Grave of the Vampire (1972)

None other than David Chase, future creator of 'The Sopranos', is screenwriter of this not bad vampire tale, directed by John Hayes ("Dream No Evil", "End of the World"). Overall it has a good atmosphere going for it, an amusing story that throws a couple of twists into the mix, and the entertaining combo of tough guy William Smith as the hero and fellow B movie veteran Michael Pataki as his nemesis.The movie begins with vampire Caleb Croft (Pataki) crawling out of his grave and attacking two college students. He kills the boy and then goes on to rape the girl! While she is pregnant, the doctor warns her of the nature of her fetus, but she delivers the baby anyway. A few decades later, and the baby grows up to be James Eastman (Smith), who's all too aware of what his father was and vows revenge. He tracks Croft down, and finds him working as a night school professor named Lockwood. Eastman soon has to keep Croft / Lockwood from sinking his teeth into the lady he loves, Anne Arthur (Lyn Peters)."Grave of the Vampire" won't knock schlock movie lovers out of their socks, but it's still reasonably enjoyable. It's one thing to have a vampire character with raping on his mind, but the advertising also makes a big deal out of the fact that James as a baby sucks blood instead of milk, advising the viewer ahead of time that the movie isn't for the faint of heart. "Grave of the Vampire" is actually rather low key throughout, but it comes to life for a decent final fight between father and son. The acting from the principals is passable; Smith is certainly interestingly cast in the lead (he really is at his best when playing various bad guys) and Pataki delivers a decidedly aloof performance as the vampire. Things begin well with the opening credits sequence and the creepy prologue, and there are some fine moments along the way, especially when one unfortunate young woman discovers Croft in her basement. The tone is very serious, and Hayes's direction is efficient all the way to the kind of ending that was prevalent in 1970s cinema. There's no nudity, and use of gore is limited.All in all, this is worth a look for those exploitation and horror fans looking to discover the schlock cinema of yesteryear.Seven out of 10.

David Sindelar (who has watched and reviewed something like 3900 fantasy, science fiction and horror films) included "Grave of the Vampire" in his "essential 300" selection out of his survey, and it's easy to see why. The movie has a point of view and an atmosphere that stays with you long after more gruesome and better financed horror movies have faded from your memory.This movie vampire is a predator, pure and simple - none of the sexiness of a Frank Langella, none of the aristocratic bearing of a Bela Lugosi, none of the polish and charisma of a Christopher Lee - this vampire is a sociopathic killer, and the movie (although not explicit) pulls no punches in the way it portrays his assaults on his victims. There are several interesting twists in the screenplay: 1) a police detective starts to track down the vampire on a hunch in the first 15 minutes or so, and the viewer is tricked into thinking this will be a heroic police procedural - but then the vampire dispatches the detective in a way that leaves no room for doubt that the detective isn't going to solve this case. 2) The vampire's also a rapist (from his previous life?) and his female victim becomes pregnant. So we get some scenes very reminiscent of movies like "Rosemary's Baby" and "It's Alive"...but the movie burns through this in about 10 minutes and we realize, no, this isn't going to be the main thrust of the movie either. 3) Finally the movie settles on the son's crusade to avenge his mother and punish his father. Now here's what's weird: even as the movie sheds its baggage and gains its focus, it then bogs down in a bunch of badly acted and staged 70's style partying and permissive sex and just kind of fiddles around until...suddenly...4) the last 10 minutes of the movie erupt into a viscerally intense knock down drag out, no holds barred slug fest the likes of which you will rarely see in cinema. The vampire doesn't understand how strong his son really is until it's too late, and the son manages to drive a stake through his heart...only to fall victim to the same curse now that he's become a killer. And the movie comes to a disturbing, creepy end.Whatever the director had in mind here, aping the Universal and Hammer classics wasn't it! (And that's a good thing). Pataki (as the vampire) and Stone (as the son) are reasonably good, especially for such a cheaply made movie like this. The acting everywhere else ranges from satisfactory to appalling. The lighting and sets and music are amazingly well done for such an obviously small budget movie.Some of the dialog suffers from the "No human being ever talked like this" effect, but there's not enough of it to sink the film completely. So...not really a "good" movie, in the sense that a Hammer film from the era would be a "good" movie, but a great example of the kind of overlooked and underrated obscurity that rewards the person who digs into the archives.

This is a very low-budget vampire movie and while it is far from great, at least it does have some original concepts that make it worth a look. First, unlike the 'nice' vampires in most films, the evil Croft is a convicted rapist who loves hurting women. This is, of course, unsavory but was original. Also original is his raping a young lady early in the film--and she subsequently gives birth to a hybrid human/vampire. This is a bit like the Marvel character, Blade, which appeared about the same time as this movie, though it's different enough that I doubt either influenced the other. Also, vampires in the film don't always bit their victims to drink but sometimes rip open their victims--something you see in some other vampire films but not the Dracula variety.Croft is a man who was supposedly accidentally killed, but instead runs about killing and molesting ladies instead of staying in his grace. His bastard son (William Smith) has made it his life's work to find and destroy his biological father--but determining who Croft is isn't that easy. And, along the way, Smith meets some interesting ladies--one who WANTS to be bitten and one whose English accent comes and goes with the wind--betraying bad acting and direction (isn't it the director's job to spot mistakes like this?!).Overall, the film has MANY lulls and the script could have used a re-write. But, considering how quickly and economically the film was made and how it is STILL watchable. Don't expect brilliance but it's still a lot better than the modern spate of whiny and gothy vampires!

Bad quality of the reel, intact. Bad score editing, yes it hurt my ears. A lot of hiss, yesssssssssssssssss. Hue problems, OMG! No blood or nudity, not a drip or a tit. Cheap score, indeed very simple but effective. Carnival make-up, o did it contain make-up? Simple effects, just some dental issues. Scary vampire, hmmmm, he walks in the sun so no. Wooden acting, yes and at the end over-the-top acting. And what a funny ending just before the credits. But somehow the script was okay and what the vampire had to tell was okay, surely a good example of drive-in trash, not perfect for todays standards but surely for the grindhouse/drive-in freaks.