Good movie but grossly overrated

From my favorite movies..

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

I can only speak about the "Fangs Of The Living Dead" version (which is the one more readily available on DVD), not the longer "Malenka" version: avoid it. Not only is the picture quality poor for a 1969 film, but this version features virtually no blood or nudity, making it a PG horror film. The head vampire in it is extremely weak - he can't even break through a wooden door, and at the end he is defeated by a single punch! About 90% of the movie (no exaggeration!) is taken up by discussions about whether vampires are real, as if the title (which sounds suspiciously similar to the previous year's hit "Night of....") wasn't enough of a clue. Anita Ekberg's justifiably famous cleavage is on brief display, and in the last 3 minutes there is a short but sweet catfight between Diana Lorys and Adriana Ambesi. But those are the only parts of the film worth seeing. I suppose the castle itself is an atmospheric location, but the film lacks atmosphere. *1/2 out of 4.

Before director Amando De Ossorio made his classic blind dead films he helmed this interesting tale of vampirism. The movie centers around Anita Ekberg who has inherited wealth from her long lost mother. She has always despised her father for taking her away from her ancestral estate and raising her in Rome, but her old man had a reason: he had married into a family of witches, warlocks and vampires.Engaged to be married to a doctor (John Hamilton), Ekberg tells her betrothed that she is going to her home country to retrieve her inheritance and will be back in time for the wedding. Her plans change however as her nefarious uncle (Julian Ugarte) convinces her that her destiny rests in her family's castle. She sends a letter to her husband-to-be, breaking off their marriage, but he doesn't take the rejection lying down and heads off to bring Ekberg back to Rome. The good doctor is exposed to a superstitious people and tries to reason the odd occurrences through science with the help of his chum that he brings along for laughs.STORY: $$ (The story is typical. We have a young woman forced to adhere to her past, one that is steeped in black magic and vampirism. Her fiancé is a man of science who bad-mouths the old ways even when the legends of witchcraft and vampires are the only logical answer to the plague. This film injects too much "comedy" into the script with the doctor's squeamish sidekick who is only moderately funny at best).ACTING: $$$ (The acting is okay. Anita Ekberg does a fine job as the damsel in distress. It is quite clear that her performance is hindered greatly in dubbing. Julian Ugarte is effectively creepy as her uncle and John Hamilton does a good job as her fiancé. Diana Lorys of BLUE EYES OF THE BROKEN DOLL and Rosanna Yanni of DRACULA'S GREAT LOVE have co-starring roles as managers of the local inn. Diana Lorys does an amazing job transforming herself from mild-mannered innkeeper to seductive vampiress while Rosanna shines as her concerned sister).NUDITY: None. However, there is more cleavage here than in an Hammer Horror film. Diana Lorys is an extremely sexy woman and Adriana Ambesi's lowcut dress can hardly contain her chest.

A beautiful woman (Anita Ekberg) learns she has inherited a family castle. She travel to Italy to take a look at it but finds her grandmother was a witch and her uncle is one of the undead (a vampire). He has every intention of making sure she joins the family...but her boyfriend shows up looking for her.A real snooze. The plot doesn't make a whole lot of sense (although that's common with Italian horror movies) and the acting is terrible. Ekberg is certainly a beautiful woman but her reactions to things were badly done--VERY! I can't give a very accurate judgment of her performance (she's dubbed along with everybody else) but what I saw was pretty lousy. The rest of the cast is about as good as her. The movie drags on (even in the 80 minute version I saw) with things happening left and right that don't make the slightest bit of sense. Also there's next to no blood or violence (this film is VERY PG rated) and the makeup on the vampires is pretty comical (the fangs are WAY too big). It all ends with a terrible gag ending that had me rolling my eyes.In defense of this, the print I saw was in full screen with badly faded colors--but even letter-boxed and in bright colors wouldn't change the "story" or terrible acting.Pop this one on if you have sleep problems--you'll be dead asleep in no time! A 1.

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.