James Hold I give it extra points for the extended fight scene at the end. Those guys really beat the crap out of each other!

stones78 If you're trying to figure out my summary line, it's a reference to Michael Pataki's character in "Happy Days", which many may remember him by, as I do. Look for veteran character actor William Smith, who's always solid, although he probably needed slightly better material to work with in this film. I'm a fan of most 70's vampires, and while this won't be tops on my list, I still enjoyed this slightly different "bite" than what I'm used to. Pataki was solid as the main vampire, although he lacked the charm that many have playing the lead dude, but he was still convincing, and sometimes creepy, save for the silly fangs. Something that stood out to me was the mother feeding her "baby vampire" blood, although it was an odd scene to watch, but I never saw anything like it before, and I've seen tons of vampire films. The atmosphere, especially the college campus at night, worked for me; there was also a slick fog throughout the cemetery too. A few things made me scratch my head, such as the rushed love scene between James(Smith)and Anne(Lyn Peters), who just met minutes before. There was an interesting police angle early on, but after one detective gets killed, that's the end of the police hunt. Overall, this was a different type of vampire film than you may be used to, but it's worth a try.

Theo Robertson I wasn't expecting much from this . With a title like GRAVE OF THE VAMPIRE you expect sheer exploitation especially if the synopsis reads " A vampire rises from his grave and attacks a young couple killing the male and raping the female getting her pregnant " and the film almost lives down to expectations when it's revealed " the young couple " look like they're in their late 30s . Honestly if that's what horny teenagers look like no wonder so many British celebrities are being facing historical under age sex charges Strangely and unexpectedly the film doesn't pan out the way you expect it to do . The rape scene itself is rather restrained and actually takes place off screen . The film itself despite have rather poor production values due to a low budget does concentrate on atmosphere . It's also very dead pan as characters reflect on the meaning of life and death and never resorts to gore or camp humour . It's a not great film but is relatively good and better than expected

lemon_magic 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.