Oscuri segreti

This remake of Roger Corman's 1959 film is even better than 1995's Sawbones. The wit overshadows the gruesome (though somewhat predictable) plot and some clever casting helps move things along. Anthony Michael Hall is better than ever here and Justine Bateman's phoney accent suits her well. Too much nudity almost ruins this comedy (not horror) but overall, A Bucket of Blood is one nifty flick.

I subjected my grandson not only to a VHS of this movie, but the DVD of the original version I saw at the age of eleven. He liked both.

The send-up of performance art in the newer version tickled my funny bone, but the update of Maxwell's poem clunked on a few lines. But today's audience probably would not recognise an "omnibus" any more than they would a broken record a broken record a broken record.

Nitpicks: Miller's original Walter Paisley cannot be topped and I feel this Carla is over the top; I preferred the more subdued Carla of the original: there are so many off the chart performances, the movie needed an anchor.

Paul Bartel and Mink Stole had an expanded role as the older couple seeking Art amongst the bohemians. They had fun with their parts and it came through the screen.

Apparently Roger Corman was grooming new filmmakers by a series of remakes of old Corman movies. This series is much better than any of the six movies (The Eye Creatures, Zontar, etc) remade years ago to fill out a AIP syndication package.

I caught this Bucket of Blood on late night cable and consider it worth my time, but I probably would not pay a full theater ticket price for it.

I plan to re-watch it after listening to some NPR art interviews.

This film is a bit quirky (what room full of "beatnicks" isn't?), but there's an aspect of dark comedy here that makes this film worth watching. It tries to make itself out to be a horror flick, but by the time the cat gets it, it's too funny to be even remotely scary.

If you enjoy dark humor and some off-the-wall dialog, watch this film. It's a B-grade flick, sure, but there's some very good acting here and some great "dark alley" cinematography!

Actually this is more like figuring out ... a statue. No pun intende - well the making of one (or more that is). So if you are interested in that and what a horror movie can be - you could do worse. I have not seen the original movie from the 50s - but Corman was back producing this so I reckon this was made as well as it could, honoring the other movie that (no pun intended).

It has its flaws and has some things that do not really work (acting and other wise), but if you are into horror you may be able to forgive those things I reckon. Overall made for fans for weird and strange stories. There is more hidden in the story (no pun intended here either), but it almost never gets revealed - one more for the road.

The movie was actually not that bad. A "B" movie, but it was certainly unique and at least, watchable.

While the plot is simplistic, it provides entertainment on a still and balmy summer night.

I actually known some people who think they are pseudo-intellectuals and see a dead cat as artwork. Well, whatever. I just smile and act agreeable towards those Swoozy Kurtz types of people which were so prevalent in this movie.

Yes this was from the head of Roger Corman, but at least it is not Ed Wood <shudder>

Lastly, this aired on Showtime of all places... Good to see that my expensive cable bill per month justifies such wonderful movies like this at a premium subscription.

7/10.