Rating: 
Summary: not as scary as you would think
Review: It was too slow paced for me. There was too much talk and not enough action. Not really scary at all,and the guy who played the vampire was putting me to sleep.
Rating: 
Summary: Middling Hammer vampire effort gets superior DVD treatment
Review: Lust for a Vampire is the second and generally acknowledged as the least of Hammer's Carmilla Karnstein trilogy (Vampire Lovers, Lust, Twins of Evil). The movie is actually better than I expected, with most of the downside apparently due to postproduction fiddling by producers Harry Fine and Michael Style. The script by Tudor Gates contains a few fresh twists, Jimmy Sangster's direction is competent, the women, especially Yutte Stensgaard as Mircalla, are gorgeous, and Ralph Bates is excellent in a difficult role (originally intended for Peter Cushing). But what really mars the film and no doubt contributes to its poor reputation are some shockingly bad editing and soundtrack decisions: an otherwise effective scene of three 'vampiresses' stalking Michael Johnson in Karnstein castle is ruined by an idiotic voiceover; the unintentionally hilarious "subjective" murder shots were no doubt intended to be cut away from much sooner than they are; blatantly obvious, mismatched closeups of Christopher Lee's bloodshot eyes are substituted for Mike Raven's; Stensgaard and Johnson's big vampire attack/love scene is rendered completely ludicrous by an absolutely awful pop song ("Strange Love") warbling in the background, etc., etc. The movie's quite watchable but frustrating because you keep thinking, "if only Jimmy Sangster had been allowed to edit this it probably would've been much better." (After saving Hammer's bacon by replacing injured Terence Fisher at the last minute, Sangster was unceremoniously ordered off the film by the producers as soon as shooting wrapped.) As it is, it's worth a look for Hammer and vampire fans, but ultimately less than completely satisfying.
Whatever one thinks of the film, you can't complain about Anchor's DVD package. The uncut, anamorphic widescreen (1.77:1) source print is a wee bit soft, but otherwise virtually flawless, with great color, contrast, detail, and nary a speckle to be seen. Extras include an equally gorgeous trailer, radio spots, poster and still gallery, filmographies, and a commentary by Jimmy Sangster, Suzanna Leigh, and Hammer historian Marcus Hearn. This is a real treat, since they spend most of the time discussing a wide range of personalities and topics, including some behind-the-scenes Hammer dish, rather than just focusing on the movie. Overall another fine release from Anchor, who've really been setting the standard for "special edition" DVDs lately, horror or otherwise. 5 stars for the DVD, 3 or 4 for the movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Hammer's dishy sequel to Vampire Lovers . . .
Review: Lust For a Vampire is the second part of the Karnstein trilogy, that began with Vampire Lovers and which was to conclude with Twins of Evil. Of the three movies, this one is definitely the weak link in the three, but still has some merits. Originally, Peter Cushing and Ingrid Pitt had been tapped to star in this film, but due to family illness, Cushing opted out, and Pitt's prior committment to another project at the time made her unavailable. One can only wonder how the film would have benefited with Cushing's cultured experience and Pitt's stony, seductive approach. As it stood, we had to content ourselves with Ralph Bates and Jutte Stensgard, a Danish bombshell with no acting talent whatsoever. Bates wasn't so bad as the schoolmaster, he brought a sleaziness that improved the character. But Jutte Stensgard, however, just doesn't stack up to the role of Micarlla-although she is undeniably some very fine eye candy, she is neither menacing nor believable as a vampire. Also, another blow to the production was Terence Fisher's exit from the project and Jimmy Sangster taking up the directorial helm at the last minute. Did Sangster contribute more of an erotic element to this picture-watch the first 30 minutes of relentless toplessness and near nudity and judge for yourself. Where the film gets interesting is when the body count starts to grow, and when Bate's schoolmaster Giles character comes more into prominence. Chief strengths of the film are the night scenes, and the rustic location as a whole. I've always believed that the best vampire stories are set in small villages as opposed to cities. As a whole, the film suffers from weak characters ("I love you"s come at the weirdest, most implausible moments), a very thin plot that seems as if it has been padded by lots of gratuitous nudity, and a very bizarre decision on someone's part to place a pop song in the middle of a seduction scene! Also, you will need to suspend your knowledge of vampire lore, because these vampires walk and play in the daytime. The violence is almost non-existent. There is a sacrificial scene at the very beginning of the film, and a couple of graphic stakings later on, but that's about it. The DVD features are commendable. There are some nice poster galleries and a clear commentary track. There is a hidden treat for Stensgard fans (go to features and then hit right arrow to light up the cross on the dagger, and then hit enter). If you choose to bypass this film for something else, you will be none the worse for missing it.
Rating:
Summary: Hammer's dishy sequel to Vampire Lovers . . .
Review: Lust For a Vampire is the second part of the Karnstein trilogy, that began with Vampire Lovers and which was to conclude with Twins of Evil. Of the three movies, this one is definitely the weak link in the three, but still has some merits. Originally, Peter Cushing and Ingrid Pitt had been tapped to star in this film, but due to family illness, Cushing opted out, and Pitt's prior committment to another project at the time made her unavailable. One can only wonder how the film would have benefited with Cushing's cultured experience and Pitt's stony, seductive approach. As it stood, we had to content ourselves with Ralph Bates and Jutte Stensgard, a Danish bombshell with no acting talent whatsoever. Bates wasn't so bad as the schoolmaster, he brought a sleaziness that improved the character. But Jutte Stensgard, however, just doesn't stack up to the role of Micarlla-although she is undeniably some very fine eye candy, she is neither menacing nor believable as a vampire. Also, another blow to the production was Terence Fisher's exit from the project and Jimmy Sangster taking up the directorial helm at the last minute. Did Sangster contribute more of an erotic element to this picture-watch the first 30 minutes of relentless toplessness and near nudity and judge for yourself. Where the film gets interesting is when the body count starts to grow, and when Bate's schoolmaster Giles character comes more into prominence. Chief strengths of the film are the night scenes, and the rustic location as a whole. I've always believed that the best vampire stories are set in small villages as opposed to cities. As a whole, the film suffers from weak characters ("I love you"s come at the weirdest, most implausible moments), a very thin plot that seems as if it has been padded by lots of gratuitous nudity, and a very bizarre decision on someone's part to place a pop song in the middle of a seduction scene! Also, you will need to suspend your knowledge of vampire lore, because these vampires walk and play in the daytime. The violence is almost non-existent. There is a sacrificial scene at the very beginning of the film, and a couple of graphic stakings later on, but that's about it. The DVD features are commendable. There are some nice poster galleries and a clear commentary track. There is a hidden treat for Stensgard fans (go to features and then hit right arrow to light up the cross on the dagger, and then hit enter). If you choose to bypass this film for something else, you will be none the worse for missing it.
Rating:
Summary: Not as bad as its reputation.
Review: Many people say this is one of Hammer's worst, if not the worst. But I don't agree at all. Yes, it could have been much better, but considering the trouble they had making it, it works nicely. Ralph Bates came in when Peter Cushing couldn't do it, and he gives a brilliantly funny performance. I don't know why people hate this movie, it's not any better or any worse than so many other later Hammer movies. Nice sets and atmosphere, what more do you want ?!.
Rating:
Summary: Sequal to "THE VAMPIRE LOVERS".
Review: Once again, Hammer Films make a fine vampire flick. This is the film that followed behind Hammer's "The vampire Lovers". In this movie, YUTTE STENSGAARD plays Carmilla and she is resurrected by another vampire. There she blends in with the other villagers and begins preying on innocent male victims. RALPH BATES plays a professor who figures out who she is and what's she's been up to! This film isn't as good as "The vampire Lovers", but it is a good vampire movie from Hammer films. This DVD will be uncut and contains 5 additional minutes not seen in the previous version on REPUBLIC home video! Buy it today!
Rating:
Summary: Weak follow-up to The Vampire Lovers.
Review: Roy Ward Baker's The Vampire Lovers was an impressive "lesbian vampire" movie, and marked a new direction stylistically for Hammer's vampire series. Unfortunately, this new line of bloodier, more openly sexual films would prove to be inconsistent. The Vampire Lovers is one of the better ones: classy, sexy, and quite atmospheric; in my view, underrated. Particularly effective was Peter Cushing's portrayal of the patriarchal persecution of lesbian desire.
Jimmy Sangster directed this follow-up. While not a crass film, it is generally lame. The sexual scenes are run-of-the-mill girlie-magazine imagery. Although Baker's scenes have a Playboy aesthetic to them as well, within those paramaters they were genuinely sexy and occasionally erotic. (The presence of Ingrid Pitt, who exudes sexuality merely by being in front of a camera, admittedly accounts for a good part of this.) Apart from some occasional tension, Sangster's direction in Lust for a Vampire is dramatically flaccid, and the film's portrayal of eroticism adolescent.
Stick with the first and third installments in the Carmilla series: the Baker film, and Don Hough's Twins of Evil.
Rating:
Summary: Camp Good Fun
Review: Set in the 1830s in some fictitious east European country, it begins with the evil Count and Countess Karnstein catching themselves a young virgin from the village whom they sacrifice to the Devil in order to resurrect the beautiful Countess Carmilla (Yutte Stensgaard). We then switch scene to young writer of horror stories, Richard LeStrange (Michael Johnson) arriving in the local village to hear the usual stories about how the castle on the hill is a Place of Evil blah blah blah. So off he goes to investigate only to discover that, place of evil or not, it is now adjacent to a posh girl's finishing school brimful of stunning young women including a certain Mircalla who he is instantly smitten by, rather unhappily as her name being an anagram for `Carmilla' is no accident. Smitten as he is he quickly contrives to get taken on as an English teacher and is given lodgings to share with the decidedly strange history teacher Giles Barton played by Ralph Bates. Obviously it isn't long before nubile young ladies start cropping up dead with strange marks on their necks. A fair amount of confusion seems to have reigned over the making of this. It's a sequel to the earlier 'Vampire Lovers' where Ingrid Pitt played the role of Carmilla. Here they couldn't get her so they used the relatively unkown Stensgaard. Terence Fisher was originally pencilled in to direct but Sangster had to take over when that fell through. And Peter Cushing was originally to have been cast as Barton but was replaced by Bates when that didn't work out either. Not that any of these replacements prove so very disastrous. Sangster does a decent enough job. Stensgaard is pretty good in the lead: it was probably the high point of her short career before she quit to work for a Christian radio station in the USA. And Bates isn't Cushing but is still serviceably creepy. The weak point of the film and the main reason this is one of Hammer's less successful vampire movies is Johnson as LeStrange who should be the dramatic and emotional centre of the movie but who fails to breath life into a serious disappointingly feeble and uninteresting character. Suzanna Leigh is equally lacklustre as Janet Playfair, the main goodie female character, the virtuous young teacher who takes a fancy to LeStrange (who is surely just not interesting enough to be very credibly such a big hit with the ladies, both dead and undead, as he is here). So by no means the greatest of the Hammer vampires but great fun nonetheless. If you like this sort of thing (and I have to say love it) all the ingredients are there: blood, sex, evil old counts with V-shaped haircuts, muttering villagers, peasant girls with heaving bosoms, black carriages with big black horses, noctural assignations, vampires turning to skeletons after getting `staked', bodies down wells, stalwart local policemen who don't really know what they're up against, creepy graveyards... Oh go on. You know you really want to.
Rating:
Summary: Camp Good Fun
Review: Set in the 1830s in some fictitious east European country, it begins with the evil Count and Countess Karnstein catching themselves a young virgin from the village whom they sacrifice to the Devil in order to resurrect the beautiful Countess Carmilla (Yutte Stensgaard). We then switch scene to young writer of horror stories, Richard LeStrange (Michael Johnson) arriving in the local village to hear the usual stories about how the castle on the hill is a Place of Evil blah blah blah. So off he goes to investigate only to discover that, place of evil or not, it is now adjacent to a posh girl's finishing school brimful of stunning young women including a certain Mircalla who he is instantly smitten by, rather unhappily as her name being an anagram for 'Carmilla' is no accident. Smitten as he is he quickly contrives to get taken on as an English teacher and is given lodgings to share with the decidedly strange history teacher Giles Barton played by Ralph Bates. Obviously it isn't long before nubile young ladies start cropping up dead with strange marks on their necks. A fair amount of confusion seems to have reigned over the making of this. It's a sequel to the earlier 'Vampire Lovers' where Ingrid Pitt played the role of Carmilla. Here they couldn't get her so they used the relatively unkown Stensgaard. Terence Fisher was originally pencilled in to direct but Sangster had to take over when that fell through. And Peter Cushing was originally to have been cast as Barton but was replaced by Bates when that didn't work out either. Not that any of these replacements prove so very disastrous. Sangster does a decent enough job. Stensgaard is pretty good in the lead: it was probably the high point of her short career before she quit to work for a Christian radio station in the USA. And Bates isn't Cushing but is still serviceably creepy. The weak point of the film and the main reason this is one of Hammer's less successful vampire movies is Johnson as LeStrange who should be the dramatic and emotional centre of the movie but who fails to breath life into a serious disappointingly feeble and uninteresting character. Suzanna Leigh is equally lacklustre as Janet Playfair, the main goodie female character, the virtuous young teacher who takes a fancy to LeStrange (who is surely just not interesting enough to be very credibly such a big hit with the ladies, both dead and undead, as he is here). So by no means the greatest of the Hammer vampires but great fun nonetheless. If you like this sort of thing (and I have to say love it) all the ingredients are there: blood, sex, evil old counts with V-shaped haircuts, muttering villagers, peasant girls with heaving bosoms, black carriages with big black horses, noctural assignations, vampires turning to skeletons after getting 'staked', bodies down wells, stalwart local policemen who don't really know what they're up against, creepy graveyards... Oh go on. You know you really want to.
Rating:
Summary: So wonderfullly bad
Review: The middle chapter of Hammer's Karnstein trilogy (between The Vampire Lovers and Twins of Evil), LUST FOR A VAMPIRE is a textbook example of the studio's penchant for excess in the early '70s. Fans of classic Hammer fare like Horror of Dracula and Curse of Frankenstein will be disappointed with the weak script and atrocious acting. But if the lesbian vampire sub-genre is your thing, you'll, uh, get off on this film. Treasure or trash, LUST FOR A VAMPIRE looks fantastic thanks to the wonderful folks at Anchor Bay. There's a commentary track that is fairly pedestrian, and the goofy theatrical trailer. If this sort of thing is your cup of T (and A), by all means, sink your teeth into it.
|
