Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Tayloriona Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

IngridFan 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.

kinglouie40 Tom Savini plays an imaginary Christian king who is trying to mount a war against nonbelievers. He does this by kidnapping people's souls and torturing them until their bodies comply. Brilliant stuff but then the film throws so many ideas at the wall that it is impossible to keep up.I will say that the filmmakers deserve praise for getting a good performance out of Savini. Having seen some of his other low budget pictures, that couldn't have been easy. Likewise Ingrid Pitt, who they manage to flatter with some great photography.The main problem with Sea of Dust is also its main strength. It seems determined to be completely different, even if it has to do it at the cost of the characters. For a film to be involving, there has to be somebody to identify with. This is an original idea. It needed more work to be a great film.

cougarxavier Remember that friend in college who always insisted you rent the weirdest movie possible? This is the movie he would have made if he'd had the chance.I wish I could tell you exactly what Sea of Dust was about. It pretends to be the story of a doctor who gets sucked into weird goings on in the "Black Forest." He goes there to help, but ends up being caught between two young women, both of whom he seems to have a thing for. But that's just scratching the surface. This is the kind of movie where things just randomly happen...and not nice thing. People are constantly being whipped and stabbed. There's a pair of creepy little girls who appear to have walked out of The Shining. Tom Savini is some kind of imaginary religious figure who decides he doesn't want to be imaginary anymore. He's got a plan to take over the world by sharing Jesus suffering.On some level, this is a movie about sex. It's one without nudity, which was a disappointment, but there's no mistaking the intent. On another whole level, it's a stoner's paradise. Unexpected stuff happens so often that it stops being unexpected. By the time the doctor travels through his girlfriend's birth canal to be reborn, you'll just chalk it up to the crazy nature of the flick.On the down side, the film is pretty wordy. Some of the points are hammered home over and over. If you're watching it with a bunch of stoned friends, this might prove an asset.

mrstafty 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?"