Blood Feast

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.

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 !!

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

Holy canoli! I decided to rent "Blood Feast" on a whim because I had heard that this movie was terrible, so terrible that one would wholly laugh their ass off. Let me begin by saying that this movie WAS hilarious! The funny thing is is that it wasn't meant to be a comedy. That's the ironic thing. I laughed at everything in this movie. The beginning scene where the woman gets her eye cut out is definitely the worst edit in motion picture history(if you've seen it you'll know what I'm talking about!) The actors - They didn't seem believable. Were they reading cue cards? The funniest actor award goes to the guy who played Tony, the victim on the beach (Were those Real tears that he was crying?) The music - that violin song is the funniest song. It's even funnier when you listen to it drunk or stoned. And those drum beats? Ahhh...soothing! However, I'll give it to HG Lewis for creating what is highly regarded as the "1st Gore Film." Can you imagine Faces of Death without gore? Or even Saving Private Ryan? All in all, it's a film for both horror fans and the types of people who want to laugh themselves to death for an hour straight!

Blood Feast by H. G. Lewis was the first splatter film ever made, and it changed the path of the horror film forever. Its importance, whether good or bad, is undeniable. The film is in many ways the very essence of amateurishness. I do not believe I have ever seen a film where no one...and I mean no one...had ANY acting ability. For me, the only one that comes closest is Mal Arnold as the Egyptian caterer Fuad Ramses. These people cannot laugh, cry, scream, or even speak with any degree of credibility at all. I mean you would have to train people to get results like this if you had wanted them to be like this in the first place. I can only think that maybe with the leads being so poor...the other actors had no inspiration. The direction is not a great deal better...but then the film was made in 9 days. The script is silly and filled with lamentable dialogue where every facet of the plot must be explained and re-explained. What then does this "classic" have going for it? Well, it is fun to watch. It will make you laugh at its unreal gore and its poor acting and direction. The gore is a given and it is abundant....bright red dapples and drapes the bodices of many victimized girls...all of which I might point out are very easy on the eyes...another plus for male viewers. The music, created by Lewis, is surprisingly very good and stylish, helping create the mood and pacing of the film. All in all, I recommend seeing Blood Feast for its ineptitude and the laughs it will derive. If you are a fan of horror, it is a must see to satisfy your curiosity of what caused the change from good horror stories to graphic horror films. The answer lies with Blood Feast.