Review #1291: The Vampire.
Cast:
John Beal (Dr. Paul Beecher), Coleen Gray (Carol Butler), Kenneth Tobey (Sheriff Buck Donnelly), Lydia Reed (Betsy Beecher), Dabbs Greer (Dr. Will Beaumont), Herb Vigran (George Ryan), Paul Brinegar (Willy Warner), Ann Staunton (Marion Wilkins), and James Griffith (Henry Winston) Directed by Paul Landres (#848 - The Return of Dracula)
Review:
It does seem like a nice way to tie the month together with a generic-sounding horror film with a vampire, seeing how I started the month with another generic-sounding title film with a werewolf. The one thing that this film shares with that film (aside from being an independent movie) is its science-fiction take on a creature of the supernatural - in this case, a guy turned into a vampire because he accidentally took experimental pills dealing with vampire bat blood and regressing animal minds to a primitive state. The vampire himself doesn't show up for most of its 75 minute run-time (for good reason, as one might say), but at least it is somewhat compelling with its sci-fi/horror crossroad to make it a light curiosity. The acting does tend to do just fine, such as the vulnerable yet humble Beal, who one can at take at face value with his struggle, showing some anguish for a film that badly needs it. The other actors are okay, with Greer generally seeming the most interesting when interacting with our lead, especially when it comes to dealing with the possibility of a "vampire". It isn't so much that the film is boring or such, but it just doesn't have enough of a spark going consistently, particularly with scares. The addiction angle is at least an interesting take when it comes to vampires, but it is amusing to note that the same director, writer (Pat Fielder), and producers (Arthur Gardner and Jules V. Levy) would return to do another vampire film the following year with The Return of Dracula - that actually turned out a bit better when it came to handling its vampire lead, actually. The makeup for the vampire is a bit of a disappointment. It has a lumpy composition, where those big eyebrows and hands make it seem more of a take on Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde - of course it should be noted that this creature doesn't have any weaknesses that you would see in any other fictional vampires, where he gets taken down by bullets at the end. I suppose one can only do so much with a low budget (reported to around $110,000), but a tighter design would've gone a long way towards making this a bit more easy to take seriously. Actually, tighter pacing might have also been a big help as well, along with a better way to stage a climax that doesn't just have him just being shot in daylight (no, I am not saying a fight in a dark castle, although that amuses me more than suburban horror). On the whole, this is a film made on the cheap that will do the basic requirements needed that works best when found down the line on a dark cold night with not much else to do.
Happy Halloween. But the fun is not over yet...
Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.
