Blood Feast (1963) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
106 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
A very dear film to my gory, blood-filled heart
one4now426 October 2003
This is the splatter anticlassic all us sickos know and love. The non-plot is, well, pretty simple and it's only an excuse to cut loose with loads of very extreme gore and sadism. Fuad Ramses (Mal Arnold), an Egyptian maniac of pagan bloodlust, must serve up a "blood feast" to Ishtar, his horrible goddess of gory days gone by. Y'know, back when chicks used to get their hearts yanked out on altars IN BLOOD COLOR! How does he get the morsels for his feast? It's an easy guess! Tongues pulled out. Limbs cut off. Brains hacked out in a blood-splattered mess. It's the grand-daddy of all the sickest stuff you've ever seen, and even though it's pretty stupid and bad, it sure is fun! It's even funny on purpose (as well as the other way around). For those of you who dig this unsavory and depraved type of junk the way I do, find this bad mother as soon as possible and surrender to the forbidden pleasures of the first splatter-comedy ever! (I think...)
37 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Check out this ancient Egyption feast!
jurb848 January 2001
Oft-credited as the first traditional "gore" pic, 'Blood Feast' establishes all of typical conventions of the genre; including nubile, young women (including a Playboy Playmate), excessive blood and guts, and even some dark humor (including the "hamburger" line and the trash-compactor ending). It's also inept in every way, from the atrocious acting and horrible directing to the dumb-as-dirt characters. Hell, the most intelligent character in this movie is the murderer, Faud Ramses - what, with him having penned a seemingly popular non-fiction work and running a bang-up catering business to boot - and even he is not too bright, which unfortunately catches up with him in the end.

If you love bad movies in that MST3K kind of way, than this is one to see. It's laugh-a-minute riot (and you've go to love the score). So put down that copy of 'Ancient Weird Religious Rites' and check this movie out.
24 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The granddaddy of gore
macabro3571 September 2003
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
9 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Something new
etmore12 February 2005
From a technical standpoint, this movie is awful. But, you still have to give credit to Lewis and Friedman for creating a new genre of film; the splatter flick. For this reason, and probably this reason alone, I rate it at 6. Well, you have to give Lewis credit for the musical score that he did himself. The electric organ and opening shot of the Sphinx is hilarious. The writing and acting, though, are deplorable.

This is an exploitation movie in the mold of the circus sideshow. The ad campaign for the movie made it appear to be more than it really was. In fact, a "nurse" was on hand at showings to assist those who might become overwhelmed by the horror presented on the screen. Many of the scenes, like the one with the woman's tongue being ripped out of her mouth (from what I understand, it was a sheep's tongue purchased from a local butcher)are quite revolting and unsettling. Actually, this is a part of what is known as the Blood Trilogy along with Lewis' better made, Two Thousand Maniacs. The third film is Color Me Blood Red.
17 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Some Kind of Genius
By-TorX-118 April 2010
My rating is a kind of anti-rating. Is this a fine film? No. Is the plot compelling? No. Are the actors top-notch emoters? No, no, and thrice no. Are the gore effects convincing? Absolutely not! Is the film a work of sheer visionary genius? Yes! Sort of, in an alternative film-making universe kind of way. Fuad Ramses is one of the greatest/most bizarre cinematic creations I have had the pleasure of seeing. His logic is fantastic, and if for nothing else, he deserves kudos for outrunning a number of fully-fit police officers, and him with a conspicuous (read sinister) limp! Ramses' enunciation of his lines is brilliant and I am now searching for an opportunity to slide "a feast...last...given...five...thousand...years...ago" into an everyday conversation. Add not very bright police officers, one of whom is clearly Basil Exposition's father, and a series of splendid (and ground-breaking, it must be said) gore set-pieces, and you have genius. So, let us all raise a glass to Mr. Lewis and proclaim Blood Feast as the warped work of art it most surely is.
15 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
So bad it's good
jonathanskinner_104 July 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Oh my god, this movie should be a comedy its so funny. Unintentionally of course. Mal Arnold is great as Fuad Ramses in a campy way, his wild eyes, limp and campy dialogue is awesome. The acting is just terrible, I mean it's astronomically poor. The cops in this movie are incredibly slow, they must be on the lower end of the bell curve. The music is incredibly cheesy and campy too. The special effects are not very good either, some shots only show the aftermath of somebody dying. The blood looks very fake and so does the flesh in the movie. The ending is hysterically dumb. Overall, it's an enjoyable experience and very unintentionally funny. A very campy gory movie which won't appeal to a lot of people but if you can dumb down for an hour then you'll love it. I couldn't give it a 10 because it's so bad, but again it's so bad its good.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Masterpiece from the Ed Wood of Gore
Doctor_Cheese13 March 2005
As the first-ever splatter epic, "Blood Feast" is assured of its place in history. This low-budget shlockfest is single-handedly responsible for launching an entire genre of films, including slasher fare like the Friday the 13th, Halloween, and Nightmare on Elm Street movies. For that reason, its place in hell is probably assured, too. Though to be fair, of course, we can thank it for so many other blood-soaked cinematic excursions that are actually entertaining.

And fortunately for cheese heads, director Herschell Gordon Lewis, the "Godfather of Gore," is also the Ed Wood of gore. The two great auteurs share many important trademarks in their roster of masterpieces, including wooden acting, absurdly bad dialogue, cheeseball effects, and lousy continuity. "Blood Feast" sports all of these endearing qualities and more, even going so far as to include some Woodian abrupt day-to-night-to-day transitions.

The dopey plot involves one Fuad Ramses, author of the New York Times bestseller "Ancient Weird Religious Practices," and his attempt to re-create, through his ridiculous "exotic catering" service, an authentic Egyptian blood feast, whatever that is. But really, all we need to know is that it involves the gruesome murders of pretty young women. (Surprise, surprise, surprise!) Beyond that, all that's left to say is that the Good Doctor gives this landmark bit of trash cinema two wheels of gorgonzola up.

Followed, insanely, by a sequel in 2002.
13 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
z0mb0y2 August 2000
Some day, I hope to travel to Clearwater, Florida, to place a manikin leg before the Sphinx in the patking lot, in honor of this classic of trash cinema which was filmed there. This is the one film I can think of that succeeds brilliantly in every frame to be deeply entertaining because it's so profoundly inept. Though I have, on repeated viewing, developed a special fondness for Mal Arnold's interpretation of Fuad Ramses. It's the essence of camp. He might have been a neighbor on Pee-Wee's Playhouse! Has anyone else noticed the perverse giddiness of the scenes where he fondles womens' entrails?

There's a cut-rate irony at work here, too. The only things happening in this town are Suzette Fremont's party and those horrible murders. Yet only we, the audience, know that they're related. And what about that book club? Do they only offer one title?

Also, the tongue-pulling scene had to be the first occurance of slapstick gore. I mean, he didn't knock her out or anything. He just jammed his fingers into her mouth as soon as she opened the door. And she didn't particularly struggle with him. She just went "Ngaahhh!" and "Lleeehhh," as he yanked. And when he got the tongue out, it was about a foot long. Did it get stretched out of shape like taffy?

For a movie to be that entertaining to me every time I've watched it (which must be more than fifty by now)represents some weird kind of accomplishment. Do yourself a favor and buy the DVD. This is perhaps the best unintentional comedy ever made!
13 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Veritable Feast For the Eyes....of sorts
BaronBl00d4 September 1999
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.
20 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Gordon Lewis Rules
yediotm12 February 2004
Herschell is maybe my favorite gore director. The person who invented genres off handedly, does it again - for the first time! Wonderful colors, very disturbing plot. John Waters used to watch these films as a young man. One could see Herschell's effect on Waters later films like 'Pink Flamingos' when you look at Herschells colors (color me blood red) and the trashy- campy acting, costumes and settings. When I think of flesh Water's star Divine - i have to admit - Waters saved some of that gore effect that Herschell has in his films. The effect of real fleshy gore!
17 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Give yourself UP to the GODDESS !!!
CelluloidRehab23 February 2007
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 !!
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The First Gore Fest
themaddro10 December 2003
This is one of my favorite movies. How can anyone not enjoy it on some level. You may find it gross, or funny, or just be in shock over Connies Mason's cue card reading... either way... it's fun!
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
EVOL66626 September 2003
anyone who views themselves as a serious horror fan should praise HG Lewis as GOD!!! although his movies are dated and somewhat cheesy by todays jaded standpoint, without his contributions, the horror genre would not be what it is today. this film is the first of the revolutionary (for their time...) "trilogy of blood", which were among the first films ever to show graphic depictions of bondage,blood, mutilation and all things near and dear to true horror fans hearts. obviously upon current viewing of the film, the gore effects will seem amateurish and silly, but you have to remember, this film was made in 1963. NO ONE was making films like this back then and we can all thank Mr. Lewis for his contributions, because without them, horror would not be what it is today. 8 1/2 out of 10 for the genre also see "The GORE GORE GIRLS" (aka BLOOD ORGY) - in my opinion the best (and goriest Lewis film)
23 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Arguably the first gore film ever made.
HumanoidOfFlesh5 November 2010
The plot of Hershell Gordon Lewis "Blood Feast" is paper-thin:a sinister shop owner is trying to resurrect an Egyptian goddess Ishtar by butchering and dismembering beautiful girls.Fun-filled gore romp with cheesy acting and inept splatter scenes.The tongue removal scene is legendary among horror fans.The plot is just an excuse to move from one bloody murder scene to the next.I am fairly sure that back in 1963 images from "Blood Feast" were shocking for the audience from that time.That's why Hershell Gordon Lewis chunk-blower is so important as perhaps the first gore film ever made.Don't take "Blood Feast" seriously - it's just a gross-out horror comedy.7 blood feasts out of 10.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Superbly gory for 1963.
coldwaterpdh23 December 2008
With it's laughable attempts at acting, it's ridiculous storyline and it's cheese ball sets, "Blood Feast" stands as one of the worst 'films' ever put before the masses.

This movie has some moments of what seems to be the most intentional kind of cheese. I don't think it was meant to be that way and that is what makes it so great. We have entire scenes filmed with a still camera. We have some utterly atrocious acting. We have some of the most campy sets and costumes ever. In some parts it is like a really bad, old episode of the original "Batman." We are led into scenes by fake signs on doors, things like that.

What makes this movie so amazing is the authenticity of the camp and of course, the gore. The first time I saw this I was amazed at how creative H.G. Lewis was in filming some of the gore scenes. This dude had guts. (No pun intended...) For this to have been made in 1963 is nothing short of genius. It is so far ahead of it's time in that regard that the cheese and the camp is all well worth sitting through.

A bizarre mix of Lucio Fulci, John Waters and early daytime TV.

8 out of 10, kids.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Classic gore feast
Rautus7 November 2007
Warning: Spoilers
H.g Lewis a Master at doing low budget gore films like Two Thousand Mainacs (Remade has 2001 Maniacs starring Robert Englund) the Gore-Gore Girls etc. Blood Feast was his first gore movie and it's very low budget but it's great fun, the effects are cheesy but effective like the tongue scene. The acting is alright but it's not great like some other low budget movies but I don't mind, the film sees a Egyption Cateer being requested to prepare food for a women's daughter's birthday, he then goes around killing young women then cutting off certain body parts for a dormant Egyption Goddess. The Cops have no idea what this killer looks like but they've put warnings on the streets, Detective Pete is going out with the Daughter who's having the party and doesn't realise that he doesn't do something his girlfriend will also he killed for the Blood Feast, he must try and catch this killer before he kills and cooks anyone else.

Blood Feast is a classic gory flick that should be seen. Check this out. 10/10
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
First Gore Movie
mirosuionitsaki216 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This movie proudly took the tile as the first gore movie. Although the acting is terrible, and one of the characters look as if he is reading something as he speaks, (perhaps his script?), this movie has what you can find in a typical gore movie.

I could find myself feeling nauseated throughout the movie, but yes, even the greatest of gore and horror fans can find that happening to them. I have to wait until 7 AM when the sun goes up to fall asleep because it was so frightening! A caterer cuts off body parts from young girls in order to bring to an Egyptian god named Ishtar. He hyptnonises the mother to use the body parts or what he called it "Egyptian Feast" in her daughter's party to serve to the guests. When he comes to the party, he attempts to trick the mother's daughter to lie down and close her eyes tightly while he is holding a knife. As he is about to stab her, her mother walks in and the man quickly escapes. The police arrives and chases him on foot. He is later on crushed in a truck.. like the scum he was.

I recommend this movie if you would want to see the movie heralded to be the first "gore" movie, or if you like to watch movies of that genre.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The decrepit grandfather of gore!
Genopsycho66631 January 2004
Warning: Spoilers
- This review contains what some might take as spoilers. -

So this is it. Yup! The `legendary' ancestor of all them gore flicks: `Blood Feast' (read in most dramatic voice)!!! My eagerness to finally watch this `cult' movie totally surpassed the final impression I had after having endured this trashy nonsense. No, let me tell you, this movie is definitely not as worth watching as many so-called connoisseurs would like you to believe. There are, of course, many sequences that will provoke lots of unintended laughter: The incredibly bad acting (I especially loved to see all those `actors' obviously reading off their dialogue parts), the miserable attempt (by director H. G. Lewis himself) at creating a suitable soundtrack, and last but not least the complete lack of talent in terms of direction. Let me admit, though, that the gory effects will surely please the bloodthirsty masses. So let's see what we've got: An eye ripped out of its socket plus a leg hacked off inside a bathtub; a brain torn out of a young lady at the beach; a tongue forcefully ripped out from between another lady's red, red lips; and so on, and so on… Yes! That's all there is to it. Subtlety is completely lost on this movie, but we all DID know beforehand, didn't we?
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
One of my favorite films...
Slasher-109 July 2000
I love Herschell Gordon Lewis. He's one of my favorite directors of all time. Now, I would definetly not want to follow any directing techniques he uses because his direction is awful. However, it is his ambition that I most admire. Blood Feast is the lowest of low budget films with campy dialogue, tons of fake gore, and acting that is beyond amateurish. But this is one horror movie I watch with a huge smile stretched across my face throughout the entire picture. Not because of it's outrageous campiness but because it is just so enjoyable.I love Lewis for the fact that he dished out these movies in a matter of weeks and they all made tons of money! It was his ambition and love of the new found splatter genre that kept him going and going. I believe he made, what, 6 movies in 1967? Don't see Blood Feast if you want to see award winning material. Don't even see it if you are in the mood to laugh at a horror film. See it because Lewis is a true innovator and is one to be admired, no matter how bad his films are.

8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The First Splatter Movie with Explicit Gore
claudio_carvalho14 May 2015
In Miami, the Egyptian serial-killer Fuad Ramses (Mal Arnold) owns a catering store and kills women taking parts of each one of them. Fuad worships the goddess Ishtar and is preparing a blood feast to resurrect her. Detective Pete Thornton (Thomas Wood) is investigating the murder cases trying to find who the killer is. Meanwhile the mother of his girlfriend Suzette Fremont (Connie Mason) hires the Fuad Ramses Catering store to provide the food for her birthday party. Fuad intends to sacrifice Suzette as the ultimate offering to Ishtar. Will he succeed?

"Blood Feast" is a lame amateurish trash with laughable performances and ridiculous situations. The importance of this film is that it is the first splatter movie with explicit gore. It is unthinkable imagining the reaction of the audiences with the explicit violence and gore in 1963, despite the funny performances. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): Not Available on DVD or Blu-Ray
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Blood Treat!
CMRKeyboadist7 June 2006
Blood Feast has always had my vote! The first "Gore" film ever made was directed by Hershell Gordan Lewis, who later went on to direct many films like this including "2000 Maniacs", "Wizard of Gore", "Blood Feast 2", etc.

Blood Feast is a rather silly movie by todays standards but when this came out, it was considered shocking and demoralizing. The storyline is of a man named Fuod Ramses who is a caterer. When asked by a nice lady to cater her daughters wedding, Fuod excepts and offers to make it an Egyption Feast. What the kindly woman dosen't expect is that this feast is made of cooked womens body parts! So, Fuod goes on a gruesome rampage to retrieve the parts for the feast.

Hahaha, I love this movie. The storyline is so silly and hard to take seriously it makes for great entertainment. The first time I had ever heard of this movie was when I went to the theaters to see the John Waters film "Serial Mom". In the movie, Kathleen Turners son is watching the scene in which a young woman gets her tongue torn out. I love HG Lewis films and hope to see a "Blood Feast 3" directed by him. 8/10
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Exploitation of the finest caliber
bootblacker12 January 2004
Herschell Gordon Lewis' cautionary tale of wanting to be too cultured. Ramses, a shop owner with disturbingly large eyebrows, offers clueless white people a taste of old world Egypt in what is called a blood feast. This turns out to be a cannibalistic ritual needed to resurrect an ancient Egyptian deity. This movie gives you everything you'd expect and more. While using an over abundance of fake syrupy blood, shaking camera effects and plenty of severed body parts, it seems more bizarre than gorey. It does feature plenty of terrible single shot dialogue and a sparse single instrument score. This is the exploitation film that makes you love exploitation films.
11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The first but not really the best
Maciste_Brother19 November 2003
BLOOD FEAST IS HG Lewis' first gore movie and even though there are some memorable scenes of gore, the film itself was very bad. Many sets looked like they were shot on a community theatre stage. The camera was often set in one position and didn't move at all. The dialogue and acting were abysmal. The music was bizarre. It's a contender of sorts for one of the worst films ever. There's a scene where a guy cries after his girlfriend was killed on the beach. That is THE worst acting ever caught on film. Amazingly bad and hilarious. But the gore is still at times disturbing and I guess that's what gorehounds look for in these kind of movies. 2000 MANIACS is much better than this.
11 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
"Have you ever Egyptian FEAST!!!!!!"
Sushiman11 May 2000
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!
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Welcome to violence
Red-Barracuda7 November 2010
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.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed