Color Me Blood Red (1965) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
42 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
Those bloody artists!
Coventry8 April 2006
"Color me Blood Red" completes the infamous Blood-trilogy by the even more infamous director Hershell Gordon Lewis and, although my least favorite film of the three, it's another silly entertaining and smutty gore classic. Don't look for many film-making qualities here, as the story is rather unoriginal (imitating Roger Corman's 1959 "Bucket of Blood"), the acting is unspeakable and – especially compared to "Two Thousand Maniacs" – it's clumsily edited together. Good old Lewis brings the art of finger painting to a whole new dimension here, when mentally unstable artist Adam Sorg discovers that the blood of his girlfriend's cut finger supplies him with the exact right shade of red he needs for his macabre paintings. He's going to need more, of course, and thus he kills her as well as various other models in order to complete his masterful art gallery exhibits. I spotted LESS gore than in the previous two Blood-trilogy films, still there are some effectively nauseating scenes, most notably the one where Sorg literally squeezes all the blood out of one his victims' intestines. Other than the gore, there are the hilariously inept dialogues and the complete lack of context to enjoy. If you're not into The Godfather of Gore's work, however, this will just seem like a mindless and sadistic trash-movie.
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
"Wholly Bananas! It's a Girl's Leg!"
BaronBl00d19 August 2000
Just what does a teenage boy bursting with testosterone say, while with his bikini-clad girl, they discover a dead girl in the sand? "Wholly Bananas ! It's a girl's leg!" of course. That is just one example of the laughable dialogue contained in this thoroughly un-artistic look at a painter who uses blood to create his art. He starts by using his own, then moves to girl models for their hemoglobin, corpuscles, and plasma for his creative inspiration. Color Me Blood Red is the third film contained in what is typically known as the Blood trilogy directed by that world renowned director of gore...Herschell Gordon Lewis. Yep this film has all the Lewis trademarks. Poor direction...it has it! Cheap sets too! And that acting only Lewis seems to inspire...so bad it is funny. Many of the performers in here are so awful that one wonders how they were ever chosen, although the lead, Gordon Oas-Heim(Don Joseph) as Adam Sorg shows signs of mediocrity at times. For a Lewis film, Color Me Blood Red is a fun picture. It has some good honest to Gosh belly laughs(99% unintentional), and a story not too unlike Roger Corman's A Bucket of Blood. And the lead actress...Candi Conder does more than AMPLE justice to a very nice swimsuit! I had fun watching it...never took any of it serious and, for a Lewis picture, it has minimal gore(only four deaths). It gives new meaning to the phrase that life is a canvas!
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Holy bananas! It's a girls' leg!
Hey_Sweden9 June 2013
Director Herschell Gordon Lewis's concluding film in his "Blood Trilogy" (and final film with producer David F. Friedman) unfortunately just isn't as enjoyable as its predecessors. It's not as delightfully nutty as "Blood Feast" or as much fun as "Two Thousand Maniacs!". In fact, it's downright tedious at times. That's not to say that there aren't good moments - there just aren't enough of them.

Gordon Oas-Heim, definitely one of the better actors to be found in an HGL gore epic, plays the highly unlikable, mentally unstable painter Adam Sorg, who's impatient waiting for inspiration to strike. It finally comes when he realizes that human blood provides the perfect shade of crimson for his works of art. He realizes that using his own blood is a very wearying process, so he has to obtain blood from other unwilling donors.

Overall "Color Me Blood Red" is fairly amusing cheesy nonsense with the gleefully squishy splatter and inept acting that we come to expect from HGL's films. It has its delightful parts whenever Sorg is busy doing his thing. It doesn't help him that "hip", goofy young folk keep hanging around his beachfront property. It's also cool to see Scott H. Hall, the police captain from "Blood Feast", here playing Farnsworth the art gallery owner. The young gals are all nice looking even if their acting chops aren't up to snuff. The beautiful beach scenery is another plus. And the movie does end on a very funny note with its final line.

If you're new to the works of HGL and want to do the completist thing, then "Color Me Blood Red" is definitely worth seeing. Just don't expect the same level of entertainment if you've already seen and enjoyed "Blood Feast" and "Two Thousand Maniacs!".

Six out of 10.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
For a Hershell Gordon Lewis movie, this one is a cut above most of the rest.
planktonrules30 September 2009
I am sure that when this movie debuted, people were shocked at its violence and blood, though by today's standards it's awfully tame--especially since the blood is obviously not the correct color (looking more like crimson paint) and the "guts" don't really look like internal organs at all. Frankly, for a "gore picture", this is one you can probably let the kids watch...unless your kid is likely to imitate the actions of Adam Sorg! The film is a super-low budget picture--the sort of trashy film that Hershell Gordon Lewis was known for making. There is no attempt to use competent actors, have good production values or make anything other than 100% schlock. So, considering that he INTENDED on making such a craptacular film, you really can't be too hard on the final product. It's bad--but I don't think the film makers intended anything else. Now Lewis made LOTS of rotten films, but some of them managed to be entertaining despite their many, many shortcomings. This and TWO THOUSAND MANIACS! happen to have enough going for them that they are enjoyable in a kitschy sort of way. Not all Hershell Gordon Lewis films are alike, though, as many are not just bad but pretty much unwatchable, such as his MONSTER A GO-GO and THE Gruesome TWOSOME.

The film is basically a rip-off of Roger Corman's BUCKET OF BLOOD (which, despite the title, is a very good film). Unlike BUCKET OF BLOOD, the acting in COLOR ME BLOOD RED is really bad--really, really bad. And, while Corman made a lot of bad films, his style was usually excellent. COLOR ME BLOOD RED is just pure cheese. Like the previous film, this one concerns a crazy artist who manages to impress the critics when he kills people to make his art. In BUCKET OF BLOOD, the crazed artist covers dead people in clay and in COLOR ME BLOOD RED the nut-job is looking for that 'perfect' red for his paintings and happens upon blood!!

The film begins with Sorg having his first one-man art show. However, he's infuriated when an art critic savages his use of color. Later, Sorg's lady friend cuts herself and bleeds on a canvas accidentally--at which point he is inspired to use blood! The problem is that he needs a lot, so he takes to killing. Why he didn't just try animal blood or talk to a blood bank or get groups of people to donate blood for his cause, I don't know! I guess this wouldn't have made an interesting film.

By the way, it's a tad off topic, but get a load of the first lady Sorg kills. Throughout the movie, this lady ALWAYS runs around in leotards like a dancer. She drives that way, goes to art shows that way and goes to the beach that way. It seems that this was such a low budget film that they couldn't even afford clothes for this lady!

Back to Sorg. Now his art is loved by this snobby critic and he is in great demand. However, he suddenly refuses to sell these bloody paintings (I thought a couple of them were pretty cool)! And, because it's like eating potato chips, he can't stop with killing only one person. However, this is no bloodbath film--he only kills three during the course of the film. It all comes to an end when he's about to kill victim #4--when her goofy boyfriend and her even goofier friends come to the rescue.

Overall, despite being a terrible film in every way (acting, direction, a stolen plot, dialog, etc.), the pieces all seem to fit together to make a reasonably watchable exploitation film. It's bad, but fun in its quirky way. I'd give it a 1 or 2 for technical merit but a 5 for watchability. Overall, a 3 seems about right.

It was interesting to me to note that this film was made in Sarasota, Florida--just a few miles down the road from my house. Sadly, however, I have visited Sarasota's famous Ringling Museum of Art and have never seen any of Adam Sorg's paintings in the gallery!! Nor, for that matter, has the film been shown at the prestigious Sarasota Film Festival. Go figure!
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Lots of dumb fun to be had with the Godfather of Gore.
Infofreak23 July 2002
You gets what you pays for with Herschell Gordon Lewis movies. If you are looking for a great, original plot with interesting characters, well acted and impressively directed, then don't look here. But if you want to see a silly Roger Corman rip-off with lots of unintentional cheap laughs, and plenty of HGL's trademark, then you're in the right place. 'Color Me Blood Red' is the last in Lewis' Blood Trilogy, and is the second best of the three in my opinion. ('Two Thousand Maniacs!' just beats it for sheer entertainment value). Don Joseph plays a tormented artist who discovers a way out of his artistic rut - blood, lots of it. Joseph's acting is variable at best, but possibly the best seen in a HGL movie, and he comes across as a corny, poor man's Timothy Carey. Which may not be much, but it's enough, and his performance stands out from the rest of the inept cast, especially the bizarrely unbeatnik beatnik teens (WHAT was that all about?!), and William Harris' stupid art critic character. 'Color Me Blood Red' is dumb, no doubt about that, but it's dumb FUN, and should be seen by every horror movie buff for its historical interest if nothing else.
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Entertaining Campy Trash
Michael_Elliott30 March 2014
Color Me Blood Red (1965)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

The third film in director Herschell Gordon Lewis' "blood trilogy," this one here centers on a crazed painter (Goron Oas-Heim) who finally reaches his breakthrough when he realizes that human blood is the perfect red for his paintings. This here is pretty much a re-working of the Roger Corman classic A BUCKET OF BLOOD with the biggest difference being that this here is in bright color, which perfectly shows off the various bloody scenes. Look, if you're wanting some sort of masterpiece or brilliant filmmaking then this here certainly isn't going to be for you. With that said, film history has all sorts of items that remain important and there's no doubt that Lewis' blood trilogy is one such thing. The movie contains some awful acting, a silly script, lame dialogue and there are countless other things that you could pick on but in the end the picture is at least fun. While I'm sure all the shots of blood were shocking back in 1965, when viewed today they're more campy fun than anything else. The movie managers to move at a very good pace, which is certainly important as there's nothing worse than one of these films that just drag along. Another important thing is that the lead actor at least keeps you entertained in everything. Yes, the performance isn't great or even good. It's over-the-top and rather campy but this here is actually very entertaining. The supporting players don't come off as well but I'm sure director Lewis wasn't too worried about performances. As for the red stuff, it's cleverly done and especially the "big" sequence early on when a woman is tied up and the painter has to use one of her organs to fill up his paint cup. COLOR ME BLOOD RED doesn't come close to the same level as BLOOD FEAST or TWO THOUSAND MANIACS but it's still a nice entry in the series.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
"F is for...Farnsworth!"
alanmora18 December 2006
This is the final film in the infamous Blood Trilogy from director Herschell Gordon Lewis and producer David Friedman. The trilogy also includes superior films "Blood Feast" and "Two Thousand Maniacs". While "Color Me Blood Red" is the most inferior film in the trilogy, it is still worth at least a one time viewing. The film does lack one thing that the other 2 films in the trilogy have and that is an original score. Both of the previous entries include a soundtrack that was scored by Lewis himself but for some odd reason he decided to use "canned" music for this one. The gore effects are also inferior to the other 2 entries...there aren't as many but one effect in particular is especially grotesque (this would be the scene where a woman is shown strung from the ceiling with her intestines dangling out and the villain squeezes the blood out of them in order to finish his painting). All in all this is one of the least entertaining of Lewis' gore films but is definitely worth a peek.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Some people just don't get this movie
LATENITE17 May 2006
If you're a horror fan who loves gore and are looking for a gory movie, go check out High Tension. If you hate cheesy movies, go rent a new release from Blockbuster. This movie is for people who like quirkiness, b-grade film-making, c-grade acting, cheesy gore and.. FUN. I get the feeling that a few people who wrote reviews for this were obviously expecting something very different. This is NOT a horror movie, only in a very broad sense could it be considered one. It is a movie that is twice as unintentionally funny as any Ed Wood movie. There is no real comedy in Color Me Blood Red but the acting and direction will have you laughing throughout. This movie defines "grindhouse". Now that I've prepared you - Go buy it.

I rated this movie 8 out of 10. It was very good at doing what it tried to do. Giving this movie a 3/10 is a joke, of course it's bad but that is the whole point! A phrase I see a lot on the IMDb is "BAD meaning GOOD", not many movies are more deserving of that praise than Color Me Blood Red.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Is blood crimson or bright red?
michaelRokeefe23 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Hershell Gordon Lewis writes, directs and photographs COLOR ME BLOOD RED...just another of the bloody messes he is noted for. Adam Sorg(Don Joseph)plays a psychotic and obnoxious artist that gets acclaim for painting with his own blood. His art is sold at high end prices, but those rendered in his own blood are not for sale. He realizes that his supply is low; so in order to keep his career going...he starts stabbing and hacking young girls. The rude and crude artist seems to have no conscience. My favorite scene is where Sorg is squeezing blood out of a victim's intestine. This piece of splatter is filmed entirely in Sarasota Florida. Others in the cast: Candi Conder, Patricia Lee, Scott H. Hall, Elyn Warner and Jerome Eden.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Final installment in the legendary "Blood Trilogy"
capkronos8 May 2003
Herschell Gordon Lewis and producer David F. Friedman ditched softcorn porn in the early 60's to create a series of gory horror films designed specifically to cater to the increasing demands of the Southern drive-in movie market. The first three of their horror ventures, BLOOD FEAST (1963), 2000 MANIACS (1964) and this feature from 1965 made up what was later to be called their "Blood Trilogy." COLOR ME BLOOD RED is easily the least shocking, least entertaining and least memorable of the bunch, but it does have it's moments...

Adam Sorg (Don Joseph) is a Florida based struggling artist living in a beach house who has not yet been able to break through on the snobbish local art scene. That is, until he stabs his bickering girlfriend and discovers that all his paintings needed were a touch of red...blood red. His new morbid creations suddenly become the craze on the art scene, so he must kill more people for more blood to make more paintings.

Lewis must have really liked "aquacycles," some incredibly slow-moving bikes with floating tires, cause he puts these hilariously dated things in every possible scene. Adam and his girlfriend take a ride on them before he kills her, then a young couple steals them ("Oh, come on! He won't notice!"), prompting Sorg to impale the guy, then kidnap the girl, tie her up in his house, cut open her stomach and squeeze blood out of her guts directly onto a palette!

This film (briefly known as MODEL KILLER) is now noteworthy mainly as a vintage curio, complete with primitive gore FX, dated fashions faux pas and colorful lines of dialogue like "Come out to the patio, daddy-o!"

All in all, a decent watch.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Definite Laughs From The Third in the Blood Trilogy
CMRKeyboadist27 June 2006
Hershell Gordan Lewis, you all should know him from his cult classics like "Blood Feast", "2000 Maniacs!", "Wizard of Gore", "Blood Feast 2", etc. "Color Me Blood Red" is the third installment in his notorious "Blood Trilogy" series and holds its own as a genre favorite. Although, this movie has nothing to do with the other two films (not like 2000 Maniacs! has anything to do with Blood Feast) it is still a lot of fun.

The story opens with a disgruntled artist who isn't getting enough respect from the local art critic. His girlfriend is quite annoying and after she nicks her finger on a nail and gets blood all over a painting the artist gets the idea to start cutting his fingers and painting with the blood. After draining as much blood as he can from himself, he murders his girlfriend by stabbing her in the head and then wiping the blood all over the picture he has been working on. He then brings the picture to the local critic who believes it to be the best piece of art since Picasso. Having such success, the crazed artist wants to make more work in the same fashion. Can you guess what happens from there?

This was a fun flick. Although, it wasn't Gordan's most disgusting movie it still has certain moments that are cringe-worthy. Look for a scene in which the artist is squeezing blood out from a woman's intestines. Pretty gruesome for the time. 7/10
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Gore and boredom
Leofwine_draca21 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
The third collaboration between director Herschell Gordon Lewis and the 'sultan of sleaze', producer Dave Friedman, is a ramshackle and shoddy affair not worthy of the infamous status it has attained over the years. This instantly forgettable movie is scuppered from the start by the amateurish production levels, from the inaudible sound (in which the character's dialogue is drowned by the sound of crashing waves) to the static camera and the wooden acting on display. Sadly there isn't even the benefit of many gruesome gore scenes for horror fans to enjoy, as this is a very small-scale film there are only two or three deaths on view.

The only incidental pleasures come from viewing the film in the frame of mind that you are watching a "so-bad-it's-good" type of film, and from this viewpoint there is some fun to be had. The first is the acting of Gordon Oas-Heim (or so the credits say) as the deranged artist; his "acting" consists of periods of quiet brooding followed by some extreme overacting. He's pretty poor, yes, but he shows more emotion than the rest of the wooden cast put together. Halfway through the eighty-minute production a quartet of obnoxious teenagers arrive on the scene to participate in a beach party, and the film seems to chart their endless amusements. It has to be said that the sight of these overgrown actors and actresses parading around in red swimming costumes and joking together is pretty funny, although they quickly outstay their welcome! The occasional line of dialogue is hilarious, like when one of them discovers a buried corpse on the beach : "Holy Bananas! It's a girl's leg!".

The first of the few gore scenes comes when Adam Sorg - the artist - decides to do in his girlfriend by driving a sharp implement into the side of her face (we're later treated to a lovely closeup of her gory countenance as it is devoured by insects). Later on, he attacks a man in his speedboat, impaling him with a spear before driving over his body! A female is chained up in a back room, and Sorg arrives to squeeze blood from her intestine in a scene which disturbingly resembles a man milking a cow! Sadly, other than the villain's own bloody demise, this is as much gore as the film has to offer.

The ending unforgivably lets the partying teens survive for another day, but still offers some amusement to be had from the confrontation between madman and teenage boy, who eventually shoots the psycho in the head with his own gun, conveniently left lying around! The loose plot is cribbed from Corman's A BUCKET OF BLOOD, so the it doesn't even have the saving grace of being original either. My advice is to pick up one of the duo's other, better films such as BLOOD FEAST, and give this boring amateurish obscurity a miss at all costs!
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Paint it ... red?
kosmasp29 April 2020
Well a song goes black, but who has black blood? No one is the answer in case you thought this was not a rhetorical question. At least no one on planet earth (sorry aliens, if I didn't include you, but the movie didn't either). All kidding aside and with some filler jokes from me - this is what the movie does too. You get the main storyline where someon discovers he paints good with blood and then you get all these other things so the movie is full length.

Not enganging and pacing wise really awful. Had some neat ideas for the time it was made and many see HGL as an innovator, which is not far removed from the truth. But the movie has not aged well - and the blown up running time that is irrelevant does not help at all
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Should Be Better Well Known
gavin694227 September 2011
A crackpot artist (Gordon Oas-Heim) kills various people to use their blood as his new crimson red color for his paintings.

Lewis has said that "A Bucket of Blood" served as inspiration for this film, and I am not surprised. The hipster, beatnik feel is similar, and I cannot imagine two films about artists who kill for their art not to be connected in some way. (This theme has been explored before and since, but not in such an obvious way.)

I recommend this one, and think it is better than "Two Thousand Maniacs", on par with "Blood Feast" but just under "Gore Gore Girls". Fans of Lewis should see this film, and it should not be reduced to "second tier" in his filmography.

As of September 2011, thanks to Image Entertainment, you can get this film on Blu-Ray loaded with special features (not least of which is an audio commentary). I strongly suggest picking u pa copy.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Gore in FLA
BandSAboutMovies9 October 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Part of Herschell Gordon Lewis' so-called Blood Trilogy with Blood Feast and Two Thousand Maniacs!, this one concerns Adam Sorg, an artist who is seeking the perfect color red for his latest masterpiece. While conventional science would tell you that blood would turn brown when it dries, in this movie, it remains the same garish tone that an Italian giallo would feature.

Color Me Blood Red and A Bucket of Blood are essentially the same basic film, except that where Roger Corman keeps much of the violence off-screen, you're here for a Lewis film to see blood and organs splash all over the screen. You're nit here for subtlety.

Gordon Oas-Heim is positively unhinged here as the lead. It's kind of amazing that years later, he'd play Manford the butler on The New Monkees. He also shows up in Lewis' Moonshine Mountain as the sheriff (he used the stage name Adam Sorg here!) and also is in Andy Warhol's Bad.

This would be the last film from the duo of Lewis and David F. Friedman. There were plans to make a fourth in the series - Suburban Roulette* - but Friedman thought they'd done all they could when it came to gore. He'd move on to make roughies and nudie cuties like A Smell of Honey, a Swallow of Brine; 7 Into Snowy and The Acid Eaters, as well as Love Camp 7 and Ilsa She-Wolf of the SS using the name Herman Traeger.

*Lewis would end up making a movie with this title in 1968.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Not exactly a masterpiece.
BA_Harrison22 July 2009
For the second film in his infamous 'Blood' trilogy, 'Godfather of Gore' Herschell Gordon Lewis gleefully rips off Roger Corman's beatnik horror A Bucket of Blood, but fails to deliver in almost every department: the direction is dull; the dialogue is awful ('Holy Bananas, it's a girl's leg!' exclaims one character upon finding a dead body); the acting is atrocious; the music is bland, generic jazz; and the one factor that audiences have come to expect from Lewis—outrageous 'grand guignol' style splatter—is notable by its absence (only one scene, in which the protagonist squeezes blood from one of his victim's intestines, comes close to providing gore-hounds with the goods).

Gordon Oas-Heim is reasonably convincing as obnoxious artist Adam Sorg, who discovers that he produces his best work when painting in blood, but almost everyone else puts in absolutely dreadful performances, with special mention going to Pat Lee as wig-wearing teen Sydney: her incessant use of hip 60s slang ('where's the snacks, Jack?', 'on the patio, Daddio', 'dig that crazy driftwood') might be amusing at first, but is guaranteed to eventually grate on the nerves.

Fans of Lewis will no doubt wish to see this film so that they can complete the trilogy, and those with a thing for curvaceous cuties in big bikinis might get the occasional thrill, but it's hard to imagine anyone else finding Color Me Blood Red to be anything other than a bore.

3.5 out of 10, generously rounded up to 4 for IMDb.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The best of the famous "Blood Trilogy"
ecto21620 March 2003
After seeing the first two installments of the Blood Trilogy, Blood Feast and 2,000 Maniacs, I was a bit skeptical about watching the final film, Color Me Blood Red. It's not that the first two were awful, but by no means can they be considered good either. With that in mind, and the usual conclusion that the third part of trilogies are sometimes "lacking", I put the movie in my DVD player and assumed I'd be stuck counting the seconds go by on my clock.

Could I have been more wrong! This movie is awesome! It's got just the right amount of nonsense and low budget feeling to it, and really pulls out some decent acting abilities from the lead character in the film, our beloved murderer/painter. The way he reacts with the story and physically and mentally decomposes throughout the movie is pretty convincing. The viewer really gets a sense that this is a troubled guy who turns to some sick methods to prove that he truly is a great painter.

With the help of a dorky team of teenagers, that perfectly resemble the generation they exist in, this movie was really able to provide a solid viewing experience. It is with that said, that I declare Color Me Blood Red as the best of the Blood Trilogy. That's not to say the Blood Trilogy wasn't worth the purchase I made (it was interesting to see the origins of gore) but without a doubt, this movie stands alone from the other two. Even if there never was a Blood Trilogy , even with the absence of Blood Feast and 2,000 Maniacs, this movie stands alone as a great example of how story and gore can sometimes mix for the best. And with horror movies these days not understanding that, it's nice to see you can always pull out an old b-movie and enjoy a good story and blood & guts at the same time. Overall, 8 out of 10.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
My Least Favorite HGL Film
Scars_Remain4 May 2008
I haven't seen too many HGL films but the ones I've seen are Two Thousand Maniacs, The Wizard of Gore, The Gore Gore Girls, Blood Feast, The Gruesome Twosome and now Color Me Blood Red. This was definitely my least favorite so far because it was dull and didn't even keep my attention for longer than 5 minutes. I think I might give on HGL because I've only liked two of his films so far.

The thing about Herschell Gordon Lewis is that his films are either so bad that they're good or so bad that they're unwatchable and not worth wasting time on. This film falls into the latter category. Bad acting, editing, writing, pacing, music placement and lighting are all expected of these films so those aren't what ruined this one for me. It was how it was dragged out and went on for too long even though it was under 90 minutes and where was the gore? After the two films that came before this, I expect a lot more gore, and it wasn't there. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to stick to Two Thousand Maniacs.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Florida Gore: The one with the water-bikes
Tromafreak2 December 2008
And the Bronze medal goes to... Color Me Blood Red, the third goriest, third most entertaining, and, the third installment of the legendary, Blood Trilogy. Sure, it wasn't as groundbreaking or gory as Blood Feast, or as flat-out entertaining as Two Thousand Maniacs, plus, the presence of a Thomas Wood and/or a Connie Mason might have helped a little, but I still consider the unwanted step-sibling of the Blood Trilogy to be a bit underrated. Color Me Blood Red has pleasant Sarasota beach locations, and not to mention, Adam Sorg is a lot more convincing as a killer than Fuad Ramses, or any single one of the 2000 Maniacs. just A hell of an actor, although, that's not what we're after. Color Me Blood Red also stars several attractive women, some of which not nearly as young as the roles suggests, this film just didn't seem to try all that hard to entertain us, not quite as ambitious as the first two. The so-called humor would seemingly fit more in something from a decade earlier, if ever. F stands for Farnsworth wasn't any funnier the second time Sorg said it, and Holy Banana's just doesn't express the horror and confusion one would feel after finding a girls leg. I suspect this movie inspired the Florida Bore of Scream Baby Scream, that sure doesn't make me feel any better about it. All sarcasm aside, Color me Blood Red is the final entry in , the legendary Herschell Gordon Lewis's Blood Trilogy, so, naturally, it's worth a look, and I'll probably give it a higher score than it deserves. As good as Color Me Blood Red could have been, it does fall short in certain areas as there are absolutely no likable characters, unlike in 2000 Maniacs, where everyone was likable. Also, as half-assed as everything is, you'd think they' would have doubled up on the gore so at least it could be known as the goriest one of them all, they just didn't seem to put their hearts into this one. Color Me Blood Red is not the best Florida Gore has to offer, but certainly not the worst, although, I can't really think of one Florida Gore Film from the 60's that was worse. Hopefully, this one will never be known as "the original" Color Me Blood Red, but we all know it's inevitable. On one last positive note, Color Me Blood Red has tolerable acting (like it matters), as well as a decent, little score, as well as, a modest amount of gore, but mostly, innocent, teenage hi jinx, or at least something similar. Not terrible, but not too terribly interesting. Recommended to anyone who digs Lewis, but something like Moonshine Mountain, or The Wizard Of Gore would be recommended a whole lot more. 5/10
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Color Me Blood Red
Scarecrow-8816 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Macabre black comedy from schlock gore director Herschell Gordon Lewis has a very disturbed painter killing innocent people for their blood supply which lends to creative masterworks on canvas. He sets his eyes on a cute blond teenage girl as his next victim with complicated results.

As you'd expect from an HGL picture, there's rather painful(..but often hilarious) dialogue, tedious filler(..featuring a goofy teenage foursome playing in the water near a beach), embarrassing performances, ugly photography(..there are these awkward camera shots which linger endlessly away from a particular scene slowly but surely moving to the actions in progress), and blunt, rather oddly orchestrated gore.

The boy-girl couple with beatnik dialogue and "hip" behavior produce plenty of cringe-worthy chuckles and contribute some memorable zingers. The violence exhibited thanks to the deranged attacks by Adam Sorg(Gordon Oas-Heim)is what remains the vital ingredient that will appeal to HGL's cult audience. There's a scalpel stabbed into Sorg's demanding fiancé's throat, a couple are attacked while driving their bicycle water boats(..a water exercise vehicle used throughout)with the man getting speared and his girl's intestine squeezed of blood into a bowl! Candi Conder is April Carter, Sorg's chosen victim for his supposed supreme masterpiece, with Jerome Eden as Rolf her beau, matinée idol handsome, eventually coming to her rescue when he finds her tied up, the maniac holding an ax in one hand, a bloody bowl in the other. The discovery of the buried dead body is priceless(..the ridiculously corny dialogue which accompanies it cinches the scene as forever memorable within the HGL canon). Elyn Warner is Gigi, Sorg's always-complaining, very opinionated girlfriend. The color red is vibrantly used with lots of fake blood contributing to the plot(..what little there is). Oas-Heim as the lunatic painter doesn't hold back, letting it all hang out..quite a face which successfully conveys just how nuts the character of Sorg really is. The paintings are impressively grotesque. Again, this is not a work of art, and director Lewis understood this, so COLOR ME BLOOD RED might entertain less discriminating viewers who are accustomed to how his movies are made. I personally never expected anything other than a wacky graphic violent affair with bizarre flourishes and a sick premise, and COLOR ME BLOOD RED didn't disappoint in that regard..not exactly a ringing endorsement for the film, but I think some will find it amusing.

Then again, HGL has become a guilty pleasure director of mine, so perhaps I find value in his movies many others with better sound minds do not.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Couldn't be much more inept, but still a great trash flick!
The_Void13 October 2006
Colour Me Blood Red is pretty much the typical Herschell Gordon Lewis film. In Blood Feast, a man killed people to create a feast; in The Wizard of Gore, a man killed people for his magic show; in The Gruesome Twosome, a young retard killed people to make wigs out of their scalps; and here we've got a deranged painter who discovers that blood is exactly the right shade of red to colour his paintings with. This film is the third and final entry in Herschell Gordon Lewis' "Blood Trilogy", and while it is perhaps not as gory as the other two; Blood Feast and Two Thousand Maniacs, if you enjoy Lewis' style, you're bound to like this one! As mentioned, the plot revolves around a painter. He discovers that blood is the paint he needs when he cuts his girlfriend's finger and begins smearing her blood on his canvas. After attempting to 'paint' the picture himself, he soon realises that he doesn't have enough blood - so naturally, he kills his girlfriend. As you might expect, her blood doesn't go too far, and the only way to get more blood is the to kill more women...

Obviously, this plot has been lifted straight from Roger Corman's B-movie classic 'A Bucket of Blood', but Herschell's style is all over it, and he succeeds in making the plot his own...although 'succeeds' might not be the right word. The movie is trash in every sense of the word, as the acting is as rubbish as it gets, and the film has a distinctly cheap and nasty feel running throughout it. The director's use of music is good, however, as while it does nothing to increase the film's credibility; it does give the movie a hilarious sense of humour, and it works really well with the plot. As I said, this isn't as gory as some of Herschell's earlier stuff, but it's still got plenty of blood and gore; although as anyone that has seen one of these movies before will know; it's absolutely impossible to take seriously. It's clear that Herschell was more interested in the red stuff than anything else, as there are a number of obvious plot devices on display and the artist's descent into insanity is a joke. But even so, this makes for a very fun viewing, and I wouldn't hesitate to name it as one of my favourite of Lewis' movies.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Let's paint the town red
Red-Barracuda17 November 2006
This is a dumb, trashy, gory exploitation flick from the legendary H.G. Lewis. It concerns an unsuccessful artist whose fortune changes when he discovers that the perfect colour for his paintings is provided by his girlfriend's blood. This source naturally runs out, so he resorts to killing people. That is essentially the plot, there isn't much more. But, for the record, we also have a ludicrous beatnik couple, two much-used water bikes which travel VERY slowly and an art gallery that looks like a school assembly room.

The acting talent is notable by its absence. The pacing is at times sluggish - some shots linger on, seemingly endlessly. The music is insane - like the soundtrack to Bewitched transported into an exploitation movie. The effects aren't terribly convincing but not too bad either considering the budget. However, all the negatives have to be accepted as part of the Lewis style. His films have an unpretentious trash aesthetic, which makes them somewhat fun, despite their deficiencies. Having said all that, Color Me Blood Red could have been a little more outrageous. It is a bit light on the gore. And in a movie of this type, that is not the best. I recommend it to those interested in the history of horror and anyone with an inclination to trash cinema. I'm pleased I've seen it. But once is enough.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
The Cinema of Herschel Gordon Lewis: Color Me Blood Red
Captain_Couth28 February 2009
Color Me Blood Red (1965) is a about a talent challenged artist who's "art" lacks a lot of things such as depth, creativity and form. When he's not brooding about or acting extremely weird, he discovers a very special shade of crimson that just drives the "critics" to notice his new style. What is his "new" style that has made the artist the talk of the town? Why is adding a new shade of crimson making him so popular and the biggest question, why is dude so weird? You'll find the answer to these questions and scratching your head at others when you watch COLOR ME BLOOD RED!!

Herschel Gordon Lewis is an enigma, he's like Ed Wood but with business smarts and knows what brings people back to the theaters.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
sad this film is not shown in theaters anymore, or very rarely
marymorrissey29 November 2007
it's fun to see with an audience going bananas over it...

that said the DVD is very good, the print is really good quality. it's a very good looking movie and lots of fun and I like its take on art and violence and snobbery and "daddy-o" ness. it's definitely my favorite of the "trilogy".

oh I need more lines. how about one from the movie, "Her blood, you, you used it as paint!?!!?"

"It's quite the thing to own a Sorge painting!"

"there is one great painting in all of us."

"that caviar critic Farnsworth!"

I still need more lines? I mean how much is there to say about "Color Me Blood Red" for goodnessakes!
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
How Far Will You Go For Recognition?
Reviews_of_the_Dead20 March 2019
This was a film that I got turned on to from the horror encyclopedia that I'm using to seek out horror films that I've not seen or heard of. I do have to say that I was surprised when a podcast I listen to, this one came up as one of their deep dives they do. When I saw that Herschell Gordon Lewis wrote and directed, I was intrigued, because I've seen some of his other films as well. The synopsis is a crackpot artist kills various people to use their blood as his new crimson red color for his paintings.

We kick this off with a man bringing out a painting, but we aren't shown the front of it. He puts it on the ground, covers it in gasoline and then sets it on fire. We then shift to an artist as he is struggling. He is Adam Sorg (Gordon Oas-Heim). He lives with his girlfriend, Gigi (Elyn Warner). Adam is supposed to be at a local art gallery as they're trying to sell his paintings. His art isn't where he wants it to be, so he is dragging his feet on going.

The gallery is owned by Farnsworth (Scott H. Hall) and he has a critic there, Gregorovich (William Harris). The critic is quite pretentious, but he is willing to buy what he deems the best of the bunch to write that Adam is marketable, but he is lacking in his use of color. This thoroughly upsets him.

Through his time there and at home, we see he is kind of a jerk. He is out by the water when Gigi tells him that Farnsworth is there. He goes to meet with him and breaks the frame of one of his canvases. He leaves it on the ground and Gigi goes to pick it up, cutting herself. When Adam sees the color, he knows that's what he's been missing. He uses Gigi's blood until she freaks out on him and then uses his own. It makes him weak so he has to come up with more drastic measures. But when Gregorovich and Mrs. Carter (Iris Marshall) love it, he has to go even further to show he can keep producing.

I do have to say that this film does have some interesting aspects from the Godfather of Gore, writer/director Gordon. It was interesting that I saw this film was influenced by A Bucket of Blood, because this film definitely reminded me of it too. This one is in color and it takes full advantage of that.

Adam is an artist that wants to be recognized for his greatness. At first though, we see that he can do enough to make a living, but he will be pretty much forgotten after he has passed away. He isn't being recognized as a great artist and this really bothers him and causes him to go the lengths that he does to strive to be better. It is admirable, but what he does is horrible. There is also the problem thought that Gregorovich is pretentious and I personally thought the art he did before was better than the ones after. The final product of his first 'masterpiece' wasn't as good as the version we saw earlier.

There is also the aspect of putting all of your hard work into something and for people to not like it. I have personally written a novel that I self-published and when it was available for purchase, I've never felt more self-conscious about things. Doing these reviews isn't really that different either. It has helped me though to develop as a writer so that aspect of the film is interesting to me.

Something I didn't touch on in the recap is the subplot of Mrs. Carter's daughter April (Candi Conder), her boyfriend Rolf (Jerome Eden), their friend Sydney (Pat Finn-Lee) and her boyfriend Jack (Jim Jaekel). They are going off to an empty stretch of beach, but the problem is that it's pretty much Adam's yard. This felt a bit off, but I thought they were and interesting group of characters. They are the younger generation in the film and much different from the adults.

To shift gears to the pacing of the film, which I thought was a bit off. The film runs for 79 minutes, which is quite short. The film felt a bit longer than that as it kind of drags a bit. Early on in the film when Adam discovers blood is what he needs, I found it to be intriguing, but after that it does hit a lull for me. I do think the ending is a bit odd, but I didn't mind it. I do think the comedy in the film also throws it off from being better in my opinion.

Acting for the film I thought was cheesy. I will say that Oas-Heim wasn't bad. He is such a jerk that I really wanted him to get caught. I like that him as a villain is really built up, which was solid. There is a bit of me that felt bad though, as he just wants to be recognized for his work. Conder I thought was fitting for the damsel in distress in the era. She is a bit naïve, which was fine. Warner I thought was decent in her role. I really wonder why she stuck around. She does add a bit of comedy. Finn-Lee and the rest of the women I've talked about are all in bikinis at one point or another, I liked that. The guys in the film I thought were fine for what was needed, but the comedy that some try to do again throws the film off for me. I also want to commend Harris for his pretentious role he plays, I hate it, but I thought he played it well. No one really has any character arch though. Oas-Heim just goes from bad to worst as he goes mad. That is something the film is lacking too.

Effects for the film were something that actually was pretty solid. When Gigi and Adam are cutting their fingers, it made me cringe. It is crazy, because the blood doesn't look as real as I've seen in other films, but it is something about what they are doing. I thought the rest of the gore in the film was good. There aren't a lot of deaths, but the ones we get are solid. The film has almost a grindhouse feel to it, even though it is a right before that era.

Something that really was hit or miss for me was the soundtrack. There was a lot of jazz, which was popular in the era and is fitting for someone who was in the art scene. It fit for some of the scenes, but ones that are supposed to be dramatic or a bit more horrific; it took me out of it. Overall though I'd say the score was more on the positive side.

Now with that said, I really wish this film could have been played more straight. I do like the idea of an artist who is struggling to find his inspiration doing it in a very dark way. I can understand the lengths a person would go for their recognition. The acting was solid and the effects for the most part were good. I thought the pacing was a bit off as was the soundtrack at times. Overall thought I'd say this film is above average. It is from the 1960's so keep that in mind and the copy I watched was a bit grainy. I personally love that, but f that's an issue, avoid this one. If not and this sounds good, I'd give it a viewing as it is interesting for sure.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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


Recently Viewed