Bloodfeast
 

How is this? its only 67 mins long, so is there enoguh blood packed in that little time span to satisfy?

If memory serves me correctly...its pretty cheesy.

certainly is cheesy prob the first gore film. Avoid the sequel.

really? i heard Bloodfeast 2 was great and much gorier.

i could forgive Bloodfeast for low production values & everything else because it was made in 1963 & PROBABLY one of the first gore movies? the sequel was only made a couple of years ago & it's worse i heard they were going for a 60's feel for the film which is supposed to explain the poor acting, dialogue, effects etc.

ya but with a title like Bloodfeast, im not excpeting good diologue or nice directing or good acting or anything of that sort. just gore:D

The gore is excessive for its time, and as long as you can suspend any post-modern cynicism enough to remember it's 1963 there is a lot of fun in Blood Feast.

The script, acting (Connie Mason!) and direction are strictly B-movie, but great downbeat music and definately one of the first "gore/slasher" films (certainly the first to make an impact).

Lewis' Two Thousand Maniacs! and The Gore Gore Girls are better, though.

this movies great. You'll start laughing once you here the beach boyfriend cry or the luitenant reading the script off the palm of his hand.

Brilliant. I really love this film. Total trash and some pretty gnarly gore for the time. I enjoyed Gruesome Twosome aswell and am looking foward to checking out his other films at some point.

What was the first gore film? I've always read that this was it (well i guess it's the earliest well known example).

:confused: