Blood Feast - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

Blood Feast Reviews

Page 1 of 16
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.
½ February 2, 2013
Herschell Gordon Lewis made Horror history with 1963's BLOOD FEAST, widely considered to be the first "gore" film. In the years before the MPAA, filmmakers were only limited from showing excessive nudity on-screen. With no rules preventing anyone in the movie industry from depicting gratuitous violence or horrifying bodily dismemberment, H.G. Lewis and business partner David F. Friedman embarked on a series of films that exploited these loose regulations in an attempt to compete with the major studio releases in the drive-in circuit. The two did not ease in to this newly established genre with just a few missing limbs or a severed head, but (literally) covered the screen in blood and butchery from start to finish. This simply had never been done before, and even to this day, BLOOD FEAST continues to serve as one of the most shocking and gruesome films in the genre.

Mrs. Fremont is throwing a dinner party for her daughter's engagement, so in order to impress her guests, she has hired the exotic caterer Fuad Ramses to put on an extravagant feast! What she doesn't know is that Fuad has worked up a special menu made from bits and pieces of the missing girls from around town, which he will be serving as the main course in an Egyptian blood feast to appease the goddess Ishtar!

PSYCHO, this is not; Lewis' listless direction shows all of the style and finesse of an early stag film (another genre with which he was fondly familiar). BLOOD FEAST tastefully implies nothing, and instead plasters the screen in one lurid image after another, using as few camera set-ups and shots as possible for the minimal amount of coverage provided. Lewis and Friedman would tap Playboy playmate Connie Mason to star as the beautiful young bride-to-be, who would also return for their follow-up 2000 MANIACS the next year. Mason, along with her fellow cast members, produce truly horrible performances, but the roles are so poorly acted and outrageously over-the-top that they give way to the highest level of camp. As if the subject matter was not forward enough, Lewis' editing clearly demonstrates his lack of concern with plotting or characterization, as the camera holds on the disfigured remains of Fuad's victims much longer than it ever does for any of the characters in the film.

Using gallons of red paint and nearly an entire butcher's shop of animal entrails, BLOOD FEAST offers everything from a beach full of splattered brains, to a torn out tongue, a hacked off leg, and more in eye-popping color film stock! While this may not seem like much, the method in which the murders are filmed and the absolutely absurd amount of bright-red blood make these moments as memorable as they are completely revolting.

Herschell Gordon Lewis, the "Godfather of Gore," has left behind a bloody trail of influence in the wake of this seminal shocker. BLOOD FEAST has had a profound effect on countless young filmmakers, and will continue to live on in the annals of Horror for many years to come.

-Carl Manes
I Like Horror Movies
Page 1 of 16