Blood Bath (1966)

Best movie ever!

Absolutely the worst movie.

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

If you read what I write on a regular basis then you already know that I have a love for all things Arrow Video. It's one of those companies determined to resurrect movies from the past that are overlooked, forgotten or tossed aside by their home studios and then offer them in pristine condition with enough extras to entertain but not overshadow the movie in question. That being said their offering of BLOOD BATH is the most comprehensive and exhausting endeavor I've seen from them and I mean that in a good way.Before delving deeper into the set be aware you're getting 4 movies here made up of one movie. I'm not talking about sequels, extended editions or director's cuts. I'm talking 4 different movies…all from the same original movie. To understand you have to realize that when it was made there was a drive-in circuit that movies played in with films that catered to those clients, more often than not teens looking for cheap and easy action, horror and racy flicks. Director Roger Corman made his career on these types of films and began producing as well. He produced a film in Europe that was called OPERATION TITIAN, a film about stolen art with cops and robbers involved. He decided the movie wasn't quite what he wanted so had it recut and changed into the film PORTRAIT OF TERROR. Still not quite what he wanted he handed it over to director Jack Hill and it became BLOOD BATH. Stephanie Rothman had helped with that version but before selling it to TV it was recut again with new scenes added and became TRACK OF THE VAMPIRE (the version I was aware of from horror hosts screenings years ago). What Arrow has done is bring all four version together in one package which makes for fascinating viewing for film fans.OPERATION TITIAN is actually a well-made robbery film with some amazing shots reminiscent of the Carol Reed film THE THIRD MAN. The presentation here in black and white is amazing to see with a crisp, clear image that shows work was put into this presentation. PORTRAIT OF TERROR and BLOOD BATH offer the same footage in some places combined with a new story to offer a different tale, switching things from a robbery film to the story of an artist who thinks he's a vampire and boils his models in wax. Definitely different right? And yet both use some of the same footage. By the time you get to TRACK OF THE VAMPIRE a part of you wonders what in the world was going on. But the fact is that the movie made money in all four versions, a definite return on investment that many film makers would love to see.As I said the quality of the movies as presented here is better than you would expect when you consider the fact that it was chopped up so many times, played the drive-in circuit and was never a movie a studio would consider preserving if they even kept it on hand to begin with. But Arrow has come through offering the most complete presentation of the film in all of its incarnations here.In addition to that the extras should satisfy fans as well. They include high definition transfers of the films in 1080p, "The Trouble With Titian" a documentary featuring Tim Lucas that describes the long and twisted path the films took, an interview with Sid Haig who starred the later versions, an archive interview with director Jack Hill, a stills gallery, a fold out double sided poster featuring old and newly commissioned artwork, a reversible cover sleeve and a booklet about the films. The price is higher than most Arrow releases but again you're getting four complete films here folks.Fans of Corman will find this a must have in their collection as will die-hard Jack Hill fans whose numbers seem to be growing with each Arrow release that he is responsible for. Horror fans will want to add it to their collection as a reminder of those days when horror host ruled the airwaves. Movie lovers will want to have it because of the historical value on display. In short it is an interesting development to watch from one film to the next and a nice addition to any collection.

This film seems like it has the scripts of several movies all shoved together--and although there are some eerie moments, the overall effort is rather poor. William Campbell (the actor who starred in the classic "Star Trek" episode "The Squire of Gothos") plays a bizarre artist. He specializes in paintings of women being murdered and people love them. However, you learn to make these paintings he actually kills people. Sounds familiar? It is if you've seen an earlier American-International film called "Bucket of Blood"--it's pretty much the same script. However, on top of this decent story, there are several other story elements--ones that make the film confusing and silly. You see, Campbell is actually VERY old and retains his youth through these killings--and vampire fangs appear when he kills. But, you never see him drinking blood nor is it even implied--and he walks around a lot during the daytime. What gives?! None of this makes a lot of sense. Even with a creepy ending, the film just never pays off and is silly and forgettable.

A crazed artist (William Campbell) who believes himself to be the reincarnation of a murderous vampire kills young women, then boils their bodies in a vat.Michael Weldon called Blood Bath "a confusing but interesting horror film with an even more confusing history." This is quite right, as the film actually started out as a spy thriller filmed in Yugoslavia with William Campbell, and Francis Ford Coppola somehow involved. But Roger Corman did not like the finished product -- which no one has ever seen -- and scrapped it.And then, wanting to revive it as a horror film, he brought in Jack Hill to cut out the spy parts and film new horror parts. Let me say, I love Jack Hill. Now, that is because I think "Spider Baby" might be the greatest horror film of the 1960s. But Hill is no slouch in this earlier outing, either (financially backed by B-movie god Roger Corman and with supporting actors Sid Haig and Patrick Magee).But then, after Hill completed his version of the film, Corman again did not like it... and a third director was hired to finish the job. That is the film we have today.With the three visions mixed, there is a something of a mystery to this film, almost like a bit of a dream to it. While it could be compared to "Color Me Blood Red" or "A Bucket of Blood" (many have pointed out the beatnik artist connection), there is more ambiguity here. Is the artist a vampire? A reincarnation of a vampire? Even connected at all? George Romero explored this theme again (albeit in a very different way) with "Martin", but I think Jack Hill did just as well in many respects.I would love to see what Hill's version looked like before the new additions and changes. Would it be better? Worse? Just different? I have no idea. But now, looking back on Hill's career, we see he is a far more important part of cinema history than he could have been known to be at the time. Preserving his work would be a good way to add to his legacy, and I would firmly support it.

This film (which I saw years ago) seems to be two (or maybe more) different movies edited together-- a contemporary psychological horror film with "flashbacks" to a character's ancestor who was a witch. The "flashbacks" are, I suspect, part of another film entirely-- perhaps a Mexican horror film. Whatever budget reasons led to this unconventional method of film-making, the result can best be described as unintentional surrealism. A unique experience, to say the least.