FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Dave Thompson Now then, before watching this movie, I had never heard of it, let alone discovering that it is apparently a cult classic. So, cult status aside, I will endeavour to add to all of the reviews from people that undoubtedly know more about the film than I do. Therefore, I am just reviewing as I saw it....nothing else. It certainly wasn't a bad movie at all and didn't have me reaching for the stop button for one moment. It was intriguing without having a mind-blowing plot. And despite other reviewers saying how good some of the acting was, I myself found that the only decent acting performances to speak of were from Brian Deacon and the unrecognisable (well it was 1974) Michael Byrne. Yes, there was a certain degree of nudity, but not really any more than the amount rearing its head in the Hammer films of the time. And yes, I can see why it was 'butchered repeatedly' (as it mentions on the case of the DVD) when released. So, I can only guess that it is the titillation, the gore and the censors that resulted in this receiving much higher praise than it deserves. In fact, some of the acting is very wooden, particularly from its main male star Murray Brown and the two leading lady Vampyres, Marianne Morris and Anulka. As I have already said though, this wasn't bad enough for me switch off....it is still worth a watch, just to see what all the fuss was about at the time of release.** As an afterthought, I thought that I would add that I only discovered the film in a box of DVD's that I was given. having read the background of the it's various releases, the version that I saw was the Blue Underground release....an American DVD, that I was very surprised to find worked in my DVD player. The extras contain an excellent and more up to date interview with the two leading ladies. Though their memory of where the main location was is completely wrong.

Nigel P An attractive young lesbian couple are gunned down in the mansion where they live and, for some reason, then become vampiric creatures who seduce passers-by from the nearby road.Husky, busty Marianne Morris and blond Anulka Dziubinska (billed as Anulka) as Fran and Miriam seem very at ease with the plentiful nude/sex scenes – even though the DVD extras refute this. Both actresses' voices are also dubbed, much to their chagrin, and while such a practice seems unnecessary, the dubbing is more convincing than is often the case. They really do represent a kind of other-worldly sensuality that is essential for this kind of role. Whether stalking the misty, dewy countryside or the corridors of their magnificent home in their velvet capes, they look exactly like the spooky sirens they are meant to be. Other, sundry characters are deliberately dressed down to make the main couple look comparatively more exotic.It's hinted that Ted (Murray Brown), who is enticed to the country house and tormented throughout, is the man who originally 'murdered' the girls, although this is never really explained. Neither is the fact that he fails to recognise the house he is brought back to.And yet the plot is not particularly high on the agenda. The endless discussions on the sophistication of wine and the charming attributes of the ladies could have been spent on making things clearer, but it seems there was an artistic decision to leave things enigmatic – which I have no problem with, as it fuels the Jean Rollin-esque dream-like atmospherics of the film. Equally, the nature of Fran and Miriam is muddy; the (rushed) ending of 'Vampyres' speculates they may have been ghosts all along, although the trail of bloodied destruction they leave proves them too tangible for that!

alistairc_2000 I watched this again as it is on the box of blood I bought a few years back. I bought the set mainly to get this movie and I am glad I did. I watched this once at Dead by dawn on the big screen about ten years back and thought it was beautifully shot but did not really like it. Then I watched it the next year at Harvey Fenton's ten years of Terror festival. I liked the nudity but could not really get into the movie.So I sat down to day after I had finished watching Die Screaming Marianne and Frightmare to get into this movie again. I am glad I did its superb. The location is fab and so British, the photography is stunning. Some of the early morning shots made me want to walk through those gardens.Sally Faulkner, what a babe, I was thinking looking at her. I just wish I could meet someone as pretty as her. She is a superb actress and really brings the movie together with the great busy body nature. Also she is so sexy through out. So much so I wish she had been one of the vampires if you know what I mean!The vampires themselves were great. Evil and beautiful all at the same time. It was wonderful to see the amount of gore in this movie. Also it is set in the period was titillation movies were taking the country by storm and it does this with avengance but still keeps the horror intact. Pity the makers of the rather plain virgin witch could not have followed suit.

rose-294 A 1970's British film about two bisexual vampires (Marianne Morris and Anulka Dziubinska) who live in old mansion preying victims... Sounds great? Actually, it is uneven mix of attractive settings (good, good), siren-like female vampires (yai!), crude and laughable sex scenes (blah) and some less than elegant killing scenes (more blah). OK, it is better than VAMPIRES, John Carpenter's helming of Mark Jacoby's horrible script, but celebrated many for it's un-Hammer-like approach of blood-sucking lesbian nudity, my problem (as a vampire fan who does not like porn) is exactly that - it's vampire film with too little traditional vampire fun. Vampyres are not bad, but I will take elegant and atmospheric Hammer fun over this any day.