Blood Red (1989)

How bad is it? It's nothing you haven't slept through before.
Should you see it? No. People see it for the cast, then wish they hadn't.

This film will always have a small audience of people wanting to see Julia Roberts' first film. Wait, you say, wasn't that "Mystic Pizza?" or "Satisfaction?" or "Firehouse?" This was filmed before any of those, but sat on a shelf for three years before being released - never a good sign - and was a project that had been in the works for a decade before that. The film stars Julia's brother Eric, who is not as hammy as usual, and Giancarlo Giannini, who's pretty good as usual and even has Dennis Hopper, Burt Young, Michael Madsen, Susan Anspach and Aldo Ray in roles. The cast suggest this should be better than it is. This is a very basic story: a railroad baron (Hopper, with a ridiculous accent) wants land being used for a winery; after his father is killed, Eric seeks revenge... and the film turns into an old-fashioned western. It's all very predictable and only the pretty scenery and costumes are watchable.

Bleeders (1997)

aka Hemoglobin, aka The Descendent

How bad is it? It's a failure and it lacks pace.
Should you see it? No, but I'm surprised by how many have seen it already.

This was based on the H. P. Lovecraft story "The Lurking Fear" and the screenplay was written by Dan O'Bannon and Rutger Hauer is in it in a minor role, so this must have disappointed a lot of people. A guy with a serious genetic disorder researches his family history and finds that he's descended from Dutch royals who inbred and moved to a small island off the east coast of America (New Brunswick, I believe, substituting for possibly Maine). There he finds that his relatives haven't died or disappeared, but gone underground, inbreeding beyond the point of monstrosity and living off the bodies of those buried in the cemetery - though the island is small enough that this doesn't make sense. There's brief nudity at the start and near the end, a fetus pickled in formaldehyde gets eaten and the guy - spoiler alert - chooses his mutant kin over his girlfriend. The film is so slowly paced that it's hard to keep watching.

Blackenstein (1973)

aka Black Frankenstein, Return of Blackenstein

How bad is it? It's really, really slow.
Should you see it? Not really.

"Blacula" being a hit, there was a rush to make a Black Frankenstein movie and this turkey was the first to market. Dr. Frank N. Stein, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for discovering the genetic basis of DNA (as a biochemist in real life, I know Oswald Avery did that and he didn't win any prize), uses altered DNA to restore the arms and legs of a Vietnam veteran, but his assistant, Malcomb, desiring the vet's girlfriend, switches the DNA, turning him into a monster. There are virtually no blaxploitation elements, making this just a Frankenstein film with black actors. There's a nightclub comedian that's not funny, some good early effects (arty angles and lighting, Tesla coils in the lab) and a brief appearance of Liz Renay as a victim. Mostly, the film is just slow lumbering walking. The legless victim in the ambulance has his feet showing. The monster has a flat-top afro. The film's ending is anti-climactic.

Bloodthirsty Butchers (1970)

How bad is it? It might be the second-worst Andy Milligan film, which would be anyone else's worst.
Should you see it? No.

This looks like it's from a different film... I need to check.

This is a remake of The Demon Barber of Fleet Street/ Sweeney Todd done by Andy Milligan, so the plot is well-known: a barber and baker kill people and then serve them in meat pies. The actors can't do English accents. It's very badly framed and poorly shot and the funniest thing about it is that it got a Blu-Ray release! The music score is sometimes intrusive, the acting as usual is sub-par (especially in a scene where one guy is secretly tailing another from mere inches away) and the gore effects are extremely cheap. There's a lot of obvious stage blood, a dismembered hand bounces and the best scene involves a pie with a breast in it, which looks like Styrofoam.

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!").

Blood Orgy of the She-Devils (1973)

aka Female Plasma Suckers

How bad is it? Little blood, no orgy, questionable she-devils, to start with: poor.
Should you see it? No - unless you're a Ted Mikels fan.

Director Ted V. Mikels filmed this in his castle outside Las Vegas, with additional scenes at a castle I think is near Death Valley. A witch queen lives with her coven (apparently of she-devils) in said castle and is sought by a foreign agent intent on killing the Rhodesian ambassador to the U.N. with witchcraft. Psychic powers shatter a wine glass. A psychiatrist who is also a white witch, aided by three scientists, investigate. A cat gets killed. A high priest gets resurrected. An unseen power shakes the house. There's an exorcism. The witch, now a bat, gets burnt. It's underlit, the sound is post-synched, a boom mic makes an appearance and a medieval witch wears blue jeans. In a flashback, the Pope has a woman stoned. The main character stage acts all of her lines; during the seance, her "Indian" spirit is truly truly awful: "You no wantum papoose." There's a lot of gobbledygook mumbo-jumbo and some amusing dancing by the "she-devils," who were women who lived rent-free with Mikels and hoped to break into movies in the worst way. This was the worst way.

Blood of Dracula's Castle (1967)

aka Castle of Dracula

How bad is it? Many have said it's the worst Dracula film (it's not even Al Adamson's worst Dracula film).
Should you see it? No, unless you are an Adamson completist.

Guy bribes a guard to get out of jail, beats him to death, gets chased by dogs, drowns a woman, kills a guy with a rock, shoots a guy in the face, drives a car off a cliff and then the film starts, which is unfortunate, because it's really dull from that point on. A couple (photographer and model) inherit a castle, which just happens to have vampires, aided by a hunchback (named Mango!) who chains women in the basement and drains them of blood before sacrificing them to the god Luna. The butler, played by John Carradine with dyed hair, serves the blood as cocktails to  a henpecked Count Dracula and his wife. My main memory of this is long talky sections, but the cinematography was by the great Laszlo Kovacs (except stock footage from Sea World), there's a werewolf, women harassed by rats that barely move, a scream written off as a malfunctioning electric toothbrush (!), suggested woman-on-sea creature fetishism and a death to match Rasputin's - Mango gets axed, set on fire and pushed off a cliff. This sounds like it should be fun and lively; it isn't.