scan63
A film so bad that halfway through I found myself wondering if the production company could have gotten away with paying the actors who portrayed Henry less for a non-speaking role (the character is mute) rather than following the story.Perhaps you think it will be different for you, maybe you're too cool for the room and able to appreciate the finer aspects of the struggling low budget film that still respects the art man. Well let me ruin it for you. Henry kills a kid and brother Travis kills some other kids, then they don't but then Travis does and Henry doesn't then I turned it off and thought how I could have better spent my time.
gbenson20
I rented this movie the other night, and I'll be damned if I still don't have a clue as to what is going on throughout this movie. Without getting into any spoilers hopefully, all I can say is that when watching other movies similar to the way this story is told in which it seems to jump around with no clear direction, just didn't work for me. I kept waiting for all the pieces of the story to come to a conclusion, but when it finally does (kind of), the story I think should have ended. It doesn't and that just leads to more confusion. For a low budget film I do think that the quality of the movie itself was pretty good, although the sound at times was annoying. Sometimes the music was too loud and the dialogue was drowned out. And I don't want to even try and figure out what was going on with Henry's facial marks??? I can't recommend this movie. I feel like I wasted 1 hr and 30 minutes.
filmy1
The best way I can sum this up is ... I felt similar to how I felt after seeing "The Unforgiven". I went in expecting a "shoot em' up" western with some fun dialogue from Clint and I got something completely different. I walked out a little disappointed until I later realized that I got something better than what I expected. Although I'm not putting a straight to video horror flick on the same tier as that movie, the feeling was similar. What I got from "Bloodline" was a little more story, a little more acting, a little more production value and a little less blood and a few less tits than I was expecting. I was a bit disappointed at first, until I put my expectations aside and got into the story (kudos to the guy that played "Travis" and the guy that played "Al" for that/can't remember their real names). There's a interesting twist in the end as well. I don't think that's a spoiler. I can't say I was "riveted to the screen", but all in all, if you aren't too disappointed by the lack of standard "slasher" elements and just want to see a decent story told with pretty good acting for the most part and better than normal production value for these kinds of movies, rent it. You won't be disappointed.
pdrdes
I like horror films, and have seen my share of both good and bad. I admit I wasn't expecting too much when I picked up this Lions Gate title (I'd been burned before by some of their low-budget releases), but I try to see every horror film and I have to say this was much better than I expected. It looks good for a low budget movie -- it actually looks like it was shot on film? Hi-def maybe? I dunno -- but the story was different and not just a slasher flick. The acting was pretty good with Clay Adams giving a strong lead performance as Travis. It also had that girl from the show Hawaii -- Aya Sumika (pretty hot, wish she was in it more). Anyway, the time fractures made it seem a little like Memento mixed with Friday the 13th or something.Looked like there were some budget constraints, but it held my interest and kept me guessing up to the end. It'd be cool to see if these guys do another one sometime with more money or bigger actors. Overall, a good effort and worth seeing.
AD
