AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
4,8/10
1,9 mil
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
Gray é uma cantora independente com visões de que ela é uma loba. Quando ela recebe um convite para trabalhar com o famoso produtor musical Vaughn Daniels em seu remoto estúdio na floresta, ... Ler tudoGray é uma cantora independente com visões de que ela é uma loba. Quando ela recebe um convite para trabalhar com o famoso produtor musical Vaughn Daniels em seu remoto estúdio na floresta, ela começa a descobrir quem ela realmente é.Gray é uma cantora independente com visões de que ela é uma loba. Quando ela recebe um convite para trabalhar com o famoso produtor musical Vaughn Daniels em seu remoto estúdio na floresta, ela começa a descobrir quem ela realmente é.
- Prêmios
- 1 vitória e 4 indicações no total
Hans Grossmann
- Fashion Photography Crew
- (as Hans Grossman)
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Elenco e equipe completos
- Produção, bilheteria e muito mais no IMDbPro
Avaliações em destaque
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.
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.
...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.
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.
I really tried to like this movie but the story took so long to get going that I soon became bored. The constant singing in the recording studio could've been cut in half and there was no real body count or excitement I speak of.
I stayed with it in the hope of some werewolf action but the monsters were the actors with longer teeth and wigs. Pretty lame effects and not nearly enough action.
This couldn't be described as a horror and is more of a thriller.
I watched until the end but this was instantly forgettable. Very poor!
I stayed with it in the hope of some werewolf action but the monsters were the actors with longer teeth and wigs. Pretty lame effects and not nearly enough action.
This couldn't be described as a horror and is more of a thriller.
I watched until the end but this was instantly forgettable. Very poor!
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.
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.
The cast has no quality, and ideas are very few. This movie of Canadian art-origin has no chance to frighten and has no suspense. Absolute lack of talent and all her songs are extremely poor.
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesA hitchhiker shown in the movie is holding up a sign to "East Proctor". This also the fictional name of the village with The Slaughtered Lamb pub at the start of An American Werewolf in London.
- Trilhas sonorasBloodthirsty
Written by Lowell (as Lowell Boland), Evan Bogart & Justin Gray
Tail Credit Version Performed by Lowell
Produced by Adam Weaver and Lowell (as Lowell Boland)
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is Bloodthirsty?Fornecido pela Alexa
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- País de origem
- Central de atendimento oficial
- Idioma
- Também conhecido como
- Bloodthirsty
- Locações de filme
- Empresas de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
- Tempo de duração
- 1 h 24 min(84 min)
- Cor
- Proporção
- 2.39:1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente