Blood Feast

Requesting remake starring Guy Fieri!

After watching "Two Thousand Maniacs!"(1964) earlier this year, my second experience with a Herschell Gordon Lewis film was all the gory, goofy, mess that I thought it would be. This cannibal feast film has more awkward "so-bad-it's-good" over-the-top gory fun than the later Southern ghost tale, but both are only to watched by bad B-movie fans, and those interested in the history of exploitation and splatter horror films.

Horrible acting, cheap gore effects, and a Playboy magazine bunny. You gotta love it!

You know what, it delivers everything you'd expect from a movie called Blood Feast - I can't even imagine what it was like watching this when it came out, shattering my Leave it to Beaver brains.

Cinema at its finest. Policing at its...um...

Fuad speaks much of his dialogue with quote marks. Featuring one of the stranger soundtracks ever: a tympanist whose main inspiration seems to be an aspirin commercial, a truly demented violinist and a roller rink moonlighter on organ. Movie has a weird habit of focusing for a number of seconds on each excised member, so the effect is more clinical than horrific.

The kooky organ music makes this.

By far the best film I've seen from HGL but again that's not saying much. The whole thing is ridiculously goofy and fast paced. The poor production values, stupid story and bad acting works here.

Kind of boring but damn surprising to see such an all out gorefest in '63. You can definitely see how the dialogue scenes influenced John Waters.

The only terrifying part is the acting.

Can't deny its influence (however dubious it might be), and it certainly doesn't try to pretend to be anything else that it is. However, doesn't make it a good film. I guess its clumsiness isn't wholly unintentional, and there are a couple of amusing scenes, but on the whole it's pretty vile and tedious.

Yes, it's important and a milestone film, but it's just so boring and plodding. Interesting only as a piece of ephemera for horror/gore fans, everyone else should stay farrrr away.

Have you ever had... an Egyptian feast? Ah, a feast of splatter-gore and abundant mutilation! I find Blood Feast hilarious, ridiculous and so damn fun to watch. It's a trashy, campy, bloody mess and I love it to death!

The movie that invented the hardcore gore genre, from the fertile mind of Lewis. Lewis's cynical mutilation tableaux are relieved by this legendary lunch-loser's consummate bad acting, particularly by ex-Playmate Mason. When in North Miami Beach, be sure to visit the luxurious Suez Motel, where much of this pioneering work was shot. This has been endlessly ripped off, referenced, and virtually recreated.

Really pretty terrible, but is fun to watch with friends and alcohol.

Here's where it all started, kids. This is shit acting propelled to new fascinating levels, propelled by a wafer thin plot and spattered with lots of awful gore effects. It's also a milestone and almost hypnotically watchable. The sequal is equally brilliant.

Hilariously bad. "Oh dear, I guess we'll have to eat hamburgers for dinner tonight."

1st HGL film that I've seen and it was actually more coherent than expected. I doubt he will rise among my favourite directors, but it did have an unique atmosphere: camera pans, organ music, wooden acting and gore, which looks a bit goofy by today's standards, but must have been quite shocking back in the day. 60's cars and fashion add their own flavour as I usually associate this kind of material with films of 70/80s. ¨70 mins runtime doesn't overstay it's welcome and left me open for more.

While the acting in this is terrible almost without exception - that exception is Mal Arnold as Fuad Ramses, but even he is terrible some of the time - it is remarkable what Lewis is able to pull off for only $24,000 and a ridiculously short 4-day shoot. I was completely enthralled from start to finish; it looks and sounds 'bloody'. Lewis really embraces voyeurism and gratuity to give us the first 'splatter' film. No doubt this movie influenced Carpenter in making 'Halloween'.

This is credited as having invented the splatter genre. It's definitely not a case of the first still being the best. It has almost no redeeming qualities, just plain awful all-round.

This is nothing but awful schlock, but it's the most entertaining variety you could ever hope to find. The acting is atrocious, the direction is terrible, the plot is silly, & the gore- while rather graphic- is so over-the-top & absurd that it loses impact. This is a fabulous example of a movie so bad it's worth watching, and is also oddly historically significant within the horror genre. So long as you know what you're in for, give this a shot.

It's so bad you can enjoy how bad it is. There's no single good actor here, sometimes you can even see their eyes following some offscreen text, no single line is said naturally and the gore is pretty absurd (the killer opened a head but extracts a liver). But knowing this practically started a genre makes also easy to consider it at least interesting and worth watching, and that's easier when if not the quality you can enjoy the bad elements of it.

Herschell Gordon Lewis made a creative and wise business choice by seeing his limitations and creating a niche. This creativity opened the door for splatter in horror. It should be appreciated at that level. However, almost every other thing about this movie makes it hard to watch. It reminded me of my poor viewing Wizard of Gore. I did a search to see who directed it, and sure enough it was Lewis. I am thankful for the pioneer, but I don't think I will be returning to this blood flowing founta

The significance of this film in the realm of modern horror can't be understated. Does it make for a good watch? It does, if you go in with a tolerance of wooden acting and simple plots. The gore is great and the violence is surprisingly disturbing for something just three years post-Psycho.

Have you ever had... an -Egyptian- FEAST???

Complete and utter garbage. Horrible acting, horrible filmmaking, cheap sets, a worthless script. I haven't seen a film this bad in a long time. The only point of interest is watching such a gory movie from the early 60s, but even that aspect is pretty weak and the novelty wears off quick.

So this is the film 'The Undertaker and His Pals' was trying to be

the movie looked better than i was expecting, for its budget and age. The gore was also very good but the acting was some of the worste ive ever seen and made scenes inbetween gore sets virtually unwatchable. luckily the villian looked very creepy and the blood was very nasty.

The original splatter film, this is a laugh riot of gore-drenched inanity. Technically inept and featuring ludicrous acting (especially that of Mason, "Playboy's favorite Playmate"), this slash-happy bloodbath is sick fun, thanks to its ridiculously over-the-top gore effects -- the tongue torn from a girl's mouth looks long enough to have come out of a giraffe! -- and goofy dialogue ("Call the Fremonts, fast," shouts a panicky hero, "and for Pete's sake, don't let them eat anything!").

One of the worst movies I've ever seen, yet so hilarious that it makes it a must see for anyone who appreciates this kind of humor.

Here it is...the Splatter pioneer from the early 60's. Herschell Goron Lewis created the first gore fest ever...

Kind of dull sometimes, but not bad at all.