I can't really claim that I was expecting much from the 1972 movie "Grave of the Vampire" when I sat down to watch it for the first time in 2020. Why? Well, it was a vampire movie that didn't have Bella Lugosi, Christopher Lee or Peter Cushing in it, so for an older vampire movie, it just lacked that selling ingredient. But still, I sat down to watch it, with it being a vampire movie and all.

And I will say that "Grave of the Vampire" wasn't a bad vampire movie, however nor was it an outstanding one either. Writers David Chase and John Hayes managed to come up with a storyline that was watchable, but you shouldn't expect it to be a vampiric masterpiece.

And the movie does show that it is from 1972, so this will of course not be a spectacle of grand special effects and such, yet "Grave of the Vampire" actually managed to do worse than the old Hammer Horror movies, oddly enough, in terms of special effects and the whole vampire atmosphere.

The acting in the movie was adequate, and that was most certainly something that helped to keep the movie as being watchable.

For a vampire movie "Grave of the Vampire" just didn't strike me as being all that and a batch of garlic - pardon the pun. However, there are far worse vampire movies out there.

My rating of director John Hayes's 1972 movie lands on a five out of ten stars. It was watchable, for sure, but this was not a memorable movie. Nor do I believe that I actually will ever sit down to watch it a second time.

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!

The seventies has to be one of the worst decades in history. People looked silly and pretentious, the music was insipid, and it was the beginning of a culture of selfishness. This is a very bad vampire movie. It has no imagination to speak of and the whole thing is so sliced up cinematically that it goes nowhere. It also has the father son thing going on. The acting is dreadful. I know people are going to say that when reviewing schlock it shouldn't be taken seriously. Well, schlock can be fun too, but when the people look like they're reading their lines as they act, it just doesn't work. The worst scene in the movie is the classroom one where people sit around and talk for about fifteen minutes. It's like a real classroom. Can you think of anything more terrifying? Anyway, they could have saved the film stock and made something more interesting, like a Preparation H commercial.