El ataque de los muertos sin ojos

I really enjoyed Tombs Of The Blind Dead (1972) it blew me away and left me really excited for the other three movies in the franchise.

Sadly I knew it was too good to be true as this second film is very underwhelming by comparison.

The first thing that struck me is the timeline. Is this a sequel? prequel? remake? Every potential answer to that has an valid argument against it so I was already more than a little frustrated.

The film does however have most of the strengths of the first film, the concept is great and the cast do a good job. Sadly the plot is hit and miss this time and honestly a great deal of mistakes were made in its creation.

Return Of The Evil Dead isn't bad by any stretch of the imagination it's just a let down after the outstanding Tombs Of The Blind Dead.

This time we see the blind dead raise from their graves to assault the near by village who are in the middle of annual festivities and ripe for the slaying.

Watchable second film but not the best start to carrying on a franchise.

The Good:

Most of the cast

The Bad:

Confusing timeline

The big "Battle" has to be one of the dullest fight scenes ever

Couple of the effects are really screwy

Weak ending

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

Blind Dead zombies can walk around in a near skeletal form but die from being impaled

Asking a little girl to be blindfolded, telling her its a game, asking if she wants to play with you and telling her she's not allowed to make any noise has to be one of the most unintentionally uncomfortable scenes in movie history

Those pervy devil worshipping Blind Dead Templar Knights return to ruin their own anniversary celebrations. As a follow up to the entertaining Tombs of the Blind Dead, the Return of the Blind Dead does a good job. The film has the usual mix of a deformed hunchback who kills a woman to bring back the Templars, a "hunky" hero who saves the day, an array of busty women for the Blind Dead to prey on, a little sex, and the usual villain who we don't mind being killed. Add into the mix a celebration in the village which soon gets overrun with Blind Dead, a comedy interlude with the mayor and his maid, a few chase scenes and a surprisingly good ending and you have a good concoction for 1970's horror. One of the greatest parts of these films is the use over and over again of the Templars rising from their coffins, women just managing to escape the Blind Dead, usually with one of their shoes stuck in a hole or ladder rung right up until the last second, and my personal favourite, a bony hand reaching through a hole or window. Classic Zombie/Vampire fun for all the family.

It is hard to deny Amando De Ossorio's talent behind the camera--the man knows how to make even the most foreboding locales postcard-pretty. His writing, on the other hand, is a different story..."Return of the Evil Dead" is essentially a plot less rehash of "Tombs of the Blind Dead," with a liberal helping of "Night of the Living Dead" thrown into the mix. I don't have a problem with movies borrowing from each other, but "Return" is so bereft of story and interesting characters that the whole thing becomes kind of tedious. While "Tombs" didn't really spring to life until its impressive climax, Ossorio does a much better job integrating the resurrected Templars into the film--mostly filmed in mid- and long-shots set against dark sets, they exude more menace this time out (also drawing attention away from their creaky marionette movements); problem is, the action scenes revolving around the Templars go on far too long, diluting their presence. And underneath the surface, there isn't much going on here--a bunch of forgettable, cliché characters hole up in an unusually well-lit church to hold out against the Templar menace--subplots involving a greedy Mayor, a jealous lover, and a lost child ensue. Ho hum. To "Return"'s credit, the opening Templar slaughter is effective, as is a suspenseful child retrieval scene, and the climax is chilling. Too bad everything in between is beautiful to look at but aesthetically mediocre.

Return of the Blind Dead aka The Return of the Evil Dead aka El ataque de los muertos sin ojos is a solid sequel to the first movie (Tombs of the Blind Dead, 1972). The dead Knights Templar walk again and crave for tender flesh and blood. The living scream and die - one of those fine pieces of oldschool horror that are spiced up with some trash and nudity, and are free from the slightes hint of p.c.-correctness. Yummy.

"Reutrn of the Blind Dead," is a slightly higher budget remake of Tombs of the Blind Dead. Return maintains the intriguing premise and textural richness of the first, while also achieving a slightly faster pace and more accessible story. In all fairness, Return is a remake in spirit only. The story arch and conflict differs very much from the first film. In the earlier film, the director lavished time and extended shot composition to create a creepy mood. This second installment develops characters more and explores how some of the monsters may still be alive.

This series has gained a cult following for a few reasons. First, the premise of long dead satanic knight zombies mixes history, occultism, and gory monsters. Such a mix is near perfection in the overly exploited zombie genre. Second, the stories are rather simple and straight forward. The director is clearly not attempting to create a nuanced and subtle piece of storytelling. Rather, the films are a notable for the visual and color textures. The zombies are a wonderful combination of desiccated flesh and bones wrapped in earth hardened tunics. In addition, these knights attack in force both on foot and on zombie horseback. The costuming and makeup effects are actually quite unsettling and some of the most original.

While the zombies are very fun, the lack of attention to story and development do hurt the film. The dialogue is simplistic and clearly serves to keep the pacing up. Whenever a movie sacrifices realistic scripting, the production as a whole suffers from wooden performances and characters the audience cares little about. Return, having made the above scripting sacrifice, comes off as very clichéd, poorly acted, and at times outright stupid. An important note is that, even with these negative points, the film still maintains a sense of excitement, horror and fun. Return is a "b" zombie film and all of the staff know it. In a sense, this film deserves to be judged by more lenient "b" criteria. By evaluating this film on less strict criterion, Return is a success. The Editing is well done and maintains a good exciting pace. The acting is wooden, which inevitably leads to unintended humor and laughs. The zombies are the star and clearly have been developed lovingly. The score is a mix of cheesy music and stereotypically creepy sound effects. This film attacks its goal with both a high degree of technical skill and an even higher degree of pride. Will this film ever make a come back and receive awards? No, it will not. Will this film stand the test of time and be referenced for many years to come by horror enthusiasts? Yes, it most definitely will. All in all, this is a fun film that has a unique if campy perspective on zombies.

On a personal note, I have really taken to this series. The premise, visual textures, creepy locations, and unplanned humor combine to make these films a pleasure to watch. These make great movie night fare when with horror buffs. In addition, this series provides a great many examples of the wonderful techniques used in earlier horror. A great many films of today are clearly influenced by the likes of the blind dead.