Blood Feast (1963)

A lot of fun.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

"Blood Feast" is one of those landmark films that began a whole new genre of 'cinematic art'. What "Psycho" (1960) did for slasher-flicks, what "Bonny and Clyde" (1967) and "The Wild Bunch" (1969) did for on-screen violence, what the TV-cartoon show "Rocky and Bullwinkle" (1959-1964) did for entertaining adults as well as children, THIS FILM did for the splatter/gore movie genre. It's the granddaddy of them all, and it is definitely one of those "it's so bad it's good" films and a true must-have for any discerning gore hound's collection.What's with the bluish hair on Fuad Ramses, the crazed killer/slasher/ caterer in this flick? In one scene where he's on the phone, his hair matches the color of the Kleenex boxes in the background! His limp also reminds me of another wacko, the goat-kneed Torgo, the 'assistant to the master', of "Manos, the Hands of Fate" infamy.Yes, this film has atrocious acting and production values, is terribly-dated, and mostly a curiosity now, but for its day it had plenty of impact on unsuspecting American movie audiences in July, 1963, when it was first released. Remember, this is nearly four months prior to the true horror of the assassination of the 35th President of the United States, John Fitzgerald Kennedy. America would never be the same thereafter, from that event and this film.

Director HG Lewis broke new and important cinematic ground with this incredibly terrifying and horrific film. The imagery in this motion picture is still haunting even 50 years after its release. Lewis' film remains one of the most powerful horror movies ever made and is a touchstone in screen history. The graphic detail of slaughter and bloody mayhem was without precedent at the time and opened the door for all that was to come, all that we enjoy so immensely today. It was not a creative leap for producers to follow the path from Blood Feast to the torture porn packing theaters at this very hour. It is indeed a courageous, innovative, and farsighted accomplishment by a true auteur.

This is possibly the Worst Movie to ever get a HIGH RECOMMENDATION. Worst because of the Abysmal Acting and obvious Obliteration of any attempt to Construct a Work of any Socially Redeeming Value. BUT... here is the but. The Film was released to an Unsuspecting Public and played Without Restraint (or age restrictions at the box office) in Main Street Theaters in Small Town America.Shot in a week or so on a Budget of None, this was the First Gore Film. It was not only the First Gore Film, it was a Gore-Fest Stylistically Solidified the Genre and Announced a Horror Movie Adjective that would come to be a Force to Reckoned. The aforementioned Ultra-Violence, Shot in a Rich Color Process, was and is Fantastically Effective. The Movie was so Far Ahead of its Time that Nothing Remotely Resembling it Appeared for Years. Clunky, Stagy, Over-the-Top and Shamelessly Subversive, this Film is True to the Definitive Definition of a CULT CLASSIC.

Blood Feast stars Mal Arnold as mad, murderous maniac Fuad Ramses, a man who is clearly evil from the ridiculous size of his eyebrows, his lame leg, his menacing glower, and the completely malevolent manner in which he rubs his hands together. But although he's the last guy in the world you or I would trust as a caterer, Mrs. Dorothy Fremont (Lyn Bolton) is only too happy to let him prepare the food for her daughter Suzette's dinner party, and seems genuinely surprised when she discovers that the crazy Egyptian's ancient feast consists of human body parts, and that poor Suzette (Connie Mason) is intended to be the final ingredient.As the first ever 'splatter' movie, H. G. Lewis's Blood Feast is an undeniably important entry in the annals of horror cinema, ushering in a new, much bloodier era for the genre; but although it is certainly a taboo shattering and highly influential film, the fact remains that it is also a dreadfully amateurish and rather tiresome effort—one that even the director himself admits was far from great: 'It was no damn good', he has said of the film, 'but it was the first of its kind'.Not only does the film feature some of the crappiest acting in movie history (Lyn Bolton deservedly receives flak for her awful performance, but I reckon Gene Courtier, as a victim's distraught boyfriend, is even worse: he looks like he's laughing!), but the direction is also extremely dull (with constant use of overlong static shots), and the music is abysmal. Even the film's major selling point—the ground-breaking gore—fails to impress, consisting of an unconvincing collection of mannequin limbs coated with red paint and liberally scattered with offal.On top of all that, we also get a supposed ancient Egyptian female sacrifice bearing bikini tan marks, an Egyptian themed dinner party for which no one dresses appropriately and which features absolutely no decoration, and a laughable finale in which Fuad, pursued by Suzette's policeman boyfriend Pete Thornton (William Kerwin), climbs into the back of a garbage truck and is immediately crushed to death.Since 1963, Lewis's admittedly intriguing premise has been dealt with several times: in the enjoyable trashy horror flick Mardi Gras Massacre (1978), awful unofficial sequel Blood Diner (1987), and most recently, in Lewis' own follow up, Blood Feast 2: All U Can Eat (2002).