UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

Lachlan Coulson This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

Lela The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

BA_Harrison In the late 60s, Tigon British Film Productions set out to emulate the success of Hammer Studios, whose popular werewolf, vampire, mummy and Frankenstein's monster movies had helped them to corner the market in lavish Gothic horror. Rather than go up against these traditional heavyweights of the genre, Tigon's first monster movie, the intriguingly titled The Blood Beast Terror, featured an entirely original creation, but one that was destined to fail—it is, after all, rather difficult to be afraid of something quite so bloody silly as a giant killer moth!Despite the presence of seasoned Hammer performer Peter Cushing, and a decent supporting cast including Robert Flemyng, Glynn Edwards (Dave from TV's 'Minder'), comedian Roy Hudd, and babes Vanessa Howard and Wanda Ventham, the film is a total disaster, with Peter Bryan's script delivering very little in the way of surprises, the weak direction from Vernon Sewell (The Curse of the Crimson Altar) resulting in an uneven pace and zero atmosphere, and the ridiculous titular creature—furry of face, with big, red, multi-faceted eyes and feathery antennae—eliciting more laughs than screams of terror.3.5 out of 10, generously rounded up to 4 for IMDb.

JoeytheBrit This Hammer wannabe manages to capture the look of that studio's output, but fails miserably to match it in the storyline and effects departments, leaving us with a pale imitation that only occasionally manages to grab the viewer's attention.Robert Flemyng plays Dr Carl Mallinger, a borderline-mad scientist with two problems on his hands: people keep entering his lab without knocking which annoys him no end, and his daughter (Wanda Ventham) keeps turning into a giant moth and draining the blood of the neighbourhood's strapping young bucks. These killings attract the attention of Detective Inspector Helsing, er, Quennell (Peter Cushing) who quickly suspects the doctor of foul deeds.The film opens with a shot of a young explorer type in darkest Africa collecting samples of a giant moth. The scenes of darkest Africa look not unlike scenes of deepest Hertfordshire on a not-very-warm day, spliced with shots of exotic jungle creatures basking in sunlight. Immediately, a sense of disquiet fell over me – not because I feared for the safety of our intrepid explorer but because I had already begun to suspect that once again I had stumbled upon yet another stinker.How right I was. What we have here is a kind of tepid cocktail of the main ingredients of the horror genre: vampirism, the creation of a mutant life-form, shape-changing, etc. Unfortunately the ingredients are cold and nobody involved in the film knew how to warm them up. The film's brief running time is padded out with such riveting moments as Cushing brushing cobwebs from his jacket after discovering a cellar full of human skeletons, then taking the jacket off to give it a jolly good shake before putting it back on. Incredibly, director Vernon Sewell devotes more time to this moment than he does to the eventual destruction of the creature. This destruction is especially lame, although – in the absence of any giant Rentokil strips – is entirely logical and predictable.Cushing and Flemyng try their best but are defeated by the shabbiness of the screenplay, while Wanda Ventham makes a rather dull femme fatale and Vanessa Howard proves to be an intensely irritating damsel in distress. At one point we see her chatting to Ventham's character and in the very next scene she is unconscious in the nearly-mad doc's lab having her blood drained. How did she get there? Your guess is as good as mine – the film doesn't bother to tell us.

hellpepper OK, not one of the better offerings of British horror, that's true. But it does have Peter Cushing who is always fun to watch and I have to give credit for the writers to try to bring a somewhat more original monster to the screen than just another rehash in the Vampire or Frankenstein vein. Well, come to think of it aside from making the monster a moth ,this really is just another rehashed Vampire story with a few elements from the Frankenstein storyline thrown in for good measure. I cannot help but wonder if the monster was inspired by the legend of the Mothman, the legendary beastie from West Virginia. The resemblance is pretty close. A man sized moth creature with red glowing eyes.Shame more people have not seen this though, it's not as bad as its reputation. I find it pretty enjoyable.

jackgavin I watched this,last night and to be honest I was genuinely surprised at just how bad it is.What is a promising idea is ruined by lack of budget. The monster is laughable, blatantly someone wearing a catsuit with a rubber mask on.The script itself is shocking. Segments appear to have little relevance to what is going on and merely there to drag out the running time to feature length. The butlers dislike of the Hawk is never explained, other than the brief mention the start of the hawksmoth, which is then never referred again. Yes, I know he has a scar on his face, obviously from some encounter but what has this to do with the plot? At one point a Policeman asks Peter Cushing who he thinks is responsible for the murders. To which Cushing replies not who but what and starts talking about gigantic vampire moths. To which the Policeman nodds sagely like this is an everyday occurrence in Victorian London.The young leads/love interest are probably the two most annoying examples of this type of genre, just because they are so dull, and like the Policeman seen to regard gigantic vampire moths as nothing out of the ordinary.Peter Cushing described this as his worse film. He's right.