Cineanalyst Hammer seems to have had a creative crisis of sorts regarding its vampire output in the eight-years absence, between the 1958 "Dracula" and the 1966 "Dracula: Prince of Darkness," of Christopher Lee in the Dracula role. "The Brides of Dracula" (1960) had Peter Cushing return as Van Helsing, but it's a dull retread, and kid-vamp Baron Meinster was a poor heir to Lee. Absent Lee, Cushing and any Dracula connection this outing, "The Kiss of the Vampire," at least, has a grown man in the role of its head vampire. And although it's slow going for a while after the opening credits, if you stick with it, you're in for a few treats.This probably would've benefited by being cut down to closer to an hour's length. The early automobile-out-of-gas episode, for instance, where the wife is left alone and, gasp, nothing happens, could've been left out. Or the innkeeper's sad wife, who disappears in the second half of the film, may as well have not been in the first half either. There probably could've been fewer protentive looks early on, as well. You can't really create mystery with such eyeballing when the movie's title tells us there's going to be vampires.Now, for the treats, we get one to start off when the Professor thrusts a shovel through the coffin and the heart of his turned daughter—resulting in the kind of blood splatter Hammer is beloved for. Vampires as decadent cultists is another good idea. Roman Polanski must've seen this for his ballroom sequence in "The Dance of the Vampires," a.k.a. "The Fearless Vampire Killers" (1967). The husband gives us Hammer's best makeshift cross yet by drawing it on his chest in his own blood. And for the grand finale, they realize the black-magic climax that, reportedly, Cushing thought (probably rightly) unwholesome for his Van Helsing in "The Brides of Dracula." Fortunately, the Van Helsing stand-in here, the Professor Zimmer, has no such qualms. The fake-bats biting the vampire cultists to death is just deliciously trashy.

rebeccalucy I actually quite enjoyed this film, but may be off putting to some! Definitely is a bit cheesy but if you can overlook that give it a watch. Sets and props used are lovely, a flashback to older film making. Costumes, such as the red dress, are really nice! They sometimes add extra layers of meaning (like a warning sign). The music was also great, very suspenseful and can build up tension. Most of the cinematography is standard, but it adds to the tension in places. However, the end of the film is a bit out of place and can date the film with the effects. The vampire costumes towards the end seem a bit weird being all white. Overall though a cheesy but fun vampire film!

Jim Player The 1963 underrated Hammer film "Kiss of the Vampire" often gets overlooked because of the lack of the Lee/Cushing/Fisher tandem, and also because it lacks the traditional vampire formula. That is unfortunate because "Kiss" could very well pass as a psychological thriller in a similar vein as a Hitchcock or Polanski film. Picking up on Peter Cushing's Cult of the Undead theme and taking it literally, Edward de Souza and Jennifer Daniel play Geraldb and Marianne Harcourt,honeymooners who are stranded in a strange town with a dark secret, and the loss of a child. Soon, the young couple is lured to the castle of Dr. Ravna and ultimately they are separated, Marianne seduced into the cult while the inebriated Gerald is tossed to the curb. The Hitchcock/Polanski element comes to play when de Souza becomes increasingly hysterical, demanding his wife who his hosts claim was never there - "You saw me come here with my wife, didn't you?....You opened the door for us!!!" "You came alone, sir." Of course no one has any memory of her, her name is missing from the ledger at the Inn as well as her entire wardrobe. Only one person believes him, Clifford Evans playing the eccentric, hard-drinking Professor Zimmer. Evan is an interesting antithesis to Peter Cushing and Andrew Keir, two godly men who would never resort to the dark arts while Evans has suffered personal loss and has no qualms about fighting fire with fire. Another quality about this film is that it could almost be seen as a social commentary about an assault upon the traditional family unit. The innkeepers daughter Tanya has been led astray, and Evans describes his own loss in terms that could be associated with the 60's drugs sex and cult influences. Scares are replaced by mood and atmosphere, such as the creepy masked ball where everyone has stopped dancing to admire their newest victim, and the obvious nod to Brides of Dracula where Tanya tries to resurrect her friend in the cemetery. This is one of those unique films where multiple viewings reveal hidden treasures.

lulu-17985 I'm not going to rehash the plot of the movie, because that has been done by most of the earlier reviews. I'm going to just touch on what I think worked-and what I think didn't. In terms of the atmosphere, cinematography, etc., I think they did a good job. It had the foreboding, eerie set up, for the most part. (Also, from this point, things might get a little spoilery.)There were so many things they did in this movie, IMO, that they really didn't set up properly. This movie is definitely formulaic-and I'm not criticizing it for that. What I am going to find fault with, though, is leaving part of the formula out. 19th century husband leaves his new wife sitting in their useless motorcar because they ran out of gas, and he needs to go get help. OK. It's also not necessarily bad that she got uncomfortable and decided to try and catch up with hubby, at least if they had bothered to have something unsettling happen before she decided to get out-but they didn't. Stuff happened after she got out of the car. Of course, part of this was so she could run into the stern Professor fellow who gave her a cryptic warning, which, of course, also did not help calm her already frayed nerves. Another thing I found out of sync was the "inn." It seemed like it was designed to be the "Ritz" of small Bavarian inns, but why? I don't know if we were supposed to deduce that the village once was more prosperous and merited such an establishment, but it seemed out of place. It would be like finding a deserted town in the Nevada desert that still had a fancy Hilton hotel there welcoming whatever guest might wander in- which is pretty much what happened here. Also, the innkeeper moderated from seeming happily oblivious to what was going on to being complicit- even if they were being coerced(and I think that was certainly implied.)The wife's behavior became more understandable once they showed the scene where she was grieving over her daughter-a scene which I thought was very effective, and probably the best acting in the whole movie. Even the main couple's faces expressed their understanding that they had almost intruded on a private, sad moment as they quietly withdrew to leave the poor women to grieve. Speaking of the main couple, they were naturally, happily naive. The man, of course, was one of means-inherited, naturally. He wasn't a snobby sort, though he certainly had no problem with the local "uppity-ups" recognizing his obvious value and integrity, sight unseen. Again, this isn't necessarily something that was unrealistic in terms of the "upper"class being, perhaps, as too trusting when dealing with someone they have assumed is also "upper class."Let me skip on to what I found was the biggest flaw in the show-and that was how "ho hum" the bad guys-and gals-were. The predecessor to this movie was, I believe(at least in terms of vampire movies)Brides of Dracula-and I found the vampire in that to be more intimidating, even with his fake, fluffy red wig and foppish appearance-than most of the vamps in this movie. It was almost laughable when the "hero" managed to grab his wife and run out of a whole room full of vampires-with almost none of them in pursuit except their one, I assume, human lackey. We in the audience needed much more exposition as to why this Drac wannabe had a castle full of other vampires who seemed to have nothing better to do than to either quiver in fear for various reasons, or carp at their "master." I mean, the village was supposedly pretty deserted- so, who was left for this house full of vampires to victimize and "feed" on? Even the visitors to the countryside were supposed to be rare- and the two naive victims had made a wrong turn to start with to end up out of gas in the middle of some obscure Bavarian forest. The one actor who did a decent job, IMO, was the "Van Helsing" type-Professor Zimmerman. In what screen time he was given he managed to convey that he wasn't just a grumpy drunk-but that there was a good reason he was the way he was, as well as a method to his madness.Last, but not least, I feel the climax could have been done much better. I saw it mentioned that, for some reason, they decided not to release this movie around the same time as the famed Hitchcock movie, The Birds-not because Hammer didn't want to compete with that movie(though that certainly would make sense)but because of the similar, mind-blowing "event." I can see the slight similarity, but the Hitchcock film did not shy away from showing, as much as they were allowed by the movie codes, how gruesome being attacked by a huge flock of birds could be. Likewise, this movie could have added to the discomfort-and certainly the horror-if they had portrayed, like The Birds, at least as much as possible(taking into consideration the aforementioned codes and the Hammer budget)a much more mutilated bunch of vampires being chowed down on, I assume, by a horde of vampire bats(the irony not supposed to be lost on we, the audience.) This was just about as "toothless," in terms of scares, a vampire movie was I have ever seen-and I've seen a bunch, at my age.