Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

John T. Ryan .........BUT THEN AGAIN sometimes it far surpasses anything that we would expect. Such is the case of this Columbia 1944 release of THE RETURN OF THE VAMPIRE. Normally, one could understandably prejudge the movie on several levels.FOR ONE, IT is not a product of Universal Pictures; which of course, we all know is the home of truly "Classic" horror flicks. Didn't Carl Laemmle's studio bring us the Lion's share of cinematic frights dating from the days of the Silents? WAS NOT THE star, Mr. Bella Lugosi over the hill, with some even believing him to have passed away? WELL, THIS EXPECTED bit of schlock double crossed everybody and proved to be an excellent reworking of the legend of "The Undead, the Nosferatu." It was and is a solid, intelligent and near "A" class production. If not truly a "B" picture pot-boiler (produced to fill out the bottom portion of a Double Feature); but rather it is a "B+" movie.TO BE SURE, there are many aspects of the movie that are very likely intended to capitalize on Mr. Lugosi's signature role as Dracula (Universal, 1931). First of all, the very appearance of Armand Tesla (Bella) is virtually the same as his image as Drac, 13 years earlier. From his Top Hat, white bow tie, Tux and fancy cape, Tesla is the spittin' image of the famous Transylvanian Count.EVEN THE TITLE has a certain suggestive ring to it. The very careful crafting of "...THE VAMPIRE", rather than "......A VAMPIRE" would seem to subliminally suggest Dracula; who is after all THEE Vampire of Vampires.ONE THING THAT we have always admired, ever since having first seen this movie on WBKB TV's "SHOCK THEATRE", circa 1957*, is the make-up devised for actor Matt Willis's portrayal of Andreas. He, like Renfield in Bram Stoker's original Dracula is a "Familiar"; that being a poor soul who is enslaved to be a servant to the Vampire. In this case, unlike Dwight Frye's character, Andreas takes the form of a Werewolf when doing the beckoning of the undead one. This Werewolf make-up is as good an interpretation as any cinematic lycanthrope that there is. WHAT REALLY IS surprising and very fulfilling to this film's total impact is a surprising ending. The climax is a highly charged scene featuring the final triumph of Good over Evil.IN THE YEAR of Our Lord 1944, we all needed a positive charge like this; which is not unlike something right out of the Bible.NOYTE: * The local Chicago "SHOCK THEATRE" was hosted by Terry Bennett, whose 'Marvin' character was the Windy City equivalent of Zacherly or Vampira in the other big markets.

ctomvelu1 While Lugosi's character is not called Dracula in this wartime quickie, he is most definitely Dracula in everything but name. His vampire character is accidentally resurrected during the Blitz, and he picks up where he left off, putting the bite on people and re-enslaving his old werewolf servant (Matt Willis as a poor man's Lon Chaney Jr.). The vampire sets his sights on a young woman who is clearly modeled on Mina Harker from Dracula. No one seems to be able to stop him. Moody and atmospheric and beautifully photographed for a no-budget B flick, although the ending is badly blocked and choreographed. By 1944, Lugosi was a shell of his former self, so the big showdown between vampire and werewolf at the end (obviously inspired by Universal's FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLFMAN) is a letdown. However, this minor effort has endured over the decades.

ProgressiveHead This was Columbia Studios attempt at a horror film in the same vein as those Universal were making around this time ("Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man", "House of Frankenstein" etc.), as it features both a vampire and a wolf man.Bela Lugosi plays a vampire (this time Armand Tesla) and when he is not busy being evil at night and sleeping all day, he is treating patients as Dr Hugo Bruckner. It's up to the strong, determined Lady Jane Ainsley (Freda Inescort) to put all the clues together and rid the world of Tesla's evil ways.There are a few atmospheric scenes typical of this type of film and Lugosi is suitably menacing and hypnotic, but the script isn't very good and many of the performances are quite stilted. For me, it just wasn't much fun unlike most of the Universal monster films of this era which were more satisfying dramatically, and as spectacle.Lugosi would play a vampire once more a few years later in "Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein" alongside other horror icons Frankenstein's Monster and the Wolf Man, whose design looks much better in those superior films.

slayrrr666 "Return of the Vampire" isn't all that bad of a vampire film.**SPOILERS**Dr. Jane Ainsley, (Frieda Inescourt) manages to kill vampire Armand Tesla, (Bela Lugosi) during the first World War. Years later, when her son John, (Roland Varno) and his fiancée Nikki Saunders, (Nina Foch) are about to be married, the German Blitz on London uncovers his grave, allowing his return. The rest allows for him Tesla to form a plan to avenge his death on Jane, going after John and Nikki. As he gets closer and closer to fulfilling his plan of revenge, Jane fights back against the vampire.The Good News: One of Lugosi's few roles as a vampire, this one wasn't all that bad. The mood and atmosphere created in here is quite nice. The frequent fog-drenched landscapes spread throughout are excellent examples, and set-up some great set-pieces. The early attack in the graveyard is very creepy, and is quite effective. The shadows are also great at generating suspense, and the sequence in the bedrooms are the best, with some great images throughout. The vampire story is actually pretty nice, and it's a nice, clever twist to the traditional elements. The World War II story is a new idea that's brilliantly worked into the film and creates some nice action sequences as well. The initial scenes of the attacks are the best, and it keeps the story from being too clichéd. And when Lugosi is in full vampire mode, it's never a boring feat.The Bad News: There's only a few things wrong with this one, and there not that bad. The film is over so fast that it's hard to really get into it, and could've been stretched out a little bit more. That would've made out the vampire attacks a little more violent, as they're pretty much non-existent. They basically just find the victims after the fact, and it doesn't really show any attacks. The fact that the film really makes no sense is also a problem, and there';s many different examples of things of that don't make sense. Many of them spoil the film, so they can't be revealed, but there's too much in here that doesn't make any sense. But these don't really hurt the film all that much.The Final Verdict: A rather routine vampire film that's at times quite chilling, it rises above and becomes some decent. Anything with Lugosi as a vampire can't be bad, so give it a shot, it isn't all that bad.Today's Rating-PG: Violence