Vashirdfel
Simply A Masterpiece
Breakinger
A Brilliant Conflict
Fairaher
The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.
Aneesa Wardle
The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.
jacobjohntaylor1
This is an awful movie. The story line is awful. The acting is awful. The ending is awful. It is not scary. 4.2 is not a good ratting. But this is such an awful movie that 4.2 is overrating it. I give it 1. Do not wast your time. And do not wast your money. Do not see this awful movie. If you want to see something scary see Friday the 13th (1980). Or see A Nightmare on elm street (1984). Or see Halloween. Do not see this movie. King Kong (1933) is also a very scary movie. Son of Kong is also very scary. And King Kong lives is also scary. And Godzilla is also very scary. But not this movie. This is an awful movie. Do not see it. It not scary. It is crap.
Bezenby
I thought I was too harsh on the first Blind Dead film, finding that it took too long to get to bits where actual things were happening on screen. Now I've watched the third film in the Blind Dead series, I'm beginning to think that somehow that's part of the plot - to have nothing remotely interesting happen for the first half of the film.This one stars some models out on a motor boat for some publicity stunt (which didn't make sense to me) going missing once a ghostly ship comes out of nowhere. It's up to their mates, some shady guy, and a couple of others to look for them. And this film involves a lot of people wandering around looking for each other, something I hate in a film.Not much gore here, by the way. Just lots of people wandering around a ship arguing and looking for each other. As usual the Blind Dead turn up just about the time you're about to switch off the film, and they look creepy as usual, but if only they actually did something constructive.I watched the washed out Mill Creek version here, by the way, so maybe a cleaned up version adds a bit of atmosphere. It just looks to me that the director had no money but made a film anyway - check out the 'sparkler used as a flare' bit. I've still got Night of the Seagulls to watch so hopefully that's better.
Wizard-8
This is the third entry in the Spanish "Blind Dead" series. I thought the first one had its moments, and while I didn't see the second entry, it has to be better than this third entry. It's a really cheap enterprise, for one thing. There are some unbelievably bad special effects, and the galleon set looks pretty flimsy despite the filming in darkness and fog in an attempt to hide the tackiness. But that doesn't sink the movie - what sinks this movie is the fact there is hardly anything that could be considered true horror. In the first hour of the movie, there are only TWO moments that could be considered horrific, and there's not much more in the last half hour. It certainly doesn't help that the characters are thin and shallow, though the dubbing of one character brings a chuckle because the dubber gives the character a voice that at times sounds like the Mr. Burns character on "The Simpsons".
christopher-underwood
I thought the second in this series was considerably less effective than the first and as for this, the third, well what can I say? I guess, this was made quickly and for little money and that whilst the idea must have seemed a good one, once you are stuck on a boat you do tend to be stuck, without a paddle as it were. The dialogue is terrible, I'm not sure the acting was as bad as it seemed , it may have been partly down to the dubbers. Too many sequences of bikini clad girls making vain attempts to do something in rather dark conditions. The 'Blind Dead' are without their horses and make nothing like the impact that they did in the other two films, even the fact that they are blind seems to have been glossed over. There is also little of the nastiness or real sense of fear and no suspense, so this really is a considerable disappointment.
