Bloodthirsty

It's most definitely not the best either, but it was watchable, at least for me. Was it good enough to go out and buy? No. However not many movies are these days especially when it comes to most in the horror genre for me. Once I have seen them thats usually it. There are some that I watch once every decade or so but not many. This one falls into the category of being worth watching once, especially if its free, but not worth going out and buying. The graphics are decent, not all cartoonish or anything. I would class it as one of the better done made for TV type movies. There wasn't much action (kind of hard with most of the movie being a cast of 4, only 3 of which have much screen time and only 7 people total in the cast) and it was slow till the end but the acting was decent, so, between those observations I can't really say the movie was terrible, just not impressive. I may be a bit prejudiced as a fan of Greg Bryk, I loved him in Bitten and in Frontier. He is really good at the odd character types. It was a different take on a werewolf movie, but not scary at all unfortunately, and average in the forgettable kind of way most movies like this are. However, I still feel like it was good enough to merrit 5 stars. For me 5 out of 10 would be average, not terrible but not great. Would I recommend giving it a shot? ... That mostly depends on the person. If they are just looking for something to pass the time and have nothing better to watch, are not looking for a diamond in the rough or nail biting suspense then maybe give it a try if they can see it for free. It kept my attention well enough even though it didn't have me holding my breath.

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.

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.

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.

But once the story started to unfold, it seemed to start working with the characters through the characters to get somewhere and it did finally take us where it needed to go. Since it is a sort of psychogenic fugue type thing where the story dissolves from a big giant greyish obfuscated matter it could of been a little more taut with the material but like just in a few lil' areas. But regardless, it all worked out and the writing did its job and churned out something pretty nice. I would recommend it as a nice well-crafted story.