WARNING: This Review Contains Spoilers
The topic covered in these films, to my knowledge, is a very rare storyline of horror films. In 1963, Blood Feast introduced us to Fuad Ramses, the exotic caterer and dedicated follower of the Egyptian goddess Ishtar. He makes a reappearance in 2016 when the film was directly remade, only the country and his profession having changed. In between these was the release of Blood Diner, a dark and comical adaptation of the story following brothers George and Michael Tatmun and their pursuit to raise the Numarian goddess Sheetar. Let the sacrificing begin…
A connection
This is more relevant to the original film, as each of the women Fuad sacrifices to Ishtar has read or requested a copy of the book ‘Ancient Weird Religious Rites’. However, there is no such connection between George and Michael’s victims and the closest to such in the 2016 version of Blood Feast is that Fuad kills four of his daughter Penny’s friends.
A Change in Times
Understandably as times change, so will the cinematic production of such films as these. For me, as the films went on I found they gradually became more grotesque. In the original Blood Feast film, it is part of Fuad’s plan for the guests of Suzette’s party to eat the items he has taken from his sacrifices but I do not believe it would ever have been on the director’s mind for one of these sacrifices to be eaten alive, whereas this is exactly what happens in the 2016 remake. We also do not see the removal of any such body parts in 1963, instead we either pan away or are just focused on the back of Fuad’s head as it happens. However, in both Blood Diner and Blood Feast (2016) we see men and women skinned, bum cheeks removed – even a penis chopped off.
In addition to this, something else that seems to have come with the change in times of horror films – is the inclusion of nudity. At no point do we see any naked figures in the original Blood Feast, not even once the women are dead. In both this and Blood Diner we have a very similar scene. Both Fuad and George contend with the killing a young woman who is on the beach with her boyfriend. The only differences between these scenes is not only that George does not successfully murder the girl (instead she dies by accident) but also that his victim is completely naked.
Something else that seems to have come with the change in times between Blood Feast in 1963 and Blood Diner is that a warning has actually been added to the beginning of the film. This is also the case for Blood Feast (2016) however for this version it is a voice-over running as a murder is being committed so for me, it did not have the same effect as that of Blood Diner.
A Little Light Relief
I have to admit, this is something that helps me place Blood Diner above both versions of Blood Feast. Instead of being a run-of-the-mill sacrifice horror film, Blood Diner has a lot of moments that will make you laugh – especially as George and Michael are not exactly the perfect killers. For example, they are being taught what to do by the brain of their dead uncle which they have stolen from his grave. Seeing a brain, with eyes I might add, in a jar telling them step-by-step what needs to be done to raise Sheetar really does take away from the serious side of the film.
In addition to this, when Michael tries to kill his first victim for the feast by frying her head – she actually fights him off and tries to run away with a fried ball on her neck, earrings still attached.
A Different Ending
It seems, especially if I am understanding the ending of the 2016 version of Blood Feast correctly, that the original Fuad Ramses is the only one to not succeed. To complete his ritual, he needed to take the life of Suzette Freemont but he is interrupted by her mother causing him to have to make a getaway only to meet his demise in the back of a rubbish truck. On the other hand, George and Michael Tatmun also end up dying by the end of Blood Diner, however they do succeed in raising Sheetar and she is not destroyed as we see her get into a man’s car at the end of the film.
As I mentioned, the ending of Blood Feast (2016) is a little bit confusing. It is not clear to me if Fuad actually dies at the end as we do not see much once we are only viewing the scene by torchlight. However, it seems that he may not raise Ishtar to walk the mortal coil but she does say that he has freed her with his sacrifice so I would say to some extent this is a success.
An Honourable Mention
The two remakes of Blood Feast we have discussed in this article are not the only ones. In 1978, Mardi Gras Massacre was made but was unfortunately banned in the United Kingdom as soon as it was released due to it coming across as what was colloquially known as a ‘video nasty’. It was even given an X-rating in the USA. I have taken this as the reason for me being unable to find a copy in order to discuss this in the same way that I have Blood Diner and Blood Feast (2016).
In Conclusion
In all honesty, I struggled with two out of the three films. I found Blood Feast (1963) very slow going and rather disjointed and even though I believe I have quite a strong stomach when it comes to horror films, I felt rather sick by the end of Blood Feast (2016). So, that being said I definitely recommend watching Blood Diner, mainly for the humour, but I would never say not to watch the original.
