Despite everything, there are some certainties we can hold onto here. One is that the costume design, hair, and makeup are lovely. Another is that to whatever extent the cast suffered from the changing nature of the feature over time, Roger Corman, Jack Hill, and or Stephanie Rothman are surely much more responsible for any shortcomings than the actors themselves, and I think the performances are perfectly suitable for what the material may require at any point. Perhaps most substantively, in various ways I think the best thing to be said about 'Blood bath' (if indeed that's the version you're watching) is that it does ably achieve some appropriately dark, flavorful vibes. This comes across in the fine use of filming locations, and some terrific art direction, not to mention some unexpectedly splendid shot composition. The stunts and effects that are employed look great, and some of the imagery and scenes are especially ghastly. There is, after all, major and meaningful horror here, including some instances of violence, underlying threads in the narrative, and even the tasteful original music that lends to the mood. I would even go so far as to say that for all the strange and far-flung thoughts that got tossed into this smorgasbord, I can see how all of them (even the beatniks) would be fitting and delightful if used appropriately and selectively, including some surrealist flourishes.
The issue is that it seems well on record that the history of this film - whichever version one might find themselves watching - is a total mess. By all accounts the twisted jumble of rewriting, reshooting, recasting, reframing, and re-releasing led to a hodgepodge that pretty much satisfied no one at any time. Such kluges hardly sound appealing to a viewer when we learn about them, but sometimes one just has to see such curiosities for ourselves. For all the strength that this does boast at different times and in different ways, and above all for the core value of the story that took shape, the end result comes across in one measure or another as imbalanced, unwieldy, and maybe even a tad slapdash, which all too sorrily reflects the reality of the matter. Not every inclusion comes off equally well, yet by and large I don't question the sincerity of those involved, nor their skills or intelligence. It's just that there needed to be a point when someone asserted themselves and said "it's done," and refused further additions. For all the potential of this and that idea, the ultimate form of the conglomeration that weaves them all in is a smidgen incohesive and overfull, and clashes with itself, like an outfit combining all the most garish and possibly stereotypical concepts of both 80s and 90s fashion trends. That clash also results in tonal inconsistency.
In all earnestness I believe there's a great deal to like in 'Blood bath,' and it's a significantly better picture than it sounds like from the outside looking in. To read about the shifting production, some of the problems of continuity and constancy (or the lack thereof) sound utterly horrid (e.g., different actors, different facial hair, insertion of new footage). To actually watch, these problems are diminished and somewhat get lost amidst the real quality that the movie illustrates at its best, and our suspension of disbelief fills in the gaps without us even having to think about it. There remain considerable difficulties, yes, and I think what it comes down to is that the flick desperately needed a single unified vision from the start, and not the piecemeal retooling from one iteration to the next that we got. No matter how generous one is apt to be, there's no mistaking that the final product is troubled. Still, the cast turned in good work, and those operating behind the scenes. However much blame one wishes to assign to Corman, Hill, and or Rothman for their questionable reshaping, they still managed to somehow collectively churn out a title that gives us the horror we crave, and that tells a complete, compelling, and satisfying story. Would that 'Blood bath' were the result of one directive, and not several, for that's how I think its faults would have been resolved.
I enjoyed this, and I think others would too despite its weaknesses. Those who doubt and jeer without seeing it, like I had, might be surprised by the actual outcome; on the other hand, I can't argue much with those who engage honestly and don't care for it. All I can say is that against all odds I had a good time watching 'Blood bath,' and incredibly enough I think it earns a soft recommendation, with the caveat that one should maybe be aware from the outset of its full nature. If one can appreciate the whole even with that awareness, then I think it speaks even better of what this 1966 feature ended up being.
