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.
61 Reviews
Curious 70's gem, but with a strong opening half hour!
Coventry13 October 2005
I wish I could be ALL praising about this odd, unknown horror gem and, for a good 30 minutes, it did look like "Grave of the Vampire" would become a totally unexpected pleasant surprise. Although terribly cheap looking, the opening sequences are very atmospheric and frightening. The substance, too, seems to be original and a totally new take on the classic theme of vampirism. The films opens at a spooky and very ancient cemetery, where an undead dude crawls out of his tomb and assaults a young couple that are making out in their car. The girl is raped, but she survives, and nine months later she gives birth to a baby that drinks blood instead of breast milk (illustrated by one of the coolest horror-sequences in horror history!). The boy grows up an outcast and wreaks revenge on his vampire-father that still walks around in disguise. This downright sublime and eventful introduction blew me away and it really looked like I had come across a true hidden horror-gem of the 70's. The setting is scary, the idea innovating, murders are gruesome
I couldn't wait to see what happened next. Unfortunately however, this is where the ingeniousness stopped, and the remaining hour turned out another dull and ordinary vampire flick. The half-man / half-vampire being discovers that his "father" is now a history teacher (!) and plots to kill him for good. There are still a couple of bizarre plot twists, but they're overly stupid and far from believable. Also, because the originality has vanished, you begin to focus more on the dreadful aspects, like the lousy acting, the monotonous camera-work and the cheap set pieces. Near the end, it's hard to believe that this movie started out so promising and you regret not having pressed the stop-button while it was still good.
Doesn't seem to know where to stop
Sic Coyote19 August 2000
This movie starts off as a very old style horror movie, and I thought it was quite good and serious, until the stock(peanuts *crash*) sound effects came in and the vampire ripped off the cars door. then I gave up trying to take it to seriously. Then after a girls boyfriend has been killed and she's been raped by the vampire. A strangely believing cop takes up the case "The bodies are drained of blood, it has to be a vampire" so you think 'ah, so this is going to be about his investigation' well up till he gets his head crushed in a tomb. Then we get to the woman who was raped having a vampire baby, so you think 'Ah so this is going to be about the raising of a vampire kid' well, then we cut to him and he's about 30. Hmm, now we get to the actual plot, where he goes in search of his father, to kill him. Well after a load of stupid people get their necks bitten we get to the final confrontation(which is about the time the movie actually starts getting good) then it's all over except for the stupidest yet most predictable twist ever. This would be okay as a 'watch with mates when you're drunk' movie but as a piece of entertainment on it's own it's not much cop. Except that is you want to waste a bit of time watching and laughing at bad vampire teeth and badly written characters. 2/10
Offbeat & vicious
Cujo1088 January 2009
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.
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.
A mediocre vampire movie...
paul_haakonsen1 September 2020
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.
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.
A Lot Of Great Ideas... Cramped Into Too Little Time...
P3n-E-W1s325 April 2020
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 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.
Raw and Vicious
Uriah4316 April 2019
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.
Very creepy 70's vampire flick
yashicad30 April 2006
I wasn't really expecting Grave Of The Vampire to be very good. I bought it because I found it in a bargain section for only a couple of bucks. I must say, that it was well worth what I paid for it. Grave Of The Vampire has one of the most atmospheric graveyard scenes that comes to mind. Weird lighting, fog, and sinister music really make the opening scene in an old cemetery quite effective. Michael Pataki makes a great vampire. Actually, he looks like a zombie vampire during the opening scene, which I really liked. The film is very dated, so don't go into it expecting it to be comparable to something like Blade for example. However, for a good, spooky night movie it certainly hit the mark.
excellent drive-in trash
trashgang10 February 2011
Bad quality of the reel, intact. Bad score editing, yes it hurt my ears. A lot of hiss, yesssssssssssssssss. Hue problems, OMG! No blood or nudity, not a drip or a tit. Cheap score, indeed very simple but effective. Carnival make-up, o did it contain make-up? Simple effects, just some dental issues. Scary vampire, hmmmm, he walks in the sun so no. Wooden acting, yes and at the end over-the-top acting. And what a funny ending just before the credits. But somehow the script was okay and what the vampire had to tell was okay, surely a good example of drive-in trash, not perfect for todays standards but surely for the grindhouse/drive-in freaks.
"Wow, Professor, you make a groovy medium!"
lovecraft23131 May 2008
In the 1930's, notorious rapist and murder Caleb Croft (Michael Pataki) assaults a woman, resulting in her giving birth to a baby named James. 30 years later, James (William Smith) wants to avenge his mother. Oh, and Caleb is also a vampire.
"Grave of the Vampire" is James ("Dream No Evil", "Garden of the Dead") Bryan's best movie. A low budget affair (well of course), "Grave" is a mostly Grim affair, with an interesting spin on the vampire mythos. Here, we see Vampirism as a curse, which is nothing new, yet except for "Blade", this is the only movies I've seen take advantage of the idea of a child with a human mother and Vampire mother. Also, this is Pre-Anne Rice, so no boring angst. While the dialog isn't Oscar caliber, lines like "Wow, Professor, you make a groovy medium!" should bring a smile to your face.
That's not to say that there aren't any flaws. For one thing, the acting is for the large part pretty wooden and uninteresting, with only Pataki making any real impression. Also, the ending is a rather lame "The End...Or Is It?" style conclusion, which makes you glad there was no "Grave of the Vampire 2."
Still, it's an enjoyable, original little Drive In/Grindhouse horror movie that, while flawed, is worth a look nonetheless.
"Grave of the Vampire" is James ("Dream No Evil", "Garden of the Dead") Bryan's best movie. A low budget affair (well of course), "Grave" is a mostly Grim affair, with an interesting spin on the vampire mythos. Here, we see Vampirism as a curse, which is nothing new, yet except for "Blade", this is the only movies I've seen take advantage of the idea of a child with a human mother and Vampire mother. Also, this is Pre-Anne Rice, so no boring angst. While the dialog isn't Oscar caliber, lines like "Wow, Professor, you make a groovy medium!" should bring a smile to your face.
That's not to say that there aren't any flaws. For one thing, the acting is for the large part pretty wooden and uninteresting, with only Pataki making any real impression. Also, the ending is a rather lame "The End...Or Is It?" style conclusion, which makes you glad there was no "Grave of the Vampire 2."
Still, it's an enjoyable, original little Drive In/Grindhouse horror movie that, while flawed, is worth a look nonetheless.
Has potential, but ultimately failed
kannibalcorpsegrinder2 July 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Years after being born through rape, a half-vampire human trying to track down and destroy his vampire father finds him teaching at a college campus attempting to conceive more creatures like him and races to put a stop to it before he turns the whole school.
This was a wholly flawed vampire film. One of the few areas this one gets right is that the general concept of the vampire in the film is pretty new and original in that the vampire doesn't just kill but also rapes his victims. The sexuality of vampires is a subject that has been beaten to death, but since the relationship between vampire and victim is more than just neck-biting, it serves its purpose by making a time worn movie monster all the more horrific. The film gets a lot of mileage out of this act especially when it comes to his dealings on campus holding his cover as a professor in the middle segments. There's one other big area that works here which comes from it's few rather finely-detailed atmospheric moments. The special opening scene in the graveyard sets a creepy ambiance that works incredibly well for the film as the insane amount of fog on display gives it a very Gothic feel, and the setting, a spooky cemetery, is heightened with scenes of the opening of the casket does help this get off to a great start as well with the decayed and grotesque creature with the couple unaware of the whole thing until the big attack. There's also the finale, which really tries to inject some sense of energy into the proceedings and makes for a somewhat decent enjoyable time here with the seance sequence tying some of the plot lines together and the revelation that's revealed to the group enabling some enjoyable moments as his vampire form stalks them leading into the huge fight around the house that's quite fun since something's actually happening. These here are all that work well here as the film really stumbled on one main important factor. Other than a couple of relatively bloodless murders spread throughout the film, nothing at all happens as the film is a very, very boring watch. This here is quite easily one of the most lifeless and draining, lifeless efforts of that time period with so little action here as it's mostly covered by a lot of dialog in the film. This is a very talky film, as everyone engages in conversation about everything and it just wears out after the tenth consecutive minute of characters exchanged in the same conversation. We get scenes of the mother trying to tend to him as a child or scenes in the classroom of his father teaching, but they're all so draining and dull that it doesn't manage to work out those dull spots at all. That this is further hindered by the inane and wholly illogical romance subplot that doesn't do the film any favors at all with such a wholly underwhelming idea to show them together that gives the film another rather dull storyline that doesn't add anything to the film as a whole. These here are what really hold this one back.
Rated PG: Violence and themes of Rape.
This was a wholly flawed vampire film. One of the few areas this one gets right is that the general concept of the vampire in the film is pretty new and original in that the vampire doesn't just kill but also rapes his victims. The sexuality of vampires is a subject that has been beaten to death, but since the relationship between vampire and victim is more than just neck-biting, it serves its purpose by making a time worn movie monster all the more horrific. The film gets a lot of mileage out of this act especially when it comes to his dealings on campus holding his cover as a professor in the middle segments. There's one other big area that works here which comes from it's few rather finely-detailed atmospheric moments. The special opening scene in the graveyard sets a creepy ambiance that works incredibly well for the film as the insane amount of fog on display gives it a very Gothic feel, and the setting, a spooky cemetery, is heightened with scenes of the opening of the casket does help this get off to a great start as well with the decayed and grotesque creature with the couple unaware of the whole thing until the big attack. There's also the finale, which really tries to inject some sense of energy into the proceedings and makes for a somewhat decent enjoyable time here with the seance sequence tying some of the plot lines together and the revelation that's revealed to the group enabling some enjoyable moments as his vampire form stalks them leading into the huge fight around the house that's quite fun since something's actually happening. These here are all that work well here as the film really stumbled on one main important factor. Other than a couple of relatively bloodless murders spread throughout the film, nothing at all happens as the film is a very, very boring watch. This here is quite easily one of the most lifeless and draining, lifeless efforts of that time period with so little action here as it's mostly covered by a lot of dialog in the film. This is a very talky film, as everyone engages in conversation about everything and it just wears out after the tenth consecutive minute of characters exchanged in the same conversation. We get scenes of the mother trying to tend to him as a child or scenes in the classroom of his father teaching, but they're all so draining and dull that it doesn't manage to work out those dull spots at all. That this is further hindered by the inane and wholly illogical romance subplot that doesn't do the film any favors at all with such a wholly underwhelming idea to show them together that gives the film another rather dull storyline that doesn't add anything to the film as a whole. These here are what really hold this one back.
Rated PG: Violence and themes of Rape.
A splendidly nasty'n'gnarly 70's drive-in bloodsucker nugget
Woodyanders15 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This unjustly overlooked low-budget 70's drive-in fright pic jewel starts off with an alarmingly savage and startling opening sequence: smarmy malevolent age-old bloodsucker Cleb Croft (a spirited, wonderfully rancorous turn by unsung exploitation film fave Michael Pataki, who not also appears in such grisly goodies as "Dead and Buried," "Graduation Day," and that deathless Grade Z woofer "Dracula's Dog," but also directed both the creepy "Mansion of the Doomed" and the incredibly asinine soft-core sex musical version of "Cinderella" for Charles Band) assaults a libidinous young couple making out in a cemetery; he breaks the guy's back by bending him over a tombstone and tosses the hapless screaming woman (excellently played by Kitty Vallacher, who's tastefully listed in the opening credits as "the reluctant mother") into an open grave so he can ferociously rape her! The result of this terrible tryst is one James Eastman (a most sympathetic performance by legendary biker flick icon William Smith, who's perfect in a rare excursion into the horror genre), who grows up from a sickly baby who drinks blood from a bottle into a shy, soft-spoken, muscular half-man, half-vampire being who obsessively tracks down his evil undead old man -- Caleb works at a local college university as a nighttime professor of a class specializing in the occult! -- and engages in a shockingly brutal bout of no-holds-barred fisticuffs with the pernicious bastard in the film's amazingly violent conclusion. 70's soap opera star Lieux Dressler, who portrayed Claudia Jennings' brassy, domineering mother in the T&A drive-in hoot "Truckstop Women" and the folksy innkeeper in the bang-up revenge-of-the-animals winner "Kingdom of the Spiders," cameos as a batty asylum inmate. David Chase, who later wrote several teleplays for the fantastic, sadly short-lived "Kolchak: The Night Stalker" TV series and most recently created the hit cable TV show "The Sopranos," penned the hip, clever, very twisty and surprise-laden script. John Hayes, who also did the excruciatingly woeful zombie stinker "Garden of the Dead" the same years as this pip and went on to helm the laughably lousy sci-fi clinker "End of the World" (another Chuckie Band gem), masterfully creates a grim, creepy, totally sober mood and makes the most out of a conspicuously paltry, but well-spent budget, thus giving this singularly warped and downbeat humdinger the necessary gloom-doom edge required to make it a genuinely good'n'ghastly little sleeper.
Somber and dead serious--but good
preppy-312 February 2006
A couple are making out in a graveyard. For some reason a vampire awakens. He kills the man and rapes the woman (in an open grave no less). She gets pregnant, has the baby--but the baby will only drink blood! She provides her own and eventually dies. The boy grows up and vows to find his father and kill him for what he did to his mother. They do meet and things go out of control.
OK--you have to ignore logic with this one. At one point a policeman knows it's a vampire who raped the woman and who he is--but how? And a vampire is teaching night school (!!!). And WHY would a vampire rape a woman to begin with? Technically--he's already dead! Push those aside and you can actually enjoy this.
The film has a very downbeat, somber tone--as it should. No jokes or winking at the camera. Michael Pataki is very good (and scary) as the vampire father. William Smith has a few good moments as his son. The rest of the acting is just terrible. Still this movie works. It's well-directed, has an eerie music score by Jaime Mendoza-Nava and some really creepy sequences (the one near the beginning where a woman discovers a vampire in her basement made me jump). A pretty unknown little horror film that's worth seeking out. I give it a 7.
OK--you have to ignore logic with this one. At one point a policeman knows it's a vampire who raped the woman and who he is--but how? And a vampire is teaching night school (!!!). And WHY would a vampire rape a woman to begin with? Technically--he's already dead! Push those aside and you can actually enjoy this.
The film has a very downbeat, somber tone--as it should. No jokes or winking at the camera. Michael Pataki is very good (and scary) as the vampire father. William Smith has a few good moments as his son. The rest of the acting is just terrible. Still this movie works. It's well-directed, has an eerie music score by Jaime Mendoza-Nava and some really creepy sequences (the one near the beginning where a woman discovers a vampire in her basement made me jump). A pretty unknown little horror film that's worth seeking out. I give it a 7.
Some neat original concepts but also a HIGHLY uneven movie
planktonrules27 June 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This is a very low-budget vampire movie and while it is far from great, at least it does have some original concepts that make it worth a look. First, unlike the 'nice' vampires in most films, the evil Croft is a convicted rapist who loves hurting women. This is, of course, unsavory but was original. Also original is his raping a young lady early in the film--and she subsequently gives birth to a hybrid human/vampire. This is a bit like the Marvel character, Blade, which appeared about the same time as this movie, though it's different enough that I doubt either influenced the other. Also, vampires in the film don't always bit their victims to drink but sometimes rip open their victims--something you see in some other vampire films but not the Dracula variety.
Croft is a man who was supposedly accidentally killed, but instead runs about killing and molesting ladies instead of staying in his grace. His bastard son (William Smith) has made it his life's work to find and destroy his biological father--but determining who Croft is isn't that easy. And, along the way, Smith meets some interesting ladies--one who WANTS to be bitten and one whose English accent comes and goes with the wind--betraying bad acting and direction (isn't it the director's job to spot mistakes like this?!).
Overall, the film has MANY lulls and the script could have used a re-write. But, considering how quickly and economically the film was made and how it is STILL watchable. Don't expect brilliance but it's still a lot better than the modern spate of whiny and gothy vampires!
Croft is a man who was supposedly accidentally killed, but instead runs about killing and molesting ladies instead of staying in his grace. His bastard son (William Smith) has made it his life's work to find and destroy his biological father--but determining who Croft is isn't that easy. And, along the way, Smith meets some interesting ladies--one who WANTS to be bitten and one whose English accent comes and goes with the wind--betraying bad acting and direction (isn't it the director's job to spot mistakes like this?!).
Overall, the film has MANY lulls and the script could have used a re-write. But, considering how quickly and economically the film was made and how it is STILL watchable. Don't expect brilliance but it's still a lot better than the modern spate of whiny and gothy vampires!
Strange and disturbing
Neff-310 June 1999
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.
Awesome vampire sleaze
BandSAboutMovies8 December 2019
Warning: Spoilers
As we wrote about back when we covered Dream No Evil, John Hayes began his career producing and directing short subjects and even appeared an actor in movies like The Shaggy D.A. and his own End of the World.
The movies he directed included The Grass Eater, Five Minutes to Love, the incredibly named Jailbait Babysitter, the adult movies Pleasure Zone and Hot Lunch, and even more crazily titled movies like All the Lovin' Kinfolk and Up Yours - A Rockin' Comedy.
This is probably his best known film. It starts with a warning if you're worried about watching baby vampires drink blood. With that, you know that you're in for something completely bonkers.
Years after his death by electrocution in the late 1930s, Caleb Croft (Michael Pataki!) rises from his grave as a vampire, where he's a brutal and completely unromantic bloodsucker. After assaulting Leslie Hollander, she becomes pregnant with his son, who grows up to be James Eastman (William Smith, who played Conan's father in the original Arnold version).
His goal in life is find and kill his diabolical father while repressing the vampiric bloodlust that is his birthright. Now, daddy is known as Professor Lockwood, a much more refined version of the murderous beast we saw before. He teaches an occult class and one night, after he hosts a seance, James and his dad finally throw down.
This movie presents a very modern take on the vampire. Well, as of 1972 modern, that is. It's definitely not the suave and sophisticated vampires that the world had come to know thanks to Lugosi and Lee.
The movies he directed included The Grass Eater, Five Minutes to Love, the incredibly named Jailbait Babysitter, the adult movies Pleasure Zone and Hot Lunch, and even more crazily titled movies like All the Lovin' Kinfolk and Up Yours - A Rockin' Comedy.
This is probably his best known film. It starts with a warning if you're worried about watching baby vampires drink blood. With that, you know that you're in for something completely bonkers.
Years after his death by electrocution in the late 1930s, Caleb Croft (Michael Pataki!) rises from his grave as a vampire, where he's a brutal and completely unromantic bloodsucker. After assaulting Leslie Hollander, she becomes pregnant with his son, who grows up to be James Eastman (William Smith, who played Conan's father in the original Arnold version).
His goal in life is find and kill his diabolical father while repressing the vampiric bloodlust that is his birthright. Now, daddy is known as Professor Lockwood, a much more refined version of the murderous beast we saw before. He teaches an occult class and one night, after he hosts a seance, James and his dad finally throw down.
This movie presents a very modern take on the vampire. Well, as of 1972 modern, that is. It's definitely not the suave and sophisticated vampires that the world had come to know thanks to Lugosi and Lee.
Started great, very creepy and brutal. Pataki was great. Then Smith shows up and it's a boring soap opera mess.
Bababooe23 February 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This is my second viewing. First time in 2016 and I thought it was better then. It started out great. We have a scene of a grave with tons of fog, eerie music, and the credits. Good stuff. Then the vampire rises. Michael Pataki was a great actor. You will see him as the provoking Klingon in Star Trek Trouble with Tribbles. Where he says "The Enterprise should be hauling garbage." Then "The Enterprise should be hauled as garbage." Without Pataki's performance Tribbles would be a crappy episode. Anyway, Pataki rises from the grave. He is a brutal beast. He attacks a couple who just got engaged and were in the back of their car trying to do their thing. Pataki rips apart the car door, drags out the dude, slams him on top of a grave stone and drains him of his blood, as the girl watches. Then Pataki drags the girl into an open grave and rapes her. This is some serious crazy S***!
Pataki then hides in some woman's basement, when she hears some noise and goes to investigate, she is killed. The raped girl is now in a hospital and is interviewed by the cops, and later informed that she is pregnant and that baby is not alive and should be aborted. She refuses and leaves the hospital. Meanwhile, one of the cops goes to the grave yard and is brutally killed by Pataki. The guy gets his head crushed by the grave stone, then gets his blood drained. All good stuff.
So, the baby is born, not in a hospital, but in her own home with the help of a friend. Take a look at her friends face when the baby is born. This woman is all smiles, then the smile goes away and the viewer realized, yes there is something wrong here. The girls says "Why is he so gray". Next we find out that the baby is not drinking the milk. When the mother accidently cuts her finger and blood drips on the baby, the baby starts sucking the blood. This is one of the greatest scenes ever. It is a close up of the babies face with red blood dripping it sucking the blood. This is great stuff.
If the movie ended here. I would rate it a solid B, B+, 9 stars.
But no. We find out that the mother was feeding the baby with her blood and died young. We see the mothers shriveled dead body and the boy is now grown and it's William Smith. Now, Smith is completely miscast as this giant dude. He is pissed off that his mother is dead and wants to find and kill his raping/vampire father. Smith has apparently traveled the world chasing after his father. Next we see him entering a classroom where he makes meets a woman and her roommate. Pataki comes in, and he's the professor. The dialogue here is ok, but the movie is going down hill. Before Pataki comes into the classroom he kills a woman. After the classroom we see Pataki trying to take a book out of a library where the librarian flirts with him but refuses the book. Pataki kills her. All of this is just poor stuff. We then see Smith with the women he met in the classroom in their apartment and what we get is some dancing, some makeout, and we see Smith eats raw meat. Pataki shows up and kills one of the women and leaves her in the shower. Next there is a meeting at Pataki's mansion with 6 of the students. Nobody talks about the murdered woman. Pataki kills all of the students except Smith and one of the first girls. Smith ends up killing Pataki. And that's it. The Freaking End.
What a mistake. Apparently this is from a novel and probably the novel had more background info on the vampire, because there was more detail in the movie but it all goes nowhere. Smith is miscast. He's too old for the part. And he's a freaking giant. The women had very little charisma or acting skills. Any atmosphere created in the beginning of the movie was lost after the baby was born. That's when they should have geared up the shock.
So, rating is a C for a B movie. 5 stars. Next time I watch this I will shut it off after the baby is born. That movie will not disappoint.
Pataki then hides in some woman's basement, when she hears some noise and goes to investigate, she is killed. The raped girl is now in a hospital and is interviewed by the cops, and later informed that she is pregnant and that baby is not alive and should be aborted. She refuses and leaves the hospital. Meanwhile, one of the cops goes to the grave yard and is brutally killed by Pataki. The guy gets his head crushed by the grave stone, then gets his blood drained. All good stuff.
So, the baby is born, not in a hospital, but in her own home with the help of a friend. Take a look at her friends face when the baby is born. This woman is all smiles, then the smile goes away and the viewer realized, yes there is something wrong here. The girls says "Why is he so gray". Next we find out that the baby is not drinking the milk. When the mother accidently cuts her finger and blood drips on the baby, the baby starts sucking the blood. This is one of the greatest scenes ever. It is a close up of the babies face with red blood dripping it sucking the blood. This is great stuff.
If the movie ended here. I would rate it a solid B, B+, 9 stars.
But no. We find out that the mother was feeding the baby with her blood and died young. We see the mothers shriveled dead body and the boy is now grown and it's William Smith. Now, Smith is completely miscast as this giant dude. He is pissed off that his mother is dead and wants to find and kill his raping/vampire father. Smith has apparently traveled the world chasing after his father. Next we see him entering a classroom where he makes meets a woman and her roommate. Pataki comes in, and he's the professor. The dialogue here is ok, but the movie is going down hill. Before Pataki comes into the classroom he kills a woman. After the classroom we see Pataki trying to take a book out of a library where the librarian flirts with him but refuses the book. Pataki kills her. All of this is just poor stuff. We then see Smith with the women he met in the classroom in their apartment and what we get is some dancing, some makeout, and we see Smith eats raw meat. Pataki shows up and kills one of the women and leaves her in the shower. Next there is a meeting at Pataki's mansion with 6 of the students. Nobody talks about the murdered woman. Pataki kills all of the students except Smith and one of the first girls. Smith ends up killing Pataki. And that's it. The Freaking End.
What a mistake. Apparently this is from a novel and probably the novel had more background info on the vampire, because there was more detail in the movie but it all goes nowhere. Smith is miscast. He's too old for the part. And he's a freaking giant. The women had very little charisma or acting skills. Any atmosphere created in the beginning of the movie was lost after the baby was born. That's when they should have geared up the shock.
So, rating is a C for a B movie. 5 stars. Next time I watch this I will shut it off after the baby is born. That movie will not disappoint.
Good 70's B Movie horror
Sergiodave9 September 2020
A good but silly American Vampire flick with a difference. The acting is not great but the story flows, although totally unbelievable, even for a vampire movie. It felt like a modern day Hammer Horror film. The main actor is mainly famous for being Clint Eastwood's opponent in 'Any which way you can'. An okay late nighter for horror buffs.
Memorably nasty and grim vampire flick
lemon_magic1 November 2012
Warning: Spoilers
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.
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.
A film as dead as the cemetery it opens in.
mark.waltz12 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
When a vampire comes out of his grave to find some fresh flesh, the last thing you expect him to look like is a businessman recovering the morning after. "What was that?", the first set if victims ask, as what sounds like a manhole cover being lifted up turns out to be the sound of the lid popping off of a cemetery coffin. Then, while the female is recovering in the hospital, they actually bring up the name of Bela Lugosi in the hint of vampirism. This just gets stranger as minutes going by, involving a phantom fetus that pops out of its mother in a later scene by her mother as if she were taking bread out of a toaster. The film just proceeds to get more bizarre and hideously disgusting, giving me the urge to burn the four film DVD it is on to prevent this from getting into further hands.
Weird, Groovy, Gruesome
GroovyDoom19 March 2002
Warning: Spoilers
"Grave of the Vampire" is a surprisingly violent and cruel film, creating a visceral horror in its ability to shock and disturb. It doesn't quite stick to traditional vampire lore, but it works on a very generic level, even though the script has some real problems and is generally absurd.
For instance, the opening features a scene where the vampire villain rises from the grave (in a surprisingly well-lit cemetery) while the obligatory couple propose marriage and make love in the back seat of a car. The vampire Croft's resurrection scene is traditionally spooky, with cobwebs and dust galore (although the vampire was only supposed to be entombed for three years), yet when Croft attacks the couple, the horror turns shockingly violent, and he brutally kills the man and rapes the woman.
OK, so once you get past the questions of "Why would a vampire want to rape a woman?" and "Why wouldn't he kill her too?", we have the idea that Croft has fathered a child through this woman, and the film takes forever to get to the one-joke idea of this segment: the baby drinks blood, both from his mother's breast and from a baby bottle that she fills with her own blood through use of a hypodermic needle.
After this aimless and meandering beginning, we arrive at the real plot of the film, which involves Croft's son seeking him out to destroy him. The son, played by Michael Pataki, is presented as a weird individual without much of a past or future, although he does try to get something going with a few groovy chicks. Meanwhile, vampire dad has assumed a false identity as a college professor (back when going to college was really radical, man) and teaches his students about the occult, in between attacking women and drinking their blood.
The vampire attacks in the film provide most of the goods, and there are some truly frightening sequences, one involving a silly woman who falls for the old "what-was-that-noise-in-the-basement" trick. Croft is not content to simply bite his victims on the neck, often ripping out peoples throats with broken bottles, crushing peoples heads, and breaking necks when necessary.
The movie has a great 70s look and feel--don't miss the "party" scene where a group of swingin individuals gets down to some jazzy music in someone's living room (one of the characters admits "Gee, I'm really sorry about all of this, we just called some people and played some records and now we've got this thing happening"). This sequence also manages to horrify, mostly because of the alarming sideburns that some of the men are sporting. I think the reason the movie works at all is because it takes the viewer by surprise. The dialgoue and story are very juvenile, and then the movie shocks you with violence. The downbeat conclusion adds to the doomy tone of the whole thing.
I suppose one of the reasons I have an affection for this movie is that I can remember being disturbed by it when I used to watch it on late-night TV in the late 70s & early 80s. I was way into vampire films back then, so of course I sought this one out on TV & watched it, and I was very surprised and creeped out by what I saw. Anyone with an interest in 70s horror should get ahold of this one.
For instance, the opening features a scene where the vampire villain rises from the grave (in a surprisingly well-lit cemetery) while the obligatory couple propose marriage and make love in the back seat of a car. The vampire Croft's resurrection scene is traditionally spooky, with cobwebs and dust galore (although the vampire was only supposed to be entombed for three years), yet when Croft attacks the couple, the horror turns shockingly violent, and he brutally kills the man and rapes the woman.
OK, so once you get past the questions of "Why would a vampire want to rape a woman?" and "Why wouldn't he kill her too?", we have the idea that Croft has fathered a child through this woman, and the film takes forever to get to the one-joke idea of this segment: the baby drinks blood, both from his mother's breast and from a baby bottle that she fills with her own blood through use of a hypodermic needle.
After this aimless and meandering beginning, we arrive at the real plot of the film, which involves Croft's son seeking him out to destroy him. The son, played by Michael Pataki, is presented as a weird individual without much of a past or future, although he does try to get something going with a few groovy chicks. Meanwhile, vampire dad has assumed a false identity as a college professor (back when going to college was really radical, man) and teaches his students about the occult, in between attacking women and drinking their blood.
The vampire attacks in the film provide most of the goods, and there are some truly frightening sequences, one involving a silly woman who falls for the old "what-was-that-noise-in-the-basement" trick. Croft is not content to simply bite his victims on the neck, often ripping out peoples throats with broken bottles, crushing peoples heads, and breaking necks when necessary.
The movie has a great 70s look and feel--don't miss the "party" scene where a group of swingin individuals gets down to some jazzy music in someone's living room (one of the characters admits "Gee, I'm really sorry about all of this, we just called some people and played some records and now we've got this thing happening"). This sequence also manages to horrify, mostly because of the alarming sideburns that some of the men are sporting. I think the reason the movie works at all is because it takes the viewer by surprise. The dialgoue and story are very juvenile, and then the movie shocks you with violence. The downbeat conclusion adds to the doomy tone of the whole thing.
I suppose one of the reasons I have an affection for this movie is that I can remember being disturbed by it when I used to watch it on late-night TV in the late 70s & early 80s. I was way into vampire films back then, so of course I sought this one out on TV & watched it, and I was very surprised and creeped out by what I saw. Anyone with an interest in 70s horror should get ahold of this one.
Necking in the Seventies
wes-connors9 July 2009
"A vampire rises from his grave and, after coming across a young couple, kills the man and rapes the woman. The woman eventually gives birth to a part-human, part-vampire child that feeds upon her blood that she provides to him. Years later, the now adult human-vampire hybrid son sets out to track down his vampire father, seeking revenge for the curse he bestowed upon him," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.
Some good ideas, undoubtedly from screenplay writer David Chase's vampire book "The Still Life" - but, this "Grave of the Vampire" is unfortunately dug very poorly. And, even what's good herein could be improved upon; for example, by having the opening couple bear clear responsibility for disturbing the vampire's tomb. Still, the basic story is ripe for reproduction; it might even make an interesting TV series. Vampires are in vogue.
The film gets off to a good start with Michael Pataki (as Caleb Croft) sinking his teeth into the role; and, doesn't it does make sense for the vampire to feel aroused after consuming a "Bloody Mary"? Another memorable sequence has victim Kitty Vallacher (as Leslie Hollander) learning how to feed her baby vampire, who grows up to be William Smith (as James Eastman). The characters obviously had so much more potential.
**** Grave of the Vampire (1/74) John Hayes ~ Michael Pataki, William Smith, Kitty Vallacher
Some good ideas, undoubtedly from screenplay writer David Chase's vampire book "The Still Life" - but, this "Grave of the Vampire" is unfortunately dug very poorly. And, even what's good herein could be improved upon; for example, by having the opening couple bear clear responsibility for disturbing the vampire's tomb. Still, the basic story is ripe for reproduction; it might even make an interesting TV series. Vampires are in vogue.
The film gets off to a good start with Michael Pataki (as Caleb Croft) sinking his teeth into the role; and, doesn't it does make sense for the vampire to feel aroused after consuming a "Bloody Mary"? Another memorable sequence has victim Kitty Vallacher (as Leslie Hollander) learning how to feed her baby vampire, who grows up to be William Smith (as James Eastman). The characters obviously had so much more potential.
**** Grave of the Vampire (1/74) John Hayes ~ Michael Pataki, William Smith, Kitty Vallacher
What no-budget film-making is all about...
poe42630 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
GRAVE OF THE VAMPIRE is an excellent example of what can be done when both time and money are in short supply, but imagination is not. At the time of its initial release, it seemed like a strange idea for a feature (I remember reading the synopsis in CASTLE OF FRANKENSTEIN- an excellent horror movie magazine from the antediluvian late '60s or early '70s- and thinking that such a blatant mix of sex and violence had no place in a fright film; not that I was so straightlaced that I couldn't appreciate the "twist"; I was just young and looking to be scared senseless; sex was, at that time, a whole 'nother box of worms... so to speak). The premise is far less shocking, now, of course, but still a great twist on an old turn... so to speak. Pataki as the father is truly scary, and William Smith was always an imposing figure (and there was something in his eyes that invariably suggested that he wasn't quite... right, is you take my meaning). The final knock-down, drag out brawl rivals the infamous toe-to-toe Smith engaged in with Rod Taylor in DARKER THAN AMBER and if the final shot doesn't creep you out, have your pulse checked.
Pretty cheap, but very interesting 70's horror
dworldeater6 October 2014
Grave Of The Vampire is a very low budget 70's horror movie that was made quick and cheap. However, what it may lack with poor production value and editing, Grave Of The Vampire had some fresh ideas and has an interesting take on the vampire genre. When vampire Caleb Croft awakes for a midnight snack and attacks a couple, he feeds off the blood of the boyfriend and rapes the girlfriend, leaving her pregnant. The mother, against the idea of abortion gives birth to the child. The child is half vampire and needs blood to survive. The child grows up and is B movie bad ass William Smith and vows revenge on his father for making his mother suffer and plans to put an end to his evil for good. William Smith is of course, awesome and Michael Pataki gives a good, campy performance as Caleb Croft. Plus, he had some wicked sideburns to boot! There is a grim tone to the film as well as dark ambiance. If Grave Of The Vampire had a larger budget and the right director, this film could have been huge. Even still, I found this to be very entertaining and original. Also as a fan of William Smith, I loved his performance as he kills it as the lead actor in this film.
Not Bad 70's Horror Flick
gwnightscream21 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
This 1972 horror film stars William Smith and Michael Pataki.
Smith (Any Which Way You Can) plays James, a young man whose mother was raped and impregnated by a vampire. Pataki (Halloween 4) plays Caleb, the ancient vampire working as a Night School professor whom James vows to kill. This isn't bad, it starts off kind of slow, but Pataki not only plays a decent vampire, but is usually good at playing a jerky character. Check this one out if you enjoy vampire/horror flicks.
Smith (Any Which Way You Can) plays James, a young man whose mother was raped and impregnated by a vampire. Pataki (Halloween 4) plays Caleb, the ancient vampire working as a Night School professor whom James vows to kill. This isn't bad, it starts off kind of slow, but Pataki not only plays a decent vampire, but is usually good at playing a jerky character. Check this one out if you enjoy vampire/horror flicks.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
