Blood (1973)
59KBlood (1973). 1h 9m | R
“Set in the 1880u0026#39;s the son of the wolf man moves back to America from Europe with his wife, who happens to be the daughter of Dracula – and three members of staff. They are employed to grow vampire plants in the basement in order to keep the wife Regina alive! Our first glimpse of her is as an old hideous looking hag but a dose from the plants and she is back to looking radiant, In fact there are three attractive women in this movie, one of the few redeeming points. There is a suggestion of incest between one of them and her brother, who pays a brief visit to the house before being killed by Regina, but no sex or nudity, despite the director being a producer of porn.nDirector Andy Milligan was known for making films on tiny budgets, doing much of the work behind the camera himself., I respect that even if the end result is poor. To be fair this is only the second of his films that I have seen, the other being the truly awful The Ghastly Ones, but as a fan of cult and bad movies I hope to watch more. There can be no denying that this is a very cheap, bad movie. Despite being set in the 1880u0026#39;s a kitchen used in some scenes is obviously from 1973. On the other hand the acting isnu0026#39;t too bad considering it has a cast of largely unknowns (Patti Gual is the only one who appears to have a decent filmography). The script is amusing, lines such as u0026quot;Weu0026#39;ll face tomorrow tomorrowu0026quot; only adds to the charm. The u0026quot;specialu0026quot; effects are terrible and for the transformation into werewolf the husband obviously just put a rubber mask on. Great ending, made me chuckle but I donu0026#39;t like spoilers in my reviews so youu0026#39;ll have to see it for yourself! I would only score this movie 2/10 on technical merit but I did find it mildly amusing, hence my 4/10.”
