Should you see it? If you really must see an Andy Milligan horror film, you could do worse.
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds."
Sunday, May 8, 2016
Blood! (1973)
How bad is it? It's a better-than usual Andy Milligan film, so really awful.
Should you see it? If you really must see an Andy Milligan horror film, you could do worse.
This is supposed to take place in 1930 (one shot in 1899), but looks very 1970, particularly the sideburns. Dracula's daughter marries the Wolfman's son, they move to America and grow carnivorous plants. There's also rabid bats turning the locals into cannibals. Very wordy, as is typical with Milligan films, with a lot of uncomfortably angry people yelling hateful things for little reason, this is better paced and has more plot than most of his films. The werewolf attacks a banker... because of poor investments! The sound is terrible and a mouse gets chopped up with a meat cleaver (and that's real, as it was in "The Rats are Coming!").
Should you see it? If you really must see an Andy Milligan horror film, you could do worse.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment