Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.

Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Anoushka Slater While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

jlynott-1 This movie is stereotypical, cliché, boring as all hell. I would rather watch paint dry then see this again. Every person cast looked at least 30 years old and they were supposed to be under 21. Judging by the dialogue it is ridiculously obvious that this was written by a guy. For crying out loud, what group of females brags about the fact that their clothes won't be on long once getting to a party. Especially considering the fact that they are supposed to be playing teenagers. This movie sucks. Don't watch it because this movie waistes precious time that could be waisted on actual good movies. We hope that the writer never works again.

moviemanic07 What a rip-off! What did the box art say? Fifty stories, Five hundred inhabitants, Zero survivors. Lies on all counts. Granted, companies often take liberties with the box art. The monsters are never as cool looking in the film as they are on the box. (That could be said for the actors and actresses too.) However, this time they want too far. The box art showed a building which looked like a cross between New York's Flat Iron Building and a Medieval Castle. The villain looked cool too. Then we have the tag line: Fifty stories, Five Hundred Inhabitants, Zero Survivors. First off, I didn't see fifty floors, just a rooftop and a few shabby rooms and corridors that could have been anywhere. As for the 500 inhabitants – what a freaking lie. The building is abandoned. And, in a way, there is a survivor. Wrong on all counts. One of the reasons I was anxious to see this film was that the box made me believe it had an epic scale. Wrong. Just another 1980's slasher ripoff. (The biggest difference is that the breasts were real back in the 1980s!) It did have some gore. That might satisfy some fans of the genre, but it wasn't enough for me.

TroyinIA I was excited when I spotted this film on the shelf of my local Blockbuster. Judging from the box art and the blurb on the back, it sounded like it could be a slasher film in the traditions of the slasher explosion of the late 70's and 80's. I love that genre. Films such as "Slumber Party Massacre," "The Burning," and "Hide and Go Shriek" just don't get made anymore. But on to "Tower of Blood." The plot is pretty flimsy-a group of teens decide to party in an abandoned high rise building, only to be killed off by a masked killer armed with a machete. Now, if you are a fan of slasher films, there is certainly worse than this out there. What this film has going for it is its atmosphere and setting. The building is indeed creepy, although I would hesitate to call it a tower. I believe it has three stories to it? The director does a good job of controlling the lighting--there always seems to be just a tint of red in each scene that gives the film a sense of dread. As for the gore, and isn't bad for a slasher film made in 2005, where gore in horror films is becoming quickly a thing of the past due to conservation pressure and calling for "family entertainment." There is a decent decapitation, though it becomes painfully obvious that the head is plastic. Also, two teens gets impaled a'la Friday the 12th Part 2 with a machete. The films downfalls come from its extremely slow pace and lack of charisma and enthusiasm of the cast. It's a fairly short film, not even over 80 minutes, I believe, but the pace is incredibly slow. Once the teens (thought most of them look to be in their thirties) arrive at the Tower, we are exposed to several long, boring scenes of them chatting, and playing with a Ouija board. And while the cast members are pretty to look at, none of them will be winning Oscars anytime soon. However, that stuff COULD be forgiven if it wasn't for the terrible, terrible, off the wall ending that makes absolutely no sense and leaves the viewer confused. Those if you who have seen the 80's classic "Slaughter High" will be familiar with the type of ending this film has. Utter stupidity that really brought an OK slasher flick down a few notches. However, I suppose I would recommend this film to die-hard slasher fans. You certainly aren't going to get anything new here, but the last 15 minutes or so of the film are pretty decent, up until that cheesy ending!!!!!! 4 out of 10

Dr. Gore *SPOILER ALERT* *SPOILER ALERT* A bunch of teens head to an abandoned tower. They're there to drink, have sex and all around party. What else would teens do in a slasher flick? Speaking of slashers, a large maniac with a leather mask and a big machete follows them there. Soon the tower will become a Tower of Blood. Stupid teens. Always finding ways to upset psychopaths by being alive and having fun."Tower of Blood" plays out exactly as you would imagine. If you have ever seen a slasher movie before, you've already seen this movie. There are three couples and one geek hanging out on the roof of the Tower of Blood. If someone leaves the roof for any reason, kiss them goodbye. The gore effects are at Monty Python level. Large hoses of blood spray the room if someone gets cut. There are also two scenes of naked breasts. Blood. Breasts. It's all here.If you're looking for something different and exciting, don't bother with "Tower of Blood". This is a bare minimum exercise in straight to video slasher film-making. However, if you're a desperate slasher movie fan who will watch anything that has a large psycho with a machete, (like me), it may be worth a look.