Dance of the Vampires (1967) its often considered to be one of Polanski's worst films, mainly because many people find it to be dull, boring, unfunny and underdeveloped. However, I find it quite riveting. It inspired many horror comedies and I think I can see how many 70's and 80's filmmakers have drawn inspiration from this film, specially Joe Dante and John Landis.Its not incredibly hilarious but I think its funny, not enough to make me laugh out loud but its still serviceable. What I like the most about the movie is of course the usual stuff you get with Polanki's films, the direction, the performances, the music and the scenery. Its what you would expect from the great Polanski.I never really appreciated this film until now, its slow but I like that, it takes its time to establish the mood, the characters, the atmosphere and the overall tone the film will have.It may be a new favorite of mine, I will have to see if I will enjoy this as much in another viewing in the future.

Uh-oh, truth in advertising - bait and switch - let the viewer beware! There are no dead vampires in this flick, and our fearless vampire killers are rather incompetent. Maybe that was the point, the film is supposed to be a horror comedy, but you really have to force yourself to come to that conclusion. At least for me, the story was sooooo long, with interminable scenes stretching the distance from one point to another the way horse chase scenes did in 'B' Westerns from the Thirties and Forties.Not that it was a total waste of time, I rather enjoyed the expertly choreographed minuet of the vampires, and Sharon Tate herself was lovely. In his introduction to the film on Turner Classics, host Robert Osborne stated that director Polanski had Jill St. John in mind for the role of Sarah, but when she wasn't available, was intrigued by the way Tate looked in the red wig. Good for him, he got a wife out of the deal, but tragically, she became a victim of the Manson gang just a couple of years later.Ferdy Mayne, cool name, had a great look as Count von Krolock; with his extensive list of film credits I'm surprised I haven't seen him before. Or maybe I have and just don't realize it. Seems to me he could have been right up there with Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing with the right career breaks.Upon initial release, MGM chopped nineteen minutes out of the movie at which point Polanski demanded he be removed from the credits list. MGM refused, but fortunately for cable viewers, TCM aired it the other night in it's original version. For my part, I couldn't tell if that was good or bad.

... but here he isn't quite there yet.This vampire spoof never really gets off the ground, despite director Roman Polanski's best efforts. Cute opening credits get the viewer's hopes up for a farce. But the film is a mix of subtle spoof and occasional scares, and they just don't mix well. The film inspires the occasional smile or laugh. I liked the cinematography, the sets, and of course Sharon, but I thought there could have been a lot more jokes written into it. There seemed to be a lack of dialogue overall. The film finally gets moving in the last 40 minutes, and a few scenes attain slapstick comedy heights; most notably the scene in which Ian Quarrier's vampire makes a pass at Roman Polanski's vampire hunter. If the whole film was this funny, it would have been an undisputed classic. Instead, it is just a mild disappointment.It's recently been on Turner Classic Movies, but until that time I remember seeing it last in the summer of 1976, on TV in the middle of the night, during the summer between finishing high school and starting college. My younger sister and I stayed up to watch it, and I remembered being somewhat bored with it at the time, and after giving it a chance recently, I was still somewhat bored. Back in 1976, I asked my sister, why did we both stay up to watch this? We both had to admit that it was because Sharon Tate was in it, neither of us had ever seen anything she had been in, and ultimately our curiosity was born from the famous Manson murder cases and how she died. I just remember sitting there at age 18, looking at that beautiful young lady and her husband to be, Mr. Polanski, who was to suffer the most tragic of losses, and thinking "someday you'll both be famous, but you don't want to know why".

One of Director Roman Polanski's Most Divisive Films. There are Those That Consider it a Masterpiece and Others, Well, Not So Much.This Vampire Spoof is Beautifully Shot and Contain Sets of Enormous Elegance with Detailed and Interesting Fills. It Cannot Be Denied its Craftsmanship and Obvious Talent Behind the Camera.However, it Does Move at a Rather Languishing Pace. Some Scenes, Especially Before They Get to the Castle, Seem Padded and Forced. But Once the Castle is the Backdrop the Film Kicks Into High Gear and the Remainder is Breathtaking and Highly Amusing.The Film had a Troubled Pre-Release with Different Opinions from Producers and Polanski and was Released Cut to Shreds. It Flopped Big-Time but Has Since Gained a Reputation and Admiration for its Brilliance, Mostly for the Display and the Humor Secondary.A Must See for Polanski Fans and Horror Movie Enthusiasts, but it's an Acquired Taste and Multiple Viewings Add More Appreciation. Expectations are High Going In Considering the Director. This Was Made Prior to "Rosemary's Baby" (1968) and "Chinatown" (1974), but After "Repulsion" (1964).Note...The beautiful and radiant Sharon Tate is highlighted by many viewers as a small but welcome addition to the Film. Her marriage to Roman Polanski was to follow as was her tragic and brutal death at the hands of the Manson Family.