Bloodlust!

I've seen this movie in the MST3K version, and I have to agree with those who've previously said that it didn't deserve to be there. It was, as many have pointed out, a decent (although not a blockbuster, it didn't try for that) movie version of the short story "The Most Dangerous Game" by Richard Connell. This one was fun, and while it was not always perfect, it did come across as a worthwhile movie.

This is not to say that Mike and the 'bots comments weren't deserved - the movie is not spectacular, and there are parts that deserve the snide comments. But all in all, the movie itself did not deserve the MST treatment.

BLOODLUST! (1961) is yet another retelling of "Most Dangerous Game" with a lackluster cast and inferior production values. The mostly youthful actors and actresses are terrible and turn in cardboard performances. There is one exception, however, and that is Wilton Graff as Belleau, a latter-day Count Zaroff wielding a crossbow to dispatch his victims on the remote island. Graff gives a very fey performance (imagine what Vincent Price could have done with this one!) as he stalks his prey and includes them in his tableaux of trophies and macabre death scenes. He chews scenery but at least attempts to raise the level of this hopeless mess which is why this effort isn't a complete waste. Beware the substandard print by Madacy Entertainment on a double-feature DVD which is accompanied by ATOM AGE VAMPIRE. Cast includes Robert Reed, June Kenney, Joan Lora, Eugene Persson, Walter Brooke and Lilyan Chauvin.

"Bloodlust" is another shameless repeating of "The Most Dangerous Game" premise (a groundbreaking classic from 1932), only it's a really dire and uninteresting one. This is a very bad film, but not even in an amusing way. Colorless characters, tedious and overlong speeches and no action at all. Two young couples strand on an island owned by an elderly, supposedly eccentric man. He explains that the military taught him to kill human beings and it quickly turned into an obsession. So, after he did his service, he bought himself an island where accomplices regularly provide him with new hunting-targets. The screenplay is incredibly stupid (for example, the four just politely listen to how they'll get killed instead of try and overmastering him) and the remote-island location is totally neglected. You haven't seen wooden acting until you witness some of the performances here and I was really surprised that the film only lasted 68 minutes... It seemed to take hours! There isn't much to say abut "Bloodlust!", except that you should never consider watching it. Not even when someone holds a loaded gun to your head and threatens to kill you.

I'd file this under "No classic, but lots of fun!". The cast is good: It's interesting to see Robert Reed in his pre-Brady Bunch days. The late Wilton Graff (as the villain) is one of those faces many remember but can't name; he was usually seen as concerned fathers or business execs who knew more than they were telling. He gives a convincingly understated performance in this film; one is constantly reminded of Vincent Price. Plotwise, there are some effective jolts along the way (bodies floating in tanks, or posed in realistic attitudes in a "trophy room"). There's also a memorable scene where a young lady karate-flips a would-be attacker into a vat of acid; we're offered screaming closeups of his skin peeling away. The lively finale involves quicksand, leeches and a body hung (still living) on a spiked frame. Like I said, no classic, but if you enjoy the occasional anything-goes exploitation film, you could do worse!

Bloodlust! is a remake of the superior The Most Dangerous Game (1932), or should I say one of many many many remakes.

At time of writing it has a 3.2 on IMDB, insanely low so it's clearly an unappreciated remake. I can understand why, but not why it's quite that low.

Telling a remixed version of the classic tale we see a group of friends stuck on an island with a madman who hunts humans for sport.

Again this is a somewhat modified version of the tale and truth be told I don't like the changes that have been made. It's not bad by any means, it's just inferior, hammy and considering it's age looks really dated.

This was filmed in 1959, released in 1961 and yet still in black and white whereas the previous remake Run for the Sun (1956) was in color.

For an enjoyable version of this classic tale, stick with the 1932 original or for a modern adaptation watch Mindhunters (2004).

The Good:

Some interesting elements

The Bad:

Looks badly dated for its age

Frustratingly annoying stereotypical non-stop screaming ladies

Certain elements are plain silly