"Blood Rage" is a slasher remembered only for its being quite a bit more gory than most other films of its endless subgenre.
I realised toward the end that, interestingly, most of this gore is actually only the aftermath of the violent acts the homicidal maniac commits: there is very little on-screen violence, but a lot of gruesome shots of damaged bodies.
This lack of real 'violence' sometimes features to amusing effect. Take for instance one of the movie's few memorable moments: a lady is approached in the woods by the slasher with a sword in his hand. The lady screams, recognizing the danger she's in. The camera cuts away to something much less interesting, and then cuts back a few seconds later, to the sight of the woman, or rather her top half, as she screams on the ground - as well she might, since her lower half is now over a few feet away from her.
Are we expected to believe that, in only a few moments, the not particularly strapping bad guy was able to cut her completely in half? The sword thing he's got doesn't even look that sharp or dangerous; I'm reminded of a much larger version of a butter knife.
The plot is something to do with a twin who kills someone when he is a child and frames his brother for the crime. Ten or so years later, the good twin escapes from prison, while the bad one starts thinking about killing again.
There's only one reason why they bother with the 'twin' angle: so you can be confused, at a climactic moment, about which is which. Even in 1987, was anyone surprised by that twist?
I realised toward the end that, interestingly, most of this gore is actually only the aftermath of the violent acts the homicidal maniac commits: there is very little on-screen violence, but a lot of gruesome shots of damaged bodies.
This lack of real 'violence' sometimes features to amusing effect. Take for instance one of the movie's few memorable moments: a lady is approached in the woods by the slasher with a sword in his hand. The lady screams, recognizing the danger she's in. The camera cuts away to something much less interesting, and then cuts back a few seconds later, to the sight of the woman, or rather her top half, as she screams on the ground - as well she might, since her lower half is now over a few feet away from her.
Are we expected to believe that, in only a few moments, the not particularly strapping bad guy was able to cut her completely in half? The sword thing he's got doesn't even look that sharp or dangerous; I'm reminded of a much larger version of a butter knife.
The plot is something to do with a twin who kills someone when he is a child and frames his brother for the crime. Ten or so years later, the good twin escapes from prison, while the bad one starts thinking about killing again.
There's only one reason why they bother with the 'twin' angle: so you can be confused, at a climactic moment, about which is which. Even in 1987, was anyone surprised by that twist?