceedings.
Of course, I've heard "Roger Corman" too, but I haven't seen much of his work. At any rate, this is good stuff. Not quite Hammer "Dracula," but pleasing to the eyes and the finale is noteworthy. Good B-Movie fun...
Of course, I've heard "Roger Corman" too, but I haven't seen much of his work. At any rate, this is good stuff. Not quite Hammer "Dracula," but pleasing to the eyes and the finale is noteworthy. Good B-Movie fun...
Never double cross a gypsy vampiress.
mark.waltz10 March 2020
Warning: Spoilers
One of many Gothic horror movies that starts off centuries before and moves to the present, this decent rip-off of the Hammer horror films deals with a modern day vampire who, having cursed a gypsy girl to death eternal, now seems to want to replace her with an even motr beautiful young lady. The cult of devil worshipers protecting the Count Sinistre (Hubert Noël) really do nothing but parade around in red robes and hold weird parties. It's actually the jealous Carole Gray who seeks to cause the innocent Tracy Reed harm, viciously cutting a portrait that the count has painted of her, causing it to bleed. Noël is unseen in the prologue, replaced by a silly looking bat where you can barely see the string and also barely tell that the flapping critter is made of rubber.
There are long periods were really nothing happens, and even the sinister seems become slightly boring. Handsome William Sylvester, the hero in love with Reed, is rather dull, but veteran actress Rona Anderson adds some spark as the typically dour housekeeper. it's not that this is a bad film, but there have been so many other films of this nature that simply are just better that makes this a middle-of-the-road grande guignol. Production design is very good and the musical score does add a spooky atmosphere. But a lack of humor (intentional or non) is a definite minus with hope that the ending will make up for all of that.
There are long periods were really nothing happens, and even the sinister seems become slightly boring. Handsome William Sylvester, the hero in love with Reed, is rather dull, but veteran actress Rona Anderson adds some spark as the typically dour housekeeper. it's not that this is a bad film, but there have been so many other films of this nature that simply are just better that makes this a middle-of-the-road grande guignol. Production design is very good and the musical score does add a spooky atmosphere. But a lack of humor (intentional or non) is a definite minus with hope that the ending will make up for all of that.
An old perfect vampire of Brittany running into trouble
clanciai7 June 2019
This is unusually good for being a vampire yarn. The direction is qualified enough, the actors all do their job convincingly enough, the cinematography is quite all right with above all a very apt use of colours, and the music is excellent. The story is the usual vampire business about an immortal evil man making followers who will do whatever he wants, but he runs into trouble when he loses an obviously vital talisman, like a brooch, at the slaughter of one of his victims. Her brother is not to be trifled with, he will not leave matters as they are but go all the way to the bottom of the black magic mystery whatever it imports, and there will be casualties on the way. The most scary scene in the show however is something quite scientific, when the laboratory of a research scientist with all its animals run amuck.
Usually films of this kind are like B-features with a dilettantish plot and unconvincing actors, but Lance Comfort, who already had a long record of interesting and serious films, managed to make a nice work of it, well worth seen, for its many twists to an odd story, marvellous colour play and even some fun on the way - this was his last film. The best scene, however, is the very first one, which is a gipsy ballet scene.
Usually films of this kind are like B-features with a dilettantish plot and unconvincing actors, but Lance Comfort, who already had a long record of interesting and serious films, managed to make a nice work of it, well worth seen, for its many twists to an odd story, marvellous colour play and even some fun on the way - this was his last film. The best scene, however, is the very first one, which is a gipsy ballet scene.
Decent enough, if only for a few reasons
slayrrr66624 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
"Devils of Darkness" is a semi-decent Gothic entry that has a couple flaws to it.
**SPOILERS**
Going out rock-climbing, Paul Baxter, (William Sylvester) and Madeline, (Diana Decker) find that the trip is about to be canceled by a neighboring gypsy ceremony. When an accidental death nearly puts an end to the ceremony, she becomes fearful of a curse from the gypsies, which is soon confirmed by a series of strange events happening around them. Getting evidence that a secret cult rather than the gypsies are involved with trying to prevent him from finding the truth, he goes out to investigate and sees that Count Sinistre, (Hubert Noel) is the head of the cult and is responsible for the actions going on. Learning of their intentions with her, he races to stop them from going through with their plans.
The Good News: This here wasn't that bad. It's best elements from the it's Gothic undertones. This one, when it tries to, is really Gothic at times, most notably in the opening assaults on the gypsies. The sight of the bat forcing the coffin open, which slowly opens to reveal a hand emerging from the darkness in a long, drawn-out style as oblivious gypsies party away at a camp nearby. The later attack, where the bat attacks the fleeing members in a heavily wooded area is a marvelous Gothic sequence. The catacomb hideout is fantastic, with long, dark hallways, plenty of twists and turns and the fact that it needs candle-lights to illuminate them allows for some creepy atmosphere. The scenes of the cult at the end are it's best, since there's plenty of cheesy fun to be had from these scenes. The chants, the sacrificial ceremony and the rituals that come into play are purely fun and really entertaining, and there's even some rather fun moments to be had throughout, including the preparations for the ceremony and the fight to get free, which ends on it's lone moment of violence but remains effective nonetheless. These points offer up the film's good points.
The Bad News: There isn't a whole lot wrong with it. The film's main factor against it is that it's just deadly boring. It starts off great with the awakening in the coffin followed by the gypsy attack, but all that occurs from there until the end is absolutely nothing of interest. The film decides to have absolutely everything talked out, and that leads to a never-ending series of scenes where he converses with absolutely everybody about what's going on, and it leads to deadly boredom for most of these scenes. These are mostly taken out of the unending scenes of conversing with the police. It's obvious these are merely time-wasters in the plot sense, being merely answers to keep the protagonist away from the truth. That also severely limits the action as well, making it seem even duller by comparison. The fact that this one also features a vampire that rarely gets to do any sort of vampiric activities is another marginal factor. The vampire comes out here and there but on the whole doesn't do a whole lot to justify the inclusion, as the powers demonstrated seem more suited to a black magic follower over a vampire. These, though, are what really keep the film down.
The Final Verdict: A somewhat decent Gothic entry, there's enough in this one to make it watchable but it's still flawed. Give this one a shot if you're into this kind of film or if there's something about that appeals to you, otherwise then just skip this one altogether.
Today's Rating-PG: Violence
**SPOILERS**
Going out rock-climbing, Paul Baxter, (William Sylvester) and Madeline, (Diana Decker) find that the trip is about to be canceled by a neighboring gypsy ceremony. When an accidental death nearly puts an end to the ceremony, she becomes fearful of a curse from the gypsies, which is soon confirmed by a series of strange events happening around them. Getting evidence that a secret cult rather than the gypsies are involved with trying to prevent him from finding the truth, he goes out to investigate and sees that Count Sinistre, (Hubert Noel) is the head of the cult and is responsible for the actions going on. Learning of their intentions with her, he races to stop them from going through with their plans.
The Good News: This here wasn't that bad. It's best elements from the it's Gothic undertones. This one, when it tries to, is really Gothic at times, most notably in the opening assaults on the gypsies. The sight of the bat forcing the coffin open, which slowly opens to reveal a hand emerging from the darkness in a long, drawn-out style as oblivious gypsies party away at a camp nearby. The later attack, where the bat attacks the fleeing members in a heavily wooded area is a marvelous Gothic sequence. The catacomb hideout is fantastic, with long, dark hallways, plenty of twists and turns and the fact that it needs candle-lights to illuminate them allows for some creepy atmosphere. The scenes of the cult at the end are it's best, since there's plenty of cheesy fun to be had from these scenes. The chants, the sacrificial ceremony and the rituals that come into play are purely fun and really entertaining, and there's even some rather fun moments to be had throughout, including the preparations for the ceremony and the fight to get free, which ends on it's lone moment of violence but remains effective nonetheless. These points offer up the film's good points.
The Bad News: There isn't a whole lot wrong with it. The film's main factor against it is that it's just deadly boring. It starts off great with the awakening in the coffin followed by the gypsy attack, but all that occurs from there until the end is absolutely nothing of interest. The film decides to have absolutely everything talked out, and that leads to a never-ending series of scenes where he converses with absolutely everybody about what's going on, and it leads to deadly boredom for most of these scenes. These are mostly taken out of the unending scenes of conversing with the police. It's obvious these are merely time-wasters in the plot sense, being merely answers to keep the protagonist away from the truth. That also severely limits the action as well, making it seem even duller by comparison. The fact that this one also features a vampire that rarely gets to do any sort of vampiric activities is another marginal factor. The vampire comes out here and there but on the whole doesn't do a whole lot to justify the inclusion, as the powers demonstrated seem more suited to a black magic follower over a vampire. These, though, are what really keep the film down.
The Final Verdict: A somewhat decent Gothic entry, there's enough in this one to make it watchable but it's still flawed. Give this one a shot if you're into this kind of film or if there's something about that appeals to you, otherwise then just skip this one altogether.
Today's Rating-PG: Violence
Grade Z at best.
bjon145225 June 2016
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.
Goes downhill after the stuffed bat
marktorch-257466 September 2019
I think they hired the rest of the cast to make the bat look more convincing. Worth watching if only to see the hero mince across the graveyard at the end. The only scary thing about this movie is that the people in it didn't have something better to do.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
