IMDb-BEWERTUNG
4,8/10
1905
IHRE BEWERTUNG
Grey hat Visionen, dass sie ein Wolf ist. Als sie eine Einladung erhält, mit dem berüchtigten Musikproduzenten Vaughn Daniels in seinem abgelegenen Studio in den Wäldern zu arbeiten, beginnt... Alles lesenGrey hat Visionen, dass sie ein Wolf ist. Als sie eine Einladung erhält, mit dem berüchtigten Musikproduzenten Vaughn Daniels in seinem abgelegenen Studio in den Wäldern zu arbeiten, beginnt sie herauszufinden, wer sie wirklich ist.Grey hat Visionen, dass sie ein Wolf ist. Als sie eine Einladung erhält, mit dem berüchtigten Musikproduzenten Vaughn Daniels in seinem abgelegenen Studio in den Wäldern zu arbeiten, beginnt sie herauszufinden, wer sie wirklich ist.
- Auszeichnungen
- 1 Gewinn & 4 Nominierungen insgesamt
Hans Grossmann
- Fashion Photography Crew
- (as Hans Grossman)
Empfohlene Bewertungen
I felt like it was more of a promotion for a singer rather than a real movie about a werewolf. The acting wasn't bad overall but the effects were iffy at times. No real character development and what was the point of the rude housekeeper? Save your time and money for another film.
2/10.
From the beginning of the plot, nothing new has happened from what is written in the description of the film, so it is monotonous and without plot. It is quite predictable and we wait all the time for something to happen but nothing. Also, they could at least find someone who sings better because this was scary to listen to. It's not horror.
From the beginning of the plot, nothing new has happened from what is written in the description of the film, so it is monotonous and without plot. It is quite predictable and we wait all the time for something to happen but nothing. Also, they could at least find someone who sings better because this was scary to listen to. It's not horror.
...although I do appreciate the craftsmanship involved. That, along with Greg Bryk's strong screen presence -which seems to be an involuntary, natural aura that he projects even when his part asks for the kind of overly subdued performance that leaves little room for entertaining theatrics- and Michael Ironside's small part are the sole reasons why I'm giving this a three stars rating instead of the bare minimum that the site allows and my guts were stubbornly insisting on leaving.
Pedestrian, boring and unimaginative direction not only hampers an equally pedestrian, boring and unimaginative script but also exacerbates its flaws: soulless main characters, the most egregious one for starters, who engage in melodramatic and humorless conversations -peppered with an annoying over abundance of tired 'in-show-biz-dog-eats-dog' cliches-, that get increasingly redundant as the movie goes on and its overstretched plot runs out of wind. Meanwhile, a couple of criminally underdeveloped supporting characters meander around aimlessly looking for a purpose that the writers actively deny, which renders their predicament during the third, final act pointless to the emotionally detached viewer.
There's also, as I just mentioned, this dull and tired metaphor about the ruthlessness of entertaining industries running under this trainwreck's rails, but the less said about it the better; except, maybe, for the fact that everything this movie tried to tell, or imply, was better told and successfully implied almost three decades ago in Mike Nichols' vastly underrated "Wolf". A movie, by the way, from which this inferior copycat not only borrows most of its subtext but also dares to steal entire scenes, almost shot-by-shot, without understanding how and why those scenes worked perfectly in harmony with a coherent story, well-paced plot development and fully fleshed characters, both main AND secondary ones. In fact, it's better to enjoy your well-deserved leisure time revisiting -or experiencing for the first time, if you happen to be that lucky- Nichols' "Wolf" than wasting it on this self-important, derivative succedaneous. Don't make the same mistake I did and avoid it as much as you can.
Pedestrian, boring and unimaginative direction not only hampers an equally pedestrian, boring and unimaginative script but also exacerbates its flaws: soulless main characters, the most egregious one for starters, who engage in melodramatic and humorless conversations -peppered with an annoying over abundance of tired 'in-show-biz-dog-eats-dog' cliches-, that get increasingly redundant as the movie goes on and its overstretched plot runs out of wind. Meanwhile, a couple of criminally underdeveloped supporting characters meander around aimlessly looking for a purpose that the writers actively deny, which renders their predicament during the third, final act pointless to the emotionally detached viewer.
There's also, as I just mentioned, this dull and tired metaphor about the ruthlessness of entertaining industries running under this trainwreck's rails, but the less said about it the better; except, maybe, for the fact that everything this movie tried to tell, or imply, was better told and successfully implied almost three decades ago in Mike Nichols' vastly underrated "Wolf". A movie, by the way, from which this inferior copycat not only borrows most of its subtext but also dares to steal entire scenes, almost shot-by-shot, without understanding how and why those scenes worked perfectly in harmony with a coherent story, well-paced plot development and fully fleshed characters, both main AND secondary ones. In fact, it's better to enjoy your well-deserved leisure time revisiting -or experiencing for the first time, if you happen to be that lucky- Nichols' "Wolf" than wasting it on this self-important, derivative succedaneous. Don't make the same mistake I did and avoid it as much as you can.
I can smell something from you. Something primal.
Not sure how I found out about this movie, but it seemed promising with a high Rotten Tomatoes percent and critics saying that there's a lot of gore. And boy if that wasn't a big lie.
For an hour and 24 minutes runtime, this sure felt long. However, this slow pace made sense considering what the movie was aiming for. Some parts crept me out a bit, but the whole time I was hoping that this would lead to a crazy, bloody, and gory ending.
Sadly I didn't get that. Clearly this was a low-budget movie. Most of the gores were quickly edited and only the blood on the character's face was shown. Honestly if there's more dedication to the gore and designs, this movie could have been entertaining.
The acting was quite bad, especially from the actor that played the painter girlfriend. I did not buy her reactions at all. Also, one scene was incredibly cringe between her and the main character.
Overall, I was very disappointed with the boring ending and lack of real gore. 5/10.
Not sure how I found out about this movie, but it seemed promising with a high Rotten Tomatoes percent and critics saying that there's a lot of gore. And boy if that wasn't a big lie.
For an hour and 24 minutes runtime, this sure felt long. However, this slow pace made sense considering what the movie was aiming for. Some parts crept me out a bit, but the whole time I was hoping that this would lead to a crazy, bloody, and gory ending.
Sadly I didn't get that. Clearly this was a low-budget movie. Most of the gores were quickly edited and only the blood on the character's face was shown. Honestly if there's more dedication to the gore and designs, this movie could have been entertaining.
The acting was quite bad, especially from the actor that played the painter girlfriend. I did not buy her reactions at all. Also, one scene was incredibly cringe between her and the main character.
Overall, I was very disappointed with the boring ending and lack of real gore. 5/10.
This was a very posh film much in the way that Ann Rice's, Interview with a Vampire was, minus all the foundational talent. Sure Micheal Ironside stars but its more like a cameo appearance. Also the run time was too short to warrant anything other than a passing glance.
What is notable about this piece is that it manages to hit all the timely topics as if they were prerequisites to syndication: climate change, overpopulation, & same-sex relationships.
What is notable about this piece is that it manages to hit all the timely topics as if they were prerequisites to syndication: climate change, overpopulation, & same-sex relationships.
Wusstest du schon
- WissenswertesA hitchhiker shown in the movie is holding up a sign to "East Proctor". This also the fictional name of the village with The Slaughtered Lamb pub at the start of An American Werewolf in London.
- SoundtracksBloodthirsty
Written by Lowell (as Lowell Boland), Evan Bogart & Justin Gray
Tail Credit Version Performed by Lowell
Produced by Adam Weaver and Lowell (as Lowell Boland)
Top-Auswahl
Melde dich zum Bewerten an und greife auf die Watchlist für personalisierte Empfehlungen zu.
- How long is Bloodthirsty?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Laufzeit
- 1 Std. 24 Min.(84 min)
- Farbe
- Seitenverhältnis
- 2.39:1
Zu dieser Seite beitragen
Bearbeitung vorschlagen oder fehlenden Inhalt hinzufügen