Video Nasty #7 of 72
Year of Release: 1972
Directed by: Umberto Lenzi
Run Time: 93 minutes
Alternate Titles: Original Title: Il paese del sesso selvaggio (Translated literally as The Country’s Wild Sex), also released as Deep River Savages, Sacrifice!, and Mondo Cannibale
UK Censorship Status: Released with 3 mins 45 secs of animal cruelty cuts in 2003
One interesting thing about going through this list chronologically is that early on you get a lot of films that kick started a lot of genres that most critics despise and most normal people stay far away from. Blood Feast was the first real gore film, Bay of Blood laid the groundwork for the slasher genre, and Love Camp 7 was the first of many nazisploitation films. It’s almost like a crash course in the history of exploitation film making. Now we’re up to our second Italian film and the one that’s often considered to be the first of what might really be the very bottom of the barrel in terms of cheap shocks on celluloid, the Italian cannibal film. Oh joy…
John Bradley (the dashing Ivan Rassimov, who starred in a lot of these things) is a British photographer sent into the jungles of Thailand to take pictures of rain forest wildlife. When the film starts out, he’s watching a kickboxing match while his dates gets more and more annoyed and eventually gets up and leaves, which doesn’t seem to bother our man of the hour much. It does appear to bother a random Thai man, however, who meets up with Bradley in a bar and pulls a knife on him. Bradley is something of a super stud and twists the man’s arm, stabbing him in the stomach before making a hasty retreat.
Now in any normal film this would be treated with some level of importance, plot wise, but director Umberto Lenzi oddly makes the decision to never have this event either mentioned again or even have it have any impact on anything! Bradley just goes on his merry way, calmly hiring a guide to take him into the jungles. Huh. Guess that was just to kill screen time then….
Long story short, the guide gets killed and Bradley ends up getting captured by a jungle dwelling tribe who tie him up in a big net in a tree so the kids can hit him with sticks.
Bradley’s savior comes in the form of Marayå (the gorgeous and perpetually naked Me Me Lai, who also starred in a lot of these things) the chief’s daughter who instantly becomes fascinated with our square jawed hero.
This seems like Bradley’s key to getting back to civilization, but does he really want to do that? Certainly not after a pack of bizarre rituals are performed on him to make him a tribal warrior and his eventual marriage to Marayå. And what of those dudes from that cannibal tribe that had their tongues cut out early on? Oh, I’m sure we won’t see any more of them around….
I’m going to throw this right out there: I am not a big fan of these movies. At all. In fact, a viewing of Lenzi’s Cannibal Ferox was what really put me off trying to get through this list the first time (although I’ll sit through it again eventually for the sake of this quest). They’re just zero fun. I mean, I love cheap junk as much as the next person but cannibal films just don’t sit well with me. Part of it is how blatantly racist they are, feeding off of white people’s fears of brown people and anywhere that isn’t a big modern city. Man from Deep River isn’t as bad in that respect since at least one tribe is depicted as actually human, just backwards with a lot of weird rituals, instead of faceless and totally monstrous. The shady cannibal tribe fits the bill nicely, but they’re hardly in the actual film at all, making what seems like token appearances at the beginning and end.
In fact, most of this film is actually a pretty harmless and even a bit dull rip-off of A Man Called Horse, with most of the gore also oddly missing (later cannibal films would rectify this little oversight 100 times over).
What really bothers me though, and what really sucks pretty much all the fun out of this and the entire genre, is the real animal slaughter that happens onscreen. I’ve stated before that I consider murdering animals purely for shock value to be pretty vile and sadly, this really became a staple of the Italian cannibal film, starting here. You don’t need to fucking do that, prop animals would work just as well and you really can’t help but project your hatred at the director for making the decision to include it. And to include it over and over and over again.
And you can’t throw ” it was for realism” around either, because these films are fake as shit otherwise. It’s just abhorrent. Not only that but it distracts from the rest of the film because you’re still reeling from it when the movie proper starts again. It doesn’t really shock me, it just makes me sick and makes me wish I were doing anything other than sitting through the fucking film.
Sadly before this is over, there’s about four or five of these things on here, two of which I’ve already seen. Uck. Oh well, I shall soldier on. I’ll probably just need some beer and some Bugs Bunny cartoons after….
Watch the trailer here (It features some brief glimpses of the film’s rampant animal cruelty, but you can tell pretty easily what the main selling point was…)
- This movie isn’t very entertaining, but that torture contraption they put Bradley in (featured on the poster and in the trailer) is at least good for a laugh.
- From a critical stand point the only real thing you can look deeper into here is the village burning scene, which has obvious parallels to Vietnam.
- Remembering back to a documentary on the Cannibal Ferox disc, there’s a story about the main star of that movie not wanting to shoot a pig and Lenzi getting mad, grabbing the gun away from him and doing it himself, causing the actor to storm off set. What a real piece of shit.
Next time: The Cannibal Man (Which is oddly not a jungle cannibal film)
Video Nasty #6 of 72
Year of Release: 1972
Directed by: Wes Craven
Run Time: 84 minutes (Edited down from an original 91)
Alternate Titles: Had working titles of Krug & Company, Night of Vengeance, and Sex Crime of the Century. Also briefly saw release in US theaters as Grim Company
UK Censorship Status: Refused a video certificate and passed with 31 secs cut in 2002. Released uncut on 17 March 2008
Of all the trash on the Video Nasties list, three titles in particular stand out for the controversy they caused when they were first released, which was so great that it led to these films still being talked about today, regardless of their quality or even watchability. We’ll get to the other two in due time, but the first one to rise above the general stew of pond scum and sort of enter the mainstream (partially via a mediocre remake in 2009) just so happens to be the directorial debut of famous horror director Wes Craven, as well as an early film for producer Sean S. Cunningham!
Now Craven and I have a kind of rocky relationship. When the man is good (The Hills Have Eyes, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Scream) he’s damn good. But when he’s bad (Swamp Thing, The Hills Have Eyes Part II, Cursed) the results usually end up being pretty yawn inducing. The man’s strengths really lie in knowing what buttons to push at the right times, jump starting horror related phenomenons once or twice a decade and then riding the wave of popularity and money to produce mediocrity until he can find the next big thing. (Although this strategy seems to have failed him recently because who the fuck really knows where the horror genre has been headed since about 1999).
This plan of action really started here. The impetuous for the creation of Last House on the Left was a desire to produce something so shocking and out there that people would to have to pay attention to it. It would rise above the grindhouse murk simply by being nastier than anything that was out at the time. Originally conceived as a pornographic rape revenge fantasy full of hardcore sex and graphic violence, an idea that was actually agreed upon by the cast many of which came from the world of porn, both Craven and Cunningham quickly chickened out and toned the script down considerably. Well, probably not chickened out so much as came to their damn senses. The world wasn’t really wasn’t ready for graphic full on rape scenes depicted onscreen at the time (I Spit on Your Grave was still five years away) and who knows what would have happened if they had made their film as is. As it stood Last House was just the right amount of nasty to create a massive amount of controversy while still raking in the ticket sales to the tune of over 3 million dollars. Not bad for what’s basically a low-budget rip off of Ingmar Bergman’s Virgin Spring…
We begin our film, after a bit of an odd introduction by a friendly postman who also seems like a bit of a dirty old man, by joining one of our main protagonists in a shower (of course). Mari Collingwood is getting ready for a night on the town with her best friend Phyllis. Phyllis is obviously a kind of bad influence that comes from a less stable home than Mari (the two are shown sharing a bottle of something of Phyllis’s that probably ain’t Pepsi and talking about S-E-X). Even though Mari’s parents have grave doubts about her friend as well as the concert they’re going to, they let her go because she’s a big girl and there’s not much they can really do about it.
Then we are introduced to our friendly neighborhood scumbags. We have the leader, Krug (Alexander Hess, one of the few actors in this to have something of a career afterwards) and his dorky wimp of a son Junior. Junior is the only one of these scuzballs that you’ll feel bad for by the way. He might be yellow as a pee stained lemon but his dad did get him hooked on heroin she could control him! Joining this duo is switch blade wielding Weasel (played by pornographic mainstay Fred Lincoln in his only mainstream role) and his girl, the sadistic Sadie (Jeramie Rain, who would later marry and divorce Richard Dreyfuss).
One thing that makes this movie really work is that before the awful really happens, we get to know both families on equal footing. It’s not just some random psychos that come out of nowhere, we get to learn their dynamics and pecking order pretty well. Probably even better than we do Mari’s family, who actually kind of get short shrift!
They also tend to be more interesting characters as well, as Mari and Phyllis are presented as pretty typical teenagers, which was kind of the point, I think. It was supposed to give you a “this could happen to anybody” vibe. Or maybe Craven didn’t quite know how to write for typical teenage girls, I don’t know.
The girls end up cruising for weed after the concert and stumble onto the group’s hideout where they’re crashing after escaping from jail. (The news report the girls listen to takes special care to mention that Sadie kicked a dog to death during the breakout!) Before you can say “drugs are bad” the girls are locked in the trunk of the group’s car and taken out to the woods to be mentally and physically abused by everyone except Junior, who really just wants his next fix.
This is, of course, where the movie first starts to earn its notoriety. Shits hard to watch, man. This is a kind of horrific that hadn’t been seen in (American) cinema’s yet. This wasn’t Frankenstein’s monster menacing villagers or Dracula seducing young virgins, this was something very close to reality. This is awful shit that really happens and now it was shoved right in the face of anyone that dared to buy a ticket. It was a remarkably daring thing to do, and it ushered in a new era in horror film making, for better or worse.
The first half of the movie is basically a grim exercise in how far you could go on film before both girls are finally murdered and the scumbags head off to find a place to spend the night at what, irony of ironies, turns out to be Mari’s parent’s house. This starts the second half, which almost feels like a totally different film. Now instead of a nasty rape/torture film, we get an action packed home invasion movie with Mari’s parents taking out each bad guy one by one, ending with what’s possibly the first use of a chainsaw as a weapon in a horror movie! Man, this film is full of firsts, isn’t it? We also get the death of poor Junior, who always did what his dad told him, even to the bitter end…
Last House on the Left is a grimy and uncomfortable film, but it’s really not half as bad as its reputation makes it out to be. For one, the horror of the girl’s situation is undermined by a couple of comic relief cops that feel like they’ve been dropped in from a Dukes of Hazzard type TV show! I’m not quite sure what the rather lengthy scenes featuring these characters is supposed to serve but they get almost as much screen time as anybody else! There’s a scene in the middle where they’re trying to hitch a ride on a chicken truck that feels like it goes on forever (although it’s notable because their incompetence gets the girls murdered!)
There’s also the matter of the rather inappropriate soundtrack, featuring some soothing acoustic guitar during a rape scene and a goofy country song (performed by the guy that plays Krug!) that plays when the bad guys are heading off to do nasty things to two innocent girls! I get that it might be to contrast things by playing inappropriate music during heavy scenes but Craven wasn’t a good enough filmmaker yet to pull this off, and it just ends up being weird.
Still, even with its flaws Last House ends up being quite a nasty little film and a good representation of where America was at the time. This wasn’t the optimistic hopeful hippy filled world of the 1960’s, this was the 70’s and things had changed dramatically. Kennedy was dead and villages were being burned in Vietnam, a war that seemed like it was never going to end. Two years before, four college kid were murdered by National Guardsmen at Kent State University. The ugliness onscreen mirrored the ugliness of the real world, which might be why the film struck such a nerve. We were staring our own brutality right in its ugly face.
- The kid that gets his balloon popped by Krug is Wes Craven’s own son Johnathan.
- It’s been awhile since I’ve watched Virgin Spring (Quite a few years since my obsession with Bergman) but I can still remember the rape scene in that movie like I saw it yesterday, it’s that disturbing. The major rape scene in Last House is almost a carbon copy of that one!
- The film’s tagline has also strangely endured. “Just keep telling yourself, “It’s only a movie! It’s only a movie!'” was taken and used for quite a few films over the years and still gets parodied every so often.
- I hope my write up did this film justice. You could publish a whole book about the making and marketing of this thing as well as the controversy its stirred up since its release. In fact, people have!
- It’s interesting to compare this to Bay of Blood, which has more death but the killings happen quickly to characters that are unpleasant anyways. Last House lingers on the lengthy demise of two people that really didn’t deserve it, and is much harder to watch, even if the Craven was no Bava (and he never would be).
Next Time: The Man from Deep River
Video Nasty #5 of 72
Year of Release: 1971
Directed by: Mario Bava
Run Time: 84 minutes
Alternate Titles: Originally titled Reazione a catena (Chain Reaction), also released as A Bay of Blood, Blood Bath, Bloodbath Bay of Death, The Antecedent, Ecology of a Crime, Last House on the Left Part II, and New House on the Left. Since this might be the most re-titled film in history, I’ve probably missed quite a few.
UK Censorship Status: Released with 43 secs cut in 1994. Re-released uncut in 2010.
Although he’s a pretty well known figure among hardcore horror movie nerds, Mario Bava isn’t quite as well known with anybody else. In fact, when I was trying to find a decent download of this movie, I mentioned his name to my wife and she just kind of shrugged her shoulders. So if you haven’t seen Black Sabbath, or Kill, Baby, Kill or even Dr. Goldfoot and the Girl Bombs (good lord) then all you really need to know is that Bava was a very stylish director that worked in a variety of “low” genres. Everything from science fiction to sword and sandal flicks. There was a lot of junky Italian movies that came out in the 70’s and 80’s, it was kind of the heyday for that kind of thing there, but you can always pick Bava’s work out because it’s well, decent. I mean, not usually great story-wise but visually it’s usually pretty boss. Lots of stylized camera work and neat use of color and lighting. The other really interesting thing about Bava is that even though he’s not quite as good as the great Dario Argento, his work might just be more influential. This film, for instance, pretty much kick started the whole freaking slasher genre! That’s a pretty tall order for something that was pretty much totally critically dismissed on its original release. But then the critics never seemed to like this type of movie anyways….
Bava’s style is clearly evident in the opening scenes where we get long lingering moody shots of the bay where the entire film is set. There’s an air of melancholy and loneliness that’s very well established even before we get to the sad old lady in the wheelchair, sadly staring out through the rain soaked window. It’s kind of beautiful, in a depressing way….and then someone puts a noose around the old lady’s neck and hangs her from the ceiling. Then the man that did that gets brutally stabbed by somebody and left bleeding on the floor. This opening, with it’s one two punch of brutality that’s also a sick joke, pretty much let’s you know two things: this is going to be quite a bit different from Bava’s other work and he ain’t going to hold anything back so you’d better buckle your seat belts.
Getting into the plot of the movie proper is a bit tricky because it’s an incredibly muddled story. Even reading a synopsis of it after I just watched the movie doesn’t really help much. The basics of it go as follows, as best as I can sort out: The old bitch that died in the opening owned the bay (of blood?) and was strangled by her husband, who was in turn slaughtered by someone else. A real estate agent and his mistress plot to take the bay from the husband, who they have no idea is dead.
Also involved in this is the old woman’s daughter and her husband, who travel to the bay and are essentially after the same thing. They also have no idea the old man has kicked the bucket. They met up with a kooky fortune teller and her unpleasant bug collecting husband where from they learn that the old lady had an illegitimate son named Simon that makes a living as a fisherman of sorts. The couple plans to murder Simon to make sure that the land will be theirs.
Got all that? To make matters even more clear and well structured, there’s a bunch of random teenagers that wander into the movie and a couple of kids that the real estate agent left behind to go gallivanting off in search of ill gotten money.
Now have you got all that? I sure hope so, because I’m still a bit lost….
It’s really the confusing story and the fact that so many characters just kind of wander in and out of the narrative that keeps this movie from really achieving classic status. That’s kind of sad because otherwise this thing is fucking great. If you’re looking for brutal onscreen murder, this is one you need to watch. I’ve seen a lot of nasty movies in my time and even I was shocked by not just the sheer amount of fatalities, but the sheer visceral nature of a lot of them as well. On top of that, most of them are just really creative and cool! The gore films that came before this one on this list, like Blood Feast and The Ghastly Ones, had grue that was cheap and incredibly fake looking. This might have been one of the first films to try and make its gore as realistic as possible, which it admirably succeeds at, even by today’s standards! Check out that head chop late in the film or the infamous hatchet to the face! No wonder this thing was so influential! There’s even a couple of scenes that the Friday the 13th films outright stole, including a buxom woman skinny dipping and a rather awesome spear thrust through a couple of copulating teenagers. I guess they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Gore aside, what really sets this film apart is that it’s both a more stylish film than it’s many rip-offs and a smarter one as well. A lot of critics have dismissed the film as unintelligent but if you’re paying attention, there’s a lot of very clever and subtle things you can catch. Like a bug pinned to a board that’s strikingly similar to a character’s death later on or a bell tolling before another one bites it (Get it? For whom the bell tolls?) It’s just so damn cool, even when you’re scratching your head over the impenetrable story.
Death Nerve (or one of its many many other titles) is also a film that actually has an underlying message that gets spelled out in what might seem like a bit of throwaway dialogue early on. That message is that humans are essentially animals that will do anything to survive and/or get what they want. They’ll think no more of ending another person’s life for their own gains than shoving a bug in a jar of ether. It sets a remarkably cynical and morbid tone, but in the end it all finishes up with a sick, and quite funny, joke that all of a sudden makes you look at what came before in a different light. Were we supposed to be finding all of this violence and unpleasantness amusing? The director and writers obviously did! How remarkable…
Death Nerve ends up being a film that has a lot of flaws but it somehow ends up being better than the sum of its parts. Isn’t it weird when that happens?
Watch the trailer here (And get a sample of that groovy score!)
- Oh man, that jazzy score! Italian horror pretty much set the standard for horror movie music for decades to come and it’s in full force here.
- I liked this one a lot but sometimes it feels like you’re watching a template for future movies rather than an actual movie itself. Which is kind of an odd feeling…
- Horror movie legend Sir Christopher Lee, a Bava fan at the time, reportedly walked out of a screening of this film in disgust. I wonder what he thinks of it now?
- This film would make a great double feature with 1960’s Peeping Tom, another film that’s hugely influential to the slasher genre, but also a much more coherent experience.
- I don’t think I’ve seen a film before where every single fucking character is a scumbag out for their own ends and they all get what they deserve! Bava deserves some kind of award for that, for sure.
Next Time: The rather notorious Last House on the Left
Video Nasty #4 of 72
Year of Release: 1969 (English language version released in 1972 with additional scenes)
Directed by: René Cardona (Additional scenes by Jerald Intrator)
Budget: Who the Hell knows?
Run Time: 81 minutes
Alternate Titles: Originally titled La Horripilante bestia humana (“The Horrible Man-Beast”), also released as Horror y sexo (“Horror and Sex”) and Gomar—The Human Gorilla
UK Censorship Status: Released with approximately 3 mins of pre-cuts in 1999. Re-released uncut in 2002.
Generally when I write these reviews, I try and give my thoughts on the movie right after I’ve seen it, so it’s all fresh in my head. But honestly, after this one was over I sat for a good hour trying to think of what the Hell I was going to say. I can’t fill much space by recounting the plot, because there really is none. Basically, a scientist tries to help his dying son by giving him a gorilla’s heart which of course turns him into a horrible man-beast that just wants to kill the men and rip the women’s clothing off. There’s a detective that’s trying to solve the murders and a whole lotta Mexican wrestling footage that doesn’t have anything to do with anything! That’s about it.
I will say this, though: This movie is fucking nuts. But that’s pretty much par for the course with Mexican horror films. Unlike similar films from other countries, Mexico’s low budget genre films weren’t really concerned with things like “logic” or even making any damn sense at all. And if you think their horror movies are bad, you should check out their kid’s films! Total unadulterated insanity in its purest form. What makes Night of the Bloody Apes (there’s really only one ape-man) interesting is that it’s actually two different types of low budget film in one. One the one hand it’s a juvenile and really silly monster movie that’s obviously influenced by the American poverty row films of the 1940’s, complete with a mad science lab in the basement of a suburban home and a guy in a cheap ape suit. But then it’s also (thanks to some inserted footage) a sleazy grindhouse movie complete with implied rape, lots and lots of boobs, and a whole heck of a lotta cheap as shit gore! And when I say a lot, I mean a lot. There’s face squishin’s, head rippin’s and eye poppin’s a plenty as our lovable ape-man goes on several rampages over the course of the film. There’s even some real (!) heart surgery footage thrown in there for good measure! Aye carumba!
This feeling of being two totally different movies (which I guess it kind of is) really makes this one hard to wrap your head around. It probably doesn’t help that the dubbing is some of the worst ever recorded, a result of the voice actors having to read literally translated Spanish word for word. And thus we get gems like
“…it’s more probable that of late more and more you’ve been watching on your television many of those pictures of terror!”
And a closing bit of dialogue that makes it seem like our heroes are just kind of shrugging off the events of the entire film!
So even with the excessive blood and nudity (and even the heart surgery) the film still remains too goofy to really be all that offensive. I mean there’s a scene where the man-beast slowly walks through his house still wearing his pajamas while scare chords blare on the soundtrack. In the early scenes where they steal the gorilla from the zoo, the close ups are stock footage of an orangutan but when it’s shot with a dart, it turns into a man in a cheap gorilla suit! So I’m not sure why this of all things was put into the UK censorship board’s cross-hairs. It reportedly had something to do with the video cover, which featured a pair of bloody surgeon’s hands, which means that they’re just as dumb as this film is.
Conclusion: A must watch for fans of nutso low budget trash!
Watch the trailer here (Just a warning, it does feature quite a bit of the surgery footage!)
- The graphic inserted footage was filmed by the guy that did the exact same thing for another one of my favorite bits of Mexican grindhouse madness, The Curious Dr. Humpp. Although the extra stuff inserted into that masterpiece was of a decidedly more pornographic bent!
- The color palette for this film sure does include a lot of red and green, and I can’t for the life of me figure out why.
- Is there such a thing as too many gratuitous shower scenes? I think this movie has like three in a very short space of time!
- Oddly, this is actually a remake of the original director’s earlier film Las Luchadoras contra el medico asesino (The Wrestling Women vs. the Murderous Doctor). I guess he felt like he didn’t say everything he wanted to with the original?
- I’m still a bit disappointed that there was no female wrestler vs. ape-man action happening onscreen. I mean, why set it up that’s how she makes her money if you’re not going to go anywhere with it? Film, I am disappoint.
Next Time: We enter the 70’s proper with Twitch of the Death Nerve
Video Nasty #1 of 72
Year of Release: 1963
Directed by: Herschell Gordon Lewis
Run Time: 67 minutes
Alternate Titles: Originally advertised at drive-ins as Egyptian Blood Feast
UK Censorship Status: Released with 23 seconds cut in 2001. Re-released uncut in 2005.
We open on a woman returning home from somewhere (we later find out it was work). She takes off her coat and switches on the radio, which is broadcasting a warning about a psycho murderer roaming the streets. She gives a disgusted face and then shuts the radio off. Undisturbed, she disrobes and gets into the bathtub. She hasn’t soaked for very long when a shadow falls over her! It’s a man wielding a machete! He stabs her in the eye, killing her instantly and then hacks off one of her legs before leaving the scene. The camera lingers on the carnage like a teenage boy ogling his first pair of breasts. Cue opening titles…
For anyone familiar with slasher films, this scene is going to produce a bit of deja vu. It’s a pretty basic set up and nasty pay off that you can find in about a million cheap gore films made throughout the 70’s and 80’s. The thing is, this isn’t either of those decades, this is 1963!
One of the many amazing things about Blood Feast is that there was really no precedent for its existence. There had been splatter films made before in Japan but nothing on this level had ever been seen in American cinemas, especially with the stranglehold the Production Code had held there since the mid 1930’s. This is even more amazing if you know that the Code hadn’t even been abolished yet! It was a few years before a slew of more mainstream films started chipping away at the censorship board and a full five years before the new ratings system was put into place. For all its many faults director Herschell Gordon Lewis’ and producer David F. Friedman’s cheap little slasher really was ground breaking and oddly historically significant. But how does it stand up after decades of imitations and rip-offs that followed in it’s wake?
To give you an idea of how wonderfully loopy this film is, you should know that a large plot point centers on an evil book club! Not just any evil book club, however. This one is run by a Mr. Fuad Rhamses (Mal Arnold who also appeared in Lewis’s sickie Scum of the Earth), exotic caterer extraordinaire. Of course, a loopy movie needs a loopy villain and boy does Rhamses ever fit the part! If his habit of cutting apart members on his book club list to revive Egyptian goddess Ishtar (not actually an Egyptian goddess) wasn’t enough, Arnold imbibes the character with what’s possibly the very essence of camp, before camp was even invented. He seems to be relishing every bit of goofy dialogue that comes out of his mouth and chews the scenery with gleeful abandon. But my favorite thing about this character is that he’s supposed to be an old man but he’s really a young man who’s hair (and eyebrows!) have been unconvincingly spray painted grey! Besides his limp, and the times people mention his age, there’s no other indication that he’s supposed to be a senior citizen! So there’s your first slasher movie villain, how about the victims?
Well, the main one is 1963 Playboy playmate of the month Connie Mason, who certainly wasn’t cast for her acting abilities because, well, she really has none. At all. Her performance can probably best be described as somewhere between a small child reading off a Teleprompter and someone with a bit part in a school play. Even the other actors were reportedly bothered by her lack of skill, which is really saying something since no one in this movie can act their way out of a paper bag!
As Fuad moves through a series of nubile young things, most with beehive hairdos, chopping off body parts along the way he still has to manage his business which, in a rather convoluted way, leads him to cater a party for Connie Mason. Mason, in another bit of coincidence that should shock nobody, is also dating the police detective (former sideshow barker William Kerwin who eventually married Mason) that’s trying to solve the recent string of brutal murders! Oh the humanity! (As a side note: everybody in this film seems to know everybody. It’s like everything that happens onscreen is self contained in it’s own cheap bloody universe!)
To be blunt, Blood Feast is not a very good movie in the strictest sense of the word. Lewis was never a great director at the best of times and his first stab at a horror film after years and years of nudie movies is shaky at best. The sets are dirt cheap, the acting is grade school level, and the screenplay is atrocious. Everything about the film is just…tacky. It’s like John Waters before John Waters started making movies. The difference is that Waters is a talented film maker that makes campy trash on purpose while I doubt Lewis could have possibly made anything else!
But it’s hard to complain when everything is just so much goddamn fun. And that’s really the difference between this and a lot of the nasty trash that came out in its wake. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen this movie now and I still laugh like an idiot every time I watch it. One really gets the feeling that the whole movie is just one big joke and indeed there’s a certain sick gleefulness to every frame of the movie that gives this away. It’s hard to imagine anybody writing and delivering lines like “Have you ever had…an EGYPTIAN FEAST?” or “Well Frank this looks like another one of those long hard ones!” without knowing that it was goofy as all get out. This isn’t a serious movie at all and anyone looking for meaning beyond giving a middle finger to basic human decency with one hand while grabbing piles of cash with the other should have their tongue ripped out and put into a stew pot.
So, yes. I would say that Blood Feast holds up really well in sort of an odd way. Even the gore, while incredibly cheap, is surprisingly plentiful and quite explicit, even by today’s standards (check out that tongue ripping scene! Yeesh!). While I don’t think this is the best Lewis/Friedman collaboration, that would probably be 1964’s Two Thousand Maniacs!, it’s still one of my very favourite films and a damn good one to start this project out with.
I’m still not sure why it’s on the Nasties list while stuff like Lewis’s The Gore Gore Girls or The Wizard of Gore aren’t but that’s really the magic of censorship, isn’t it? It’s wonderfully nonsensical in both the best and worst ways.
- Out of all the bad acting in this movie my favorite is probably the guy who’s girlfriend gets killed on the beach. Dude over acts so hard it’s almost like his head is going to explode!
- To give you an idea of just how wonderfully cheap Blood Feast was, there’s a dream sequence where a woman gets stabbed on an alter…and the knife is very obviously plastic!
- While there’s very little nudity on display, it’s very obvious in some places that the film’s producer and director both came from the sexploitation industry. There’s a whipping scene in particular that’s almost kinky!
- Lewis on his own movie: “I’ve often referred to Blood Feast as a Walt Whitman poem. It’s no good, but it was the first of its type.” Ouch!
Next Time: Andy Milligan’s The Ghastly Ones