Fantastic!

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Blood Feast apparently derives its notoriety from basically two facts: 1. it has gore; 2. it is at least recognized as the first "splatter" movie, in that it showed visceral gore. Both are indeed facts in that they are true. But what else? Is Blood Feast a good movie? Not really. The 1960's had already seen the in-your-face horror of Hitchcock's Psycho, but where that movie plays with the audience emotions in an intelligent way and is clearly a product of talented film making; Blood Feast is a prime example of cheap, exploitative and amateurish grind house film making. Maybe that is a merit in itself.The gore serves as the only major attention drawer in a film with abysmal acting, camera use, sound and script. Only watch this if you're a fan of "so bad, it's good". And even then Blood Feast disappoints.

This is probably up there in the top ten best drive-in classics of all time. It shocked audiences when it premiered because there is a kind of gruesome scene where the villain, Ramses pulls out a beautiful girls tongue. Ramses is trying to bring about some god or something and is killing girls in gruesome ways to cook them up for an Egyptian Feast. The sets literally look like cardboard. All of the characters from the cops to the victims were complete idiots. Even the make-up and costumes are ridiculous. The script was so bad and the acting was so stiff, it's laughable. How can something some bad be so entertaining? I'm not sure if Hershel Gordon Lewis meant for this to be tongue in cheek humor or what. I know he is a schlock auteur in the ranks of Ed Wood and Lloyd Kaufman and was probably working on a shoe-string budget. I do love these type of movies though. They are some much fun to watch and Hershel Gordon Lewis was a crazy genius in his own right.

Blood Feast his best remembered now for being a landmark in horror films as been the first film to really capitalise and show off great amounts of gore by the bucketful. The film was shot on a low budget of $24,000 over 4 days with cast mostly amateur actors and without a finished script. the film is pretty inept and shows signs on the speed it was made with actors not given time to learn their lines (last minute replacement Scott Hall can clearly be seen reading his lines off his hand in two scenes!) and the acting pretty appalling with widely over the top Mal Arnold and half decent William Kerwin coming of best. The completely wooden but attractive Connie Mason comes off worst. the films plot and characters are generally daft but serve the purpose of getting to the point of showing the gruesome gore. Hershel Gordon Lewis would go on to make many gore films the best been Two Thousand Maniacs and The Wizard of Gore.

Blood Feast stars Mal Arnold as mad, murderous maniac Fuad Ramses, a man who is clearly evil from the ridiculous size of his eyebrows, his lame leg, his menacing glower, and the completely malevolent manner in which he rubs his hands together. But although he's the last guy in the world you or I would trust as a caterer, Mrs. Dorothy Fremont (Lyn Bolton) is only too happy to let him prepare the food for her daughter Suzette's dinner party, and seems genuinely surprised when she discovers that the crazy Egyptian's ancient feast consists of human body parts, and that poor Suzette (Connie Mason) is intended to be the final ingredient.As the first ever 'splatter' movie, H. G. Lewis's Blood Feast is an undeniably important entry in the annals of horror cinema, ushering in a new, much bloodier era for the genre; but although it is certainly a taboo shattering and highly influential film, the fact remains that it is also a dreadfully amateurish and rather tiresome effort—one that even the director himself admits was far from great: 'It was no damn good', he has said of the film, 'but it was the first of its kind'.Not only does the film feature some of the crappiest acting in movie history (Lyn Bolton deservedly receives flak for her awful performance, but I reckon Gene Courtier, as a victim's distraught boyfriend, is even worse: he looks like he's laughing!), but the direction is also extremely dull (with constant use of overlong static shots), and the music is abysmal. Even the film's major selling point—the ground-breaking gore—fails to impress, consisting of an unconvincing collection of mannequin limbs coated with red paint and liberally scattered with offal.On top of all that, we also get a supposed ancient Egyptian female sacrifice bearing bikini tan marks, an Egyptian themed dinner party for which no one dresses appropriately and which features absolutely no decoration, and a laughable finale in which Fuad, pursued by Suzette's policeman boyfriend Pete Thornton (William Kerwin), climbs into the back of a garbage truck and is immediately crushed to death.Since 1963, Lewis's admittedly intriguing premise has been dealt with several times: in the enjoyable trashy horror flick Mardi Gras Massacre (1978), awful unofficial sequel Blood Diner (1987), and most recently, in Lewis' own follow up, Blood Feast 2: All U Can Eat (2002).