Bleeders

Now, it isn't for everybody mind you, not even every die hard horror fans; but if you like freaky monsters under the ground from origins to awful to speak aloud, then not only are you a Lovecraft fan (see Shadow Over Innsmouth), but you'll probably enjoy this movie. Not fully incorporating the Cthulhu Mythos, huge parallels are seen in the backwoods MA people, the fish like monsters and something that came from a long time ago. Surprisingly, unlike the vicious scheiBfare Lovecraft renditions that came out of the eighties, this is surprisingly well done. It has actors and actresses that don't foul up the Lovecraftian nightmare that the director has in store for the audience, and a good plot. My only question was, so what happens next.

I wrestled with myself as I took this off the shelf. "Look! O'Bannon and Shusett co-wrote it! Y'know, 'Alien' and 'Dead And Buried'. And Rutger's in it!". I still knew in my heart it was gonna stink, but I rented it anyway. And much to my surprise, it was nowhere near as awful as I feared it was going to be. Okay, it has many faults, especially the two no-name Canadian leads, a hack director, and a predictable plot which offers absolutely nothing unexpected whatsoever (which is made even worse by a DVD slick which doesn't even attempt to keep anything to itself), but I found it quite watchable just the same. I'm a sucker for Lovecraftian movies, Rutger has little more than a cameo really, but he's pretty cool in it, and there are one or two effective scares and creepy touches. So the verdict is utter trash but fun. Goes well with beer!

I recently rented 'Hemoglobin' (also known as 'Bleeders') expecting the typical A-Pix film -- horrible acting, bad script and annoying children. So, when I got home and popped it in the VCR I was rather surprised to see an interesting not-so-horrorish film.

Sure, it still had the annoyingly fake children that A-Pix are known for, but in the end 'Hemoglobin' was rather interesting. The storyline was quite good -- a young man with blood problems and his wife visit the island on which he was born. This man searches the island to try to find out who his parents were and why he has his problems and ends up running into quite an interesting story. All while this is happening, townsfolk are disappearing or getting scared to death.

I think this film would probably be of interest to anyone who's a fan of the A-Pix style or people interested in the Suspense/Thriller genre. It's not the greatest film that your ever going to see, but it's something worth catching on late night television or if you have a dollar to spare.

Also, take note of one fact pointed out twice in the movie -- the main actress is pregnant. Can anyone smell a sequel?

Bleeders is, in a single word, baffling. It features a competent cast, including the always fantastic Rutger Hauer, and a bunch of unknowns who provide us with far better performances than we generally have inflicted upon us in low-budget straight-to-video horror. The location is gorgeous - a foggy fishing island somewhere off the eastern coast of Canada. The gore and monster makeup are extremely good, too. Even the script is adequate, containing no really awful dialogue or bizarre character motivations.

Add all these elements together, and you should end up with a solid little low budget horror film. Instead... well, you get Bleeders.

Its main fault is a serious cinematic crime: it is boring. I lay the blame for this unforgiveable flaw at the feet of the director and, to a lesser extent, the composer. The whole film is terribly paced. There is never any sense of urgency or danger throughout. It seems that the director has never seen a horror or thriller film before, as he certainly has no idea how to built suspense or deliver a shock. Scenes dealing with life and death feel identical to those featuring leisurely chats about genealogy. The whole film just feels terribly flat.

The score really doesn't help. It is simply the most boring and pointless movie score I have heard in years. In the first few minutes, I was thinking it was pretty. An hour and a half later, after listening to what seemed to be the same five minutes of music on a loop, I hated it. The music, like the direction, is utterly flat. Character scenes and supposedly scary scenes are all scored the same. Like the director, the composer seemed to have no idea what a horror film score is there for. It certainly isn't supposed to be something pretty to listen to when there's no dialogue.

These two problems are bad enough, but they are compounded by the fact that Bleeders is shot on video. This constant visual reminder of the movie's cheap nature, as well as its inept direction and bland score, make the whole film feel like an episode of some dodgy TV show, destined to be axed after a single season. Only the occasional splashes of gore and explicit sex scenes mark it as being something not made for TV.

It's a terrible waste of talent and potential. Okay, the best bits of the story are stolen from Lovecraft, but it could have been a fun Lovecraft ripoff, as opposed to yet another bad one. What a pity... it really could have been good.

This is a nasty, nasty horror film. It is visually so repulsive that it is at the same time repellent and attractive. There is no plot to speak of and nothing really surprising happens, but the fascination of the grotesque kept me watching long past the point at which I would have turned off many other films of this caliber.