Well whether you like it or not Blood Feast will always be a landmark movie. This is truly the year zero when it comes to depictions of graphic cinematic violence. Sure it wasn't the first movie to show scenes of gore but it took the concept to an unheard of level, basing the entire movie around the idea. Director H. G. Lewis is nothing if not fearless in his presentation of blood and guts. While the gore scenes are hardly realistic, they are often somewhat nasty. Lewis's subsequent gore movies follow this specific template, where they are simultaneously funny and mean-spirited. A crazy combination that simply should be a disaster but in the case of Blood Feast, the sheer audacity of it is jaw-dropping. It's a film that sure has its flaws. Production values are extremely low and the acting is often mind-boggling. Lewis's camera work is at best, uneven. But, frankly, the scenes of carnage are so in your face, and do not disappoint. The film remains far more violent than most horror films today and it's difficult to imagine what audiences of the early 60's would have made of the atrocities that spooled before their eyes. I expect it must've been a mixture of appalled outrage and morbid glee.
Mal Arnold is pretty unforgettable as the murderous caretaker. His delivery of lines is just nuts; it often looks like he is reading off a board just off-screen. He's a lot of fun. Connie Mason provides the eye-candy and she is hardly an actress, but her stiff line-delivery fits into this trash-opus perfectly. Lewis himself is of course hugely unpretentious and straightforward as a film director, so he basically points the camera at the action and films, there is no artistry in Blood Feast. But this is very much a part of the fun, as this is pure exploitation with no apologies. In my opinion this remains Lewis's best feature. I realise it has many, many faults but I just find the whole thing a very entertaining trash-fest. And one of the most important exploitation films in history too.
