Bloodshed (2005) Review

Spread the love

Diamond in the rough

Bloodshed (2005): 8 out of 10: When I discuss no-budget horror films with my friends. (Or the voices in my head) We often sound like the Monty Python Four Yorkshiremen sketch gents trying to out-do the horrors of each other’s childhood. “Raptor Island hah I sat through San Franpyscho.” “San Franpyscho is an Academy Award picture compared to Dark Harvest 3. Now that’s cinematic pain.” So I questioned myself on why I would purposely rent such films as Heartstopper or Warriors of Terra when there are plenty of fine Hollywood productions starring Nicolas Cage such as National Treasure or The Wicker Man I could watch instead.

Okay, the recent Cage oeuvre may be a terrible example, but the question remains why torture myself with what are other people’s home movies. Bloodshed is the answer to that question.

It is one of those rare no-budget films where the acting isn’t grating; the script is competent, and the direction is good. The film even delivers both genuine tension and characters you care about.

In terms of pacing and characters, it handily beats out most Hollywood films, let alone most Hollywood horror films. (Before you accuse me of exaggerating, please remember that every Adam Sandler comedy is considered a Hollywood film. I’m grading on a curve here, people.) Bloodshed is bragging rights, a true gem in a field of.. well, incompetent home movies.

Is the film perfect? Well, no. It is slow to start (this turns into one of its charms), the sheriff could have been played better and the ending is pretty awful.

Overall, a good film and considering its genre and budget a very, very good film indeed.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments