Sheridan Le Fanu wrote a Gothic little vampire tale called Carmilla in the 19th century that has astoundingly been the subject and backdrop of a surprising amount of films. The story is quite good yet in no way is the material enough to cover the breadth and scope of more than one film - which is one of the major problems with this Hammer entry. Lust for a Vampire is the second in a trilogy of Hammer films known throughout filmdom as the "Karnstein Trilogy." The first film is The Vampire Lovers which is a wonderful adaptation of Le Fanu's work. Then we have this film - which is what it is - still clinging ever so strongly to the vastly resource-depleted story of Carmilla, and lastly there is Twins of Evil which is nothing more than a Carmilla film in name only because of places and general themes and film trends. So the story here by Tudor Gates is very lacking. This time around we have a girl's school - and the girls are of course all around 18(Many looking like they are in their early/mid 20s)and drop-dead gorgeous with well-coiffed hair, elegant dresses, and that "I just had my picture taken for the centerfold in Playboy" look. Nothing wrong with that but we are asked to believe it opened up in the heart of Eastern Europe RIGHT BY the castle of a family known throughout the countryside as evil vampires(and still coming to life every so often as we are told through the opening sequence of the film). Now I know it is only a film, and, yes, maybe I am over analyzing here - but this Hammer entry lacks the ingenuity, creative spark, and acting/directorial talents associated with Hammer. It is a product of its time - the early 70s - and Hammer had resorted to "tricks" if you will far more heavily then they ever had done so before. We see lots of bosoms here - lots.(Okay I CAN live with this.) Violence is at minimum for even a Hammer film, but what we also get which is a trend at this time are films where there is no recognizable star power. No Peter Cushing here(although I do understand he was slated to be in it but personal problems forced him to cancel). No Christopher Lee. No Andre Morel even or Andrew Keir. I would have even taken Michael Ripper, but what we get is Ralph Bates, a serviceable actor at best, in a throwaway role and not much else in terms of acting talent. The male lead Michael Johnson has a bit of charisma but is far more annoying as a thespian - I wanted him to get it very early on. The young beautiful girls are just that. Carmilla/Mircalla is played by Danish beauty Yutte Stensgaard. She is lovely to be sure, but she has little to do other than the "normal" things lesbian vampires do in films like this. Pippa Steel is also awesome eye candy. But the worst casting and most laughable of all is that of Mike Raven as some vampire in the wings so to speak who looks, acts, and sounds like Christopher Lee. Almost his whole repertoire of words is "heart attack." Pretty soon you start laughing just at the sight of him for just how ridiculous and unprofessional these scenes are - and in very bad taste as to the mood of the rest of the film. While I will agree that Lust for a Vampire is entertaining overall to a degree - it is also heavily flawed and unworthy of the great Hammer tradition, Jimmy Sangster the director, and many of the Hammer legions of production workers who have worked and created much superior work.