Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

lemon_magic The monster here is really more of a "Jekyll-Hyde" or "Werewolf" character, although I supposed its need for blood, the fact that the medicine that created him came from vampire bats. and the puncture marks the monster leaves on its victims necks allow the movie to go with "The Vampire". So we'll let that pass. There's a lot to appreciate about this over-looked "monster" movie about a man mutated by science gone wrong into a blood-thirsty fiend, and, of course, the rock-jawed handsome law-man who tracks him down. It's well staged, well acted, and has an element of tragedy in the fate of a well meaning and devoted doctor whose life is ruined by a series of happenstances that no one could have foreseen. Because the doctor is so likable, the screen play becomes more than a bit uncomfortable, because it is obvious from the very beginning that there is no hope for a cure (even before the experts figure out what the issue is) and the character's growing realization about his fate is well portrayed. (And he really did deserve better).Unusual feel for a monster movie, and a fresh take on the idea of vampirism. Really well done.

Wizard-8 I have a feeling that some people who sit down to watch "The Vampire" will feel a little let down, at least when it comes to the movie's promise of delivering horror. It takes a long time for the first genuine moment of horror to come, and there are not that many moments of horror in the entire film! Also, while the movie runs an economical 76 minutes long, it does feel a little padded here and there. On the other hand, the movie does have its share of merit despite those shortcomings. The acting by all the participants is pretty decent; they manage to make their characters pretty convincing. And while the movie was done on a low budget, it never looks particularly cheap or tacky. The most interesting thing about the movie, however, is that the whole vampire plot can be seen as a parable for drug addiction, a topic that was still somewhat taboo when this movie was made. So if you can adjust your expectations so that you don't expect a lot of horror, this movie has some genuine interest.

Mark Honhorst In the 1950's, when most horror films had giant monsters running amok, this film attempts to revive the vampire as a serious form of horror entertainment, by mixing classic 30's horror elements with 50's Science Fiction camp. The result was this unsuccessful but nonetheless likable flick. The vampire in this film is unique as he doesn't live in a castle in Transylvania and he doesn't wear a black cloak. He is your typical small town doctor, a man you're supposed to trust and believe in. This is also unique because of the relationship between the father and his daughter. I was actually moved when he tells her she should go live with her aunt Sally, and she begins to cry. It was a surprisingly touching scene in a type of film that you believe should only be watched for camp value. It is filmed in glorious black and white, with a clean film transfer on an MGM "Midnite Movies" double feature. In short, this is underrated 1950's horror-scifi entertainment.

joshuafriedman John Beal's character, Dr. Paul Beecher, makes an (albeit brief) appearance in the next Landres/Fielder outing "The Return of Dracula". Though Beecher is this time played by Robert Lynn, the exterior of his practice looks exactly the same as it did in "The Vampire" (no doubt via stock footage from that film). In that Beal's Beecher dies by the end of "The Vampire", can we now consider "The Return of Dracula" as it's prequel?! The fact that the "Midnite Movies" DVD release of the films has "The Return... " headlining the double-bill would seem to support this, however... this fact is not made mention of anywhere (not where "Midnite Movies" usually has a "Fun Fact" listed, not on any of IMDb's trivia listings or user comments till now). Anyone out there agree or disagree?