H. G. Lewis is back in action 30 years after his last film. And to be fair to him he delivers exactly the same specific type of film he was most famous for all those years ago, i.e. an ultra-trashy gore-fest. Like before Lewis fills his movie with lots of extreme violence that is not exactly realistic while still managing to be pretty revolting. It's quite specific but Lewis's films always seem to achieve these two objectives. Like his previous movies, Blood Feast 2 is completely devoid of suspense. The focus is unashamedly on displaying scenes of ultra-violence with no build-up whatsoever. The comedy, on the other hand, is played up to the fore. I think you could easily say that all of Lewis's splatter films were comedies at heart. Admittedly, the humour is extremely black but it's impossible to take these movies seriously. And that's the thing about H. G. Lewis movies, if you read about them they sound like truly horrific misogynistic atrocities, but when you see them you realise that really they are kind of fun.
What can be said about Blood Feast 2? Well, aside from the fact that it must surely hold the world record for the longest gap between an original and a sequel, it's actually exactly what you might expect from Lewis. He serves up a film that meets all of the criteria I mentioned in the above paragraph. This doesn't mean it's good exactly - Lewis's films operate on a different quality ladder to most – but it's quite refreshing to see Lewis making exactly the same type of movie he was famous for after all these years. The plot's irrelevant so there is no sense in recounting it; suffice to say that it follows a very similar trajectory to the original Blood Feast (which for my money is still Lewis's best film despite its obvious crudeness). The splatter is excessive and (thankfully) not CGI. The comedy is actually quite funny at times. And the acting is typical for the director, i.e. very bad but somehow appropriate, and seemingly at least partially intentional.
So not a bad comeback all-in-all. Lewis's films are what they are, and this one is what it is. If you are a fan of the director's earlier exploitation opuses then this one should entertain and amuse.
What can be said about Blood Feast 2? Well, aside from the fact that it must surely hold the world record for the longest gap between an original and a sequel, it's actually exactly what you might expect from Lewis. He serves up a film that meets all of the criteria I mentioned in the above paragraph. This doesn't mean it's good exactly - Lewis's films operate on a different quality ladder to most – but it's quite refreshing to see Lewis making exactly the same type of movie he was famous for after all these years. The plot's irrelevant so there is no sense in recounting it; suffice to say that it follows a very similar trajectory to the original Blood Feast (which for my money is still Lewis's best film despite its obvious crudeness). The splatter is excessive and (thankfully) not CGI. The comedy is actually quite funny at times. And the acting is typical for the director, i.e. very bad but somehow appropriate, and seemingly at least partially intentional.
So not a bad comeback all-in-all. Lewis's films are what they are, and this one is what it is. If you are a fan of the director's earlier exploitation opuses then this one should entertain and amuse.