This movie might be the epitome of "mixed bag". Lush production, beautifully photographed, sexy girls, adequate acting,, creepy locations, a decent premise. All the elements for a really fantastic vampire film are here but somehow the film fails to hang together. I put the blame on the script which introduces some really interesting elements but never really does anything with them. At one point the film looks like its going to introduce a sort of murder mystery or suspense type plot when the character of a retired detective is introduced, but he is quickly forgotten. There are hints of John Karlen's strange sexual proclivities but they never amount to anything. The movie does not try to be scary, but never really manages to be atmospheric or creepy either. Despite the perfect setting (the newlyweds are trapped in a deserted hotel in a deserted resort town) you never feel an air of menace or claustrophobia. Seyrig does a passable job, but never really feels menacing or threatening at all. There are some sex scenes which never quite cross the line into erotica but are not really exploitation either. I think the director was trying to go for a "Martin" vibe where you are never quite sure if something supernatural is going on or not. The problem is its so poorly executed it just comes off as boring and nonsensical. I feel this film actually could be a great candidate for a remake, although a lot of what charm it does have comes from early 70s nostalgia. I would really love to see what a better screenwriter and director would be able to do with the same premise.Fans of Giallo may enjoy this simply for the lush productions, locations, and a few weird sleazy scenes, but it is probably not lurid or sleazy enough to satisfy hardcore giallo fans either.

Negative! Complete failure, pile of crap film. Successful as an "ART" film, if deaf and blind. Boring, Amateur Acting, Garbage Story.OK, first rule of a film, should probably be is ENTERTAINMENT. This movie is boring, slow, amateur acting all around, amateur directing, the story is just plain garbage. Best part is the cinematography, that was good. The editing sucked, you can tell by how long they linger on a frame. And all the cuts of the waves crashing in. The music was OK, not great. The ending with the car crash and fire was just plain garbage. Then the new embodiment of the "Countess" maybe waiting for a sequel, real Hollywood ending. Believe it it sucked. I'm reading through the reviews. And most people love this crap. Maybe they go into it thinking it's an ART film and they excuse all the elements that make up an ENTERTAINING film, like story, acting, etc. I don't know, but it must be why the same people love Suspiria, another pile of crap that people love, and other Argento films. I hate Argento and I hate this movie. Here's the story, a newlywed couple stay at an abandoned hotel. We have no back story on the wife, not good. The back story on the husband is he has a mother, but there's mystery. So, you stick around for the mystery. Finally we find out who the mother is, an older guy in drag, probably some kind of sugar daddy for the husband. This leads to nothing. Nothing! OK, so then we get a scene, wait for it, when the husband beats the wife with a belt. Not cool. Then a shot of them naked with marks on the wife, and the guy still holding the belt. She takes off but is brought back to the hotel by the "Countess". Now the Countess is supposedly Elizabeth Bathory, the blood sucking/bathing wench who also checked in at the hotel. She appears earlier with her "Secretary". We have no other info on her or why she's staying at this hotel. Apparently she stayed there 40 years before, at her last world tour, because the concierge recognized her and that she hasn't aged a day.The countess sends her secretary to seduce the husband, she dies by cutting herself on a shaver, they bury her on the beach. The countess opens her coat like bat wings, real chess here. But people love this crap. The countess kills the husband and she and the wife drink his blood, and they dumb the body. There's a retired detective that comes around, he gets run over while riding his bike. At the end, the wife is now the new secretary, she is driving the countess. The countess asks for speed because daylight is approaching, they crash, the countess flies out of the car onto a branch, and is impaled, the car goes on fire and so does the countess. Next scene, we see the wife, acting as the new countess speaking to another couple at an outside part. The end. The story sucks. No backstory on the wife, the backstory on the husband at first is interesting, then goes into a dead end. The countess and her secretary, just ridiculous. The acting all around are garbage. The woman playing the countess, you can tell there's talent there but the crap she's given is utter nonsense. It just goes on and on. The secretary was decent compared to the rest. The wife was just plain owful. The husband was OK, but not great, again, given garbage dialogue. The concierge and old detective could have been played by the same person, both utter trash. The sets were OK, but not great. Just because you put someone in a red dress in the middle of the set does not equate to art. The Bathory story is also garbage. The movie with Ingrid Pitt "Countess Dracula" is also garbage. I'm starting to think that it's not about the product. It's about the marketing. You can produce a movie or any other product, have nonsense stories, crappy acting, amateur directing, but if you have a great publicity campaign then you can call it "ART" and denounce those who don't like it as snobs. Maybe that's what happened here. And with "Suspiria" a worse film than this.

The vampire film was very popular in Europe in the early 70's. Several key entries in the genre were released at this time such as some interesting films from Hammer Studios as well as numerous titles from specialist auteurs like Jesus Franco and Jean Rollin. Unlike the majority of films from this sub-genre, Daughters of Darkness underplays the vampirism and nudity somewhat, while still retaining a dark mood and overwhelming eroticism. It's certainly far classier than most others in the vampire genre and is committedly artistic with beautiful cinematography and costumes shot within interesting locations, with a very effective and unusual soundtrack. Its story has a honeymooning couple Stefan and Valerie end up at a deserted hotel in Ostend where the only other guests are a pair of unusual women, one of whom it turns out is the Hungarian Countess Elizabeth Bathory.Like the later Don't Look Now (1973), Daughters of Darkness uses the strange mood of an off-season resort to great effect. Like that film too, this is a horror film that really works simultaneously as an art film too. Director Harry Kümel needs to be given a great deal of credit for the stylish presentation that always feels like it accentuates the content, rather than just being showy. The visuals are especially memorable and the use of colour quite excellent throughout, while the strange setting adds its own unorthodox atmosphere to proceedings. It has to also be added that this is still a movie that does not disregard its horror angle at the expense of artistry as there are several macabre scenes and some that go for a much more visceral approach. It's a film that operates in several ways.These things all in themselves would ensure that Daughters of Darkness would be a classic within the genre but it doesn't even take into account the presence of Delphine Seyrig. This is a calibre of actress very rarely seen in this type of movie and she is really quite magnificent as Countess Elizabeth Bathory. She oozes sensuality throughout the picture and very easily convinces as a woman capable of seducing anyone. Her mysterious acting persona is one of her gifts – see it utilised in another famous enigmatic film Last Year at Marienbad (1961) – and here it is her very screen presence that makes us believe in her supernatural character. Seyrig is clearly the star here and head and shoulders above everyone else but the rest of the cast actually do good controlled work too.Daughters of Darkness is certainly a classic of its type. It just seems to have a lot more going on in it and a pleasing ambiguity. Take for instance the character of Stefan, who it becomes clear is not only a violent sexual sadist but whose overbearing 'mother' turns out to be a very strange man instead. It's these kinds of bold moves that make the film as a whole even more fascinating and disturbing. This is undoubtedly one of the all-time great European cult horror movies for several compelling reasons.

Stay with this film, it is incredible. Great acting, cinematography, direction. The lead actress isn't great, but the actress who plays Erzebet Bathory is phenomenal. Bizaar sets, and strange milieu really add to this film's strange portrayal of vampires and how they deal with the living. I really loved this film. Of course, today, everything happens at the speed of light. Back in 1970, they took their time with building the film and really letting it sink in before hitting you with the shocks. This one has plenty of shocking moments and some really great inventive scenes that add to the history of the vampire film. Unfortunately, today we now have 'Twilight', a disgusting parody of the genre that hopefully audiences will someday say, 'What the hell were we thinking?'.