Blood Cult

"Blood Cult" opens pretty promising with two pretty gruesome murders within the first 15 minutes. Then it goes into normal slasher fare with none of the later killings being as near as interesting as the first two, all set around what appears to be a 70 something year old Sheriffs investigation (he even narrates some of the film). The later half pretty much turns into a cult conspiracy movie, with the reveal of the killer being handled pretty well since the film doesn't really give you any red herrings. There's a lot of dull dialogue, padding, and bad acting particularly from our sheriff hero, but, it's far from the worst SOV I've ever seen.

I've been reading a book by screenwriter John Russo called "Making Movies," and that's the main reason why I was curious about checking this movie out in the first place. I read a chapter talking about how this was the first direct-to-video movie ever made, and the budget was extremely small. Being an aspiring filmmaker, I'm more intrigued by the small-budget films than those with big budgets. I don't visualize myself making the next summer blockbuster in 2 or 3 years, but I do visualize myself making a small-budget independent film or, to be more realistic, a small-budget student film. And it always fascinates me how filmmakers are able to make movies on such low budgets, using just the bare essentials and sometimes less.

Some have complained about the movie being shot on video. I happened to appreciate the look of the movie. Though it could've been much better, by watching "Blood Cult" I realized that shooting a feature-length movie on regular video equipment is not a bad idea. We almost never see a movie shot on video, but there are many TV shows (sitcoms, soap operas, reality shows, etc.) that are shot on video, and it doesn't exactly break the fourth wall. As long as you don't frame shots like you're framing your aunt in a home video, the movie can look quite cool. So I definitely felt Christopher Lewis (the director) came up with a fine concept. Hey, it's better to watch old video footage than grainy old film footage. Film shows its age much more.

I've seen a lot of bad horror movies, and I've seen much worse. "BC" is not completely awful, considering its standards. I tried to think of it as a student film. When you watch a student film, you're not expecting "The Godfather." So I took it with a grain of salt, accepting the movie for what it is and keeping its microscopic budget in mind.

First of all, the acting is fairly good. Of course, I'm discounting the women who played the victims, whose screams were so unconvincing. I don't know anybody who flaps their arms like a bird when they scream. The now-deceased actor who plays the sheriff is pretty good, and it's obvious that he was a veteran of stage. However, there are a couple of scenes where he's obviously looking down at his lines on a cheat sheet. He could've been a little more subtle. Most of the performances are one-dimensional, but so are the characters. So what can you do? Plus, I've heard much worse dialogue in horror movies as well.

The special f/x are beyond cheesy, with body parts that look they were purchased from Party City on Halloween. But you just have to laugh at stuff like that.

The story is not bad, and gets better as it goes along. As I've said, there are much cheesier horror movies out there, and "BC" is mildly impressive for its budget. Not a great film, not even a good film, but worth a look.

My score: 5 (out of 10)

Found this winner on the shelf at my local blockbuster. Not bad. For what it is, its a great b-movie with a very little if no budget. The cast is made up of a group of local friends. Far from professional, they hold your interests. Shot somewhere in Kansas or Oklahoma, its nice to see a straight to video (video) movie that made it to the video stores. The same style of direction from the film makers earlier movie, The Ripper, he takes video to the next level when other horror movie makers fail. A nice attempt to make a feature length movie, when you have less than a 90 page script. A lot of the scenes drag, but is needed to make a 90 minute story. An overall nice horror movie worth renting when there's nothing else worth getting at your video store.

In a nutshell some serial killer is avenging the burning of witches by collecting body parts from his victims.

This is reportedly the first direct-to-video movie, and it looks it.

It seems to have been made with college actors, as they are thoroughly unconvincing when they plead for their lives.

The shower scene, a common feature of slasher films shows nothing. We don't even see the girl hacked to dead; just blood splatter. In fact, we never really see the kind of hacking we expect to see in slasher films.

It was an interest story, but a poor slasher film.

I can honestly report that this is the worst movie ever. My dad is in it, and that offers no consolation. In fact, it makes it even worse because I have to watch him make out with that very large, unattractive woman. I was only a year old when he made this movie, so I am NOT to be held responsible! The saddest part of all is that my dad, a rather well-received writer, made revisions on the script for it to make even as little sense as it does. It was beyond help, he said. Remember, when you watch this movie, James Vance did NOT want to be in it! He was forced to by an employer!! It's a disgusting piece of garbage with no redeeming qualities except that the audio is so bad you can hardly understand it anyway. If you are thinking about renting or buying this film, please don't. Oh, and just as a side note: it was only banned from Oklahoma campuses because it was filmed at them. The schools were so embarrassed by the final copy that they wouldn't show it. There you have it: if I, the daughter of one of the actor's, admits that it's bad, run screaming in the other direction!