Scott LeBrun 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.

MailCrapHere This is a quaint cultural artifact of the early '70s. It's an independent film, made by people who loved horror films but weren't able to actually make a scary or terribly involving movie. There are endless references to horror film icons and fandom which are nice but unless you have fond memories of Count Yorga, this movie is bound to disappoint... Because it's on about that level.The San Francisco locations (A murder at Lincoln Park golf course, with the Golden Gate Bridge in the BG - The Kerwin Mathews film-within-a-film was shot at a WWII gun emplacement in the Presidio - The theater where most of the action occurs was actually in Oakland)are nice and I have happy memories of Bob Wilkins, the San Francisco TV horror host on whom a character in the film is based. Beyond that, the film is slow, the characters are thin and the plot is weak.The protagonists, who are involved in putting on a Horror Convention at a San Francisco movie palace, include a horror novelist, a Sherlock Holmes buff and a mystical hippie comic-book guru (No, really, he wears a Jesus robe and goes on about the "comic ethos".) The villains are a horror film star named Makakai, who plays vampires and "lives" his role off-screen, and his pair of PR men, who are actually Burke and Hare, the 19th century body-snatchers. Oh, and Malakai is a real vampire - Not much of a spoiler there.The acting is good and, while it looks pretty dark on my TV, the film is technically well done... But, the writing is weak and despite a bit of gore, it never manages to be remotely scary.

jgall36 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.

Doctor-32 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.