Return of the Evil Dead (1973) User Reviews

Templars terrorize timid townsfolk... Great entertainment!

[Jim-D · 7/10 · 14 January 2008]

Return of the Evil Dead is, in my opinion, a superior film to the acclaimed original Blind Dead movie. This time around, the body count rises tenfold and the galloping, sword-swinging Templars are multiplied by nearly as much. Watching armies of ghouls race across the countryside, waving their blades and wriggling their tiny skeletal arms, can be truly chill-inducing.

This time around, a local celebration is invaded by the Templars, who take their vengeance on the townspeople - eventually chasing the mayor, a fireworks technician, his estranged lover, and a few horrified others to a nearby church. Barricaded inside, the survivors take it upon themselves not to stop the Templars, but simply to escape with their lives.

The performances are uniformly decent, although numerous day-for-night shots are so jarring, they take away a large portion of the needed tension. The effects are all done well, with a bit more grue this time around... but still a relatively gore-less affair. There's some nudity, a bevy of hilarious characters, and a thrilling (albeit unsuccessful) escape through an underground passageway.

Any way you look at it, this film is a step up from the thrilling original. If you're in the mood for some silly, creepy fun - look no further than this little gem. Return of the Evil Dead is an absolute blast.

El ataque de los muertos sin ojos: Sub par sequel

[Platypuschow · 6/10 · 6 March 2018]

I really enjoyed Tombs Of The Blind Dead (1972) it blew me away and left me really excited for the other three movies in the franchise.

Sadly I knew it was too good to be true as this second film is very underwhelming by comparison.

The first thing that struck me is the timeline. Is this a sequel? prequel? remake? Every potential answer to that has an valid argument against it so I was already more than a little frustrated.

The film does however have most of the strengths of the first film, the concept is great and the cast do a good job. Sadly the plot is hit and miss this time and honestly a great deal of mistakes were made in its creation.

Return Of The Evil Dead isn't bad by any stretch of the imagination it's just a let down after the outstanding Tombs Of The Blind Dead.

This time we see the blind dead raise from their graves to assault the near by village who are in the middle of annual festivities and ripe for the slaying.

Watchable second film but not the best start to carrying on a franchise.

The Good:

Most of the cast

The Bad:

Confusing timeline

The big "Battle" has to be one of the dullest fight scenes ever

Couple of the effects are really screwy

Weak ending

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

Blind Dead zombies can walk around in a near skeletal form but die from being impaled

Asking a little girl to be blindfolded, telling her its a game, asking if she wants to play with you and telling her she's not allowed to make any noise has to be one of the most unintentionally uncomfortable scenes in movie history

A more accessible remake

[smccar77 · 6/10 · 20 March 2011]

"Reutrn of the Blind Dead," is a slightly higher budget remake of Tombs of the Blind Dead. Return maintains the intriguing premise and textural richness of the first, while also achieving a slightly faster pace and more accessible story. In all fairness, Return is a remake in spirit only. The story arch and conflict differs very much from the first film. In the earlier film, the director lavished time and extended shot composition to create a creepy mood. This second installment develops characters more and explores how some of the monsters may still be alive.

This series has gained a cult following for a few reasons. First, the premise of long dead satanic knight zombies mixes history, occultism, and gory monsters. Such a mix is near perfection in the overly exploited zombie genre. Second, the stories are rather simple and straight forward. The director is clearly not attempting to create a nuanced and subtle piece of storytelling. Rather, the films are a notable for the visual and color textures. The zombies are a wonderful combination of desiccated flesh and bones wrapped in earth hardened tunics. In addition, these knights attack in force both on foot and on zombie horseback. The costuming and makeup effects are actually quite unsettling and some of the most original.

While the zombies are very fun, the lack of attention to story and development do hurt the film. The dialogue is simplistic and clearly serves to keep the pacing up. Whenever a movie sacrifices realistic scripting, the production as a whole suffers from wooden performances and characters the audience cares little about. Return, having made the above scripting sacrifice, comes off as very clichéd, poorly acted, and at times outright stupid. An important note is that, even with these negative points, the film still maintains a sense of excitement, horror and fun. Return is a "b" zombie film and all of the staff know it. In a sense, this film deserves to be judged by more lenient "b" criteria. By evaluating this film on less strict criterion, Return is a success. The Editing is well done and maintains a good exciting pace. The acting is wooden, which inevitably leads to unintended humor and laughs. The zombies are the star and clearly have been developed lovingly. The score is a mix of cheesy music and stereotypically creepy sound effects. This film attacks its goal with both a high degree of technical skill and an even higher degree of pride. Will this film ever make a come back and receive awards? No, it will not. Will this film stand the test of time and be referenced for many years to come by horror enthusiasts? Yes, it most definitely will. All in all, this is a fun film that has a unique if campy perspective on zombies.

On a personal note, I have really taken to this series. The premise, visual textures, creepy locations, and unplanned humor combine to make these films a pleasure to watch. These make great movie night fare when with horror buffs. In addition, this series provides a great many examples of the wonderful techniques used in earlier horror. A great many films of today are clearly influenced by the likes of the blind dead.

Definitely Worth a Look-See

[BaronBl00d · 24 October 1999]

I started watching this sequel to Tombs of the Blind Dead, and at first was remarkably unimpressed. But by the final minute of the film, I had watched a stirring, atmospheric film that, by a slight nod, bested its original. Again we have the evil Knights Templar out for an evening of murder and mayhem at a village festival celebrating their deaths. The film drags a bit in the beginning, and the dubbing is rather poor on the Anchor Bay video(despite advertising subtitles instead). But once the leprous, rotting, decaying Knights break from their earthy pits to exact their vengeance on the villagers, the film starts and remains at a high, fast, tense, frightening pace with some wonderful filmed images. The basic premise of the film has a group of survivors holed up in a Church and what becomes of them through the dark night. The acting is fair, and the actor playing the mayor is humorous in a way. If you enjoyed the first film, I am sure you will like this sequel. I look forward with anticipation to watching the third and fourth installments of this gothic, moody series.

The Templars return in a good sequel

[zingbot · 6/10 · 1 August 2006]

Those pervy devil worshipping Blind Dead Templar Knights return to ruin their own anniversary celebrations. As a follow up to the entertaining Tombs of the Blind Dead, the Return of the Blind Dead does a good job. The film has the usual mix of a deformed hunchback who kills a woman to bring back the Templars, a "hunky" hero who saves the day, an array of busty women for the Blind Dead to prey on, a little sex, and the usual villain who we don't mind being killed. Add into the mix a celebration in the village which soon gets overrun with Blind Dead, a comedy interlude with the mayor and his maid, a few chase scenes and a surprisingly good ending and you have a good concoction for 1970's horror. One of the greatest parts of these films is the use over and over again of the Templars rising from their coffins, women just managing to escape the Blind Dead, usually with one of their shoes stuck in a hole or ladder rung right up until the last second, and my personal favourite, a bony hand reaching through a hole or window. Classic Zombie/Vampire fun for all the family.

Gotta love those Templars

[bensonmum2 · 7/10 · 6 October 2005]

The Templars are back in action, this time terrorizing a local village. And while I found a lot to enjoy, the movie suffers because it is a sequel. I suppose selecting a favorite depends on which Blind Dead movie you see first. I happened to see Tombs of the Blind Dead (the first in the series) before I saw Return of the Evil Dead. As a result, a lot of the suspense and mystery surrounding the Templars is lost in this movie. I already knew what the Templars were all about and wasn't as shocked as I was with the first movie.

That's not to say there aren't moments of horror gold to be found in Return of the Evil Dead. Once again, the Templars rising from the grave is very well done. The scene where the villagers are trapped in the Plaza by the Templars on horseback is one of the best of first two movies. And Return of the Evil Dead has characters that are easier to care about. Add to that the requisite amount of violence, blood, and general creepiness and you've got a very solid horror movie.

First and best sequel of the Templars dead series

[ma-cortes · 5/10 · 13 February 2007]

The blind dead Templars return again from the 13th century with this creepy story.The film starts when the village's idiot(Jose Canalejas) awakes the priests warriors from the tomb.Ancient Zombies return of graves causing wreak havoc on the small community where are celebrating centennial festivities ,terrizing and torturing the rural population.There rules a tyrant Mayor(Fernando Sancho) and his underlings(Frank Braña).They make a brutal massacre into village square and the protagonists are surrounded in the church.Meanwhile the starring (Tony Kendall) saves the damsel(Esperanza Roy )in disgrace.

This atmospheric horror movie contains eerie scenes when appear the living dead Templars .This is the following of the first great success and immensely popular ¨Tombs of the Blind dead¨ which to be continued by a trilogy: Return of evil dead,Horror of Zombies and Night of the seagulls. The Zombi-like are blinded by crows but they made human sacrifices and were executed and the clergymen return eventually to the life.They encounter their victims by means of screams and sounds. In the movie appear famous actors of Eurotrash and Spaghetti Western as Fernando Sancho(usual roles of fat Mexican),Frank Braña(habitual secondary in Sergio Leone Western),Tony Kendall( an usual player for Amando Ossorio as When the screaming stops and People who own the dark) and Lone Fleming,main actress in the original film:The tombs of the blind dead.Creepy and frightening music especially when the dead attack is created by Anton Garcia Abril . This lack budget film is regularly directed by Amando De Ossorio.

The Blind Dead Rule Again

[Tweetienator · 6/10 · 25 October 2021]

Return of the Blind Dead aka The Return of the Evil Dead aka El ataque de los muertos sin ojos is a solid sequel to the first movie (Tombs of the Blind Dead, 1972). The dead Knights Templar walk again and crave for tender flesh and blood. The living scream and die - one of those fine pieces of oldschool horror that are spiced up with some trash and nudity, and are free from the slightes hint of p.c.-correctness. Yummy.

Spanish Rake Fight

[Jonny_Numb · 5/10 · 24 August 2007]

It is hard to deny Amando De Ossorio's talent behind the camera--the man knows how to make even the most foreboding locales postcard-pretty. His writing, on the other hand, is a different story..."Return of the Evil Dead" is essentially a plot less rehash of "Tombs of the Blind Dead," with a liberal helping of "Night of the Living Dead" thrown into the mix. I don't have a problem with movies borrowing from each other, but "Return" is so bereft of story and interesting characters that the whole thing becomes kind of tedious. While "Tombs" didn't really spring to life until its impressive climax, Ossorio does a much better job integrating the resurrected Templars into the film--mostly filmed in mid- and long-shots set against dark sets, they exude more menace this time out (also drawing attention away from their creaky marionette movements); problem is, the action scenes revolving around the Templars go on far too long, diluting their presence. And underneath the surface, there isn't much going on here--a bunch of forgettable, cliché characters hole up in an unusually well-lit church to hold out against the Templar menace--subplots involving a greedy Mayor, a jealous lover, and a lost child ensue. Ho hum. To "Return"'s credit, the opening Templar slaughter is effective, as is a suspenseful child retrieval scene, and the climax is chilling. Too bad everything in between is beautiful to look at but aesthetically mediocre.

Blind dead return in style

[Prof-Hieronymos-Grost · 7/10 · 19 January 2009]

A rural Portuguese village is preparing to celebrate the annual festival commemorating when their village overran and killed the Templar Knights who had been sacrificing its villagers. The mayor of the village on the advice of his fiancé Vivian, hires a fireworks expert Jack Marlowe, to ensure the festival is a hit, little knowing they have a past. Jack and Vivian immediately rekindle their passions in the ruins of the local abbey, where they are spied on by the village idiot, Murdo, he regales them with the gory history of the abbey and how the Templars had their eyes burned out in case they returned to avenge their deaths, which they swore they would. He tells them that the Templars will return tonight during the festival and he duly has a secret plan to sacrifice a local girl to ensure the curse of the Templars comes true. Sure enough the dead arise, and seek to avenge their deaths, they ride into town to kill all they encounter, Jack and Vivian along with the mayor and his cronies hide out in the village church and with the mayors pleas to the local authorities ignored, they must fight for their lives. Pretty decent follow up to de Ossorio's Tombs of the Blind dead, some striking Gothic visuals and just a little gore make this a sight to behold, things are also spiced up by a bevy of local beauties. The Blind Dead makeup and costumes are also very effective even if their pace is a tad slower than a comatose sloth.

Yet another worthless sequel.

[ax2groin · 3/10 · 21 June 2001]

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.

the shockingly sordid slaying skills of these satanically corrupted knights is really outta' sight!

[Weirdling_Wolf · 10/10 · 5 June 2021]

Amando de Ossorio's grisly-groovy sequel 'The Return of the Evil Dead' deliriously delivers another 87 mythically malevolent minutes of blinding, tomb-trashing terror! These blasphemously bellicose, black magic butchers are the terrifyingly teat-tormenting Templar knights! Condemned to a fiery death for their egregious crimes, these bedevilled crusaders arise on this celebratory night, driven by limitless hate, these rotten rapscallions return from their glacial tombs, darkly dispensing their diabolical dooms! A creepy-looking clique of fearfully animated corpses, sat astride mildewed horses, their grimly hollowed out skulls echoing the gruesome screams of their foul intercourses! Sworn to bloody revenge, these eternally wrathful death riders unleash their macabre, slow stalking slaughter, their dismal blackened sockets deeper than the sulphurous hells from whence they came! These sinfully sadistic, reality-warping Templars have an appetite for carnal corruption!!! Even without the power of sight, their grievous, worm-eaten visages remain unmatched for inspiring a most terminal fright! And the shockingly sordid slaying skills of these satanically corrupted knights is really outta' sight!

Amando de Ossorio was thirsty for more - the Templars are back!

[The_Void · 7/10 · 26 March 2006]

I'm a big fan of the original 'Tombs of the Blinddead', but even so; I'm not sure that it warranted a sequel. Director Amando de Ossorio obviously disagreed with me, and I'm glad he did - because this film, the first of three follow-ups to Ossorio's original is a really nice little zombie film; even if it is a little superfluous. Anyone who has seen the first film will know exactly what to expect, as this film follows the same basic storyline, which centres on the mysterious blind (and dead) Templars who rise from the grave to wreak havoc upon the living. This time, we kick off with a sequence that shows how the Templars were killed, which gives a good backdrop to a film where we already know who the main villains are going to be. From there, the film starts properly and the early stages are populated by some of the characters that will go on to star in the movie. Unlike he did with the first film, Ossorio seems keen to focus on the paranoia of the people who are trapped by his creepy force of Templars, and the main bulk of the film takes place in an old building where a bunch of people have holed up.

For what it is, Ossorio's series of 'Blinddead' films is actually quite original. Much of the action takes place in the daylight, which bodes excellently with the creepy, decrepit image of the Templars. Also, the zombies here aren't the victims of a virus or radiation from space; but rather the result of a curse. Ossorio's Templars also aren't flesh-eating, and seem to prefer lopping off heads and limbs to satisfying their hunger. All these culminates in the image of the Templars themselves, which gave the first film it's main talking point and does the same for this sequel. The image of the decayed ex-knights and their horses is first class horror, and the director clearly realises this as the film features them for a lot of the running time. The dialogue and the characters are very simple, and is often quite ridiculous. This sort of thing is one of the trademarks of Italian horror from the seventies; and it's such a shame because it does bring the piece down. Overall; it's a bit silly, it's inconsistent, it doesn't always make sense and it's pretty much a re-run of the original; but this is first class zombie nonsense, and I highly recommend it to anyone who loved the first film!

Better storyline than first film but still not as good

[Maciste_Brother · 5/10 · 29 March 2005]

RETURN OF THE BLIND DEAD is a sequel to the first film but not to the original film's storyline, which was its weakest aspect. So the fact that this sequel doesn't follow the first film's storyline didn't bother me at all. In contrast, there's more of a story here but the atmosphere is not as compelling as the one in TOMBS OF THE BLIND DEAD and the acting seems to be even cheesier than the original film.

I somewhat enjoyed both BLIND DEAD films but I wouldn't consider them to be classics. The sub-par acting and repetitive nature of both films keep them from the same league as "THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE" or "THE EXORCIST".

The truly odd thing about the BLIND DEAD films is that they've created these amazing looking zombies based on the Knights Templar's history, which is vast and complex and by creating horror films about the evil ways of this sect seem to be filled with potential and yet both films are so devoid of any truly fascinating aspects of the Templar's history, and the flimsy way the spectacular zombies are used in both films, I can't help but wonder what went wrong. They simply did not know what to do with them.

"The Templars shall rise from the dead."

[Backlash007 · 27 January 2003]

The Return of the Blind Dead is not so much a sequel as it is a retelling. The original writer/director, Amando de Ossorio, is back on board for this, in my opinion, superior outing. That's right, I said superior. It's got a better storyline and it's not boring once. The pacing is right on the money. Unlike the original, there's no part where the action is lagging and there are a couple of laughs even. Despite this, it's still not a good horror movie. I think they should have combined their efforts and put the two films together; the make-up and general style of the first, and the action and claustrophobia of the second. They could have made one decent horror flick instead of two mediocre ones.

Blind skeletons on horses who knocks doors.

[Fella_shibby · 6/10 · 20 March 2016]

I first saw the English version of this in the late 80s on a vhs. It was titled Return of the Evil Dead back in the 80s n i thot tht this might be related to the Evil Dead film. Naive kid back then. Revisited the Spanish version of this part recently. Although this is the second part in the series, i havent yet seen its first part.

The movie has plenty of genuinely chilling moments and plenty of silly ones, too. The film has decent amt of gore, graphic stabbings, decapitation, heart removal scenes, eye burning, etc. The plot is a lil similar to Night of the living Dead about people taking shelter in one place to safeguard themselves from the zombies outside. The guy who played the mayor looked like Ron Jeremy. This movie may have its flaws, but Amando De Ossorio does a great job using slow-mo and an eerie score to intensify the film. The editing is shoddy. The skeletons attacking the village people n the aftermath fighting is tedious.

Strung out on blood

[BandSAboutMovies · 6/10 · 25 September 2022]

From Tombs of the Blind Dead to The Ghost Galleon and Night of the Seagulls - let's not mention Curse of the Blind Dead - few images of Eurohorror are as striking as the Satanic and zombiefied Knights Templar riding out to their strange theme.

I kind of love that Spanish horror doesn't seem to care all that much about continuity. How many ways did Waldemar Daninsky become a werewolf? Well, Amando de Ossorio tweaked the way the Knights came to be in nearly every movie, adjusting how they arrived and what they wanted, but the main idea is the same: they worshipped Satan, they were burned, they've come back to drink virgin blood.

As a village prepares for a festival celebrating the 500th anniversary of the defeat of the Templars - what a dumb idea - the village idiot Murdo sacrifices a young girl and brings them back from the dead. Any of the romantic drama between fireworks man Jack Marlowe (Tony Kendall) and his Vivian (Esperanza Roy), his ex-lover and now fiancee of the town's mayor, will have to wait until the Knights kill everyone.

De Ossorio wrote, directed and designed the Templar make-up for this. The Spanish version, El ataque de los muertos sin ojos, has more gore, like the Templars straight up devouring a human heart. That's how you do it!

If you're someone that complains that this movie has day for night errors and has a slow pace that seems glacial, I'm going to hate you forever. This is doom metal on film. Tune in, drop down, drink blood, smoke up.

trash!

[dispet · 3/10 · 1 June 2004]

oh my god, i give this film three stars out of ten for the following reasons. the final sequence is once again quite effectively handled and it was absolutely hilarious. that is what it gets those three points for. other than that, it was atrocious. it wasnt meant to be this funny, that much is obvious, but the dubbing, the acting of the dubbed voices, the dialogue they said, where often hilarious. the actions performed, and/or not performed also lead to much hilarity and/or throwing things at the screen. such as when the whole town is being slaughtered and one small group of people stand on a balcony looking on as if they were watching a cooking glass, or the "attempted" escapes from the church in which they hole up.

evil mayor: i think something is going on outside so you should go upstairs and look out the window.

hero: ok.

evil mayor: now is my chance to make some idiot go outside and flail around with fire being totally ineffective and getting hacked up.

insert sequence in which this occurs.

evil mayor: damn, wait, i will get this small child and she will walk outside and cry pappa seemingly obvlious to the fact that those rotten corpses are not just spooky strangers but are actually zombies with no flesh or skin or anything and she will lead them away and i will flee! insert sequence in which this occurs.

hero (upstairs): he is trying to escape again, fool, and he has left the door open, he is silly, this is a nice view.

woman: where is my daughter?

hero (downstairs now): i dont know, i cannot see her anyway and she was not outside because i could not see her despite her being out there and me having a view of the entire neighbourhood and she is standing right outside, where on earth could she be?

needless to say, anybody would be throwing things at the screen after 10 minutes of this. so, watch the first film with a couple of friends, having a few drinks, and make sure by the time you get to watching this one, you are absolutely blindly drunk and can just giggle at the stupidity of it all. and there wasnt even any decent gore, such a shame.

Amando De Ossorio's second blind Spanish zombie knight movie.

[BA_Harrison · 6/10 · 1 January 2007]

Return of the Evil Dead, the second of Amando De Ossorio's blind dead movies, is a fairly fun slice of Euro-horror, replete with the gore and nudity that one usually expects from such movies.

A mono-browed cripple with a nasty sneer resurrects a group of devil-worshipping Templar knights who were put to death by an angry mob five hundred years earlier. The zombie knights (who also ride on zombie horses!) are out for revenge and attack the ancestors of those who originally put them to death. A group of survivors seek refuge in a church and barricade themselves in, but with a long night ahead of them, how many of them will make it out alive?

With plenty of genuinely chilling moments (and plenty of silly ones, too) and some effectively creepy zombies (skeletal caped figures wielding huge swords), Return of the Evil Dead (AKA Return of the Blind Dead) is worth a watch if you dig this kind of thing. The film throws in some nifty splashes of gore including some graphic stabbings, the removal of a heart, a hand severing and a beheading (although exactly how some of the victims end up on the wrong end of the knights' swords is a little puzzling to me: the reanimated rotting corpses shuffle slower than an arthritic tortoise, cannot see and are afraid of fire!).

Decent 70s Euro horror movies also wouldn't be complete without a few babes getting their thruppeny-bits out and, sure enough, there are plenty of norks on display for the lads to enjoy; eventually, even older 'lovely' Esperanza Roy joins in the fun, briefly flashing her jugs towards the end of the film!

Despite being a little slow in places, and having a bit of a 'cop-out' ending (the sun comes up and the zombies just collapse!), Return of the Evil Dead serves up enough fun to make this one worth a go!

Not worth seeing...get it? Not worth seeing....

[cineaste-3 · 1/10 · 26 September 1998]

My first exposure to the Templarios & not a good one. I was excited to find this title among the offerings from Anchor Bay Video, which has brought us other cult classics such as "Spider Baby". The print quality is excellent, but this alone can't hide the fact that the film is deadly dull. There's a thrilling opening sequence in which the villagers exact a terrible revenge on the Templars (& set the whole thing in motion), but everything else in the movie is slow, ponderous &, ultimately, unfulfilling. Adding insult to injury: the movie was dubbed, not subtitled, as promised on the video jacket.

For Rent: One house surrounded by zombie knights?

[The Yeti · 7/10 · 6 March 2002]

When I saw this movie I expected to see something like a hammer-horror or an independent classic. I had no idea it was a sequel! I watched and got kind of hooked when the zombies rise from the dead. It only happens after 10 minutes! Some evil Templar Knights get their eyes burned out and have to track their modern day victims by sound. It's a good idea. They ride zombie horses and carry rusty swords and the make up is very good. After a woman escapes from their clutches, she goes to the town where everyone is celebrating the Templars burnings. A nice welcome home present by the community. After a bloody battle in the village some of the remaining survivors take shelter in a church. The characters like the Mayor and Howard are pure scum. They are really bad acted and funny though! Jack Marlowe is quite a likeable hero and he has a good fight with Howard. The other misfits in the church include Mertel the village idiot, Burt the gullible idiot, The escaped woman idiot and Burts idiot wife and child. They try to escape but end up getting slaughtered. The legend says that the Templars return by dawn so why didn't everyone stay put! The Templars couldn't have gotten in and they had enough food and water until help arrived. Overall, the make up is good, the characters are funny, its really fun to watch and it has a nice spanish atmosphere apart from the awful music! 7 out of 10.

More Blind Numbness

[osloj · 1/10 · 29 August 2001]

This superior inferiority to the original dumb "Blind Dead" movie, is another trash bin waste.

So many people have hyped up these films, that I can't believe what they say about them.

Since I was a kid, I have heard about how scary and great these films were, and I saw them all, and was throughly disappointed; was everyone on drugs, from the 1970's, or do they just not know how boring this crud truly is?

One of the best in the genre

[kannibalcorpsegrinder · 9/10 · 27 February 2021]

In the town of Berzano, the annual day of the revolt against the treacherous Knights Templar is marked by a massive celebration, but as a fireworks display for the celebration begins the monastery out in the hillside spits up the Knights Templar zombies who return to town to wreak vengeance for the original revolt.

In many ways, this is the superior film in the series. Most of those come from the fact that it has a quite rapidly paced plot, as it seems as it moves from one event to another in no time at all. The attacks come fast and furious, and it therefore never seems slow and dull. This is achieved due to the major advancement over the original in that the Templars are given the reigns to carry the majority of the film, and they prove they can here quite capably. Given the lion's share of the movie, they effectively come across as vicious, fear-able killers, which is exactly what they should be. By giving the decaying, creepy creations more screen time, there is a lot more action than before as the dead themselves are always a treat to watch, their rotting remains and mud-baked faces as scary here as they were when they first were seen. The action with the dead Templars is still the best part here and generates a lot of fun. With the atmospheric rise from their ruins and ascent on the town offering the chase through the daughter's house followed by the foot-chase through the area, there's a lot of impressive moments here with the dead emerging from the dark and slowly surrounding their victim. The real stand-out is the village massacre, which features both horse-mounted and footed Templars laying waste to the citizens in an extended, action-packed sequence that features many different individually great scenes that combine into one great scene as the horseback-mounted Knights battle with the pitchfork-wielding villagers before getting to the church for the final showdown. As is unusual with all Blind Dead films, this amount of action also results in the highest body count than the others, and the blood really flows in here as one is decapitated, another is dismembered, and quite a few are stabbed. These elements all come together to make for a wholly enjoyable effort to be had. There isn't much to dislike about the film. The main flaw, which isn't really that detrimental is all, is the old Gothic feel of the first one is pretty lost here, replaced by a fast-paced feel that still delivers shocks but doesn't feel as overwhelmingly atmospheric as the first one felt. Featuring only trace amounts of the Gothic feeling by moving away from their ruined castle home into the village proper, the old-school imagery that worked well as the action-movie tone works more on the relentless attacks than anything else. It also borrows elements liberally from other films, so it does have a seen-that-before element to it that the first one didn't have to it, with scenes ripped-off or taken from other films rather easily rendering a lot of this one quite familiar. As well as holding out on one of the greatest potential highlight scenes of the film with a cutaway sequence showing the aftermath instead of the scene which is a missed opportunity, these are the main issues with this one.

Rated R: Graphic Violence, Nudity, a sex scene, an attempted Rape scene and scenes with a child in danger.

double exploitation of the little girl

[christopher-underwood · 7/10 · 3 March 2013]

I didn't enjoy this as much as the first in the series but it is still worth seeing. For me this was less creepy and also lacked the vampiresque element of the blood sucking. I realise this was a bit out of place in the first, I just thought the sight of these skeletal marauders gathering round to have a mass suck was pretty effective. The sex and gore element is comparable but again not quite as traumatising but I guess this was to some extent a retread. Certainly a Night of the Living Dead element to a large section of the film when they are barricaded in the church and here I particularly liked the scheming Major ready to sacrifice anyone but himself and the coup de grace, the double exploitation of the little girl! See it yourself to find out. Great ending too, even if suddenly we are back to the vampire theme.

A Definite Step Back

[Uriah43 · 3/10 · 17 December 2012]

The sequel to "Tombs of the Blind Dead" is not nearly as good as the original. Although some parts were true to the original film, other parts deviated substantially. In the first movie the "zombie Templars" moved around in the daytime and were supposed to have been blinded by birds eating out their eyes. The sequel has them awakening 500 years after their death and moving around only during the night and being blinded by having their eyes burned from their sockets. Additionally, they didn't seem to be as cognizant of their surroundings as in the first film. Whereas in the first movie they could hear a person's heartbeat, in this one they seemed more uncertain once a person stopped making noise. At least, that's the way it seemed to me. Also of note was the fact that Lone Fleming had a part in this film as well as the original. In the first movie she played the part of "Betty Turner" and in this one she played another character named "Amalia". And while her performances in both films were adequate it just showcases yet another discrepancy from one film to the other. In any case, there was no improvement on the special effects, the plot or the dialogue and because of the additional inconsistencies noted earlier I thought this was a definite step back from the original. Possibly worth a look if a person hasn't seen "Tombs of the Blind Dead" but somewhat disappointing otherwise.