Bloody, Bloody Bible Camp

In 1977, a group of horny kids spending their summer at a Christian bible camp end up getting slaughtered by a crazed nun wearing a devil mask. Seven years after the bloodbath, a new group of church-loving nitwits attempts to re-open the facility, and sends a new group of campers and counselors off into the wilderness. Of course, they don’t bother to tell any of the churchgoers the bloody history of the place they’re sending them off to, and they especially don’t mention that they may potentially be walking straight into a trap. Oh, goodness no. Because doing something like that might be ethical. But that’s okay, because the fabled Sister Mary Chopper is still hanging around, and she’s going to make sure that their little wilderness outing is going to be one they won’t soon forget.

You know, assuming they manage to dodge the ax she has aimed at their skull first.

Oops. Looks like someone should have put more effort into their sprints.

Well, after doing the prerequisite cheesy pool party horror comedy film last week, I figured I might as well do a cheesy summer camp horror comedy film too. You know, to finish off the set. Bloody, Bloody Bible Camp looked like it would easily fit the bill. It’s a parody of 70’s and 80’s slashers, it not only stars, but was also produced by Reggie Bannister (of Phantasm fame), and the film’s cover sports a mask wearing nun carrying a bloody ax. I mean, come on, who doesn’t want to watch a slasher about a nun who slaughters a bunch of annoying teens? That sounds like a dream. But as most horror comedies go, shock of all shocks, it ain’t a dream, and is instead filled with a bunch of very unfunny annoyances. So many of them, in fact, that I was almost ready to turn it off about ten minutes in. But I didn’t, and I was (marginally) pleased to see that the film righted the ship somewhat after the accursed flashback was over. Because in the great realm of horror comedies this one here is like many others, filled with too many a lame joke and overwhelmed by an overabundance of very annoying characters. But for some slasher fans it’s not going to be a total loss, because it’s also got a lot of very impressively bloody deaths to its name, as well as its fair share of nudity to keep most of the diehards entertained.

So, how much nudity does the film have? Well, Ron Jeremy pops in at some point, if that gives you any kind of indication. But the movie is kind of top heavy in the skin department, if you’ll forgive my horrible pun. Most of the women get naked towards the beginning of the film, including one that runs pell-mell down the stairs away from the killer in slow motion, wearing nothing but her birthday suit, but after that it petters off into almost nothing. So while it’s certainly prevalent, I can’t really say that it’s all that well spaced out. Though they do throw in a shirtless tubby guy towards the end to try to make up for it. It’s almost the same thing, I suppose.

Yes, they spend ample time making fun of the fat guy. No, they are not clever about it.

The bloody, gutsy gore, on the other hand, is another matter entirely. They start throwing the red (and by red I mean “very red”) stuff at you faster than a starving vampire gorging itself on an all you can eat blood bank buffet pretty much right off the bat (And there’s another corny pun. Sorry, my bad.). The aforementioned ax gets quite a bit of bloody lovin’, but people are also stabbed with various sharp implements, slashed with unholy homemade crucifix-knives, and heads literally fly all over the place. It’s just a gosh darn mess is what it is, and unlike the skin, the film does a much better job of generously spreading out the red tempera paint for all the gore-hounds in the audience. Which makes sense for a movie that put “Bloody” in its title twice. There is a bit of a lull in the bloodletting after the time skip while the film goes about reintroducing all the new characters for the audience to hate and setting up the stage for the second bloody massacre up in the high hills. But the film moves at a pretty good clip, so it shouldn’t feel like too long before the unholy Sister shows up for Round 2.

Daaaaamn!

The film’s low point is the writing, which feels very hit-or-miss. I get that the movie is trying to parody the early slashers of the 70s and 80s, and when you look at it that way it makes sense why the filmmakers did a lot of what they did. But holy crap, that doesn’t mean that everything they attempted was effective. The scenes from the 70s fare the worst, with some of the corniest, cringiest dialogue I think I’ve ever heard. What’s worse, is that this is the point where they make fun of the grind-house films, so you just KNOW they put effort into intentionally making the lines sound that bad, and I can’t tell if that somehow makes the whole section better or worse? I mean, I know they’re making fun of a certain film type, and there were a couple of pretty good quips thrown in there amongst all that mess, but yeash, it’s still pretty hard to get through. But then again, so were most grind-house films, so maybe that was the point. Intentional or not, thankfully you don’t have to deal with it for very long, because the killer Nun blissfully swoops in to slaughter the worst offenders so you don’t have to listen to any of that purposefully written stupidity for a moment longer.

So they’re all dead now?… You’re sure?… Oh, thank God!

By contrast, the characters from the 80s are still pretty awful, but at least the second time around they cover a broader range of awful. The 70s characters were all just a bunch of drugged-up horny toads. After the time skip there’s at least a bit more variety of people you can hate. And yes, you will hate all of them for one reason or another. You’ve got people like the jock, the preppy socialite, a guy who’s only diligently reading the bible in the hopes of finding a loophole to the whole “no sex before marriage” thing, and the annoying fat kid who’s just there to, well, have someone around to make fun of, I suppose. It’s all pretty standard stuff, and they’re all doing a pretty good job of making fun of their characters’ respective character tropes and ratcheting all the corniness up to 11. And like the humor in the 70s setting, there are a few amusing lines and quips thrown in, especially those pertaining to the church, that end up eliciting a chuckle or two, as well as some entertaining sight gags. But for every instance of cleverness, or effective nudge-nudge-wink-wink moment directed towards the audience, there’s also about a dozen instances of juvenile humor thrown in between that lands with about as much punch as a wheezing fart. So when it comes to the film’s humor, your mileage will undoubtedly vary depending on your preferences.

I was hoping for more fun in my Ron Jeremy and Reggie Bannister headlined horror spoof, but alas. Despite a couple of good lines, hell even a couple of VERY good lines, the film isn’t really all that funny, or at least not funny enough to earn its designation as a comedy. It’s close, but not quite. It does, however, manage to get the excessive skin and gore right when it comes to their little horror spoof, so I can’t really say that the film wasn’t at least partially entertaining. Cause damn, some of those kills were downright vicious and I’m actually kind of impressed they managed to pull them off so well with such a small budget. So in the end, I liked Bloody Bloody Bible Camp. Not a lot, mind you, but enough to where I feel I have to begrudgingly admit to it. So if you like cheesy horror movies or your rubric for quality is solely based on how much blood a slasher spills, then Bloody Bloody Bible Camp is probably at least worth a single viewing. But if you have higher standards then this will probably be a film you can feel safe in skipping.

Bloody Bloody Bible Camp is available on a variety of streaming services.

Bloody Bloody Bible Camp is also available on DVD and Bluray, though when it comes to the latter, I can’t guarantee it’ll work in your specific region.