New Blood

I didn't catch the very beginning but it was easy to see the plot. One thing that i wondered about in this film was the fact that Nick Moran sounded like an englishman doing an American accent, not a very convincing one! And I also thought this was pointless because John Hurt was English in the film. Dunno if i missed something but i think it would have been easier for Nick Moran just to have been English too because that accent wasn't good at all. Apart from that it was a decent film but not the best I've ever seen. I did like all the plot twists though and they fitted together well and the general acting was good. One to watch but not particularly remember!

This movie looks a lot like the great movie Lock stock & two smoking barrels. The brilliant script is it´s strength and it throws you from one conclusion to another several times. Also, the acting is superb. Nick Moran, just to mention one of all the stars this film features, has never been better. Those of you who liked "Lock Stock..." must run and see this as soon as it hits the screens! (I had the opportunity to see it in the International filmfestival of Stockholm)

A poor rip-off of Tarantino and Steve Soderbergh. You could see everything coming from a mile away, and all the fancy cinematic tricks, such as flashbacks, looping chronology and those annoying mini-freeze-frames whcih occur throughout the movie don't help it one bit. Worst of all was Nick Moran's acting. I don't know who he is, but he seemed like he was reading his lines from the first time off a cue card. It was like watching him in a fifth-grade play. I'm sure this director could do a lot better, with maybe better material next time. After all, it's only his first movie. I'd give him another chance. But that Nick Moran yahoo, he's better learn how to bus tables or mix drinks. BTW, Carrie-Ann Moss looked superb.

Trying to follow all the plot twists made my brain hurt. A day later, I still can't figure out what really happened, with all the lies told along the way by the characters.

I *think* there are some plot holes; if things really happened the way it turns out they did, then some things don't make sense. Either that, or the plot is just too convoluted for most people to follow.

Either way, the film left me feeling a bit puzzled. While the acting was good, the film as a whole was disappointing. I voted it 4 (out of 10) for the IMDB.

This was not a terrible film. It was merely a poor execution of current noir film styles. The pacing was slow. The script was melodramatic in places. It is unfortunate that the dramatic pause has become an overused device. The lighting was film school quality at best. Just because the subject matter is "dark" doesn't mean that I should be unable to see the actors. The editor seemed to be overly entertained by nifty but superfluous techniques. Much like a verbal pause, the film pause can become tiresome and overused. I cannot blame the actors for their flat delivery, I have seen them all in other films giving dynamic and believable performances. If the actors were doing what they were told, then we have to blame the director. The plot was very contrived. It took elements from a number of hit movies (Usual Suspects and City on Fire among them) and smothered them. A number of clichés were employed in an attempt to make us care about the characters. They all failed. In a three dimensional world, two dimensional plots get you nowhere.