It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Although this movie sports the cool word "slaughter" in its title, this movie is very much the old Dracula story all over again (with only a minor twist at the end). While there are a few differences (such as the vampire looking pretty weird--a bit like a blond Liberace with raccoon eyes) as well as more cleavage than usual, the essence of the film is the same old same old--though the names have been changed. Although there is no one named Van Helsing or Nina Harker, the characters are still there but with different names. The biggest difference is that the entire first portion of the book and original movies is absent--and it begins later in the story. The only serious negatives are the silly music (which might have sounded better in a sci-fi flick) and the silly look of the vampire. Because the story is so similar and there isn't any new innovation to make it memorable, this is a story horror fans don't need to rush out to see, as the Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee versions cover the same territory but do it much better.By the way, there were some complaints about the dubbing, though for a 1960s import, the quality isn't bad (except for the little girl--which sounds like an adult trying to sound like a girl). The voices seem appropriate and it wasn't a noticeable problem. Still, like many viewers, I would have preferred this to have been subtitled instead of dubbed into English.

DARK SKY FILMS has just released their version of SLAUGHTER OF THE VAMPIRES on DVD and I must tell you, it is far and away superior to that of the Retromedia version of the film. It is crisp, clear and sharp Black & White as I have ever seen in a film that is over 40 years old. They did a superb job of presenting this in DVD format. They include chapter index and when you go to a chapter, it doesn't put you right in the middle of a scene as Retromedia's version did. It is also presented in widescreen format too. Believe me, put your Retromedia copy on your Trade-in pile and go out and get DARK SKY FILMS version. The DSF version also includes a scene or two not presented in any other version that I remember although that storied missing 11 minutes that I have heard so much about does not seem to be there, it is still an excellent reproduction. Even though this film is from 1962, it still outshines a lot of vampire movies that I have seen. Graziella Granata is still gorgeous in this movie and her Titular jog through the castle to escape the stake is worth seeing in slow-mo. Whether or not you are a fan of a vampire movie this old, it still has a lot going for it. It shines in a dim way but it still shines. I call it the "GONE WITH THE WIND" of bad B-Vampire movies because it is the best of the worst.Wanna talk about it?.............leave a comment, I'll get back to you.Bill

A VERY badly dubbed Italian vampire film from 1962. A young couple, Louise and Wolfgang (!!) in the 16th century (I believe) are menaced by a vampire.Nice black and white photography and a beautiful score can't save a very dull horror film with lousy dialogue, atrocious dubbing (I know I'm mentioning it a third time but it IS that bad!) and poor acting. More laughs than anything else. I was especially amused that the victims of the vampire have no marks on their necks! And some of the dialogue had me laughing out loud. However, both Wolfgang and Louise are VERY attractive and Louise wears incredibly low-cut dresses. Still, that's no reason to see this film.Let's put it this way---this is a vampire film with a G rating! What does that tell you? Avoid--unless you have insomnia.

WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD: I have a weakness for European low-budget horror films from the 1960s so I watched this film wanting very much to find some good in it. Unfortunately, my attempt was in vain. Walter Brandi (spelled "Brandy" in the credits) plays the vampire (or one of them). He had been in a movie before this called THE VAMPIRE AND THE BALLERINA where he sported a cool make-up job. Well, he has no such cool make-up job in this film. In fact, there's not much of anything cool in this film. The music score is nothing special. The B&W photography isn't that great and neither are the sets. It's mostly a bunch of un- interesting people sitting around talking for the greater part of it's running time. WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILER AHEAD:At the end, the vampire is staked and disintegrates. Sound cool? Don't bet on it. If you want cool disintegration scenes, see FRIGHT NIGHT (1985) or HORROR OF DRACULA (1958) or THE EVIL DEAD (1982). If you want to see a disintegration scene handled poorly, watch as the filmmakers dissolve from Walter Brandi to a series of drawings of withered heads then a skull then nothing. Also, the drawings move about in relation to one another with each dissolve. I made a better disintegration scene as a kid with a Super 8 camera and some modelling clay. After seeing this, I understand why it isn't even mentioned in most books about horror films.