The ZombieTastic Review of:
Blood of Ghastly Horror
Blood of Ghastly Horror
Director: Al Adamson
Year of Release: 1972
Country of Origin: USA
Type of Zombie Film: I have no idea, as this film is less coherent
than Linsday Lohan giving a dramatic reading of Finnegan's Wake
whilst jacked up on amphetamines and Red Bull.
Also Known as: Considering that this "movie" contains footage from
approximately 3129089 other movies, it has multiple alternate titles, including Fiend with
the Electronic Brain, The Man with the Synthetic Brain, Echo of Terror, and my personal
favorite, Psycho a Go-Go (if anyone can tell me why someone came up with a name like
that for a movie that has nothing "psycho" or "a Go-Go" about it, I'm all ears). Anyways, I
would like to suggest another title for this movie: Ghastly Boredom of Ghastly Horror That
Is Not So Much Ghastly As It Is Boring.
Part of a series?: No.
The Scoring
Plot: Structurally, Blood of Ghastly Horror is more like a golem than a zombie: it's a
hodgepodge of disparate parts stitched together and brought violently into life by amoral,
power-mad maniacs. As such, the "plot" of this movie is a little hard to make sense of,
considering that it's a combination of multiple storylines from multiple movies that have
absolutely nothing in common. Nevertheless, for reasons unbeknownst even to me, I have
taken the drastic step of transcribing the happenings in this film. Since I'm the one who
had to sit through this movie and figure this shit out, the least you can do is read through
this incredibly long, incredibly confusing recap and try to help me make sense of it. Here
goes:
In an alley, a guy who looks like Flea and some random slut light cigarettes, and then a
zombie kills them; subsequently, the police are baffled. These baffled police then go to
their office and reminisce about how Dr. Howard Vanard (now dead) apparently was
responsible for bringing a Vietnam vet back to life with electricity, and how that guy then
killed some people. The police remain baffled. There's then a flashback to some people
dressed in O.R. scrubs stealing some jewels from an office or something. Following this,
there's a really boring chase sequence involving an elevator and a little girl in a dress. The
police that investigate this are baffled as well. One of these police officers, a sergeant,
goes to a hospital or something to explain to Dr. Vanard (after sexually harrassing his
assistant) that someone involved in the robbery was a supposedly already dead dude
named Joe Corey, and that Dr. Vanard had signed his death certificate, and that this is one
of the reasons that the police are confused in addition to being baffled. Then, a lady gets
onto an elevator while the apparently not-dead Joe Corey breaks into her office or
something, and then she comes back to the office and he kills her with a letter opener while
some bongos or something play in the background. I should point out that, much like the
police, the lady seems baffled while she's getting killed. Then, Joe Corey and his friends
go to some baffled guy's house to question him about the missing jewels that they stole
and then lost, and they beat this guy up, because apparently the jewels fell into his truck
during the robbery and he doesn't know about it (that's why he's baffled--he's not a police
officer or anything). Then Dr. Vanard goes into a long-winded speech about the brain and
his experiments or something and how he tried some of his experimental methods on Joe
Corey when he returned dead from Vietnam [Editor's Note: if you, for some reason, decide
to watch this movie, be warned that this speech has been proven to cause spontaneous
narcolepsy in lab rats.] Then, jaw-droppingly, there's ANOTHER flashback, to the
experiment itself. That flashback ends and we're back to the first flashback, and Dr. Vanard
explains that after Joe Corey was revived, he was given to bursts of violence; the police
sergeant is baffled by this. Then, Joe Corey goes to a jazz club that has virtually no patrons
in it and gets information about something from some lady who looks like Shelly Winters.
Then, there's an abrupt cut to a conversation between the Shelly Winters-wannabe and Joe
Corey; there are no police in this scene, but if there were, I'm sure they'd be baffled (I know I
was), especially when Joe Corey kills the Shelly Winters-lady for no apparent reason, to the
accompaniment of some crazy horns (you've got to hand it to Joe Corey: when he kills
people, he does it to some jamming music). Then, Joe Corey goes and kills Dr. Vanard.
Thus ends this extended flashback, and we're back to the police investigating the zombie
killing from the film's opening. They seem even more baffled than they were when things
started.
At this point, Dr. Vanard's daughter shows up at the police station and mumbles some shit
about disembodied voices calling her. Confused yet? Well too bad: this plot summary is
just getting going! We find out that Joe Corey's dad is some anthropologist or something,
and then we see his dad in a cheap-looking lab swearing to avenge Joe's death, even
though at this point it remains unclear when it was that Joe Corey actually died for real.
Anyways, this guy (a) arranges to meet up with Dr. Vanard's daughter and (b) has a zombie
in a jail cell. So, the guy and the zombie kidnap Dr. Vanard's daughter and kill a cop (who
scrawls their license plate number in his own blood, but not the whole license plate
number, thereby ensuring that the police who find it will be extra-baffled). Then the elder
Corey claims that Dr. Vanard put an "electronic brain" in Joe's head, and then we're back
into the flashback from earlier. Joe Corey goes to Lake Tahoe and kidnaps some lady
whose daughter apparently stole the missing jewels. Joe Corey takes them out into the
desert, then they check into a hotel and he tries to rape the lady and she hits him in the
head with a trashcan and then he kicks her ass, and none of the lighting matches, and then
he's fighting this other dude and the jazz score is bipping and bopping and scatting all over
the place, and then Joe Corey shoots the dude and the lady and her daughter escape and
he chases after them for an exceptionally long, exceptionally boring amount of time, then
we're treated to several minutes worth of footage of a river, and then Joe Corey fights some
dudes and gets shot and killed. Then, this flashback ends and we're back in Joe Corey's
dad's lab as he vows revenge on the people who killed his son, even though his son was a
fucking schmuck. Then, one of the less-baffled cops from earlier enters the lab and
flashes his sideburns and looks skuzzy and gets killed. Then, Old Man Corey zombifies Dr.
Vanard's daughter with some chemical or something, and the other zombie gets mad and
kills him, but the zombie cure is destroyed in the process so the zombie dies or something,
but fortunately Dr. Vanard's daughter somehow reverts to human status and the movie
ends.
Okay. Yeah. So, that's what happens in Blood of Ghastly Horror. Does any of that make
sense to you? If so, you're smarter than 100 Dr. Vanard's. Congratulations.
Score: 1
Year of Release: 1972
Country of Origin: USA
Type of Zombie Film: I have no idea, as this film is less coherent
than Linsday Lohan giving a dramatic reading of Finnegan's Wake
whilst jacked up on amphetamines and Red Bull.
Also Known as: Considering that this "movie" contains footage from
approximately 3129089 other movies, it has multiple alternate titles, including Fiend with
the Electronic Brain, The Man with the Synthetic Brain, Echo of Terror, and my personal
favorite, Psycho a Go-Go (if anyone can tell me why someone came up with a name like
that for a movie that has nothing "psycho" or "a Go-Go" about it, I'm all ears). Anyways, I
would like to suggest another title for this movie: Ghastly Boredom of Ghastly Horror That
Is Not So Much Ghastly As It Is Boring.
Part of a series?: No.
The Scoring
Plot: Structurally, Blood of Ghastly Horror is more like a golem than a zombie: it's a
hodgepodge of disparate parts stitched together and brought violently into life by amoral,
power-mad maniacs. As such, the "plot" of this movie is a little hard to make sense of,
considering that it's a combination of multiple storylines from multiple movies that have
absolutely nothing in common. Nevertheless, for reasons unbeknownst even to me, I have
taken the drastic step of transcribing the happenings in this film. Since I'm the one who
had to sit through this movie and figure this shit out, the least you can do is read through
this incredibly long, incredibly confusing recap and try to help me make sense of it. Here
goes:
In an alley, a guy who looks like Flea and some random slut light cigarettes, and then a
zombie kills them; subsequently, the police are baffled. These baffled police then go to
their office and reminisce about how Dr. Howard Vanard (now dead) apparently was
responsible for bringing a Vietnam vet back to life with electricity, and how that guy then
killed some people. The police remain baffled. There's then a flashback to some people
dressed in O.R. scrubs stealing some jewels from an office or something. Following this,
there's a really boring chase sequence involving an elevator and a little girl in a dress. The
police that investigate this are baffled as well. One of these police officers, a sergeant,
goes to a hospital or something to explain to Dr. Vanard (after sexually harrassing his
assistant) that someone involved in the robbery was a supposedly already dead dude
named Joe Corey, and that Dr. Vanard had signed his death certificate, and that this is one
of the reasons that the police are confused in addition to being baffled. Then, a lady gets
onto an elevator while the apparently not-dead Joe Corey breaks into her office or
something, and then she comes back to the office and he kills her with a letter opener while
some bongos or something play in the background. I should point out that, much like the
police, the lady seems baffled while she's getting killed. Then, Joe Corey and his friends
go to some baffled guy's house to question him about the missing jewels that they stole
and then lost, and they beat this guy up, because apparently the jewels fell into his truck
during the robbery and he doesn't know about it (that's why he's baffled--he's not a police
officer or anything). Then Dr. Vanard goes into a long-winded speech about the brain and
his experiments or something and how he tried some of his experimental methods on Joe
Corey when he returned dead from Vietnam [Editor's Note: if you, for some reason, decide
to watch this movie, be warned that this speech has been proven to cause spontaneous
narcolepsy in lab rats.] Then, jaw-droppingly, there's ANOTHER flashback, to the
experiment itself. That flashback ends and we're back to the first flashback, and Dr. Vanard
explains that after Joe Corey was revived, he was given to bursts of violence; the police
sergeant is baffled by this. Then, Joe Corey goes to a jazz club that has virtually no patrons
in it and gets information about something from some lady who looks like Shelly Winters.
Then, there's an abrupt cut to a conversation between the Shelly Winters-wannabe and Joe
Corey; there are no police in this scene, but if there were, I'm sure they'd be baffled (I know I
was), especially when Joe Corey kills the Shelly Winters-lady for no apparent reason, to the
accompaniment of some crazy horns (you've got to hand it to Joe Corey: when he kills
people, he does it to some jamming music). Then, Joe Corey goes and kills Dr. Vanard.
Thus ends this extended flashback, and we're back to the police investigating the zombie
killing from the film's opening. They seem even more baffled than they were when things
started.
At this point, Dr. Vanard's daughter shows up at the police station and mumbles some shit
about disembodied voices calling her. Confused yet? Well too bad: this plot summary is
just getting going! We find out that Joe Corey's dad is some anthropologist or something,
and then we see his dad in a cheap-looking lab swearing to avenge Joe's death, even
though at this point it remains unclear when it was that Joe Corey actually died for real.
Anyways, this guy (a) arranges to meet up with Dr. Vanard's daughter and (b) has a zombie
in a jail cell. So, the guy and the zombie kidnap Dr. Vanard's daughter and kill a cop (who
scrawls their license plate number in his own blood, but not the whole license plate
number, thereby ensuring that the police who find it will be extra-baffled). Then the elder
Corey claims that Dr. Vanard put an "electronic brain" in Joe's head, and then we're back
into the flashback from earlier. Joe Corey goes to Lake Tahoe and kidnaps some lady
whose daughter apparently stole the missing jewels. Joe Corey takes them out into the
desert, then they check into a hotel and he tries to rape the lady and she hits him in the
head with a trashcan and then he kicks her ass, and none of the lighting matches, and then
he's fighting this other dude and the jazz score is bipping and bopping and scatting all over
the place, and then Joe Corey shoots the dude and the lady and her daughter escape and
he chases after them for an exceptionally long, exceptionally boring amount of time, then
we're treated to several minutes worth of footage of a river, and then Joe Corey fights some
dudes and gets shot and killed. Then, this flashback ends and we're back in Joe Corey's
dad's lab as he vows revenge on the people who killed his son, even though his son was a
fucking schmuck. Then, one of the less-baffled cops from earlier enters the lab and
flashes his sideburns and looks skuzzy and gets killed. Then, Old Man Corey zombifies Dr.
Vanard's daughter with some chemical or something, and the other zombie gets mad and
kills him, but the zombie cure is destroyed in the process so the zombie dies or something,
but fortunately Dr. Vanard's daughter somehow reverts to human status and the movie
ends.
Okay. Yeah. So, that's what happens in Blood of Ghastly Horror. Does any of that make
sense to you? If so, you're smarter than 100 Dr. Vanard's. Congratulations.
Score: 1
| Lady, wake up--I need you to explain the plot to me. |
Exposition: One of ZombieTastic's Rules of Zombie-ology™ is that exposition is, 9 times
out of 10, detrimental to a film. Well folks, Blood of Ghastly Horror is that 10th film. I don't
mean that the film is a '10'--quite the opposite, actually. No, I simply mean that Blood of
Ghastly Horror is in dire need of exposition. Now, don't get me wrong--there is stuff in this
film which might peripherally qualify as "exposition", for example there's much discussion
amongst the police officers of "facts"; the problem is that none of this discussion makes a
lick of sense, and rather than illuminate what's happening in this movie, it just makes
things even more confusing. So, not only could Blood of Ghastly Horror have used
exposition, but it could have used incredibly conspicuous exposition at that--I would have
appreciated a voiceover every few minutes saying something like, "Alright, here's where we
are in the film. For starters, forget about everything you just saw in that last scene, as it has
nothing to do with anything else in this movie. See this guy right here? He's the dude from
the beginning who the cops were talking about. Don't worry about why he killed that lady
just now." Something like that. If anyone is interested in dubbing something like this for the
movie, let me know.
Score: 1
Plausibility: Is it plausible to expect that you can paste like 6 different movies together and
create an enjoyable movie-viewing experience? Is it plausible to think that anyone (even a
schizophrenic with 8 different personalities, all of whom happen to be movie reviewers) has
a shot in hell at understanding anything that happens in such a movie? Is it plausible that
any movie, zombie or otherwise, could have not one but two evil scientists in it and still
work? Is it plausible that a zombie who is decomposed to the point that he's missing an
eye has possibly the best head of hair ever seen on a zombie in a zombie movie, ever? Is it
plausible that someone would waste their personal time watching this movie and then
writing an unnecessarily long, rambling review about it? The answers to these questions
are no, fuck no, not a chance in hell, forget about it, and, sadly, yes.
Score: 1
out of 10, detrimental to a film. Well folks, Blood of Ghastly Horror is that 10th film. I don't
mean that the film is a '10'--quite the opposite, actually. No, I simply mean that Blood of
Ghastly Horror is in dire need of exposition. Now, don't get me wrong--there is stuff in this
film which might peripherally qualify as "exposition", for example there's much discussion
amongst the police officers of "facts"; the problem is that none of this discussion makes a
lick of sense, and rather than illuminate what's happening in this movie, it just makes
things even more confusing. So, not only could Blood of Ghastly Horror have used
exposition, but it could have used incredibly conspicuous exposition at that--I would have
appreciated a voiceover every few minutes saying something like, "Alright, here's where we
are in the film. For starters, forget about everything you just saw in that last scene, as it has
nothing to do with anything else in this movie. See this guy right here? He's the dude from
the beginning who the cops were talking about. Don't worry about why he killed that lady
just now." Something like that. If anyone is interested in dubbing something like this for the
movie, let me know.
Score: 1
Plausibility: Is it plausible to expect that you can paste like 6 different movies together and
create an enjoyable movie-viewing experience? Is it plausible to think that anyone (even a
schizophrenic with 8 different personalities, all of whom happen to be movie reviewers) has
a shot in hell at understanding anything that happens in such a movie? Is it plausible that
any movie, zombie or otherwise, could have not one but two evil scientists in it and still
work? Is it plausible that a zombie who is decomposed to the point that he's missing an
eye has possibly the best head of hair ever seen on a zombie in a zombie movie, ever? Is it
plausible that someone would waste their personal time watching this movie and then
writing an unnecessarily long, rambling review about it? The answers to these questions
are no, fuck no, not a chance in hell, forget about it, and, sadly, yes.
Score: 1
| Do these people seem qualified to rob an office? I don't think so. I mean...they're dressed like doctors. Why would doctors rob an office? And what does this have to do with zombies? What the fuck? What movie is this? Anyone? |
Production Value: At the outset of Blood of Ghastly Horror, the viewer is greeted by a
garish red graphic informing him/her that the film is being presented in stunning
"Chill-O-Rama". Now, I have no idea what this means, as the only thing chilling that I
experienced while viewing this movie was my A/C. But, I do know that it's quite possible
that Blood of Ghastly Horror was made with full-on Chill-O-Rama-ness, in the sense that if
that's what caused this movie to be so awful, it's no wonder that no one has bothered to
define or use it in a movie since.
Chill-O-Rama or not, to put it bluntly, this film is a mess, production-wise. For starters, the
visual quality is murky and dark, to the point that for half of this movie I felt like I was
watching footage of a very boring eclipse after said footage had been urinated upon by a
motorcycle gang. Additionally, the film features numerous cuts between shots with
background noise and shots without background noise, and each of these are rather
jarring. And, much of the film's "in the present" footage is, for some reason, shot in extreme
close-up with a greenish tinge, and honestly, this means that half the time you really can't
see what's actually happening in the friggin' movie. I could go on, but you get the point.
Still, the question remains: why was so much footage in this movie shot in such extreme
close-up? My theory is that being an exceedingly low-budget affair, the producers couldn't
afford pants for their actors. I didn't say that it was a good theory, just that it was a theory.
Score: 1
garish red graphic informing him/her that the film is being presented in stunning
"Chill-O-Rama". Now, I have no idea what this means, as the only thing chilling that I
experienced while viewing this movie was my A/C. But, I do know that it's quite possible
that Blood of Ghastly Horror was made with full-on Chill-O-Rama-ness, in the sense that if
that's what caused this movie to be so awful, it's no wonder that no one has bothered to
define or use it in a movie since.
Chill-O-Rama or not, to put it bluntly, this film is a mess, production-wise. For starters, the
visual quality is murky and dark, to the point that for half of this movie I felt like I was
watching footage of a very boring eclipse after said footage had been urinated upon by a
motorcycle gang. Additionally, the film features numerous cuts between shots with
background noise and shots without background noise, and each of these are rather
jarring. And, much of the film's "in the present" footage is, for some reason, shot in extreme
close-up with a greenish tinge, and honestly, this means that half the time you really can't
see what's actually happening in the friggin' movie. I could go on, but you get the point.
Still, the question remains: why was so much footage in this movie shot in such extreme
close-up? My theory is that being an exceedingly low-budget affair, the producers couldn't
afford pants for their actors. I didn't say that it was a good theory, just that it was a theory.
Score: 1
| Blood of Ghastly Horror is presented in 'Chill-O-Rama', which is derived from celeramas, an Old English word meaning "to kill an audience with incoherent boredom." |
Special Effects: One thing is apparently true of Chill-O-Rama: it has nothing to do with
special effects. How do I know this? Because NOTHING in this film could qualify as a
"special effect", from the head filmed in extreme close-up in a box in a pathetic attempt to
convince the viewer that it's been severed, to the use of an identical camera "blur" effect to
signal that a flashback is happening and to illustrate Dr. Corey's mystical zombification
process. Seriously, I've seen footage on America's Funniest Home Videos of people
getting hit in the balls that exhibited more cinematic magic than this piece of crap.
Although, perhaps I'm being too harsh and narrow-minded--I guess an argument could be
made that using old footage from other movies as flashbacks and then shooting
incomprehensible scenes in extreme close-up that talks about this old footage is sort of a
special effect, right? No? Well then. Let's just forget I brought it up.
Score: 1
Makeup: Technically speaking (and I do so loosely, because there isn't really much that's
technical about this film, except that technically it sucks ass), there are two zombies in this
movie, although in reality there's really one, and he's on-screen for what is probably a total
of about 5 minutes. While he's there, you can, if you squint hard enough, kind of make out
the fact that he has some makeup on him, but whether or not it's well done is anyone's
guess. In other words, I've seen footage of the Sasquatch that was crisper and more
defined than the zombie footage in Blood of Ghastly Horror, which brings to mind an idea
for a movie that I have: Zombie Bigfoot. Who's not going to want to see that? No one, that's
who.
Score: 1
special effects. How do I know this? Because NOTHING in this film could qualify as a
"special effect", from the head filmed in extreme close-up in a box in a pathetic attempt to
convince the viewer that it's been severed, to the use of an identical camera "blur" effect to
signal that a flashback is happening and to illustrate Dr. Corey's mystical zombification
process. Seriously, I've seen footage on America's Funniest Home Videos of people
getting hit in the balls that exhibited more cinematic magic than this piece of crap.
Although, perhaps I'm being too harsh and narrow-minded--I guess an argument could be
made that using old footage from other movies as flashbacks and then shooting
incomprehensible scenes in extreme close-up that talks about this old footage is sort of a
special effect, right? No? Well then. Let's just forget I brought it up.
Score: 1
Makeup: Technically speaking (and I do so loosely, because there isn't really much that's
technical about this film, except that technically it sucks ass), there are two zombies in this
movie, although in reality there's really one, and he's on-screen for what is probably a total
of about 5 minutes. While he's there, you can, if you squint hard enough, kind of make out
the fact that he has some makeup on him, but whether or not it's well done is anyone's
guess. In other words, I've seen footage of the Sasquatch that was crisper and more
defined than the zombie footage in Blood of Ghastly Horror, which brings to mind an idea
for a movie that I have: Zombie Bigfoot. Who's not going to want to see that? No one, that's
who.
Score: 1
| Scene from a crappy zombie movie, or an ad for Max Factor? Can't it be both? |
Scariness: Based on my research (i.e., the parts of the movie that I was awake for), there is
nothing scary in Blood of Ghastly Horror. Not only that, but the movie features what is quite
possibly the least disturbing "torture for information" scene ever committed to film. While
trying to stifle my laughter during this scene, I realized that I sincerely hope that the violence
in Robocop and Reservoir Dogs don't look this passé twenty years from now. Not only will
that mean that our society has irreversibly slid into a cesspool of depravity, but perhaps
more importantly, I won't be able to freak people out anymore by sneaking up behind them
and saying "Dead or alive, you're coming with me!" That won't be good for anyone
(especially me).
Score: 1
Goriness: Blood of Ghastly Horror features as much gore as an episode of Growing Pains,
which is to say, none at all (aside from Kirk Cameron's acting ability, that is). You would
think that a film with the word "blood" in the title would feature a lot of blood, but not
so--there's not much blood in the film, and what blood is involved is about as believable as
the arguments in a Bill Kristol article. To be blunt, the blood looks like ketchup, and sadly
there's nary a french fry in sight. Honestly, I haven't seen blood this inauthentic since that
time I faked losing a molar in order to score some free cash from the Tooth Fairy. Good
times.
Score: 1
nothing scary in Blood of Ghastly Horror. Not only that, but the movie features what is quite
possibly the least disturbing "torture for information" scene ever committed to film. While
trying to stifle my laughter during this scene, I realized that I sincerely hope that the violence
in Robocop and Reservoir Dogs don't look this passé twenty years from now. Not only will
that mean that our society has irreversibly slid into a cesspool of depravity, but perhaps
more importantly, I won't be able to freak people out anymore by sneaking up behind them
and saying "Dead or alive, you're coming with me!" That won't be good for anyone
(especially me).
Score: 1
Goriness: Blood of Ghastly Horror features as much gore as an episode of Growing Pains,
which is to say, none at all (aside from Kirk Cameron's acting ability, that is). You would
think that a film with the word "blood" in the title would feature a lot of blood, but not
so--there's not much blood in the film, and what blood is involved is about as believable as
the arguments in a Bill Kristol article. To be blunt, the blood looks like ketchup, and sadly
there's nary a french fry in sight. Honestly, I haven't seen blood this inauthentic since that
time I faked losing a molar in order to score some free cash from the Tooth Fairy. Good
times.
Score: 1
| Can anyone tell me what Flea is doing here? |
Final Scene: Blood of Ghastly Horror's final scene is AWESOME, because it of course
means that the film is over. I would liken the feeling of joy accompanying this scene to the
feeling one experiences when skiing naked down Aspen Mountain after having been
confined in a Turkish prison. As for what actually happens in the scene, well...a zombie
kills himself or something, and another lady who was kind of a zombie de-zombifies, and a
cop stands around looking about as baffled as he's looked throughout the rest of the movie.
Have I mentioned that the cops in Blood of Ghastly Horror are often baffled? Well, they are.
Score: 2
Comedy: If you can't laugh at a title like Blood of Ghastly Horror, what can you laugh at?
Perhaps you can laugh at the police officers in the movie. I found it pretty enjoyable that the
officers of the law in this film, in addition to being baffled, were completely incapable of
looking behind them. I mean that literally--not once in this film are the police able to turn
around, or even look over their shoulder for that matter. So, if something doesn't happen
directly in front of them, they're completely unaware of it. Simply put, the cops in this movie
are like turtles--if you walk up behind them, you can pretty much have your way with them.
That sounded kind of perverse. Forget I said anything.
Score: 2
Originality: Here's something original about Blood of Ghastly Horror: the film's DVD
features a warning before the feature starts that you shouldn't fall asleep once the movie
starts, because if you do, when you wake up you'll think that you're watching a different
movie. In a world of unapologetically shitty zombie movies, it's nice to encounter one that is
at least willing to admit that it's incoherent.
Additionally, the movie is original in the sense that it's possibly the ballsiest zombie film
ever made--you know, seeing as how it's called Blood of Ghastly Horror while featuring (a)
no blood, (b) no horror, and (c) nothing ghastly (save the acting, of course). The audacity!
It's akin to calling your movie 12 Monkeys and not showing people monkeys. Oh wait.
Never mind.
Score: 3
means that the film is over. I would liken the feeling of joy accompanying this scene to the
feeling one experiences when skiing naked down Aspen Mountain after having been
confined in a Turkish prison. As for what actually happens in the scene, well...a zombie
kills himself or something, and another lady who was kind of a zombie de-zombifies, and a
cop stands around looking about as baffled as he's looked throughout the rest of the movie.
Have I mentioned that the cops in Blood of Ghastly Horror are often baffled? Well, they are.
Score: 2
Comedy: If you can't laugh at a title like Blood of Ghastly Horror, what can you laugh at?
Perhaps you can laugh at the police officers in the movie. I found it pretty enjoyable that the
officers of the law in this film, in addition to being baffled, were completely incapable of
looking behind them. I mean that literally--not once in this film are the police able to turn
around, or even look over their shoulder for that matter. So, if something doesn't happen
directly in front of them, they're completely unaware of it. Simply put, the cops in this movie
are like turtles--if you walk up behind them, you can pretty much have your way with them.
That sounded kind of perverse. Forget I said anything.
Score: 2
Originality: Here's something original about Blood of Ghastly Horror: the film's DVD
features a warning before the feature starts that you shouldn't fall asleep once the movie
starts, because if you do, when you wake up you'll think that you're watching a different
movie. In a world of unapologetically shitty zombie movies, it's nice to encounter one that is
at least willing to admit that it's incoherent.
Additionally, the movie is original in the sense that it's possibly the ballsiest zombie film
ever made--you know, seeing as how it's called Blood of Ghastly Horror while featuring (a)
no blood, (b) no horror, and (c) nothing ghastly (save the acting, of course). The audacity!
It's akin to calling your movie 12 Monkeys and not showing people monkeys. Oh wait.
Never mind.
Score: 3
| This movie has as many dolls in it as it does zombies. I'm not even kidding. |
Rewatchability: To watch this film a second time, I'd have to have watched it a first time.
That's true by definition (look it up). By this I mean as many as three, no fewer than two, and
no more than one hundred and seven things: (1) Scientists have determined that due to
self-defense mechanisms that are hardwired into the human brain, it is physically
impossible for a member of species Homo sapiens to not become temporarily
unconscious after being exposed to more than 50 seconds of Blood of Ghastly Horror.
Said bouts of unconsciousness have been observed to last anywhere from 2 minutes to
several decades. (2) The film is unwatchable in the conventional sense that it sucks rhino
balls, and even if one were to be able to sustain consciousness during the movie, one
would probably walk out halfway through. (3) The film is unwatchable in the literal sense
that much of what would be useful visual information for the viewer isn't actually shown on
screen, due to the way that many of the film's shots are framed. In other words, the film
features many things that are, for some reason, shot in extreme close-up, such that half the
time, I couldn't tell what the hell I was even looking at. Granted, this was probably a
decision to pull off the cheesy-ass "head in a box" maneuver, but still.
Score: 1
Datedness: There's no easy way to say this, so let's be as tedious as possible about it. I've
tried to come up with several different ways of describing how dated this film is, but they're
all pretty lame:
Score: 1
That's true by definition (look it up). By this I mean as many as three, no fewer than two, and
no more than one hundred and seven things: (1) Scientists have determined that due to
self-defense mechanisms that are hardwired into the human brain, it is physically
impossible for a member of species Homo sapiens to not become temporarily
unconscious after being exposed to more than 50 seconds of Blood of Ghastly Horror.
Said bouts of unconsciousness have been observed to last anywhere from 2 minutes to
several decades. (2) The film is unwatchable in the conventional sense that it sucks rhino
balls, and even if one were to be able to sustain consciousness during the movie, one
would probably walk out halfway through. (3) The film is unwatchable in the literal sense
that much of what would be useful visual information for the viewer isn't actually shown on
screen, due to the way that many of the film's shots are framed. In other words, the film
features many things that are, for some reason, shot in extreme close-up, such that half the
time, I couldn't tell what the hell I was even looking at. Granted, this was probably a
decision to pull off the cheesy-ass "head in a box" maneuver, but still.
Score: 1
Datedness: There's no easy way to say this, so let's be as tedious as possible about it. I've
tried to come up with several different ways of describing how dated this film is, but they're
all pretty lame:
- This movie is more dated than the town slut.
- This movie is more dated than an episode of Blind Date.
- This movie is more dated than the date in that "bad date" scene in Raiders of the
Lost Ark. - This movie is more dated than the International Date Festival, held annually at
Kennebunkport's Center for Date-ological Inquiry.
Score: 1
| Ah, the late 60s and early 70s: when a little thing called 'sexual harassment' reigned supreme. |
| Bug eyes are important when you're "ACTING." |
Soundtrack: Despite Blood of Ghastly Horror's many, many, many, many, many, MANY
flaws, it at least features some PHAT JAZZ (in a Nelson Riddle-vein). If it weren't for some
of the swinging tunes, I might have fallen asleep more than once, or killed myself, or killed
myself and then fallen asleep multiple times.
Score: 3
Breast Factor/Nudity: Alas, there is nothing that even comes close to nudity in Blood of
Ghastly Horror, unless you consider a lady's eyes bulging out to be nudity (and if you do,
you need to seek professional help immediately) (but not the type of professional help on
display in Blood of Ghastly Horror, lest you want Dr. Vanard to put an electric brain inside of
you so that you can then embark on a really boring crime-spree involving a Shelly Winters
clone) (and if you do want that, you need to seek an even larger amount of professional
help than I previously advised you to seek). Even though there are no boobies in this movie
(hey, that rhymes...almost), it's possible that there were some in some of the other movies
that comprise this film. If so, I have to ask: were the producers too busy to edit any of those
shots in? Thanks for nothing, jerks.
Score: 1
Lead Actor: In a movie that's this incoherent and has this many different story lines, it's
difficult to say who the lead actor is. More importantly, does anyone really care? I didn't
think so.
Score: 1
Sidekick(s)/Love Interest: There's no one worth loving in this film, not even the zombie who
has the good sense to kill himself rather than to be in this film for one minute longer.
Score: 1
flaws, it at least features some PHAT JAZZ (in a Nelson Riddle-vein). If it weren't for some
of the swinging tunes, I might have fallen asleep more than once, or killed myself, or killed
myself and then fallen asleep multiple times.
Score: 3
Breast Factor/Nudity: Alas, there is nothing that even comes close to nudity in Blood of
Ghastly Horror, unless you consider a lady's eyes bulging out to be nudity (and if you do,
you need to seek professional help immediately) (but not the type of professional help on
display in Blood of Ghastly Horror, lest you want Dr. Vanard to put an electric brain inside of
you so that you can then embark on a really boring crime-spree involving a Shelly Winters
clone) (and if you do want that, you need to seek an even larger amount of professional
help than I previously advised you to seek). Even though there are no boobies in this movie
(hey, that rhymes...almost), it's possible that there were some in some of the other movies
that comprise this film. If so, I have to ask: were the producers too busy to edit any of those
shots in? Thanks for nothing, jerks.
Score: 1
Lead Actor: In a movie that's this incoherent and has this many different story lines, it's
difficult to say who the lead actor is. More importantly, does anyone really care? I didn't
think so.
Score: 1
Sidekick(s)/Love Interest: There's no one worth loving in this film, not even the zombie who
has the good sense to kill himself rather than to be in this film for one minute longer.
Score: 1
| "See all this cool stuff that I have? It makes me a SCIENTIST!" |
Overall Cast: The cast of Blood of Ghastly Horror features a girl who bugs her eyes out to
signal she's dying, a girl who opens her mouth as wide as humanly possible (not in an
erotic way) and then does everything but scream, cops played by men (a) with mustaches
so large they should have their own zip codes and (b) who are so slimy and repulsive, we
cheer every time they're stumped by something (which is often). The cast also features
several people who overact when trying to play drunk to the point that it made me want to
vomit, and a lady who can't even get through her lines when they're dubbed off-camera. In
other words, while these actors are X-grade, the film itself is Z-grade, which means that
even though everyone in this movie had no talent, their talent somehow still went to waste.
How Zen.
Score: 2
signal she's dying, a girl who opens her mouth as wide as humanly possible (not in an
erotic way) and then does everything but scream, cops played by men (a) with mustaches
so large they should have their own zip codes and (b) who are so slimy and repulsive, we
cheer every time they're stumped by something (which is often). The cast also features
several people who overact when trying to play drunk to the point that it made me want to
vomit, and a lady who can't even get through her lines when they're dubbed off-camera. In
other words, while these actors are X-grade, the film itself is Z-grade, which means that
even though everyone in this movie had no talent, their talent somehow still went to waste.
How Zen.
Score: 2
| Here we see science doing what it does best: killing a scientist. |
Token Scientist: I'll say this for Blood of Ghastly Horror: it features the character of Dr.
Vanard, who is a textbook example of the notion of the "Token Scientist in a Zombie Movie",
even though he was edited in from a movie that was not in and of itself about zombies. But,
we shouldn't hold that against Blood of Ghastly Horror, because the bottom line is that it
has two token scientists, one of whom has really large glasses and test tubes and his own
secretary; i.e., zombies or not, you know he means business--science business.
Score: 3
Vanard, who is a textbook example of the notion of the "Token Scientist in a Zombie Movie",
even though he was edited in from a movie that was not in and of itself about zombies. But,
we shouldn't hold that against Blood of Ghastly Horror, because the bottom line is that it
has two token scientists, one of whom has really large glasses and test tubes and his own
secretary; i.e., zombies or not, you know he means business--science business.
Score: 3
| "This guy on the phone says that my sideburns are almost as big as my freaking head. I think he's just jealous." |
Token Fat Guy: For all of the hamminess, corniness, and cheesiness of Blood of Ghastly
Horror, there are, strangely, no token fat guys in the movie. See what I did there? That's
what we call "wordplay." Look it up, dingus.
Score: 1
Best Line: A film this incompetent has to have some utterly ridiculous lines, right? Right!
Accordingly, the "Best Line" category for Blood of Ghastly Horror doesn't so much evaluate
the film's best line as it does the film's most preposterous. I've narrowed it down to three
contenders:
I think I'm going to have to go with that last line, because it both sucks and blows at the
same time--that's quite an accomplishment.
Score: 2
Horror, there are, strangely, no token fat guys in the movie. See what I did there? That's
what we call "wordplay." Look it up, dingus.
Score: 1
Best Line: A film this incompetent has to have some utterly ridiculous lines, right? Right!
Accordingly, the "Best Line" category for Blood of Ghastly Horror doesn't so much evaluate
the film's best line as it does the film's most preposterous. I've narrowed it down to three
contenders:
- "Wait a minute lieutenant, you don't mean the time that half-dead guy was brought
back to life and slaughtered all those people?" Is it really possible to have
memories of something like that while simultaneously having enormous sideburns
and the physical grace of one of those Neandertal statues down at the Museum of
Natural History? More importantly, is it really possible to have memories of
something like that and mention it that casually? I feel like if I knew something like
that, I'd be blogging about it constantly. - "We seem to have a walking dead man on our hands. You must admit that's a bit
puzzling." INDEED. I forget who said this line, but it's not important, because the
truth is the truth. - "The experiment was at once a success and a failure." This line was uttered by the
incomparable Dr. Vanard. Even though I'm not a scientist, I know what he means.
I think I'm going to have to go with that last line, because it both sucks and blows at the
same time--that's quite an accomplishment.
Score: 2
| Is this a zombie attacking people, or is this a zombie hugging people and declaring "best friends forever"? I have no idea. |
Intangibles: Let me level with you: it has taken me about 8 weeks to get to this point in this
review. 8 weeks! Why has it taken me so long to get here? Because this movie is so
soul-crushingly bad, the mere act of thinking about it for more than 2 minutes causes
spontaneous dyspepsia. I haven't been able to compose more than two paragraphs at a
time before the need to eat a box of Tums has overwhelmed me. While I feel that even
finishing the viewing of the movie was quite an accomplishment, finishing this review will
be even more of an accomplishment, a herculean feat on a level with climbing Mount
Everest naked or making out with Jenny McCarthy and not coming away with a cold sore.
However, it seems that drastic measures must be taken if I'm ever going to make it to the
finish line. Accordingly, I will, for the rest of this review, only use one word to describe each
category, and I will only be using words that are synonyms of the word that truly captures the
essence of Blood of Ghastly Horror: deplorable.
Score: 1
Zombie Believability: Awful.
Score: 1
Zombie Attack Scenes: Reprehensible.
Score: 1
review. 8 weeks! Why has it taken me so long to get here? Because this movie is so
soul-crushingly bad, the mere act of thinking about it for more than 2 minutes causes
spontaneous dyspepsia. I haven't been able to compose more than two paragraphs at a
time before the need to eat a box of Tums has overwhelmed me. While I feel that even
finishing the viewing of the movie was quite an accomplishment, finishing this review will
be even more of an accomplishment, a herculean feat on a level with climbing Mount
Everest naked or making out with Jenny McCarthy and not coming away with a cold sore.
However, it seems that drastic measures must be taken if I'm ever going to make it to the
finish line. Accordingly, I will, for the rest of this review, only use one word to describe each
category, and I will only be using words that are synonyms of the word that truly captures the
essence of Blood of Ghastly Horror: deplorable.
Score: 1
Zombie Believability: Awful.
Score: 1
Zombie Attack Scenes: Reprehensible.
Score: 1
| Zombies behind bars: on the next A Current Affair. And yes, I'm aware that I made this exact same joke in my review of All Souls Day. So sue me! |
Zombie "Orgy" Scenes: Calamitous.
Score: 1
Anti-Zombie Weaponry: Opprobrious.
Score: 1
Score: 1
Anti-Zombie Weaponry: Opprobrious.
Score: 1
| Beware: this fate awaits those who watch Blood of Ghastly Horror. |
Zombification Explanation: Disgraceful.
Score: 1
Zombie Uniqueness: Disastrous.
Score: 1
Zombie Consistency: Intolerable.
Score: 1
Signature Zombie: Dreadful.
Score: 1
Score: 1
Zombie Uniqueness: Disastrous.
Score: 1
Zombie Consistency: Intolerable.
Score: 1
Signature Zombie: Dreadful.
Score: 1
| All text on this page is copyright 2007 ZombieTastic.com, and may not be reused without written consent from the author. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Total Points: 40
Verdict: Execrable.
[Editor's note: while Blood of Ghastly Horror is psyche-rapingly bad, it still scores higher
than Zombie Doom. Think about that. Actually, don't.]
[Editor's note 2: It must be admitted that the trailer for Blood of Ghastly Horror sounds
pretty cool at least. Take a listen to it and consider that if the movie had lived up to even 5%
of the promise of the trailer's ghoulish voiceover, we might have had something other than a
zombie-movie-atrocity on our hands.]
[Editor's note 3: with all of this being said, I feel compelled to mention that November Fire
does sell a pretty cool t-shirt with the film's poster on it. You know--if you're in to that sort of
thing.]
Next Time: Burial Ground: The Nights of Terror
Verdict: Execrable.
[Editor's note: while Blood of Ghastly Horror is psyche-rapingly bad, it still scores higher
than Zombie Doom. Think about that. Actually, don't.]
[Editor's note 2: It must be admitted that the trailer for Blood of Ghastly Horror sounds
pretty cool at least. Take a listen to it and consider that if the movie had lived up to even 5%
of the promise of the trailer's ghoulish voiceover, we might have had something other than a
zombie-movie-atrocity on our hands.]
[Editor's note 3: with all of this being said, I feel compelled to mention that November Fire
does sell a pretty cool t-shirt with the film's poster on it. You know--if you're in to that sort of
thing.]
Next Time: Burial Ground: The Nights of Terror
