Blood Cult (1985 Video) User Reviews

I Never Could Find His Head!

[sol-kay · 3/10 · 17 March 2006]

**SPOILERS** The killer in the movie doesn't wait a second as we see him sneaking into a girls shower and hacking her to death taking her severed and bloodied arm as he makes his getaway. We then get this official looking prologue, as if were watching a true story, stating that a number of gruesome murders were committed in the late fall of 1985 in a small mid-western collage.

Grandfatherly looking, and hearing impaired, Sheriff Ron Delboys is baffled by this murder and later when the murders of local collage students, all women, continues his run for state senator is in jeopardy with him bumbling the investigation at every turn. There's at least two times when Delboys says that they'll never be another murder as long as he's on the case and within minutes another murder happens.

Finding a golden amulet at the scene of each murder the sheriff's daughter, the collage librarian, Tina finds this reference book about Withcraft indicating that the amulet is a symbol of a witches cult that originated in the early 1700 just after the Salem Witch Trials. This cult was out to avenge the 19 accused witches hung by the local townspeople back in 1692 and they went out at night killing men and women of authority and taking off with a body part. When the body parts would form a complete person they would be burned in an occult midnight bonfire ritual.

You never get a handle to what's exactly happening in the movie "Blood Cult" not just because it's totally disjointed story but it's ever more outrageous and grad-school level acting especially by Charles Ellis playing the butterfingered sheriff Ron Delboys. With him getting himself into more trouble then even the on the loose killer could have gotten him into. The bumbling Sheriff Delboys ends up with his head busted his coffee spiked as well as almost being burned alive after almost being dismembered. The only reason he wasn't is because he seemed to have dreamed it all up while under the influence of some strong and unnamed drug.

There's a weird dream sequence in the movie suggesting that a number of highly respected members of the community are members of the Witches Cult that's responsible for the sorority murders. The movie doesn't bother to explain at all if the dream, that the drugged Sheriff Delboys had, was a dream or actually a real experience on his part by dropping the whole thing as if it were cut out of the movie!

Getting out of the hospital and staking out the collage sorority house, while munching down a bag full of McDonald cheeseburgers, Sheriff Delboys finally comes face to face with the killer. Shefiff Delboys find out to his shock and amazement that not only does he know who he, or she, is but he's also willing to let the killer escape!

The very first straight to video motion picture and it shows. Not only would no one it their right mind be crazy enough to pay admission, at least with the video you can tape over it Thank God, to see this disaster but no movie-house owner would dare play it on their screen without the danger of the outraged patrons, in a justifiable show of righteous indignation, tear the place apart!

A slasher film with no nudity.

[lastliberal · 2/10 · 7 April 2010]

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.

Goodnight,

[Tromafreak · 2/10 · 15 June 2010]

Wow, OK. I've been watching low-budget Horror for way too long. I suppose I've seen all the good ones. And I guess I've also seen all the not-so good ones. Yet there seems to be a bottom-less pit of terrible Z-grade flicks, just waiting to be discovered by those who are perhaps tired of Troma and H.G. Lewis. B-movies officially went from "bad" to "terrible" when people started thinking it was OK to use a video camera, and for the record, it was never OK!! But they did it anyway. And so, B officially becomes Z, and for the most part, the indie Horror director threw all pride out the window. Especially considering the one I saw, recently... Wait a minute. What movie are we talking about again? Oh yeah, that's right. A film that is apart of the S.O.V. revolution of the mid-80's, yet somehow manages to be overrated as all hell, while all the rest are considered to be nothing. Why have I read so many positive things about Blood Cult? Do people just get a kick out of getting online and lying about random movies, just so unsuspecting schlock-collecting fools pay their hard-earned money for garbage? That's just sick. I've seen more than my share of cam-corder epics from this era (Blood Lake), and none, and I mean none of them can compare to this big box of Melatonin. Explaining the premise would be pointless, because chances are good that you'd just get bored and stop reading, and then probably go read about something awesome like Killing Spree. Besides, I don't even know, nor do I care what happened. So, anyway, what is it about Blood Cult that would not make someone hate it? Why is it more appreciated, and well-known than its counterparts, such as Cannibal Campout? That movie is awful. I mean really, really awful. Yet, I wasn't bored, and I sure as hell didn't fall sleep. I'll just say it. I thought Cannibal Campout was awesome. Yet, there isn't one single moment of entertainment-value to be found in the steaming pile of boredom that is Blood Cult. I didn't chuckle. I didn't smile once. Not even a smirk. And when it was all over, I couldn't recall one word uttered. I really was expecting, and looking forward something worthwhile, but I can honestly say that watching Blood Cult was the single most dull experience of my life. So, when I make outrageous claims, such as "You'd be better off watching Blood Lake", you would be wise to listen. I hate you, Blood Cult. 1/10

Good God, rent this film

[Jumby007 · 1/10 · 23 May 2003]

Let me see...I've seen every film Lou Ferrigno has made. I've seen Batman & Robin...twice. I've memorized the dances in Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo...I've watched unfinished Blade Runner rip-off student films...yet this film is the most painful thing I've ever seen.

This was the first movie for the "straight to video market." So you can thank Blood Cult for all of those mysterious Michael Dudikoff films at your local Blockbuster. You should know that this isn't even high quality video. This is consumer grade. This is you father's video camera he never uses. This is what you have to look at for 90 minutes.

I won't bore you with plot details since I'm getting sleepy just thinking about it, but I will tell you that watching this movie is a form of torture. I only watch this movie when I am angry at myself. So I recommend this film if you are suicidal, or if you are up for a mighty challenge.

If you happen to rent this film (God have mercy) you will know what you are in for from the first 10 minutes. This is when you are hit by the usual horror film intro. You know the drill. There's a lot of suspense and build up before some girl dies. Yes, you've seen it before, but not like this. This is the most boring intro I've ever seen. I honestly believe that you could get a camera off ebay for ten dollars, grab the bum that most smells like gin and candy, and tell him to film your mom cooking dinner and it would be more interesting than this intro. It bored me to tears. I cried like a baby.

Another one of the things that makes this film so unbelievably painful is its actors. Yes, I've seen bad acting. TRUST ME. I've seen 4th grade productions of Oliver Twist with more realistic dialog. The lead actor makes me ill. The "supporting" actress is a train-wreck of a human.

I will not even comment on the boyfriend. True horror.

So, rent this movie if you can find it. You'll never be more depressed that you spent 3 dollars on anything else.

Not all THAT bad

[MovieLuvaMatt · 5/10 · 4 July 2003]

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)

Terrifyingly horrible!

[fetusdmilo · 1/10 · 2 June 2002]

What can I say? This was hands-down the worst movie I have ever seen in my life (and believe me, some of my favorite movies are admittedly horrible). The acting was amateurish, the sets were boring, and the camerawork was shoddy and sophomoric. This whole movie seemed like a college final project. I had to keep convincing myself that it was done by a teenager to make it seem somewhat good. The most disturbing factor of the "film" is that it's not even film at all-- it 's shot on video. That was extremely distracting. On top of all that, the dialogue is simply disastrous and the plot line is so basic it makes my eyes water. Not to mention they steal from at least four other horror movies in the first 20 minutes or so. If there were such a thing as zero stars, this movie would get it.

The only thing scary about this movie is how bad it is.

Hmmm...

[Chainsaw Slasher · 9 July 2002]

I got this movie on dvd for the pure reason that it was a slasher movie. This would be a decent movie if the acting was better, i mean its just terrible, beyond terrible. The best actor is the chinese cook in the campus cafeteria. The death scenes were kool, but would be better if the women being slaughtered acted a lot better. Ive seen bad acting, but the acting in this movie looks like someone is acting acting. Movies ok, just needs better acting and more death. You can definitly tell that the film was made by non horror fans, which also kind of kills it.

plug-ugly direct-to-video trailblazer without a single brain cell in its head

[jonathan-577 · 1/10 · 9 September 2009]

Hitting the ground running, the film begins with THREE murders in a row. No plot, no characters, no motivation; the second murder happens off screen, and that victim's severed head is actually used to quite efficiently bludgeon the third victim to death! This is a high point. But the Lewises are obviously smart enough to lead with strength; soon they're covering up botched dialogue scenes with detective voice-over and shooting endless snappy repartee in ugly wide shot. By now this Betacam production's horror atmosphere is rapidly giving way to an insurance infomercial vibe, with the monumental (and rather endearing) plainness of the leads skewing things further in that direction. Shlub cop investigates, meat cleaver guy slaughters, repeat, climaxing early with a memorable severed-finger-in-the-salad gag. Only, how the hell did the fingers get in the salad? And wasn't the Blood Cult's purpose to collect the appendages they severed? When the GORE stops making sense, you know you're in trouble. And without spoiling the big, nonsensical twist ending, just take my word for it: the fascinating incompetence of the first scenes gives way to a deep cathode-tube-smashing impulse. The basic reaction is to try to put it behind you and get on with your life.

low budget with surprisingly good effects

[trashgang · 3/10 · 22 May 2011]

A boring flick, that I can tell but with surprisingly good effects. It is really a zero budget filmed in 9 days but why people are hunting this one is that it was the first straight to video flick in the genre. That it was filmed in 9 days shows in the quality of the camera. They didn't use that much extra light because some scene's are a bit too dark, especially the night scene's. But as I said, the effects were done well. Just look at the body being found in a bin or the leg being slashed off. But it's a bit too much blah blah with a lot of hiss and almost no sound in the higher range. Some parts are a bit cheesy for example with the so-called Blood Cult. It's easy to find a copy of this one no on DVD for only a few euro's or dollars. If it wasn't the first straight to vid you would probably never see it again. One to have just to fill into your collection.

Shot-on-video z-grade horror.

[BA_Harrison · 2/10 · 23 December 2021]

Like a good little slasher movie, Blood Cult kicks off with a shower scene, a blonde co-ed's ablutions interrupted by a meat cleaver wielding maniac who hacks up the young woman and makes off with her arm. There's plenty of blood splashed about and we get to see her severed limb, but newbie director Christopher Lewis immediately drops the ball by not showing any gratuitous nudity (soapy belly and bare legs don't cut it). The lack of T&A is a red flag, warning the viewer that the film-makers don't really understand the rules of the genre.

A couple more bloody murders follow, including a woman bludgeoned to death with her room-mate's severed head and a girl attacked while taking out the trash; a body part is taken from each victim and a golden amulet left near the corpse. Town sheriff Ron Wilbois (Charles Ellis) investigates, and with a little help from his librarian daughter Tina (Juli Andelman) and her boyfriend Joel (James Vance), discovers the existence of an ancient cult of witches who worship the god Caninus.

Lewis then abandons the whole slasher angle, turning his film into a weak Wicker Man/Race With The Devil-style occult thriller that is both confusing and boring, wrapping up matters with a WTF? Ending that won't exactly have viewers hunting down the sequel in excitement (yes, there's a follow up to this garbage: Revenge, made the following year-and it's every bit as bad). To be fair, the film's killings are actually quite a bit of fun (especially the aforementioned 'head banging' scene), but everything else about the film is utter garbage -- amateurishly directed, poorly written and badly acted throughout. Also, Tina and Joel are one of the ugliest couples in horror - if you're going to bore me senseless with your terrible film, at least have the decency to cast some good looking people (I suppose I should count myself lucky that they didn't have a sex scene).

Dull with lots of padding, but, still far from the worst.

[b_kite · 5/10 · 11 July 2018]

"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.

This is pure art.

[Imagineerie · 10/10 · 22 March 2007]

The makers of this feature strived for the pure art form. If horror was one of the great forms of drama in Shakespeare's time, it would have been Blood Cult! This was what we toiled to achieve. As one of the participants of this fine piece of... piece of work, I must attest to the level of commitment, the craftsmanship, the honed sense of dedication by each and every one of us. If our baby would have been distributed in theaters, we certainly would've been nominated for a few Oscars... wouldn't we have? Don't all of you think that we.. that we would ... have gotten nomin...

Does this mean you guys didn't... you didn't like it? How could this possibly be!? But we made a sequel. Didn't that mean it was great? Oh well. Sometimes being bad feels REALLY good! ;)

A good bad movie

[caspian1978 · 6/10 · 12 April 2004]

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.

Poor

[Michael_Elliott · 13 October 2008]

Blood Cult (1985)

* (out of 4)

This film is best remembered for being the first film produced in order to go straight to VHS, which we all know became a very profitable venue for producers. In the film, sorority girls are being chopped up all over a small town so the sheriff must try and figure out what's going on. After some research he finally realizes that a Satanic cult is behind the murders. Outside the historic claims to the film there's really not too much here, although I must say that the movie, while pretty bad, never got too boring. The low budget (apparently 27-thousand) adds a certain charm to the film but the screenplay is still rather weak and we get some incredibly bad performances that don't help matters. There are several childish death scenes with all sorts of blood and guts but even the special effects aren't that special. After reading a few interviews with the director and producer it's clear that they were interested in making money and I think that's easy to see here. This really comes off as the type of film where people are wanting to make cash and there's no real effort to make anything really good. I will admit that the movie is certainly a lot better than a lot of direct to VHS titles but that's still not saying much.

Passable low-budget horror effort

[Woodyanders · 6/10 · 20 July 2010]

Best known as one of the very first movies that was specifically made for the 80's video market, this admittedly rough around the edges film sure ain't perfect, but overall it's a little bit better than one might expect. An vicious killer craves up pretty young female students at a local college in the Mid-West and cuts off various body parts that are used in twisted rituals by a local satanic cult. Christoper Lewis' bland direction relates the acceptable story at a poky pace, but does manage to create a few effectively spooky moments (the nighttime devil cult ceremonies are pretty creepy) and definitely delivers a handy helping of (amusingly cheesy) graphic gore. Stuart Rosenthal's talky script offers a couple of decent twists and a generic "it ain't over yet" sequel set-up ending. The acting is decidedly variable, with above average contributions by Charles Ellis as the affable and perplexed sheriff Ron Wilbois, Julie Anderman as the sheriff's sweet and helpful daughter Tina, James Vance as Tina's affable boyfriend Joel Hogan, and Fred Graves as the concerned Dean Charles Bailey. Paul McFarlane's cinematography runs hot and cold throughout; some shots are very hard on the eyes (the stuff filmed at night tends to be grainy and ugly) while other shots are nicely done and look reasonably slick considering the nickel'n'dime budget. Rod Slane's shivery ooga booga synthesizer score likewise has a certain cruddy charm to it. The bleak rural Tulsa, Oklahoma locations are a definite plus. Moreover, there's a clunkily sincere quality to the whole picture that's impossible to dislike. In addition, this flick earns a few extra points for the fact that the cast members look like real life people instead of your usual plastic array of pretty boys and glamor girls. Granted, we ain't talking cinematic masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, but this movie ain't half bad just the same.

Mediocre taped horror

[lor_ · 23 February 2023]

My review was written in August 1985 after watching the show on United Home Video cassette.

Made in Tulsa, "Blood Cult" is a regional horror feature for home video fans that demonstrates the viability of shooting scare pics directly on videotape rather than the usual 16mm or 35mm film modes. Pic was preceded in this format by another regional, taped horror opus, last year's "Copperhead".

Familiar storyline concerns a series of murders of coeds one winter at Central State College in the Midwest. Sheriff Ron Wilbois (Charles Ellis), who is planning to run for the senate, is investigating, hampered by lack of cooperation from the college dean (Fred Graves) and local coroner (Josef Hardt).

Key breakthrough in the case comes when Wilbois' daughter Tina (Julie Andelman), who works in the school library, finds a book recounting an American cult of the 1700s that aimed at avenging the victims of the earlier Salem witch hunt era. Cultists would kill victims and create a mannequin (for later sacrifice by fire) out of body parts taken from the victims. The mutilations and a clue of a gold amulet (and a dog symbol displayed) left with each corpse link the historical cult with the pattern and evidence of the current murders.

Tina's boyfriend Joel (James Vance) aids the sheriff in his campus stakeouts, but the film ends inconclusively after the sheriff witnesses modern cultists meeting in the forest and later uncovers the killer's surprise identity.

Screenplay by Stuart Rosenthal (with additional dialog by co-star James Vance) is too derivative of previous stalk & slash horror pics to let "Blood Cult" soar, but director Christopher Lewis, son of actress Loretta Young, develops some effective atmosphere, especially in night scenes. Credit must go to director of photography Paul MacFarlane, whose wide-angle shots and moody lighting prove that horror via video can compare with the filmed variety. Gore is emphasized here, and convincing special effects makeup for the mutilations (executed by David Powell and Robert Brewer) merits the "graphic violence" warning on the package.

Production outfit plans further videotaped horror features, but would do well to come up with more interesting scripts.

Pure sadness

[dramabriddie · 2 October 2002]

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!

i actually like this movie just because it is so poorly made.

[hoabob · 22 February 2004]

in the bathroom killing scene at the beggining of the movie the gorey special effects looked so fake. It looked like they used something like hersheys strawberry sauce for fake blood. And in the scene where the cashier in the cafeteria saw the dead body in the garbage container her scream sounded so bad that i almost died laughing. So if you like cheesy poorly made horror movies than this is definately the movie for you.