Bloodthirsty

But once the story started to unfold, it seemed to start working with the characters through the characters to get somewhere and it did finally take us where it needed to go. Since it is a sort of psychogenic fugue type thing where the story dissolves from a big giant greyish obfuscated matter it could of been a little more taut with the material but like just in a few lil' areas. But regardless, it all worked out and the writing did its job and churned out something pretty nice. I would recommend it as a nice well-crafted story.

While the 2020 movie "Bloodthirsty" is an interesting approach on the werewolf genre of movies, then it wasn't really an overwhelmingly good horror movie. This was more of a psychological supernatural drama than it was a horror movie.

The storyline told in "Bloodthirsty", as written by writers Wendy Hill-Tout and Lowell definitely deviated from the usual straight forward and no messing around tendency that there usually is in a werewolf movie. So if you sit down to watch "Bloodthirsty" and expect to see a creature feature with impressive human to beast transformation scenes and an abundance of carnage, then you will be sorely disappointed. Because that is by no means what "Bloodthirsty" turned out to be.

I found the storyline interesting, but the pacing of the movie was a bit too slow and mundane for my liking. And that resulted in director Amelia Moses delivering a lukewarm movie for me.

"Bloodthirsty" has a pretty small cast ensemble, but I will say that the cast really carried the movie well and put on great performances. Especially Greg Bryk (playing Vaughn Daniels), he was just phenomenally cast for the role. It was a shame, though, that Michael Ironside didn't have a larger part to play in the movie.

Visually then "Bloodythirsty" is not a movie that relies on special effects. There is a little bit of blood in the movie. And some fairly simplistic transformation scenes from human to werewolf. It wasn't impressively done, but the effects served their purposes well enough.

All in all, "Bloodthirsty" is a watchable movie, and an interesting and different take on the werewolf genre. But ultimately, the pacing of the movie just held the movie back from achieving greatness.

My rating of "Bloodthirsty" lands on a mediocre five out of ten stars.

I can smell something from you. Something primal.

Not sure how I found out about this movie, but it seemed promising with a high Rotten Tomatoes percent and critics saying that there's a lot of gore. And boy if that wasn't a big lie.

For an hour and 24 minutes runtime, this sure felt long. However, this slow pace made sense considering what the movie was aiming for. Some parts crept me out a bit, but the whole time I was hoping that this would lead to a crazy, bloody, and gory ending.

Sadly I didn't get that. Clearly this was a low-budget movie. Most of the gores were quickly edited and only the blood on the character's face was shown. Honestly if there's more dedication to the gore and designs, this movie could have been entertaining.

The acting was quite bad, especially from the actor that played the painter girlfriend. I did not buy her reactions at all. Also, one scene was incredibly cringe between her and the main character.

Overall, I was very disappointed with the boring ending and lack of real gore. 5/10.

It's most definitely not the best either, but it was watchable, at least for me. Was it good enough to go out and buy? No. However not many movies are these days especially when it comes to most in the horror genre for me. Once I have seen them thats usually it. There are some that I watch once every decade or so but not many. This one falls into the category of being worth watching once, especially if its free, but not worth going out and buying. The graphics are decent, not all cartoonish or anything. I would class it as one of the better done made for TV type movies. There wasn't much action (kind of hard with most of the movie being a cast of 4, only 3 of which have much screen time and only 7 people total in the cast) and it was slow till the end but the acting was decent, so, between those observations I can't really say the movie was terrible, just not impressive. I may be a bit prejudiced as a fan of Greg Bryk, I loved him in Bitten and in Frontier. He is really good at the odd character types. It was a different take on a werewolf movie, but not scary at all unfortunately, and average in the forgettable kind of way most movies like this are. However, I still feel like it was good enough to merrit 5 stars. For me 5 out of 10 would be average, not terrible but not great. Would I recommend giving it a shot? ... That mostly depends on the person. If they are just looking for something to pass the time and have nothing better to watch, are not looking for a diamond in the rough or nail biting suspense then maybe give it a try if they can see it for free. It kept my attention well enough even though it didn't have me holding my breath.

...although I do appreciate the craftsmanship involved. That, along with Greg Bryk's strong screen presence -which seems to be an involuntary, natural aura that he projects even when his part asks for the kind of overly subdued performance that leaves little room for entertaining theatrics- and Michael Ironside's small part are the sole reasons why I'm giving this a three stars rating instead of the bare minimum that the site allows and my guts were stubbornly insisting on leaving.

Pedestrian, boring and unimaginative direction not only hampers an equally pedestrian, boring and unimaginative script but also exacerbates its flaws: soulless main characters, the most egregious one for starters, who engage in melodramatic and humorless conversations -peppered with an annoying over abundance of tired 'in-show-biz-dog-eats-dog' cliches-, that get increasingly redundant as the movie goes on and its overstretched plot runs out of wind. Meanwhile, a couple of criminally underdeveloped supporting characters meander around aimlessly looking for a purpose that the writers actively deny, which renders their predicament during the third, final act pointless to the emotionally detached viewer.

There's also, as I just mentioned, this dull and tired metaphor about the ruthlessness of entertaining industries running under this trainwreck's rails, but the less said about it the better; except, maybe, for the fact that everything this movie tried to tell, or imply, was better told and successfully implied almost three decades ago in Mike Nichols' vastly underrated "Wolf". A movie, by the way, from which this inferior copycat not only borrows most of its subtext but also dares to steal entire scenes, almost shot-by-shot, without understanding how and why those scenes worked perfectly in harmony with a coherent story, well-paced plot development and fully fleshed characters, both main AND secondary ones. In fact, it's better to enjoy your well-deserved leisure time revisiting -or experiencing for the first time, if you happen to be that lucky- Nichols' "Wolf" than wasting it on this self-important, derivative succedaneous. Don't make the same mistake I did and avoid it as much as you can.