|
|
Post by naterdawg on Feb 20, 2017 18:47:05 GMT
Just finished watching my DVD of "Blood Feast," that wonderful cinematic tidbit from the early 60's. I'd never seen it in its entirety, and now I wish I hadn't. The experience was truly and utterly painful.
To say the "acting" was atrocious would be kind. The dude who played the Egyptian nutcase/caterer has to be one of the most obnoxiously untalented "actors" on the planet. With his magic marker eyebrows and slow, deliberate, absolutely agonizing delivery (which, for some reason, reminded me of Jerry Lacy's "Reverend Trask" from Dark Shadows), he makes Tor Johnson look like Olivier. The scene where he speaks with "Suzette's mother" about catering her "pawty" (as the mother keeps repeating) had to be played for laffs--but I think both participants were deadly serious. When he says "I'll prepare an Egyptian FEAST!", there's a musical sting on an organ, and he thrusts his head across the countertop for emphasis. Meanwhile, Suzette's mother is standing there in the cast-offs from a junior high production of "Auntie Mame," complete with ratty stole and lampshade hat. She keeps rattling on about her "dawter's pawty," all while trying to project an air of sophistication. Why do I think she was "discovered" guzzling cocktails in some sleazy dive?
Then, we have Suzette herself, played to dimbulb perfection by Playboy "centerfold," Connie Mason. She's cute enough, has a boyfriend who looks like her driver's ed instructor, and gives a delivery that makes nails on a chalkboard preferable. When she says "I have to go to a lecture on Egyptology tonight," I almost gagged. Cripes, that girl wouldn't know Egypt from South Dakota.
The celebrated gore effects are so over the top that they do create a weird kind of unease. And I did think there was just the right mixture of stage blood and what appeared to be pulpy matter (this is especially evident in the beach massacre). As for the tongue-yanking sequence, I had to keep flashing back just to hear the "victim's" cries of "ew, ew, ew, ew," as Ramses (I think that's his name) is digging his dirty fingers into her mouth. Then, he lovingly holds up what appears to be a slightly deflated Swiss Colony Yule Log covered in stage blood! However did she fit that huge thing in there? Yikes, I don't want to know!
One scene sticks in my mind as numbingly awful. When the girl on the beach is found murdered, the cops question the boyfriend. He's distraught, of course--but this type of distraught we usually see on SNL or MAD tv. He says "she-hee-hee wanted to go-ho-ho-home, but I didn't want to hoo-hoo!" Then, we see the equally distraught mother and father in the police detective's office. She's crying, with her head down on the cheap desk. The husband, who was obviously a much younger man with fake gray in his hair, attempts to calm the much older middle-aged woman pretending to be his wife. She's saying "oh, why-hi-hi! She was so-ho-ho young. Boo, hoo!" Then, suddenly, her sobs are cut off in mid-sob! And I mean literally, as if a switch had been thrown!
Believe it or not, I stayed through the very end. Afterwards, I scratched my head--just what IS the appeal of this film? It's beyond cheesy on every level. Is it merely because Blood Feast allegedly pioneered the "gore film?" I just can't bring myself to ever watch this thing again and will be selling my disc on eBay. And I have no intention of seeing any other of HG Lewis' "gore films," either. Uh-huh-ugh!
|
|
|
|
Post by alexhurricanehiggins on Feb 20, 2017 19:43:12 GMT
8/10 I rate it.
|
|
Reynard
Sophomore
@reynard
Posts: 627
Likes: 291
 
|
Post by Reynard on Feb 20, 2017 23:09:45 GMT
I love this movie so much. The scene where Ramses is trying to sell his "Egyptian FEAST" is one of the funniest ever. I must have seen a clip from it literally hundreds of times since it's so prominently featured on Something Weird Video's legendary introduction trailer.
|
|
|
|
Post by naterdawg on Feb 20, 2017 23:33:36 GMT
You're damaged merchandise, and this is a fire sale!
|
|
Reynard
Sophomore
@reynard
Posts: 627
Likes: 291
|
Post by Reynard on Feb 20, 2017 23:48:07 GMT
You're damaged merchandise, and this is a fire sale! Down inside you're dirty. Do you hear me? Dirty! |
|
|
|
Post by lostinlimbo on Feb 21, 2017 3:12:58 GMT
I got around to watching some of his films the other month. "Blood Feast" was by far the weakest of the lot. However it was strangely compelling, even though boy did it drag.
|
|
johanwow
Sophomore
@johanwow
Posts: 155
Likes: 57
|
Post by johanwow on Feb 21, 2017 9:15:46 GMT
OP, while I understand your frustration with this movie, I as HG Lewis fan also don't like it very much. But you have to see it into the right perception. Nobody had done a 'gore' movie before that which makes him rightfully the godfather of gore. Blood Feast is also pretty much an experimental movie even though the concept was for its time rather unique. But that's a bit the trademark of Lewis, a crazy/unique concept a simple storyline and no real beating around the bush right into the action. Don't watch his movies for great character development, deep dialogue or great acting. Most of the people he employed had no or limited acting experience and were often recruited because they looked good on screen (certainly the ladies) not because of acting skills. Most of the recruiting Lewis didn't do himself. He had his usual cooperators in his wife Allison Downe and producer Dave Friedman taking care of such aspects. Also a lot of his movies had little budget and time to film it so attracting big names was impossible. However there are a few reappearing actors in his movies that surely had talent and could carry a movie.
Now if you feel like bleh this doesn't interest me, ok than don't bother with the rest of his movies. But it would be sad if you would not give at least a few other horror movies from Lewis a chance just because you dislike his first horror movie. While it would be rather silly to say he improves a lot (he does in certain areas surely) the movies surely become a lot more light hearted in tone. Funny, silly but never over the top. That's my main gripe with Blood Feast, it's too damn serious. His later horror does not take itself that serious while still exploting a gruesome unique concept.
Two Thousand Maniacs, The Gruesome Twosome, The Gore Gore Girls try these. If you still find them awful and a drag than ok Lewis is not for u.
And otherwise you can move on to his more gory stuff The Wizard of Gore, Blood Feast 2.
For something low on blood/gore there is Something Weird and Color me Blood Red.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nicko's Nose on Feb 25, 2017 6:41:43 GMT
This kinda sounds like a positive review to me. Cheese in a movie like this? A good thing. Unintentional comedy in a movie like this? A good thing. Bad acting in a movie like this? A good thing. Over-the-top effects in a movie like this? A good thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by naterdawg on Feb 25, 2017 6:45:59 GMT
OP, while I understand your frustration with this movie, I as HG Lewis fan also don't like it very much. But you have to see it into the right perception. Nobody had done a 'gore' movie before that which makes him rightfully the godfather of gore. Blood Feast is also pretty much an experimental movie even though the concept was for its time rather unique. But that's a bit the trademark of Lewis, a crazy/unique concept a simple storyline and no real beating around the bush right into the action. Don't watch his movies for great character development, deep dialogue or great acting. Most of the people he employed had no or limited acting experience and were often recruited because they looked good on screen (certainly the ladies) not because of acting skills. Most of the recruiting Lewis didn't do himself. He had his usual cooperators in his wife Allison Downe and producer Dave Friedman taking care of such aspects. Also a lot of his movies had little budget and time to film it so attracting big names was impossible. However there are a few reappearing actors in his movies that surely had talent and could carry a movie. Now if you feel like bleh this doesn't interest me, ok than don't bother with the rest of his movies. But it would be sad if you would not give at least a few other horror movies from Lewis a chance just because you dislike his first horror movie. While it would be rather silly to say he improves a lot (he does in certain areas surely) the movies surely become a lot more light hearted in tone. Funny, silly but never over the top. That's my main gripe with Blood Feast, it's too damn serious. His later horror does not take itself that serious while still exploting a gruesome unique concept. Two Thousand Maniacs, The Gruesome Twosome, The Gore Gore Girls try these. If you still find them awful and a drag than ok Lewis is not for u. And otherwise you can move on to his more gory stuff The Wizard of Gore, Blood Feast 2. For something low on blood/gore there is Something Weird and Color me Blood Red. I saw "2,000 Maniacs" long before I saw Blood Feast and didn't think it was half bad. But Blood Feast is just so atrocious! I don't find his films "a drag," where are you getting that? I said they were silly and almost painful to watch. That scene in the Egyptian catering store has to be seen to be believed. |
|
johanwow
Sophomore
@johanwow
Posts: 155
Likes: 57
|
Post by johanwow on Feb 25, 2017 11:18:13 GMT
naterdawg not sure where I would have indicated that you think Lewis' movies are a drag. Rereading my post I certainly can't see it. Mind you English is not my native language so if I somehow gave that idea that certainly wasn't the intention. Yes Blood Feast is silly and not good I agree. But since you think 2000 Maniacs isn't too bad maybe you could consider the movies I mentioned. If you find Gore Gore Girls and/or Gruesome Twosome also too silly than I don't think his movies would be for you.
|
|
|
|
Post by naterdawg on Feb 25, 2017 16:26:08 GMT
naterdawg not sure where I would have indicated that you think Lewis' movies are a drag. Rereading my post I certainly can't see it. Mind you English is not my native language so if I somehow gave that idea that certainly wasn't the intention. Yes Blood Feast is silly and not good I agree. But since you think 2000 Maniacs isn't too bad maybe you could consider the movies I mentioned. If you find Gore Gore Girls and/or Gruesome Twosome also too silly than I don't think his movies would be for you. Here's the quote from you regarding Herschell's films: "If you still find them awful and a drag than ok Lewis is not for u." I never said I found his films a "drag." |
|
Flynn
Sophomore
@flynn
Posts: 515
Likes: 270
|
Post by Flynn on Feb 25, 2017 19:37:28 GMT
OP, while I understand your frustration with this movie, I as HG Lewis fan also don't like it very much. But you have to see it into the right perception. Nobody had done a 'gore' movie before that which makes him rightfully the godfather of gore. Blood Feast is also pretty much an experimental movie even though the concept was for its time rather unique. But that's a bit the trademark of Lewis, a crazy/unique concept a simple storyline and no real beating around the bush right into the action. Don't watch his movies for great character development, deep dialogue or great acting. Most of the people he employed had no or limited acting experience and were often recruited because they looked good on screen (certainly the ladies) not because of acting skills. Most of the recruiting Lewis didn't do himself. He had his usual cooperators in his wife Allison Downe and producer Dave Friedman taking care of such aspects. Also a lot of his movies had little budget and time to film it so attracting big names was impossible. However there are a few reappearing actors in his movies that surely had talent and could carry a movie. Now if you feel like bleh this doesn't interest me, ok than don't bother with the rest of his movies. But it would be sad if you would not give at least a few other horror movies from Lewis a chance just because you dislike his first horror movie. While it would be rather silly to say he improves a lot (he does in certain areas surely) the movies surely become a lot more light hearted in tone. Funny, silly but never over the top. That's my main gripe with Blood Feast, it's too damn serious. His later horror does not take itself that serious while still exploting a gruesome unique concept. Two Thousand Maniacs, The Gruesome Twosome, The Gore Gore Girls try these. If you still find them awful and a drag than ok Lewis is not for u. And otherwise you can move on to his more gory stuff The Wizard of Gore, Blood Feast 2. For something low on blood/gore there is Something Weird and Color me Blood Red. I saw "2,000 Maniacs" long before I saw Blood Feast and didn't think it was half bad. But Blood Feast is just so atrocious! I don't find his films "a drag," where are you getting that? I said they were silly and almost painful to watch. That scene in the Egyptian catering store has to be seen to be believed. [ I feel you are playing a game of semantics. While you didn't use the word "drag," you did say it was "utterly painful" and you prided yourself on making it through the sub-70 minute runtime. If we look at the definition of drag, "someone or something tedious; a bore," then your comments do seem to align with that definition. I urge you to give the film a second chance. If you haven't watched it with commentary, please do. It provides good insight into the making of the film. I think one thing to understand is that Lewis and Friedman are not filmmakers in the traditional sense. Their aesthetic is more in line with a carnival. The goal is to entertain. It doesn't matter if you like the film as horror, a comedy, or a romantic drama. Their goal is to give you something unique and that will draw you back. They really don't care if you think it's stupid. They were merely in the business of meeting a demand for a product. That's why their filmmaking skills here are weak and why they improved. I love this film pretty much for all the reasons you gave against it. I mean, you have a character who is reading her lines off a lamp shade. How can you not love that, or when she holds the newspaper up so that the camera can read the headline? Or how can you not love a woman who upon just finding out her daughter was almost killed says, "Oh dear, I guess we'll have to have hamburgers for dinner tonight." It's also a film Gary Sinise's father worked on. I mean, all of this is worth the price of owning that DVD. Don't look at it as a film; look at it as an oddity or a carnival attraction, something that attracts and repulses at the same time. By the way, tongues are actually pretty big. The part we see is just a fraction of the tongue itself. It's much larger as it goes down into your body. However, I do believe that tongue was a cow's tongue, so it was probably bigger than normal. Joe Bob Briggs wrote a book a few years ago where he talks about Blood Feast. I highly recommend it. I showed parts of this film to a class a few years ago in talking about the music. Two days later, one of the students told me that the film made her a little queasy and that it took her a day to get over how disturbing it was. For a 1963 film to do that in 2009 is pretty impressive. The last compliment I can give Blood Feast is that whatever you think of it, love it or hate it, it's not a film that is easily forgotten. |
|
|
|
Post by naterdawg on Feb 25, 2017 19:41:26 GMT
"Utterly painful" isn't "a drag." A drag is BORING. "Utterly painful" is extreme discomfort. Big difference.
|
|
Flynn
Sophomore
@flynn
Posts: 515
Likes: 270
|
Post by Flynn on Feb 26, 2017 22:47:01 GMT
"Utterly painful" isn't "a drag." A drag is BORING. "Utterly painful" is extreme discomfort. Big difference. Not really, not in the context of your elaboration. Once again you are trying to play a game of semantics, but you have forgotten that you provided ensuing examples that clarify and illustrate your point, and those examples suggest that "drag" is in the realm of meaning for what you expressed. One must wonder though why you resist so strongly the assertion that you found the movie to be a drag. Is it the degree that bothers you? Would "total drag," "utter drag," or "major drag" be more to your liking? You know what is a drag, though? This conversation. I apologize to all those who read it. |
|
|
|
Post by naterdawg on Feb 26, 2017 23:00:46 GMT
On that last point, I agree.
|
|
