Azizkhuja T
"Lust for a Vampire" (1971) stands out as a notable entry in the catalog of the British film studio Hammer, renowned for its horror films. The movie serves as the second installment in the so-called Karnstein Trilogy, loosely based on the 1872 novella "Carmilla" by Sheridan Le Fanu. Central to the plot is the resurrection of Count and Countess Karnstein's daughter, Carmilla, and the subsequent events unfolding in a small village and the nearby Karnstein Castle.
The film is characterized by the gothic atmosphere and aesthetics typical of Hammer productions, yet it also introduces elements of camp and eroticism, marking a bold move for the early '70s. This is particularly evident in scenes featuring Yutte Stensgaard, whose portrayal of Mircalla/Carmilla became iconic. The film is also noted for its frank discussion of lesbian themes, which, despite criticism, adds to its historical significance in the genre's evolution.
Key performances by Michael Johnson, Yutte Stensgaard, Ralph Bates, and Barbara Jefford inject the film with a sense of nostalgia for classic horror movies, as well as a degree of irony. Directed by Jimmy Sangster, who personally did not regard this work as his best achievement, the film undoubtedly occupies an important place in Hammer's history.
Despite mixed reviews from critics and accusations of being overly camp from some Hammer fans, "Lust for a Vampire" has gained cult status over time. This film serves as an intriguing testament to its era, reflecting changes in audience tastes and the shifting boundaries of what was considered acceptable in cinema. It boasts memorable visual imagery and the ability to elicit strong emotions from viewers, ranging from horror to an ironic smile.
Ultimately, "Lust for a Vampire" is worth watching not only as a representative of the horror genre but also as a significant historical artifact, illustrating the evolution of cinematic thought and the transformation of sociocultural norms.
Rated 5/5 Stars •
Rated 5 out of 5 stars
02/21/24
Full Review
Audience Member
By this time, Hammer's golden days were over, audiences were tired of the gothic horror they made and this is not one of their best. There's very little horror in the film and at times it's extremely camp. However, despite a daft ending, there's still the odd glimpse of what Hammer did so well. Ralph Bates said it was his worst film, and you can see why. In a daft hair style and glasses he looks like Charles Hawtrey.
Rated 2/5 Stars •
Rated 2 out of 5 stars
01/22/23
Full Review
Matthew D
A disappointing sequel to The Vampire Lovers. Slower pacing, not as atmospheric (much of it takes place in broad daylight) and the drama just isn't as compelling. Overall, it is watchable, but that's about all I can say for it.
Rated 2/5 Stars •
Rated 2 out of 5 stars
08/18/21
Full Review
Audience Member
Easily the lowest in quality when it comes to the Karnstein Trilogy of Hammer Horror films. There are by far worst films that could be watched and and looked back for time wasted. Watching this film you will not waste your time even if you don't enjoy it, it is not without its merits from its lead actors.
Rated 2.5/5 Stars •
Rated 2.5 out of 5 stars
02/11/23
Full Review
andrey k
It's not as good as the first movie, and often boring, but is not awful either; the main fault is that this movie is not about vampires or lesbian vampires, it's about the blond Yutte Stensgaard - the director couldn't get enough of her, and that wasn't a bad thing too, by the way.
Rated 3/5 Stars •
Rated 3 out of 5 stars
03/31/23
Full Review
Audience Member
A letdown from Hammer. This is a silly and boring vampire flick.
Rated 1/5 Stars •
Rated 1 out of 5 stars
01/20/23
Full Review
Read all reviews
Post a rating
>
