Less interesting but more enjoyable and exciting follow-up to Tombs Of The Blind Dead
23 November 2005
The first of the three sequels {well,perhaps 'follow ups' is a better word,since there is no continuity running between the four films except the monsters} to Tombs Of The Blind Dead is in many ways a more enjoyable {if not necessarily better} film. The pace is a lot faster,with the scary Templar knights from the first film appearing after about ten minutes,the acting is better,there are more characters,some of whom we actually get to like,and there is even a bit of humour. Because there is far more action,director Amanda De Ossorio doesn't have to take the silly diversions the first film sometimes took {i.e.the lesbian flashback}. For gorehounds,there's a lot more blood and brutality too,with a particularly graphic heart removal followed by some very nasty eye burning standing out.

However,having the Blind Dead on screen far more often robs them of their impact a little,and at times the action gets rather repetitive,with endless shots of the Dead swinging their swords down on villagers. Also,Ossorio could have attempted a BIT of continuity with the previous film. For a start the way the Templars are executed in the obligatory flashback is different. The best way to enjoy these films is to treat them as four different handlings of the same basic idea.

There is the odd really tense scene,such as when one person uses a young child as bait to escape the Blind Dead. Tombs of the Blind Dead was more interesting,but this first sequel is probably the most entertaining film of the quartet. No real surprises,but generally good fun
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed