Revenge

Revenge (1986)

* (out of 4)

Sequel to Blood Cult has Patrick Wayne (John's son) coming to the small town to see who or what killed his baby brother. This movie picks up minutes after the events in the first film ended but instead of doing something interesting the screenplay just has more of the same. If you've seen the first film then you know a cult is doing the killing and it's clear in this film but we've got to put up with Wayne's character trying to figure everything out again. This becomes very tiresome and what makes it worse is that the film runs for nearly 104-minutes, which is just way, way too long. John Carradine appears in two scenes as a Senator and head Satan worshipper. He really plays it rather straight but is decent in the role. Wayne on the other hand is incredibly stiff and doesn't add anything to the film. While the first film had a fair share of violence that's not the case here. Most of the violence has been hacked out and you're left with a straight mystery that just doesn't work. I was about to give this thing a half a star but things do pick up in the final five minutes with a nice twist that I actually didn't see coming. Even with that said, the two films in this series are extremely bad and boring.

I gave this movie a 2 simply because the acting (aside from 2 women who make a brief appearance, only to be killed) was not as bad as i had expected. Dont get me wrong - it was cheesy - and many times the actors stumble over their lines - but i expected worse from this movie. As far as the "plot" goes, well, you will be sadly disappointed. Murder is the name of the game in this movie - senseless mass murder - as a cult attempts to resurrect the founding member to take over the world. Horribly done, but a must see for those who love the "b" movies!

The original "Blood Cult" has a certain appeal to it that the sequel lacks, though the films are nearly the same in quality. First of all, in "BC" I was amused by the innovation of using a Betacam to shoot an entire film. This is just a plain old low-budget horror film.

"Revenge" is not entirely without merit, though. There are certain bright spots, like the death scene in the jacuzzi where the water turns red from all the blood. I think part of the problem lies in the screenplay. The story was written by Joe Vance (an actor from the first film), but the screenplay was by Christopher Lewis, the director. Lewis has admitted that horror is not his favorite genre, so the film seems to have an identity crisis, trying to choose whether it wants to be a slasher flick or a "Columbo"-type mystery.

The acting is worse too. Most of the good actors--like Joseph Hardt, Bennie Lee McGowan and Charles Ellis (in a brief appearance)--were brought back from the original film. The rest are horrible. John Carradine is given next-to-top billing just to grab people's attention. First of all, he's only in the film for about 6 minutes, and second of all, he sleeps through those 6 minutes. What is legendary actor John Carradine doing in a low-budget, direct-to-video horror flick? Beats me. I guess senility caught up to him in the later years of life. Unfortunately, great veteran actors don't always leave this world having made a great films for their final appearances. That surely wasn't the case with Rod Steiger, and several others. The film's main error was the casting of Patrick Wayne in the lead role. They say the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, but that may have not been the case with him. His father, as I was baffled to discover, is screen legend John Wayne. Yes, The Duke himself. Patrick Wayne is an utter stoneface, not showing a hint of emotion from start to finish. I expect these kinds of performances from actors in direct-to-video horror movies, but not from The Duke's son. Supposedly, he's a veteran actor as well, having been in many westerns, including the hit "Young Guns." Well, hopefully if I decide to check out those films, I'll be oddly surprised.

Overall, "Revenge" is mildly watchable and not an utter disaster, but if you're searching for a rental this shouldn't be at the top of your list.

My score: 5 (out of 10)

Shot for $5 and some change in a dirt lot in someone's backyard, this straight to video film about a cult of somesuch or another has undeservedly made its way to DVD. "How", I ask? Did enough people actually watch this sub-mediocre production to warrant taking the time and energy to transfer it to a digital medium?

Count me among the guilty for having rented this back in the 80's, when straight to video had begun to glut the market with piles of these forgettable "horror" films. Count yourself among the fore-warned if you manage to read this in time to prevent renting the DVD, or worse, buying it.

Outside of the slick cover, there's nothing else in between, but if you won't take my word for, read some of the other user comments before proceeding with wasting your money.

This one is supposed to be a sequel to some "Blood Cult", but as far as direct-to video goes, this one features the usual shots of people wandering endlessly waiting to be killed while others go on about their business, waiting to discover the bodies. There's some inklings of a plot in there and the finale (a black mass) is slightly interesting, but you'll fall asleep long before this.