If you’ve ever thought, “Hey, I really want to watch a film about a vampire artist in Mexico who spends most of her time stabbing people and drinking their blood… but also make it dull,” then Mary, Mary, Bloody Mary (1975) is the movie for you. Directed by Juan López Moctezuma and starring Cristina Ferrare, the film attempts to juggle supernatural horror with slasher thrills, but it ends up being as lively as a wet paint drying in an abandoned house. With a plot that’s more tedious than terrifying, Mary, Mary, Bloody Mary offers a unique experience—one where you’ll be yawning as much as you’re cringing. And you will cringe. A lot.
Plot? More Like a Meandering Mess
The premise of Mary, Mary, Bloody Mary is like a jumbled jigsaw puzzle where most of the pieces were lost. Mary Gilmore (Cristina Ferrare) is an American artist stranded in rural Mexico, and for some reason, she spends her days drinking blood, stabbing people, and getting into weird altercations with her estranged, decaying father. Now, I don’t know about you, but that setup sounds like a recipe for a thrilling supernatural thriller, right? Well, not so much. Instead of an engaging story, what you get is a string of disjointed scenes that drag on longer than necessary, all leading up to a climax that’s as satisfying as a half-eaten burrito.
The film begins with Mary casually killing a fisherman because… why not? This sets the tone for the entire movie: casual violence that’s neither exciting nor shocking, just repetitive. She’s a vampire, and there’s no sense of urgency or mystery about it. After a few murders here and there, the film drags us through Mary’s strange art career, her interactions with a creepy, masked man (her father, of course), and an endless cycle of awkward, unconvincing confrontations. We’re supposed to be invested in this twisted tale of vampire heritage, but the only thing twisted here is the pacing, which moves slower than Mary’s blood-draining technique.
The Characters: So Flat, They Could Be Used as Coffin Lids
The characters are about as interesting as a piece of stale toast. Mary, our “leading” lady, is a vampire artist (because of course she is), but the film never bothers to make her anything more than a confused woman who stabs people whenever she feels the urge. Her backstory, motivations, and emotional journey are all pushed aside in favor of random blood-draining and awkward vampire monologues. Cristina Ferrare’s portrayal of Mary is about as exciting as watching paint dry on a canvas—no offense to artists, but this is a different kind of art.
Then there’s the “masked man,” who is supposed to be her father. I can’t help but think that the only thing more confusing than his motives is why anyone would trust a guy who’s half-rotted, constantly tries to kill his daughter, and is just generally a buzzkill at parties. John Carradine, a legend in the horror genre, is totally wasted here, delivering lines with the enthusiasm of someone reading the phone book. His character seems like a last-minute addition, with the kind of development you expect in a student film, not a movie that’s supposed to be about a vampire family with a history of murder. What happened to the rich, bloodthirsty family drama? We don’t know, because it’s buried under a mountain of mediocrity.
The Violence: More Dull Than Disturbing
When it comes to gore, Mary, Mary, Bloody Mary delivers… well, not much. Sure, there are a few stabbings and blood-draining moments, but they’re about as graphic as a kid’s Halloween costume. The film doesn’t seem interested in making you feel uncomfortable or shocked. Instead, it offers up a series of clumsy attempts at horror, like the scene where a corpse gets stabbed in the morgue. But it’s not even scary, it’s more like a slapstick horror parody that accidentally became a slasher film. You can almost hear the director sighing, “Eh, close enough.”
Instead of leaning into the gore and shock value, the film gets distracted by things like “dream sequences” where Mary has visions of her past—visions that are so lifeless you might wonder if the director accidentally left the camera running while he took a nap. The film could’ve been more disturbing if it leaned into the supernatural elements or embraced its horror roots, but it plays it so safe that it ends up being neither scary nor memorable. It’s the cinematic equivalent of a limp handshake.
The Cinematography: Spooky, If Spooky Means “Boring”
The film’s atmosphere is like a fog machine that’s only been halfway turned on. There are some moody shots of the Mexican landscape, and you can almost imagine the camera trying to make it look like a setting straight out of a gothic novel. But in reality, the film’s cinematography is about as effective at building tension as a paper bag in a windstorm. The locations—like the abandoned house and the dusty roads—might have looked great on a postcard, but they don’t help the film create any atmosphere. The scenes are so slow that they practically beg you to check your watch every five minutes, wondering if anyone in the movie is going to do anything interesting.
Conclusion: A Vampire Movie That Needs a Stake in the Heart
Mary, Mary, Bloody Mary is a film that tries to be a supernatural slasher, but ends up as a tedious exercise in what could have been a quirky, forgotten horror tale. The slow pacing, underdeveloped characters, and lack of real horror make it a slog to sit through. Even the gore and vampire elements are so underwhelming that you’ll likely find yourself wishing Mary had just stuck to art instead of vampire shenanigans. If you’re into grindhouse and cult films for the sheer absurdity, then Mary, Mary, Bloody Mary might have some unintentional comedy value. But if you’re looking for a genuinely scary or even mildly entertaining vampire film, this one will leave you bleeding with disappointment.
