Mad Doctor of Blood Island

Forget all the critics (though much of their criticism is technically on target). Watch this film with an open mind and revel in the sheer audaciousness of it all. Gruesome monsters. Trashy, gorgeous heroines. Square jawed men of action. Let the bizarre ennui envelope you. Enjoy the sheer inanity of the whole thing. I saw this as a teen and was utterly captivated by it and the crude power remains intact. On location shooting (in the Philippines) and cast of unknowns adds enormously. It's a wonderful piece of trash film making -- a classic of the sort.

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...

A man who loves to travel, travels to an island where a mad doctor is creating zombies.

"Brides of Blood" (1968), also starring John Ashley, had been popular in the US. American distributors approached Ashley to see if he would be interested in appearing in a follow-up movie. Ashley agreed, which led to him acting in and/or producing a series of exploitation films in the Philippines. The film, which cost $125,000, was followed by a sequel, "Beast of Blood", in 1971.

This is just the perfect kind of cheese for a low budget movie. Yes, the picture looks bad and could really benefit from a new transfer (everything is sort of blue-green tinted). But in a way, it's this imperfection that adds to its charm. A great picture might make it more obvious just how silly all the effects are.

Three people come to Blood Island for their own reasons. The beautiful Young girl is there to find her father. The handsome islander is there to reunite with his mother. The doctor is there to investigate a supposed out break of a new disease. What they find when they get there is a monster on the loose that likes to disembowel and dismember (graphically) his victims.

Sequel to Brides of Blood (and third of the Blood Island films, the first being Terror is a Man which only shares the same location) this is more of the same only up a notch. Its mad doctor on the loose using science to create a monster that runs around killing people. Hooray for crackpot medical degrees.

What can I say about a movie that begins with the audience being given "the pledge of the green blood" other than see this movie? If you like old school horror films, or drive-in style movies, this film is for you. This movie is a blast. It moves along at a good clip, has a great monster, some very graphic killings (you will see blood, limbs and intestines) and some topless women. Its the sort of movie they don't make any more.

My only complaint is that some knucklehead thought it would be a good idea to zoom in and out every time the monster attacks. Its the equivalent to whiplash and really distracts from the early attack scenes. Thankfully the effect isn't done as wildly in the later scenes and you actually can put away your neck brace and enjoy the film.

A drive-in movie classic.

7.5 out of 10 (8 for IMDb purposes.

If you are a Z-grade movie fan then you'll pleased to hear that this is one gloriously bad film. You get the full works here - paper-maché monster masks, screaming maidens, wooden acting, brief flashes of nudity, cave walls that are less-than-solid and a surprising dash of 1960s gore. However the best part, or worst depending on your point of view, is the wonderfully stodgy dialogue on display, for example:

Man: "What a scare you gave me. But then you are a kind of ghost yourself aren't you". Woman: "What sensitivity".

Add to this a plot involving chlorophyll (the stuff that makes leaves green) poisoning, native rituals and you've got yourself a decent B-movie. There are some aspects that will undoubtedly annoy most people, the large number of "padded" scenes for example, but the worst has to be the bloody annoying manic lens zooming!. Otherwise the film is fun to watch and will no doubt please most fans of Romero and low-budget horror fare.