Bled

Once again, I fell for it, in my roots I crave a fun and gory horror film, even a vampire one. Even if it's stupid, as long as I get my fun gore in the mix, I'm a happy camper, it doesn't take much. So I saw the cover of "Bled" over at Hollywood Video and was kind of curious what it was about, it looked kind of interesting, so I decided to rent it. Why? Why do I always fall for it? Not only did this movie not fulfill the satisfaction I needed for my gore and senseless violence and nudity, but I was bored out of mind. This movie has the kahoonies to say it's a vampire movie and it's really not! I'm so close to going back to the store and begging for money back because this is one of the rare times I actually turned the movie off.

An artist meets a vampire, I think, dunno, I'm still trying to figure out what the heck he was but his name was Reinfield, so I'm assuming maybe he's a cockroach eating guy who likes to freak people out? I think, I dunno. Anyways, he thinks the artist has a certain flare for darkness, so he gives her a drug to go into an alternate fantasy where a vampire exists and needs blood to become alive? I think, I dunno. So her friends get excited and decide they wanna try the drug too, I think, I dunno. So after they decide to try the drug, things get weird, the fantasies are real, I think, I dunno, and the vampire is now enjoying the will big breasted girls in scandly clad clothing. I think, I dunno. But a couple of the girls really end up being vampires? I think, I dunno.

Sorry for all the "I dunno's", this is possibly one of the worst reviews I'm going to write, but that's because this movie was just awful, boring, and confusing. I love just seeing these wanna be actors who you can tell are waiters looking for that "big break". Not too smart that they fell in the cliché of the horror genre, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't, in this case, they really should have read the script. Because the movie, the look, the feel, the acting, everything about this movie was just bad, I really recommend that you just pass the movie if you see it at your video store. This possibly could have been an interesting movie with it's concept of a different dimension, but why did they pick this director to display his "creativity" if he even has any? This was a bad movie, just stay away.

1/10

simply i just watched this movie just because of Sarah & am also giving these 4 stars just because of her,on the other side This movie was easily one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Theacting was horrible. The script was uninspired. This was a movie that kept contradicting itself. The film was sloppy and unoriginal. its not like I was expecting a good film. Just something to give me a jump or two. This did not even do that.

he worst thing is that, the more I think about the overall plot, the less sense it actually makes and the more holes we keep finding. A real shame really, as I'm fairly sure that there was a good idea lurking in there somewhere...

I'm perhaps being a bit harsh giving the film a 4/10 but given the actors involved and again SARA obvious writing talent, this film really should have delivered far more.

I remember having stumbled upon this movie some years ago, as I recall the movie's cover. I just didn't pick the movie up back then, so I actually never have watched "Bled" before now in 2023. I had the opportunity to sit down and watch it, and of course I did so, since I had not seen it before.

While the movie's cover was interesting, the contents of the storyline was a whole different story. I found the script and storyline, as written by Sxv'leithan Essex, to fall short of entertaining me. The movie felt like an artsy, surrealistic dream, as if the writer had been spaced out on something and watched one too many vampire movies whilst riding that high.

The acting performances in the movie were probably fair enough. I can't say that I cared much really, because the storyline was just utter rubbish.

Visually then "Bled" was an adequate enough movie. Though you shouldn't expect to be blown away by anything spectacular.

My rating of director Christopher Hutson's 2009 horror movie "Bled" lands on a three out of ten stars.

While this movie does not have high production values by today's standards, it is about a subject that few filmmakers broach so openly--the hallucinatory effects of drugs. Many famous historical personalities had experiences with drugs, notably poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge and the painter Modigliani, whom Picasso admired greatly. I enjoyed this "B" movie as a thrill ride, because, like Coleridge's poem Kubla Khan, it was the product of a drug-induced state. The protagonist is an artist whose whose work appears to be enhanced by the drug experience, despite its other more frightening aspects which include turning her into a vampire. Like many other horror movies released in the past year, "Bled" fills a gap now that was filled by Stephen King, and a few others, 20 years ago, and previous to that, by The Twilight Zone and The Outer Limits. "B" horror movies come in many different forms but they are a distinct genre, just as gangster/crime films form a (usually) distinct genre, and war movies, and comedies.

I use the B label to distinguish it from A movies, which have higher production values and are more profound: in my opinion, A movies from last year include Star Trek,The Hurt Locker,The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3 (remake), and Brothers.

While last year may not have been the greatest year for "B" horror movies, I did watch quite a few, and I liked them all at least some, for various reasons. Some fall more in the sci fi category, and some are better considered in both categories. Many were poorly reviewed, and some were only reviewed by horror film aficionados. Some were clearly made only to make money, and are not that good, particularly those that have already been explored previously. The best film I have seen in the past year, in this category, is "Shutter Island." It may end up with some Oscar nominations, and if it doesn't, it should. Second, perhaps, is "Drag Me To Hell" in which Sam Raimi piles on the supernatural special effects in a story of a gypsy's curse. The others include, "The Wolfman", "The Crazies", "The Graves", "Pandorum", "The Thaw","Pandemic", "Hardwired", "The Butterfly Effect: Revelations", End Game (2009),"The Devil's Tomb", "Deadline" and "The Train" (both with Thora Birch),"Mirrors","The Uninvited" "My Bloody Valentine", "Hard Candy" (actually from 2-3 years ago and with a younger Ellen Page), "Farmhouse", "The Last House on the Left" (remake), "The Strangers" (stands out to me, despite a mediocre review from Rogert Ebert), "The Horsemen", "The Box", "Final Destination 3-D" "Dark Country", "Hydra", "The Killing Room", "The Fourth Kind", "Children Of The Corn" (remake) and "District 9". This is a selective list.

As Americans, we have come to expect crapiness as "par for the course" when it comes to HORROR and unknown directors directing unknown actors acting for unknown writers. We truly expect this to suck & when they don't suck,it becomes an over night success.

This is NOT an over night success, nor is it an over the weekend or over the month success. This blows from start to finish and my only recommendation is this: GO INTO THIS KNOWING IT SUCKS, enjoy it for what it is, for what it isn't & if you have something better to do, keep this on the back WAY BACK burner. It's entertaining in the way watching the elderly cross a busy street during rush hour, but don't expect much-they almost never get hit by an actual car, its just a lot of hoopla.