SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

ChicRawIdol A brilliant film that helped define a genre

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Loui Blair It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

Michael_Elliott Grave of the Vampire (1972) *** (out of 4)A young couple leave a party and head to a cemetery where they begin to make out. At the same time Caleb Croft (Michael Pataki) is coming out of his grave. Caleb attacks the couple, killing the man and raping the woman. The woman ends up pregnant and delivers a young child who, you guessed it, needs blood and not milk. Thirty- years later the mom dies but the son, James Eastman (William Smith), goes out looking for his father.John Hayes' GRAVE OF THE VAMPIRE is without question one of the strangest vampire films that you're going to see. The vampire genre delivered countless movies throughout the 1970s and there were some very strange ones ranging from hardcore films like Dracula SUCKS to low-budget weirdos like VAMPIRE HOOKERS. This one here takes its subject very seriously and we've given a bizarre family drama dealing with vampires!Whereas a low-budget often harms films, it actually helps this one because there's no lavish scenes that couldn't be pulled off and instead the director works well with the low-budget and manages to build up an atmosphere that is terrific. The atmosphere of the film is quite wonderful and it's certainly the best thing about the picture. The opening scenes inside the cemetery have fog machines in overdrive and you really do get an eerie sense with the graveyard setting. The second half of the film is quite different but you've still got that atmosphere that leaves you feeling it as the picture moves along.I also thought the story, from David Chase, offers up a lot of twists and turns as far as the vampire myth goes. The film's story isn't a familiar one and I thought the screenplay did a very good job at offer up new ideas as well as a different way to work with the vampires. The performances are another plus and especially with Pataki who is wonderful in the lead role. I thought he managed to be quite menacing as the vampire and he certainly adds to the entertainment. Supporting players were all good as well.GRAVE OF THE VAMPIRE certainly isn't going to be for everyone but fans of the genre will find enough interesting things here to make this worth sitting through, despite Leonard Maltin's BOMB rating.

lemon_magic 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.

Hitchcoc The seventies has to be one of the worst decades in history. People looked silly and pretentious, the music was insipid, and it was the beginning of a culture of selfishness. This is a very bad vampire movie. It has no imagination to speak of and the whole thing is so sliced up cinematically that it goes nowhere. It also has the father son thing going on. The acting is dreadful. I know people are going to say that when reviewing schlock it shouldn't be taken seriously. Well, schlock can be fun too, but when the people look like they're reading their lines as they act, it just doesn't work. The worst scene in the movie is the classroom one where people sit around and talk for about fifteen minutes. It's like a real classroom. Can you think of anything more terrifying? Anyway, they could have saved the film stock and made something more interesting, like a Preparation H commercial.

Cujo108 A vamp by the name of Caleb Croft rises from his crypt in a cemetery and happens upon a couple making out in their car. After killing the man and having a few sips of his blood, Croft rapes the woman in an empty grave. Eventually, the woman gives birth to a half human, half vampire baby. In order to feed him, she uses a syringe to extract her own blood, eventually leading to her demise. Her now grown son seeks vengeance against his father and is determined to track him down. Did I mention that Croft is now teaching night classes on the occult?This offbeat vampire film has many interesting twists in it's storyline. One of Croft's students longs to be a vampire, for instance. As the vile vamp himself, Michael Pataki comes across as cold-blooded and cruel. While the film isn't very bloody, the acts of violence he commits seem more vicious than the norm. William Smith plays the son, and he reminded me more of a bump on a log than anything. I suppose that's just the part, that of a secluded outsider with no world experience. There's a fight towards the end that is surprisingly well-done. The film isn't as good as director John Hayes earlier effort, "Dream No Evil", but it's a unique addition to the vampire sub-genre all the same.