Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

GroovyDoom The second in the "Blood Island" series ups the ante with even more explicit sex and violence, recycling much from "Brides of Blood", including John Ashley. I didn't notice any other holdovers from the previous film, but the director hired actors who looked just like them anyway. There are carbon copies of Arcadio, Goro, Esteban Powers, and Alma, as well as the lovely Angelique Pettyjohn standing in for Beverly Hills.The plot is even wilder than before. This time, Ashley and damsel-in-distress-to-be Pettyjohn travel to Blood Island to locate her estranged father. No, the island is not called Matool. Anyway, what they discover is that the island is being stalked by a rampaging green humanoid monster, the result of a mad doctor's botched experiment involving chlorophyll used as a means of transforming human beings. Or something like that, right? Do we really care? There's a monster and it's killing people, and the protagonists don't have the sense to leave.Fans of naked ladies have plenty to look at, as the film literally opens with a nude woman being chased through the jungle by the creature. The gore in the film is gratuitous and ever-present, with the monster clawing people to death, ripping out their guts, and in one especially angry moment, attacking a young couple making out in the jungle. It rips off the man's arm (or was it a leg?) and efficiently removes the woman's head, tossing it in the air. What a cranky monster! It's also worth mentioning that the movie contains a very disturbing sequence where real animals are violently slaughtered on camera--a "native ritual" concludes with the natives rushing at some bound goats and pigs, stabbing them to death with knives, which was a genuine shock for me.Yet personally, I prefer "Brides of Blood" over this one, for one major reason. The director has attempted to disguise the ridiculous monster by using a pulsating zoom lens effect every time it's on screen. It's a gimmick that you'll either love or hate, and it's much more pronounced than the shakycam shenanigans of "The Blair Witch Project" or similar hand-held horror films. On a big screen, this effect would have been absolutely nauseating to me.Still, I'd recommend this movie to anybody who liked the first one, or anybody who digs grade-Z drive-in trash just like I do. The horror exotica settings do a lot to make the film interesting, and believe it or not, the ridiculous dialog exists alongside scenes that actually are well-written and memorable. Who expected THAT?

MartinHafer Other than an opportunity to watch a bad film, the other reason to see MAD DOCTOR OF BLOOD ISLAND is a chance to see Angelique Pettyjohn. Miss Pettyjohn gained some measure of fame among sci-fi geeks for appearing as the silver-haired Shanna in the original STAR TREK (in "The Gamesters of Triskelion"). While not a great actress, her striking looks and assets are hard to miss.The film is about a strange island where people have green blood and a freaky monster that looks like Man-Bear-Pig (or is it the stinky cheese man?) lives. An agent from the government and a missing doctor's daughter arrive on the island to investigate. But, to their surprise, the island is a killing ground for the stupid looking creature. Who it is and why it behaves in such a nasty fashion is what the film is all about...if you particularly care (which I did not).MAD DOCTOR OF BLOOD ISLAND is clearly an ultra-cheesy low-budget film that has an extremely low production values--as evidenced by the silly script, occasionally bad acting and headache-inducing zoom. Let me explain the 'zoom'. To heighten the horror (i.e., to cover up the fact it was all so dull), the film maker decided to have the camera zoom in and out again and again any time the monster appeared. It was very unpleasant but tended to hide the stupidity of the monster makeup. Plus, it let the dumber members of the audience know when to be afraid (though it may just make you nauseous). Surprisingly, for a low budget film, it has intense gore that actually is amazingly realistic and gross--so people who love looking at guts from a butcher shop will enjoy the film (and at least half the $219.87 budget went for animal guts and realistic blood). In addition, there is a bit of not particularly enticing gratuitous nudity in the film--pretty hot stuff for 1968, but not very explicit (or sexy) by today's standards--and not enough to encourage the perverts out there to seek out the film.Overall, this is the sort of film you might actually want to see...if you are having friends over and want to do your own home version of "Mystery Science Theater". Otherwise, it's just too dull and stupid to recommend. The only reason it gets a 2 is that the guts were reasonably realistic--and much of them were real guts.Oh, and for all the Star Trek fans, if you DO want to see the film just to see Miss Pettyjohn naked, don't bother. Although she's an amazingly beautiful woman, she keeps her clothes on for most of the film--and there's not that much of her to see when she does. If you INSIST on seeing Pettyjohn naked, then by all means jump ahead to about the 76 minute mark to see the naughty bits. However, her finally taking off her clothes made no sense at all, as the Stinky Cheese Man/Man-Bear-Pig or whatever it is was still roaming the island killing. Talk about a BAD time to get naked!! And, for that matter, I STILL don't think this makes it worth seeing this dull flick.

ferbs54 I don't suppose any character from the original Blood Island film, "Brides of Blood" (1968), would ever have had the bad sense to step back onto that radiation-mutated pesthole again, which probably explains why, in part 2 of the trilogy, "The Mad Doctor of Blood Island" (1969), we have all-new characters, and even returning actor John Ashley plays a different person. This time, Ashley plays pathologist Bill Foster, who comes to Blood Island accompanied by Angelique Pettyjohn (beloved in 1969 by all Trekkers for her turn as the Triskelion drill thrall Shahna, and soon to be famous for appearances in porn cinema), who is looking for her lost father. So what's shaking on the island now? Howzabout a chlorophyll-mutated monster that likes to rip his victims to bits, for starters! This film has the same exotic Filipino locales as the first and the same lustfully gyrating native dancers, but ups the ante with more nudity, a slightly more interesting story, nicer scenery, and lots more blood and guts. It also unfortunately features the same egregious day-for-night photography, the same lousy dubbing and the same slapdash editing that were the hallmarks of the first picture. And yet, the film is so pulpy, the story is so much fun, Ronald Remy is so convincing as the mad Dr. Lorca, and Angelique proves to be such an effective screamer that many technical faults can be forgiven. This film has absolutely nothing to do with the first--it is a sequel in name only--but I suppose seeing these things in order is always a good idea. My beloved "Psychotronic Encyclopedia," which usually has a high tolerance for shlock cinema, deems this film "awful," but I still had fun with it. Anyway, I guarantee that you will not find a better picture dealing with Filipino chlorophyll mutation anywhere...with the possible exception of part 3 of the trilogy, "Beast of Blood" (1970). I for one am sufficiently curious to find out...

Coventry The first conclusion you spontaneously make while watching "The Mad Doctor of Blood Island" is that there are some sick-minded individuals walking this planet! I'm one of them, of course, since I voluntarily purchased the DVD and am proud of owning it now. But the real insanity-credit goes to people like Eddie Romero and Gerardo de Leon for actually unleashing a tale like this upon the world. I mean…green-blooded monsters? A mad doctor that looks like a bad Elvis-impersonator? Bad cases of leukemia side effects? This film qualifies as pure drive-in exploitation, meaning that your expectations should be at their lowest and then you still get less! We're talking ridiculous dialogue, no plotting whatsoever and not even an attempt to build up tension. All these aspects, which determine the quality of a horror film, are replaced by filthy grotesque gore and sleaze. There's no point in summarizing the plot for you as it's – surprise surprise – very inept and rather stupid. It's great entertainment, though, as long as you've got beer and a lot of perseverance. The only real disadvantage is the total lack of talent of everyone involved. Every cast member could have used a couple thousand more acting lessons and the cinematographer obviously doesn't know that rough camera movements are irritating instead of suspenseful. No matter how I much I love Z-grade horror, I simply can't give this one a positive rating. Nonetheless, I'd like to recommend it to cult-fanatics and admirers of off-category cinema. Good times!