AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Pluskylang Great Film overall

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

Leofwine_draca Al Adamson is a notorious name in cult film circles as a man who made the movies of Ed Wood look good. His films are known for being amateurish, slapdash, and hard to enjoy, and having sat through some of his horror outings it's hard to disagree. However, FIVE BLOODY GRAVES, a rare entry in the western genre for the director, is a surprisingly entertaining little film.Of course, it's still amateurish in nature, with 'anything goes' style performances and a general hurried feel to the production. On the other hand, it's absolutely packed with action and violence; the storyline is pure Cowboys and Indians, with never any more depth to it than that. Rest assured that the expected shoot-outs, knife fights and horse riding scenes come thick and fast in this film.Adamson has amassed a wealth of has-been actors for his film, headlined by western star Robert Dix. Watch out for future cult director John 'Bud' Cardos as an Indian and John Carradine as a preacher. Unfortunately the version I watched was heavily cut for violence, but even so I found it better than many modern day attempts at the genre. Certainly no classic but it might just be the director's best film.

MartinHafer This is a terrible film and anyone seeing it might be inclined to think it's one of the worst films that any director could make. Well, that could be true, but not if it's Al Adamson--the jerk that directed this dull film. No, FIVE BLOODY GRAVES is practically a Merchant-Ivory production compared to such Adamson "classics" as FRANKENSTEIN VS. DRACUL A, HORROR OF THE BLOOD MONSTERS and BRAIN OF BLOOD.The film begins with some totally pointless and stupid narration by the Hollywood actor Gene Raymond. This is pretty sad, as in the 1930s, he was a top Hollywood star and the husband of Jeanette MacDonald--here, he plays "Death" with all the subtlety of Grim from "The Adventures of Billy and Mandy" thanks to a dumb script.As far as the rest of the film goes, it's mostly the "bad Indians" killing the innocent (or semi-innocent) Whites. While this plot isn't too unusual, it was unusual for 1970, as by then Westerns had mostly begun to show Indians with a bit more depth--but not here. Yep, they're mostly just blood-crazy savages. In this mix are some incompetent actors and amazingly unattractive actresses (considering they are SUPPOSED to be alluring) and subplots involving rape that seem to have been added only to "spice up the film".The music is odd, as it really doesn't sound very appropriate for the film. I suspect it was lifted from another film but only recognized one small section that was lifted from the old "Star Trek" television show.While none of this is good at all, the worst thing about the film is how gosh-darn dull the whole thing is. There just isn't much to keep your attention (other than a little bit of nudity). Not nearly as silly or stupid as Adamson's horror films--this one is just bad.

zoso68-1 I agree with the other review of Al Adamson movies (in general). I LOVED Dracula VS, Frankenstein, it is true classic of bad/yet good cinema.We all know in many cases Al Filmed things that got released a lot later or (more often) even RECUT into other films of his, which I agree puts him on the same level with Ed Wood.This was just BORING. The monotone voice over of "Death", bad old school documentaries (we all remember those) have better narration.Indians, whose numbers seem to keep going up when the characters are mentioning how many are dying. "Scalpings" that don't even come close to the head. A flaming arrow that burns a house to the ground in no less than 60 secs of film time.Even the appearance of Jim Davis (Who had the only 1/2 way interesting character, as a bad guy) couldn't save this film from it's "Illogical Boredom." It is never made clear why death is even interested in what's going on worth these guys or who he actually wants to win (One scene he says it's the hero, the next someone else.) The tag line for this film says, "Lust-Mad Men and Lawless Women in a Vicious and Sensuous Orgy of Slaughter!" I can say never saw these in this movie. Are they sure they were talking about THIS movie? I say for your money avoid this film and see Al's Dracula Vs. Frankenstein again. It has a lot of the same cast (Jim Davis and John Carradine), is is much BETTER and campier.

Jonathon Dabell I've seen nearly two thousand films and this ranks amongst the worst ten I've ever seen. Its violence is crude and unnecessary; its plot sounds totally straight-forward, yet is somehow confused; its music is plundered from other sources thoughtlessly (almost unrelated to the on-screen action at some points, especially when the music which British viewer's will recognise as the music from ITV's evening news roars into life during one particularly naff action sequence); and the acting is amateurish to the point of school-pantomime level. What do you expect from a picture that's from the Al Adamson school of lousy film directing? Believe me, it takes a real big effort to sit through this junk - I managed it, but I can't say that I'm proud of the achievement.