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.

innocuous I think that some of the other reviewers are being overly generous in their praise for this movie. The current rating from ALL users is much more accurate.As others point out, this is an homage to the Hammer films of fifty years ago. Unfortunately, it is an homage only in the camera-work, wardrobe, settings, and subject matter. It is very disappointing to see the majority of the film shot in broad daylight, completely missing the beautiful lighting and cinematography that Hammer used to convey a sense of gloom and claustrophobia. I also think it would have been far more effective if shot in B&W, but then how would you show off Savini's FX? The acting and dialogue are both quite bad. There's no single character who I found to be even minimally authentic or believable. Savini, as a weird Dracula-like religious figure, is waaay out ahead of everybody else in the bad acting department. Simply no contest. Fortunately, he's on-screen only for a short time. Unfortunately, nobody else is really much better than he is.As for the plot...wait, what plot? This movie makes "Primer" look fairly simple. There are dream sequences (or "otherworldly" sequences, whichever you prefer) within dream sequences, and you never really know what the director's intentions are. The satirical elements are extremely heavy-handed, and the entire script strikes me as something that a high-schooler would write after he reads his first philosophy of religion book. You can tell because the script uses the word "ideology" instead of "religious belief" or "faith" or any of a number of more accurate and descriptive terms. In other words, the characters are implementing an "ideology" and not just hare-brained religious ideas. The whole thing just rings false.Finally, let's get to the gore. There's lots of it, but it's really pretty poor. Savini has done much better work. I guess he was just distracted. As far as the need for the gore, there isn't any. The movie starts out as sort of an explanation of religious belief, then devolves into a gore-fest that's punctuated by weird ideas of what constitutes a myth.All in all, a very poor showing and not worth your time. On top of everything else, it is BORING!

Mike Huberty Just saw this at the Madison Horror Film Festival and was disappointed. A few shocking, funny moments (fisting the hollow Carla, a urinating harpy in the Dreamland) and two competing interesting premises (similar to New Nightmare with belief bringing a mythical character to life and also Lost Highway with a man living out a fantasy in his head) but had long stretches of no movement and incoherent plot development. Just because you use the framework of dreams or a mental fugue state doesn't make it Lynchian. You need the compelling visuals and creepy performances.Positive things: Dr. Maitland had real comic timing and all the girls were very cute. Carla's Father, Chalmers, and Ingrid Pitt looked like they were having some fun. And Tom Savini at least looked like he had his lines memorized and we couldn't see if he was just reading cue cards.I get the Hammer references, but it looks like the director realized the script was a snoozer and just added some shocks to try and get some laughs out of whatever footage he could put together. But they don't work because they're too few and far between and create an inconsistent tone. Condense this to 30 minutes of all the fun parts and you could have a surreal goofy short, but at feature length, skip it. It's not "so bad it's good" it's just "so bad it's boring".

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.