Roman Polanski's vampire movie ("The Fearless Vampire Killers" or "Dance of the Vampires", hereinafter referred to as "FVK") has a great post-credit start. The sleigh the fearless vampire killers are arriving on is attacked by wolves. They arrive at the inn and meet the wonderful Alfie Bass. They also meet the equally wonderful Sharon Tate, in (of all unlikely things, given the time period and the location) a hot bubble-bath. Can't get better than that.
The first attack of the vampire, the things that happen to Alfie Bass' character (I don't want to give too much away here), the pursuit of the vampire to the castle -- all these things lead you think you're going to watch the best vampire comedy ever.
And the end, from the point where the vampires actually rise and go to the dance (it's in the title so I'm not giving too much away there) to the final credit sequence, is magnificent.
The problem with this movie is its seemingly interminable middle, when the vampire killers are actually at the vampire castle. The castle itself is a beautiful piece of studio work, and it's extremely well-shot. Polanski can be a beautiful director.
Unfortunately, from the time the vampire killers get to the castle and meet Count Krolock, until they get locked up in the tower, nothing much of interest (and certainly little that's smile-provoking) happens. There are some very good ideas thrown out, and, I reiterate, it's all beautifully shot. If nothing else, "FVK" may be the most beautiful vampire movie ever. But Mel Brooks' rather sad and ultimately repellent "Dracula: Dead and Loving It" slings out as many good ideas in half an hour as "FVK" had in its running length (Brooks probably borrowed Polanski's best ideas, anyway).
I saw the 108 minute version. What must it have been like at the original length? Perhaps, when the studio re-cut the movie, they left all the laughs on the cutting-room floor. I'm a person who appreciates subtle humor, but the humor in the middle act of this movie was so subtle it put me to sleep.
By reports, Polanski disliked the studio editing his picture down to 107/8 minutes. An artist is not always the best judge of his own work. Maybe they should have continued reducing the middle section until the movie clocked in at 90 minutes.
The acting is uniformly good. Even Polanski, who seized one of the star parts for himself, turns in a creditable performance. Sharon Tate is radiant.
The first attack of the vampire, the things that happen to Alfie Bass' character (I don't want to give too much away here), the pursuit of the vampire to the castle -- all these things lead you think you're going to watch the best vampire comedy ever.
And the end, from the point where the vampires actually rise and go to the dance (it's in the title so I'm not giving too much away there) to the final credit sequence, is magnificent.
The problem with this movie is its seemingly interminable middle, when the vampire killers are actually at the vampire castle. The castle itself is a beautiful piece of studio work, and it's extremely well-shot. Polanski can be a beautiful director.
Unfortunately, from the time the vampire killers get to the castle and meet Count Krolock, until they get locked up in the tower, nothing much of interest (and certainly little that's smile-provoking) happens. There are some very good ideas thrown out, and, I reiterate, it's all beautifully shot. If nothing else, "FVK" may be the most beautiful vampire movie ever. But Mel Brooks' rather sad and ultimately repellent "Dracula: Dead and Loving It" slings out as many good ideas in half an hour as "FVK" had in its running length (Brooks probably borrowed Polanski's best ideas, anyway).
I saw the 108 minute version. What must it have been like at the original length? Perhaps, when the studio re-cut the movie, they left all the laughs on the cutting-room floor. I'm a person who appreciates subtle humor, but the humor in the middle act of this movie was so subtle it put me to sleep.
By reports, Polanski disliked the studio editing his picture down to 107/8 minutes. An artist is not always the best judge of his own work. Maybe they should have continued reducing the middle section until the movie clocked in at 90 minutes.
The acting is uniformly good. Even Polanski, who seized one of the star parts for himself, turns in a creditable performance. Sharon Tate is radiant.