Loading...

Plot:

Kroft, a legendary vampire, returns from sleep. Kroft attacks a couple in a graveyard, raping the woman. The child born feeds only on blood from his mother’s breast.::Anonymous

Also Known As: Grave of the Vampire, La bara del vampiro, El bebé del terror, Seed of Terror, Могила вампира Soviet, La tomba del vampiro, La tumba del vampiro, Les enfants de Frankenstein, Die Gruft der Dämonen West, O Túmulo do Vampiro, Bébé vampire, Die Gruft des Grauens West

Leave a Reply

No Comments

  • darius-aanei
    darius aanei

    None other than David Chase, future creator of ‘The Sopranos’, is screenwriter of this not bad vampire tale, directed by John Hayes (“Dream No Evil”, “End of the World”). Overall it has a good atmosphere going for it, an amusing story that throws a couple of twists into the mix, and the entertaining combo of tough guy William Smith as the hero and fellow B movie veteran Michael Pataki as his nemesis.The movie begins with vampire Caleb Croft (Pataki) crawling out of his grave and attacking two college students. He kills the boy and then goes on to rape the girl! While she is pregnant, the doctor warns her of the nature of her fetus, but she delivers the baby anyway. A few decades later, and the baby grows up to be James Eastman (Smith), who’s all too aware of what his father was and vows revenge. He tracks Croft down, and finds him working as a night school professor named Lockwood. Eastman soon has to keep Croft / Lockwood from sinking his teeth into the lady he loves, Anne Arthur (Lyn Peters).”Grave of the Vampire” won’t knock schlock movie lovers out of their socks, but it’s still reasonably enjoyable. It’s one thing to have a vampire character with raping on his mind, but the advertising also makes a big deal out of the fact that James as a baby sucks blood instead of milk, advising the viewer ahead of time that the movie isn’t for the faint of heart. “Grave of the Vampire” is actually rather low key throughout, but it comes to life for a decent final fight between father and son. The acting from the principals is passable; Smith is certainly interestingly cast in the lead (he really is at his best when playing various bad guys) and Pataki delivers a decidedly aloof performance as the vampire. Things begin well with the opening credits sequence and the creepy prologue, and there are some fine moments along the way, especially when one unfortunate young woman discovers Croft in her basement. The tone is very serious, and Hayes’s direction is efficient all the way to the kind of ending that was prevalent in 1970s cinema. There’s no nudity, and use of gore is limited.All in all, this is worth a look for those exploitation and horror fans looking to discover the schlock cinema of yesteryear.Seven out of 10.

  • phillip-allen
    phillip allen

    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!

  • radames-benedetti
    radames benedetti

    The great thing about the low-budget horror films of the 1970s is how they often end up being very effective and atmospheric yet with a very realistic style. There’s very little or even no studio constraints and no rule by committee, so the small group of the director and crew tend to have a lot more flexibility to try things, as well as the actors being responsible for the way their parts are played. This entry is a good example of such. Yes there are rough spots, yet there are surprisingly good moments, and these outweigh any sore areas in this chilling vampire story. The other aspect is the use of location and lack of studio polish giving the film a quality that suggests realism more so than any studio production usually does. And I cannot stress enough the limited but effective music track. It is a sad state that every modern Hollywood horror film has to have an incessant and overly loud music track to drown out the miserably weak and/or plainly stupid plot, now that Hollywood has basically co-opted the low-budget horror film with remakes of the 70s horror classics but on a big budget, the antithesis of the originals. Not that this plot was the greatest ever, but it was uniquely interesting and unusual enough to keep a good hold on the viewer.

  • riitta-laaksonen-tuominen
    riitta laaksonen tuominen

    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.

  • rafael-cavazos
    rafael cavazos

    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.

  • fedorov-efim-georgievich
    fedorov efim georgievich

    **SPOILERS** Having his mother raped by a vampire that resulted in his birth half human half vampire James Eastman, William Smith, grew up with a burning sense of revenge for his vampire father. That finally brought him as a collage student to prof. Crydons ,Michael Pataki, classroom. It turned that Crydon was in an earlier incarnation the notorious 1930’s New England serial murderer Caleb Croft who was killed in Boston, as he tried to run from the police, by stepping a a third rail.Living off the life blood of unsuspecting victims Caleb Croft was in reality a vampire and soon after his death rose from his grave attacking a teenage couple who were making out in the graveyard. Murdering the the young man Paul, Jay Scott, and then attacking and dragging into an open grave and raping the young woman Leslie, Kelly Vallachen. Leslie becoming pregnant seemed to feel that the father of her unborn child wasn’t Paul but in fact he was the electrocuted serial murder Caleb Croft. Leslie’s child like Croft turned out to be a vampire not like Paul, who’s son she thought he was, who was a human being. Growing up to adulthood and knowing that he’ll never be normal James only goal in life was to track down his father and make him pay for what he did to both him and his mother. Meanwhile Croydon not knowing that he has a son and that his son is out looking for him, in order to drive a wooden stake through his heart, is trying to contact his long lost vampire wife Sara who was burned at the stake in New England back in 1846.It turned out that one of Croydon students Ann Arthur, Lyn Peters, is the person who is somehow connected to the late Sara’s spirit and through her being involved in a séance Sara can come back to life by taking over Anne’s body! It also turned out that James Croydon long lost son is in love with Anne.Suspenseful and shocking final as Croydon and his long lost son duke it out in the middle of a séance as the other participants, with the exception of Anne who’s life is saved by James, ending up murdered by the craze vampire. Not realizing at first that James is a Vampire like himself Croydon underestimates his ability to be able to stand up to him resulting in an almost unbelievable slug fest that last a full ten minutes! James finally puts and end to Croydon’s madness by pile-driving a wooden table leg through his chest. James now freed from his life long search to find and kill his rapist father has become a full-blooded vampire himself and instead of finding peace has become enslaved by his own savagery. No longer being able to control himself James must now go on living on the blood of innocent people becoming the monster that he for so long tried, and succeeded, to slay.

  • kocak-zorlu
    kocak zorlu

    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.

  • mariam-chapaghjowryan
    mariam chapaghjowryan

    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.

  • lapsa-evita
    lapsa evita

    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.

  • marliese-wilmsen-b-eng
    marliese wilmsen b eng

    I saw this movie when I was a kid in the 70’s and I’m pretty sure it scared the crap out of me. I saw it again not too long ago and a fight scene in the movie blew me away with how realistic it was. Pretty violent and maybe over the top. It looked like they said, ‘Let’s make this look real’, as opposed to how fake so many fight scenes look in movies. The movie has a certain atmosphere to the overall feel, not sure how to describe it. A certain dated feel to the overall production and the fact that you can tell it’s an older movie that makes it interesting to me and that add the dark nature of the movie. But I don’t think it still holds any more creep factor for me.

  • mia-separovic
    mia separovic

    A vampire, Caleb Croft (Michael Pataki), rises from the grave, only to find a young couple making out in the graveyard. He kills the boyfriend and rapes the girlfriend, who becomes pregnant. When the baby is born, it eschews milk for blood. (Like father, like son.) The boy, James, grows up into William Smith, who hates what he is and blames it on his father. James is determined to find Croft and kill him.The first 35 of the film’s 90 minutes are prologue. First, the murder and rape are investigated by an oddly credulous police detective. Since the boyfriend’s body was drained of blood, he reasons, the killer must be a vampire. Well, sure! What other possible explanation could there be? After Croft murders the detective, the focus switches to Leslie, the rape victim—first her pregnancy, then the raising of her vampire child. Suddenly, it’s 30 years later, Leslie has died of old age, and we finally to get to the real story.Despite the large number of vampires murders, there’s very little by way of violence. Instead, the film opts for slow-moving scenes of contrived dialogue delivered by a cast so bad, they must have paid to be in the film. The sole exception is Michael Pataki, who makes a fairly imposing vampire. The opening scene, in which Croft opens his coffin and leaves the grave, is genuinely creepy. If only the remaining 85 minutes were even half as watchable.But no. What we have here is typical grindhouse fare: a lame script, horrendous acting, cut-rate sets, ludicrous props, humdrum camera work, a grating (though occasionally effective) score, machete- styled editing, riotously bad sound effects, and one of the most predictable “surprise” endings I’ve ever seen.Item: At a library, Croft tells a woman she has lovely hair. She replies that she was once a photographer’s model. Neither character moves their lips during this exchange.Item: During his showdown with Croft, James is pushed into a fireplace and his back set ablaze. He puts the flames out with a classic stop-drop-and-roll move, then continues to fight as if he’s not now covered with third-degree burns. Also, his shirt sustains no fire damage.Item: James defeats Croft in the regular way—by jamming a wooden stake into the vampire’s, uh, stomach. It’s damned sure not his heart, unless Croft is a Vulcan.Item: At the film’s end, James morphs into a vampire. To call William Smith’s acting in this scene “histrionic” is a gross understatement. And going by their size, his fangs must have been stolen from a dinosaur museum.I give it three stars out of 10 for Michael Pataki. The film has nothing else going for it.

  • ivars-lapsa
    ivars lapsa

    Many years ago, while camping with our family, my older sister and I watched this movie on a black & white tv in our camper. Everyone else was asleep. At the point where the blood started dripping into the baby’s mouth, my sister said, “UGH, let’s quit watching this crap!” Off went the tv and we went to bed.I have tried for years to remember the name of this movie. My sister has unfortunately passed away, so I couldn’t ask her if she knew. Finally I figured it out and came to imdb to try find out more plot details.Through the magic of streaming television services, i was finally able to watch the rest of the movie several days ago. I was not missing much. I’m glad to have some resolution, I guess. Very low entertainment value.

  • johan-hamalainen
    johan hamalainen

    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

  • vladimir-pokorny
    vladimir pokorny

    It’s the dead of night and Grave of the Vampire starts in a mist enshrouded cemetery, a heartbeat thumps away on the soundtrack as the credits run over a shot of a stone tomb belonging to Celeb Croft (Micheal Pataki). A young couple named Paul (Jay Scott) & Leslie Hollander (Kitty Vallacher) are having a good time in the back seat of their car. Croft’s tomb opens, lying in the coffin covered in spiders, creepy crawlies & cobwebs a wrinkled old & decayed looking Croft opens his eyes. Croft rips the car’s door off, brutally kills Paul and drinks his blood. Croft’s attention then turns to the screaming Leslie whom he drags into an open grave and rapes her. It’s now dawn and Croft flees the rising sun by hiding in the basement of a nearby house. Lieutenant Panzer (Eric Mason) and Sergeant Duffy (William Guhl) question the cemetery caretaker, an old timer named Zack (Jay Adler) but come up with next to nothing that makes any sense. Leslie is now in hospital, Lieutenant Panzer shows Leslie some mugshots of men that are known to the police to see if she recognises any of them. Panzer slips in a photograph of Caleb Croft, the person who was meant to be lying dead in the open tomb, which gets very negative reaction out of Leslie. Panzer feels something strange is going on, but his overweight colleague Duffy (hey it’s good cop, fat cop!) disagrees and tries to talk him out of such silly conclusions. Back in the basement and Croft has killed the house owner and drained her of blood. Leslie’s doctor informs her that she is pregnant, but that the baby is dead and should be taken out of her. Leslie strongly disagrees and with a friend named Olga (Lieux Dressler) decides to go it alone, see the pregnancy through and have the baby. Leslie turns out to be right and she delivers a live baby boy, however the baby is grayish in complexion and refuses to eat or drink. That is until Leslie accidentally cuts her finger with a knife and her blood drips onto the babies mouth. The little fella can’t get enough of the red stuff, Leslie cuts her own breast and feeds him that way as well as filling bottles up with her blood. Fast forward many years and Leslie is dead and her now adult son, James Eastman (William Smith) who now knows about his horrible legacy vows vengeance on his blood-sucking Father, who now survives by attacking, killing and draining the blood of women he finds. James has tracked Croft across the country and has finally located him. Croft now goes by the name of Professor Adrian Lockwood and teaches a night class(!) folk mythology. James enrols in the class. There he meets and befriends Anita Jacoby (Diane Holden) and her roommate Anne Arthur (Lyn peters). James lies in wait for the right time to reveal himself to his Father as both Anne, Anita and their friends are dragged into the feud which ends in a blood soaked final confrontation to the death! Edited, co-written and directed by John Hayes I think this is a little horror gem that doesn’t seem to get much of a mention and is barely available. The script by Hayes and David Chase who was also responsible for the novel The Still Life on which Grave of the Vampire is based at first focuses on the rape of Leslie and the bringing up of James which takes the first 30 odd minutes, the film then ditches all the characters from this opening third except Croft & goes into the revenge of James on his Father which introduces the viewer to a whole new set of characters and locations. The only character who is in the film throughout from beginning to end is Croft the Vampire. I also should mention the downbeat ending which I personally really liked. It’s a no nonsense film as well which is quite brutal at times, someone has their head crushed by the lid of a stone tomb, someone is cut up with a bladed tool of some sort, feeding blood to a baby from a cut breast, there’s a slashed throat, a broken glass bottle is used to kill a woman and the obligatory staking of a Vampire through the heart. While none of this is particularly graphic in that Grave of the Vampire doesn’t feature much blood or explicit gore these sequences come across as quite vicious and cold-blooded. It moves along at a nice pace and is consistently entertaining and interesting to watch, and at 85 minutes it doesn’t drag. Micheal Pataki as the villainous Vampire is great and imposing, other cast members come off less well as acting isn’t the films strong point overall but it could have been worse I suppose. Grave of the Vampire also benefits from that 70’s look and feel even if the disco dancing scene is embarrassing to watch these days, I liked the atmosphere the film generated. The cinematography by Paul Hipp is basic but functional and perfectly acceptable & the film as a whole is quite well made and put together generally speaking. The negative aspects of Grave of the Vampire is that it is a little on the tame side and it could have been a bit bloodier & it would have benefited from a few more meaningful central characters. Grave of the Vampire is an usual Vampire film that deserves a wider audience, if you can track a copy down then watch it, I’m definitely glad I did. Recommended especially to 70’s horror fans.

  • eliza-bokenkamp
    eliza bokenkamp

    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.

  • tommy-clausen
    tommy clausen

    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.

  • karina-gonzales
    karina gonzales

    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.

  • dr-sally-davies
    dr sally davies

    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.

  • rachael-jacobson
    rachael jacobson

    “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.

  • daniella-khashmanyan
    daniella khashmanyan

    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.

  • vsiliauskas-raminta
    vsiliauskas raminta

    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.

  • edward-o-donnell
    edward o donnell

    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.

  • ulla-huuskonen-tikka
    ulla huuskonen tikka

    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.

  • tolonbay-ocalan
    tolonbay ocalan

    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.

  • peter-west
    peter west

    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.