Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

Uriah43 This is the third film in the "Blood Collection" series and it takes up where the last movie, "Mad Doctor of Blood Island" left off. As everyone knows from the last exciting movie, "Dr. Bill Foster" (John Ashley) and "Sheila Willard" (Angelique Pettyjohn) managed to survive the explosion at the lab of "Dr. Lorca" (played by Ronald Remy) and were last seen on a ship heading away from Blood Island. However, one of the green creatures had managed to smuggle himself aboard just as the film ended. Sure enough, he comes out of hiding right as this film starts and causes the ship to explode killing everyone on board except for Dr. Foster and the green creature—who is seen slinking into the jungle as the opening credits appear on the screen. We then learn that Dr. Foster was rescued by a native woman named "Laida" (Liza Belmonte) and was sent to a hospital on the mainland. Months later he decides to return to Blood Island and is followed by an attractive journalist named "Myra J. Russell" (Celeste Yarnall) who wants the inside scoop on what happened. Now, although this movie doesn't quite have as much eroticism as its two predecessors, it does have some decent jungle combat scenes if that's any consolation. Likewise, Celeste Yarnall filled in quite well as the mandatory damsel in distress. All in all then, I rate this movie about the same as the last two films and recommend that it be seen after "Mad Doctor of Blood Island" if for no other reason than to obtain some kind of continuity. Slightly below average.

hokeybutt BEAST OF BLOOD (3+ outta 5 stars) This is one of those iffy movies that I just can't quite bring myself to recommend to other people... though I have seen it many times and will probably see it many more. It is just so cheesy... the acting and voice dubbing so poor... the dialogue so overwrought... the storyline so clichéd... sex and violence for no reason but to show sex and violence... I mean, what's not to love about a movie like that? (Well, if you're in the mood for it, that is.) This is one of those cheaply-made horror movies from the Phillipines in the early 70s starring John Ashley. (Didnd't *every* movie made in the Phillipines in the early 70s star John Ashley?) In this sequel to "Mad Doctor of Blood Island" (which I have never seen, but, really, I don't think I need to) Ashley once again fights a monster inadvertently created by a mad scientist and tries to put a stop to his insidious experiments on human beings. That's all you need for a plot, right? So there's lots of fighting... and shooting... and lovemaking (Ashley manages to find not one but TWO willing females on the remote island... what luck)! I thought the movie was pretty cool when I saw it at the drive-in when I was 14... and dang it, I still think it's pretty cool! Why is it that bad movies made 30 or 40 years ago are so much more entertaining than bad movies made NOW?

silentgmusic "Beast of Blood" is the third of the Blood Island-Eddie Romero series, all of which starred terrible actor John Ashley. Although, with these films, it is better just to ignore the acting and enjoy the exploitation elements.There's some gore, a cheap but neat-looking monster and a little bit of skin too. (Celeste Yarnall ain't much of an actress, but she is photogenic.) The plot is nonexistent, something about the Monster of Blood Island's head being saved for experiments. It is extremely silly, but it's also imaginative. The monster's head and body are severed, but the monster manages to control his body to escape and kill anyway. Did Stuart Gordon see this before making "Re-Animator"?My biggest complaint here is that the film shoots its wad at the beginning. The first scene of the film is kind of confusing: John Ashley is on a ship leaving Blood Island when the monster, a stowaway, breaks loose and starts killing the crew. Ashley and the monster duke it out until both end up shipwrecked back on Blood Island. After that, the film really drags until the above experiments on the monster occur. As with the other Blood Island films, there are a lot of filler scenes that supposedly develop the characters but are actually there to eat up the film's running time.Still, there is some fun to be had in "Beast of Blood," but I wouldn't recommend it to serious horror film fans. This is for bad movie fans only, and even then they might be disappointed.It's still better than Final Destination 2, though.

goodvibe-1 Actually, BOB is considerably better than the first film, MDof BloodIsle. I believe BOB could well stand alone without the first if need be. The use of cameras and lighting are improved, as well as the acting, with the exception of that boat captain! I rather like the jungle adventure that makes up most of ActII, but given a choice, I would like to have seen more scenes of the monster. As a fan of the genre, must say it's not a bad little film all considered...