By about 1970, the fortunes of Hammer Studios were bleak. Despite a long string of cool horror films, the studio was deeply in debt and appeared ready to fold unless something happened..and fast. So what did they do to try to prevent the inevitable? They sexed up the films! As a result, the previously gory but innocent films were soon peppered with lots of very gratuitous nudity in the hope that these nudie monster films would attract a wider audience. In actuality, my assumption is that it did the opposite and the studio closed its doors soon after this change. Perhaps they should have just considered diversifying into some other genres. Regardless, it's all academic now. I mentioned all this because "Vampire Circus" is one of the best examples of this new Hammer film--one with lots of boobies and a distinctly adult flair. So despite this is it worth seeing? Read on...
The film begins with a long-haired and hip looking male vampire killing a child as his naked girlfriend watches and enjoys the bloodshed. Soon, however, villagers attack and the vampire has his heart pierced with the 'ol wooden stake. The nasty girlfriend remains alive and the dying vampire gives her some instructions and his heart-broken love runs off in response to his request. My question is this....WHY, if she loved him so, didn't she just pull the stake out and bring him back to life?!?! I mean, I've seen this in several other vampire movies...and you'd think she'd give it a try!! However, violating previous vampire movie lore is certainly NOT unusual--and it happens all the time (such as sparkly daytime vampires who drink animal blood in "Twilight").
In the next scene, a traveling circus troop arrives in same small town. After you see them perform the naked green tiger dance (in which an almost completely naked green-painted skull-capped lady performs simulated sex acts on her male partner), you wonder why it wasn't titled "Vampire Sex Circus"! In fact, the whole monster and vampire angle of this film seems almost irrelevant to the circus and the film in its time was probably seen as a soft-core porno film (though by today's standards it's somewhat tame). I am not a total prude, but just felt the horror aspect was all but forgotten. Soon after, bad things naturally start to occur--with the villagers turning up dead--sometimes after having been torn apart by animals--complete with lots of red paint and some cheap looking corpses and mixed body parts. Apparently the old dead vampire is ticked and cousin and his company of sick friends are helping him exact his revenge.
So what's the verdict? Is it worth seeing? Well, if you don't want to see a lot of skin, you should definitely skip this one. As for the rest, it certainly is not as good as the earlier Hammer films and seemed a bit disjoint. It's not a terrible film--just not among their better ones. It definitely falls in the category of "see this one if you've already seen the rest"! I have a few last observations. Perhaps the vampire boss was over-compensating in this film as his fangs were the longest I can recall having seen--even longer than Nosferatu's long buck-teeth. I guess this emphasis on length makes sense in a porno sort of film!! Also, the very young looking Dora was played by Lynne Frederick--last wife of Peter Sellers and later wife of David Frost. She had a rather brief film career and died very young due to substance abuse. Sad.
The film begins with a long-haired and hip looking male vampire killing a child as his naked girlfriend watches and enjoys the bloodshed. Soon, however, villagers attack and the vampire has his heart pierced with the 'ol wooden stake. The nasty girlfriend remains alive and the dying vampire gives her some instructions and his heart-broken love runs off in response to his request. My question is this....WHY, if she loved him so, didn't she just pull the stake out and bring him back to life?!?! I mean, I've seen this in several other vampire movies...and you'd think she'd give it a try!! However, violating previous vampire movie lore is certainly NOT unusual--and it happens all the time (such as sparkly daytime vampires who drink animal blood in "Twilight").
In the next scene, a traveling circus troop arrives in same small town. After you see them perform the naked green tiger dance (in which an almost completely naked green-painted skull-capped lady performs simulated sex acts on her male partner), you wonder why it wasn't titled "Vampire Sex Circus"! In fact, the whole monster and vampire angle of this film seems almost irrelevant to the circus and the film in its time was probably seen as a soft-core porno film (though by today's standards it's somewhat tame). I am not a total prude, but just felt the horror aspect was all but forgotten. Soon after, bad things naturally start to occur--with the villagers turning up dead--sometimes after having been torn apart by animals--complete with lots of red paint and some cheap looking corpses and mixed body parts. Apparently the old dead vampire is ticked and cousin and his company of sick friends are helping him exact his revenge.
So what's the verdict? Is it worth seeing? Well, if you don't want to see a lot of skin, you should definitely skip this one. As for the rest, it certainly is not as good as the earlier Hammer films and seemed a bit disjoint. It's not a terrible film--just not among their better ones. It definitely falls in the category of "see this one if you've already seen the rest"! I have a few last observations. Perhaps the vampire boss was over-compensating in this film as his fangs were the longest I can recall having seen--even longer than Nosferatu's long buck-teeth. I guess this emphasis on length makes sense in a porno sort of film!! Also, the very young looking Dora was played by Lynne Frederick--last wife of Peter Sellers and later wife of David Frost. She had a rather brief film career and died very young due to substance abuse. Sad.