Michael_Elliott
Fangs of the Living Dead (1969) ** (out of 4)Malenka (Anita Ekberg) receives word that she has inherited a castle so she heads off to claim it. As soon as she arrives in town she gets the cold shoulder from locals when they find out where she's going. Once she arrives at the castle she is greeted by Uncle (Julian Ugarte) who seems to be holding back some deep secrets.FANGS OF THE LIVING DEAD, the film's U.S. title, isn't the greatest film you're ever going to see but it became a public domain staple on television, VHS, DVD and that's where most people saw it. The film was directed by Amando de Ossorio and this here was his first venture into the horror genre, although he would make his name several years later with the Blind Dead series. As far as this film goes, it's pretty much your basic vampire tale without much originality.If you're familiar with the vampire lore or if you've ever seen a vampire movie then it's doubtful anything here is going to take you by surprise. I guess it's important to note that Spain and their run of horror films was just starting so I guess it was an obvious choice to go with a vampire film. This one here is beautiful to look at and there are some rich colors and some nice cinematography but that doesn't make up for the lack of a real story or of an interesting one.It's really too bad more wasn't done with the story because the elements are here for what should have been a much better film. I liked Ekberg in the lead role, although one might say she was a bit too old for the part. There's no question her name alone means a lot more today so getting to see her in a horror picture like this was quite nice. Ugarte was also good in his supporting bit and if you look quickly you'll spot Paul Muller. The film also benefits from a nice music score.FANGS OF THE LIVING DEAD isn't an awful movie but there's no question that it's rather bland story makes for a boring film.
Aaron1375
While not a completely horrid movie watching experience for the most part I have to say this film is just does not pack enough bite. I own this movie in a pack with like a bunch of other horror movies. I did not know what to expect with this one, but I did not have high hopes thanks to its PG rating. When it first came on and it was a couple of guys in a office I was thinking "maybe it will not be so bad, at least they are not in a castle". It is not to long after that the fiancé of one of the guys inherits a castle and that made me think that it we are about to venture into the old castle foray that was so prevalent during this time period. Lady goes to place, town full of superstitious people, and then she meets her mysterious uncle who does not come out till after dark. Basically your standard plot for this type of movie. When her fiancé comes looking for her after she writes a letter breaking off the engagement it livens up the film a bit, but not enough to totally save it, rather he makes it a tolerable piece to watch. There are twists at the end, some of which left me confused on some points and the final scene was a tad strange as they threw in some comedy near the end that seemed out of place considering the first bit was devoid of any attempts at humor. There is not much gore and absolutely no skin (it is a PG film), but you do get to see a lot of cleavage and cute outfits so a plus on that front. Basically a retelling of Dracula in some ways that had some good moments and while overall it needed lots of work it also did not bore me at any time either.
Vomitron_G
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.
