Blood Feast (1963)

()
Directed by:
Written by: , ,
Starring: , ,

 

blood

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJ2t0et8wWc[/youtube]

Blood Feast

Director: Herschell Gordon Lewis

First Released: 1963

Current UK Status: Passed 18 Uncut

It has taken me some time to get round to writing this analysis of Blood Feast because, being honest now, I couldn’t find the get up and go in me to do it. The film has had hardly any effect on me whatsoever and has put me in a position now where I am falling behind with the list. I didn’t like Blood Feast, and even though there were actually some pretty good deaths and some interesting moments, the whole film irritated me and became somewhat annoying. Fair enough though, I have seen it now, and since Blood Feast is regarded as the first ‘gore’ film, it deserves to be seen by all horror fans, just for that completist touch.

So, the film was released in theatres in 1963, and director Herschell Gordon Lewis really knew how to sell his film. In a genius move for it’s time, he organised for sick bags to be handed out at screenings with a note on the bag stating “you may need when you see Blood Feast”. The film also received an injunction against it in Florida, which helped its notoriety. How audiences reacted back then is anyone’s guess, but being the first gore film, I’m sure they were appalled. The film is wildly sadistic, but it seems that the mix of murder and comedy just doesn’t work here and the film feels almost child-like, silly and pointless. It was listed as a Video Nasty in 1983 after a VHS release in 1982 by Astra. It was later released by Tartan Video with 23 seconds of cuts in 2001, and eventually Odeon released it uncut on DVD in 2005.

The opening credits, with its splattered blood over the title of the film and bizarre drum beat music nicley sets the tone after the opening murder of a woman in the bath. From the first five minutes it’s clear the director’s intentions are to shock, nothing more. The killer is played by Mal Arnold, and the camera does a very good job at focusing on his crazy face as he hacks away at his victims. Wide eyed and with a massive grin, sadly he does not look scary at all, just rather silly. He runs a catering business, and has been asked to put together a banquet for a rich womans daughters birthday. It will be an Egyptian banquet, he tells her, and he then starts killing girls in the hope of resurrecting some ancient Egyptian Goddess by using the dead girls bodies as gifts. Well, something like that anyway, i think at some point in the film it was mentioned that the blood from the victims was used to feed the Goddess. Anyway, who cares, all it does is give the caterer an excuse to kill, and kill he does. Knives are used to stab one woman repeatedly, anothers tongue is ripped out (although later on she is able to speak to the police) and a couple ‘making out’ are murdered on the beach. The deaths are brilliantly over the top, however most of the violence is off screen, or you see it from behind the killer so you only realy see him moving without seeing a blade penetrate, or an actual tongue get ripped out. You see the after effects, as the killer steps back and the camera zooms in. Heaven forbid the camera actually MOVE forward though, the zoom is much easier. I say this about the camera because the blasted thing is so lifeless thoughout the entire film, it barely moves. It makes the whole thing feel more like a stage play than an actual movie.

And speaking of it being like a stage play, there’s the acting. Heck, it’s beyond crap, honestly, this is some of the worst acting I have EVER witnessed, and I have seen some bad acting in my time! A converation between the Police chief and his deputy as they quite literally ponder over the murders, is almost unbearable. They sit in a bare room with just a desk and uncomfortably have a converation which has long pauses, awkward movements and responses clearly improvised at times. To be fair, the actor intended for the Police chiefs role never turned up on set, and so it was quickly given to one of the films crew, but fuck me, it carries on like this all the way through! It actually feels like the film was simply filmed, possibly edited, and relased, without even checking it or doing any re-takes. And I could believe that too since the film was shot over just nine days and supposedly only cost $25,000 to make! But the acting just gets worse, the Mum of the couple who were murdered on the beach arrives later on and she just holds onto her sons jacket and cries for what feels like twenty minutes. She cries and cries and bellows “Why???” over and over to the point you just want to kill her yourself. It was a good thing her Son was murdered though as there would quite simply be Hell to pay if he lasted any longer in the film. The award for possibly the worst actor of the century HAS to go to him and his silly, greasy hair, daft almost confused expression and the most painfully slow delivery of lines of dialogue I think I have ever heard! Seriously now, it feels like a minute passes between each word. Christ, if he had any more screen time they could have made the film into a two part, six hour extravaganza!!

Could the film be any worse? Yes, the music. Its daft, silly, and OK the opening credits it actually generates a pleasant feeling of un-ease, but that same little thump on a drum keeps coming back again and again, and then there’s the incredibly annoying organs as well. Honestly, in my opinion, there is not much to like about this complete disaster of a film, and why it ended up on the List is beyond me. I appreciate there are people out there, lots of them in fact, who treasure this film but I am not one of them. I knew working through the Video Nasty List that once in a while I would come across a real stinker, and I have just met my first!

Rating: ★★☆☆☆☆☆☆☆☆

Should this film have been added to the Video Nasty List: Oh God no!!

Avatar photo
About Matt Wavish 598 Articles
A keen enthusiast and collector of all horror and extreme films. I can be picky as i like quality in my horror. This doesn't necessarily mean it has to be a classic, but as long as it has something to impress me then i'm a fan. I watch films by the rule that if it doesn't bring out some kind of emotive response then it aint worth watching.

1 Comment

  1. Yeah it’s a stinker indeed, though you should be okay as I doubt there are worse films on the video nasty list [I’ve seen about half of them]. As you very well say in your great review [why are reviews of bad films such fun to read?], it’s a bad film, but annoyingly bad, not really entertaining in it’s badness. 2000 Maniacs [which I think is also on the list] by the same director is a bit better.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*