User reviews

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.

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.

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.

This is a clear example of how a remake can fail when trying to revive the magic of a classic. The original 1959 film, directed by Roger Corman and written by Charles B. Griffith, is a cult cinema treasure, a brilliant mix of dark humor, satire and horror. However, this new version, directed by Michael McDonald, lacks the spirit and irreverence that made the original a unique work.

Anthony Michael Hall, as Walter Paisley, is simply disastrous. From the beginning, his performance is rude, dry and unattractive, which goes against the original character, who was a shy and pathetic man who slowly became a monster out of pure ambition, Max's poems clearly destroy Max's sanity. Paisley in the brilliant original version, not in this one. This misrepresentation appears to be largely the result of poor directing of actors on McDonald's part. Hall never manages to capture the essence of Walter, which makes it difficult to empathize with his character, a crucial flaw for the development of the story.

Justine Bateman, as Carla, gives a performance that could be considered Razzie-worthy. His performance is flat and without nuance, unable to convey the depth or charm that the character requires. On the other hand, Shadoe Stevens as Maxwell fails to match the grace and charisma that Julian Burton brought to the character in 1959. Her performance is so lackluster that it makes the dynamic between the main characters feel forced and boring.

The biggest problem with this film is the absence of Charles B. Griffith in the script. It is Charles B. Griffith who really gives soul to the film (from '59). Griffith, with his unique style, was a screenwriter like few others: irreverent, biting, full of wit and with a keen perception of the absurd in everyday life. His script for the original film is a raw gem, full of sharp dialogue and situations loaded with satire that still resonates today, the mockery of the Beat generation is valid today. Griffith was a beatnik, an outsider, a man who knew how to capture the spirit of his time with a touch that few could match. Griffith, with his brilliant, egy, and deeply literary style, was a unique figure in the world of cinema, a screenwriter with a special talent for sharp dialogue and incisive social criticism. His absence in the 1995 remake is deeply felt, and as a fan of his, Roger's, and the original, it hurts, because without his voice, the film loses the bitingness and grace that made the original such a special work.

1995's "A Bucket of Blood" is a failed attempt to capture the genius of the original. With mediocre direction, woeful acting, and a script that isn't up to par, this version is a reminder of what happens when you try to remake a classic without understanding what made it special in the first place.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.