Sea of Dust (2008)

I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Surprisingly incoherent and boring

Good movie but grossly overrated

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

Synopsis:Some weed in a costume (Troy Holland) is whining to some older bloke about some thing and Prester John (Tom Savini) gets mentioned. Prester John lives on the other side. I'm not sure what other side they mean but I might have drifted off at that point.The weed then goes to a big house full of costumed loonies where he tries to propose to some bird he loves and then gets thrown out by daddy loony. After leaving the house he finds an unconscious woman on the road and takes her to a doctor to be tied up, a service rarely offered in modern socialized medicine. Then he takes her home where her dad tries to kill him for tying up his daughter but he kills the dad and then some truly pathetic special effects take him to beach where he gets hooked and taken to a castle full of loonies presided over by Prester John who recruits the weed into his army as his general – amazingly rapid promotion especially since from then on all he bangs on about is stopping Prester John.This film is very badly written and the story is incoherent and making anyone watch should be considered a form of abuse. The acting is so awful that there are scenes littered with corpses and they can't even act dead convincingly.Tom Savini really is very hammy in this with a big purple cloak that he swishes around a lot. There is also Ingrid Pitt who seems very lost and confused and that wasn't much to do with her acting. I really cannot think of a single redeeming feature of this film and I cannot recommend it at allRating 0/10

I met Ingrid Pitt at a convention many years ago and found her to be engaging and entertaining. She took time to chat with me, more than I can say for some of the other celebrities at the event. I was sorry to hear about her death last week. It did focus my attention on some of her recent films that I missed.Let me start by saying that I can understand why this would be an easy film to dislike. It's confusing and unfocused. As other reviewers have pointed out, it's brutal in its assessment of organized religion. It's not much more flattering of America's current political circus. I can see how it would offend a lot of Conservatives, which may account for the IMDb score in spite of its excellent web reviews.That's not the reason I signed up for IMDb to write this review. I wanted to respond to the insulting notion that the only value Ingrid Pitt could bring to a movie was her nudity. This idea not only insults Ingrid's memory, it insults all women. The sad thing is that I've not only read this type of review on IMDb, but in professional reviews. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but I don't see reviewers making fun of Jack Nicholson for getting "old and fat" and complimenting him for not taking his clothing off. It's pathetic that this can be used as the justification for disliking Ingrid's performance, let alone disliking a film she is in.In summary, Ingrid was great and the film was much funnier than I was led to believe it would be.

After a weekend of Hammer Frankenstein films, I decided to take a chance on this flick, whose description claimed it was a tribute to Hammer Studios. "Sea of Dust" got the look and feel right, but fans of those old movies should know that it's nothing like its predecessors.The biggest problem with the film is this preconception that it's supposed to be structured like a Hammer film. It starts out like that, with a medical student called to a small town to help investigate strange goings on.The next thing you know, it becomes a totally different kind of film. It's funny in spots. It's a complete bloodbath in others. It seems to be winking at its audience, but is so intent on being unusual that it sometimes loses focus.This is not a film for the easily offended or people who don't like weird cinema. It takes some pointed jabs at politics and organized religion, which I found pretty entertaining on the eve of another worthless election, but might rub others the wrong way.

My husband and I had big disagreements about this film. He felt it was like the second coming and I felt it was kind of offensive.Like a number of other movies at the Rhode Island Festival it looked like an older movie. Instead of being a black and white silent movie like THE CALL OF CTHULU, it looked like a horror movie from the 1960s. It wass very colorful and as much as I hate to admit it, it was really beautiful to look at. The music also added to the feel. You don't hear stuff like that anymore.There were some problems with it though. In case my headline didn't tell you, it is terribly bloody. A girl's head blows off before you're a minute into the movie and that's just the start. The hero gets stuck in the throat with a hook, people have their skulls stabbed with knives and pitchforks, and I won't get into some of the other stuff that goes on. My jaw was hanging open for most of the time.The biggest source of our disagreement was that I couldn't tell what was real and what wasn't. I couldn't tell if the hero was imagining everything including the people around him or if he was giving in to the evil forces. This was another time when my husband said, "That's the whole point." I still think it was kind of insane.I might have given this movie a lower score, but the cast were so nice during the question and answer session that followed that I couldn't help but like them. They also helped explain some of the religious symbolism that was really bothering me.To be honest, I'm not even sure this was a horror movie. There were a couple of moments when I laughed out loud, a lott where I shrank down in my seat because of all the blood, and a few others where I shook my head and said, "Where did that come from?"