4/10
Badly scripted sequel to The Vampire Lovers, too reliant on titillation at the expense of just about everything else.
22 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Lust For A Vampire is the second of the Karnstein films from Hammer, following on from the rather impressive The Vampire Lovers. The films were inspired by Sheridan Le Fanu's Carmilla, and once again the character of Carmilla features significantly in the plot here (Yutte Stensgaard taking over the role from Ingrid Pitt, who was memorably beheaded at the climax of the previous film). Indeed the film opens with one of those typical blood-sacrifice resurrection sequences that seemed a staple ingredient of the Hammer Dracula movies, only this time the blood of a village virgin is used to bring our favourite lesbian vampire back to life.

In the shadow of the abandoned Karnstein Castle, a young maiden is picked up by a mysterious carriage. Grateful for the lift, she climbs aboard willingly… but it turns out to be the last mistake she ever makes. The girl is taken up to the castle where her throat is slit, the resulting blood spillage used to resurrect the long dead lesbian vampire Carmilla (Yutte Stensgaard). Writer Richard Lestrange (Michael Johnson) is visiting the village to research a new book when he learns of the girl's disappearance and the villagers' superstitious fears. Dismissing their worries as nonsense, he heads up to the castle to investigate. He learns that there is a newly opened finishing school close to the castle, run by Miss Simpson (Helen Christie) and creepy schoolmaster Giles Barton (Ralph Bates). Lestrange is instantly besotted with one of the girls at the school – a young blonde named Mircalla (you've guessed it – it's Carmilla, using a cunning anagram to disguise her identity!) Lestrange spends the rest of the movie lusting after Mircalla (hence the film's title), little realising – or not caring if he does – the peril in which he is placing himself.

Since the extra helpings of sex, nudity and lesbianism had gone down so well in The Vampire Lovers, even more is thrown in to Lust For A Vampire. Sadly, it brings nothing to the story – it just acts as a rather desperate, rather seedy tactic to generate extra box office for a not-very-good film. Stensgaard is used – like most of the female cast – for eye candy only; meanwhile, the best actor and character in the whole thing (Bates, as the lecherous Mr Barton) is bumped off far too soon into the proceedings. In fact, Tudor Gates' awkward and uneven script isn't kind to the actors at all – not just content with disposing of interesting characters too early, it also lets characters drift out of the story for long periods, and worse still, jarringly injects characters late in the film to get the plot moving again (the American father of one of Mircalla's victims and a saintly bishop being two examples of this). The script does no favours for the plot either, often rambling aimlessly off-track. It seems pretty clear throughout that Lust For A Vampire is bereft of ideas and energy, relying time after time on its more sensational aspects, namely the frequent pauses for nudity and titillation. It becomes preoccupied with sexuality and sensuality, and forgets to give as much time and effort to its other themes. While all this flesh on display might be enough to satisfy some viewers, it leaves twice as many again wishing that there was a bit more to (pardon the pun) get their teeth into.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed