Bloodthirsty

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.

This was a very posh film much in the way that Ann Rice's, Interview with a Vampire was, minus all the foundational talent. Sure Micheal Ironside stars but its more like a cameo appearance. Also the run time was too short to warrant anything other than a passing glance.

What is notable about this piece is that it manages to hit all the timely topics as if they were prerequisites to syndication: climate change, overpopulation, & same-sex relationships.

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.

...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.

2/10.

From the beginning of the plot, nothing new has happened from what is written in the description of the film, so it is monotonous and without plot. It is quite predictable and we wait all the time for something to happen but nothing. Also, they could at least find someone who sings better because this was scary to listen to. It's not horror.