top of page

3

(judgmental religious zealots)

7

(suggestions of violence)

5

(see once)

People in a small town are being murdered in their sleep, drained completely of blood. The living are getting worried some thinking vampires are the answer. The alternative is just as frightening, giant bats. The people live in terror and point fingers at a strange simpleton, Herman. Frightened villagers demand his head, but Karl, the level-headed investigator, won’t have any such talk. He’s not going to stake anybody through the heart without some solid proof. When the villain begins playing a cat and mouse game with the unsuspecting Karl only his girlfriend, Ruth, stands by him refusing to give into the hysteria sweeping the rest of the countryside.

 

I thoroughly enjoyed the vast majority of The Vampire Bat. In most movies like this the vampire is a given and the investigator is a fool for not listening to the people with more “open” minds. This go around, though, the investigator, like any good one would, simply wants enough evidence to name a suspect. He’s not beyond considering vampirism which is one of my favorite things about the Karl character. Yes, at first he is staunchly opposed to the possibility of a vampire, but as evidence mounts he struggles with accepting that as the explanation. This struggle has an excellent payoff.

 

Another thing I like about this is that the investigator, Karl, is the center of the story rather than being the person holding back those who “really” know what is going on around here. The bulk of the movie follows the investigation with enough evidence balanced with ambiguity so that the viewer can take either Karl or the villagers’ side of the argument. The downfall though, is that as the mystery unfolds some of the elements are poorly explained and serve to create more confusion rather than clarity. The final confrontation is unbelievable (in a bad way) and feels rushed. It’s almost as if they realize they had run out of time or money and just wrapped up production in the quickest way possible without narrative consideration.

 

While I like several of the characters I’m not too fond of Dwight Frye’s Herman. I think it is more his grammar than anything else. I just think the “Me do! Me do!” kind of speak pushes the characterization over the edge of believability when he is already so odd just with his movements and habits. I think he would have been stronger if they had kept his speech simple without being so extremely incorrect.

 

The movie is not a comedy, not at all, yet it has some delightfully funny comedic moments. I laughed out loud more than once. Most of it comes from Ruth’s hypochondriac aunt who claims the vampire rumor to be rubbish but can’t help but swoon when it’s mentioned in her presence. Sometimes the comedic characters in these old black-and-white horror movies can bug me (like the funny old lady in Bride of Frankenstein, one of the few weak elements in that movie), but this time it works well.

 

Morality

There is some mild violence, most of it happening out of sight, but with the presentation of some gruesome ideas of mutilation and a lot of corpses. It's not even really notable by today's standards.

 

There is no strong language, sex, or nudity at all.

 

Spirituality

While the suggestion of the supernatural pops up for consideration it's not really something that defines the story since the truth of the matter is not revealed until the end. More than that I think one of the major themes here is judging people based on superficial evidence. Many of the people in the town are religious; they seek solace in their faith and view the lethal happenings as the works of the Devil. Their fear leads them to look hard at any unusual activity as evidence of demonic communion. Herman is odd for sure, he's actually so over-the-top odd (remember the speech patterns I mentioned?) that he's hard to take seriously as a character. He's even a little creepy since his true motivations are unclear. And yet based on him being different the majority of the townsfolk are ready to stake him through the heart for vampirism.

 

I see a lot of this kind of attitude in real life: a person is branded a Satan-worshiper for wearing black clothes (when in some cases the person in question is actually a Christian), or a person is not welcome in a church because they don't look a certain way. I've been called into question for liking rock music (and when I say “rock music” I'm talking about a Petra praise album which can hardly be considered “edgy;” I can only image what the reaction of those people would be if they caught me listening to Grave Robber!)

 

People claiming to be Christians are far too quick to throw stones at people without even caring to have all the facts. Some are quick to ostracize and slow to love which is the exact opposite of what we should be. Our commandment is to love others as ourselves not crucify them for their sins as quickly as possible. So why then do we insist on making up sins and attach them to people we don't even know? 

 

Final Thoughts

It’s funny sometimes how many positives and negatives I find in these old movies. On the one hand I like the pace and structure of the story, the hero, and the comedic elements. On the other hand the end and some elements of the revealed mystery let me down. It's probably worth checking out if you enjoy old B&W horror flicks.

Buying Guide

Like so many of its old, public domain peers "The Vampire Bat" has enough various releases to drive a person batty. But which ones are worth the price tag?

 

There's a huge number of stand-alone DVD's and at least as many more various combo packs with other old horror movies. I found one Blu-ray combo pack.

 

So do any of them stand out among the others? Not a single one. Even the “Special Edition” lists nothing that makes it actually special. I can't even give you a recommendation based on listed run times because they vary from barely over an hour to 3 hours long. I'm relatively certain that there is no 3 hour cut of the film so these listings are clearly unreliable.

 

None list any details other than what I've already talked about, and none list any extras.

 

The Ultimate Horror Classics Blu collection seems to be part of a slowly growing trend (or perhaps attempt at a trend) of using Blu's storage capacity to fit a lot of movies on a single disc. 18 public domain films (some very common, some fairly rare) reside on a single disc in standard 480i definition (no HD here). The best I can say for these is that they seem to occasionally present the original image ratios and may be very slightly improved quality over some of the cheaper DVD budget packs. Otherwise they offer nothing special aside from being exceptionally self-space friendly. They offer no extras and can be somewhat hard to find.

 

Final Recommendation:

The quality of the Horror Classics 50 pack is not great, but there is no guarantee that any other edition offers anything better. Every comment I've seen that bothers to mention the quality, regardless of the release, speaks of its weakness. Don't spend much on it and be disappointed when it lacks. At least with a bargain pack like the 50 Horror Classics you get a low cost per movie.

I'll talk about the 50 pack of “Horror Classics” version.

 

Video

1.33:

There is no widescreen print. The picture has a lot of noise. This is common for old movies, but this one has even more than usual especially in the darker scenes. It also skips occasionally.

Audio

2.0 mono:

The sound mix is not great although for the most part everything is clearly understandable. There is a lot of white noise and pops, though, and the sound gets out of sync with the picture in at least one spot.

 

Packaging

This particular disc is housed in a cardboard sleeve contained in a Velcro-fastened box. You can read about the set as a whole in great detail in the Horror Classics (50 pack) guide.

 

Some comments make claim to an hour and a half long version although there is some evidence that it is listed incorrectly and that a version that long doesn’t and never has existed. Who knows for sure? The most commonly listed run time is right at an hour. The printed Horror Classics length says it’s slightly over 1 hour 10 minutes, but in actuality it’s almost exactly an hour. So is this the most complete version? I don't have any idea, and I have yet to run across anyone that does. The longest official run time I've seen attached to the movie is 65 minutes, but I'm certainly no expert on the matter.

 

Extras

There are none.

Other Releases Available:
Want to get your hands on something you read about? Click the links below.
Releases Reviewed:
bottom of page