Opiniones de usuarios

I find the above, or below review, depending on where they place this, of not much use. I actually am a horror fan, and I did feel this movie was made for me. This is a bad movie written and directed by horror movie host John Stanley. Of course, probably over 90% of the horror movies I've enjoyed throughout the years are bad movies. If you're not real fan of the genre or just enjoy finding an oddball offbeat piece of crap to watch once in a while, you'll hate this. It's not made for you, anyway. Move on. But pointing out the obvious that this is a bad film seems like standing outside a burning building long after the fire department has arrived and yelling fire. This bad movie is plenty good in my estimation and worth a look from any real horror fan.

Let me start by saying I really love horror movies, and I especially love the old-fashioned vampire type that are supposedly satirized in this film. And I'm not offended by a cherished genre being sent up in good fun. Indeed, I enjoy a good spoof on a genre. But let me tell you, this movie is perfectly awful. The production values rate no better than a D-minus. The sound is so terrible you often cannot understand the dialogue. Unfortunately, when you do hear it, it's usually pretty lame. Following the story is a challenge, too. Entire minutes pass when you are at a loss to know what is happening. I don't know how viewers gave this enough stars to land it over a four-star rating. Take my advice. Hard pass.

If you're a Kerwin Mathews fan and want to see this movie to see him, DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME....as I DID! Mathews appears only in the opening segment (a movie within the movie) for less than 3 minutes - and has NO speaking lines! And the remaining 87 minutes of the film are incredibly dull and sluggish. (I watched until the end, hoping that Mathews would reappear...and TALK - while constantly checking my watch to see how much time was left in the film.) Avoid this film, unless you're an obsessive-compulsive Kerwin Mathews or horror film completest. (And this can barely be called a Kerwin Mathews OR a horror film.) I guess the producers needed a "name" for the credits - and Kerwin needed to pay the rent.

This is dull, dull as hell. I can't say there is a single thing to recommend it. Is this supposed to aimed at horror fans? Count me out. Films like this give films a bad name.

I figured this was a fairly light-hearted horror/comedy made by and for horror fans, one of which I am.

But about two-thirds of the way through it appeared that somebody thought it would be a good idea to include film -- real film footage -- of one of humanity's greatest real-life horrors, the Holocaust.

I disapprove of that decision because that ghastly footage was being exploited by filmmakers in order to add shock-value to the movie.

After that, there was no way I could take any enjoyment from this film.

Horror movies ought to be escapism and the real horrors of the Holocaust ought not be exploited as they were.

This film has a little of everything for fans of horror films, comics, horror conventions,and the like. It has that 70's feel to it and a lot of fun to watch. If your a fan of low budget shockers, it's right up your alley. Just set back on a stormy Saturday night and get ready for a Creature Feature.

I watched this movie without any expectations. That made this one a great find because it's cheesy and self-acknowledging without being over the top. Sure, it won't win an Oscar, but it was a fun ride!! The idea behind this movie, that it's been done before, and over again is what makes the movie funny, suspenseful, horrific and sometimes just downright silly. This is more a homage to horror films than a movie itself. If ever a drinking game screamed to be created, this is the movie. The clichés are there, the blood is there, the references to Night of the Living Dead are there. But these ingredients are not overwhelming. Keep the pen and paper handy, as you'll need them to keep track of numerous nods to horror films. Perhaps, many a long night was spent in production, doing so. And it was done well.

This film is hard to find. It was directed by John Stanley who was the horror, science fiction, and fantasy critic for the San Francisco Chronicle for three decades. He also hosted Creature Features TV show in the SF Bay Area. He's the author of THE CREATURE FEATURE MOVIE GUIDE and I WAS A TV HORROR HOST.

The film is tongue-in-cheek horror film about a famous horror actor, noted for playing vampires, coming to a Horror Convention in San Francisco, and turning out to be an actual vampire. There are a lot of in-jokes for horror fans. It's fun. It was an independent film shot on a low budget and it sometime shows. If you a horror fan you will probably get a kick out of it.

Horror genre icon John Stanley of 'Creature Features' fame does a nice job with this very knowing, fairly tongue in cheek homage to the genre. Its central conceit is a solid one, and prefigures "Shadow of the Vampire" by 23 years. It also proved to be very prophetic in its portrayal of a horror convention, long before these things would be very big business worldwide. The people behind this convention, including Professor Seabrook (Dan Caldwell), Cindy (Barrie Youngfellow), Scotty (John Cochran), and comic book expert Gary form a team as they slowly come to the realization that their star attraction, veteran horror film actor Malakai (Jerry Walter), is not just a pretend vampire but the real deal. Moreover, he utilizes the services of B.B. (Ray K. Goman) and Harris (Hy Pyke), who are in reality the legendary graverobbers Burke and Hare whom Malakai has kept alive for centuries using alchemy. Our intrepid team unites behind Nazi hunter turned vampire hunter The Avenger (Mark Anger), who's vowed to destroy this evil. Now, "Nightmare in Blood" is not for all genre fans, as it's low budget enough that it's often more talk than action. Some people may grow impatient with its deliberate pace and its minimal amount of gore. Still, it's impossible to dislike this film. It's ingratiating and irresistible, and it's always nice to see a film meant for genre fans made BY a genre fan. The dialogue is often very amusing, and often quite self-referential, with names such as Lee, Price, Atwill, Lugosi, and Karloff dropped. There is brief footage of a film within the film, as fantasy film star Kerwin Mathews appears alongside Walter. His appearance is fleeting enough that his admirers will likely be sorely disappointed. Still, Stanley does give this little film some atmosphere and gets a delightfully theatrical performance out of Walter, who looks like he's having a hell of a time. Most of the acting is very much of the amateur variety, but the performers are quite engaging nonetheless; the man playing Gary in particular is a hoot what with his deadpan delivery. And Justin Bishop is a riot as anti-horror crusader Dr. Unworth; his acting is atrocious but his facial expressions just priceless. The scenes with Seabrook, Unworth, and Malakai on the TV horror show have to rank as the best in the film. It's likewise great to see our heroes think on their feet when faced with the prospect of killing foes that are seemingly immortal. While admittedly "Nightmare in Blood" is going to strike some people as being merely dull, others will surely find it fascinating, even if one couldn't consider it a "good" film. It's still an entertaining one, though. Seven out of 10.

I agree with the other reviewers who said this is a well made homage to horror movies by movie host John Stanley. I never heard of this one, but found it on the Cinema Insomnia channel on YouTube and it was a delight to watch it hosted by Mr. Stanley himself. Maybe a few decades of horror movies with production values borrowed from mainstream movies has raised expectations too high for the occasional horror movie consumer and the cheesy crap loved by true horror geeks disappoints them. As someone who grew up watching really bad but entertaining sci-fi and horror movies like Plan 9, Crawling Eye, all the Universal monsters,,etc., Nightmare in Blood was a lot of fun.