Orgy of the Dead
Orgy of the Dead
NR | 01 June 1965 (USA)
Orgy of the Dead Trailers

Horror novelist John and his girlfriend Shirley are taking a night drive, in search of an eerie graveyard that will hopefully inspire John to come up with his next story, but instead stumble into the wild rituals conducted by The Dark Master and his faithful servants.

Reviews
Cebalord

Very best movie i ever watch

... View More
Solemplex

To me, this movie is perfection.

... View More
Jeanskynebu

the audience applauded

... View More
Loui Blair

It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

... View More
Matthew_Capitano

Who wouldn't like this movie? It has chicks dancing around and shaking their boobies, 90 minutes of it! Bless these women for making men happy. Yes, we're pigs, we're inconsiderate, we're idiots, but we love women! More boobs! That would be the title if I had named this picture.... "Boobs". Then the sequel would be called "Boobs 2: More Boobs".Written by Edward Wood (the same), adapted from his novel.... his 'novel'? There was a novel? Maybe they meant 'navel'. The script does resemble belly-button lint.

... View More
TheLittleSongbird

I personally don't consider Ed Wood the worst director of all time(not when there's Friedberg-Seltzer, Uwe Boll and Ulli Lommel lurking about). I don't consider either any of the films I've seen of his classics, but none of them are among the worst films I've seen. Plan 9 I liked despite its problems and Glen or Glenda is a guilty pleasure if also problematic. Night of the Ghouls and this movie, Orgy of the Dead I don't at all like. Like Ghouls, Orgy of the Dead has a great opening sequence, but for me that's it. Wood does have heart as a director, but I didn't feel that here. The effects and sets also look cheap, the script never makes sense and the story is slow and creaky. The acting is amateurish as well, Crisswell has presence but monotonic throughout. All in all, bad even for Wood. 2/10 Bethany Cox

... View More
deetler

If you have nostalgia for 1960s skin flicks this is it. Lots of bare-breasted jiggly boobs. The chicks are svelte and pretty in a naive 60s sort of way (they all kinda look like second rate Raquel Welch/Ann-Margret clones). Reminds me of trench coated low life's beating off in empty, sleazy, smoke-filled movie theaters. There's really nothing much else to say. No plot, no dialog, just semi-nude strippers prancing around on stage. But they're young and thin and sexy. If all you're looking for is some innocent fun before the advent of hard-core bj flicks this might be your cup of tea. If you get your kicks by fantasizing about the chicks in the Adam's Family or Munsters going around bare-breasted this may be it for you.

... View More
jadedalex

The only true Woodsian touches in this film (he didn't direct it), are the thoroughly ludicrous 'mummy' and 'werewolf' characters. Much like his 'aliens' from 'Plan 9', they seem to be pretty regular joes. For a 'mummy' and a 'werewolf'.And of course, there is the ridiculous Criswell. He's always a hoot.But this movie is short on hoots and overly long on 'hooters'. Basically, the whole movie is a strip show, featuring a variety of resurrected 'ghoul' women doing the bump and the grind.Although I am a flaming heterosexual, I must admit that halfway through this film, I was thoroughly tired of looking at women's mammary glands. Of course, it is presumptuous to expect any sort of plot in a movie of this type. So get ready for.... you know what? More bazongas!Some of the girls are o.k., even spirited, for dead ghouls. But none are memorable, and I lost track of the pairs of bazoomies I was presented with here.This could have been a fun movie. I'll stick to my old Lily St. Cyr short films. Now that gal was smoking!

... View More