mark-179-360743

No, it doesn't do anything original, but everything it does do, it does well. Good writing, good script, good acting, good characters, good pacing, good story, good effects, good cinematography. It satisfying in all areas and if you look closely, a lot of very clever not too obvious little details that don't treat the audience like morons make this refreshing and pleasantly un-cliched. Hats off to the female lead, great performance - nice to see a well written lead with brains and grit who doesn't feel like a girl boss or a weakling, and she delivers it well. This type of movie been done to death before, but Blood Star does it with style. Hard to fault.

I'm sure many eyes would roll if you heard this was a horror tinged home invasion movie. Its been done to death, and yet I've not seen one executed so perfectly in literally forever. I'm trying hard, but I can't isolate one thing for criticism. The story is engaging, the acting great throughout from all the cast, interesting character progression and back stories, direction is strong, no surplus fat anywhere, just constant story progression that gets increasingly bizarre and more twisted until by the end you ask yourself "How did they manage to do that?". Its edgy, creepy and hearkens back to those doom laden 70's horror flicks with a distinctly Martyrs come Wicker Man feel at the end. I can't fault it, and I know horror inside out. Real tension, real stakes and a satisfying and unexpected climax. More please!

Before we begin. I have a degree in British History... The synth music is a little unnecessary, but the acting good and history from specialists is welcome. It makes the war of the Roses saga seem fresh and interesting, its a great introduction to the material. But... I have a few bugbears; the Princes in the Tower is still a mystery, we do not know if their murder was ordered, or who by, and yet it is stated as fact and Richard the 3rd is the culprit. We do not know. Ergo, this is historically inaccurate; it's likely, but not fact - and this should have been stated. Also, a lot of court intrigue is also packaged as gospel, when it is not fact, there are no records of tittle-tattle and heresay. We interpolate based on actual known outcomes, a lot of conclusions are presented as absolutes and not possibilities - which they in fact are. It is almost certain that this is not 100% accurate, probably a lot less. Some of the commentary is not well scripted.. for example "They were in fear of their lives". No, people are in fear "FOR their lives", not OF them. Pedantic yes, but things like this happen too often to be ignored, with a budget like they have - you can't have slack writing, it doesn't cost a lot to send a script to a decent editor... So yes, a great series, decent acting and some good insight - but marred by suggesting the view which is presented is actual historic fact, and not interpolation; however, the view presented is generally of the more "likely" academic consensus, but people should be told this is what is being presented - and they don't. And what is with that bloody synthesizer music during a 1400's documentary?? But I'm generally quite anal - so its basically very good and I do recommend, but remember the pinch of salt - all facts here are not accurate.