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.

Skyler Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

Jerrie It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

Phillipa Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

MartinHafer Al Adamson might just have been the worst film director in history. I truly think that his films are at least as bad as Ed Wood's and both men finished up their careers making porno flicks. This film, made in the pre-porno days, manages to perhaps be the worse excuse for a film Adamson ever made--even worse than Dracula VS. FRANKENSTEIN!! That's because this master of the super-super cheap drive-in film found a way to make this film even cheaper and cheesier than the rest--he took apart an older film he made (PSYCHO A GO-GO) and pieced it together with some new scenes to make an entirely new film!! The original film, PSYCHO A GO-GO was actually one of Adamson's best films (though its current rating of 2.0 is hardly stellar). It was about a jewel robbery gone bad and particularly focused on a psychotic killer within the gang and his evil deeds.Now, the same guy who was killed at the end of PSYCHO A GO-GO is back as a zombie re-animated by John Carradine with an electronic brain! And, it's up to Tommy Kirk and a bunch of other no-talents to unravel the mystery (about the murders, not why they agreed to be in this pile of bilge).Much of the film makes no sense at all and it's all quite confusing and stupid--with very large chunks of the old film re-used haphazardly. Apparently none of this was important to Adamson. What was important, it seems, is managing to make a new film for $5.78. The only people who could enjoy this dull mess are bad movie freaks like myself who occasionally enjoy laughing at horrid films. And this one has it all--very bad acting, the director's stripper wife making yet another gratuitous appearance in one of his films, non-existent writing and terrible direction (with quite a few out of focus and poorly framed shots).

Michael_Elliott Blood of Ghastly Horror (1972) * 1/2 (out of 4) Drive-in master Al Adamson strikes back once again with another mix and match film. Apparently in 1964 Adamson finished a police thriller but it couldn't be sold so he and producer Sam Sherman started filming new scenes to try and make it better. Five or six films were eventually "made" but this one here is the one that finally sold and apparently made a profit. Considering there are five or more movies on display here it's pretty hard to follow any story but it involves scientists (John Carradine) doing brain work on a killer who eventually goes out and kills. Make sense? Well the movie certainly doesn't. The Carradine footage is obviously the most recent thing filmed for the movie and he does have a few campy moments, which earn a few laughs but I'm really not sure what his footage has to do with too much of the film. The cop footage seems to come from Adamson's Psycho a Go-Go, which is also pretty bad but this film does have its charm because it moves at a nice speed and you really can't believe your eyes with what you're watching. Tommy Kirk and Kent Taylor are also scattered around the film and what they're doing exactly is anyone's guess. This is certainly an important film if one wants to see this type of drive-in fluff but others should stay far away.

rossaw Like horror has blood. A tossed salad of scenes whose relationship makes only a klutzy kind of sense. Combine this with the worst directing, photography, sound effects, and music imaginable and you have some idea what you're in for. Night scenes too dark to see the characters. A woman screams but no sound comes out -- they forgot to add it. A zombie wraps his arm around someone and they scream and fall dead to the ground. A man being shot grabs his chest before the gun goes off. Or how about the score -- a psychotic killer is chasing a woman and her child with intent to kill, accompanied by swinging jazz. This chase scene incidentally is most of the movie, or seems like it, killer running, woman and child running, killer, woman, on and on ... Zombies and mad scientist plot elements are stuck onto it with spit and string. To say this is a cheesy horror film is to be generous. Someone said it had never been used on MST3K -- that's probably because they'd be putting more work into ridiculing it than the filmmakers did in making it.

- Chumpy Only because this movie hasn't graced MST3K, has it not received attention as the worst of all time. I saw this film over 20 years ago and still remember it as the worst ever - without having seen it since. And yes, I have seen "Plan 9" and "Robot Monster" and a number of the films shown on MST3K, like "Manos, The Hands of Fate" and "The Puma Man."This film, which I saw as "The Man With The Synthetic Brain," is truly terrible. A crime film which becomes a mad scientist film, which becomes a chase film, and ends up as a zombie movie!I saw this on TV, and when coming back from commercial breaks, I frequently thought that I was watching a different film entirely. Both in plot and cinematography, it's like a film pieced together from ill-fitting parts of other films. A Frankenstein of films - at least in the method by which it seems to have been made.The dialogue is horrible and most of it unnecessary. A typical line: "I flew in.....on a plane!" That would be opposed to flying cross country by flapping his arms. I'm glad they explained that one, I'd have been lost otherwise.The best part (or worst)? The ending with a Witch Doctor / Scientist shown wearing a Witch Doctor mask and a lab coat. Why a lab coat? Why not?! The lab coat would protect his delicate mix of monkey brains, goat lips, fish heads and guano from suit lint. The suit lint would ruin everything!Only see this film if you love bad films. Anyone looking for even a below average B-quality movie would be very disappointed by "Blood of Ghastly Horror."SCGp.s. Who gave this movie a "10?" Were they confused by one of the 300 titles used to repackage this bomb? Then again I note that there were two "10" votes and two writing credits on the film. I sense a conspiracy. Someone get Mulder and Scully on this.