MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Tayloriona Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

watrousjames 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.

Scarecrow-88 There's nothing cooler to a horror buff like me than to, on opening day of Rocktober (this year, 2011), discover, upon my very first viewing for Halloween month, a nice surprise certain to become a favorite I will watch every year. What's neat about this film is that it predates the horror conventions that now pop up all over the world, not just in America—they are now all the rage. In San Francisco, a horror novelist, Professor Seabrook (Dan Caldwell) is able to bring to life the very first Horror Con, with an established horror icon as the featured guest, Malaki (Jerry Walters who is a blast), known for his many vampire films. Malaki takes his status in the genre (and, refreshingly, the genre itself) very seriously, and when horror show hosts, like George Wilson (Morgan Upton), poke gleeful fun at schlock or other horror films featured prominently on his line-ups, his ire is inflamed. What Seabrook and his friends behind the invention of the San Francisco Horror Con couldn't possibly expect is that their star is an actual centuries-old vampire! Yeah, imagine if a horror con presented a star attraction who was actually the very monster he supposedly portrayed fictitiously! Oh, it doesn't end there, this movie even throws in Burke and Hare (!), still alive and kicking thanks to Malaki, hunting his prey so that they can keep their master happy.I really miss the way films could shoot on authentic city streets, using actors who look like the kind of folks who would populate San Francisco. There's this one fellow who runs a comic store and bases his whole life's philosophy around the art and stories of the books that line the shelves. He's very soft-spoken, stolid, and serious, much like Malaki is about his beloved horror genre. The script is chock full of loving nods to, and acknowledgment of, the horror genre and the many stars and movies that we fans know and love. Being that the film is set in contemporary San Francisco in 1978, the likes of Bela Lugosi, Christopher Lee, and Lon Chaney come up in conversations often, which brought a smile to my face time and again. For those who love their gore, "Nightmare in Blood" has lots of blood-letting (that thick bright red Herschel Gordon Lewis film blood I adore) as Burke and Hare hunt down characters associated with the Horror Con. The Van Helsing of this film is a Jew Nazi Hunter (!) who thought Malaki was a member of Hitler's Reich, only to discover that his quarry was a vampire instead! This guy goes by the name "Avenger" (or that is what Malaki refers to him as) and is a nuisance, an absolute thorn in the side, to Malaki. As long as Avenger lives, Malaki knows his existence is threatened. When a colleague of Seabrook's, Scotty (John Cochran) loses a girlfriend to the dastardly trio, hears a conversation between Burke and Hare that's more than a bit suspicious, and starts putting two-and-two together, the Avenger (Mark Anger) may finally have a legitimate ally in his fight to stop Malaki. The Mina of this film is Barrie Youngfellow, as Seabrook's girlfriend, Cindy. You just know her life will be in jeopardy before the film is through. I definitely believe horror fans and devotees to our genre owe it to themselves to check out "Nightmare in Blood", it is, in my mind, the very definition of a sleeper. Walters really "sinks his teeth" into the role, with the posture and thick accent mimicking Lugosi effortlessly—I considered him a pleasure to watch in the role of a bloodsucker easily offended by those who slander his movies and the genre, his reactions of repulsion towards Wilson especially funny.

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.

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.