JohnHowardReid Gramercy Pictures. Released by United Artists. No recorded New York opening. U.S. release: July 1957. No record of any British or Australian theatrical release. 6,737 feet. 75 minutes. Re-issue title: MARK OF THE VAMPIRE. SYNOPSIS: A dying scientist gives a doctor some pills which he takes by mistake. To his horror, he discovers the pills have turned him into a human vampire.COMMENT: This efficient little horror thriller has earned itself something of a cult reputation. Why? Because Beal, who is generally rather a lethargic performer, actually comes alive as a vampire. Because Kenneth Tobey is a cult figure, thanks to his lead role in The Thing (1951). Coleen Gray has a fair standing in cult circles as well. Director Landres manages to bring off a few genuinely frightening effects. And if we can't have Spencer Tracy or Fredric March as Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde (they both figure in my book on Academy Award-Winning Films of the 1930s), I'm stuck with numerous clones, so we may as well have one of the lesser-known cult favorites. OTHER VIEWS: Yet another picture suggested by Robert Louis Stevenson's classic Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, this is a modest yet gripping thriller, well directed, and featuring an effective music score.

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.

Woodyanders Kindly small town physician Dr. John Beecher (a fine and likable performance by John Beal) gets transformed into a vicious predatory vampire after mistakenly taking an experimental drug made from the blood of vampire bats. Director Francis Lederer relates the engrossing story in an admirably taut and straightforward manner and neatly grounds the fantastic premise in a believable quiet small town setting, but unfortunately fails to generate much in the way of either suspense or creepy atmosphere. Moreover, the vampire make-up is regrettably shoddy and the pace a touch too slow. That said, this film still delivers a few tense and thrilling moments such as when Beecher chases after his loyal nurse Carol Butler (well played by the lovely Coleen Gray) through the dark streets. The climax is likewise quite exciting. Pat Fielder's concise and offbeat script offers a fresh and inspired non-Gothic modern scientific take on vampirism. The sound acting by a sturdy cast helps a lot: Beal makes for a sympathetic anguished protagonist, Kenneth Tobey is in typically fine form as the stalwart Sheriff Buck Donnelly, plus there are nice turns by Dabbs Greer as the cheery Dr. Will Beaumont, Ann Stanton as the terrified Marion Williams, and James Griffith as the aloof Dr. Henry Winston. Jack MacKenzie's crisp black and white cinematography boasts several graceful fades and dissolves. Gerald Fried's spirited shivery score does the shuddery trick. A rather flawed, but overall still solid and enjoyable movie.

MARIO GAUCI At first I wanted to leave my viewing of this one for another day but, since I was impressed with THE RETURN OF Dracula (1958) – made by several of the same people – I decided to check this one out soon after! I knew it treated the characteristically Gothic vampire legend as sci-fi (the decade having shown a boom in this field to the detriment of the more classical horror style, that is until the advent of Hammer Films around this same time) and, in retrospect, it's not particularly convincing – especially since the ill-fated lead turns into a blood-drinker (at least the first time it occurs) merely by taking one tiny experimental pill! Eventually, he becomes addicted to them and increases the dose (a nod, certainly, to the drug problem which had also begun to intensify by then, and was seriously treated in such major films as Otto Preminger's THE MAN WITH GOLDEN ARM [1955] and Nicholas Ray's BIGGER THAN LIFE [1956]). Towards the end, however, he changes in spite of the 'concoction' – yes, changes, as the film attempts rather awkwardly to link the blood-drinker's behavior with the equally popular Jekyll/Hyde formula (pardon the pun)…but the exaggerated make-up is perhaps a bit overdone (reminding one, as does the remote experimental laboratory, of TARANTULA [1955])!I may have seemed unfairly harsh to THE VAMPIRE in my comments above; still, my relatively high rating indicates that I was quite pleased with it overall: in fact, this is a very enjoyable (if clearly minor) genre effort – though I feel that THE RETURN OF Dracula is still the superior film. What this one definitely has going for it is a remarkable central performance by John Beal, who nails every aspect of his character – his dedication to his profession (he's the town doctor), his confusion and remorse at his nightly exploits as a monster, and his compulsion for the drug (and, by extension, human blood).Genre stalwart Kenneth Tobey is on hand as the sheriff hero; the other main roles are very adequately filled by Coleen Gray as Beal's secretary (romantically pursued throughout by Tobey), Dabbs Greer as Beal's old school chum – now a renowned scientist, James Griffith as the latter's vaguely sinister assistant (perhaps intended to cater to the hipsters in the crowd by being made to constantly sport dark shades and generally bear the countenance of a lone wolf!) and Lydia Reed, who's quite appealing as Beal's concerned little daughter. The climax is okay, though perhaps the weakest aspect of the film – with the monster killed in ordinary fashion (as opposed to Count Dracula in Landres' follow-up horror effort); incidentally, I noticed that the make-up was somewhat pared down during the final chase (perhaps for budgetary reasons).In conclusion, another title called THE VAMPIRE appeared that same year – the wonderful (and seminal) Mexican horror outing directed by Fernando Mendez and starring German Robles and Abel Salazar; actually, Landres' film is also known as MARK OF THE VAMPIRE (which, then, shouldn't confuse it with the Tod Browning effort of the same name from 1935)!