Review: Lust for a Vampire

Set in Austria, Count and Countess Karnstein (Mike Raven and Barbara Jefford) have managed to resurrect Mircalla, previously seen in “The Vampire Lovers”, but this time with Danish-born Yutte Stensgaard replacing Polish-born Ingrid Pitt. The Countess, who normally goes by the name Countess Herritzen enrols the beautiful Mircalla at a posh girls’ school as her niece. Here she seduces and feeds off the blood of nubile young students, whilst occult/horror writer-turned-teacher Michael Johnson and nerdy history teacher Ralph Bates find themselves besotted with the new arrival. Christopher Neame can be seen amongst the torch-brandishing villagers towards the end, whilst Pippa Steele (last seen in “The Vampire Lovers”) once again plays a sapphically-inclined and ill-fated young woman.

 

Although it contains a healthy dose of nudity, this 1971 Hammer film from director  Jimmy Sangster (director of “The Horror of Frankenstein” and writer of “The Horror of Dracula”) and writer/producer Tudor Gates (who co-wrote the cult classic “Barbarella”) is a real tease. It’s certainly the weakest in the trilogy of female vampire films Hammer began with “The Vampire Lovers” and concluded with “Twins of Evil” (both written by Gates). Aside from not enough sex being had amongst the clearly horny school of young ladies, it’s definitely the script that is to blame here. It’s just not very good, with a lot of underdeveloped characters and confusion here and there. In particular, the supposed connection between Michael Johnson’s teacher/novelist and Yutte Stensgaard’s Carmilla/Mircalla is sorely lacking, as though we’ve missed the scene that really sets it up.

 

I also think it was extremely cheap of Hammer to not only hire a cut-rate Christopher Lee (Mike Raven, allegedly an occultist in real-life who quit acting after his off-screen interests started to overshadow his career) to play the not very interesting or necessary Count Karnstein (Raven himself sounds more interesting!), but Sangster (who replaced Terence Fisher at the last minute as director) has clearly and shamelessly inserted shots of Lee’s infamous Dracula blood-shot eyes. It’s blatant, and really quite disgraceful, making this film feel somewhat cheap and classless. And that’s a shame, because in terms of set design, scenery captured by cinematographer David Muir (“And Now For Something Completely Different”), and the music score by Harry Robinson (“The Vampire Lovers”, “Twins of Evil”), the film has genuine merit. Muir’s camerawork gets a little too fancy at times, however, with dopey, out-of-place lip-licking POV shots that just aren’t necessary.

 

Yutte Stensgaard (a pretty-eyed dead ringer for ABBA’s Agnetha, if you ask me) didn’t have the happiest of times in the acting profession, and in the lead role she may not be Ingrid Pitt (“The Vampire Lovers”), but she is nonetheless pretty good as the alluring but treacherous and aloof vampire seductress. She’s certainly miles ahead of her leading man the merely OK Michael Johnson, but even he’s better than some Hammer romantic leads I could name. Their love scene might be one of the most unfortunately goofy in cinematic history because a) It’s set to the weirdest and one of the worst love ballads of all-time called ‘Strange Love’, and b) Stensgaard goes cross-eyed during the scene for God knows what reason. It’s a very, very weird scene, almost comical.

 

Perhaps the best performance comes from the underrated Ralph Bates, who really ought to have become the successor to Christopher Lee, but it never quite happened for some reason. His performance is a little mannered at times, but his Renfield-esque character is by far the most interesting character in the film, and he is certainly the most accomplished performer here (With all due respect to long-serving character actress Barbara Jefford, whose Countess is seriously underdeveloped).

 

The fiery finale seems to come out of a “Frankenstein” film more than a vampire film, but is undeniably exciting in an overall very uneven film with too many characters with nothing to do. The film is never as sexy or explicit as it should be, as British horror films of the period tended to exercise restraint. That coupled with an uneven script, and the whole stupid Mircalla/Carmilla thing (almost as stupid as ‘Johnny Alucard’ from “Dracula AD 1972”) drag this Hammer entry down considerably.

 

Yutte Stensgaard and the other ladies are sexy as hell and Ralph Bates is almost always entertaining to watch, but the well-shot film isn’t one of Hammer’s best. There’s potential for one helluva sexy film here, but all we get are some fantastic boobs and a little bit of necking. Disappointing, if not worthless, this one’s just OK I’m afraid.

 

Rating: C+