I like Black Panther, but I didn't like this movie.

From my favorite movies..

An absolute waste of money

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

I actually quite enjoyed this film, but may be off putting to some! Definitely is a bit cheesy but if you can overlook that give it a watch. Sets and props used are lovely, a flashback to older film making. Costumes, such as the red dress, are really nice! They sometimes add extra layers of meaning (like a warning sign). The music was also great, very suspenseful and can build up tension. Most of the cinematography is standard, but it adds to the tension in places. However, the end of the film is a bit out of place and can date the film with the effects. The vampire costumes towards the end seem a bit weird being all white. Overall though a cheesy but fun vampire film!

Stylish Hammer Horror, better than the first Dracula. Acting, music, cinematography, story - all good. Not great. A bit slow in spots. The party scene and costumes were great. The vampires were not too convincing. This is still much better than the first Hammer Dracula. That story, and Lee's acting sucked.Stylish Hammer Horror, better than the first Dracula. Acting, music, cinematography, story - all good. Not great. A bit slow in spots. The party scene and costumes were great. The vampires were not too convincing. This is still much better than the first Hammer Dracula. That story, and Lee's acting sucked.Stylish Hammer Horror, better than the first Dracula. Acting, music, cinematography, story - all good. Not great. A bit slow in spots. The party scene and costumes were great. The vampires were not too convincing. This is still much better than the first Hammer Dracula. That story, and Lee's acting sucked.

Edward de Souza and Jennifer Daniel play the Harcourts, a honeymooning couple who strand themselves in the Southern European wilderness. They graciously accept the hospitality of a castle dwelling local family called the Ravnas, led by a pleasant patriarch (Noel Willman). Unbeknownst to Gerald Harcourt, this aristocratic family has sinister plans for his wife, so he must call upon a vampire expert named Professor Zimmer (Clifford Evans).A little more mystery may have added to the overall impact; as it is, we're all pretty sure of where this is headed. But that doesn't mean that this isn't good, under rated Hammer. It looks positively gorgeous (especially on Blu-ray), just like the majority of Hammer product, and is intoxicatingly atmospheric during its uneasiest moments. One does feel that they are in the presence of true Evil. James Bernard is again an essential element to this formula, adding another eerie score to his resume. The costume ball that plays into the story allows for one good twist. The film is directed by Australian born Don Sharp, definitely an under rated genre director during this era (he deserves to be just as well known as frequent Hammer director Terence Fisher). Screenwriter Anthony Hinds updates the action a bit; this takes place in a slightly more "modern" period than many Hammer stories, since the Harcourts are getting around in a car. His resolution offers another interesting twist that this viewer hasn't seen in any vampire film before.The cast is excellent. Evans is no Peter Cushing, but he's a reasonably engaging vampire hunter. Daniel and de Souza are very likable. Willman is an effective villain, and Barry Warren is likewise solid as his son. Peter Madden and Vera Cook are appealing as the innkeepers, and John Harvey impresses in his brief turn as a police sergeant. The young ladies present are often sumptuously lovely."The Kiss of the Vampire" entertains in deliberately paced, ominous fashion; it's a Hammer film that deserves to be better known.Seven out of 10.

I'm not going to rehash the plot of the movie, because that has been done by most of the earlier reviews. I'm going to just touch on what I think worked-and what I think didn't. In terms of the atmosphere, cinematography, etc., I think they did a good job. It had the foreboding, eerie set up, for the most part. (Also, from this point, things might get a little spoilery.)There were so many things they did in this movie, IMO, that they really didn't set up properly. This movie is definitely formulaic-and I'm not criticizing it for that. What I am going to find fault with, though, is leaving part of the formula out. 19th century husband leaves his new wife sitting in their useless motorcar because they ran out of gas, and he needs to go get help. OK. It's also not necessarily bad that she got uncomfortable and decided to try and catch up with hubby, at least if they had bothered to have something unsettling happen before she decided to get out-but they didn't. Stuff happened after she got out of the car. Of course, part of this was so she could run into the stern Professor fellow who gave her a cryptic warning, which, of course, also did not help calm her already frayed nerves. Another thing I found out of sync was the "inn." It seemed like it was designed to be the "Ritz" of small Bavarian inns, but why? I don't know if we were supposed to deduce that the village once was more prosperous and merited such an establishment, but it seemed out of place. It would be like finding a deserted town in the Nevada desert that still had a fancy Hilton hotel there welcoming whatever guest might wander in- which is pretty much what happened here. Also, the innkeeper moderated from seeming happily oblivious to what was going on to being complicit- even if they were being coerced(and I think that was certainly implied.)The wife's behavior became more understandable once they showed the scene where she was grieving over her daughter-a scene which I thought was very effective, and probably the best acting in the whole movie. Even the main couple's faces expressed their understanding that they had almost intruded on a private, sad moment as they quietly withdrew to leave the poor women to grieve. Speaking of the main couple, they were naturally, happily naive. The man, of course, was one of means-inherited, naturally. He wasn't a snobby sort, though he certainly had no problem with the local "uppity-ups" recognizing his obvious value and integrity, sight unseen. Again, this isn't necessarily something that was unrealistic in terms of the "upper"class being, perhaps, as too trusting when dealing with someone they have assumed is also "upper class."Let me skip on to what I found was the biggest flaw in the show-and that was how "ho hum" the bad guys-and gals-were. The predecessor to this movie was, I believe(at least in terms of vampire movies)Brides of Dracula-and I found the vampire in that to be more intimidating, even with his fake, fluffy red wig and foppish appearance-than most of the vamps in this movie. It was almost laughable when the "hero" managed to grab his wife and run out of a whole room full of vampires-with almost none of them in pursuit except their one, I assume, human lackey. We in the audience needed much more exposition as to why this Drac wannabe had a castle full of other vampires who seemed to have nothing better to do than to either quiver in fear for various reasons, or carp at their "master." I mean, the village was supposedly pretty deserted- so, who was left for this house full of vampires to victimize and "feed" on? Even the visitors to the countryside were supposed to be rare- and the two naive victims had made a wrong turn to start with to end up out of gas in the middle of some obscure Bavarian forest. The one actor who did a decent job, IMO, was the "Van Helsing" type-Professor Zimmerman. In what screen time he was given he managed to convey that he wasn't just a grumpy drunk-but that there was a good reason he was the way he was, as well as a method to his madness.Last, but not least, I feel the climax could have been done much better. I saw it mentioned that, for some reason, they decided not to release this movie around the same time as the famed Hitchcock movie, The Birds-not because Hammer didn't want to compete with that movie(though that certainly would make sense)but because of the similar, mind-blowing "event." I can see the slight similarity, but the Hitchcock film did not shy away from showing, as much as they were allowed by the movie codes, how gruesome being attacked by a huge flock of birds could be. Likewise, this movie could have added to the discomfort-and certainly the horror-if they had portrayed, like The Birds, at least as much as possible(taking into consideration the aforementioned codes and the Hammer budget)a much more mutilated bunch of vampires being chowed down on, I assume, by a horde of vampire bats(the irony not supposed to be lost on we, the audience.) This was just about as "toothless," in terms of scares, a vampire movie was I have ever seen-and I've seen a bunch, at my age.