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.

The second in the "Blood Island" series ups the ante with even more explicit sex and violence, recycling much from "Brides of Blood", including John Ashley. I didn't notice any other holdovers from the previous film, but the director hired actors who looked just like them anyway. There are carbon copies of Arcadio, Goro, Esteban Powers, and Alma, as well as the lovely Angelique Pettyjohn standing in for Beverly Hills.The plot is even wilder than before. This time, Ashley and damsel-in-distress-to-be Pettyjohn travel to Blood Island to locate her estranged father. No, the island is not called Matool. Anyway, what they discover is that the island is being stalked by a rampaging green humanoid monster, the result of a mad doctor's botched experiment involving chlorophyll used as a means of transforming human beings. Or something like that, right? Do we really care? There's a monster and it's killing people, and the protagonists don't have the sense to leave.Fans of naked ladies have plenty to look at, as the film literally opens with a nude woman being chased through the jungle by the creature. The gore in the film is gratuitous and ever-present, with the monster clawing people to death, ripping out their guts, and in one especially angry moment, attacking a young couple making out in the jungle. It rips off the man's arm (or was it a leg?) and efficiently removes the woman's head, tossing it in the air. What a cranky monster! It's also worth mentioning that the movie contains a very disturbing sequence where real animals are violently slaughtered on camera--a "native ritual" concludes with the natives rushing at some bound goats and pigs, stabbing them to death with knives, which was a genuine shock for me.Yet personally, I prefer "Brides of Blood" over this one, for one major reason. The director has attempted to disguise the ridiculous monster by using a pulsating zoom lens effect every time it's on screen. It's a gimmick that you'll either love or hate, and it's much more pronounced than the shakycam shenanigans of "The Blair Witch Project" or similar hand-held horror films. On a big screen, this effect would have been absolutely nauseating to me.Still, I'd recommend this movie to anybody who liked the first one, or anybody who digs grade-Z drive-in trash just like I do. The horror exotica settings do a lot to make the film interesting, and believe it or not, the ridiculous dialog exists alongside scenes that actually are well-written and memorable. Who expected THAT?

This is one of the worst films to be exposed to acetate. It was the last film I saw at the Beach Theater on Randall Avenue in the Bronx. The theater turned into an "Iglesia" the next year. The previous year, I sat through ten viewings of "Night Of The Living Dead" and had a ball. Cheap popcorn and flat soda. It was great. By having added color, "Mad Doctor" became way to graphic for me and I left the theater by the middle of the film. Intestines were everywhere. Even more bizarre, I brought my 5 year old brother to see it and left without him. He sat mesmerized for the whole film. To keep the ushers from throwing him out, I had to come back in and watched until the end. It was a strange, scary experience with a stupid premise attached to it. But it was a hoot. I'd love to see it again one day. It was a great, disturbing piece of junk. It's probably very tame by now.

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.