Blood Feast Reviews

Page 1 of 15
Super Reviewer
February 28, 2011
The tagline is "nothing so appalling in the annals of horror history". Now I don't know about all of that, but for its age, it is pretty gory. Although the gore is a bit laughable, not to mention the dialogue, the acting...well pretty much everything...this is a fun watch.
Super Reviewer
September 5, 2010
Wow, this movie is really creepy and gross. H. G. Lewis is the best in those areas, and this is another of his greatly disturbing, yet very low budget and humorous movies. It's pretty cool, check it out.
Super Reviewer
October 3, 2010
Probably one of the most unintentionally interesting horror movies ever made. It's so campy and terrible that you can't help but laugh and have a good time. The villain's ensemble and crazy fake hair is truly the shining aspect. The terrible effects and amateur-at-best cinematography also play a key part in the movie's charm. Don't expect a good movie and you will be in heaven.
Super Reviewer
½ November 10, 2008
hilariously bad, ridiculously bloody, horrible acting, no production values ...i'm sure it was shocking back in the day, now it's just funny
Super Reviewer
August 18, 2007
Over-the-top gore-fest which gave me a chuckle. A crazy chef slaughters beautiful women for preparation of his "Egyptian Feast". I loved his stuck-on eyebrows and goofy acting. Bloody gross.
Super Reviewer
May 23, 2007
Herschell Gordon Lewis was the pioneer of the gore film. The acting is beyond terrible, the background organ music is annoying, but the gore effects are still pretty nasty, even after 45 years. An amputation, a scalping and a tongue removal are what's in store for your viewing pleasure. So bad, so horrible, but for some reason more funny than scary to watch.
Super Reviewer
November 2, 2011
First Splatter film!!!! Despite the plot and acting, it was a really inventive film!!!!!!! We love you Mr. Lewis!!!
October 10, 2010
Films such as "Friday the 13th, "Halloween," and "Scream" are all seriously indebted to this 1963 stinker, the first-ever wide-open blood/guts/gore film.

The viewer will have to search far and wide to find acting as pathetic as this, save perhaps for the truly creepy portrayal by Mal Arnold as a psycho Egyptian killer.

The plot is just as lame. Nothing but blood, guts, body parts, gore and disemboweled women - borne of the lousiest special effects to ever grace celluoid.

This is the kind of garbage seen on 1960s drive-in screens that made the girls curl up in their boyfriends' laps - or invoked serious beer-swilling by the dateless.
RECOMMENDATION: Thanks to TCM's 2am Halloween airing, my "to-view queue" is now one disc lighter and the better for it. Avoid it, unless its historical importance gets the better of you
April 25, 2010
This movie has a good combination of being so bad it's funny, and of being so gross and gory that it's brilliant. Lewis' movies are often like that, and this is no exception. If you liked his other movies, you will like this one. But remember, this is not a vampire movie, it's about a guy who follows an ancient Egyptian religion, which involves actually having a cannibalistic "blood feast", and the actor who plays him is really creepy.
½ October 1, 2009
For being an early 60's film, H.G. Lewis and his debut Blood Feast delivers one of the goriest films of it's time. Even from today's standards, it goes beyond in the visual department. But, that's just where it stops. The acting was out of focus and the dialogue was amatuer. It sort of looked like these actors were practicing their lines, than actually really delivering them in the film. Much like an interview of sorts. Obviously, the film's main goal was to disturb audiences. And it does just that in a very healthy artform. Most of the time, that doesn't effect my judgement on the rating of a film. I concentrate on the plot, soundtrack and the visual aspect of it. Save for the last, Blood Feast fails and it's on the music score that has me cringing the most. You need a good orchestrated soundtrack to deliver the terror in a horror film. The mixture of a banjo being played like a violin and piano-esque score that Blood Feast presents is so badly written, that I'd much rather watch this film on mute with subtitles only. I can't seem to concentrate and get into the film as much as I would like. This cult classic is for true gore fans only and with generous presentation of blood and amputated limbs, should be only viewed just for that.
Super Reviewer
January 1, 2009
The granddaddy of them all. H.G. Lewis' first gore fest was unlike anything that came before it. The years have turned this into a comedy, but I can only imagine what it would have been like to see this when it originally came out. Lewis brought a "top this" attitude to horror. The over the top splatter and the equally over the top bad acting are a joy to behold and predates Lloyd Kaufman by about fifteen years.
½ August 2, 2009
He wasn't called the 'Godfather of Gore' for nothin'. He was also never praised as a good screenwriter or director. Certainly has his place in cinema history.
½ December 10, 2008
I have to respectfully disrespect jk2two in my rating of this movie. I was quite charmed by the accidental brilliance of this movie. An experience similar to that of watching an Ed Wood film - the film succeeds in ways that it never intended (not my quote). If you watch the film analyticaly, then yes - the movie is like a gore-porn in that the scenes are just filler between the lurid gore. However, let yourself watch the film without pretext, and you may find yourself as charmed as I was. I guess you have to watch "innocently", as if you have never heard of H.G. Lewis. Is that even possible?
November 13, 2008
"The first gore film ever made" is H.G. Lewis' Blood Feast, and now I can say I finally saw it. I tell yah... there's bad acting, and then there's this. I can't even begin to describe how poorly written and performed this movie is... and yes, I thought it was funny for about 10 minutes, but then I found myself screaming "come on!" as it continued. There are porns with better writing and acting than this. I have to give it 2 stars, because it started the whole blood & guts thing, but I certainly will never watch this sucker alone again, and I probably couldn't get through it with a bunch of friends either... This made Wizard of Gore look fantastic.
½ August 11, 2008
this movie is the first slasher flick...and it's got all of the bad acting and gore you could ask for. the killer basically looks like a giant oompa loompa, which is fantastic. but anyway, the gore was a lot at the time, but when compared to movies of today, the it's pretty tame here. but anyway, it's pretty grand and worth a watch for those who want to see where the slasher genre of films began.
July 19, 2008
Tell me...what do YOU consider to be..unUSual? o_O God I love this movie! It's got it all....laughable special effects...horrible acting...if you love bad movies...this is a must see :D
½ June 24, 2008
Awful enough to be cult, and grim and bloody enough to disturbing. Unfortunately, those two aspects don't mesh very well.
(It's hard to have some Ed Woodian laughs, when someone's mother is sobbing about the dress she's going to bury her daughter in.)
Page 1 of 15