Blood Cult

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 got this movie on dvd for the pure reason that it was a slasher movie. This would be a decent movie if the acting was better, i mean its just terrible, beyond terrible. The best actor is the chinese cook in the campus cafeteria. The death scenes were kool, but would be better if the women being slaughtered acted a lot better. Ive seen bad acting, but the acting in this movie looks like someone is acting acting. Movies ok, just needs better acting and more death. You can definitly tell that the film was made by non horror fans, which also kind of kills it.

I can honestly report that this is the worst movie ever. My dad is in it, and that offers no consolation. In fact, it makes it even worse because I have to watch him make out with that very large, unattractive woman. I was only a year old when he made this movie, so I am NOT to be held responsible! The saddest part of all is that my dad, a rather well-received writer, made revisions on the script for it to make even as little sense as it does. It was beyond help, he said. Remember, when you watch this movie, James Vance did NOT want to be in it! He was forced to by an employer!! It's a disgusting piece of garbage with no redeeming qualities except that the audio is so bad you can hardly understand it anyway. If you are thinking about renting or buying this film, please don't. Oh, and just as a side note: it was only banned from Oklahoma campuses because it was filmed at them. The schools were so embarrassed by the final copy that they wouldn't show it. There you have it: if I, the daughter of one of the actor's, admits that it's bad, run screaming in the other direction!

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)

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.