So much average

Did you people see the same film I saw?

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

By itself, this is one of better Hammer movies. From movie to movie improvement in every aspect is obvious, from screenplay, to scenography, effects, directing and acting. At the other hand, this is God knows how many in a row Dracula movie that recycles same old plot, and does not offer much novelty. Although this one has bit different approach and some new details, like symbolism of the doll on Maria's bed, essentially it's same crap in different package. And that really starts to bore...6/10

I'm very surprised more people don't see this film as the turkey it is. Notwithstanding my love for Hammer horror films and the first 2 films in the Dracula series (Dracula: Prince of Darkness is one of my favorite horror films which I don't believe gets the respect it deserves), I barely got through this film my second time around. The biggest problem is of course the script, with giant holes and unexplained motifs, and the decision to have a pathetic weak bald priest at the center of it all, spoiling everything, plus giving a big chunk of time to a plump busty non-sexy redhead girl (some comments describe her as "strikingly beautiful", really?; others as "hot", well, different strokes for different folks, but she didn't do a thing for me even when she was practically naked most of the time, and I find many other Hammer girls (Valerie Leon, Susan Denberg, Hazel Court, e.g.) much sexier. I guess that has a lot to do with why so many people like this film, and why I don't). You add the too-old monsignor who might save the film but is taken out of action, the young, dull, not too-bright Paul and the blonde, dull, naïve non-sexy niece, and you find yourself with a bunch of uninteresting characters you don't care a hoot about. If Jimmy Sangster instead of Anthony Hinds had written the screenplay, or Terence Fisher had directed, the results I'm sure would have been different (having just seen Revenge of Frankenstein, now I'm not that sure). Dracula, besides the ridiculous, out-of-character premise of him seeking revenge does nothing but give orders (why didn't he ask the bald priest at the beginning of the film to remove the cross? Guess only a virgin could remove it, but this is never explained, similarly to other scenes), wait on the fringes, make dramatic entrances, and be a pussy. The script is unbelievably bad: who killed the girl at the beginning? (having seen the film a third and hopefully final time, I guess she was killed before he was himself killed as shown in the previous Dracula film). Vampires are supposed to have no reflection, but I guess this doesn't apply to water. A stake through the heart should do it for Dracula, not in this film, and the reason why is not clear. Dracula is been pursued by the young lad after this, and suddenly he's not mad at the lad anymore: he's just standing there at the rooftop waiting for the blonde girl, who seemingly has a knack for walking on rooftops; the annoying priest, who seems to be involved in every scene to ruin any chances of success, hits the young lad over the head with a candlestick, and 30 seconds later the lad is up and confronting him; before that the lad asks him at the inn's stairs to go visit the blonde girl at her home; minutes later he finds him again in the same exact place climbing the stairs (it seems this actually happened several hours later, but the film is so poorly constructed you need to watch the film more than once to find out), where the priest of course lies to him again. Dracula sucks the blood of the redhead, later Paul finds her in her underwear and talks to her matter-of-fact as if he's used to seeing her undressed. Dracula sucks the blood of the blonde at her room and the next night she is again at her room, unguarded, with the monsignor reading some books downstairs. When Dracula enters the room the monsignor appears, thank God, but for what, but to end up hit in the head by the annoying bald priest, while Dracula runs away from the monsignor like a pussy. The monsignor before dying asks the lad to save his niece, but forgets to tell him about the annoying bald priest who hit him over the head. Of course Paul goes to the bald priest for help, who then proceeds to hit him over the head. Besides the convoluted script the film is badly directed as discussed above, with another example: while Dracula is with his fiancé for what seems like an eternity, Paul, who was downstairs and didn't see her, goes upstairs and is told to look for her downstairs, can't find her again, goes upstairs, is told again to look for her this time further upstairs, he goes upstairs and sees some smoke and decides to go downstairs a third time and finally finds her. That is a very clumsy way to create suspense. It would have helped if someone had mentioned the subbasement where Dracula and his girl were located. The scene between the redhead and the blonde prior to that scene now I understand is the first helping the second escape Dracula, and that is why Dracula accuses her of failing him and kills her (I was confused since the redhead actually managed to bring the blonde to Dracula, and it was because of Dracula being a pussy that she escaped). And Dracula is impaled not once but twice! dying only by a silly accident instead of by the actions of the hero. Only the very spiritual and redeeming ending has some value for people of faith, the rest is simply unbearable.

This a beautifully filmed movie. The lighting is breathtaking... in particular when Dracula appears. Deeply Gothic in every way one can imagine. Simply breathtaking Gothic eye-candy.The story is very good. It picks up right where "Dracula: Prince of Darkness" leaves off. You really don't have to watch "Darkness" in order to know what is going on in "Dracula Has Risen" but it is better that you do in order to understand what is going on at the beginning of the film when Dracula is resurrected once again.This is one of the best films in the Hammer Horror Films "Dracula" series. It looses nothing from the first two movies... it only continues the story in a very dramatic way.Worth watching if you enjoy Dracula/Vampire films and Christopher Lee.9/10

Has anyone ever played Dracula as such an angry vampire the way Christopher Lee has? When a monsignor "cleanses" Dracula's castle and leaves a cross at his front door, the vampire rises and wreaks havoc on everyone he encounters. After hypnotizing a cowardly priest and doing away with a sassy barroom wench, he goes after the monsignor's nubile niece. Though off camera for much of the time, Lee dominates the movie. He's evil incarnate, a maniac out for blood (literally). The direction by Freddie Francis is great, all high pitched and very colorful. The supporting cast includes hammy Rupert Davies as the monsignor, Veronica Carlson as his niece, Barry Andrews (as the dull hero), Barbara Ewing and Ewan Hooper. Norman Bacon plays an idiot man- child who alerts the townspeople of Dracula's return. Arthur Grant provided the high gloss cinematography and the rousing music is by James Bernard, who scored Hammer's first Dracula film 10 years earlier.