Btexxamar I like Black Panther, but I didn't like this movie.

Mischa Redfern I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Nicole I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Michael_Elliott Color Me Blood Red (1965)** 1/2 (out of 4) The third film in director Herschell Gordon Lewis' "blood trilogy," this one here centers on a crazed painter (Goron Oas-Heim) who finally reaches his breakthrough when he realizes that human blood is the perfect red for his paintings. This here is pretty much a re-working of the Roger Corman classic A BUCKET OF BLOOD with the biggest difference being that this here is in bright color, which perfectly shows off the various bloody scenes. Look, if you're wanting some sort of masterpiece or brilliant filmmaking then this here certainly isn't going to be for you. With that said, film history has all sorts of items that remain important and there's no doubt that Lewis' blood trilogy is one such thing. The movie contains some awful acting, a silly script, lame dialogue and there are countless other things that you could pick on but in the end the picture is at least fun. While I'm sure all the shots of blood were shocking back in 1965, when viewed today they're more campy fun than anything else. The movie managers to move at a very good pace, which is certainly important as there's nothing worse than one of these films that just drag along. Another important thing is that the lead actor at least keeps you entertained in everything. Yes, the performance isn't great or even good. It's over-the-top and rather campy but this here is actually very entertaining. The supporting players don't come off as well but I'm sure director Lewis wasn't too worried about performances. As for the red stuff, it's cleverly done and especially the "big" sequence early on when a woman is tied up and the painter has to use one of her organs to fill up his paint cup. COLOR ME BLOOD RED doesn't come close to the same level as BLOOD FEAST or TWO THOUSAND MANIACS but it's still a nice entry in the series.

MartinHafer I am sure that when this movie debuted, people were shocked at its violence and blood, though by today's standards it's awfully tame--especially since the blood is obviously not the correct color (looking more like crimson paint) and the "guts" don't really look like internal organs at all. Frankly, for a "gore picture", this is one you can probably let the kids watch...unless your kid is likely to imitate the actions of Adam Sorg! The film is a super-low budget picture--the sort of trashy film that Hershell Gordon Lewis was known for making. There is no attempt to use competent actors, have good production values or make anything other than 100% schlock. So, considering that he INTENDED on making such a craptacular film, you really can't be too hard on the final product. It's bad--but I don't think the film makers intended anything else. Now Lewis made LOTS of rotten films, but some of them managed to be entertaining despite their many, many shortcomings. This and TWO THOUSAND MANIACS! happen to have enough going for them that they are enjoyable in a kitschy sort of way. Not all Hershell Gordon Lewis films are alike, though, as many are not just bad but pretty much unwatchable, such as his MONSTER A GO-GO and THE Gruesome TWOSOME.The film is basically a rip-off of Roger Corman's BUCKET OF BLOOD (which, despite the title, is a very good film). Unlike BUCKET OF BLOOD, the acting in COLOR ME BLOOD RED is really bad--really, really bad. And, while Corman made a lot of bad films, his style was usually excellent. COLOR ME BLOOD RED is just pure cheese. Like the previous film, this one concerns a crazy artist who manages to impress the critics when he kills people to make his art. In BUCKET OF BLOOD, the crazed artist covers dead people in clay and in COLOR ME BLOOD RED the nut-job is looking for that 'perfect' red for his paintings and happens upon blood!! The film begins with Sorg having his first one-man art show. However, he's infuriated when an art critic savages his use of color. Later, Sorg's lady friend cuts herself and bleeds on a canvas accidentally--at which point he is inspired to use blood! The problem is that he needs a lot, so he takes to killing. Why he didn't just try animal blood or talk to a blood bank or get groups of people to donate blood for his cause, I don't know! I guess this wouldn't have made an interesting film.By the way, it's a tad off topic, but get a load of the first lady Sorg kills. Throughout the movie, this lady ALWAYS runs around in leotards like a dancer. She drives that way, goes to art shows that way and goes to the beach that way. It seems that this was such a low budget film that they couldn't even afford clothes for this lady! Back to Sorg. Now his art is loved by this snobby critic and he is in great demand. However, he suddenly refuses to sell these bloody paintings (I thought a couple of them were pretty cool)! And, because it's like eating potato chips, he can't stop with killing only one person. However, this is no bloodbath film--he only kills three during the course of the film. It all comes to an end when he's about to kill victim #4--when her goofy boyfriend and her even goofier friends come to the rescue.Overall, despite being a terrible film in every way (acting, direction, a stolen plot, dialog, etc.), the pieces all seem to fit together to make a reasonably watchable exploitation film. It's bad, but fun in its quirky way. I'd give it a 1 or 2 for technical merit but a 5 for watchability. Overall, a 3 seems about right.It was interesting to me to note that this film was made in Sarasota, Florida--just a few miles down the road from my house. Sadly, however, I have visited Sarasota's famous Ringling Museum of Art and have never seen any of Adam Sorg's paintings in the gallery!! Nor, for that matter, has the film been shown at the prestigious Sarasota Film Festival. Go figure!

BA_Harrison For the second film in his infamous 'Blood' trilogy, 'Godfather of Gore' Herschell Gordon Lewis gleefully rips off Roger Corman's beatnik horror A Bucket of Blood, but fails to deliver in almost every department: the direction is dull; the dialogue is awful ('Holy Bananas, it's a girl's leg!' exclaims one character upon finding a dead body); the acting is atrocious; the music is bland, generic jazz; and the one factor that audiences have come to expect from Lewis—outrageous 'grand guignol' style splatter—is notable by its absence (only one scene, in which the protagonist squeezes blood from one of his victim's intestines, comes close to providing gore-hounds with the goods).Gordon Oas-Heim is reasonably convincing as obnoxious artist Adam Sorg, who discovers that he produces his best work when painting in blood, but almost everyone else puts in absolutely dreadful performances, with special mention going to Pat Lee as wig-wearing teen Sydney: her incessant use of hip 60s slang ('where's the snacks, Jack?', 'on the patio, Daddio', 'dig that crazy driftwood') might be amusing at first, but is guaranteed to eventually grate on the nerves.Fans of Lewis will no doubt wish to see this film so that they can complete the trilogy, and those with a thing for curvaceous cuties in big bikinis might get the occasional thrill, but it's hard to imagine anyone else finding Color Me Blood Red to be anything other than a bore.3.5 out of 10, generously rounded up to 4 for IMDb.

macabro357 In Herschel Gordon Lewis' third part of the "blood trilogy" he did with producer Dave Friedman, a local crackpot artist named Adam Sorel (Don Joseph) can't get the right shade of red for his canvases. One day, his girlfriend/assistant cuts herself on a nail and accidentally drips blood on to a canvas. Sorel thinks this is the perfect shade of red he's looking for so he starts off by cutting his fingers and supplies his own blood to his first canvas.But he soon realizes that he doesn't have enough blood to supply all the red 'paint' that he needs, so he goes on a gore killing spree. He starts by killing his assistant/girlfriend by stabbing her to death and burying her body out on the beach near his oceanside bungalow.The next victim is a female sunbather who's pedaling on one of those boat-cycles and is grabbed by Sorel after he kills her boyfriend by ramming into him with his powerboat. He takes her back to the house, hangs her from the rafters and disembowels her. It doesn't look very effective, though. It looks like red-painted pieces of plastic hanging down from the waistline of her pants. We see Sorel squeeze the so-called 'entrails' as he tries to wring every last drop of blood out of her.The daughter of a woman who wants to buy one of Sorel's paintings from him, goes over to his house after Sorel entices her to pose for him. Her teenage friends are outside on the beach roasting marshmallows while they wait for her. As they gather wood for the fire, they accidentally uncover the assistant's body. In the coolest scene of the film, we get to see the corpse's rotting, blackened skull-face with earthworms crawling through and on it. Not bad! One of the boy's goes over to Sorel's house nearby to let them know what they found and he sees Sorel about to strike the hanging girls with an axe, grabs a shotgun that's hanging on the wall and shoots Sorel in the face, turning it into a bloody pulp. It's so cheesy-looking, it's hilarious.The Something Weird DVD uses a print that's a little blurry in spots, but is perfectly watchable. It also includes 10 minutes of outtakes that are interesting along with the original theatrical trailer. It's not quite as much fun as the two earlier films but it's still a gas, anyway. 6 out of 10