IMDb RATING
5.8/10
1.4K
YOUR RATING
A kind, small-town doctor mistakenly ingests pills made from vampire bat blood and they turn him into a dangerous fanged creature.A kind, small-town doctor mistakenly ingests pills made from vampire bat blood and they turn him into a dangerous fanged creature.A kind, small-town doctor mistakenly ingests pills made from vampire bat blood and they turn him into a dangerous fanged creature.
Chet Brandenburg
- Restaurant Patron
- (uncredited)
Arthur Gardner
- Anesthetist
- (uncredited)
Raymond Greenleaf
- Autopsy Surgeon
- (uncredited)
Hallene Hill
- Mrs. Carrie Dietz
- (uncredited)
Mauritz Hugo
- Joe, the Waiter
- (uncredited)
Michael Jeffers
- Bartender
- (uncredited)
Louise Lewis
- Mrs. Miller
- (uncredited)
Natalie Masters
- Ruth
- (uncredited)
Walter Merrill
- Carl James
- (uncredited)
Featured reviews
Dr. Campbell is a sick man. Just before he dies, he gives a bottle of tablets to Dr. Paul Beecher (Paul Beal). Quite by accident, Paul takes one of the pills thinking it's his migraine medication. The pills were part of Dr. Campbell's work on mind regression to a more primitive state and were made from the blood of the vampire bat. Paul immediately becomes addicted to the pills and begins taking one each night. Coinciding with Paul addiction, people in town begin dying mystery deaths. Each has strange bite marks on their necks. Paul begins to suspect himself, but surely Paul's suspicions can't be true. Are the pills turning him into some kind of vampire?
While I don't think it's quite as good as his later film The Return of Dracula, Paul Landres' The Vampire is still a solid little horror film that takes much of the existing vampire mythology and stands it on its head. For example, the creature in The Vampire isn't the suave, cape-wearing, seducer that we've all become familiar with over the years. Here, the creature is a primitive being that seeks blood for survival. It is more bat-like in appearance and action. I'm not saying that one interpretation is better than the other, I just appreciate the difference.
There's a lot to like about The Vampire. I love the way the film introduces an element of horror into an otherwise safe and comfortable Leave It to Beaver type setting. The contrast is interesting. And I for one appreciate the make-up effects. I realize they were done "on the cheap", but I found them very eerie. Landres direction is solid. He keeps things interesting without a lapse during the movies runtime. But the area I find the most enjoyable in The Vampire is the acting. Everyone involved gives a performance far better than you would expect from a film of this type. As others have noted, Paul Beal gives real outstanding first-rate performance.
Overall, The Vampire is a very satisfying film. I look forward to revisiting it for years to come.
While I don't think it's quite as good as his later film The Return of Dracula, Paul Landres' The Vampire is still a solid little horror film that takes much of the existing vampire mythology and stands it on its head. For example, the creature in The Vampire isn't the suave, cape-wearing, seducer that we've all become familiar with over the years. Here, the creature is a primitive being that seeks blood for survival. It is more bat-like in appearance and action. I'm not saying that one interpretation is better than the other, I just appreciate the difference.
There's a lot to like about The Vampire. I love the way the film introduces an element of horror into an otherwise safe and comfortable Leave It to Beaver type setting. The contrast is interesting. And I for one appreciate the make-up effects. I realize they were done "on the cheap", but I found them very eerie. Landres direction is solid. He keeps things interesting without a lapse during the movies runtime. But the area I find the most enjoyable in The Vampire is the acting. Everyone involved gives a performance far better than you would expect from a film of this type. As others have noted, Paul Beal gives real outstanding first-rate performance.
Overall, The Vampire is a very satisfying film. I look forward to revisiting it for years to come.
Dr. Paul Beecher, a respected small-town physician and all-around nice guy, ingests some mysterious pills given to him by his annoying daughter. It seems the li'l brat has foolishly mistaken them for his migraine medication! After Beecher develops a chemical dependency for the drug, he slowly realizes that he was responsible for a series of bizarre murders committed while he was under the influence of these pills. Apparently, these harmless-looking tablets have the power to make their user mutate into a hairy, bloodthirsty vampire at nightfall, leaving him with no recollection of what he has done after the effects have worn off. How could these pills be so powerful? Easy! Because they contain a chemical extracted from a vampire bat!!
This fun, fast-paced horror flick was made in that classic monster-movie style that we have all come to love, yet at the same time it has some very unique and clever twists. The vampire, who is played excellently by John Beal, really looks nothing like you'd expect. Rather than having the bloodsucker portrayed as the standard well-dressed, intelligent, and graceful DRACULA lookalike, THE VAMPIRE depicts him as a hairy, ugly, clumsy beast who ambles aimlessly after his targets. In my opinion, the interpretation of a vampire as being angry, primitive, and relentlessly brutal is much more frightening than the notion of a slick, attractive, intellectual vamp.
The characters in this film are eccentric, likeable, and very well-acted; and the special effects, although simple and outdated, are surprisingly effective. Despite the fact that THE VAMPIRE's story may contain a few glaring inconsistencies, it still succeeds as a suspenseful yet down-to-earth creature feature.
This fun, fast-paced horror flick was made in that classic monster-movie style that we have all come to love, yet at the same time it has some very unique and clever twists. The vampire, who is played excellently by John Beal, really looks nothing like you'd expect. Rather than having the bloodsucker portrayed as the standard well-dressed, intelligent, and graceful DRACULA lookalike, THE VAMPIRE depicts him as a hairy, ugly, clumsy beast who ambles aimlessly after his targets. In my opinion, the interpretation of a vampire as being angry, primitive, and relentlessly brutal is much more frightening than the notion of a slick, attractive, intellectual vamp.
The characters in this film are eccentric, likeable, and very well-acted; and the special effects, although simple and outdated, are surprisingly effective. Despite the fact that THE VAMPIRE's story may contain a few glaring inconsistencies, it still succeeds as a suspenseful yet down-to-earth creature feature.
This obscure 1957 horror movie has been overlooked as far as I am concerned. It has an interesting twist to the "man turns into bloodsucking monster" premise. John Beal plays a kindly small town doctor who turns into a vampire after accidentally ingesting pills that a deceased scientist had invented and had been experimenting on with vampire bats (the winged variety!) before he died. 1950's horror stalwart Kenneth Tobey portrays the granite-jawed town detective who is investigating a sudden rash of mysterious deaths in the town. Colleen Gray is the requisite pretty love interest/possible victim. Although the vampire make up is pretty hilarious and not at all scary, there are some scary moments in the movie and all in all shouldn't be missed, especially if you are a lover of the old "drive-in" horror movies of the 1950's.
The film begins with a nice town doctor being called to the lab or a strange chemist who is dying. It seems that the chemist has developed something that he considers important but when the nice doctor arrives, the dying chemist mentions some pills he created and then dies. What these pills are for, the doctor has no idea but he sticks them in his pocket. Later, when the doc has a headache, he accidentally takes one of these pills and it makes him into a blood-sucking monster with really lousy makeup.
While it's obvious that United Artists did not break the bank to make this film, despite its low price tag, it was reasonably interesting and is worth a peek to horror fans. Sophisticated patrons will most likely find the whole thing rather silly, but what sort of sophisticated or snobby viewer would watch a film like this in the first place?
While it's obvious that United Artists did not break the bank to make this film, despite its low price tag, it was reasonably interesting and is worth a peek to horror fans. Sophisticated patrons will most likely find the whole thing rather silly, but what sort of sophisticated or snobby viewer would watch a film like this in the first place?
JOHN BEAL is the central character as a Dr. Beecher whose daughter inadvertently gives him pills extracted from a control serum for bats. COLEEN GRAY is his pretty nurse and KENNETH TOBEY a Sheriff who begins to suspect there's something wrong about a couple of deaths ruled as heart attacks.
The suspense builds slowly from the very beginning as the credits unfold over the scene of a newspaper boy discovering an ill doctor in an old mansion. As the story progresses, it's easy to see that the script is way above average in the horror department with dialog that's sensible, concise and always on track.
Beal's haggard appearance helps him to be more convincing than usual in the role of the tormented doctor victimized by the wrong pills. Although it's a variation on the vampire theme, there's a trace of Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde in the way the screenplay develops.
Summing up A rational vampire thriller that passes the time quickly and is fun to watch.
The suspense builds slowly from the very beginning as the credits unfold over the scene of a newspaper boy discovering an ill doctor in an old mansion. As the story progresses, it's easy to see that the script is way above average in the horror department with dialog that's sensible, concise and always on track.
Beal's haggard appearance helps him to be more convincing than usual in the role of the tormented doctor victimized by the wrong pills. Although it's a variation on the vampire theme, there's a trace of Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde in the way the screenplay develops.
Summing up A rational vampire thriller that passes the time quickly and is fun to watch.
Did you know
- TriviaDirector Paul Landres apparently liked the character name "Dr. Paul Beecher" so he used it twice - as the main lead in this film and as a small supporting character in his follow up "The Return of Dracula" (1958) starring Francis Lederer.
- GoofsAt movie's end, when the detective departs; he doesn't retrieve his revolver.
- Quotes
Willy Warner: Buck, you can't go around diggin' up people's graves. To get a court order you got to have some good reason.
Sheriff Buck Donnelly: I got plenty of reasons, Willy. Three deaths in three days.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Chillerama: Godzilla/Mark of the Vampire (1962)
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Language
- Also known as
- El hombre vampiro
- Filming locations
- Motor Avenue at Woodbine Street, Los Angeles, California, USA(Doctor passes police station, doesn't enter.)
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $115,000 (estimated)
- Runtime
- 1h 15m(75 min)
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content