Fangs of the Living Dead (1973)

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

A different way of telling a story

Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

'What can we do to end all this nonsense?' asks one character in Fangs of the Living Dead. Well, there's always the stop button, but I'm made of sterner stuff than that. Besides, this silly Gothic horror from Amando de Ossorio, director of the Blind Dead series, mightn't be all that great, but it does offer up several very attractive Euro-babes who, although they don't get naked, do look extremely ravishing throughout, revealing about as much cleavage as a slip of a dress possibly can. And hot babes always make the going a lot easier.Anita Ekberg is the leading lady in this silly vampire romp about an heiress, Sylvia Morel, discovering that her new castle is home to bloodsuckers, but she is easily eclipsed by buxom brunette Adriana Ambesi as sexy vamp Blinka, and Diana Lorys and Rosanna Yanni as beautiful barmaid sisters Bertha and Freya Zemis. Together, this trio of tasty totty ensured that, although the plot was unremarkable and the direction uninspired, I was able to see Fangs to the very end, which, while I'm on the subject, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever (at least in the version I saw): after revealing that the whole vampire thing is a ruse cooked up by Sylvia's uncle, Count Walbrooke (Julián Ugarte), to have his niece committed, the count turns out to be a vampire after all (he disintegrates in flames), after which Max (César Benet), comedy sidekick of Sylvia's fiancé Piero (Gianni Medici), also sprouts a pair of fangs. Confusing, to say the least.

I viewed the 90 minute version, "Malenka, the Niece of the Vampire," and checked all the other comments before deciding to make a few observations of my own. There is precious little atmosphere in this film, Anita Ekberg's character does indeed come off as annoying, engendering no sympathy. It seems to me that Malenka was neither witch nor vampire, but an alchemist who died at the stake, but not before successfully prolonging the life of Anita Ekberg's 'uncle.' The girl in the castle and the one from the tavern were only pretending to be vampires, as we see the latter installing her fangs in a tiny compact mirror, and neither are seen after the fiery demise of the 'uncle,' disintegrating simultaneously with the burning portrait. In the 74 minute TV version, titled "Fangs of the Living Dead," there is a gag ending not seen in the longer print, Rosanna Yanni, sister of the tavern girl, being chased by the dizzy friend of Anita's doctor fiancée, sporting a set of fangs. What appears to be a clichéd retread winds up being a huge disappointment, with no vampires, only one real villain, no sex or nudity, no real violence or gore, and leaving a bad yawn in one's mouth. I first saw this film on Pittsburgh's Chiller Theater back in 1978, alongside superior Spanish horrors such as "The Murder Mansion," "Horror Rises from the Tomb," "The Bell from Hell," "It Happened at Nightmare Inn," and "The Night of the Sorcerers," another credit for Amando de Ossorio, who wrote and directed "Malenka." Such features became cherished friends for long-time horror buffs like me, but now we are able to see them in all their uncut gory glory, with nudity intact. In this case entire sequences were missing from the Chiller Theater broadcast (all expendable exposition, as indeed the entire film turned out to be), and today you see what was missing and judge for yourself. Only the gag at the end, running about a minute and a half, remained exclusive to the TV version, plus one scene depicting the burial of the phony vampire Berthe, whose name is prominently displayed on the tombstone.

You know… I really was looking forward to seeing this movie, by only having read the synopsis. It's about this woman, Sylvia, who inherits a family castle in Italy. The other thing I knew, was that it was a (horror) movie from 1969. I didn't even know it was directed by Amando de Ossorio, the director who also was responsible for the infamous BLIND DEAD "quadrilogy". If I had known this, I might have looked forward to it even more. But anyway, given the premise and the year this movie was made in, I was expecting an atmospheric Gothic Horror movie with at least a bit of gruesome or scary material in it. Well, I wasn't even halfway right. This is indeed a pathetic attempt at Gothic Horror, but the atmosphere isn't as effective as it should be and the story is uneventful and very predictable. I mean, yeah, there are a couple of scenes with red and blue lighting in some tombs underneath the castle that, when watched from a distance, vaguely look like something Mario Bava might have cooked up while he was drunk. But that's about it, as far as mood and atmosphere goes.I just don't get people that say "It's a Euro-Horror classic" and slap it with, for instance, 8/10. Yeah, it's an old horror movie. Yeah, it's from Europe. Does that make it automatically a decent genre-classic? If you want the answer to that, I'll just advice you to take Mario Bava's OPERAZIONE PAURA (aka KILL, BABY, KILL), and put it next to Ossorio's MALENKA and then tell me which one is the good movie and which the bad. Okay, yeah, I'm getting a bit carried away here, probably because I was disappointed after seeing this Ossorio snooze-fest. FANGS OF THE LIVING DEAD is not completely without merits. Let's see… The castle setting is (always) great, even if it just features people walking around in it. There's a couple of busty ladies showing cleavage. One even gets some whoopee from a whip, while chained in a dungeon. The rest of the movie has Sylvia's boyfriend discussing with the town's doctor whether or not vampires do exist. And yes, we do get to see more than a couple of fake white fangs, but no blood really. No scares, no action (and by "action" I don't mean stunts or fights, but just something eventful or a couple of good moments). The little background story about the great-grandma (when she was young and quite attractive) being a witch and experimenting with alchemy was about the most interesting thing about the whole plot. Someone on here even pointed out that this was a comedy of some sorts. Well sure, the version I've seen was a pretty bad movie, but I wouldn't exactly call it a comedy. Except for that final, idiotic running-over-the-bridge gag. Man, that was so misplaced… So, I guess most of the movie's humor was lost on me. Apparently, there are different versions of this movie out there. Mine was about real vampires, had a stupid joke at the end, and only ran 74 minutes. And that, for me, was long enough.I say FANGS OF THE LIVING DEAD is strictly for avid Euro Horror fans. Bad movie-lovers won't even have fun with it, because it's just not bad enough (although the acting was pretty much laughter-stirring all the time). I'm not even mad I wasted my time on it, as it was part of a 9-movie box-set (called THE LIVING DEAD), and some of the other movies were more than worth it. So I'm not complaining. Oh well, after all there was a witch burning at a stake and a wooden stick got driven through a vampire's heart, so if you please, you can think up an extra point just for that. But the gag at the end still remains dumb.

A beautiful woman (Anita Ekberg) learns she has inherited a family castle. She travel to Italy to take a look at it but finds her grandmother was a witch and her uncle is one of the undead (a vampire). He has every intention of making sure she joins the family...but her boyfriend shows up looking for her.A real snooze. The plot doesn't make a whole lot of sense (although that's common with Italian horror movies) and the acting is terrible. Ekberg is certainly a beautiful woman but her reactions to things were badly done--VERY! I can't give a very accurate judgment of her performance (she's dubbed along with everybody else) but what I saw was pretty lousy. The rest of the cast is about as good as her. The movie drags on (even in the 80 minute version I saw) with things happening left and right that don't make the slightest bit of sense. Also there's next to no blood or violence (this film is VERY PG rated) and the makeup on the vampires is pretty comical (the fangs are WAY too big). It all ends with a terrible gag ending that had me rolling my eyes.In defense of this, the print I saw was in full screen with badly faded colors--but even letter-boxed and in bright colors wouldn't change the "story" or terrible acting.Pop this one on if you have sleep problems--you'll be dead asleep in no time! A 1.