Well, it seems I'm the first this week. I'd say The Vampire begin nicely (for "Kolchak: TNS" standards), but ended too abruptly.

This time they didn't have to shoot scenes in LA in the summer and say it was Chicago in October, as Kolchak was supposedly in Los Angeles. Come to think of it, if the series is shot in California, they might as well set the story there. But I liked that the monster of the week was not in Chicago, which means that the supernatural may occur anywhere (especially considering the two TV movies took place in Las Vegas and Seattle, respectively), and Chicago is not the only places these monstrosities choose to appear just because Kolchak works there.

Anyway, after tricking Vincenzo to assign him to do the interview of a guru in California (I think Kolchak even made up the names of some books about Transcendental Meditation he supposedly had read in order to intimidate Updyke), Kolchak gets in Los Angeles where he befriends a pretty redhead (Faye Kruger) who works as a realtor. The lady was also known for winning the prize of best Samantha Stevens (Elizabeth Montgomery) impersonator. Well, not really, but I thought she really reminded me of the star of Bewitched, and that hairdo (probably a highly fashionable style in the 1960s/1970s) helped that effect a lot. I liked her and thought she was a much better counterpart for Kolchak, unlike that obnoxious Monique. In fact it even occurred to me that if the character had continued, she could've become a romantic interest for the hero. I have to admit it concerns me that they portray the protagonist as quite an asexual character.

While Kolchak was in Hollywood, he was more concerned about solving the murders committed by a female vampire (and he was the only person to have figured out the truth from the get-go, certainly because of his experience with Janos Skorzeny in the first TV movie) than interviewing the supposed guru who was getting married or something, which, frankly, sounds like a very insipid story to send a reporter all the way from Chicago to cover it. And the solution Kolchak finds is so typical of him: he convinces Faye to work on his story in exchange for a break in the profession of journalism, an idea he has when he learns that she has studied journalism and would like to work in the field.

I was, in fact, more interested in that part than the hunt for the vampire simply because by keeping the vampire so "mysterious" as the writers always do, they fail to develop her as a character, who becomes more of a gimmick for Kolchak's exploits. Faye, on the other hand, had a backstory, was developing as a character, and the actress had enough charisma for that to happen.

It turns out Faye is not very good at reporting and Kolchak learns that he cannot delegate his work just to the first person he meets in a strange city. As she is writing the article, she asks him if magically has one or two Ls, where the apostrophe would go in "it often loses its own charm" (it's or its'??? Answer: none). And when describing the guru's house she goes into detail talking about plumbing and other architectural aspects as if she were, well, a realtor, which she is.

That part was promising, and I know Kolchak has a bad professional reputation with a lot of people (including Vicenzo) in terms of discipline and following orders, but one reason his boss relies on him is that he must be a good reporter and an excellent writer, and it would be a shame if Kolchak risked losing that because he chose an incompetent to do his job.

As for the murder investigation itself, I thought it was a nice surprise that this time he met a very understanding police captain who gave him all the help he could and was the first to follow Kolchak's advice as far as supernatural matters were concerned. Well, well, not really. Different city, same police attitude. The guy in charge, lieutenant Matteo, even called Kolchak idiotic.

(As a side note, I thought William Daniels, who played Matteo, sounded awfully like Linus Roach, who played ADA Cutter in the last seasons of Law & Order and now is in Vikings, playing a king. Sometimes I could swear I was hearing Roach when Daniels spoke.)

I have to say I loved the final confrontation scene in which Kolchak faced the vampire by setting a field of bushes on fire and burning a large cross, a local landmark he happened to have to pay for. However, the cross burning ritual has so many different interpretations that I doubt they's use that today. Imagine if Kolchak was trying to kill Blackula, for instance...

In the end, the story was apparently discarded (well, again...) just like that, the story about Faye Kruger was also halted (she went back to the real estate business and pretended her stint in journalism never happened), and we don't know how Kolchak handled the whole guru interview situation. Did he rewrite Faye's story? Did he have any information about the guru at all? Would Vincenzo accept Kolchak's shoddy attempt at reporting something he made no effort to write well?

In other words, there were a few promising situations that could've had consequences, but as the episode was running out of time and that particular monster had been killed, it's as if the story didn't deserve proper development and a proper ending.

One last detail: didn't Kolchak lose his equipment (camera and cassette recorder) in a fire in his first confrontation with the vampire? Then how come at the end of the episode he leaves the hotel with Faye and comes back to pick up his equipment. Did he have a spare set? That seems unlikely.

"The Vampire" gets 7 misspelled words typed by a hard-working, but untalented, reporter wannabe.

This is copied over from the old forum. I highlighted a few sections of others reviews at the time. Hopefully they don't mind me copying that over.

Having read Simian_Jack and Madp's entries I realised that Kolchak doesn't actually do any research into vampires in this story. In previous like the Ripper and Zombie we saw or it was mentioned how Kolchak came to the conclusion that a extra normal entity was killing. He is not only suspicious right from his first scene but determined to get to LA and investigate. From what others have written this makes sense given his experience in the movie (which I have not watched). Although to be honest it didn't bother me. Given his experience in the 3 episodes and how well know the features of Vampire attacks would be, I didn't even question that he quickly came to that conclusion. I do hope this is a one off as if Kolchak continues to make the leap to the strange solution without at least exploring the likely and the mundane first but with an open mind, I think the series could suffer. With that out of the way, it's off to LA.

So this time Kolchak is trying to balance covering the story he has been sent for with the one he wants to cover. I loved his conversations with Vincenzo, especially when Tony reveals he's figured out where the "phone interference" is coming from. This remains one of the highlights of each story so far and I hope it continues. Faye Kruger who Kolchak cleverly drafts in to write his piece is pretty well acted and I would vote for her replacing Monique (who is happily absent). It was amusing how her article ended up just like a home listing. I also enjoyed when Kolchak drops her off at his hotel gives his room number and says "get started without me" to a querulous look from the hotel porter.

The Vampire is once again a mute antagonist much like the Ripper or the Zombie.

As Simian_Jack wrote:

Skorzeny was kept silent as well in the movie. It's an effective approach, minimising what humanity she once had.

It's interesting as the pimp and the man who was trying to pick her up both have interactions with her but we never see her speak even in these mute scenes. Maybe uses her looks to attract men before she becomes more feral. A long distance from the romanticised vampires.

There is another press conference which puzzled me as it seems they were holding it at the crime scene. This was backed up by one of the reporters commenting there didn't seem to be evidence of a struggle, (odd as we saw the struggle earlier). The police lieutenant didn't seem very in control of the conference, with questions just being blurted out right, left and centre.

Finally with have the big confrontation. Visually it was spectacular when the large cross was ignited. I'm not sure how Kolchak got out of this one. He was caught red handed burying a stake in the body of a woman. Even if that body was a 3 year old corpse. He's still got some explaining to do. Vampire v body snatching and a strange occult ritual in front of a burning cross.

7 lenient police officers out of 10

The Vampire

Carl Kolchak first came to believe in the supernatural in 1972 when he covered a rash of serial murders in Las Vegas. The killer turned out to be one Janos Skorzeny...and he was a vampire. By the time it was over, Kolchak thought the story had been neatly wrapped up (along with his career). He was wrong. One of Skorzeny's victims has just awakened by the side of the road where Skorzeny buried her two years ago. She is no longer human.

That connection from The Night Stalker (1972 telefilm) to Kokchak: The Night Stalker (1974 series) is neither overtly stated nor alluded to by Kolchak himself, so anyone who hasn't seen the original film won't need to feel they're missing anything, but it does help explain Kolchak's sudden urgency to be on the scene when he hears that a string of homicides from Vegas to L.A. has left victims with "an inordinate loss of blood". If you haven't seen the telefilm, it just looks like a reporter's zeal.

On learning of the murders from an old friend (TV comedy stalwart Larry Storch as "Swede" Breitowski), and hearing that Vincenzo needs a reporter to fly to LA to get a story on a celebrity spiritual leader, Kolchak secures the assignment by pretending not to want it. Updyke volunteers, and has read up on the subject - just a little - but Kolchak knows how to play his boss, and though Updyke sees through it he's helpless to do anything about it. Too bad for both him and Vincenzo, because Updyke would actually have written the story - Kolchak has no interest in the guru, it's just a plane ticket to him.

Where the earlier three episodes allowed some mystery for us and Kolchak to discover, 'The Vampire' lets us in on the killer's identity from the beginning. Even the story title mocks a concern for spoilers. Her name is Catherine Rawlins, and we watch her progress even as Kolchak is still winging his way across the continent. Her introductory scene is possibly the creepiest single image from the series as her hands rise from the earth by the stalled car of a motorist. It's a blood-curdling moment. In life, she worked L.A. and Vegas as a prostitute. Returning to L.A. in death she kills her former roommate, steals her clothing, and makes herself attractive to a pimp who will put her right where she can find easy victims. By implication Rawlins must be able to pass for human, including speech, but never appears onscreen as anything but a feral animal caught in the act of feeding. Woe to whoever catches her, because she's violent and stronger than human. Skorzeny was kept silent as well in the movie. It's an effective approach, minimizing what humanity she once had.

A police investigation is led by William Daniels as Lt. Matteo, bringing to the role the same imperious irascibility he displayed in 1776 and St. Elsewhere. Excellent casting -that's two in a row, following James Gregory, as authoritative foils both strong and amusing. Matteo is working on a theory that the killings are being conducted by Satanists using vacuum pumps to drain the victims of blood for use in rituals. It's preposterous in the details, but at least presents down-to-earth perpetrators. He's about to run headlong into Kolchak who keeps throwing vampires in his face. Matteo doesn't have the patience for it. Do people really get 'run out of town' by police?

Here's a bit of a problem as Kolchak for the first time starts to sound like a loon even to us, the audience. We know he's right, of course, but what does he do to convince Matteo? Walk him through the logic? Ask Vincenzo to tell Matteo what happened two years ago in Vegas? No, he rants. Rants about stakes and hammers and the undead. Rants like a true believer thinking the conviction of his passion alone will convert everyone else regardless of reason or fact. If you're already in a hole, stop digging. Kolchak is so carried away he can't stop digging with Matteo. He can't get it through his head that others have to go through the same process he did, from skeptic to believer.

Again, it's a testament to Darren McGavin that we cheer on and enjoy Carl Kolchak even though he treats those around him in spectacularly selfish and thoughtless ways. To remain in L.A. he has to placate Vincenzo with his given assignment. To do that, after a token stab at covering it himself, he bamboozles a one-time journalist wannabe into writing it for him. I have a little trouble with this as well, on a couple of levels. Faye the realtor was for a brief time a genuine journalist. Her mind bends to estates these days, and drafts a piece detailing the property the guru used to live in...and I wonder whether she shouldn't know better. It's comic relief, of course, and we are meant to understand that she is now a realtor because as a writer she made a better estate agent. No writer's instinct, then, but...not even a fundamental understanding of covering a story? It may be a quibble, but the more I see of the episode the less these interludes in 'The Vampire' play for me. Vincenzo should immediately spot that the submitted piece was not written by his own reporter: another quibble. K:TNS is precariously balancing between character-driven humor and goofiness, and I have to say that camp has never been my favorite flavor. Speaking of character, I'm leery of Kolchak's intention to sign his byline to Faye's writing. It's grossly unethical, of course, and a beep thing to do...but even granting that Kolchak is willing to sink to any dirty trick to get a story, I had always thought his own work was something he held sacrosanct. This isn't the same Carl who shared a lunch with Jane Plumm.

Much of the humor elsewhere is spot on, as when Carl flashes his INS credentials at a janitor and makes like a fed, having been mistaken for one a few hours earlier. There's the look on the face of a doorman when Kolchak pulls up in front of his hotel and sends a woman to his room with the instructions to "Start without me" before driving off. There's an awkward scene wherein Kolchak arranges for the escort service to send Rawlins to his room, and they send someone else. She's a little alarmed, and a lot blase about whatever kink this sad bastard waving a cross at her must be into. He's drawn a cross on the door in lipstick. It's sort of humorous in a nervous, uncomfortable way but not exactly comedy. Nor is the horror-stricken shock on Matteo's face when he finds Kolchak having just driven a stake into the heart of a young woman. He could only be thinking that her death is his own fault for not realizing this lunatic reporter was crazy enough to kill someone and not merely a nutter to put on a plane. No, this show may be about the boogeymen of our childhoods but it ain't for kids.

"The multiple listings had described Catherine Rawlins' house as a baronial retreat. It was actually a decayed turn-of-the-century mansion waiting to be turned into a condominium, and it would appeal to a special type of client: someone unconcerned with earthy comforts...and it was secluded. Who would go near it? Only a vampire. Or some fool looking for her." 'The Vampire' concludes with one of TNS' patented sequences of fumbling in the dark where no sane person should be to find the monster-of-the-week in its lair, and a confrontation. This is one of the better ones with Kolchak leading the vampire into a trap he has set with a local landmark. It does suffer from being repetitive, though, echoing closely the same finale in The Ripper. For a formulaic series, this is something to avoid relying on. I've seen pics of the cross on the hill but a quick (lazy) search turned up nothing.

What to rate it, having set The Ripper at 7 for a standard? I don't think the Faye scenes live up to that but the horror does, and I like that the story varies (if slightly) from the formula. Okay then, 6.5 tubes of lipstick blessed by a priest.

Asides: Kolchak's narration tells us this takes place in Spring, and later the more specific date of May 6th is given. A week ago it was October! (They Have Been, They Are, They Will Be... was set on the first day of the '74 World Series).

By now we've all seen the nightmarish image of a corpse digging its own way out of the soil it was buried in. This got me wondering when that image might have been put on screen for the first time. It was seen in Zombi 2 (Lucio Fulci, 1979), and Michael Jackson's Thriller (1983), in Return of the Living Dead (Dan O'Bannon, 1985), and Mario Bava's Black Sunday (1960 - highly recommended), and before then must have been a vivid description appearing in printed fiction. Oddly enough, George Romero never used it in his Living Dead films but I think he might have in Creepshow. I asked the good people of the IMDb Horror Board, and while it may or may not be the earliest example I was pointed toward "Misterios de ultratumba" aka The Black Pit of Dr. M (Fernando Méndez, 1959) (Thanks, seth_yeah!) Psychotronicbeatnik made the astute observation that it likely was first used by the pulp comics like Eerie or Creepy, and AlamoScout210 came up with this, and tommix42 is recommending a later story by Richard Matheson and his son Richard Christian Matheson titled Where There's a Will.