Blood Feast (1963) User Reviews

Something new

[etmore · 6/10 · 12 February 2005]

From a technical standpoint, this movie is awful. But, you still have to give credit to Lewis and Friedman for creating a new genre of film; the splatter flick. For this reason, and probably this reason alone, I rate it at 6. Well, you have to give Lewis credit for the musical score that he did himself. The electric organ and opening shot of the Sphinx is hilarious. The writing and acting, though, are deplorable.

This is an exploitation movie in the mold of the circus sideshow. The ad campaign for the movie made it appear to be more than it really was. In fact, a "nurse" was on hand at showings to assist those who might become overwhelmed by the horror presented on the screen. Many of the scenes, like the one with the woman's tongue being ripped out of her mouth (from what I understand, it was a sheep's tongue purchased from a local butcher)are quite revolting and unsettling. Actually, this is a part of what is known as the Blood Trilogy along with Lewis' better made, Two Thousand Maniacs. The third film is Color Me Blood Red.

Welcome to violence

[Red-Barracuda · 6/10 · 7 November 2010]

Well whether you like it or not Blood Feast will always be a landmark movie. This is truly the year zero when it comes to depictions of graphic cinematic violence. Sure it wasn't the first movie to show scenes of gore but it took the concept to an unheard of level, basing the entire movie around the idea. Director H. G. Lewis is nothing if not fearless in his presentation of blood and guts. While the gore scenes are hardly realistic, they are often somewhat nasty. Lewis's subsequent gore movies follow this specific template, where they are simultaneously funny and mean-spirited. A crazy combination that simply should be a disaster but in the case of Blood Feast, the sheer audacity of it is jaw-dropping. It's a film that sure has its flaws. Production values are extremely low and the acting is often mind-boggling. Lewis's camera work is at best, uneven. But, frankly, the scenes of carnage are so in your face, and do not disappoint. The film remains far more violent than most horror films today and it's difficult to imagine what audiences of the early 60's would have made of the atrocities that spooled before their eyes. I expect it must've been a mixture of appalled outrage and morbid glee.

Mal Arnold is pretty unforgettable as the murderous caretaker. His delivery of lines is just nuts; it often looks like he is reading off a board just off-screen. He's a lot of fun. Connie Mason provides the eye-candy and she is hardly an actress, but her stiff line-delivery fits into this trash-opus perfectly. Lewis himself is of course hugely unpretentious and straightforward as a film director, so he basically points the camera at the action and films, there is no artistry in Blood Feast. But this is very much a part of the fun, as this is pure exploitation with no apologies. In my opinion this remains Lewis's best feature. I realise it has many, many faults but I just find the whole thing a very entertaining trash-fest. And one of the most important exploitation films in history too.

The decrepit grandfather of gore!

[Genopsycho666 · 4/10 · 31 January 2004]

- This review contains what some might take as spoilers. -

So this is it. Yup! The `legendary' ancestor of all them gore flicks: `Blood Feast' (read in most dramatic voice)!!! My eagerness to finally watch this `cult' movie totally surpassed the final impression I had after having endured this trashy nonsense. No, let me tell you, this movie is definitely not as worth watching as many so-called connoisseurs would like you to believe. There are, of course, many sequences that will provoke lots of unintended laughter: The incredibly bad acting (I especially loved to see all those `actors' obviously reading off their dialogue parts), the miserable attempt (by director H. G. Lewis himself) at creating a suitable soundtrack, and last but not least the complete lack of talent in terms of direction. Let me admit, though, that the gory effects will surely please the bloodthirsty masses. So let's see what we've got: An eye ripped out of its socket plus a leg hacked off inside a bathtub; a brain torn out of a young lady at the beach; a tongue forcefully ripped out from between another lady's red, red lips; and so on, and so on… Yes! That's all there is to it. Subtlety is completely lost on this movie, but we all DID know beforehand, didn't we?

A very dear film to my gory, blood-filled heart

[one4now4 · 26 October 2003]

This is the splatter anticlassic all us sickos know and love. The non-plot is, well, pretty simple and it's only an excuse to cut loose with loads of very extreme gore and sadism. Fuad Ramses (Mal Arnold), an Egyptian maniac of pagan bloodlust, must serve up a "blood feast" to Ishtar, his horrible goddess of gory days gone by. Y'know, back when chicks used to get their hearts yanked out on altars IN BLOOD COLOR! How does he get the morsels for his feast? It's an easy guess! Tongues pulled out. Limbs cut off. Brains hacked out in a blood-splattered mess. It's the grand-daddy of all the sickest stuff you've ever seen, and even though it's pretty stupid and bad, it sure is fun! It's even funny on purpose (as well as the other way around). For those of you who dig this unsavory and depraved type of junk the way I do, find this bad mother as soon as possible and surrender to the forbidden pleasures of the first splatter-comedy ever! (I think...)

The first but not really the best

[Maciste_Brother · 2/10 · 19 November 2003]

BLOOD FEAST IS HG Lewis' first gore movie and even though there are some memorable scenes of gore, the film itself was very bad. Many sets looked like they were shot on a community theatre stage. The camera was often set in one position and didn't move at all. The dialogue and acting were abysmal. The music was bizarre. It's a contender of sorts for one of the worst films ever. There's a scene where a guy cries after his girlfriend was killed on the beach. That is THE worst acting ever caught on film. Amazingly bad and hilarious. But the gore is still at times disturbing and I guess that's what gorehounds look for in these kind of movies. 2000 MANIACS is much better than this.

Good story, horrible acting

[eb_explorer · 5/10 · 6 February 2006]

Blood Feast has been one of the most talked about films. Banned in numerous countries for its violent content. It is from one of the masters of cult films who does a great job in setting up the shots, but it does fall short. The story line is somewhat descent, but the acting is just terrible, which did take some of the fun out of watching the film. This film could have been so much better if the talent was. The Ramses character could have been a bit more developed. We know nothing about him except that he is a caterer. If we learned more about him and his victims the story would have flowed a bit more. No character is truly developed throughout the film so when they are threatened in any way you just get a feeling of whatever where's the next victim.

If you like gore this is a film for you. The body parts look awesome and there is lots of blood.

It is a fun film that should be watched.

This Exploitation 'First' Can Never Be More Than a 1

[Chance2000esl · 1/10 · 12 October 2009]

Hershell Gordon Lewis and David Friedman made this tedious first exploitation flick to feature gore as 'something new,' since the nudie flicks were starting to lose money. The trailer for 'Blood Feast' shows every gore sequence in the film as a blatant promotional attempt to hook an audience.

I was one. In 1963, I watched the trailer play in my hometown theater, the State Theater in Petaluma, California. That year it definitely was shocking !! to see this type of stuff on the screen; it fact, it was revolting. I had no wish to see the film, and it was never shown in conservative Petaluma.

In 1967, however, it was part of what we called "The Ghouly Trilogy" which also included 'Two Thousand Maniacs' (1964) and 'Color Me Blood Red' (1965) playing on downtown Market Street in San Francisco at a $1.00 theater. These I went to see with other refugees from the Haight Ashbury. 'Blood Feast' as a film was entirely tedious, and the moments of gore did little to make the film more enjoyable. It was too totally killed by the feeble acting, slow and dreary editing, dull scenes and camera work, poor script, well, you can read the other reviews. Everything about it as a film was just terrible.

After the overnight success of 'Blood Feast' in Philadelphia (where ECW also spent its gory glory years), Lewis said to Friedman, "What if we tried to make a good movie?" The result was '2000 Maniacs,' a much better film, which also became the subject of one of my hit songs, 'Pleasant Valley,' that I can send you over the internet.

'Blood Feast' is not Ed Wood movie making. Ed Wood was an auteur compared to this type of exploitation film which was cobbled together to make some fast money. Wood's masterpiece, 'Glen or Glenda' (1953) and 'Plan 9 From Outer Space' (1959) were artistic statements from an enthusiastic director / writer whose reach sadly exceeded his grasp. Hence the wonderful homage by Johnny Depp and Tim Burton, 'Ed Wood' (1994).

As for 'Blood Feast' as the first gore flick, let it lie next to other historical cinematic firsts -- the first porno loop, the first animated scene, the first western, the first... well, all of those are more interesting than this non film. It deserves the worst possible treatment by Mystery Science Theater 3000.

But, if you think about it, the first slasher flick was 'Psycho' (1960). Just compare its genius shower scene (worth a 10 all by itself) with the motel killing of the girl, or anything else in 'Blood Feast' and this clunker's rating has to go down to a minus 10.

It can never get, or be, more than a one.

The granddaddy of gore

[macabro357 · 7/10 · 1 September 2003]

This is where it all started. And it's also the first of what's known as Herschell Gordon Lewis' "blood trilogy" of gorefests.

Yeah the acting's terrible. Yes, the special effects are awful and yeah, it looks like it was filmed on a shoestring budget, but that's what makes this thing so great! (laughs)

A series of young women are slaughtered in Miami by a local crackpot named Faud Ramses (Mal Arnold). He only takes one part of the woman's body each time by cutting off a leg or a heart or using a machete and cutting out a woman's brains on a dark Miami beach and leaves the local police (led by Bill Kerwin) baffled and clueless.

Ramses is also the local, exotic caterer who uses these woman's body parts to serve his customers without them knowing about it. And that includes a party thrown by Kerwin's girlfriend's (played by 1963 Playboy Playmate, Connie Mason) mother. Connie looks better here than she later did in TWO THOUSAND MANIACS.

The Something Weird DVD uses a crisp master print taken from the original negative. It's real clean without any scratches or damage. The sound is as good as can be expected from the original mono source. It also has 45 minutes of rare outtakes that that are almost as interesting as the film itself with topless scenes that weren't shown in the film.

It also includes a short industrial film starring Kerwin and Harvey Korman (yes, that Harvey Korman) called "Carving Magic" that was done around the same time as this film. We learn the fine art of 'meat' carving so I guess it's supposed to tie into the irony of this film, right?

This is camp as it's best, folks. (laughs)

7 out of 10

Blood Laugh

[Ricardo-36 · 1/10 · 9 January 2001]

Now this is what I call a bad movie. I mean it. I have made better movies with my video camera, back when I was 12. No, it's not the funny gore, or the terrible soundtrack, or the plot (plot? what plot?). It's the acting! Where did they find those actors, come on! Listen carefully while the line "Have you ever had an Egyptian feast" is said. You won't know what hit you! But the worse actor in this movie is Gene Courtier (as Tony). His crying scene is probably the worse "acting" attempt ever filmed. If you like to watch bad movies just to get a laugh, watch "Blood Feast".

1/10 - That Tony guy sure can cry loud!

So bad it's good

[jonathanskinner_10 · 7/10 · 4 July 2009]

Oh my god, this movie should be a comedy its so funny. Unintentionally of course. Mal Arnold is great as Fuad Ramses in a campy way, his wild eyes, limp and campy dialogue is awesome. The acting is just terrible, I mean it's astronomically poor. The cops in this movie are incredibly slow, they must be on the lower end of the bell curve. The music is incredibly cheesy and campy too. The special effects are not very good either, some shots only show the aftermath of somebody dying. The blood looks very fake and so does the flesh in the movie. The ending is hysterically dumb. Overall, it's an enjoyable experience and very unintentionally funny. A very campy gory movie which won't appeal to a lot of people but if you can dumb down for an hour then you'll love it. I couldn't give it a 10 because it's so bad, but again it's so bad its good.

The First Splatter Movie with Explicit Gore

[claudio_carvalho · 3/10 · 14 May 2015]

In Miami, the Egyptian serial-killer Fuad Ramses (Mal Arnold) owns a catering store and kills women taking parts of each one of them. Fuad worships the goddess Ishtar and is preparing a blood feast to resurrect her. Detective Pete Thornton (Thomas Wood) is investigating the murder cases trying to find who the killer is. Meanwhile the mother of his girlfriend Suzette Fremont (Connie Mason) hires the Fuad Ramses Catering store to provide the food for her birthday party. Fuad intends to sacrifice Suzette as the ultimate offering to Ishtar. Will he succeed?

"Blood Feast" is a lame amateurish trash with laughable performances and ridiculous situations. The importance of this film is that it is the first splatter movie with explicit gore. It is unthinkable imagining the reaction of the audiences with the explicit violence and gore in 1963, despite the funny performances. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): Not Available on DVD or Blu-Ray

Some Kind of Genius

[By-TorX-1 · 8/10 · 18 April 2010]

My rating is a kind of anti-rating. Is this a fine film? No. Is the plot compelling? No. Are the actors top-notch emoters? No, no, and thrice no. Are the gore effects convincing? Absolutely not! Is the film a work of sheer visionary genius? Yes! Sort of, in an alternative film-making universe kind of way. Fuad Ramses is one of the greatest/most bizarre cinematic creations I have had the pleasure of seeing. His logic is fantastic, and if for nothing else, he deserves kudos for outrunning a number of fully-fit police officers, and him with a conspicuous (read sinister) limp! Ramses' enunciation of his lines is brilliant and I am now searching for an opportunity to slide "a feast...last...given...five...thousand...years...ago" into an everyday conversation. Add not very bright police officers, one of whom is clearly Basil Exposition's father, and a series of splendid (and ground-breaking, it must be said) gore set-pieces, and you have genius. So, let us all raise a glass to Mr. Lewis and proclaim Blood Feast as the warped work of art it most surely is.

Masterpiece from the Ed Wood of Gore

[Doctor_Cheese · 7/10 · 13 March 2005]

As the first-ever splatter epic, "Blood Feast" is assured of its place in history. This low-budget shlockfest is single-handedly responsible for launching an entire genre of films, including slasher fare like the Friday the 13th, Halloween, and Nightmare on Elm Street movies. For that reason, its place in hell is probably assured, too. Though to be fair, of course, we can thank it for so many other blood-soaked cinematic excursions that are actually entertaining.

And fortunately for cheese heads, director Herschell Gordon Lewis, the "Godfather of Gore," is also the Ed Wood of gore. The two great auteurs share many important trademarks in their roster of masterpieces, including wooden acting, absurdly bad dialogue, cheeseball effects, and lousy continuity. "Blood Feast" sports all of these endearing qualities and more, even going so far as to include some Woodian abrupt day-to-night-to-day transitions.

The dopey plot involves one Fuad Ramses, author of the New York Times bestseller "Ancient Weird Religious Practices," and his attempt to re-create, through his ridiculous "exotic catering" service, an authentic Egyptian blood feast, whatever that is. But really, all we need to know is that it involves the gruesome murders of pretty young women. (Surprise, surprise, surprise!) Beyond that, all that's left to say is that the Good Doctor gives this landmark bit of trash cinema two wheels of gorgonzola up.

Followed, insanely, by a sequel in 2002.

Ed Wood II

[pshow99 · 1/10 · 25 March 2002]

You can throw a party to this one! I remember Jim Donovan of Rusted Root doing his best MST3k to this, thus enlightening me to the potential this movie had. He noted the very off tempo tympani (always the percussionist!) and several other gaffes within. Do it! See other H.G.L. movies...just as bad! Color Me Blood Red comes to mind!

Check out this ancient Egyption feast!

[jurb84 · 8 January 2001]

Oft-credited as the first traditional "gore" pic, 'Blood Feast' establishes all of typical conventions of the genre; including nubile, young women (including a Playboy Playmate), excessive blood and guts, and even some dark humor (including the "hamburger" line and the trash-compactor ending). It's also inept in every way, from the atrocious acting and horrible directing to the dumb-as-dirt characters. Hell, the most intelligent character in this movie is the murderer, Faud Ramses - what, with him having penned a seemingly popular non-fiction work and running a bang-up catering business to boot - and even he is not too bright, which unfortunately catches up with him in the end.

If you love bad movies in that MST3K kind of way, than this is one to see. It's laugh-a-minute riot (and you've go to love the score). So put down that copy of 'Ancient Weird Religious Rites' and check this movie out.

So terrible it is hilarious!...

[Parca · 1/10 · 22 November 1998]

This is one of those REALLY bad films that you can laugh at constantly without the help of MST3K or illegal substances. Now, when this came out, it was the first gore film, so it had more of a shock value. Not anymore. Now you look at the gore, and like many HG Lewis films, it looks incredibly fake. But that's not what is hilarious. What is hilarious is the terrible acting (I swear I've seen nursery plays with better performances), the bad dialogue, the badly set-up scenes, bad shots, the background (check out the statue in Ramses' background), laughable score, and unnecessary explanations of things that the audience had figured out hours before. Although I have great respect for Hershell Gordon Lewis for breaking serious gore into Hollywood horror, I have to unfortunately compare this attempt of his to something that Ed Wood did...

Florida Gore: The History of Blood Feast

[Tromafreak · 5/10 · 8 May 2010]

In case you were wondering, this is the one. Not The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Certainly not Friday The 13th. This is the one that (like it or not) the history books will show that is the granddaddy of Horror as we know it today. Regardless of the countless questionable qualities, no one can take that away from this movie. As inept as it is gory. As humorous as it is legendary. This is Blood Feast. I'll be honest, there ain't a single thing about this movie that is special, other than the fact that this is the first film in history to offer full-frontal gore. And when it comes down to it, Blood Feast would pretty much set the tone for how schlock and B-Horror would play out over the next quarter century. The director of this gruesome epic, Herschell Gordon Lewis apparently put 100% of his creativity into the gore effects, as the story leaves a little to be desired. About an Egyptian caterer, Fuad Ramses, who has been busy preparing a feast for a party thrown for the daughter of a wealthy socialite. Only, this feast really belongs to Ishtar, Fuad's Goddess (a statue), and with the right ingredients, Ishtar (supposedly) can be brought back to life. Unfortunately for several young ladies across Miami, Ishtar's feast requires various body parts, such as Arms, legs, tongues, etc. The scenes that follow would go down in history as the first to be considered "disgusting". Blood Feast stars the legendary Thomas Wood, and non-actress Connie Mason. Love it or hate it, you have no right to call yourself a Horror fan if you have not seen this movie, and that's a fact. Blood Feast is actually the first in Herschell Gordon Lewis's Blood Trilogy, which also includes the superior-beyond-words, Two Thousand Maniacs, along with the mediocre, Color Me Blood Red. Lewis would also go on to create such gore epics as The Wizard Of Gore and The Gruesome Twosome. Believe me, they don't call this guy the godfather of gore for nothing. Oh yeah, and be sure to check out Herschell's looooong-awaited gore-drenched sequel, Blood Feast 2, for what quite possibly may be the most entertaining Horror sequel in existence. Many Horror/gore directors have come and gone since 1963. Some were awesome (Lucio Fulci). Some, not so much (Nathan Schiff). But no one can deny that good ol' H.G. did it first. 8/10

FROM HUNGER

[mmthos · 3/10 · 4 July 2020]

Camp classic, mercifully short, you'll like it if you like: 1. primitive and ridiculously over the top gore effects. 2. a barebones plot to hang the corpses on. 3. a soundtrack that sounds like the organ background to an olde-tyme radio drama. 4. you've heard of crazy eyes? The villain here has crazy eyebrows. 5. Some of the Worst acting ever filmed. I know people say that all the time, but this time I Really Mean It! 6. No production budget: Bad actors flub their one, single line! and apparently they couldn't afford the film for a retake. I know this writer/director/composer/cinematographer is considered a visionary and legend, but from this he seems like horror's answer to Ed Wood.

The First Gore Fest

[themaddro · 7/10 · 10 December 2003]

This is one of my favorite movies. How can anyone not enjoy it on some level. You may find it gross, or funny, or just be in shock over Connies Mason's cue card reading... either way... it's fun!

A good gory horror film....

[MovieGuy01 · 5/10 · 3 November 2009]

I thought that Blood Feat was a good but very gory horror film. An Egyptian caterer collects body parts from young maidens to bring Ishtar, an ancient goddess of good and evil back to life. When he has enough parts for the ceremony, he hypnotises a woman giving an engagement party for her daughter,Suzette at which he plans to perform the ancient rites of summons, using the daughter as his final sacrifice. She calls for a local caterer, called Fuad Ramses, who promises to prepare her an Egyptian feast, that has not been prepared for 5,000 years. Suzette's boyfriend, police detective Pete Thornton, is investigating a series of murders. Someone has been attacking young women and harvesting organs and body parts. I thought that this was a good film and pretty gory for its time. 5/10

As Far As Bad Movies Go, This Is One of the Best!

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 30 April 2008]

Ever have an Egyptian feast? No? Well, you are in for a treat because in this film we have the incredible coincidence of an Egyptian caterer who wants to prepare an Egyptian blood feast and the mother of a student of Egyptian cults who wants to give her a special taste of Egypt. But, little does she know, this might result in a variety of gruesome murders.

Herschell Gordon Lewis is the godfather of gore. This is a well-known fact and I could sing his praises here for paragraphs at a time... but I will not. Instead, I want to give credit to Mal Arnold, the actor who played Fuad Ramses. He was quirky, weird-looking and creepy. His acting was pretty awful, but compared to the acting of everyone else he seemed the most professional. (It is actually really funny how forced most of the dialogue seems.) As pointed out in my review for "Wizard of Gore", Lewis loves eyes and Ramses has the perfect "wild eyes".

I am curious about who was going to eat the feast before the party came to Ramses' attention. He was already preparing it. So, like, does he just ask random customers if they are looking for an Egyptian feast and hopes that one will take him up on the offer? And should I care that this film constantly references Egypt while the god they refer to (Ishtar) is actually Babylonian with no Egyptian connection? I should care, but frankly, I do not.

And here is why: the blood. Sure, the blood was paint-like... but it was also awesome. The color schemes in the 1960s make the bright blood of "Blood Feast" appropriate. Today it would look silly, but at the time it is actually rather gross, which is the intended goal when you are a gore master, I assume. Plenty of hacked up people (legs, tongues and more removed on screen).

I have written that "Blood Feast" is on par with "Wizard of Gore" as far as being his masterpiece. So if you are looking for a taste of Lewis-style carnage, this is a great place to start. From the bloody beginning to the bone-crushing end, this is a tale of massacre and incompetent police that low-budget horror fans eat up like fava beans.

As of September 2011, you can have this film in your collection on Blu-Ray, thanks to Image Entertainment. Besides the new technology, there are commentaries from Lewis and producer David Friedman, as well as plenty of special goodies. I would strongly urge anyone to pick it up.

Yes it's terrible, but it's fun too.

[Phil_H · 2/10 · 13 September 1999]

I have to admit, this film is fun to watch and laugh about.

There's something incredibly funny to me about schlock-murder that happens while you hear "How Dry I Am" being played (poorly) on a violin...

And did anyone else ntoice that Fuad's limp changes legs in the film (more than once)?

How terrible a film! Yet, compellingly fun.

I had to give this a "1" rating, but I wish you'd all see it just once. It's MST3K material of the highest caliber, and yet they never panned it! I guess the silliness of the movie was too much for even Best Brains.

ANCIENT WEIRD RELIGIOUS RITES

[z0mb0y · 10/10 · 2 August 2000]

Some day, I hope to travel to Clearwater, Florida, to place a manikin leg before the Sphinx in the patking lot, in honor of this classic of trash cinema which was filmed there. This is the one film I can think of that succeeds brilliantly in every frame to be deeply entertaining because it's so profoundly inept. Though I have, on repeated viewing, developed a special fondness for Mal Arnold's interpretation of Fuad Ramses. It's the essence of camp. He might have been a neighbor on Pee-Wee's Playhouse! Has anyone else noticed the perverse giddiness of the scenes where he fondles womens' entrails?

There's a cut-rate irony at work here, too. The only things happening in this town are Suzette Fremont's party and those horrible murders. Yet only we, the audience, know that they're related. And what about that book club? Do they only offer one title?

Also, the tongue-pulling scene had to be the first occurance of slapstick gore. I mean, he didn't knock her out or anything. He just jammed his fingers into her mouth as soon as she opened the door. And she didn't particularly struggle with him. She just went "Ngaahhh!" and "Lleeehhh," as he yanked. And when he got the tongue out, it was about a foot long. Did it get stretched out of shape like taffy?

For a movie to be that entertaining to me every time I've watched it (which must be more than fifty by now)represents some weird kind of accomplishment. Do yourself a favor and buy the DVD. This is perhaps the best unintentional comedy ever made!

Give yourself UP to the GODDESS !!!

[CelluloidRehab · 7/10 · 23 February 2007]

In the context of film school, film theory, film conventions and anything about film-making that makes it a poignant and artful form of expression, this is a big "DON'T". Anything that can be done poorly, has already been done. Yet what we are left with is a prototypical piece of celluloid. The director, Herschell Gordon Lewis, can easily be seen as love child of Russ Meyer and Ed Wood. Those two names both evoke dread and hilarity. One can only imagine what a movie that has both would be like. Well thankfully for Herschell Gordon Lewis, the world soon found out.

As with most of his movies, forget the story. It is usually a patchwork of closeups, zoom outs, shaky cam, fake gore, nonsensical dialog driven vignettes (with sadomasochistic and other sexual undertones), coming together in the framework of 60 minutes.

There's a serial killer around killing young women and removing certain organs or appendages. At the same time there is a deli owner who caters a special ancient Egyptian feast. The rest is just nonsensical, droll dialog delivered with monotony and the ending. The ending is just painful. I recommend running around blindfolded at full speed in a city, as a way to simulate the end of the movie. If I am making this seem bad, I can digress by listing more evidence of this :

Exhibit 1 : Multiple minute scene of a character making a phone call and then conversing with that person. We never hear or see the person on the other end.

Exhibit 2 : Profile close ups of two people talking. Multiple instances too numerous to count.

Exhibit 3 : Echo, echo, echo .....

Exhibit 4 : Try to hire someone who's last job wasn't as a silent movie pianist, in 1919. It sounded like old heroin-hooked Bela Lugosi having fun with a church organ.

Exhibit 5 : Police that store their firearms in their back pockets (along with their wallets, most likely) and continue to mispronounce homicide (pronounced home_e-side).

Exhibit 6 : Horrible acting in vivid, bright Cinemascope.

Exhibit 7 : An intermission half way through the movie, where a Richard Nixon look alike is giving a lecture on ancient Egypt.

Exhibit 8 : The longest and slowest getaway and chase scene by a man from the Ministry of Funny Walks.

Exhibit 9 : Dialog such as :

"Well the killer must have thought she was dead. It was a miracle she wasn't."

"Well she is now."

".... yeah."

Based on all my evidence so far, you either :

a) think I hate this movie. b) know I hate this movie. c) stopped reading 15 minutes ago. d) are confused. e) none of the above.

To answer all but e, I do like this movie. This movie is closer to Russ Meyer's than Ed Wood. Ed lounged in his mediocre low-budget fetish. Russ mostly portrayed sex as a good, fun thing (his movies do have an unusual depth to them). Herschell took Ed's knack for making SOMETHING with limited funds and added the sexually explicit and completely gratuitous scenes. Just in case we weren't gorged enough on our own endorphins, he adds the gore/horror element. The funny thing is that none of it works. The ridiculousness of the movie is in itself. An advantage is the short running time. By the time you realize you are still watching, is the same point you realize it will just end.

I can easily see a starving early 30 year old William Shatner finding an artistic mentor after watching this on a lazy Saturday afternoon double feature. So join in. Drop into the couch and pour yourself a fresh one. We're gonna be here for a little while. Kanpai !!

there's just something about H.G. Lewis...

[Jonny_Numb · 5/10 · 29 August 2005]

Herschell Gordon Lewis, Florida's pioneering father of low-rent gore, is an Ed Wood type with a fixation on gushing blood, severed limbs, and ridiculous story lines. Whereas "Blood Feast" once stood as a revelation within the horror genre (coming 5 years before George Romero gave us the serious, straight-faced gore of "Night of the Living Dead"), it now plays like a sincerely-intended romp. From the mad caterer with the huge eyebrows and bug eyes, to the cardboard acting of Playboy centerfold Connie Mason, to a plot that has something to do with body parts being turned into stew to resurrect an Egyptian goddess, Mr. Lewis clearly has his tongue planted firmly in cheek. If you go into "Blood Feast" expecting full-bore terror, you'll be disappointed, but if you're looking to kill 67 minutes (and aren't we all?), its cheesy charm will do the trick.