moonspinner55 Hammer Films and the Rank Organisation bottomed out with this bloody awful vampire flick peddling death and disease in the 19th century. Residents of a plague-ridden town in Serbia, perhaps under the curse of a slain vampire speared 15 years ago, welcomes a caravan of kinky gypsy performers and their animals who have mysteriously pierced the blockade. Turns out these entertainers are relatives of the dead Count, and have arrived to exact his revenge on those who killed him as well as their children. Ugly-looking picture has acquired a following in the last few years, perhaps due to the casting of Dave (David) Prowse--Darth Vader from "Star Wars"--as a silent strongman. It has an unusual ambiance, but one that doesn't translate to either suspense or scares. * from ****

John austin I first saw this movie years ago in a chopped-up edited for television form, although I was recently able to see it in what looks like its complete version.I remember distinctly that Vampire Circus got terrible reviews in the 1970s. Our TV Guide rated it at ZERO stars, but time seems to have softened that harsh criticism of the time, and it's now regarded as a semi-classic.It's got the great look and feel of classic Hammer horror, and it gets by without Lee, Cushing and the rest. David Prowse makes an appearance as the strongman, one of the few times you see him not heavily made up. For what it's worth, the script is actually a little better than some other more highly regarded horror films.While it's not the best thing Hammer ever produced, you'll want to see it at least once if you're a fan of those movies.

tomgillespie2002 After witnessing his wife take a child into the castle of Count Mitterhaus (Robert Tayman), Albert Muller (Laurence Payne) rouses the villagers to his cause, and they stake Mitterhaus, a vampire, killing him. With his last dying breath, the Count curses the villagers, claiming they and their children will all die to bring him back to life. Fifteen years later, the village is riddled with plague, but the arrival of a travelling circus lifts their spirits. During one of their performances, the village is treated to a panther who turns into a man, Emil (Anthony Higgins), a clown dwarf, a strongman (played by Darth Vader himself, David Prowse), and twins that can change into bats. But when the mayor (Thorley Walters) goes into the hall of mirrors, he has vision of the returning Count Mitterhaus.By 1972, Hammer Studios was on the decline. Audiences were gaining more sophisticated tastes, and their lust for blood was being appeased in mainstream films, who were beginning adopt a more realistic approach towards violence. Hammer, naturally, tried to evolve and survive, and were abandoning their traditional period settings (one of the things they were known for), updating things to 'Swinging' London. This led to the catastrophic Dracula, A.D. 1972 (1972), and so they opted to focus more on the sexual side to draw the audiences. Thankfully, they had one good film left in them, which went back to a period setting, and told a slightly macabre, unconventional vampire story, that is rich in both gore and sexual content.This tale of lust-ridden vampires who gleefully kill children amongst a plague-ridden landscape is surprisingly dark given my previous experience of Hammer's output. Not to say previous films are 'camp', but they are played out with such theatrical vigour that they do have elements of camp, and although there are moments of this in Vampire Circus, this has a much more sinister feel to it. However, as lovely as the cinematography is (as always), and as pleasingly twisted the plot happens to be, this is still very predictable fair, most of which has been done far better in the past. But there is a clear reason why this has a strong cult following, it is certainly memorable, and despite it's many flaws, has all the elements present to why I love Hammer.www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

MartinHafer By about 1970, the fortunes of Hammer Studios were bleak. Despite a long string of cool horror films, the studio was deeply in debt and appeared ready to fold unless something happened..and fast. So what did they do to try to prevent the inevitable? They sexed up the films! As a result, the previously gory but innocent films were soon peppered with lots of very gratuitous nudity in the hope that these nudie monster films would attract a wider audience. In actuality, my assumption is that it did the opposite and the studio closed its doors soon after this change. Perhaps they should have just considered diversifying into some other genres. Regardless, it's all academic now. I mentioned all this because "Vampire Circus" is one of the best examples of this new Hammer film--one with lots of boobies and a distinctly adult flair. So despite this is it worth seeing? Read on...The film begins with a long-haired and hip looking male vampire killing a child as his naked girlfriend watches and enjoys the bloodshed. Soon, however, villagers attack and the vampire has his heart pierced with the 'ol wooden stake. The nasty girlfriend remains alive and the dying vampire gives her some instructions and his heart-broken love runs off in response to his request. My question is this....WHY, if she loved him so, didn't she just pull the stake out and bring him back to life?!?! I mean, I've seen this in several other vampire movies...and you'd think she'd give it a try!! However, violating previous vampire movie lore is certainly NOT unusual--and it happens all the time (such as sparkly daytime vampires who drink animal blood in "Twilight").In the next scene, a traveling circus troop arrives in same small town. After you see them perform the naked green tiger dance (in which an almost completely naked green-painted skull-capped lady performs simulated sex acts on her male partner), you wonder why it wasn't titled "Vampire Sex Circus"! In fact, the whole monster and vampire angle of this film seems almost irrelevant to the circus and the film in its time was probably seen as a soft-core porno film (though by today's standards it's somewhat tame). I am not a total prude, but just felt the horror aspect was all but forgotten. Soon after, bad things naturally start to occur--with the villagers turning up dead--sometimes after having been torn apart by animals--complete with lots of red paint and some cheap looking corpses and mixed body parts. Apparently the old dead vampire is ticked and cousin and his company of sick friends are helping him exact his revenge.So what's the verdict? Is it worth seeing? Well, if you don't want to see a lot of skin, you should definitely skip this one. As for the rest, it certainly is not as good as the earlier Hammer films and seemed a bit disjoint. It's not a terrible film--just not among their better ones. It definitely falls in the category of "see this one if you've already seen the rest"! I have a few last observations. Perhaps the vampire boss was over-compensating in this film as his fangs were the longest I can recall having seen--even longer than Nosferatu's long buck-teeth. I guess this emphasis on length makes sense in a porno sort of film!! Also, the very young looking Dora was played by Lynne Frederick--last wife of Peter Sellers and later wife of David Frost. She had a rather brief film career and died very young due to substance abuse. Sad.