VidMate
Free YouTube video & music downloader
ACTOR
Tyler HanesJames Katharine FlynnRobert DionneCarlos Alberto Valencia
DIRECTOR
Lou Peterson
SYNOPSICS
In the Blood (2006) is a English movie. Lou Peterson has directed this movie. Tyler Hanes,James Katharine Flynn,Robert Dionne,Carlos Alberto Valencia are the starring of this movie. It was released in 2006. In the Blood (2006) is considered one of the best Horror,Thriller movie in India and around the world.
More
In the Blood (2006) Trailers
In the Blood (2006) Reviews
Thriller with a supernatural twist
Take a decent script and you can cast a bunch of unknown actors and it will still work. It did here except for the ending. Columbia University is having a rash of rape/murders. The killer is looking for innocent looking blonds. Senior Cassidy Clarke (Tyler Hanes) is looking out for Freshman Jessica (James Katharine Flynn), his sister. (Who names their daughter James?). She is being pursued by Michael (Robert Dionne), who aims to relieve her of that virginal innocence. Is he also the murderer? One thing for sure is that he is a total sleaze. Who takes a girl to the gym to seduce her? How romantic! Cassidy has issues of his own. He is struggling with his sexual identity and, after failing with a gorgeous co-ed, realizes that he has to hook up with Victor (Carlos Alberto Valencia). Why? Well, that would be a spoiler as it relates to the supernatural aspect of the movie. This was certainly an interesting twist. Something I have never seen before. Not the gay sex, but the reason why he had to have sex. Everything comes to a head after that and we are hoping to find the rapist/murderer. However, the writers must have gone to sleep or tried to be cute, as we are left shaking our heads. The ending ruined a very interesting movie, and kept me from rating it as "good."
One BIG problem
I was curious to see this film; sounded like fun. It's a sort of supernatural thriller with a gay twist---meaning, the main character is gay, but the film isn't solely focused on that fact. And for the most part I enjoyed the movie; nicely creepy, with a background score that was quite good. Oh, there were a few eye-rolling moments, where I was thinking "now THAT seems likely," but for the most part I thought the film wasn't bad at all; easily superior to many of the other low-key supernatural/psychic films out there. But the last ten minutes of the picture TOTALLY SUCKED. A crappy, crappy ending---boy, did it tick me off! Ruined the entire thing, in my eyes (can't say what happened without giving everything away!), and it brought my overall rating for the film WAY down. A huge disappointment.
Great Film...totally anticlimactic ending
I have to rate in the middle of the road on this one. Everything was fantastic, even when compared to high-budget studio flicks. Classy, yet haunting score, wonderfully lit, skillfully shot, competently edited, and most of all, the acting didn't leave me looking for the door like some indies I've seen. But the writing surprised the hell out of me in the end. The whole movie was brilliantly written except for the last ten minutes! We had about eighty minutes of suspense, skillfully woven into a plot that automatically draws you in, even if you happen to just be standing in the room (which I was). I was unwittingly drawn into this movie when I wasn't even intending to watch it. That's the mark of a great plot (among other things). But we get to the climax, we found out that the writers' misguided pseudo-Hitchcockian attempt to be avant-garde completely fell flat and left the audience (meaning me) going "what the..." Hitchcock killed off the main character in the middle of 'Psycho' but quickly replaced her with another before the audience developed an intense and sincere rapport with her. Her character had depth, but not much, which allowed Hichcock to have her die as a plot twist without damaging the value of the story and leaving the audience irritated and confused. In The Blood's ending was almost subterfuge. We watched as the writer fully developed a character we cared about, and killed him as an experimental ending. The only time you kill off a fully developed character is when their death is either expected, or when the audience realizes ahead of time that it is perfectly reasonable, or imperative, that this character dies, or could die, in order to end the story in the only way it can end. It's almost as if we were fooled into believing he would survive. For instance, we watched as Cassidy envisioned his sister's death, and we saw Michael holding the gun. Michael had a COMPLETELY different expression on his face in the premonition than he did when he finally shot Cassidy...leading us to incorrectly assume that he intended to kill Jessica rather than defend her. I also believe he may have been wearing a shirt in the premonition (not sure) which he wasn't in the ending. Then in the final minute, we see a catatonic Jessica rise up and clutch Michael...then have a nosebleed. First of all, Michael would have been in jail pending investigation of manslaughter charges. Secondly, I doubt this girl would be clutching (and, hence the nosebleed, arguably becoming aroused by) the man who accidentally shot her brother the week before. It would have made more sense to have Michael accidentally kill the hustler. We would have still had a surprise ending, and perhaps a resolution, where we had none before. Ugh!
Very Low Budget - and shows it
When people talk about low budget films, they tend to think (and therefore comment on) the very visible elements of the film -- often, the criticism is to the camera work, lighting, visible flaws in the film, or more frequently, the acting. In the case, the acting, while not award-winning, isn't the biggest criticism -- although the actors do have to accept some blame for some of the lack of believability of their performances, especially towards the middle and particularly to the end of the plot. However, in this particular case, the low-budget appellation has far more to do with the horror/thriller elements of the plot and how they were conveyed, but the most responsibility lies with the script (which could easily have used more polish and a rewrite of key points) and the director, who ultimately must accept responsibility for the overall finished product, if he uses the script as written. As a movie, there's not enough over-all, from start to finish -- to recommend this. If I did not have a friend into horror who thought there would be eye candy in the film, I would never had seen it at a film festival last year, on a free ticket. The movie is being offered as a free preview for the Logo channel, on demand to digital subscribers, which is what reminded me of the movie recently, but just watching the first ten minutes of it -- again for free -- reminded me of all the problems this movie had. Not at all recommended, other than as an experiment on how to finish and finalize a movie.
In the Bloody Mess this is
All the way through 'In the Blood' I kept thinking, "well, the production value, acting and eye candy isn't that bad. I've seen a lot worse, especially from gay-themed and/or independent films." Unfortunately everything else, sucked: from wooden/clichéd dialogue, a university campus that's apparently small enough for people to find each other in seconds and such an incredibly laugh-out-loud premise – a family passes on a psychic trait only exhibited through sexual energy and causes nose bleeds. If you can make it through all that, regrettably the worst is yet to come: the most hideous, outrageously bad ending with some twists to try and save this mess. They don't work. I give them an extra half a star just for a cast and crew that at least attempts to be interested the material they're given. Some male is sexually assaulting blond-haired women (you Nazi!) and the Dean is concerned as is maybe 1 of a thousand students. Meanwhile we have a (maybe) closeted-gay senior who has to deal with his sexuality, visions of blondes and blood and nose-bleeds. Double meanwhile, we have his equally horny friend who fancies his sister. Triple meanwhile, we have a male hooker with a mean-streak. Quadruple meanwhile, a long-lost Aunt returns to set the closeted gay straight, well, sort of. I'm sure there are more subplots, but I guess it's supposed to be about a mysterious murdering rapist while accepting one's sexuality identity. However, we learn the main possible-gay character only, finally, explores this gay-side to get to sexual satisfaction to crack the case he's barely shown any interest in the first place. It's almost like a straight man in prison agreeing to sex in order for either protection/survival, not because he actually desires it. Stay away, and remember, sex with a hooker and blood should never mix.