To me, this movie is perfection.

Don't listen to the negative reviews

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

If you never had any reason to be suspicious of magicians, well, strap in for "The Wizard of Gore." Herschell Gordon Lewis' 1970 cult splatter fest introduces us to Montag (Ray Sager), a vicious virtuoso with a seemingly psychic link to his audience. As his skeptical patrons look on, he prompts random "volunteers" (usually of the buxom and blonde variety) to participate in his nightly show- stopper. Seemingly hypnotized, these poor women are strapped in place as the titular wizard appears to make mince meat of their fine figures. But wait, there's more! After playing around with their guts, Montag sends them back into the audience, and back to their evening they go, inexplicably turning up dead the next day. Lather, rinse, repeat. After watching this about three or four times, a TV reporter and her boyfriend (Judy Cler and Wayne Ratay) launch an impromptu investigation into the wonders of Montag's wizardry. Is it all an illusion? Or is he a maniacal, if inventive serial killer?Shot with all the precision of a drunk dad filming a grade-school talent show, "The Wizard of Gore" is an admittedly cheap affair. Lewis clearly spent what little budget he had on the gore effects (read: re-purposed sheep carcasses) and left little room for hiring actors or a competent director of photography. This doesn't work against the film. If anything, the lack of refinement only adds to its charm. The gore looks real because, well, it is real, and the lead actors have chemistry even as they try not to giggle their way through the whole thing. Judy Cler, in particular, deserves an honorary Oscar for carrying the weight of the film on her shoulders. She is in turns funny and feisty, and proves to be a worthy adversary for Sager's smug svengali. Sager, for his part, does his best as he gleefully toys with his participants' giblets. It's all a little revolting here in 2017, especially a scene in which a metal spike is put through a woman's head while Montag roots around in her eye sockets. So, needless to say, it shocked audiences back in the day who somehow stumbled upon it by misfortune or fate, just as it will you, should you choose to settle in with it some bored, sleepless night."The Wizard of Gore" is a schlocky shocker of the highest variety. True, it's not for everyone, but Lewis was clearly onto something here. Birthing a style that Tobe Hooper would turn onto the mainstream a few years later and which Rob Zombie would... well, whatever Rob Zombie is doing these days, Lewis eschews standard film-making conventions for something more efficient, effective and downright surreal than the average exploitation fare. Don't be surprised if you find yourself needing a shower afterwards, but if nothing else, this "Wizard" does not fail to entertain.

"The Wizard of Gore," one of splatter pioneer Herschell Gordon Lewis's later films, follows a local TV reporter and her boyfriend who become fascinated by a local magician, Montag the Magnificent, who horrifically mutilates women onstage; the magic is that his subjects inexplicably survive their ordeals, restored and unfettered. But when the women begin dying offstage, things get even weirder.Herschell Gordon Lewis is an acquired taste—his films have the late '60s aesthetic of a "Brady Bunch" episode, except they are excessively and elaborately gory. They are classic B-movies of a bygone era, one that is impossible to be recapture, and that is why fans still flock around films like "The Wizard of Gore" or "Two-Thousand Maniacs"—they are relics of the genre."The Wizard of Gore" has been touted as one of Lewis's most bizarre offerings, and it's understandable why people have said so. While there is a plot strung between the moments of grand guignol of blood spillage (rooted in hypnosis and journalism), what really is on display here is the elaborate, gross-out special effects. This in and of itself makes the film a bizarre viewing experience, as an audience mediated through an audience—the characters look on at the victims, and we look on at the victims while looking on through the characters. It's a strange dynamic, and the film plays with our tendencies toward fascination when it comes to freakshows, and moreover, violence.The effects themselves? They're at times disgusting, at others bizarrely edited, but the truth about them after all these years is that, in spite of their being aged in some respects, they're still visceral. It's hard not to wince as a woman is impaled by a steel pipe, and then is playfully eviscerated on a wooden slab in front of spectators. It is these gross-out moments that punctuate the film, and are what give it its singlehanded punch.Overall, "The Wizard of Gore" is a gory, macabre effort, and one of Lewis's more memorable films; it's also one of his most surreal. Some will dismiss it as cheap exploitation, which is fair, but it's also worth taking into consideration the film's phantasmagorical thematics and the ways it presents explicit violence to its audience. What are we watching? And why do we watch? 7/10.

This one is definitely in the "so bad it's good category" except, of course, for the fact that it's not at all good. Herschell Gordon Lewis is a cult figure in the world of horror and exploitation films. His 'Blood Feast' and 'Two Thousand Maniacs' are famous examples of his "craft". Both of those films, I have to say, are better than this one. At least Two Thousand Maniacs has that toe-tapping "And the South will Rise Again" opening song.Wizard of Gore is of course a terrible TERRIBLE film. But it will raise more than a few smiles, which is why it fits nicely in the "so bad it's good" basket. But then again it's so deathly boring! Between each outrageously gory yet incredibly fake-looking murder scene are stretches of dialog and ham acting that beggar belief for sheer boredom. At least the Wizard himself (Montag the Magnificent, played by the illustrious Ray Sager) is entertaining for some of the WORST acting you've ever seen in your life. I wanted to slap him and scream 'spit your lines out man'. He lingers over every lame sentence; each and every word is delivered so painfully slowly and painfully badly. Seriously, your DAD could act better than this. And you've seen him try on those few rare embarrassing occasions after a few too many beers at a family barbecue. Well, that's how bad Ray Sager is here! The gore scenes are rightfully notorious. Well, if someone fingering entrails (the local butcher's finest) and grinning salaciously is what qualifies as gore. There's plenty of guts on display but it's hardly convincing. Actually, it probably couldn't be LESS convincing. Especially considering after each shot of the viscera being fondled we cut back to a full shot of the victim without a drop of blood on them, let alone guts hanging out. The sword swallowing scene is particularly badly done. The actresses almost seem to giggle at times. They know how ridiculous it all is.Aside from Montag's on-stage gore fantasies, the highlights for me are: his Mesmer stare (with powdered eyebrows that don't match the ones he usually 'wears'), which supposedly represents him hypnotizing his audience or a hapless volunteer; the journalist with the crime scene photos who visibly glances at someone off camera several times, perhaps to read his lines; the way the victims suddenly fall down dead after the show in the most awkwardly edited ways...I could go on.So, yes, it's a WOEFUL film, but it's so bad it's an entertaining watch. But, really, it's just awful AWFUL film-making in every department. Be prepared to fast-forward through all the dialog and everything in between Montag's eyebrow close-ups. The only thing Mr H. G. Lewis had in spades was gumption. And a big-a** pair of "cojones". I hope one day to see some of his nudist camp movies!!!

While its strange, mystical sense of suspense aids it, this movie is pretty mediocre in all other aspects, and yet I still find myself enjoying it. It's got terrible acting, bad picture quality and shaky, flawed transitions between scenes (and even stranger ones when it tries to demonstrate the Wizard's "power"), but it's still enjoyable. I wouldn't call this a horror movie so much as a strange combination of fantasy and gore, but it fits my Halloween bill well enough. The Wizard of Gore doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but then, like Phantasm, it isn't really supposed to.There is a 2007 remake of this around, and I might just be inclined to check it out, to see what modern film-making could do for this little gem...