IMDb-BEWERTUNG
5,8/10
1444
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Ein freundlicher Kleinstadtarzt nimmt versehentlich Pillen aus Vampirfledermausblut ein, die ihn in eine gefährliche Vampirkreatur verwandeln.Ein freundlicher Kleinstadtarzt nimmt versehentlich Pillen aus Vampirfledermausblut ein, die ihn in eine gefährliche Vampirkreatur verwandeln.Ein freundlicher Kleinstadtarzt nimmt versehentlich Pillen aus Vampirfledermausblut ein, die ihn in eine gefährliche Vampirkreatur verwandeln.
Chet Brandenburg
- Restaurant Patron
- (Nicht genannt)
Arthur Gardner
- Anesthetist
- (Nicht genannt)
Raymond Greenleaf
- Autopsy Surgeon
- (Nicht genannt)
Hallene Hill
- Mrs. Carrie Dietz
- (Nicht genannt)
Mauritz Hugo
- Joe, the Waiter
- (Nicht genannt)
Michael Jeffers
- Bartender
- (Nicht genannt)
Louise Lewis
- Mrs. Miller
- (Nicht genannt)
Natalie Masters
- Ruth
- (Nicht genannt)
Walter Merrill
- Carl James
- (Nicht genannt)
Empfohlene Bewertungen
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.
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.
Dr. Campbell is a sick man. Just before he dies, he gives a bottle of tablets to Dr. Paul Beecher (Paul Beal). Quite by accident, Paul takes one of the pills thinking it's his migraine medication. The pills were part of Dr. Campbell's work on mind regression to a more primitive state and were made from the blood of the vampire bat. Paul immediately becomes addicted to the pills and begins taking one each night. Coinciding with Paul addiction, people in town begin dying mystery deaths. Each has strange bite marks on their necks. Paul begins to suspect himself, but surely Paul's suspicions can't be true. Are the pills turning him into some kind of vampire?
While I don't think it's quite as good as his later film The Return of Dracula, Paul Landres' The Vampire is still a solid little horror film that takes much of the existing vampire mythology and stands it on its head. For example, the creature in The Vampire isn't the suave, cape-wearing, seducer that we've all become familiar with over the years. Here, the creature is a primitive being that seeks blood for survival. It is more bat-like in appearance and action. I'm not saying that one interpretation is better than the other, I just appreciate the difference.
There's a lot to like about The Vampire. I love the way the film introduces an element of horror into an otherwise safe and comfortable Leave It to Beaver type setting. The contrast is interesting. And I for one appreciate the make-up effects. I realize they were done "on the cheap", but I found them very eerie. Landres direction is solid. He keeps things interesting without a lapse during the movies runtime. But the area I find the most enjoyable in The Vampire is the acting. Everyone involved gives a performance far better than you would expect from a film of this type. As others have noted, Paul Beal gives real outstanding first-rate performance.
Overall, The Vampire is a very satisfying film. I look forward to revisiting it for years to come.
While I don't think it's quite as good as his later film The Return of Dracula, Paul Landres' The Vampire is still a solid little horror film that takes much of the existing vampire mythology and stands it on its head. For example, the creature in The Vampire isn't the suave, cape-wearing, seducer that we've all become familiar with over the years. Here, the creature is a primitive being that seeks blood for survival. It is more bat-like in appearance and action. I'm not saying that one interpretation is better than the other, I just appreciate the difference.
There's a lot to like about The Vampire. I love the way the film introduces an element of horror into an otherwise safe and comfortable Leave It to Beaver type setting. The contrast is interesting. And I for one appreciate the make-up effects. I realize they were done "on the cheap", but I found them very eerie. Landres direction is solid. He keeps things interesting without a lapse during the movies runtime. But the area I find the most enjoyable in The Vampire is the acting. Everyone involved gives a performance far better than you would expect from a film of this type. As others have noted, Paul Beal gives real outstanding first-rate performance.
Overall, The Vampire is a very satisfying film. I look forward to revisiting it for years to come.
The film begins with a nice town doctor being called to the lab or a strange chemist who is dying. It seems that the chemist has developed something that he considers important but when the nice doctor arrives, the dying chemist mentions some pills he created and then dies. What these pills are for, the doctor has no idea but he sticks them in his pocket. Later, when the doc has a headache, he accidentally takes one of these pills and it makes him into a blood-sucking monster with really lousy makeup.
While it's obvious that United Artists did not break the bank to make this film, despite its low price tag, it was reasonably interesting and is worth a peek to horror fans. Sophisticated patrons will most likely find the whole thing rather silly, but what sort of sophisticated or snobby viewer would watch a film like this in the first place?
While it's obvious that United Artists did not break the bank to make this film, despite its low price tag, it was reasonably interesting and is worth a peek to horror fans. Sophisticated patrons will most likely find the whole thing rather silly, but what sort of sophisticated or snobby viewer would watch a film like this in the first place?
This is a movie that I hunted down for quite some time. A small-town doctor accidentally takes some pills developed by one of his patients that turns him into a vampire. He begins picking off the local town folk. While the editing is clumsy, the premise is a novel change from the usual vampire fare. The cast includes veteran actors John Beal, Coleen Gray (The Leech Woman), Dabbs Greer, Herb Vigran (Adventures of Superman), Paul Brinegar (How To Make A Monster) and an uncredited cameo by Louise Lewis (I Was A Teenage Werewolf; Blood Of Dracula). For those of you who don't think 50s films scare you, get ready for the scene following Carol and Paul's date at the restaurant. Believe me, it packs a punch!
Dr. Paul Beecher, a respected small-town physician and all-around nice guy, ingests some mysterious pills given to him by his annoying daughter. It seems the li'l brat has foolishly mistaken them for his migraine medication! After Beecher develops a chemical dependency for the drug, he slowly realizes that he was responsible for a series of bizarre murders committed while he was under the influence of these pills. Apparently, these harmless-looking tablets have the power to make their user mutate into a hairy, bloodthirsty vampire at nightfall, leaving him with no recollection of what he has done after the effects have worn off. How could these pills be so powerful? Easy! Because they contain a chemical extracted from a vampire bat!!
This fun, fast-paced horror flick was made in that classic monster-movie style that we have all come to love, yet at the same time it has some very unique and clever twists. The vampire, who is played excellently by John Beal, really looks nothing like you'd expect. Rather than having the bloodsucker portrayed as the standard well-dressed, intelligent, and graceful DRACULA lookalike, THE VAMPIRE depicts him as a hairy, ugly, clumsy beast who ambles aimlessly after his targets. In my opinion, the interpretation of a vampire as being angry, primitive, and relentlessly brutal is much more frightening than the notion of a slick, attractive, intellectual vamp.
The characters in this film are eccentric, likeable, and very well-acted; and the special effects, although simple and outdated, are surprisingly effective. Despite the fact that THE VAMPIRE's story may contain a few glaring inconsistencies, it still succeeds as a suspenseful yet down-to-earth creature feature.
This fun, fast-paced horror flick was made in that classic monster-movie style that we have all come to love, yet at the same time it has some very unique and clever twists. The vampire, who is played excellently by John Beal, really looks nothing like you'd expect. Rather than having the bloodsucker portrayed as the standard well-dressed, intelligent, and graceful DRACULA lookalike, THE VAMPIRE depicts him as a hairy, ugly, clumsy beast who ambles aimlessly after his targets. In my opinion, the interpretation of a vampire as being angry, primitive, and relentlessly brutal is much more frightening than the notion of a slick, attractive, intellectual vamp.
The characters in this film are eccentric, likeable, and very well-acted; and the special effects, although simple and outdated, are surprisingly effective. Despite the fact that THE VAMPIRE's story may contain a few glaring inconsistencies, it still succeeds as a suspenseful yet down-to-earth creature feature.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesDirector Paul Landres apparently liked the character name "Dr. Paul Beecher" so he used it twice - as the main lead in this film and as a small supporting character in his follow up "The Return of Dracula" (1958) starring Francis Lederer.
- PatzerAt movie's end, when the detective departs; he doesn't retrieve his revolver.
- Zitate
Willy Warner: Buck, you can't go around diggin' up people's graves. To get a court order you got to have some good reason.
Sheriff Buck Donnelly: I got plenty of reasons, Willy. Three deaths in three days.
- VerbindungenFeatured in Chillerama: Godzilla/Mark of the Vampire (1962)
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
Details
- Erscheinungsdatum
- Herkunftsland
- Sprache
- Auch bekannt als
- Dracula - Immer bei Anbruch der Nacht
- Drehorte
- Motor Avenue at Woodbine Street, Los Angeles, Kalifornien, USA(Doctor passes police station, doesn't enter.)
- Produktionsfirma
- Weitere beteiligte Unternehmen bei IMDbPro anzeigen
Box Office
- Budget
- 115.000 $ (geschätzt)
- Laufzeit
- 1 Std. 15 Min.(75 min)
- Farbe
- Seitenverhältnis
- 1.85 : 1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen