Blood Cult

My review was written in August 1985 after watching the show on United Home Video cassette.

Made in Tulsa, "Blood Cult" is a regional horror feature for home video fans that demonstrates the viability of shooting scare pics directly on videotape rather than the usual 16mm or 35mm film modes. Pic was preceded in this format by another regional, taped horror opus, last year's "Copperhead".

Familiar storyline concerns a series of murders of coeds one winter at Central State College in the Midwest. Sheriff Ron Wilbois (Charles Ellis), who is planning to run for the senate, is investigating, hampered by lack of cooperation from the college dean (Fred Graves) and local coroner (Josef Hardt).

Key breakthrough in the case comes when Wilbois' daughter Tina (Julie Andelman), who works in the school library, finds a book recounting an American cult of the 1700s that aimed at avenging the victims of the earlier Salem witch hunt era. Cultists would kill victims and create a mannequin (for later sacrifice by fire) out of body parts taken from the victims. The mutilations and a clue of a gold amulet (and a dog symbol displayed) left with each corpse link the historical cult with the pattern and evidence of the current murders.

Tina's boyfriend Joel (James Vance) aids the sheriff in his campus stakeouts, but the film ends inconclusively after the sheriff witnesses modern cultists meeting in the forest and later uncovers the killer's surprise identity.

Screenplay by Stuart Rosenthal (with additional dialog by co-star James Vance) is too derivative of previous stalk & slash horror pics to let "Blood Cult" soar, but director Christopher Lewis, son of actress Loretta Young, develops some effective atmosphere, especially in night scenes. Credit must go to director of photography Paul MacFarlane, whose wide-angle shots and moody lighting prove that horror via video can compare with the filmed variety. Gore is emphasized here, and convincing special effects makeup for the mutilations (executed by David Powell and Robert Brewer) merits the "graphic violence" warning on the package.

Production outfit plans further videotaped horror features, but would do well to come up with more interesting scripts.

In a nutshell some serial killer is avenging the burning of witches by collecting body parts from his victims.

This is reportedly the first direct-to-video movie, and it looks it.

It seems to have been made with college actors, as they are thoroughly unconvincing when they plead for their lives.

The shower scene, a common feature of slasher films shows nothing. We don't even see the girl hacked to dead; just blood splatter. In fact, we never really see the kind of hacking we expect to see in slasher films.

It was an interest story, but a poor slasher film.

What can I say? This was hands-down the worst movie I have ever seen in my life (and believe me, some of my favorite movies are admittedly horrible). The acting was amateurish, the sets were boring, and the camerawork was shoddy and sophomoric. This whole movie seemed like a college final project. I had to keep convincing myself that it was done by a teenager to make it seem somewhat good. The most disturbing factor of the "film" is that it's not even film at all-- it 's shot on video. That was extremely distracting. On top of all that, the dialogue is simply disastrous and the plot line is so basic it makes my eyes water. Not to mention they steal from at least four other horror movies in the first 20 minutes or so. If there were such a thing as zero stars, this movie would get it.

The only thing scary about this movie is how bad it is.

I've been reading a book by screenwriter John Russo called "Making Movies," and that's the main reason why I was curious about checking this movie out in the first place. I read a chapter talking about how this was the first direct-to-video movie ever made, and the budget was extremely small. Being an aspiring filmmaker, I'm more intrigued by the small-budget films than those with big budgets. I don't visualize myself making the next summer blockbuster in 2 or 3 years, but I do visualize myself making a small-budget independent film or, to be more realistic, a small-budget student film. And it always fascinates me how filmmakers are able to make movies on such low budgets, using just the bare essentials and sometimes less.

Some have complained about the movie being shot on video. I happened to appreciate the look of the movie. Though it could've been much better, by watching "Blood Cult" I realized that shooting a feature-length movie on regular video equipment is not a bad idea. We almost never see a movie shot on video, but there are many TV shows (sitcoms, soap operas, reality shows, etc.) that are shot on video, and it doesn't exactly break the fourth wall. As long as you don't frame shots like you're framing your aunt in a home video, the movie can look quite cool. So I definitely felt Christopher Lewis (the director) came up with a fine concept. Hey, it's better to watch old video footage than grainy old film footage. Film shows its age much more.

I've seen a lot of bad horror movies, and I've seen much worse. "BC" is not completely awful, considering its standards. I tried to think of it as a student film. When you watch a student film, you're not expecting "The Godfather." So I took it with a grain of salt, accepting the movie for what it is and keeping its microscopic budget in mind.

First of all, the acting is fairly good. Of course, I'm discounting the women who played the victims, whose screams were so unconvincing. I don't know anybody who flaps their arms like a bird when they scream. The now-deceased actor who plays the sheriff is pretty good, and it's obvious that he was a veteran of stage. However, there are a couple of scenes where he's obviously looking down at his lines on a cheat sheet. He could've been a little more subtle. Most of the performances are one-dimensional, but so are the characters. So what can you do? Plus, I've heard much worse dialogue in horror movies as well.

The special f/x are beyond cheesy, with body parts that look they were purchased from Party City on Halloween. But you just have to laugh at stuff like that.

The story is not bad, and gets better as it goes along. As I've said, there are much cheesier horror movies out there, and "BC" is mildly impressive for its budget. Not a great film, not even a good film, but worth a look.

My score: 5 (out of 10)

Blood Cult (1985)

* (out of 4)

This film is best remembered for being the first film produced in order to go straight to VHS, which we all know became a very profitable venue for producers. In the film, sorority girls are being chopped up all over a small town so the sheriff must try and figure out what's going on. After some research he finally realizes that a Satanic cult is behind the murders. Outside the historic claims to the film there's really not too much here, although I must say that the movie, while pretty bad, never got too boring. The low budget (apparently 27-thousand) adds a certain charm to the film but the screenplay is still rather weak and we get some incredibly bad performances that don't help matters. There are several childish death scenes with all sorts of blood and guts but even the special effects aren't that special. After reading a few interviews with the director and producer it's clear that they were interested in making money and I think that's easy to see here. This really comes off as the type of film where people are wanting to make cash and there's no real effort to make anything really good. I will admit that the movie is certainly a lot better than a lot of direct to VHS titles but that's still not saying much.