JohnHowardReid SYNOPSIS: A small German village is terrorized by an apparent plague of unseen "vampire bats" that suck their victims dry of blood. COMMENT: By the humble standards of Poverty Row, this entry indeed comes across as a remarkable little film. The cast clocks in as pretty wonderful for a starter: Lionel Atwill at his best in the movie's major role; Melvyn Dougas of all people as the baffled hero (which he plays with all his usual charisma); and-disappointingly as it happens because her role is not only small and pretty inconsequential (though she does have a key scene at the climax), and in addition she is none too flatteringly photographed-Fay Wray! Another cult favorite, Dwight Frye, excels in one of the largest parts of his career. Also good to see George E. Stone and Robert Frazer (although, oddly, the screenplay provides Frazer with neither entrance nor introduction. He just suddenly appears on the scene). Unfortunately, Maude Eburne, a ham of the first water, enjoys a disproportionate amount of deadly dull "comedy relief" footage. Not a director one usually associates with "class" (although he did handle many of the "Blondie" movies including the justly famous haunted-house entry, Blondie Has Servant Trouble), Frank Strayer really rises to the occasion here. Mind you, he is helped immeasurably by the movie's great production values, including the extensive sets designed and made over by Charles D. Hall (Dracula, Frankenstein, The Old Dark House, The Invisible Man, etc.) and the spooky photography and atmospheric lighting of Ira Morgan (The Great Gabbo, The Sea Bat, Washington Merry-Go-Round).

O2D I have no idea what I have just seen.Some people decided that there must be a vampire killing people while another guy thinks it's a person.They spend most of this very short movie accusing the obvious suspect of being the vampire and it gets boring after a couple minutes.While I watched this, I had to rewind a dozen times and I still couldn't tell you who the vampire was or who lived and who died.It's just your basic "doctors with guns" movie.Not much story and even less action.But I must admit that it's better than I expected and I have seen much worse.I have seen so many bad movies that I feel like giving two stars means it was good.It wasn't.

gridoon2018 I watched "The Vampire Bat" a couple of days after watching "Murders In The Zoo", also with Lionel Atwill, also made in 1933. The comedown in production quality is notable - there is a reason why you have heard of Paramount but not of "Majestic Pictures"! There is some impressive (subjective) camera-work, and the plot touches peripherally on the lynch-mob-mentality topic, but the film is excessively talky, and about as (un)surprising as a Scooby Doo episode. Atwill is perfectly cast, but his presence is a mixed blessing; it means than you know immediately who the villain of the story is. Fay Wray is highly desirable - even the camera loves her. ** out of 4.

binapiraeus The early 30s were of course the great days of the CLASSIC horror movie - the horror wave (although its beginnings lay back in the silent days, with first and foremost performer Lon Chaney) started in 1931 with "Dracula" and "Frankenstein", both made by Universal Pictures, which took their vampires and monsters seriously, and exploited about every old Eastern European or other superstition, until even the audiences of the time almost started believing in vampires and werewolves...The other 'school' was initiated by Warner Brothers, in 1932 with "Dr. X" and the following year "The Mystery of the Wax Museum" - and with both films starring Fay Wray and Lionel Atwill. You could call it the 'scientific school', because in those cases there is a real-life explanation for the murders - nothing supernatural about it. And since those two great masterpieces were enormously successful (and expensive: they were the two first Technicolor talkies, the first in 2-color and the second in 3-color; that shows how much the producers believed in their new 'science horror' concept), Wray and Atwill were teamed again, this time by Majestic Pictures - and with a much smaller budget, and in black-and-white, of course.But "The Vampire Bat" develops the concept further: this time, a police inspector is looking for a REAL murderer while all the superstitious villagers believe in vampires; so, from the beginning, the movie mixes crime and horror (a concept that MGM would 'take over' a year later in "Mark of the Vampire", in quite a similar, though not very scientific way) - and, parallel to the good old creepy houses and dark caves which every fan of classic horror movies loves, we've also got a real, neat 'whodunit'. A two-in-one movie, you could almost say - and although we may ask ourselves after a while why the young inspector (Melvyn Douglas' turn to become Fay Wray's rescuer; he'd also had his experiences in the genre in "The Old Dark House") doesn't suspect the sinister scientist for a moment, while all the village is hunting after poor, mentally retarded Herman (another MARVELOUS madman portrayal by Dwight Frye), we're just contented when finally the big light goes on in his head, and he saves his girl from the hands of her mad employer...This movie really makes you go back in time and feel like a cinema-goer in 1933 - a piece of film nostalgia which has got just about everything: romance, horror, crime, and its share of humor; what else could you want for a GREAT late-night entertainment?