ChikPapa Very disappointed :(

Supelice Dreadfully Boring

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Myron Clemons A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

Tweetienator Dance of the Vampires gets well mixed reviews but for me it worked and works still well - I watched and re-watched it numerous times and still like it a lot.A real fun (sometimes) slapstick classic with a nice cinematography. Whereas I find Repulsion boring and outdated of this one I will never get tired. For certain not Polanski's best or most ambitious one, but a well done comedy it is. Like Pirates (1986) fun to watch and on top we get hot Sharon Tate. Good.

Wuchak Released in 1967 and directed by Roman Polanski, "The Fearless Vampire Killers" stars Jack MacGowran and Polanski as an elderly bat researcher and his young assistant who go to Transylvania where the latter falls in love with an inn-keeper's daughter, Sarah (Sharon Tate). When she is suddenly taken captive by Count Krolock (Ferdy Mayne) the duo travel to his creepy castle to save her. Fiona Lewis plays a lovely blond maid while Iain Quarrier plays the Count's gay son. Terry Downes is on hand as the Count's hunchbacked assistant.Over a year before this movie was released the Gilligan's Island episode "Up at Bat" debuted where Gilligan thought he was turning into a vampire and had a dream about being a Dracula-like Count in Transylvania. That dream sequence is what "The Fearless Vampire Killers" is like, except that the movie naturally has better locations and sets; unfortunately, Gilligan's dream is way funnier and just overall more effective.Which isn't to say that "The Fearless Vampire Killers" doesn't have its points of interest. It's important for historical reasons as one of the famous director's early feature films, not to mention the inclusion of Sharon Tate, who became Polanski's wife not long after the movie was released (Sharon was, of course, murdered by the Manson wackos in California on August 9, 1969). But these points of interest can't make a dull horror comedy compelling. Don't get me wrong, there are several amusing moments (amusing, not laugh-out-loud funny), but I found it almost painfully soporific with Sharon and Fiona being the only two highlights, and they're unfortunately not in it that much. Similar horror comedies that came out later, like 1971's "The Vampire Happening" and especially 1974's "Young Frankenstein," far surpass it.The movie was originally butchered by the studio without Polanski's permission; they took out 19 minutes and added an animation sequence for the opening titles. The version I saw was the Polanski-approved longer version. But, seeing as how the movie plays so dull, they were wise to cut those 19 minutes.The long version of the film runs 108 minutes and was shot in the mountains of northern Italy (Veneto & Alto Adige) and in the studio in England (e.g. the ballroom).GRADE: C-

classicsoncall Uh-oh, truth in advertising - bait and switch - let the viewer beware! There are no dead vampires in this flick, and our fearless vampire killers are rather incompetent. Maybe that was the point, the film is supposed to be a horror comedy, but you really have to force yourself to come to that conclusion. At least for me, the story was sooooo long, with interminable scenes stretching the distance from one point to another the way horse chase scenes did in 'B' Westerns from the Thirties and Forties.Not that it was a total waste of time, I rather enjoyed the expertly choreographed minuet of the vampires, and Sharon Tate herself was lovely. In his introduction to the film on Turner Classics, host Robert Osborne stated that director Polanski had Jill St. John in mind for the role of Sarah, but when she wasn't available, was intrigued by the way Tate looked in the red wig. Good for him, he got a wife out of the deal, but tragically, she became a victim of the Manson gang just a couple of years later.Ferdy Mayne, cool name, had a great look as Count von Krolock; with his extensive list of film credits I'm surprised I haven't seen him before. Or maybe I have and just don't realize it. Seems to me he could have been right up there with Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing with the right career breaks.Upon initial release, MGM chopped nineteen minutes out of the movie at which point Polanski demanded he be removed from the credits list. MGM refused, but fortunately for cable viewers, TCM aired it the other night in it's original version. For my part, I couldn't tell if that was good or bad.

movieed1 Gorgeous film and cinematography values, excellent visuals but long long moments of tedium...balanced only by beautiful set designs. It just needed to be moved along faster. That being said, my first Horror Spoofs were "Rocky Horror Picture Show" and "Young Frankenstein". Therefore, I am not used to the snail-paced character development. The first hour is pure beauty to look at, but IMHO the second hour FINALLY moves us along at a pace more related to spoof movies similar to Brooks and Rocky. Overall it's a beautifully produced and filmed movie...if you can make it through the first hour and 1/2 it is a pleasant journey. 5/10 for time 9/10 for cinematography and set design...still waiting for the hilarious dinner party... Otherwise Enjoy!