The Slaughter of the Vampires (1962)

How sad is this?

Highly Overrated But Still Good

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

"The Slaughter of the Vampires" tells what is a pretty standard story. It does things competently but never extravagantly. Written and directed by Roberto Mauri, it stars the creepy looking Dieter Eppler as a blood sucker. On the run from angry villagers, he holes up in the basement of a castle. This castle belongs to newlywed couple Wolfgang (Walter Brandi) and Louise (Graziella Granata). In no time our night stalking antagonist is seducing Louise. Fearful for her life, Wolfgang turns to a specialist, Dr. Nietzsche (Luigi Batzella), who's a pretty fair stand-in for Van Helsing.The atmosphere is decent, the dialogue fairly eloquent, and some of the performances are adequate. Eppler and Batzella are clearly standouts. It doesn't hurt any that there are some very attractive ladies present. However, Wolfgang is a pretty big dummy, as one will see, and it's a good thing Dr. Nietzsche is so competent. Pacing is deliberate, and the running time is a reasonably short 79 minutes. Overall, the film is romantic and sexy, and eerie enough, if never exactly scary. However, none of this really makes up for what is such trite material.Certainly watchable, but hardly inspired.Six out of 10.

Although this movie sports the cool word "slaughter" in its title, this movie is very much the old Dracula story all over again (with only a minor twist at the end). While there are a few differences (such as the vampire looking pretty weird--a bit like a blond Liberace with raccoon eyes) as well as more cleavage than usual, the essence of the film is the same old same old--though the names have been changed. Although there is no one named Van Helsing or Nina Harker, the characters are still there but with different names. The biggest difference is that the entire first portion of the book and original movies is absent--and it begins later in the story. The only serious negatives are the silly music (which might have sounded better in a sci-fi flick) and the silly look of the vampire. Because the story is so similar and there isn't any new innovation to make it memorable, this is a story horror fans don't need to rush out to see, as the Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee versions cover the same territory but do it much better.By the way, there were some complaints about the dubbing, though for a 1960s import, the quality isn't bad (except for the little girl--which sounds like an adult trying to sound like a girl). The voices seem appropriate and it wasn't a noticeable problem. Still, like many viewers, I would have preferred this to have been subtitled instead of dubbed into English.

I first watched this film on TV in the late 60's, early 70's. At that time i thought that it was a pretty good film. Recently, i purchased it on DVD and have, somewhat, changed my mind. The atmosphere, castle and surrounding settings are very good, however, the acting could be better. The opening sequence is great, however, the movie goes downhill from there. Graziella Granata, is drop dead gorgeous and Walter Brandi, her husband/male lead is OK. My main problem is with Dieter Eppler, the Vampire. He is way too stiff and his makeup is overdone. He,i assume, does his best with what he has to work with but looks like an extra in a stage play, who just comes in and out. The music is fine and the film, overall, is worth watching. I just feel that it could have been so much better. John R. Tracy

WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD: I have a weakness for European low-budget horror films from the 1960s so I watched this film wanting very much to find some good in it. Unfortunately, my attempt was in vain. Walter Brandi (spelled "Brandy" in the credits) plays the vampire (or one of them). He had been in a movie before this called THE VAMPIRE AND THE BALLERINA where he sported a cool make-up job. Well, he has no such cool make-up job in this film. In fact, there's not much of anything cool in this film. The music score is nothing special. The B&W photography isn't that great and neither are the sets. It's mostly a bunch of un- interesting people sitting around talking for the greater part of it's running time. WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILER AHEAD:At the end, the vampire is staked and disintegrates. Sound cool? Don't bet on it. If you want cool disintegration scenes, see FRIGHT NIGHT (1985) or HORROR OF DRACULA (1958) or THE EVIL DEAD (1982). If you want to see a disintegration scene handled poorly, watch as the filmmakers dissolve from Walter Brandi to a series of drawings of withered heads then a skull then nothing. Also, the drawings move about in relation to one another with each dissolve. I made a better disintegration scene as a kid with a Super 8 camera and some modelling clay. After seeing this, I understand why it isn't even mentioned in most books about horror films.