Watch Sea of Dust For Free

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

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.

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!

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.

Remember that friend in college who always insisted you rent the weirdest movie possible? This is the movie he would have made if he'd had the chance.I wish I could tell you exactly what Sea of Dust was about. It pretends to be the story of a doctor who gets sucked into weird goings on in the "Black Forest." He goes there to help, but ends up being caught between two young women, both of whom he seems to have a thing for. But that's just scratching the surface. This is the kind of movie where things just randomly happen...and not nice thing. People are constantly being whipped and stabbed. There's a pair of creepy little girls who appear to have walked out of The Shining. Tom Savini is some kind of imaginary religious figure who decides he doesn't want to be imaginary anymore. He's got a plan to take over the world by sharing Jesus suffering.On some level, this is a movie about sex. It's one without nudity, which was a disappointment, but there's no mistaking the intent. On another whole level, it's a stoner's paradise. Unexpected stuff happens so often that it stops being unexpected. By the time the doctor travels through his girlfriend's birth canal to be reborn, you'll just chalk it up to the crazy nature of the flick.On the down side, the film is pretty wordy. Some of the points are hammered home over and over. If you're watching it with a bunch of stoned friends, this might prove an asset.