Badmovies.org Forum

1. And you will say to me: but if it is a Comedy! Certain, a parody of a genre, the vampiric, which precisely these years was situated in its maximum brilliance thanks to the Hammer. It is true, but it is probably the only one case (cant think right now in another one) in that the parody of a genre works perfectly as movie of the genre in it selfe.Damn  it is a rare  case in which the parody turns into one of the masterpieces of the parodied in it self . The Dance of the Vampires is one of the vampires' best movies of the history of the cinema in spite of being a comedy. In fact, some taken scenes, separately, work to the perfection as scenes of terror: the irruption of the count in the beggining or the resurrection of the vampires who come to the dance they are good samples of it.
2. thats is , it is a vampires' movie. Though its been made lots of s**t about them the vamipres are cool as much as canibal zombies or giant monsters.
3. And what vampires! The Count Von Krolock its great, but then there is a couple of dozens more really decrepit , old. With smell of naphtalene. With spiderwebs. Old bulging vampires getting out  of  heir tombs to enjoy a good moment of minuet and a good banquet (Sharon Tate).
4. Sharon Tate. The producer proposed it as feminine protagonist to Polanski and this one agreed. Unfortunately she did not have time to do very much more, first for the pregnancyand then for the Manson Family. The certain thing is that she looks very pretty, almost always surrounded with foam and soap, red-haired and palely vampirizated.
5. Jack MacGowran like Teacher Abronsius. The whole discovery; an actor of scanty movies and always of secondary that embroiders the role)of absent-minded wise person, of theoretical of the vampirismo put in practical tasks with trend to the freezing.He had not also time to doing too many things more, and none as this one.
6. Roman Polanski. I suppose that Sharon's death left him out of place, probably forever. His first movies are, without doubt, the best: Repulsion, Rosemary´s baby, Chinatown and this one in wich, besides, is the co-protagonist, Alfred, the bewildered one and young assistant of the Teacher. And as actor of comedy he does it quite well. And there is a great chemistry with the teacher.
7. Koukol, the hunchback. Clearly inspired by the Lon Chaney of Notre Dame, visually seem to me great to see it with the separated legs seizing the axe and covering the crypt where the vampires sleep. An image that is  almost a cartoon.
8. The visual splastick. The mute humor that does not need words. The movie is very generous in this aspect and many honorings are allowed the cinema : from the acceleration of the movement (that, for stranger who it seems, does not bother anything) up to the scene in which with a telescope the teacher Abronsius contemplates how Shagall besieges the servant while his wife weeps for the step of his husband to the Legion of  the Dead men. Or the walk along the avenues of the castle.
9. The fine variations that its practised on the vampirism. it is   intelligent and in its ,  very original. The first one, Shagall, the Jewish owner of the tavern, once turned into vampire he doenst care at all  when they show him a cross. Words do not need, with a simple contemptuous movement  he contributes to a whole innovation: "  C mon, what are you doing , it does not affect me at all, you do not see that I am a Jew ?" he  seems to say. The second one: the vampire clarely and openly gay (protagonist of a long and a ver  funny scene).
10. The location, magnificent. Transylvania is this mythical place that  we all imagine. The wolves howl in the distance. The tavern and the villagers are like they have to be.The photography, pale as the skin of a vampire. The suits. Everything.
11. The snow, the desert frozen high plateaus, they scare me, look like to me perfect sets for a terror movie . Here Polanski enjoy playing with this sensation.

12. The end accompanied of the lapidary phrase of the narrator. I am not going to explain it, i dont like spoilers,but I love it.



Post Edited (09-10-05 07:06)

I love this movie as well. It was one I saw as a teenager, and I was fascinated by it even then. I didn't see it again for years until I found that my college library had a copy, so I checked it out and was still floored by the writing and camera work. Needless to say, I was quite excited when the DVD version was (finally) released.

Good, slightly weird, undoubtly funny movie... the kind of late night film I love."...that necrophile!" still rings in the back of my head.

I agree, it is a brilliant film, especially when there edited footage is restored.

I think it is the first movie where the victim bites the vampire(!)

And although the time to reach a boil was appallingly short, I found the use of the cannon to escape the armoury refreshingly original.

Then of course there is the 'oops, I think I goofed' scene with the jewish vampire near the end.

So many classic scenes.

I mean, how can a movie that is alternately titled 'PARDON ME BUT YOUR TEETH ARE IN MY NECK'  be bad?

Here are three more reasons to see it.

(1) The acting.
(2) The directing.
(3) The writing.

And one good reason not to see it, and this is the killer for me.

(1) Except for the last scene with the hunchback, it's just not funny. Which is death for a comedy.

I've seen many so called 'comedies' that were nothing of the sort.  They were excellent movies.  The Fearless Vampire Killers is not really a comedy.  It is a campy vampire movie.  It took me thirty five years to finally see it and I had to borow it off an ex.  I loved it.