Should you see it? Yes, if only for historic reasons.
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds."
Wednesday, March 19, 2014
Blood Feast (1963)
How bad is it? It's dreadful.
Should you see it? Yes, if only for historic reasons.
Herschel Gordon Lewis was making nudies, when he felt that that gene had run it's course and came up with the idea of gore films. This is the official first gory movie, and it has gore galore. It also has (pseudonymous) Fuad Ramses as an official of an ancient Egyptian cult that makes sacrifices. He's so terrible an actor that you can watch him read his lines, slowly and badly, from cue cards. And he's still better than star Connie Mason, a former Playboy playmate! She was so awful that Lewis claims he fantasized about killing her for real. The sets are minimal, the camerawork negligible, he plot nearly non-existent. If you're going to see one HG Lewis film, see "2,000 Maniacs."
Should you see it? Yes, if only for historic reasons.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment