After watching the Three-Riffer version of Corman's Little Shop of Horrors, I definitely had to request this 'other version' of the tale. And what do I mean by that, RiffTrax? Well, read on and I'll tell you through the three excellent reasons provided.

1) Strangely similar plot, despite the fact Corman based one of them on a musical: It's true, when you watch both films back-to-back, you immediately realize Corman just took this original plot from Bucket of Blood and simply applied it to Little Shop.

Bucket: Walter's a clueless schmuck who ends up accidentally finding fame by killing innocent people for his art by submerging his victims in plaster/cement, which all started when Walter inadvertently murdered the landlady's cat, attempted to hide the body in plaster and show it as a statue, where some art critic considered it to be one of Walter's finest work.

Shop of Horrors: Seymour acquires fame for his boss' flower shop by creating a hybrid plant that lives off human blood. Seymour accidentally starts killing people off as plant flood when he inadvertently causes the death of a drunk hobo, then has to get rid of the body by feeding it to the plant. Which leads to Seymour becoming a reluctant serial killer (well, more or less, since the first two turn out to be accidental, and I'm still not certain how Seymour killed a dentist with a drill, but that's Corman for you.).

Bucket: Walter gets exposed when the truth accidentally occurs at a big gallery showing (some of the plaster starts falling off under the hot lights).

Shop: Seymour gets exposed at his big moment of being giving a major award (Audrey Junior's buds reveal the faces of the victims Seymour has fed to the plant).

Bucket/Shop: Both involve a 'Benny Hill' like chase scene after the main characters' true intentions are revealed (apparently back then, nobody heard of police simply arresting a person, nor pursuing a suspect with their vehicle instead of on foot).

Bucket/Shop: Both receive their demise ironically, Seymour becomes Audrey Junior's last victim in an attempt to destroy the plant. Whereas Walter ends up become his final work of art as an attempt seeking refuge from his pursuers.

After watching Bucket of Blood you'll wonder if Corman just decided to rehash the plot with Shop but just substitute Walter and plastering people with Seymour feeding people to a killer plant.

Which leads to the next reason itself...

2) Bucket of Blood comes off as a clumsy modernization of House of Wax.

Though Walter is no Prof. Henry Jarrod (Vincent Price), what makes Bucket hilarious is the fact Walter achieves fame rather quickly simply by dunking the landlady's deceased cat in plaster as a means to keep her from finding out, and having some art critic find the 'statue' to be an exquisite work of art. Which sends Walter on his murderous spree just to become famous in the art world, and maintain his status in the art world.

Whereas Price's character gets fame for his wax's statues pretty much the same way, except rather than it being accidental, like Walter's, he does it as a lurid way to get revenge on an unscrupulous former partner (doncha hate when that happens?).

And as Mike indicated in Little Shop of Horrors, the background music in Bucket don't exactly match up on cue. The acting is also hilarious for the fact nobody has a clue about Walter's so-called genius, despite the disturbing reality whenever Walter 'creates' a new work of art, someone sudden goes missing. Even the landlady never figures out his first sculpture is actually her cat, as Walter somehow convinces her that it 'ran off somewhere.' Strangely he uses this excuse whenever someone ends up missing, and people in the Corman universe apparently accept this unquestionably... well, except for the detectives, who know something is up, but they don't know what.

Only when Walter's art starts 'crumbling' at his art show, does everyone suddenly figure it out as if it's an earth-shattering revelation.

At least in the House of Wax, they figured it out a lot sooner and had a better conflict scene with Price than just endless pursuing his character throughout London.

3) Ridiculous plot resolution: For some reason during the Fifties, directors and writers thought it was always 'artistic' if they had the villainous lead meet their demise the same way they did to their victims. Not sure why, but this was a popular device with Corman films apparently, and Bucket of Blood doesn't disappoint.

It would be like if the Blob ended up getting destroyed not by being exposed to subthermal temperatures, but instead by consuming rancid Jello.. though funny-in a bizarre way--it ends up being rather inexplicable by many means.

Overall I believe Mike, Bill and Kevin should take a stab at this Corman Classic for the fact the similarities between it and Shop are uncanny and it's difficult to figure out which one comes off being more unintentionally hilarious.