SimonJack Dick Miller isn't exactly threatening as Walter Paisley in "A Bucket of Blood." And that is the only aspect of this film that makes it somewhat tolerable. Miller was a good actor for the types of characters he played over a long Hollywood career. Here, he underplays his role to perfection. The rest of the roles are so-so at best. The plot is OK but the screenplay isn't very good. And the direction is weak. The set and technical values of the film give it the appearance and feel of what the film was at the time. It was a "B" film then, and remains a poor one today. It takes superb talent to make a good movie that combines comedy, crime and horror. "A Bucket of Blood" missed the talent on all levels, except for Dick Miller in his role as Walter.

Leofwine_draca As is often the case, when you sit through a whole number of cheesy, cheap and poor-quality movies, you'll generally find one diamond in the rough. One classic in the otherwise forgettables. A BUCKET OF BLOOD is such a film, which is miles above the earlier schlocky sci-fi/horror flicks that Corman either produced or directed in the late '50s, before colour and Edgar Allan Poe came along. The saving grace here is the great sense of humour in the production, from the often satirically witty script to the depictions of the most amusing "beatnik" culture. Even the murders and deaths which are a major part of the film have an element of black, macabre comedy to them and the film as a whole is a hoot.Dick Miller stars as Walter Paisley, a mild-manner and put-open waiter, immediately a type you feel sorry for. When he actually kills a cat which is stuck in his wall, he decides to cover its body in plaster and immediately wins the respect of his peers. It's not long before he becomes unhinged and human victims suffer for his art, and inevitably he is found out, hunted down and... well, I won't spoil the ending, other than to say it's totally expected but still exciting and done with style. Miller is a real strength as Paisley, and it's kind of a shame his career dwindled in the doldrums before Joe Dante found himself and gave him a new lease of life. You get the idea from this that Miller is a real nice guy, just like his character, and despite the many murders he commits you can't help loving him.A BUCKET OF BLOOD, despite the title, isn't really a horror film. It's a comedy with horrific overtones, for instance in the macabre statues that Paisley makes or the murders themselves, which whilst offscreen are still suitably gruesome. The film is also about a loner trying desperately to fit into society and being driven to extreme lengths in his desire to do so, and as such can be applied to many real-life situations. In this way it can also reach out and touch the audience. Although the black-and-white subtracts somewhat in a film desperately crying out for colour, this is a well-shot, well-directed movie, even if it was made on the cheap in however many days. Many "horror as art" style movies and unofficial remakes have followed, but so far none have equalled this short, straightforward cinematic gem.

tnrcooper Awkward and possibly mentally challenged, Walter Paisley (Dick Miller) is desperate for love and respect. He works at a hipster cafe frequented by impossibly pretentious people and yearns to fit in. He is rejected as staid and hopelessly straight by its patrons and is largely viewed with pity. One day, he stumbles across a devilish way to make realistic sculptures, something he can't do ordinarily and his work is a big hit at the cafe. Walter's never had adulation and regard like this before and he realizes this is his ticket to popularity. How fully he realizes this becomes dreadfully clear as the film goes on. This is a pitch black satire of the cluelessness of hipsters. The cafe's owner Leonard de Santis (Anthony Carbone, who looks remarkably like Humphrey Bogart) realizes what a monster Walter is but doesn't intervene right away. Walter is a remarkable mix of slow and lonely and this makes him ripe for the the depredations to which he increasingly succumbs. In this day and age a decent attorney would claim that Walter was not fully responsible for his actions because of his low IQ, but I don't imagine that claim would have held up as well in 1959.In any case, Walter's fame grows as he continues to lose it. The hipsters don't smell a rat. Corman obviously takes great glee in mocking this. The clueless hipster is most perfectly embodied by Maxwell (an excellent, stentorian Julian Brock), a beard-wearing, abstract poet who is so enchanted by Walter's "work" that he holds a party in his honor and writes a poem for him!The beautifully ironic thing about this film is that the one character who most sees through Walter's inability as a sculptor is the most cold-eyed and callous character, Alice (Judy Bamber). She questions Walter's ability and by that time he is so well-regarded that his adoring fans savage HER for her lack of sophistication! That she and the relatively cool- headed cafe owner Leonard are the only ones who see through Walter is hilarious. Corman apparently shot this film in 5 days and for $50,000 and it's only 66 minutes long, but what a punch it packs! A scabrously funny script, some excellent acting, and no happy ending. If you like your comedy dark, this is one for you.

LeonLouisRicci This is Often called a Black Comedy. It is Alleged that Director Roger Corman takes the Credit for Inventing the Genre. This Certainly is a Scathing Indictment of the Bohemian Life, Beatniks, and the Art World. But it is so with a Cunning Script that Never Relies on the Cheap and is Humorous only in its Illumination of Pretense as Significance.It is Actually, more Creepy than Funny, and more Morbid than Satiric. The Movie has a Huge Cult Following and is Touted and Proclaimed as Perfect Corman. It Deserves all that and More. Only, Perhaps, Night of the Living Dead (1969), could Eclipse this as the Best Most Inexpensive Movie Ever Made.There is nothing Wasted here and Everything Meshes with Tight Environs, Minimalist Sets, Crackerjack Dialog, and an Unrelenting Tone. The Violence and Murders are anything but Amusing, and the Resulting Works of Art are Horrifying.To make a Near Perfect Picture in 5 Days with such Limitations is Nothing Less Than Remarkable and this Movie has been Remarked About since its Initial Drive-In, Grindhouse Release. It Forever Holds-Up and has Never Lost its Allure. Corman, the Artist, might call this...Movie, Man.