top of page

Questions and Answers

Public·13 membres

Blood In, Blood Out YIFY

I am sure that when this movie debuted, people were shocked at its violence and blood, though by today's standards it's awfully tame--especially since the blood is obviously not the correct color (looking more like crimson paint) and the "guts" don't really look like internal organs at all. Frankly, for a "gore picture", this is one you can probably let the kids watch...unless your kid is likely to imitate the actions of Adam Sorg! The film is a super-low budget picture--the sort of trashy film that Hershell Gordon Lewis was known for making. There is no attempt to use competent actors, have good production values or make anything other than 100% schlock. So, considering that he INTENDED on making such a craptacular film, you really can't be too hard on the final product. It's bad--but I don't think the film makers intended anything else. Now Lewis made LOTS of rotten films, but some of them managed to be entertaining despite their many, many shortcomings. This and TWO THOUSAND MANIACS! happen to have enough going for them that they are enjoyable in a kitschy sort of way. Not all Hershell Gordon Lewis films are alike, though, as many are not just bad but pretty much unwatchable, such as his MONSTER A GO-GO and THE Gruesome TWOSOME.The film is basically a rip-off of Roger Corman's BUCKET OF BLOOD (which, despite the title, is a very good film). Unlike BUCKET OF BLOOD, the acting in COLOR ME BLOOD RED is really bad--really, really bad. And, while Corman made a lot of bad films, his style was usually excellent. COLOR ME BLOOD RED is just pure cheese. Like the previous film, this one concerns a crazy artist who manages to impress the critics when he kills people to make his art. In BUCKET OF BLOOD, the crazed artist covers dead people in clay and in COLOR ME BLOOD RED the nut-job is looking for that 'perfect' red for his paintings and happens upon blood!! The film begins with Sorg having his first one-man art show. However, he's infuriated when an art critic savages his use of color. Later, Sorg's lady friend cuts herself and bleeds on a canvas accidentally--at which point he is inspired to use blood! The problem is that he needs a lot, so he takes to killing. Why he didn't just try animal blood or talk to a blood bank or get groups of people to donate blood for his cause, I don't know! I guess this wouldn't have made an interesting film.By the way, it's a tad off topic, but get a load of the first lady Sorg kills. Throughout the movie, this lady ALWAYS runs around in leotards like a dancer. She drives that way, goes to art shows that way and goes to the beach that way. It seems that this was such a low budget film that they couldn't even afford clothes for this lady! Back to Sorg. Now his art is loved by this snobby critic and he is in great demand. However, he suddenly refuses to sell these bloody paintings (I thought a couple of them were pretty cool)! And, because it's like eating potato chips, he can't stop with killing only one person. However, this is no bloodbath film--he only kills three during the course of the film. It all comes to an end when he's about to kill victim #4--when her goofy boyfriend and her even goofier friends come to the rescue.Overall, despite being a terrible film in every way (acting, direction, a stolen plot, dialog, etc.), the pieces all seem to fit together to make a reasonably watchable exploitation film. It's bad, but fun in its quirky way. I'd give it a 1 or 2 for technical merit but a 5 for watchability. Overall, a 3 seems about right.It was interesting to me to note that this film was made in Sarasota, Florida--just a few miles down the road from my house. Sadly, however, I have visited Sarasota's famous Ringling Museum of Art and have never seen any of Adam Sorg's paintings in the gallery!! Nor, for that matter, has the film been shown at the prestigious Sarasota Film Festival. Go figure!

Blood In, Blood Out YIFY

Well a song goes black, but who has black blood? No one is the answer in case you thought this was not a rhetorical question. At least no one on planet earth (sorry aliens, if I didn't include you, but the movie didn't either). All kidding aside and with some filler jokes from me - this is what the movie does too. You get the main storyline where someon discovers he paints good with blood and then you get all these other things so the movie is full length.Not enganging and pacing wise really awful. Had some neat ideas for the time it was made and many see HGL as an innovator, which is not far removed from the truth. But the movie has not aged well - and the blown up running time that is irrelevant does not help at all

This is the final film in the infamous Blood Trilogy from director Herschell Gordon Lewis and producer David Friedman. The trilogy also includes superior films "Blood Feast" and "Two Thousand Maniacs". While "Color Me Blood Red" is the most inferior film in the trilogy, it is still worth at least a one time viewing. The film does lack one thing that the other 2 films in the trilogy have and that is an original score. Both of the previous entries include a soundtrack that was scored by Lewis himself but for some odd reason he decided to use "canned" music for this one. The gore effects are also inferior to the other 2 entries...there aren't as many but one effect in particular is especially grotesque (this would be the scene where a woman is shown strung from the ceiling with her intestines dangling out and the villain squeezes the blood out of them in order to finish his painting). All in all this is one of the least entertaining of Lewis' gore films but is definitely worth a peek.

The plot of Hershell Gordon Lewis "Blood Feast" is paper-thin:a sinister shop owner is trying to resurrect an Egyptian goddess Ishtar by butchering and dismembering beautiful girls.Fun-filled gore romp with cheesy acting and inept splatter scenes.The tongue removal scene is legendary among horror fans.The plot is just an excuse to move from one bloody murder scene to the next.I am fairly sure that back in 1963 images from "Blood Feast" were shocking for the audience from that time.That's why Hershell Gordon Lewis chunk-blower is so important as perhaps the first gore film ever made.Don't take "Blood Feast" seriously - it's just a gross-out horror comedy.7 blood feasts out of 10.

The same night I saw BLOOD FEAST, I also saw another of director Hershell Gordon Lewis' films, TWO THOUSAND MANIACS (which turned out to be a pretty good film). So the fact that I gave one of these films a positive review is ample evidence that I haven't got a grudge against his films and his very low-budget style. Heck, it's possible to make a decent film on a shoestring budget, as films like CARNIVAL OF SOULS (1962) and VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED (1960) were amazingly good films despite the low production values. In light of this and the over 5400 movies I have reviewed, it says a lot when I declare that BLOOD FEAST has the worst acting I have ever seen--and I have seen SANTA CLAUS VERSUS THE MARTIANS, ROBOT MONSTER and THE BEAST OF YUCCA FLATS!! The film is about a homicidal maniac that rips women apart to appease his sick goddess. Ostensibly, she is an Egyptian goddess, though everything about her, the cannibalism and history of Egypt is pure crap and seems to come from Lewis' fertile imagination. But, with a title like BLOOD FEAST, this is a minor consideration to say the least! The real star of the film is the gore and I have to admit that for a film from 1963, the gore is exceptionally realistic. Sure they make gorier films today with top-notch effects, but for 1963 it was groundbreaking AND the blood looked much more realistic than other films of the era.So if the film was so important to the history of gore films, why does it still earn a 1? After all, the effects weren't bad. Well, let's get back to the acting. It was worse than any high school production I have seen--and I know what I am talking about since I teach in a high school and have seen at least a dozen productions. Any of the kids at my school could have acted circles around the bozos who appeared in BLOOD FEAST. Many of the "actors" had difficulty reading their lines and each time they were required to show emotion it was frankly hilarious! In particular, the time the guy is attacked and his girlfriend is murdered is bad! When the cops tell him that she's dead, his emotional tirade is unintentionally comical! A bit later, when the victim's mother is told, she appears to be trying to hide her laughter when she "cries". It's bad,....real bad.Now the bad acting could be chalked up to the production values, but that would be a mistake. The "director" never seemed to re-shoot any scene no matter how badly botched and he seemed to do nothing to elicit anything resembling acting from the actors. Much of this is because when he should have been directing, Lewis was actually busy filming the picture and was too busy to offer any coaching or guidance. The fools just seemed like they were told to "act sad" and were left to wing it! I could talk more about the dopey plot and the actor who looked like a shorter version of Michael Richards who did all the killing, but frankly who cares?! The bottom line is that this film is every bit as bad as the worst of Ed Wood, Jr. and for fans of bad films that means this film is pure gold! To normal folks, though, watching this would probably be pretty tough having surgery without anesthesia!

Ever have an Egyptian feast? No? Well, you are in for a treat because in this film we have the incredible coincidence of an Egyptian caterer who wants to prepare an Egyptian blood feast and the mother of a student of Egyptian cults who wants to give her a special taste of Egypt. But, little does she know, this might result in a variety of gruesome murders.Herschell Gordon Lewis is the godfather of gore. This is a well-known fact and I could sing his praises here for paragraphs at a time... but I will not. Instead, I want to give credit to Mal Arnold, the actor who played Fuad Ramses. He was quirky, weird-looking and creepy. His acting was pretty awful, but compared to the acting of everyone else he seemed the most professional. (It is actually really funny how forced most of the dialogue seems.) As pointed out in my review for "Wizard of Gore", Lewis loves eyes and Ramses has the perfect "wild eyes".I am curious about who was going to eat the feast before the party came to Ramses' attention. He was already preparing it. So, like, does he just ask random customers if they are looking for an Egyptian feast and hopes that one will take him up on the offer? And should I care that this film constantly references Egypt while the god they refer to (Ishtar) is actually Babylonian with no Egyptian connection? I should care, but frankly, I do not.And here is why: the blood. Sure, the blood was paint-like... but it was also awesome. The color schemes in the 1960s make the bright blood of "Blood Feast" appropriate. Today it would look silly, but at the time it is actually rather gross, which is the intended goal when you are a gore master, I assume. Plenty of hacked up people (legs, tongues and more removed on screen).I have written that "Blood Feast" is on par with "Wizard of Gore" as far as being his masterpiece. So if you are looking for a taste of Lewis-style carnage, this is a great place to start. From the bloody beginning to the bone-crushing end, this is a tale of massacre and incompetent police that low-budget horror fans eat up like fava beans.As of September 2011, you can have this film in your collection on Blu-Ray, thanks to Image Entertainment. Besides the new technology, there are commentaries from Lewis and producer David Friedman, as well as plenty of special goodies. I would strongly urge anyone to pick it up. 041b061a72

À propos

Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...
bottom of page