Highly Overrated But Still Good

It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

For feck's sake! I wasn't totally impressed with Ossario's Blind Dead films (the two that I've watched anyway), but I was willing to give him another chance with this vampire film, and it sucks! And that wasn't a pun! Anita Ekberg is excited to receive a letter from her Uncle declaring her a Countess following the distribution of her mother's estate. She heads of for the creepy castle these folk live in but soon finds out that there's a slight caveat about her new role in society. Namely that of everyone in the castle being a vampire...and boring vampires to boot!Vampires! Please note - when giving your non-vampire niece a tour of your crypt, please try not to use sentences like "This one in here is REALLY dead" because it just draws suspicion and when you don't answer any subsequent questions it just makes you look guilty. Long story short Anita's going to be the new head vampire if they can just get her turned. Her fiancé and his mate turn up to stir things up a bit and most of the chicks run around with plenty cleavage on display and then the Uncle turns a local barmaid into a vampire and the first thing she does is turn up at his front door and start nagging him and then some other crap happens but this film is boring as hell and not worth your time. It's kind of like Polanski's Fearless Vampire Killers (I didn't like that either). Maybe I'm not the best judge of vampire films to be honest. I don't really like them.

The return of Count Dracula as played by Christopher Lee in the late 1950's set a trend of sexy blood-suckers, both male and female, and when England got on the Universal band wagon (ironically right after the death of famed vampire extraordinaire Bela Lugosi), other European countries on the main continent followed suit, usually with much T&A and an almost animated look in its filming technique. Fortunately, this one focuses more on atmosphere, and while there are definitely some very busty women, they keep their clothes on. The very voluptuous Anita Ekberg gets the privilege of playing a dual role, a modern day heiress to the Italian castle of her descendent's, and her own grandmother, once burnt to death by villagers for alleged witchcraft, and now stalking the castle and nearby village for prey. Julian Ugarte is her older but still sexy "uncle" who has undead secrets of his own, and his goal is to keep Ekberg's modern day innocent heroine there as part of an effort to end the family curse.Certainly, this isn't anything that 1960's horror aficionados hadn't seen before with "The Fearless Vampire Killers" and other similar tales of the undead haunting second string movie theaters and drive-ins around this time. (Check out "The Vampire Happening" for an outrageous comic take on similar themes with plenty of T&A to go around.) This one has a fantastically eerie atmosphere, but there are some slow patches and some confusing plot elements which in retrospect make little sense. But the moments of true horror do pop in and out, and there's a very funny moment when an Italian playboy, unaware that his latest target is really a vampire, allows her to role-play in what he believes to be a sexual game of desire. The fate of one of the undead is truly graphic, if not gory, and it is the lack of flesh and blood which makes that scene even more morbid and spine-chilling. The twist at the very end is too silly to be tolerable, but like me, you may find yourself laughing in spite of the fact that your eyes are rolling at the same time.

Plot: A woman inherits a castle from a distant relative. When she arrives to take possession, she learns her castle is a home for the undead who want to bring her into the family.I really wanted to like Fangs of the Living Dead, but two things really hampered my enjoyment. First, there are far too many stretches of the movie that are quite simply boring. It's not that I mind a slow moving story, but this thing is downright dull in places. Second, and this more of a personal preference, but the main character as played by Anita Ekberg is annoying. For a horror movie to be really effective, it helps if you care about the characters. I wanted Ms. Ekberg's character (and Ms. Ekberg for that matter) to die within 10 minutes of her introduction.

In the late 60s into the 70s, Anita Ekberg's career really took a nose dive. She was still very beautiful and had talent, but she ended up playing in Z-grade exploitation fare like this film. I don't like this movie. I can't explain why, but it just sucks. Usually, I enjoy haphazardly put together vampire flicks with attractive women and overacting. However, this one is just kind of pathetic.Ekberg inherits a castle from her dead mother who was of aristocratic stock. She goes to see the castle and her uncle (who as luck would have it, is the undead). She is warned numerous times by the usual scared villagers that there's a curse on her family (typical vampire movie plot fodder). Her uncle ends up trying to get her to become a vampire so she can fulfill her destiny. Her fiancée and his idiot friend come in from Rome to try to talk to her, but get the usual cold shoulder. They have to work with a local doctor to try and save her.It seemed like they tried to be campy, but really failed. The plot (as previously outlined) was really weak and they tried to throw in a twist at the end that was totally unnecessary. If they were trying to build suspense, they royally screwed up.Don't waste your time.