Linkshoch Wonderful Movie

Cebalord Very best movie i ever watch

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Rainey Dawn The film is very loosely from John William Polidori's novel "The Vampyre." In Africa the natives are full of superstitions and, not surprisingly, they are afraid of the undead. There is a 400 year old Vampire among them, Webb Fallon, who has grown tired of "living" his life alone and seeks a bride.The book was written before Bram Stoker wrote 'Dracula'. So it's nice to see a film that is based on an earlier Vampire story - even if it is very loosely based on the book.This is not a film you hear talked about often and is hard to find a copy of... so if you love Vampires and get a chance to see the film you should grab the opportunity - it's not a bad film.7/10

MartinHafer This is an unusual little B-movie from Republic Studios. It's unusual because this studio was never known for producing horror movies--it's more like what you'd expect from Universal or Columbia. In addition, it stars a guy who usually is a bit or supporting actor, the very erudite John Abbott--who I have always liked but a man whose name few would probably remember today. I remember him because I am weird about things like that and love looking for familiar supporting actors in films. It's nice to see him get a chance her to helm a film. The film also is pretty odd because you'd not normally expect a vampire film to be set in Africa! As for the overall film, I was a bit surprised. While I love classic monster movies, this was one that had little impact on me as I watched. It was neither bad nor good--sort of like the white bread of the monster world. I think the biggest problem was that the film was very talky and lacked action--and really needed an infusion of energy.

MARIO GAUCI While the title hadn't struck me as being familiar when I read Michael Elliott's positive review here, I later found out that it was in fact listed - albeit meriting only a single sentence! - in "Horror Films", a compendium of the genre written by Alan Frank and which basically served as my introduction to many horror classics as a child.As Michael has said, the script (co-written by Leigh Brackett, future collaborator of the great Howard Hawks) is unusually literate for a low-budget horror film of the Forties, suggesting that its main influence may have been the Val Lewton horror cycle being made contemporaneously at RKO; though it never quite achieves their level of quality, it was a very pleasant surprise and it ought to be better known and, more importantly, seen (alas, given its virtually non-existent reputation and the fact that it's a Republic production, whose catalogue has recently been acquired by Paramount, its official release on DVD anytime soon seems a highly unlikely prospect...though I would love to be proved wrong).Anyway, the combination of vampirism and voodoo is an intriguing one - though we don't really see much of either. The largely unknown cast responds remarkably well to the fanciful proceedings (which offer some new and interesting variations on the standard vampire lore) - but it's John Abbott as Fallon, the world-weary and rather sympathetic bloodsucker who obviously steals the show. The film features a number of effective sequences during its brief (a mere 59 minutes!) but thoroughly engaging running time: a booby-trap shotgun is fired and the bullet goes right through Abbott (shades of SON OF Dracula [1943]) and lodges itself in the arm of one of the natives; only the vampire's clothes are reflected in a mirror (an effect borrowed from Universal's Invisible Man films) and when he looks at it, the mirror shatters of its own accord; the vampire attacks which mainly rely on Abbott's uneasy glare for their impact; the climax set in an ancient temple.Looking at Lesley Selander's busy filmography (but whose work I had never seen before now), I'm left with the assumption that he was one of the innumerable unassuming journeyman directors who specialized in B-movies and Westerns in particular (at least 6 of his films are called "Fort Something Or Other"!); as a matter of fact, he inserts the obligatory poker game, followed by a bar-room brawl, even in THE VAMPIRE'S GHOST - having made Abbott the unlikely proprietor of a tavern (albeit using this identity merely as a cover for his true and sinister self). Still, given my enthusiastic reaction to the latter, I'm willing to give his FORT ALGIERS (1953; which has been available for some time at my local DVD outlet, without generating much interest to me personally) a chance - even if I'm pretty sure it won't be anywhere near as satisfying...

vtcavuoto "The Vampire's Ghost" is an underrated film. Don't expect a lot of effects or Gothic settings-this film carries itself without it. That may be a drawback to some viewers. The acting is good and the jungle scenes add an interesting touch. Some genre expectations(i.e. inability to go out in the sun)are thrown out. John Abbott is fine in the lead role. He plays a sympathetic figure at the beginning but starts to show his sinister side. He runs a dive by the waterfront which covers his true identity. When murders are committed, the natives start to blame him. The manner in which he is killed is a change from most vampire movies and the ability to regain his strength via moonlight is an original one. "Vampire's Ghost" is a film that is worth a look. Note-Movies Unlimited has a very good copy of this film but it is on VHS only. You could always have it transferred to DVD.