A Bucket of Blood (1995 TV Movie) User Reviews

surprise: a watchable remake

[CarlNaamanBrown · 5/10 · 11 November 2005]

I subjected my grandson not only to a VHS of this movie, but the DVD of the original version I saw at the age of eleven. He liked both.

The send-up of performance art in the newer version tickled my funny bone, but the update of Maxwell's poem clunked on a few lines. But today's audience probably would not recognise an "omnibus" any more than they would a broken record a broken record a broken record.

Nitpicks: Miller's original Walter Paisley cannot be topped and I feel this Carla is over the top; I preferred the more subdued Carla of the original: there are so many off the chart performances, the movie needed an anchor.

Paul Bartel and Mink Stole had an expanded role as the older couple seeking Art amongst the bohemians. They had fun with their parts and it came through the screen.

Apparently Roger Corman was grooming new filmmakers by a series of remakes of old Corman movies. This series is much better than any of the six movies (The Eye Creatures, Zontar, etc) remade years ago to fill out a AIP syndication package.

I caught this Bucket of Blood on late night cable and consider it worth my time, but I probably would not pay a full theater ticket price for it.

I plan to re-watch it after listening to some NPR art interviews.

Buckets of blood

[kosmasp · 6/10 · 15 July 2022]

Actually this is more like figuring out ... a statue. No pun intende - well the making of one (or more that is). So if you are interested in that and what a horror movie can be - you could do worse. I have not seen the original movie from the 50s - but Corman was back producing this so I reckon this was made as well as it could, honoring the other movie that (no pun intended).

It has its flaws and has some things that do not really work (acting and other wise), but if you are into horror you may be able to forgive those things I reckon. Overall made for fans for weird and strange stories. There is more hidden in the story (no pun intended here either), but it almost never gets revealed - one more for the road.

dead on!

[staytherelass · 17 February 2003]

This is a highly enjoyable remake!I haven't seen the 1959 original but plan to after seeing this!A very funny tale of an untalented artist who finds success after killing some folks and covering their bodies in plaster.Yes,it IS a comedy,though cut from the blackest cloth.The pretentious art world also gets a good skewering in the coolest John Waters fashion.Mink Stole is in this too.

Stick with the original

[Leofwine_draca · 3/10 · 29 July 2021]

A cheap and cheesy BUCKET OF BLOOD remake, made on an even cheaper budget if that's possible. Anthony Michael Hall, the format brat pack star, is almost unrecognisable as geeky Walter Paisley who becomes a respected artist thanks to his macabre creations. Lots of bad taste and nudity if you're into all that kind of thing, but as is almost always the case, you're best off sticking with the original.

Not that bad

[ClarusTheDogCow · 7/10 · 22 August 2003]

The movie was actually not that bad. A "B" movie, but it was certainly unique and at least, watchable.

While the plot is simplistic, it provides entertainment on a still and balmy summer night.

I actually known some people who think they are pseudo-intellectuals and see a dead cat as artwork. Well, whatever. I just smile and act agreeable towards those Swoozy Kurtz types of people which were so prevalent in this movie.

Yes this was from the head of Roger Corman, but at least it is not Ed Wood <shudder>

Lastly, this aired on Showtime of all places... Good to see that my expensive cable bill per month justifies such wonderful movies like this at a premium subscription.

7/10.

Not as stylish as original, but ok.

[bryabel-14848 · 7/10 · 1 April 2024]

Closely follows original, but updating adds graphic nudity, and doesn't have original's artful touches. Specifically, updated version has great color, but loses original's subtle use of shadows, eg preceding Alice's murder. Update's Walter lacks original Walter's fall from innocence down to dark, psychotic evil, resulting from Alice's premeditated murder in original. Alice's murder in update is less premeditated and more result of his anger, being stoked by Alice's scorn for his manhood.

Original's use of bright lights and shadows before Alice's murder accentuated her bombshell charms, buttocks and hourglass shape. Use of shadow in remake before Alice's murder does not enhance her stunning figure, but then she appears fully nude and voluptuous, so maybe use of shadow was a deliberate downplay of her charms. The original could not have the full, frontal nudity of remake and retain a rating allowing more widespread showings, so it relied on Alice's shadow to display her stunning shape. Note remake's use of Alice's arms to cover her breasts as Walter strangles her. The original reportedly attempted a similar "coverup", drawing out Alice being strangled from views waist up, with alternate views of Alice, then Walter, then Alice, then Walter, but censors disallowed it because too much of Judy Bamber's breasts were exposed. So viewer only sees her being strangled from neck up and behind with her back bare. In original Alice does not die on camera, as scene fades out to saxophone music as Walter continues to pull her scarf with a sweaty face. Remake has Alice die as her neck snaps during her strangulation, making her murder more a crime of passion than cold blooded murder, as is case in original.

Also, original's Alice - though a snob - is still a classy, flirty, "mean" girl, while remake's Alice comes across more as a slutty, mean vamp. Alice in original actually treats Walter well, after agreeing to pose for him, so his slowly strangling her is all the more heinous, and the pivotal act turning him into a psychopath. Alice in remake insults Walter right up to the point of unwisely tying a slipknot in her scarf and throwing its ends behind her back facilitating her murder.

Not horror. Better!

[jclem · 8/10 · 7 September 2001]

This film is a bit quirky (what room full of "beatnicks" isn't?), but there's an aspect of dark comedy here that makes this film worth watching. It tries to make itself out to be a horror flick, but by the time the cat gets it, it's too funny to be even remotely scary.

If you enjoy dark humor and some off-the-wall dialog, watch this film. It's a B-grade flick, sure, but there's some very good acting here and some great "dark alley" cinematography!

Excellent, Dark Comedy.

[RatedVforVinny · 8/10 · 23 January 2019]

I actually prefer this to the original film, dark, witty and very well acted indeed. Not sure why such a low score on here but I can really recommend this one for sure. AKA 'Dark Secrets' is really as 'Out There' as some of the wacky characters, that are showcased in the art club. About halfway through there is a rather brilliant song (played on an acoustic guitar). Great for a TV movie and presented by the great Roger Corman.

Ghoulish and witty, surprisingly entertaining

[Trevor-6 · 8/10 · 27 September 1998]

This remake of Roger Corman's 1959 film is even better than 1995's Sawbones. The wit overshadows the gruesome (though somewhat predictable) plot and some clever casting helps move things along. Anthony Michael Hall is better than ever here and Justine Bateman's phoney accent suits her well. Too much nudity almost ruins this comedy (not horror) but overall, A Bucket of Blood is one nifty flick.

Interesting to say the least...

[horrormb · 26 March 1999]

I rented this and I liked it, I can honestly say. You could tell what was going to happen before it did (just like any other horror movie) and though there were a few twists, it was nothing special. Personally, I liked seeing Justine Bateman, Anthony Michael Hall, and Darcy Demoss in the same picture which raises the point value but the movie fell in on itself towards the second half. I give this a 7 out of ten.