Condemned to Live Reviews

  • Jul 05, 2019

    Clunky and overwritten yarn about a man who suffers from a malady that makes him become a terrifying monster when the moon comes out.. You know he becomes the monster when he curls up his hand and.. well, that's about it. No makeup, just the hand. Plus, did I say this was overwritten to death? And seems to be set in 3 locations only? Pretty dumb.

    Clunky and overwritten yarn about a man who suffers from a malady that makes him become a terrifying monster when the moon comes out.. You know he becomes the monster when he curls up his hand and.. well, that's about it. No makeup, just the hand. Plus, did I say this was overwritten to death? And seems to be set in 3 locations only? Pretty dumb.

  • Nov 24, 2013

    Genuinely spooky "B" film; One of the best of the Poverty Row's--Stagey but Pretty Good!!

    Genuinely spooky "B" film; One of the best of the Poverty Row's--Stagey but Pretty Good!!

  • May 17, 2011

    Not bad. The story reminds me a little of the Wolf Man, but the acting wasn't all that great.

    Not bad. The story reminds me a little of the Wolf Man, but the acting wasn't all that great.

  • Brandon S Super Reviewer
    Dec 11, 2010

    Haphazardly thrown together horror movies have been dripping out of Grindhouse theaters for decades; movies like this one which was shot in about a week and pushed out to make a quick buck. The acting is horrible and the actors look as if they are wearing found clothing; the picture is extra blurry and cuts in weird places as if they were filming it on scraps of reel tape. All of these quirks make it beautiful in its own way. When examining Condemned to Live it is apparent that Frank Strayer came right off of the success of Vampire Bat (1933) and decided to repackage the movie and put it out again. The movie has no real "Monster" to speak of, in fact the villain (known as "the Fiend" in this picture) is more of a repackaging of a psychotic with vampiristic overtones; Professor Kristen doesn't ever actually drink the blood of his victims but he does gnaw on their necks. The village in the movie is taken right out of "The Bride of Frankenstein" and they even throw in a hunchback to drive home the fact that this is a horror movie. He isn't even needed. The movie is pretty tame and most of the killings are done off screen and didn't hold up my interest very well. The movie is bland and feels like it needs a shot of something to keep it on its toes. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone, but I wouldn't complain if it fell into a horror movie marathon at a local theater. I am going to slip the movie a 5 out of 10. What good can there be in a hunchback? S!D

    Haphazardly thrown together horror movies have been dripping out of Grindhouse theaters for decades; movies like this one which was shot in about a week and pushed out to make a quick buck. The acting is horrible and the actors look as if they are wearing found clothing; the picture is extra blurry and cuts in weird places as if they were filming it on scraps of reel tape. All of these quirks make it beautiful in its own way. When examining Condemned to Live it is apparent that Frank Strayer came right off of the success of Vampire Bat (1933) and decided to repackage the movie and put it out again. The movie has no real "Monster" to speak of, in fact the villain (known as "the Fiend" in this picture) is more of a repackaging of a psychotic with vampiristic overtones; Professor Kristen doesn't ever actually drink the blood of his victims but he does gnaw on their necks. The village in the movie is taken right out of "The Bride of Frankenstein" and they even throw in a hunchback to drive home the fact that this is a horror movie. He isn't even needed. The movie is pretty tame and most of the killings are done off screen and didn't hold up my interest very well. The movie is bland and feels like it needs a shot of something to keep it on its toes. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone, but I wouldn't complain if it fell into a horror movie marathon at a local theater. I am going to slip the movie a 5 out of 10. What good can there be in a hunchback? S!D

  • Aj V Super Reviewer
    Sep 03, 2010

    This is a good vampire movie, but it wasn't made very well.

    This is a good vampire movie, but it wasn't made very well.

  • Jun 08, 2008

    Interesting old classic, a bit heavy on the atmosphere but it held my interest for the most part. Nice cast, decent story. A bit melodramatic and hokey though.

    Interesting old classic, a bit heavy on the atmosphere but it held my interest for the most part. Nice cast, decent story. A bit melodramatic and hokey though.

  • Feb 08, 2008

    With such a fantastic b-movie premise, why the hell isn't there a single drop of on-screen blood!?

    With such a fantastic b-movie premise, why the hell isn't there a single drop of on-screen blood!?

  • Nov 27, 2007

    Pretty good chiller in the vein of "The Vampire Bat". In the 19th century, a village suffers the attack of a serial killer. Everyone thinks the murders are being done by a supernatural vampir ebat, but Prof. Kristan thinks it's something worse. Not really a masterpiece, but a fine viewing for a rainy afternoon.

    Pretty good chiller in the vein of "The Vampire Bat". In the 19th century, a village suffers the attack of a serial killer. Everyone thinks the murders are being done by a supernatural vampir ebat, but Prof. Kristan thinks it's something worse. Not really a masterpiece, but a fine viewing for a rainy afternoon.