It's in the Blood

Had a little bigger expectations for this movie, which is were I went wrong. "It's in the Blood" started off bad, and ending in same fashion. There is not to much to this movie, its very confusing, not very good special effects, and very jumpy. Add all those up and what do you get? A waste of 3 million dollars. The acting was OK at best and that is not saying very much. A story about a guy and his dad lost in the woods after his dad badly hurts himself, when they realize they are not the only ones out there. That had me intrigued. Do not let it fool you, you will be wishing you were in the woods, not watching this movie. 3 out of 10 stars (very generously) -TV or don't bother

Its somehow pleasantly atmospheric, the performances are better than ok, but the movie breaks about halfway through when the whole plot is exposed. the second half becomes painful to watch, and drags to a corny, unfulfilling end. i would 4.5 this based on lance henriksens performance, but given the choice id skip it altogether. not enough substance to fill out an already slim 80 minutes

This movie is hard to follow because there are a lot of scenes in which it looks like a bad drug trip and it's confusing. The best quality in the film is that the actors are all extremely good actors, including the villain. The scenes between October and Iris are extremely touching. Seriously, I haven't seen that kind of love displayed so well on screen in a while. Which made the scenes with the villain all the more awful. If it weren't for the trippy stuff that made this movie hard to follow I may have enjoyed this movie. Then again, the scenes with the villain are pretty disturbing. I watched this movie because I'm a Lance Henricksen fan. He's a very talented actor and I'd love to see him in more movies. Or bring him back to TV! Anyone remember the show Millennium?

It's not confusing, it's just so laden with obvious symbolism and deliberate ambiguity (like all too many faux "intellectual" student films) that it sloshes about struggling for "depth" and "deeper meaning" while never really delivering either. Out of focus shots and repetitious edits might mask some no-budget deficiencies but this film HAD a budget - they just didn't know what to do with it. Except hire Lance Henriksen. This is literally a case where it's worth watching just for the man's performance. It's a shame they didn't have a more focused script to be worthy of his involvement. Instead we have a twenty-minute arty student film stretched ponderously out to eighty minutes (yet feels a lot longer) when the same premise, intelligently presented (and grounded by Mr. Henriksen) could have made an excellent film at twice the length. The father and lost son dynamic; the horrifying incident in their past; the injury in the woods and, yes, even the threat of "something else in the woods" as a metaphor, all of these could have successfully been presented in a coherent fashion - even realistically as in Deliverance - instead of obscured by the art-house/third-year film student approach that makes this film far less than what it could have been. It's not that the film is simply bad - it isn't - it's just another example of "with a little more effort it could have been so much better." And then it might have been the showcase Lance Henriksen has long deserved.

Sheriff Russell (Lance Henriksen) and his son (Sean Elliot) find themselves trapped in the deep woods, confronting not only their own tattered relationship, but also a lurking creature. IT'S IN THE BLOOD is a survival / horror movie, as well as a story about overcoming the past.

The monster is well-realized, and the CGI is -blessedly- kept to a minimum. Fans of Mr. Henriksen already know that he's been in a host of rather dubious films. This one isn't bad, due almost entirely to Henriksen's performance...