Blood Feast - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Blood Feast Reviews

Page 1 of 16
½ June 17, 2017
This movie is judged by today's standards. When you think about this movie being made in 1963, this is groundbreaking horror. The Andy Griffith Show was in its 3rd season and still in black and white when this came out.
Can you imagine Andy and Helen, on a date, watching this?
December 31, 2016
Un film d'une rare incompétence, mais bon, c'est le "premier" film gore et dans le bon état d'esprit on peut rigoler en l'écoutant. Les couleurs sursaturées donnent un look assez spécial à l'ensemble, surtout quand il y a du sang et des tripes
½ November 25, 2016
An absolute classic in horror history. Even if the acting is atrocious. The quality and amount of gore in it is surprising for it's day and age, even if it isn't always convincing. Really paved the way for horror to come.
October 23, 2016
Poorly scripted, acted, edited, and with some fake looking gore effects which the film revels in. Blood Feast is a poorly made film, but is an important one as it is commonly cited as the first "splatter" film (It's normally cited as the first horror film to use exploitative violence as its selling point) and inspired many notable horror talents such as Stuart Gordon,Tom Savini, and John Carpenter. The film's villain, Fuad Ramses (played by Mal Arnold, a standout of the film), is also said to be the pre-cursor to Jason Vorhees and Michael Meyers. Yes, Blood Feast is a "bad" film, but it runs at a swift 67 minutes and it's oddly charming and entertaining. If you are at all a fan of horror films, you should see this as it's incredibly important to the genre and makes for a fairly easy watch.
½ July 11, 2016
Oh where to start with Blood Feast.... it is so replete with guilty pleasures that a movie lover feels like a visitor to Willy Wonka's factory. Outrageously bad acting, a totally nonsensical plot, kitschy score, high school drama class production values, gooney special effects, and balls to the wall weirdness- this movie has it all. Characters randomly speak in unnatural and unnecessarily complete sentences, a 30 year old actor is made to look like an old man simply by dusting his hair and eyebrows with white powder, and a cast made up of performers that probably couldn't get hired by your local theater company are but a few of the many things that make Blood Feast such a gas. This level of absurdity could never happen today because modern filmmakers are too self-consciously clever to be capable of producing such a sublimely bad collection of scenes. The actual plot of Blood Feast is so secondary to its success that director Herschell Gordon Lewis could have made a totally different film with the same actors and it would have turned out just as hilariously. However the plot itself is worth mentioning: the proprietor of an exotic catering service (Mal Arnold) murders young women who purchased copies of his book about weird ancient religious ceremonies so he can assemble and cook their body parts in service of conducting an ancient Egyptian ritual. It is impossible to know if Lewis coached Arnold to speak with such deliberate slowness or if he intentionally left in scenes that went on so long you imagine him yelling "Cut!" several times without the actors hearing him, or if these were just wonderfully happy accidents. Criticizing Blood Feast is pointless, because to do so would ruin how good a time you will have watching it.
½ March 1, 2016
At over 50 years old, this movie has not aged well. Campy acting, cheap see-thru effects, and a sketchy plot add up to a pretty mediocre experience. That being said, I recommend a watch for true fans of the genre, as it claims to be the "original gore film". Not as hard to watch as some of the other stinkers in the genre, if anything it's enjoyable for its unintentional humor :) It falls into the "so bad it's good" category pretty easily.
½ August 28, 2015
Rumors has it that Blood Feast was the first splatter film. And, during it's time it must have been terrifying but now it's just a badly acted piece of steamy cinema. The blood effects are extremely bad but believe it or not it actually disturbed me a bit. If you are going to see the movie it's only for the badly done gore nothing else really.
½ March 26, 2015
This is a landmark gore film, allegedly the first ever splatter film! It's also garbage.
February 26, 2015
Lame. So much in fact that I fell asleep before it ended. The only reason this is of cult status is due to it being the very first gore movie. That's it.
November 5, 2014
so intentionally bad that its good. Beginning of slasher films
½ October 9, 2014
Can't really recommend it unless you are interested in the history of splatter and gore or if you have the disposition to appreciate films that are so bad they are good!
½ June 19, 2014
One of the few movies that you can actually categorize as "so bad it's good" without looking like a hipster doofus.
April 28, 2014
This is probably up there in the top ten best drive-in classics of all time. It shocked audiences when it premiered because there is a kind of gruesome scene where the villain, Ramses pulls out a beautiful girls tongue. Ramsey's is trying to bring about some god or something and is killing girls in gruesome ways to cook them up for an Egyptian Feast. The sets literally look like cardboard. All of the characters from the cops to the victims were complete idiots. Even the make-up and costumes are ridiculous. The script was so bad and the acting was so stiff, it's laughable. How can something some bad be so entertaining? I'm not sure if Hershel Gordon Lewis meant for this to be tongue in cheek humor or what. I know he is a schlock auteur in the ranks of Ed Wood and Lloyd Kaufman and was probably working on a shoe-string budget. I do love these type of movies though. They are some much fun to watch and Hershel Gordon Lewis was a crazy genius in his own right.
October 14, 2013
esta película es un epic fail
August 14, 2013
everyone should watch this movie
June 22, 2013
H.G. Lewis set the bar for the last 50 years of cinematic sanguination with this hilarious and over-the-top cult classic. crude, yet repulsive gore. braindead acting and some jaw-droppingly terrible dialogue make this a must see. although it's sure to give mainstream movie-goers an aneurysm.
May 20, 2013
Dated yes, but still a very entertaining watch for the gore and campyness.
May 3, 2013
Lame. So much in fact that I fell asleep before it ended. The only reason this is of cult status is due to it being the very first gore movie. That's it.
March 11, 2013
What makes this movie enjoyable is that it's said to be the first gore film to have been made. It makes me wish that I'd been around in 1963 to see it, because it would've been far more shocking back then than it is now. So while it is cheesy, I have a lot of respect for it. If anything, it's a nice piece of schlock history.
February 18, 2013
Aquele tipo de filme em que se tem que desconsiderar o roteiro e as atuacoes ruins para apreciar melhor sua dose cavalar de humor negro e litros de sangue.
Page 1 of 16