I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Hammer's Dracula series certainly doesn't benefit from one screening them in order within a relatively short span; they're horribly inconsistent. For this one, Castle Dracula moves once again: in 1958, it was a country villa on relatively flat land; in 1966, it was on a country hilltop with pathways allowing horse-drawn carriages to it; now, it's on a mountain ridge without pathways, and it's close enough to town to cast a shadow on the church. And, I'll just go along with the geography of one pub having a basement bakery and another being adjoined to a church. It's clear by the reliance on the same camera positions for some exteriors in this film that Hammer didn't have much space to work with. Also new, Dracula, apparently, has some flair for staging his murders, as one of his victims hangs within a church bell (or maybe one of his human assistants did it, since it seems especially odd that Drac would venture into a cross-filled church to create such a scene). Somehow, he's more misogynist than usual, too; when he's done with the cleavage-baring barmaid, he has the priest burn her in a bread oven, while Dracula pursues the supposedly-more-virtuous blonde (who, laughably, sleeps with a doll). This is also part of his silly revenge plot, for the blonde's father dared put a cross on his castle door (which he doesn't immediately have removed because they need it for the finale). And "Dracula has Risen from the Grave" gets even worse from there.The Hammer series had always required more-than-the-usual suspension of disbelief, what with Transylvania being populated by Brits, and, of course, the aforementioned settings and story inconsistencies. But, now, we must put up with the late 1960s mores and hairstyles, perms and all, for what appears to be an early-20th Century setting now (judging by the date on the coffin Dracula steals). No, it's too much. The characters are insufferable this outing. The blonde's sniveling and weeping is annoying. The atheist scholar is insulting. New, for this film, staking Dracula isn't enough; you need to say a prayer, too. Even when he's impaled by a cross. The atheist hero dutifully learns his lesson and performs the sign of the cross at the end.(Mirror Note: Aargh, Dracula's reflection is seen in water. The 1979 "Dracula" would later make the same mistake. The only actual mirror shot shows the otherwise-out-of-frame lovers while the priest grabs a blunt object in which to bludgeon the guy with.)

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

Dracula lives again, in perhaps the best sequel Hammer produced with Christopher Lee. This time, the water Dracula is frozen in gets broken and blood from an unfortunate priest brings him back. Dracula seeks revenge on the monsignor and his family after his castle has been defiled by said priest. Perhaps the most famous scene from this film is the first staking when the Count doesn't die because the man who tried to destroy him was an atheist. The stories I've always heard was that even Lee thought that scene was pretty stupid, but I enjoyed it anyway. A gory, visual delight-- particularly when Dracula gets staked again in the closing reel and finally dies when the Priest recites a prayer and Dracula becomes a blood soaked stain on the rocks--never to return again, until another sequel is called for.9 stars...

Dracula Has Rise from the Grave is the fourth film in Hammer's Dracula series and the third to star Christopher Lee. The action follows straight on from the events at the climax of Dracula: Prince of Darkness, with the Count being accidentally being unleashed from his watery grave and proceeding to wreak havoc on a local community in his quest for the niece of the local Monsignor.This is a classic Hammer Horror film with all of the vibrant colour photography and richness of both set and costume that the studio is best known for. Christopher Lee gives an imposing turn as Stoker's famous vampire, appearing bestial and suave at the same time, and there's a noticeable added erotic content to his conquest of various women. Plus he gets actual dialogue, which comes as something of a surprise given his silence during most of the running time of these films. Freddie Francis brings his assured directorial style to the film, automatically increasing its quality.The film falters slightly in its lack of a dedicated opponent, but Barry Andrews (BLOOD ON SATAN'S CLAW) does his best as the rugged 'beefcake' up against the infamous vampire. Rupert Davies gives the film's best performance as the dedicated Monsignor, battling his advanced age as well as the worst evil known to mankind, and it's good to see the likes of regulars Michael Ripper and George A. Cooper in supporting roles. Really, though, this is a film all about the women: Veronica Carlson is a classic damsel in distress, and Barbara Ewing (nowadays a respected author) is one of the most voluptuous of all Hammer ladies.