La bara del vampiro

Oh, wow! David Chase, the screenplay writer, had some marvellous ideas. I just wish it had been a trilogy and not a single film. The allotted hour and a half doesn't do the story any justice. It's this compression of the story that spoils the film the most.

A man mysteriously resurrects himself from his grave. He murders and rapes lovers on the night of their proposal. The woman survives the ordeal and believes the baby is her dead fiance's. She gives birth and rears the baby on her blood. When she passes, he vows to find his true father and seek revenge for all.

If that wasn't enough inventiveness, the Vampyre Daddy doesn't always fang his victims to death. Oh no. He too is creative. My favourite kills are the claw hammer and the headstone smash. This allows Hayes to give the audience some creepy as hell shots of the Vampyre feeding. They are some of the best feeding scenes I've ever seen.

This film has given me a new favourite scary moment. When Ol' Vampy attacked the lovers, I knew the film would be interesting. He breaks the man's back over a headstone. Leaving him straggled over the headstone, he drags the female into an open grave, for his carnal pleasure. Creepy as hell and just plain awesome.

However, a lot of footage is below par; this along with the misuse of the story, drop the film in the ratings. A story of this magnitude needed a greater time frame. Film One - The Anti-hero's birth: Film Two - His Upbringing: Film Three - His Revenge. Back in the 1970s, sequels such as this were unheard of. Even Hammer who did lots of Dracula films only did believable follow-ons. They never did a true continuation of a story.

Condensing the story into a short runtime hinders the story and the pace at which it flows. I thought Hayes handled the segue between baby Eastman and adult Eastman brilliantly. He shows a few dioramas within this transition. They shoot Eastman and his mother and nanny from behind in silhouette. They are always in the shadows while life in its many colours and shades occur before them. A brilliant idea executed nicely.

As for the acting, it too is hit and miss.

Michael Pataki comes across as a strong and self-assured Caleb Croft. However, occasionally his acting gets hammy. This may be down to the script. His crude acting coincides with awkwardly written supernatural scenes. It's most evident in the seance scene.

William Smith gives his strong but silent performance as James Eastman, our anti-hero. He comes across as shy and awkward. This is in Eastmans' character. He lived in seclusion for most of his life; now he's immersed in modern life. However, the awkwardness appears to have more to do with direction than acting ability. It's the end sequence where you experience it most. The sequence also suffers from Smith submerging his talents into the hammy waters of acting.

Everyone else gives one hundred percent to their roles. They enhance the film and help to keep it interesting and enjoyable.

If you're a horror fan who hasn't watched this oldie, I would suggest you find a copy. Though I wouldn't propose buying one, unless it's cheap, as it's not a film worth watching more than once. The same goes for all you Vampyre connoisseurs out there.

Ratings: Story 1.5 : Direction 1 : Pace 0.5 : Acting 1.25 : Enjoyment 0.75 : Total 5 / 10

Flap your bat-wings and fly over to see where this film ranked on my Absolute Horror list.

Take Care and Stay Well.

A vampire called Caleb Croft rather inexplicably rises from his tomb several years after being presumed dead (perhaps they can lay dormant) and attacks a courting couple, raping the girl who then gets pregnant and gives birth to his son. Move on a couple of decades to the groovy early 1970's and the son, who feeds on blood from raw meat - he is some kind of "good" part-vampire - hunts down his father with the intention of driving a stake into his heart. This came out around the same time as the Count Yorga and Blacula movies, Croft is not as good as either of them in the vampire stakes (no pun intended!), but he is very callous and cruel none the less. There are are some decent, atmospheric scenes, such as the foggy cemetery at the start, plus a corpse in the shower with a slashed throat, later seen in any number of slasher movies. However the middle section of the film is pretty slow and dull, it sadly drags it down. The print used for the British DVD was quite appalling, so this did not help. Worth a watch but the name Caleb Croft won't remain in my movie memory for long.

This film, which I believe was distributed as a double-bill with 'Garden of the Dead,' has several disturbing elements which shoved it over the line of a traditional vampire movie; vampire rape, for one. Vampire offspring for another. Take two parts "Count Yorga: Vampire" and one part "Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things" and you have this flick. But it is an excellent B-movie in the horror genre with a definite 70s flair.

This film begins with a young couple by the names of "Paul" (Jay Scott) and "Leslie Hollander" (Kitty Vallacher) taking a stroll in a graveyard when they are attacked by a vampire known as "Caleb Croft" (Michael Pataki). Within minutes Croft kills Paul and then turns his attention to Leslie who he then rapes and subsequently departs as the sun is about to rise. Although Leslie is clearly traumatized, when she is informed that she is pregnant she refuses to have an abortion and nine months later gives birth to a male child. Needless to say, this is no ordinary baby as Leslie soon realizes that it needs blood to sustain itself. At any rate, as the years go by eventually Leslie's son "James Eastman" (William Smith) leaves home with one goal in mind-to find and kill the vampire who raped his mother. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this was an interesting film which deviated somewhat from the standard vampire traditions in that it displayed a bit more viciousness than most movies of this kind. That being said, while it wasn't a great film by any means, it was good enough for the time spent and for that reason I have rated it accordingly. Average.

I can't really claim that I was expecting much from the 1972 movie "Grave of the Vampire" when I sat down to watch it for the first time in 2020. Why? Well, it was a vampire movie that didn't have Bella Lugosi, Christopher Lee or Peter Cushing in it, so for an older vampire movie, it just lacked that selling ingredient. But still, I sat down to watch it, with it being a vampire movie and all.

And I will say that "Grave of the Vampire" wasn't a bad vampire movie, however nor was it an outstanding one either. Writers David Chase and John Hayes managed to come up with a storyline that was watchable, but you shouldn't expect it to be a vampiric masterpiece.

And the movie does show that it is from 1972, so this will of course not be a spectacle of grand special effects and such, yet "Grave of the Vampire" actually managed to do worse than the old Hammer Horror movies, oddly enough, in terms of special effects and the whole vampire atmosphere.

The acting in the movie was adequate, and that was most certainly something that helped to keep the movie as being watchable.

For a vampire movie "Grave of the Vampire" just didn't strike me as being all that and a batch of garlic - pardon the pun. However, there are far worse vampire movies out there.

My rating of director John Hayes's 1972 movie lands on a five out of ten stars. It was watchable, for sure, but this was not a memorable movie. Nor do I believe that I actually will ever sit down to watch it a second time.