Our main story here takes place two months after the original films events and revolves around Patrick Wayne who was the brother of one of the victims from the first film, he returns to town and finds himself helping the farm woman from the first film, who is now being terrorized by the dog worshiping cult to give up her land for sacrifice, after they murder her husband. Our sheriff hero from the first film is also revealed to have went insane and is locked inside a mental institute. "Revenge" or "Blood Cult 2", defiantly has some changes going for it over the first film. For starters production increased and filming went from SOV beta cam to 16mm film. It now looks like a 1980s TV movie, they also managed to fork up enough cash to grab Patrick Wayne (John Wayne's son, who is obviously just here for the pay check as he's about as wooden as a post) and famous legend John Carradine (who was near the end of his life and looks very sickly). Director Christopher Lewis looks more confident behind the camera as well and his script which was written by himself gives the film a much tighter story and moves it out of the slasher territory of the first flick and into a more supernatural horror approach. This time around the killer and members of the blood cult can choke and/or cause a cerebral hemorrhage without using any physical contact whatsoever. It really helps the film manage to stand on its own two legs. However for all the improvements, the pacing is still slow and the films 100 minute run time could have probably been trimmed to 90 easily, its just to dang long. The kills are also not that great this time around either. However, the twist and final with the cult leaves me to give this a very generous 5 stars
9 Reviews
Can you watch it in one sitting without falling asleep?
BA_Harrison28 April 2019
Directed by Christopher Lewis, low-budget horror Revenge is the sequel to shot-on-video movie Blood Cult (1985), a film that I haven't seen, and which I now have no real desire to see.
Patrick Wayne, son of John, slums it as Michael Hogan, who returns to his home-town to investigate the death of his brother. Teaming up with widow Gracie Moore (Bennie Lee McGowan), he uncovers the existence of a murderous cult (led by ageing horror icon John Carradine) who worship the dog-god Caninus, and who are collecting body parts of their victims for use in a ritual that will resurrect their deity.
Protracted scenes of deathly dull dialogue make up the bulk of this 100-minute crap-fest, and remaining conscious throughout proves a challenge. Lewis tries to inject some excitement into proceedings with a mysterious motorcyclist intimidating Gracie by racing his bike and popping wheelies outside her farmhouse, but these scenes are poorly handled and go on for far too long. There are also a few ineptly orchestrated deaths designed to keep the viewer from nodding off: a farmer gets a hatchet in his forehead, a girl steps in a bear trap and has her leg cut off, a woman is burnt to death by supernatural means, and a girl in a jacuzzi is repeatedly stabbed and then decapitated. Unfortunately, the kills aren't that graphic, and what gore there is is cheap and unconvincing.
Kudos to anyone who makes it to the WTF? ending without having caught a few z's along the way.
2.5/10, generously rounded up to 3 for IMDb.
Patrick Wayne, son of John, slums it as Michael Hogan, who returns to his home-town to investigate the death of his brother. Teaming up with widow Gracie Moore (Bennie Lee McGowan), he uncovers the existence of a murderous cult (led by ageing horror icon John Carradine) who worship the dog-god Caninus, and who are collecting body parts of their victims for use in a ritual that will resurrect their deity.
Protracted scenes of deathly dull dialogue make up the bulk of this 100-minute crap-fest, and remaining conscious throughout proves a challenge. Lewis tries to inject some excitement into proceedings with a mysterious motorcyclist intimidating Gracie by racing his bike and popping wheelies outside her farmhouse, but these scenes are poorly handled and go on for far too long. There are also a few ineptly orchestrated deaths designed to keep the viewer from nodding off: a farmer gets a hatchet in his forehead, a girl steps in a bear trap and has her leg cut off, a woman is burnt to death by supernatural means, and a girl in a jacuzzi is repeatedly stabbed and then decapitated. Unfortunately, the kills aren't that graphic, and what gore there is is cheap and unconvincing.
Kudos to anyone who makes it to the WTF? ending without having caught a few z's along the way.
2.5/10, generously rounded up to 3 for IMDb.
Bland sequel
MovieLuvaMatt6 July 2003
The original "Blood Cult" has a certain appeal to it that the sequel lacks, though the films are nearly the same in quality. First of all, in "BC" I was amused by the innovation of using a Betacam to shoot an entire film. This is just a plain old low-budget horror film.
"Revenge" is not entirely without merit, though. There are certain bright spots, like the death scene in the jacuzzi where the water turns red from all the blood. I think part of the problem lies in the screenplay. The story was written by Joe Vance (an actor from the first film), but the screenplay was by Christopher Lewis, the director. Lewis has admitted that horror is not his favorite genre, so the film seems to have an identity crisis, trying to choose whether it wants to be a slasher flick or a "Columbo"-type mystery.
The acting is worse too. Most of the good actors--like Joseph Hardt, Bennie Lee McGowan and Charles Ellis (in a brief appearance)--were brought back from the original film. The rest are horrible. John Carradine is given next-to-top billing just to grab people's attention. First of all, he's only in the film for about 6 minutes, and second of all, he sleeps through those 6 minutes. What is legendary actor John Carradine doing in a low-budget, direct-to-video horror flick? Beats me. I guess senility caught up to him in the later years of life. Unfortunately, great veteran actors don't always leave this world having made a great films for their final appearances. That surely wasn't the case with Rod Steiger, and several others. The film's main error was the casting of Patrick Wayne in the lead role. They say the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, but that may have not been the case with him. His father, as I was baffled to discover, is screen legend John Wayne. Yes, The Duke himself. Patrick Wayne is an utter stoneface, not showing a hint of emotion from start to finish. I expect these kinds of performances from actors in direct-to-video horror movies, but not from The Duke's son. Supposedly, he's a veteran actor as well, having been in many westerns, including the hit "Young Guns." Well, hopefully if I decide to check out those films, I'll be oddly surprised.
Overall, "Revenge" is mildly watchable and not an utter disaster, but if you're searching for a rental this shouldn't be at the top of your list.
My score: 5 (out of 10)
"Revenge" is not entirely without merit, though. There are certain bright spots, like the death scene in the jacuzzi where the water turns red from all the blood. I think part of the problem lies in the screenplay. The story was written by Joe Vance (an actor from the first film), but the screenplay was by Christopher Lewis, the director. Lewis has admitted that horror is not his favorite genre, so the film seems to have an identity crisis, trying to choose whether it wants to be a slasher flick or a "Columbo"-type mystery.
The acting is worse too. Most of the good actors--like Joseph Hardt, Bennie Lee McGowan and Charles Ellis (in a brief appearance)--were brought back from the original film. The rest are horrible. John Carradine is given next-to-top billing just to grab people's attention. First of all, he's only in the film for about 6 minutes, and second of all, he sleeps through those 6 minutes. What is legendary actor John Carradine doing in a low-budget, direct-to-video horror flick? Beats me. I guess senility caught up to him in the later years of life. Unfortunately, great veteran actors don't always leave this world having made a great films for their final appearances. That surely wasn't the case with Rod Steiger, and several others. The film's main error was the casting of Patrick Wayne in the lead role. They say the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, but that may have not been the case with him. His father, as I was baffled to discover, is screen legend John Wayne. Yes, The Duke himself. Patrick Wayne is an utter stoneface, not showing a hint of emotion from start to finish. I expect these kinds of performances from actors in direct-to-video horror movies, but not from The Duke's son. Supposedly, he's a veteran actor as well, having been in many westerns, including the hit "Young Guns." Well, hopefully if I decide to check out those films, I'll be oddly surprised.
Overall, "Revenge" is mildly watchable and not an utter disaster, but if you're searching for a rental this shouldn't be at the top of your list.
My score: 5 (out of 10)
A yawn a minute
Brassknuckle Sandwich18 November 2001
Shot for $5 and some change in a dirt lot in someone's backyard, this straight to video film about a cult of somesuch or another has undeservedly made its way to DVD. "How", I ask? Did enough people actually watch this sub-mediocre production to warrant taking the time and energy to transfer it to a digital medium?
Count me among the guilty for having rented this back in the 80's, when straight to video had begun to glut the market with piles of these forgettable "horror" films. Count yourself among the fore-warned if you manage to read this in time to prevent renting the DVD, or worse, buying it.
Outside of the slick cover, there's nothing else in between, but if you won't take my word for, read some of the other user comments before proceeding with wasting your money.
Count me among the guilty for having rented this back in the 80's, when straight to video had begun to glut the market with piles of these forgettable "horror" films. Count yourself among the fore-warned if you manage to read this in time to prevent renting the DVD, or worse, buying it.
Outside of the slick cover, there's nothing else in between, but if you won't take my word for, read some of the other user comments before proceeding with wasting your money.
Direct-to-video bore
Phroggy31 March 1999
This one is supposed to be a sequel to some "Blood Cult", but as far as direct-to video goes, this one features the usual shots of people wandering endlessly waiting to be killed while others go on about their business, waiting to discover the bodies. There's some inklings of a plot in there and the finale (a black mass) is slightly interesting, but you'll fall asleep long before this.
Poor Sequel
Michael_Elliott13 October 2008
Revenge (1986)
* (out of 4)
Sequel to Blood Cult has Patrick Wayne (John's son) coming to the small town to see who or what killed his baby brother. This movie picks up minutes after the events in the first film ended but instead of doing something interesting the screenplay just has more of the same. If you've seen the first film then you know a cult is doing the killing and it's clear in this film but we've got to put up with Wayne's character trying to figure everything out again. This becomes very tiresome and what makes it worse is that the film runs for nearly 104-minutes, which is just way, way too long. John Carradine appears in two scenes as a Senator and head Satan worshipper. He really plays it rather straight but is decent in the role. Wayne on the other hand is incredibly stiff and doesn't add anything to the film. While the first film had a fair share of violence that's not the case here. Most of the violence has been hacked out and you're left with a straight mystery that just doesn't work. I was about to give this thing a half a star but things do pick up in the final five minutes with a nice twist that I actually didn't see coming. Even with that said, the two films in this series are extremely bad and boring.
* (out of 4)
Sequel to Blood Cult has Patrick Wayne (John's son) coming to the small town to see who or what killed his baby brother. This movie picks up minutes after the events in the first film ended but instead of doing something interesting the screenplay just has more of the same. If you've seen the first film then you know a cult is doing the killing and it's clear in this film but we've got to put up with Wayne's character trying to figure everything out again. This becomes very tiresome and what makes it worse is that the film runs for nearly 104-minutes, which is just way, way too long. John Carradine appears in two scenes as a Senator and head Satan worshipper. He really plays it rather straight but is decent in the role. Wayne on the other hand is incredibly stiff and doesn't add anything to the film. While the first film had a fair share of violence that's not the case here. Most of the violence has been hacked out and you're left with a straight mystery that just doesn't work. I was about to give this thing a half a star but things do pick up in the final five minutes with a nice twist that I actually didn't see coming. Even with that said, the two films in this series are extremely bad and boring.
kind of a sequel, kind of a remake, kind of a waste of time
jonathan-5779 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers
With this "Blood Cult" sequel's jump to 16mm, the analogy shifts from infomercial to movie-of-the-week, with no reduction in gore implied. The images are prettier and so are the gals, and they even spring for a half decent dog amulet this time. But money can't buy you brains: learning nothing from their real mistakes, they still throw logic to the wind at every opportunity, this time working from a script by Jim Vance, the first movie's hipster boyfriend. While they spend great chunks of time rehashing plot points from the first movie, don't pay too much attention because they alter details at will; for instance, Julie Andelman is nowhere to be seen in spite of part one's tease ending. The plot centers on a list of names the now-nutso Ellis apparently slipped his deputy, but that canny device flutters away before they've crossed two names out. There's a dude on a dirt bike who keeps showing up – is he supposed to be scary or something? And after we spend the whole movie watching Wayne earnestly trying to solve the mystery, he duplicates the first movie's fatal conceit by announcing himself as a cult conspirator at the very end, thus transforming "Blood Cult"'s dubiety into outright fraudulence; it doesn't just make no sense, it is a frontal assault on the viewer's intelligence. And we STILL don't get to see the corpse-effigy.
Whos getting revenge?
HoJoo28 October 2001
I gave this movie a 2 simply because the acting (aside from 2 women who make a brief appearance, only to be killed) was not as bad as i had expected. Dont get me wrong - it was cheesy - and many times the actors stumble over their lines - but i expected worse from this movie. As far as the "plot" goes, well, you will be sadly disappointed. Murder is the name of the game in this movie - senseless mass murder - as a cult attempts to resurrect the founding member to take over the world. Horribly done, but a must see for those who love the "b" movies!
Not as bad as you might think...
doctorgonzo2322 March 2002
I have seen worse movies than Revenge. If you are seriously into B grade films, don't miss this one. Some of the scenes are only shot in one long take and listening to the "actors" stumble on their lines is priceless. The gore is not bad either, the special effects are nothing ground breaking but at the same time, the blood scenes have an erie effect. The acting is dismal but it's entertaining (it's-so-bad-it's-funny) and if you enjoy low production values, whacked out plot lines and the ocasional splash of blood, you should pick over the nearest post-rental bargin bin. That's where I found my copy.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
