Vampire

This was a "real" vampire movie. I liked it when I first saw it in '79 and I like it more now. Lynch captures a vampire that is cultured, charismatic, vulnerable, and still human. He collects rare art! As the film progresses we learn this vampire is also evil, materialistic, vengeful, exploitative, selfish, and classically Evil with a capital "E". This movie thoughtfully updated elements of Stoker's conceptualization of the vampire without losing those classical elements that makes it an interesting tale. Acting is excellent and casting great. I had hoped this would be made into a series... but, oh well. A few producers of modern vampire movies could learn something by watching this.

My video copy is coming apart - so when is this thing coming on on DVD already?

When I first saw this movie(Vampire) on TV some years ago, and have looked for it ever since, I was enthralled with Richard Lynch, his portrayal is 'right on' in this role..............now some of you may not agree with me, but I also put Rutger Hauer in a similar category, delightful to watch, downright scary in some of his roles,(Nighthawks) but the ultimate romantic, if given half a chance...........of course, my all-time favorite love story movie is Ladyhawke, so I admit to being a tad prejudiced.......I have seen Richard Lynch in a number of TV movies, series, etc, but have lost track of him over the recent years......

there are also websites for Rutger Hauer where his fans can go to keep up with his movie roles, etc........He also is the founder of an organization that helps AIDS victims, mostly children, i believe.....called STARFISH. Its always nice to know that some of the actors today at least have some compassion for others less fortunate than themselves.

Well its almost 2014 and vampires abound the movie and television landscape. Inexplicably the vampire has become gentrified. Ranging from reflective observers of the human condition to teenage heart-throbs, the monster has been exiled as unidimensional and un-interesting. For example, a new TV series called Dracula was launched in October 2013. Utterly insipid and derivative of Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula which dared to portray the Count as a love-sick sinner seeking redemption--the series is a mash up of fantasy and adventure that re-imagines Stoker's central antagonists, Van Helsing and Dracula, teaming up against a common enemy--what poppycock! Although a few exceptions can be mentioned (Blade; Fright Night) the vampire as a monstrous terror inducing evil has become a rarity. And so we come to our little movie from the late 70's: Vampire is a terrific example of a vampire story. It does not make the titular character anything but an amoral, powerful and evil monster. And this is how I believe vampires should be portrayed and this is how I first imagined a vampire upon reading Stoker's novel (aside: it is one of the most scary novels I have ever read). The good guys are valiant and, even if over-matched for cunning and ruthlessness, make a great team that uses logic and good old detective work to track and ensnare their prey. The direction by Mr. Swackhamer puts on all the right moves to evoke dread and horror. He expertly uses brownish colour palettes to portray helplessness and doom and gloom. Steven Bochco's script is tight and involving with a plot that gallops relentlessly to a suspense-filled ending. The brooding presence of Jason Miller and the stalwartness of the Marshall character and a great turn by Richard Lynch who is in turn suave, menacing and evil all mesh perfectly. Yes, the movie is THAT good!!

I read somewhere that Vampire was a failed pilot for a series that never came to be. Thank goodness for that. I doubt if a series could have sustained the tone of the original pilot, week in and week out. I mean consider what happened with Kolchak: The Night Stalker series. While interesting, the hourly episodes of that series could never equal the original movie set in Las Vegas.

All in all the movie is a triumphant example of smart minds at work taking great care to craft an internally consistent and logical story that is both scary and thrilling. This movie ranks very highly among the films in this sub-genre of horror.

I jealously guard my VHS off-air recording of this movie, hoping like the other reviewers for a DVD release. While I wait, I am looking forward to Guillermo Del Toro's TV series adaptation of his novel co-written with Chuck Hogan called The Strain. There are no genteel vampires in Toro's story: only nasty evil beings. And that my friends is what Vampires are!!

Vampire is a great revenge horror film. The revenge element is the major driving force, and a great twist... It's the Vampyre who's out for revenge, and his vengeance is evil.

1979 was an exceptional year for the fanged bloodsuckers. It saw Stephen King's epic Salem's Lot captivate the nation when it aired on television. While movie theatres screened Klaus Kinski's colourful remake of Nosferatu. It still amazes me that the two big Vampires of '79' looked so alike.

This TV Movie isn't as great as King's tale, but writers Steven Bochco and Michael Kozoll give us a worthy contender. Their story revolves around Prince Anton Voytek.

The Prince's been alive for millennia. In this time he has surmounted a fortune and a substantial quantity of priceless artwork. Unfortunately for him, he's been defeated and imprisoned. However, when a company begins construction on the site for a new church, the erected cross casts a shadow over his tomb. The ground burns in the cross' shadow awakening Voytek. He then begins to suck the lifeblood from the indigent of the city.

After regaining his strength, he sets about recovering his treasures.

He enlists the help of architects John and Leslie Rawlins. Once they retrieve the prized artwork the Rawlins suspect it may be stolen and call in the police. Voytek's arrested and imprisoned once again. This he cannot forgive. His new mission, to seek retribution on his captors...

The writers are skilled at creating believable characters.

In particular, Harry Kilcoyne, John Rawlins, and Andrea Parker, who form the backbone of the story. Their interaction with one another is genuine. It's easy to see why they become friends and allies; it's a natural progression. This realism, not only allows the audience to relate to them, but also helps hold the story together.

As for the Vampyre, it's his actions that create most of the tension. Humans are less than playthings to him. They're to be possessed, used, and discarded when finished with. The best scene to show this is when Kilcoyne and Rawlins visit Nicole DeCamp. She's the lawyer who held parties to introduce the Prince to high-society. Once her function is complete, he takes great pleasure in making her crawl to him. The fresh bruises and scars are visible on her face as tears run down her cheeks.

Voytek isn't only cruel and manipulative, he's cunning. The writers show this in his exploitation of Rawlins' and Kilcoyne's feelings for friends and family. His acts are cold, precise, and designed to prove he's in control of the situation. If our heroes pursue him, it may lead to their deaths.

E. W. Swackhamer (don't you just love that name(?)) does a great job in letting the story unfold on the screen. He throws in some great iconic shots. I particularly liked the scene where Voytek has to get home before sunrise. Swackhamer frames him centre screen as he runs an uphill street. His long coat billowing out behind him, smoke rising gently from it as the dawn shifts to day. Very nicely handled.

He shoots most of the film in standard fashion. However, this is fine as the story and the characters are strong enough to keep the attention of the audience. The few innovative touches are a bonus.

Swackhamer's management of the film's pacing could be better. It's told at one pace. Accepted, it's a good trot, so you won't get bored. But variations in tempo would add to the audience's immersion. The chase scenes would be more exciting with quicker and sharper cuts. When Rawlins and Kilcoyne are on the hunt a smidge slower pace would build the tension. These are minor issues, the film is enjoyable as it stands.

The acting is superb. I cannot understand why Jason Miller has been so under-used. Not in this film, but as an actor. He was the best thing in The Exorcist and he was perfect in The Exorcist III "Legion". NB; Legion is much better than any of the films in the series, and works as a stand-alone story - if you've not seen it then get a copy. He's such a powerful and credible actor that he brings a great essence and persona to Rawlins and the film.

I've been a fan of E. G. Marshall's since I saw him in 12 Angry Men (another must watch film - the original 1957 movie). He too is a powerhouse of an actor and brings all his skills to the role of Kilcoyne.

Even the part players, such as Jessica Walter who plays DeCamp, are superb in their roles. Her portrayal in the scene I described above would not have been so touching if she hadn't given her all.

Even Richard Lynch, who I wouldn't have chosen for The Prince, comes across as stately and aristocratic. I was amazed and shocked... and pleased. It was the icing on the cake.

Do you like revenge thrillers? Do you like your horror films? Are you a Vampyre lover? If the answer is yes to one or all these questions, then you need to get a copy of this film and enjoy.

Ratings: Story 1.5 : Direction 1.25 : Pace 1 : Acting 1.5 : Enjoyment 1.25 : Total 6.5 / 10

Race over to see where this fangtastic flick ranked in my Absolute Horror list.

Take Care and Stay Well.

It's been close to 30 years since I watched this movie with Richard Lynch as the blonde vampire, and who played the part to perfection. For the younger people expecting blood, gore and action, this isn't the one to watch. Vampire is more of a 'reader's' film, where the imagination fills in today's 'action' in movies. An earlier film I saw him in is called The Premonition, where he portrayed a rather creepy carny; also a fascinating film. I've been looking for this movie, Vampire, for all these years and would love to see it released on DVD. I'd wondered for years whatever became of Lynch and am glad to see he remained active for some time. I was surprised to read in his mini-biography that he'd been burnt in a drug related fire. I always had the idea he'd been a burn victim at one time. Although I believe him to be an excellent actor, ultimately it was his voice and unconventional good looks that drew me in.