Bloodlust

Bloodlust is a spectacular achievement. Richard Wolstencraft and Jon Hewitt's opus is a very fine film of its own accord, however its importance ultimately lies in the fact that it is an example of that rarest of breeds - an Australian film with balls. Bloodlust spits all over the dreary crap that regularly gets churned out with the assistance of funding bodies. At the time of its release, this film was a much needed shot of adrenalin in the arm of the limp and pathetic Australian independent film-making scene.

I don't care if each character has a different, equally unconvincing, accent or that the calibre of acting displayed in the film makes the average porn star look like Laurence Olivier. The film was obviously made on the sniff of wet rag with a cast of amateurs. Get over it. Bloodlust is all about ideas, in particular exploring the cinematic boundaries of sex and violence. In that regard, Bloodlust is the least patronising film I have ever seen. It gives the viewer large doses of sex and gore, often both at once, without all the garbage in between. For me, Bloodlust is like getting a huge serving of dessert without having to eat your mangy vegetables beforehand.

The film revolves around three blood drinking killers - Tad, Frank and Lear. Our three heroes spend most of their time having sex and murdering people, although not necessarily in that order. When the local stake wielding religious fanatics almost succeed in killing Tad, the lovely threesome decide to rob a casino and retire. This sets off a chain of events that result in Tad and his ladies being chased by police, mobsters and the religious slayers. Bloodlust does not waste a second of its running time being boring. If someone is not being mutilated or having sex, then one of the characters is spewing out a tasteless joke. In fact, Bloodlust is a very funny movie. The screenplay is wonderfully literate and the humour, while not exactly subtle, is dark and pointed.

The technical aspects of the film are just as inspiring as the subject matter. The direction is innovative and the film is lovingly constructed. The film's pacing is relentless and the final showdown counts as one of the finest moments in independent horror movie history. The special effects are extraordinary for such a low budget film. Olaf Ittenbach would be proud of the stakings, shootings, be-headings, bitings and general dismemberment. With the exception of one dodgy decapitation, the gore effects are hugely impressive for both their over the top detail and sheer frequency. The sex scenes are kinky and fetishists will love the liberal use of whips and constraints. There is even the occasional sex act with a corpse, which never fails to liven up a film in my humble opinion.

The voters who have trashed this film have either entirely missed the point or simply do not belong to the intended audience. Bloodlust is made for connoisseurs of underground horror. If you like Ittenbach, Buttgereit or even dirty, old Andreas Bethmann then this should be right up your alley. Richard Wolstencraft is truly Australia's finest cinematic export. Bloodlust comes very highly recommended.

At first glance, this movie has got everything a psycho wants: a vampire story with a "not under 18" restriction, filled with hyper-violence, drugs, gore, sex (including lesbian sex), some fanatics zealots and even a gay necrophiliac cop! But then, this movie is a succession of bad story (so thin), bad acting -with a ridiculous english accent making you believe you're watching a bad Monty Python -, bad music ('80s hard rock), the videotaping is awful, the ending is a real shame... Plus the scenes of sex are ridiculous, the gore not very impressive. And those vampires reflect in a mirror, and don't even fear daylight! You get to be very disappointed, unless you see it as a "Space Mutiny" or "Troll 2". I hope Bloodlust will one day reach the bottom 100, because that's its real place.

I'd say it can still be fun to watch, if you have friends and enough beer.

3/10

Some people are born clueless I guess. The movie is AUSTRALIAN - the "fake" English accents are in fact Australian accents! The actors who are speaking in this dialect happen to be real junkies, prostitutes and pimps which certainly adds a bit of authenticity if not an interestingly perverse element to the movie. Also, the music is by The Buzzcocks, a well thought of Industrial/Punk band that sure ain't "80's hard rock" and is totally appropriate to the approach of this revisionist vampire outing. Yeah, sure they can walk around in sunlight, so what? If no filmmaker could diverge from the exact formula in popular mythology things would get pretty boring and predictable and we would be missing out on a lot of classic cinema. Though admittedly the drooling masses like their mindless entertainment to adhere to predictable rules. Actually I'm amazed that there was only one entry here for this movie. It's been banned in the UK due to the copious amounts of sex and gore, but still there are other places where this has been seen, where are the real trash movie fans when ya need 'em?

I didnt think it was possible, but i have found film worse than 'Body Melt'. This film is really really bad! And what makes it worse is that its another Australian film...

Shot on what looks like VHS, and with a terrible 80's rock soundtrack, it just keep getting worse and worse, which is hard to believe seeing how bad the beginning is (skinned male hanging up-side-down in a white tomato sauce sprayed room anyone?).

And why do their accents keep changing? From bad New York drawl, to prissy english, then pure Aussie! And it happens to the whole cast!

This film also claims to have won some film festival on the cover (i believe it was the Utah Film Festival). This has to be a lie because no-one in their right mind would nominate this for anything (perhaps the Golden Rasberries but i thinks its too bad for that aswell).

Come on guys! This film has to be number 1 on the bottom 100!!! It has to be ten times a bad as those films already on there.

Well done to the "film" makers of this trash, for proving there is a reason not to see films..... 0/10

Three vampires (who can walk in the sunlight and enter a church, no problem, and have no fangs) find themselves pursued by a mobster and his men after they pull a heist; also after the trio of bloodsuckers are a group of religious fanatics and a pair of corrupt cops.

Bloodlust is a low budget Aussie comedy/horror clearly inspired by the success of fellow antipodean, Peter Jackson: it's over the top in terms of violence and delivers plenty of 'bad taste' moments. It doesn't, however, have any of the charm of a Jackson movie. The worst aspect of the whole film is its amateur cast and the thoroughly unappealing characters they play: no-one can act, so everyone overacts - wildly - making an already unlikable bunch all the more irritating. At first I thought the cops were the pits, then the religious folk proved even worse, and then the gangsters took exaggerated mannerisms one step further. Also, the cast start off trying to speak in American accents, but soon admit to themselves that they're not very convincing and revert to their native Aussie twang.

Of course, not very many people will watch this expecting a masterclass in acting: it's the splatter and general deviancy that are the film's main selling points. Unfortunately, the gore isn't very impressive and the movie isn't anywhere near as edgy or as daring as it likes to think it is. The most outrageous moment is a spot of gay necrophilia, but once again, a ridiculous OTT performance makes for a painfully unfunny and not in the least bit shocking scene.

I have to admit to being impressed by the amount of weapons amassed for the movie, which allows for plenty of bloody squib action during the all-guns-blazing finalé; I just wish as much effort had gone into finding proper actors, a decent scriptwriter and better special effects.