Devils of Darkness (1970)

Truly Dreadful Film

The Worst Film Ever

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

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.

"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

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!

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...