User reviews

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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

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.

I have decided to work on the giant pile of movies and TV shows I never want to watch and this is the lucky winner that gets to be seen first.I would have to assume it's the first time it has ever won anything.Even though the movie is very slow moving with lots of time where nothing is happening, they still don't show a lot of stuff.They make you guess at what has happened for a few minutes, then they almost explain.It's annoying but it's also the best thing about this movie.So they spend a half hour on a crazy woman who got raped by a vampire and is having it's baby.The vampire just took her into his coffin and then it just cuts to her being pregnant.I really don't see how a normal person could have thought anything sexual had happened.She acts like it's her dead boyfriends baby and says it will be normal, even though the doctor tells her it is dead.It's all so confusing and senseless and then it just cuts to the future and he's grown up and looking to kill his father.That's right, halfway through the movie they just start a different movie.Did I mention it also has horrible acting? This should never be seen by anyone.