Entertaining take on "The Most Dangerous Game" featuring "teens" (you know, the kind in their late-20s), violence and a bit of gore. Apparently it was a feature on MST3K...but the movie isn't as terrible as that would suggest. It does feature some obnoxiously 50s dialogue, characters, and acting, but it also features some really fun stuff (like a teeny bopper girl that knows judo and flips a bad guy into a vat of acid...and we get to watch him decompose! how can you not love that?!). The dad from the Brady Bunch is in this, and is annoying as ever, and the plot gets a little too Scooby Doo in parts. But there are some fairly creepy scenes here. In fact, I enjoyed this much more than I probably should have. My rating: 5/10
67 Reviews
A Cut-Rate Version of "Most Dangerous Game"
csdietrich22 March 2001
BLOODLUST! (1961) is yet another retelling of "Most Dangerous Game" with a lackluster cast and inferior production values. The mostly youthful actors and actresses are terrible and turn in cardboard performances. There is one exception, however, and that is Wilton Graff as Belleau, a latter-day Count Zaroff wielding a crossbow to dispatch his victims on the remote island. Graff gives a very fey performance (imagine what Vincent Price could have done with this one!) as he stalks his prey and includes them in his tableaux of trophies and macabre death scenes. He chews scenery but at least attempts to raise the level of this hopeless mess which is why this effort isn't a complete waste. Beware the substandard print by Madacy Entertainment on a double-feature DVD which is accompanied by ATOM AGE VAMPIRE. Cast includes Robert Reed, June Kenney, Joan Lora, Eugene Persson, Walter Brooke and Lilyan Chauvin.
Even a mediocre potboiler remake of "The Most Dangerous Game" can be OK
lemon_magic16 July 2005
Warning: Spoilers
To be honest, I've seen many worse movies than "Bloodlust", and many of those worse movies were big-budget Hollywood blockbusters. So I don't want to heap too much scorn on this low-budget remake of a far better film - it's a piece of film factory hackwork that was churned out to meet the demand for drive-in movie and 2nd feature 'product'. Within the confines of its ambitions, budget, and cast, it is an acceptable piece of product. And the central plot idea is strong enough that even a watered down version like this has a bit of dramatic tension and interest.
Nevertheless, some issues need to be addressed.
Number one, if Robert Reed wanted to be cast as the action hero lead, he needed to either lose 15 pounds, do some sit-ups,or wear a looser fitting shirt. He was sucking in his gut so hard every instant he was on camera that I was afraid he was going to keel over from 'corset girdle' syndrome.
Number two, Reed's character makes so many bad decisions in the course of this movie that it's really kind of funny. Seriously, EVERY SINGLE judgment call he makes - to land on the island, that the boat they land with will be safe, that their best bet is to return to the mansion, etc., is wrong. How did his character get to be Alpha Male of the group in the first place??
Number three, the hunter with the so-called 'Bloodlust' comes across as kind of a low-energy version of Victor Buono. When you think of deadly sociopath snipers-turned-man-hunters, you don't automatically come up with the image of Victor Buono, now, do you? I'll grant you that the actor does the mannerisms of a jaded epicurean quite well, but he (and the stage direction he is given) hardly has the presence or gravitas to dominate and intimidate four healthy young teenagers and two adults, etc. Which leads to:
Number four: At several points, our 'deadly hunter' (who is old, small, pale, flabby, and obviously sedentary) is all alone with four healthy, physically fit young adults (one of them a judo expert) and is armed with nothing but a crossbow or a revolver. And at least once, they have the drop on him. Seriously, why don't they jump him? Someone might get wounded, but this is far better than his stated alternative (ie, he'll kill them and mount them in his museum). I guess that his deadly 'sniper's eye' must have them intimidated or something.
Anyway, MST picked on the this movie, and had a lot of fun with it, but that's what they do. They could have a field day with a big loud dumb movie like "Armegeddeon", and a slight trifle like "Bloodlust" has no chance against their wonderful malice. "Bloodlust" isn't nearly as bad as most MST3K fare. On the other hand, you wouldn't waste your time with it if MST3K didn't cover it.
Go watch "Surviving the Game" with Rutger Hauer and Ice-T if you want to see a GOOD 'Most Dangerous Game' rip-off. Watch this one for the cheese value, or for the MST savaging.
Nevertheless, some issues need to be addressed.
Number one, if Robert Reed wanted to be cast as the action hero lead, he needed to either lose 15 pounds, do some sit-ups,or wear a looser fitting shirt. He was sucking in his gut so hard every instant he was on camera that I was afraid he was going to keel over from 'corset girdle' syndrome.
Number two, Reed's character makes so many bad decisions in the course of this movie that it's really kind of funny. Seriously, EVERY SINGLE judgment call he makes - to land on the island, that the boat they land with will be safe, that their best bet is to return to the mansion, etc., is wrong. How did his character get to be Alpha Male of the group in the first place??
Number three, the hunter with the so-called 'Bloodlust' comes across as kind of a low-energy version of Victor Buono. When you think of deadly sociopath snipers-turned-man-hunters, you don't automatically come up with the image of Victor Buono, now, do you? I'll grant you that the actor does the mannerisms of a jaded epicurean quite well, but he (and the stage direction he is given) hardly has the presence or gravitas to dominate and intimidate four healthy young teenagers and two adults, etc. Which leads to:
Number four: At several points, our 'deadly hunter' (who is old, small, pale, flabby, and obviously sedentary) is all alone with four healthy, physically fit young adults (one of them a judo expert) and is armed with nothing but a crossbow or a revolver. And at least once, they have the drop on him. Seriously, why don't they jump him? Someone might get wounded, but this is far better than his stated alternative (ie, he'll kill them and mount them in his museum). I guess that his deadly 'sniper's eye' must have them intimidated or something.
Anyway, MST picked on the this movie, and had a lot of fun with it, but that's what they do. They could have a field day with a big loud dumb movie like "Armegeddeon", and a slight trifle like "Bloodlust" has no chance against their wonderful malice. "Bloodlust" isn't nearly as bad as most MST3K fare. On the other hand, you wouldn't waste your time with it if MST3K didn't cover it.
Go watch "Surviving the Game" with Rutger Hauer and Ice-T if you want to see a GOOD 'Most Dangerous Game' rip-off. Watch this one for the cheese value, or for the MST savaging.
The Brady Bunch go hunting
bensonmum29 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
- While on vacation, two young couples decide to explore what they believe to be a deserted island. They soon run into Dr. Albert Balleau (Wilton Graff) who offers them the hospitality of his home - the only one on the island. Dr. Balleau's house is decorated with the trophies from his various hunting expeditions. It seems he imports game to the island. Now, Dr. Balleau is looking for even more cunning and dangerous game to hunt on his island. The young couples learn that they are to provide him with the hunting thrills he seeks.
- Bloodlust! was a much better movie when it was known as The Most Dangerous Game (1932). That movie is far superior to Bloodlust! in every way. Take the casts as an example. The Most Dangerous Game featured Joel McCrea and the original scream queen, Fay Wray. The insane hunter was played to perfection by Leslie Banks. In contrast, Bloodlust! features Robert Reed in one of his early roles. If the big name "star" of your movie is the future dad from The Brady Bunch, then you really don't have much. The hunter is played by Graff as a Vincent Price wannabe. It's really pathetic.
- Another comparison, Bloodlust! goes for the cheap thrills by showing various body parts being prepared to be mounted for his trophy room. There is nothing that looks remotely real in this scene. The Most Dangerous Game leaves these images up to the viewers imagination. And (especially true with low budgets) the imagination is capable of creating far more horrific images than can be created by using a cheap rubber foot.
- If you find the concept of a nut-job hunting people as sport appealing, watch The Most Dangerous Game. The Alpha DVD has a great image and can be had for about $5. The video appears to have been "taken" from the much more expensive Criterion DVD.
"As other men collect fame and riches, I collect trophies."
classicsoncall3 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
With a concept borrowed from "The Most Dangerous Game", and the future dad of "The Brady Bunch", "Bloodlust" achieves little in the way of intrigue or suspense, and if you don't manage to break into a chuckle or two while watching it, you're taking the film way too seriously.
Johnny Randall (Robert Reed) is the self appointed leader of two young couples who find themselves stranded on an island with a madman (Wilton Graff), who plans on adding them to his trophy case, or rather his trophy cave, after giving them a chance to make a break for it from the island's center, starting at the "Tree of Death". Dr. Balleau has wasted no time in making an example of his wife Sandra (Lilyan Chauvin) and her not so secret lover Dean (Walter Brooke), who now share a prominent place in his den of horrors. Reed's character is terrible at making wise choices, but it's his girlfriend Betty's (June Kenney) job to ask rhetorical questions and utter useless clichés. She's matched by friend Jean's (Joan Lorra) repeated reminders of how scared they all ought to be, while her boyfriend Pete (Eugene Persson) tries to keep his libido in check.
The question any viewer will repeatedly ask themselves is why doesn't this foursome simply jump the old codger Balleau at just about any point in the proceedings. They had him surrounded more than once, and could have knocked the bejeezus out of him at any time, but then I guess there wouldn't have been a story.
Listen, if you're looking for a movie of poor saps stranded on an island with little hope of survival, go for the gusto and pick up 1959's "The Killer Shrews". It's got a lot more stuff to make fun of, not the least of which are swarming canines with dreadlocks. With "Bloodlust" you get none of the satisfaction, either from the story, or the title. Oh, the possibilities!
Johnny Randall (Robert Reed) is the self appointed leader of two young couples who find themselves stranded on an island with a madman (Wilton Graff), who plans on adding them to his trophy case, or rather his trophy cave, after giving them a chance to make a break for it from the island's center, starting at the "Tree of Death". Dr. Balleau has wasted no time in making an example of his wife Sandra (Lilyan Chauvin) and her not so secret lover Dean (Walter Brooke), who now share a prominent place in his den of horrors. Reed's character is terrible at making wise choices, but it's his girlfriend Betty's (June Kenney) job to ask rhetorical questions and utter useless clichés. She's matched by friend Jean's (Joan Lorra) repeated reminders of how scared they all ought to be, while her boyfriend Pete (Eugene Persson) tries to keep his libido in check.
The question any viewer will repeatedly ask themselves is why doesn't this foursome simply jump the old codger Balleau at just about any point in the proceedings. They had him surrounded more than once, and could have knocked the bejeezus out of him at any time, but then I guess there wouldn't have been a story.
Listen, if you're looking for a movie of poor saps stranded on an island with little hope of survival, go for the gusto and pick up 1959's "The Killer Shrews". It's got a lot more stuff to make fun of, not the least of which are swarming canines with dreadlocks. With "Bloodlust" you get none of the satisfaction, either from the story, or the title. Oh, the possibilities!
Ahh! Ahh! AHH? Ahh!
thebigsee20 June 2005
This is a forgettable movie -- even the MST3K version is tepid compared to other episodes of that great show. But one scene stands out for me in this odd little film about an insane island-dwelling man who likes to hunt people. A man -- apparently part of his "stocked prey" program -- wanders up to our protagonists. He's dirty, clothes torn, beard overgrown, obviously been there for awhile. He wants to say something to the gang -- he's down on his knees, pleading with arms raised in supplication -- but all he says is "Ahh! Ahh! Ahh!" And you can tell this actor was really giving it his "Stanislavsky Method" all, and the director was probably yelling at him, "I want more torture in your 'Ahhs'!" In the end, he looks like a mute Al Jolson on skid row. It's worth watching the film for the giggle you'll get from this poor dope.
The most BORING game!
Coventry14 May 2005
"Bloodlust" is another shameless repeating of "The Most Dangerous Game" premise (a groundbreaking classic from 1932), only it's a really dire and uninteresting one. This is a very bad film, but not even in an amusing way. Colorless characters, tedious and overlong speeches and no action at all. Two young couples strand on an island owned by an elderly, supposedly eccentric man. He explains that the military taught him to kill human beings and it quickly turned into an obsession. So, after he did his service, he bought himself an island where accomplices regularly provide him with new hunting-targets. The screenplay is incredibly stupid (for example, the four just politely listen to how they'll get killed instead of try and overmastering him) and the remote-island location is totally neglected. You haven't seen wooden acting until you witness some of the performances here and I was really surprised that the film only lasted 68 minutes... It seemed to take hours! There isn't much to say abut "Bloodlust!", except that you should never consider watching it. Not even when someone holds a loaded gun to your head and threatens to kill you.
It ain't really that bad!
pmsusana14 February 2001
I'd file this under "No classic, but lots of fun!". The cast is good: It's interesting to see Robert Reed in his pre-Brady Bunch days. The late Wilton Graff (as the villain) is one of those faces many remember but can't name; he was usually seen as concerned fathers or business execs who knew more than they were telling. He gives a convincingly understated performance in this film; one is constantly reminded of Vincent Price. Plotwise, there are some effective jolts along the way (bodies floating in tanks, or posed in realistic attitudes in a "trophy room"). There's also a memorable scene where a young lady karate-flips a would-be attacker into a vat of acid; we're offered screaming closeups of his skin peeling away. The lively finale involves quicksand, leeches and a body hung (still living) on a spiked frame. Like I said, no classic, but if you enjoy the occasional anything-goes exploitation film, you could do worse!
Interesting, if not actually good
grghull3 January 2006
The description on the DVD box made this look like a forerunner of the SCREAM or Friday THE 13th movies (madman stalks teens) but if I hadn't read it first I wouldn't have guessed than anyone in the cast was supposed to be under thirty (including the head of the Brady Bunch). It didn't take long to figure out this was a MOST DANGEROUS GAME rip-off made on the ultra cheap. As such it seemed to me that the writing and photography were decent efforts but the direction wasn't up to realizing the potential of either. One or two touches (again, in the writing) were clever and took me by surprise and the accent on the gruesome reminded me of an old black and white horror comic, but all in all the movie didn't add up to much. A respectable failure. Oh, and it has the worst cardboard cave set I've ever seen!!
Mr. Brady hunted in the woods
PaulyC20 August 2008
A group of youngsters land on a beautiful, seemingly deserted island while taking a detour on their boating trip. After exploring the wooded island for a few hours they run into a seemingly sweet older man who convinces them to stay at his house since it is getting dark and there are a lot of scary animals roaming the woods at night. The group all agree but there's just something not right about this older man. It turns out he is a crazy millionaire who lets victims loose on the island while he hunts them down and kills them to keep as "trophies". Really not a bad story (although not original) but the execution really is a bit silly. The dialog really is bad especially at the beginning. Robert Reed plays one of the youngsters in an early role of his. It is somehow amusing to hear his voice once you know him as Mike Brady. Although most of the acting was plastic, I thought the part of the crazy millionaire played by Wilton Graff, was pretty decent in what is clearly a role best suited for Vincent Price. A few of the bit parts were well played too actually. This is a remake of "The most dangerous game" that falls short in many places but I really didn't feel bored with this 68 minute movie.
Bloodlust!: Underwhelming remake
Platypuschow26 April 2019
Bloodlust! is a remake of the superior The Most Dangerous Game (1932), or should I say one of many many many remakes.
At time of writing it has a 3.2 on IMDB, insanely low so it's clearly an unappreciated remake. I can understand why, but not why it's quite that low.
Telling a remixed version of the classic tale we see a group of friends stuck on an island with a madman who hunts humans for sport.
Again this is a somewhat modified version of the tale and truth be told I don't like the changes that have been made. It's not bad by any means, it's just inferior, hammy and considering it's age looks really dated.
This was filmed in 1959, released in 1961 and yet still in black and white whereas the previous remake Run for the Sun (1956) was in color.
For an enjoyable version of this classic tale, stick with the 1932 original or for a modern adaptation watch Mindhunters (2004).
The Good:
Some interesting elements
The Bad:
Looks badly dated for its age
Frustratingly annoying stereotypical non-stop screaming ladies
Certain elements are plain silly
At time of writing it has a 3.2 on IMDB, insanely low so it's clearly an unappreciated remake. I can understand why, but not why it's quite that low.
Telling a remixed version of the classic tale we see a group of friends stuck on an island with a madman who hunts humans for sport.
Again this is a somewhat modified version of the tale and truth be told I don't like the changes that have been made. It's not bad by any means, it's just inferior, hammy and considering it's age looks really dated.
This was filmed in 1959, released in 1961 and yet still in black and white whereas the previous remake Run for the Sun (1956) was in color.
For an enjoyable version of this classic tale, stick with the 1932 original or for a modern adaptation watch Mindhunters (2004).
The Good:
Some interesting elements
The Bad:
Looks badly dated for its age
Frustratingly annoying stereotypical non-stop screaming ladies
Certain elements are plain silly
I like this movie!
Jordan_Haelend20 February 2003
I first saw this on TV when I was a kid, and I think it's too good to be deserving of the MST3K treatment. It might be a "The Most Dangerous Game" rip-off, but it was targeted towards teens in the drive-in era, and I think it works.
It's worth the watch just to see the pre-Brady Bunch Robert Reed and the suave Wilton Graff, whose coolly underplayed madman is chilling. I've recommended it to friends in the non-'bots version, and they all thought well of it.
Great ending, too!
It's worth the watch just to see the pre-Brady Bunch Robert Reed and the suave Wilton Graff, whose coolly underplayed madman is chilling. I've recommended it to friends in the non-'bots version, and they all thought well of it.
Great ending, too!
Not bad at all
jguz5814 November 2021
Sure, it's not as good as 1932's "The Most Dangerous Game", but it kept my interest, mostly because of the cast, getting to see June Kenney and Gene Persson in something besides "Earth Vs. The Spider", plus an early view of Robert Reed. Wilton Graff does a good job as the menacing doctor, there's no reason to criticize him just because he goes for a more subdued approach than the looney-tunes, over-the-top portrayal that Leslie Banks did as Dr. Zaroff. Bloodlust was worth watching.
manhunt fun
SnoopyStyle3 June 2021
Four young vacationers get off their boat to explore a mysterious island. Their drunken captain gives them a fleeting warning before passing out. The island is occupied by the mad Dr. Albert Balleau, his wife Sandra, and his loyal henchmen. His other guest Dean Gerrard is having an affair with Sandra.
Brady Bunch fans will recognize Robert Reed as one of the young people. The acting is generally bland to badly overwrought. The directing is much worst. The dialogue is a bit clunky. The staging is just bad. The weirdest scene has to be Dr. Balleau telling the kids his plan. Everybody is just standing around discussing the Marquess of Queensberry rules. This movie has its characters standing around a lot of the time. As for the manhunt, it has its fun and its thrills in a B-movie way. It's a B-movie to its core and that is a little campy fun.
Brady Bunch fans will recognize Robert Reed as one of the young people. The acting is generally bland to badly overwrought. The directing is much worst. The dialogue is a bit clunky. The staging is just bad. The weirdest scene has to be Dr. Balleau telling the kids his plan. Everybody is just standing around discussing the Marquess of Queensberry rules. This movie has its characters standing around a lot of the time. As for the manhunt, it has its fun and its thrills in a B-movie way. It's a B-movie to its core and that is a little campy fun.
Didn't deserve it
EngineersAnon2 March 2003
I've seen this movie in the MST3K version, and I have to agree with those who've previously said that it didn't deserve to be there. It was, as many have pointed out, a decent (although not a blockbuster, it didn't try for that) movie version of the short story "The Most Dangerous Game" by Richard Connell. This one was fun, and while it was not always perfect, it did come across as a worthwhile movie.
This is not to say that Mike and the 'bots comments weren't deserved - the movie is not spectacular, and there are parts that deserve the snide comments. But all in all, the movie itself did not deserve the MST treatment.
This is not to say that Mike and the 'bots comments weren't deserved - the movie is not spectacular, and there are parts that deserve the snide comments. But all in all, the movie itself did not deserve the MST treatment.
Not that bad, but still not great
gobosox13 April 2004
A lot of people really hate this movie. Probably because it was featured on Mystery Science Theater and if its on the show it has to be bad right? Well not necessarily. I love MST it always cracks me up, but those involved with the show openly admit that sometimes films are chosen because they can obtain the rights to them not because they are bad. I found Bloodlust to be a solid movie. The plot was good, the dialogue interesting, and it was fairly suspenseful. Negatively, there were some plotholes, the acting was nothing special, and the ending was rather weak, but still an overall enjoyable film. Still it was crap compared to the good suspense movies of its day (any Hitchcock). Not worth renting but maybe a lazy saturday on cable tv if you're into that sort of movie. Oh and the MST version was hilarious, definitely worth watching.
Mediocre
kilgore234511 May 2004
I read recently a review by Roger Ebert by a local independent newspaper after his film festival in Champaign, Illinois. One remark he made was (I cannot locate the interview so I will paraphrase)that mediocre movies were actually the worst type of movie because they are not laughable. I suppose that is how I feel about this movie. It wasn't bad and it wasn't very good or rememberable. I agree with some of the reviewers opinions that so much derision for this movie is due to it being shown on Mystery Science Theater. I did find that particular episode amusing, but something was continuously nagging me about this movie. That was it wasn't horrible, but really boring. I did find myself somewhat captivated by watching a non-Mike Brady Robert Reed and found the ending not surprising for a plot turn (everyone knows how these "Most Dangerous Game" movies end), but by the type of graphic violence.
I can understand how some people would enjoy this movie, but I really think that it lacks most of the elements that make a campy movie fun.
I can understand how some people would enjoy this movie, but I really think that it lacks most of the elements that make a campy movie fun.
Tree of Death.
morrison-dylan-fan10 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Taking a look at a Mill Creek box set that a fellow IMDber has very kindly sent me,I spotted a title that appeared to be inspired by The Most Dangerous Game",which led to me getting ready for the bloodlust to be unleashed.
The plot:
Travelling round in the tropics,a group of teens spot a deserted island.Stepping on the island,the teens find it to be filled with exotic wild life.Finding a strange large pit on the island,the gang are suddenly knocked out.Waking up the gang meet Dr. Albert Balleau,who is a reclusive millionaire.Giving them a warm welcome,Balleau soon reveals that along with being a millionaire,he is also a big game hunter.
View on the film:
Chewing the entire island, Wilton Graff gives a delicious performance as Balleau,with Graff curling his wide grin at every big game target,as writer/director Ralph Brooke bases Balleau in a spooky cave mansion.Sending a bunch of teens to a dangerous game,the screenplay by Brooke has fun poking at teen movie traditions,from the sassy girl to the glasses-wearing geek.Whilst the title offers some surprisingly blunt kills,Brooke sadly fails to give any of the teens "their" moment,and also takes a restrained approach in building up anticipation for the final game between Balleau,which leads to this bloodlust not being as thirsty as it should have been.
The plot:
Travelling round in the tropics,a group of teens spot a deserted island.Stepping on the island,the teens find it to be filled with exotic wild life.Finding a strange large pit on the island,the gang are suddenly knocked out.Waking up the gang meet Dr. Albert Balleau,who is a reclusive millionaire.Giving them a warm welcome,Balleau soon reveals that along with being a millionaire,he is also a big game hunter.
View on the film:
Chewing the entire island, Wilton Graff gives a delicious performance as Balleau,with Graff curling his wide grin at every big game target,as writer/director Ralph Brooke bases Balleau in a spooky cave mansion.Sending a bunch of teens to a dangerous game,the screenplay by Brooke has fun poking at teen movie traditions,from the sassy girl to the glasses-wearing geek.Whilst the title offers some surprisingly blunt kills,Brooke sadly fails to give any of the teens "their" moment,and also takes a restrained approach in building up anticipation for the final game between Balleau,which leads to this bloodlust not being as thirsty as it should have been.
atmospheric and entertaining film
Thorsten-Krings10 April 2008
This is a nice and well made B-movie and surprisingly it works quite well. It's not one of those B-movies that are just plain boring. The story, a take on the classic Count Zaroff, is well told- although at times fairly gruesome for the early 60s (though my edition states 59 as year of origin). The acting is surprisingly competent and even the sets are fairly convincing. All in all it may not be a stroke of genius but it's and atmospheric and entertaining film. There are great performances, partivularly the diabolic and theatrical villain but the rest of the cast are really quite good. The interesting thing is that this film is sort of a teenage version of Count Zaroff and therefore actually pre dates the genre of teen horror flics. Absolutely watchable and entertaining.
Where's the Motivation?
Hitchcoc21 March 2006
This is a very odd, sort of sick movie. A group of teenagers ends up on an island, run be a psychopathic hunter who is bored with animals and hunts humans instead. Since "The Most Dangerous Game," this tired old plot has played out many times. Even the original "Star Trek" did an episode like this. That said, how do you make it work. First of all, we have all these goons running around the island, working for the boss. They probably would have had numerous chances to bump the jerk off at some point. They are obviously violent men. Instead, they do his bidding. Maybe they aren't so smart. They giggle and drool most of the time. Meanwhile, even after the plot is hatched by the big guy, the people to be hunted are allowed to get together and figure out what they are going to do. There are also people being skinned in the basement and mounted in some kind of trophy cave. There is a woman floating in big aquarium. What is the motivation for this guy. Even General Zaroff in the original had a code he lived by. He was willing to face the possibility that he would be killed. In this one, one of the hunted is given a gun, but when he tries to use it, there is no firing pin. It stumbles on to its idiotic conclusion (suddenly one of the guys can't be stopped by bullets; where did that come from). It doesn't work under any sort of scrutiny.
Dull and listless--and the plot is a giant ripoff---but at least you can see Mr. Brady in action!
planktonrules24 February 2007
This is a super-cheap film--made with a shoestring budget as quickly as possible. No where in the film do you detect that it is a quality project--the acting stinks, the sets stink, the props stink and the script is a blatant ripoff of THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME (from the story by Richard Connell). This earlier movie (1932) was thrilling and original. However, over the years the story has been done and redone so many times in movies and on television (such as on GET SMART!) that it's more a giant cliché than a movie plot any more! Because of this, no one really should get writing credits since they just changed the original story here and there but didn't credit Connell (the weasels). Now if the story had been a ripoff BUT it had any energy or originality injected into it, it might have been worth seeing. However, those responsible for the film just didn't seem to care. About the only "original" elements to the story were adding more characters and grossing up the original story. Now it really wasn't gross because they budget was so low and the production so lackadaisical--the dismembered body parts just looked cheesy. So, apart from the curiosity factor of seeing Robert Reed (the dad on THE BRADY BUNCH), there is nothing to distinguish this film from all the other grade-z drive-in movie films made during this era.
Get in the spirit
fjaye14 June 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Not a terrific movie by any stretch, but not as bad as its rep, either.
Instead of taking it seriously, watch it for what it is: a cheesy remake of "The Most Dangerous Game." Of course, it's not suspenseful--except as the runtime nears its end, with no obvious resolution in sight--but the story's been told so many times, how could it be?
You might have a better time by focusing on its little quirks: why does the dangerous, experienced hunter go into a steamy jungle wearing a buttoned-up leather jacket and a black fedora? Why do the henchmen all dress exactly alike--horizontally striped shirts, dark pants and dark caps? (All they need are "clever" name tags to resemble the interchangeable thugs on the "Batman" TV show.)
Finally, take pity on poor Pete. Quicksand around? Pete steps in it. A club-wielding looney? Pete gets clobbered. "Someone needs to scout around for the madman with a crossbow, while the rest of us stay safe. Pete, YOU do it." "Ummm...okay..."
Poor guy.
Instead of taking it seriously, watch it for what it is: a cheesy remake of "The Most Dangerous Game." Of course, it's not suspenseful--except as the runtime nears its end, with no obvious resolution in sight--but the story's been told so many times, how could it be?
You might have a better time by focusing on its little quirks: why does the dangerous, experienced hunter go into a steamy jungle wearing a buttoned-up leather jacket and a black fedora? Why do the henchmen all dress exactly alike--horizontally striped shirts, dark pants and dark caps? (All they need are "clever" name tags to resemble the interchangeable thugs on the "Batman" TV show.)
Finally, take pity on poor Pete. Quicksand around? Pete steps in it. A club-wielding looney? Pete gets clobbered. "Someone needs to scout around for the madman with a crossbow, while the rest of us stay safe. Pete, YOU do it." "Ummm...okay..."
Poor guy.
A fun movie!!
Mbarnum19 March 2000
I love this movie...a teenage MOST DANGEROUS GAME! It is really a fun movie if you don't take it too seriously...a good combination of the 50s teen flick and horror film! And it is fun to see Robert Reed in an early role, years before he played the dad in BRADY BUNCH! Reed, June Kenney, Gene Persson, and Joan Lora are all quite good as the all-American teens who stumble onto BLOODLUST island! The film was actually made in the late 50s but not released to theaters until 1961. The budget is low, and there are some silly lines (June: "Well, we made it this far", Joan: "Ya, but where is this far", June: "Well, I don't know, but it's closer to far away then back in that room!" But, despite it's flaws, you'll get a kick out it!
Terrific Drive-In Fare
Space_Mafune29 September 2002
This film is an early 60s low budget teen exploitation film version of THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME. Wilton Graff gives his best Vincent Price imitation in the lead as the sinister Dr. Balleau who plans on hunting our teen heroes lead by Johnny Randall(played by Robert Reed). This one really goes for the shocks and has some rather startling sequences to make the audience of the era squeal in fright. Perfect fare for a Drive-In theater.
It wasn't that bad
patrick_dunne20 December 2005
I actually liked "Bloodlust!" a bit. Yes, it was a rip-off of "The Most Dangerous Game", but it was fun.
The story is about a group of young people who travel to an island, because of a suggestion by their captain. After one of them accidentally falls into a tiger trap, he alerts the caretaker of the island. Little do they know, the caretaker of the island happens to hunt humans for sport.
The plot probably does have some flaws. The first five minutes are a bit incoherent, and the plot is a bit slow. But, the dialog is better than expected, and the movie does have some decent thrills to offer.
Just like "The Brain that Wouldn't Die" I was disappointed. I wasn't expecting anything extraordinary, but I was expecting something horrible. This movie wasn't exactly perfect, but it was far from horrible!
5/10
Feel free to send me a Private Message regarding this comment.
The story is about a group of young people who travel to an island, because of a suggestion by their captain. After one of them accidentally falls into a tiger trap, he alerts the caretaker of the island. Little do they know, the caretaker of the island happens to hunt humans for sport.
The plot probably does have some flaws. The first five minutes are a bit incoherent, and the plot is a bit slow. But, the dialog is better than expected, and the movie does have some decent thrills to offer.
Just like "The Brain that Wouldn't Die" I was disappointed. I wasn't expecting anything extraordinary, but I was expecting something horrible. This movie wasn't exactly perfect, but it was far from horrible!
5/10
Feel free to send me a Private Message regarding this comment.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
