The Vampire (1957)

Small-town doctor Paul Beecher (John Beal) is called to the home of ailing scientist Matt Campbell (Wood Romoff), who has been conducting experiments on vampire bats in a bid to induce man's primitive instincts with the aim of reversing them and thereby advancing human intellect (standard horror movie scientific claptrap). A rambling Campbell gives Beecher the results of his work, some tablets, and promptly carks it.Later that day, Beecher experiences a headache and asks his young daughter Betsy (Lydia Reed) to fetch his migraine tablets. No prizes for guessing what she actually gives him.As a result of taking Campbell's highly addictive drug, Beecher turns into a hairy, drooling, blood sucking creature (who looks more like Mr. Hyde than a vampire) at 11.00pm every night. Will the good doctor find a way to reverse the process before too many innocent people die? And will cop Buck Donnelly (Kenneth Tobey) crack the case before Beecher gets his claws on his gorgeous nurse Carol (Coleen Gray)?Mark of the Vampire (AKA The Vampire) is forgettable B-movie hokum, a rather talky affair with little to offer in the way of suspense and scares, and a distinct lack of decent monster action (although given how laughable the creature is, maybe that's a good thing). The tag-line 'It Feeds on the Blood of Beautiful Women!' is misleading, the 'vampire' killing as many men as women, with one of the female victims an old lady. At just 75 minutes, the whole thing is fairly undemanding nonsense, with the lovely Ms. Gray making the going a lot easier, but it's not one I would go out of my way to watch.A mediocre 5/10.

The biggest spoiler connected with this film is its title. Shot under the working title 'It's Always Darkest Before the Dawn', Pat Fielder's story feels as if it started life as a drama about drug addiction revamped (if you'll pardon the expression) as a horror film. (The line "aspirin never hurt anyone" is ironic, since aspirin is used far more cautiously these days.) The plot, with its drug that causes "regression to a primitive state", sounds more like Jekyll & Hyde. The few perfunctory vampiric details, such as the very inoffensive fang marks left on one victim's neck, and the fact that the pills are extracted from vampire bats, feel like token late additions to the script. The climax takes place out of doors in broad daylight and detective Ken Tobey defends himself with a big hefty stick, which if the film's makers had been on the ball he could have driven into his attacker's chest rather than just used to shield himself with. Veteran cameraman Jack MacKenzie's photography of the small town setting and interiors is clean and attractive, but also fails to deliver in the more shadowy and horrific moments.What makes this film so harrowing to experience is the quality of the acting and the human dimension. John Beal is so sympathetic you genuinely care about him (as you do for the other characters), and for the sake of him and his cute young daughter Lydia Reed you badly want to see some sort of happy resolution for them; even though you know full well that that becomes more and more out of the question with every passing minute. The monster makeup comes as a double disappointment because its crudeness (he looks more like the Neanderthal Man than any vampire) is wholly unworthy of the buildup that Beal's performance has given it.

A respectable doctor becomes accidentally infected with a drug that transforms him periodically into a monster.There are flashes of imagination in this otherwise routine horror film. For example, keeping the attacker in shadows in the early part arouses images of what it might be, which is often more frightening than the real thing. Too bad the movie then succumbs to bad fright masks thereby cheapening the effect. Also, James Griffiths' spooky portrayal of the lab assistant is both unusual and riveting. Too bad he soon disappears. Then too, I like the use of location filming instead of cheap exterior sets. That lends the film a different flavor from horror fests of its kind. Also helping things is former A-movie actor John Beal, who delivers a lively turn as the afflicted doctor, his pinched face being just right for the part.But please tell me why the title is "The Vampire", since the monster is more like an old Lon Chaney werewolf than a Bela Lugosi neck-biter. Anyway, the movie is about as obscure as any from that period and certainly slipped by my teenage viewing of the time. All in all, it's unfortunate the film descends into the hokey, when it could have continued in that earlier imaginative vein.

A small town doctor (John Beal) mistakenly ingests an experimental drug made from the blood of vampire bats which transforms the kindly medic into a bloodthirsty monster.I really enjoyed this movie a lot. Great plot, great acting and a very interesting looking monster. There is some odd sexism present (the doctor apparently cannot do his own laundry or cook so he has his 10-year old daughter do it for him). But, hey, it is the 1950s.Not much to say beyond that. I was a bit confused on whether the pills brought on the monster or kept it in check. It seems like pills or no pills the monster was going to kill someone, but maybe I was just confused.