Young Carmilla (Annette Vadim) is jealous of her friend's engagement, and her obsession leads her to the tomb of a female vampire.
Critical reviews of this film seem overall negative. Mike Mayo says the "story makes less than complete sense", calls Vadim a "Bardot wannabe" who is "not nearly as frightening as" intended. He calls the performances as a whole "anemic". I think this is overly harsh. The story made sense to me, and Vadim has no control over who she resembles (I think she comes across as both talented an beautiful). Was the film supposed to be frightening? The acting is not terribly strong, but I have seen much worse.
Ivan Butler is also not a fan, but seems more sympathetic. He calls the film "somewhat pretentious" and criticizes the dubbing. He does say that the movie has "some effective and beautiful moments", though. I did not find the dubbing that intrusive, though I am in general agreement that subtitles would be better (but it seems like not everyone was speaking the same language).
Which film is better, this one or Dreyer's "Vampyr"? Both are based off the same story, but tell it in their own way, so it is hard to compare. While the Dreyer version is a true classic and should be the better film by default, I do not think this version can be written off completely. It is unique, more accessible and shares some style aspects with the Hammer films, which may appeal to people who are not interested in old German cinema.
Who makes a better male lead, Mel Ferrer or Christopher Lee? The story is that Lee was supposed to be Leopold but he turned it down and it went to Ferrer (a friend of his). While Lee would have gotten the film more star power (and added to the Hammer style), I think Ferrer does a fine job (no "anemic" acting here) and should not be ruled out. He might not have the name recognition of Lee or Cushing or Price, but Ferrer is a fantastic horror actor just the same.
Critical reviews of this film seem overall negative. Mike Mayo says the "story makes less than complete sense", calls Vadim a "Bardot wannabe" who is "not nearly as frightening as" intended. He calls the performances as a whole "anemic". I think this is overly harsh. The story made sense to me, and Vadim has no control over who she resembles (I think she comes across as both talented an beautiful). Was the film supposed to be frightening? The acting is not terribly strong, but I have seen much worse.
Ivan Butler is also not a fan, but seems more sympathetic. He calls the film "somewhat pretentious" and criticizes the dubbing. He does say that the movie has "some effective and beautiful moments", though. I did not find the dubbing that intrusive, though I am in general agreement that subtitles would be better (but it seems like not everyone was speaking the same language).
Which film is better, this one or Dreyer's "Vampyr"? Both are based off the same story, but tell it in their own way, so it is hard to compare. While the Dreyer version is a true classic and should be the better film by default, I do not think this version can be written off completely. It is unique, more accessible and shares some style aspects with the Hammer films, which may appeal to people who are not interested in old German cinema.
Who makes a better male lead, Mel Ferrer or Christopher Lee? The story is that Lee was supposed to be Leopold but he turned it down and it went to Ferrer (a friend of his). While Lee would have gotten the film more star power (and added to the Hammer style), I think Ferrer does a fine job (no "anemic" acting here) and should not be ruled out. He might not have the name recognition of Lee or Cushing or Price, but Ferrer is a fantastic horror actor just the same.