input: It was released in France on dvd several years ago--I wish it would be re-released with English subtitles. Do not confuse this with a remake with Penelope Cruz which gets poor reviews. Gerard Phillippe is a peasant who is told by a fortune teller that he will marry the daughter of the king. He sets off to join the army and goes to war. His love, however, is Gina Lollabrigida in an early movie for her. I won't spoil the end. Gerard Phillippe died a few years later at a young age, a great loss to moviedom.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: John Thaw, of Inspector Morse fame, plays old Tom Oakley in this movie. Tom lives in a tiny English village during 1939 and the start of the Second World War. A bit of a recluse, Tom has not yet recovered from the death of his wife and son while he was serving during the First World War. If you can imagine Inspector Morse old and retired, twice as crochety as when he was a policeman, then you've got Tom Oakley's character.

Yet this heart of flint is about to melt. London children are evacuated in advance of the blitz. Young William (Willie) Beech is billeted with the protesting Tom. Willie is played to good effect by Nick Robinson.

This boy is in need of care with a capital C. Behind in school, still wetting the bed, and unable to read are the smallest of his problems. He comes from a horrific background in London, with a mother who cannot cope, to put it mildly.

Slowly, yet steadily, man and boy warm to each other. Tom discovers again his ability to love and care. And the boy learns to accept this love and caring. See Tom and Willie building a bomb shelter at the end of their garden. See Willie's joy at what is probably his first ever birthday party thrown by Tom.

Not to give away the ending, but Willie is adopted by Tom after much struggle, and the pair begin a new life much richer for their mutual love.

In this movie, Thaw and Robinson are following in a long line of movies where man meets boy and develop a mutual love. See the late Dirk Bogarde and Jon Whiteley in "Spanish Gardener". Or Clark Gable and Carlo Angeletti in "It Started in Naples". Or Robert Ulrich and Kenny Vadas in "Captains Courageous". Or Mel Gibson and Nick Stahl in "Man Without a Face".

Two points of interest. This is the only appearance of Thaw that I know of where he sings. Only a verse of a hymn, New Jerusalem, but he does sing.

Second, young Robinson also starred in a second movie featuring "Tom" in the title, "Tom's Midnight Garden", which is based on a classic children's novel.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: There is a bit of a spoiler below, which could ruin the surprise of the ONE unexpected and truly funny scene in this film. There is also information about the first film in this series.

I caught this film on DVD, which someone gave as a gift to my roommate. It came as a set together with the first film in the "Blind Dead" series.

This movie was certainly much worse than the first, "La Noche del Terror Ciego". In addition, many of the features of the first movie were changed significantly. To boot, the movie was dubbed in English (the first was subtitled), which I tend to find distracting.

The concept behind the series is that in the distant past a local branch of the Knights Templar was involved in heinous and secret rituals. Upon discovery of these crimes, the local peasantry put the Templars to death in such a manner that their eyes can no longer be used, thus preventing them from returning from Hell to exact their revenge. We then jump to modern times where because of some event, the Templars arise from the dead to exact their revenge upon the villagers whose ancestors messed them up in the first place. Of course, since the undead knights have no eyes, they can only find their victims when they make some sort of noise.

The Templars were a secretive order, from about the 12th century, coming out of the Crusades. They were only around for about 150 years, before they were suppressed in the early 1300s by the Pope and others. Because they were secretive, there were always rumors about their ceremonies, particularly for initiation. Also, because of the way the society was organized, you didn't necessarily have church officials overseeing things, which meant they didn't have an inside man when things heated up. And, because of the nature of their trials, they were tortured into confessions. The order was strongest in France, but did exist in Portugal and Spain, where the movies take place.

Where the first movie had a virgin sacrifice and knights drinking the blood directly from the body of the virgin (breast shots here, of course, this is a horror film after all), and then, once the knights come back to life, they attack their victims by eating them alive and sucking their blood; in this sequel, this all disappears. You still have the same scene (redone, not the same footage) of them sacrificing the virgin, but they drain the blood into a bowl and drink it from that. Thus, when they come back, they just hack people up with their swords or claw people to death, which I have to say is a much less effective means of disturbing your audience. There's also a time problem: in the first film the dating is much closer to the Templars, where here they are now saying it is the 500 anniversary of the peasants burning these guys at the stake, which would date it around 1473. And the way that the Templars lose their eyes is much less interesting as well. In the first, they have them pecked out by crows. Now they are simply burned out, and in quite a ridiculous manner.

Oh yeah, and maybe it was just me, but there seemed to be a lot of people from the first movie reappearing in this film (despite having died). Not really a problem, since the movie is completely different and not a sequel in the sense of a continuation, but odd none-the-less.

The highlight of this movie is the rich fellow who uses a child to distract the undead while he makes a break for the jeep. The child's father had already been suckered by this rich man into making an attempt to get the jeep, so he walks out and tells her to find her father. It comes somewhat out of the blue, and is easily the funniest scene in the film. Of course, why the child doesn't die at this point is beyond me, and disappointed for horror fans.

I couldn't possibly recommend this film to anyone. It isn't so bad that it becomes funny, so it just ends up being a mediocre horror film. The bulk of the film has several people holed up in a church, each making various attempts to go it alone in order to escape the blind dead who have them surrounded. When the film ends, you are not surprised at the outcome at all; in fact, quite disappointed. If you are into the novelty of seeing a Spanish horror film, see the first movie, which at least has some innovative ideas and not so expected outcomes.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative