Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Ceticultsot Beautiful, moving film.

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

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

lemon_magic It seemed to be William Sylvester's fate to play leading men who sort of passively manage to win the girl by letting the villain of the piece shoot himself in the foot. I always liked the guy as an actor, but had to admit that he just isn't a dynamic front man for a movie - for instance, there's a scene right at the end of "Devils" where the villain vampire has apparently just forgotten sunlight is bad for him and falls apart, and Sylvester's character "runs" to the side of his girlfriend...and he minces toward the camera like his suit doesn't fit well and his underwear is too tight. (My first impression, probably wrong, was, "Oh crap, Sylvester's gay, no wonder.") Still, I'm glad he had some success here and there and continued to find work.As other commentators have noted, the most aspect of the film that is simultaneously most memorable and badly dated are the party and bacchanalia scenes, with their suggestions of aimless bohemianism, drug use, decadent sex, weary swinging, and burned out psychedelia. It actually sort of works in the context of the film, because of the impression of corrupted hedonists everywhere makes the idea of the vampire cult seem more plausible somehow.The other think the film can't get around is the villain's crappy accent, which is surprising given that Noel seemed to have some real talent and ability.If you've run out of Hammer films to watch, this might give you some new material to see, although it would be like running out of filet mignon and having to switch to Arby's roast beef sandwiches.

Paul Andrews Devils of Darkness starts in Brittany in France where English author Paul Baxter (William Sylvester) has had car trouble & thus checks into an inn in a small town on a festival celebrated by the locals called All Soul's Eve. By a coincidence Paul finds that his friend Anne Forest (Rona Anderson) is also staying there together with her brother Keith (Geoffrey Kenion) & his mate Dave (Rod McLennan) who are potholing & exploring some local caves. The cosy reunion soon turns to tragedy when Keith is found dead & Dave goes missing, Anne is comforted by the sinister Count Sinistre (Hubert Noël) who happens to be a Vampire from 1588. Count Sinistre kills Anne, the local police try to pass it off as suicide but Paul doesn't buy it & insists on the bodies of Anne & Keith be taken back to England for proper autopsies. Count Sinistre needs to stop this & silence Paul or risk being exposed...This British production was directed by Lance Comfort & is an obvious attempt at recreating the success of the Anglo horror film that was so popular at the time with the likes of Hammer & Amicus studios churning out all sorts of Gothic inspired horror flicks which the general public lapped up. The script by Lyn Fairhurst was one of the first British films to deal deal with Vampire mythology in contemporary Britain, certainly Hammer's previous Dracula films had been set in Victorian England rather than the swinging sixties like Devils of Darkness. One has to say that Devils of Darkness is a rather flat & often tedious film, the plot starts off alright but there's no mystery or intrigue as everything is spelled out straight away like who the Vampires are, what has actually happened to everyone & nothing is left unanswered so to speak. The film quickly settles down into a fairly talky affair with little or no significant action, despite being largely about Vampires there is not one single shot in the entire film of anyone with fangs, there is not one single blood drinking or neck biting scene either & apart from a couple of dead bodies turning up with puncture wounds on their neck you would be hard pressed to know that Devils of Darkness featured any Vampires at all. The film also has a Satanist angle but again nothing really comes of this & both the Vampire & Satanist plots feel very underdeveloped & almost at odds with each other like Fairhurst had two separate ideas & then decided to just combine them underplaying them both in the process.A real product of it's time Devils of Darkness has aged badly although that's not really it's own fault is it? For instance the parity scene is embarrassing to watch, the way people talk to each other, the fashions, the clothes, the interior decor of character's homes & outdated science (snakes do not hypnotise their prey with fear!). There is very little in the way of horror in Devils of Darkness, there's no real suspense or atmosphere & no blood or gore. The cinematography is interesting, shot in colour the film was obviously designed to stand out with some really gaudy & bright sets (just check out the colour of some of the wallpaper!), some really colourful clothes & the Satanists at the end all dress in bright red scarlet robes. Then there's the terrible day-for-night filming, it doesn't look good at the best of times but here it's almost impossible to tell whether a scene is set at night or not & the brightness levels keep changing during the same sequence.With a supposed budget of about £110,000 Devils of Darkness wasn't as low budget as some British horror around at that time & the colourful sets & costumes probably was where the money was spent. It certainly wasn't spent of special effects (unless you count the worst looking rubber Bat in history) or action scenes that's for sure. The acting is pretty wooden & Hubert Noël makes for one of the most forgettable on screen lead Vampires ever.Devils of Darkness is a pretty disappointing British horror film that I am sure many will compare to the Hammer Dracula films of the period & it's not a favourable comparison at all, average at best but generally forgettable. One more thing, what the hell happened to Dave?! I guess he's still missing to this day...

pninson 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.