Michael_Elliott Five Bloody Graves (1970) * 1/2 (out of 4)Drive-in flick about lone gunman Ben Thompson (Robert Dix) who loses his wife and sets out on his own. He ends up battling evil Apaches and eventually comes across a wide range of characters and tries to protect them from the Indians who are looking for scalps. If you want a quality Western then it would be best to skip this thing and check out some John Ford films. This movie here is pretty bad on one hand but when you compare it to other films by director Adamson then you might realize that the man certainly did much worse. I think this film here is a tad bit better than some of the director's other work simply because he pretty much throws everything into this movie. We got the crazy gunfighter, countless crazed Indians, traveling prostitutes, a preacher (played by John Carradine) and countless other characters. None of the actors give what you would call a good performance but at the same time they all fit their roles nicely and are at least entertaining to watch. I thought Dix was mildly interesting in the role of the gunfighter and Scott Brady adds some fun as a rival. John "Bud" Carlos plays the main Indian and while he doesn't look the part he at least makes the role fun. Carradine was obviously picking up a paycheck but he's always fun to watch and especially if you're a fan of his work. No matter what trash a filmmaker would give him to read he'd at least give it his all and that's certainly true here. Adamson really doesn't know how to say no as we get just about everything you'd expect to see in a film like this. We get several knife fights that end in deaths. We get countless gunfights that end in deaths. We have a couple horse chases, a few naughty women, a voice-over from Death himself and of course we got the before mentioned Carradine so what else would you want? As with most Adamson films the major downfall is the horrid pacing, which grows old very quickly and at 90-minutes the thing is simply too long to really be enjoyed.

zoso68-1 I agree with the other review of Al Adamson movies (in general). I LOVED Dracula VS, Frankenstein, it is true classic of bad/yet good cinema.We all know in many cases Al Filmed things that got released a lot later or (more often) even RECUT into other films of his, which I agree puts him on the same level with Ed Wood.This was just BORING. The monotone voice over of "Death", bad old school documentaries (we all remember those) have better narration.Indians, whose numbers seem to keep going up when the characters are mentioning how many are dying. "Scalpings" that don't even come close to the head. A flaming arrow that burns a house to the ground in no less than 60 secs of film time.Even the appearance of Jim Davis (Who had the only 1/2 way interesting character, as a bad guy) couldn't save this film from it's "Illogical Boredom." It is never made clear why death is even interested in what's going on worth these guys or who he actually wants to win (One scene he says it's the hero, the next someone else.) The tag line for this film says, "Lust-Mad Men and Lawless Women in a Vicious and Sensuous Orgy of Slaughter!" I can say never saw these in this movie. Are they sure they were talking about THIS movie? I say for your money avoid this film and see Al's Dracula Vs. Frankenstein again. It has a lot of the same cast (Jim Davis and John Carradine), is is much BETTER and campier.

Space_Lord Ben Thompson is a messenger of Death. We are constantly reminded of this through the CRAP FEST that is Five Bloody Graves, by DEATH himself no less! Crappy narration aside, there are plenty of things to keep the watcher engaged, or more accurately, perplexed. Beautiful scenery is destroyed by bad acting. Promising character development and story lines are killed by senseless violence, most notably a rape scene. This is probably an accurate portrayal of what occurred in the Old West, but this seems like lazy film-making. I wish the Indians had won. One redeeming feature of the film is John Carradine in his role as a sleazy preacher. While this is easily one of the crappiest westerns I have ever seen, I truly don't believe it deserves a rating as low as 1.8. That's not to say it doesn't deserve a low rating. Maybe a 3 or 4 perhaps? Death demands it!!!!

Jonathon Dabell I've seen nearly two thousand films and this ranks amongst the worst ten I've ever seen. Its violence is crude and unnecessary; its plot sounds totally straight-forward, yet is somehow confused; its music is plundered from other sources thoughtlessly (almost unrelated to the on-screen action at some points, especially when the music which British viewer's will recognise as the music from ITV's evening news roars into life during one particularly naff action sequence); and the acting is amateurish to the point of school-pantomime level. What do you expect from a picture that's from the Al Adamson school of lousy film directing? Believe me, it takes a real big effort to sit through this junk - I managed it, but I can't say that I'm proud of the achievement.