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.

tommyknobnocker After a weekend of Hammer Frankenstein films, I decided to take a chance on this flick, whose description claimed it was a tribute to Hammer Studios. "Sea of Dust" got the look and feel right, but fans of those old movies should know that it's nothing like its predecessors.The biggest problem with the film is this preconception that it's supposed to be structured like a Hammer film. It starts out like that, with a medical student called to a small town to help investigate strange goings on.The next thing you know, it becomes a totally different kind of film. It's funny in spots. It's a complete bloodbath in others. It seems to be winking at its audience, but is so intent on being unusual that it sometimes loses focus.This is not a film for the easily offended or people who don't like weird cinema. It takes some pointed jabs at politics and organized religion, which I found pretty entertaining on the eve of another worthless election, but might rub others the wrong way.

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.

bobwildhorror I saw SEA OF DUST as part of a NYC screening audience several years ago. I enjoyed the film at that time, so I was a little confused by some of the amendments that had been made since. Perhaps it's my memory, but there seemed to be chunks of exposition missing from the version that was shown at the Rhode Island Film Festival. I'm really not sure which version I prefer, but I can honestly say that I found something to appreciate it both.Let me begin by warning everyone that this is not a popcorn movie. Although it's been promoted as a Hammer Films tribute, people expecting a showdown between Van Helsing and Dracula are going to be sorely disappointed. There's some cleavage, but no nudity (a staple of the British production house's later movies). And while SEA OF DUST is filled with gorgeous eye candy (it really is shot like a sixties film), and features Hammer starlet Ingrid Pitt, it's not like any of the company's pictures in tone or execution. This film is very dark, very confusing, and (at times) very funny. I don't remember the earlier version being quite as nutty as this one, but that's not a bad thing (especially the showdown in the Black Forest that plays like a Three Stooges short). And some of Ms Pitt's rantings are quite entertaining. It's like somebody wound her up and turned her loose.The uniqueness of this film doesn't lie with the borrowed details, though. It's in the ideas. As an occasional Sci Fi Channel viewer, I've regularly taken the network to task for its one-note variations on a theme (CGI monster kills, then gets destroyed). SEA OF DUST is so full of ideas that you start to trip over them after a while.But don't get me wrong. I'm not complaining. If anything, I applaud these guys for making such an enterprising low-budget picture and for having the courage to pack it with so many concepts. It's not going to be a picnic for people who hate to think at the movies (you know who you are). But for the rest of us, those of us who are tired of the formula of modern horror films, the predictability, the lack of respect for the audience, this may just be your ticket.