Information Exchange => Reader Comments => Topic started by: miri on November 25, 2006, 04:09:49 PM

Title: Bleeders
Post by: miri on November 25, 2006, 04:09:49 PM
Okay, I love Roy Dupuis and I never miss any of his bare butt scenes. So I can't say the movie was that bad,ButI  must agree those little creatures SUCKED, I mean, just kick the little things off the damn hill. The acting and the scenes of the island were pretty good. It was good for a scary movie only weekend.

Title: Bleeders
Post by: Manuel on November 25, 2006, 04:09:49 PM
This is probably one of the worst movies I've seen in some years. It sucks big time.

Title: Bleeders
Post by: Chadzilla on November 25, 2006, 04:09:49 PM
An unofficial adaptation of The Lurking Fear by H.P. Lovecraft.  It made me jump and squirm even when I watched it a second time, so I award it four slimes.  It's just so twisted and rubs me the right way.  I like this one about as much as I liked Dead and Buried (same guy, Dan O'Bannon, co-wrote both of them)  Dean Koontz used the hermaphrodite impregnating itself idea in his sorry ass novel The Bad Place, now THAT'S some serious pain.

Title: Bleeders
Post by: Smiley on November 25, 2006, 04:09:49 PM
This movie ruled.  Rutger Hauer is one of my favorite actors.  Split Second is among the greatest B-flicks ever filmed.  As a huge fan of H.P. Lovecraft, this movie was a real treat finally a movie that was worthy of being influenced by the Great Old One.  Most movies with his name tagged to them suck painfully, with a few exceptions (Re-Animator, From Beyond).  Although, it was odd seeing a Lovecraft related movie without Jeff Combs.  Rock on Dan O'Bannon!

Title: Bleeders
Post by: BAD_TASTE on November 25, 2006, 04:09:49 PM
Hey c'mon that movie sux! The idea was great but the ending is anything but good. The only thing that make me want to see this movie again is the really cool sex scene.

Title: Bleeders
Post by: Scaarge on November 25, 2006, 04:10:12 PM
I have to admit, when I saw this film in the "Coming Attractions" section, I thought, "Well, itıs been awhile since thereıs been a Skull rating."  Seeing it given three slimes surprised me.  However, Iım an open-minded guy.
I bought this film, sight unseen, on DVD, for one reason only:  the name Dan OıBannon in the credits.  Hey, stop yelling at me.  "Dark Star," "Alien," "Total Recall," "Screamers"‹this guy has written some top drawer stuff.  And of course, he wrote and directed "Return of the Living Dead."  
So when I first watched "Bleeders" I felt pretty let down.  But based on the review here, I blew the dust off my DVD and watched it again.  AndŠitıs not too bad, really.  Pretty well directed, acted, good music, and has a good creepy atmosphere.
Itıs when the titular menaces show up that things fall apart, and the center cannot hold.  I mean, cımon.  These little big-headed sluggish ape-things are a menace?  With their dinky little bone tools?  I should think a good solid kick would not only dislodge said tools but also cave in their bloated skulls too.  My cat is a more powerful foe.  Ewoks are more powerful!  And "Molasses" is generous in accessing their speed.
In fact, I imagine your average Cub Scout troupe, say six kids, not even expert in knot-tying, and still suffering severe diarhea from Burrito Night, and most of them fat, could hand the Van Dammeıs asses back to them in between sing-alongs.  
I guess you could say they didnıt impress me.  Thanks to the good Sgt, though, I am more impressed by the film they appear in.  Who says the Internet is a waste of time?
By the way, anyone who wants to see H.P. Lovecraft done really well should seek out a copy of "The Resurrected" (directed byŠDan OıBannon).
Oh, alsoŠanybody else think that the painter in the prologue looked a LOT like Bruce Willis?

Title: Bleeders
Post by: Thema on November 25, 2006, 04:09:49 PM
I almost liked this. It is called Hemoglobin in Finland(atleast) and it doesn't show the baby eating scene. damn!

Title: Bleeders
Post by: Andrew on November 25, 2006, 04:09:49 PM
This film is too ridiculous to be scary. In horror there has to be some grounding in believability. This film throws at believability out the door  in favor of  contrived horror.  Worst the creatures themselves are not scary. They look like rejects from goulies. Unfortunately, instead of filming them in darkness the director decides to show them in all their phony detail.
I will give the film some credit for being funny. However, I don't believe the director was going for comedy.

Title: Bleeders
Post by: silentzero on August 02, 2001, 10:42:07 AM
This movie sucked. The sex was good. The self-f*cking little monsters .. well.. they could literally f*ck themselves. :(

Title: Bleeders
Post by: Neville on November 25, 2006, 04:10:12 PM
Fact: Dan O'Bannon really likes B- movies. This must be the only explanation of why he was involved in Dead & buried and
Screamers, two superior B-movies that I would really like to be reviewed here (specially Screamers).

About Bleeders: OK, we must accept that this is a film that could have been much better only if they had expended more money and it had more running time. The first half is quite interesting, with such interesting bits such as the prologue, the presentation of John's character and (my favourite) the paralel editing of both the public and the private life of the islanders. This part links well with the idea (typical of low budget films) of describing/introducing a threat to the commmunity, and the illness of John is really intriguing. But from now on everything goes downhill because of the poor synthethiser music (that on the prologue was supposed to sound like a clavicord? No way!, the poor dialogue and the laughable "scary" scenes, which are more ridicule than anything else. Another problem is the abrupt editing, which makes the supposadely more tense sequences (the scene when Hauer visits the catacombs, for instance) look lame and have no atmosphere at all. Don't these people know anything about editing? Anyway, I would like to highlight two things about the movie: 1) I really liked the girl who plays Alice, and 2) that it is impossible not to like such an unpleasant movie. If it is not good at all, at least it is funny and unconventional.

Title: Bleeders
Post by: Amish Girl on November 25, 2006, 04:09:49 PM
This is Janine Theriault 's best work yet.  

Title: Bleeders
Post by: James Perry on November 25, 2006, 04:10:12 PM
Just didn't like it.  It "looked" terrific (as in setting) but that was about it.  I have a "thing" for movies set near the ocean with lighttowers in them (like Hysterical).  This didn't enter the realm of "good" bad movies for me.  One day I'll give it another try.  True that the first part is not bad...just quickly falls apart with cheesiness that simply wasn't funny enough...just pathetic & ridiculous!  Tarnishes O'Bannon.  I'll forgive him after watching Return of the Dead next time!

Title: Bleeders
Post by: James Perry on November 25, 2006, 04:09:49 PM
Sorry, one more.  Films with Lighttowers in them:  Hysterical AND The Fog.  (I would've edited my last post..but...)

Title: Bleeders
Post by: GJ on June 20, 2003, 11:36:35 PM
Hmm. This looks like it would be interesting, even if only because that curly haired fellow is rather cute. ;)

Title: Bleeders
Post by: Penny on November 25, 2006, 04:09:49 PM
This movie was sort of intersting, but I hated the ending.  They should've called military backup and blasted the little sons of b***hes into oblivion.  Or maybe came armed with more weapons...those little creatures really sucked! It couldn't have been anymore between 50-75 of them at the most!  The could've set the catacombs on fire! Anything but let them keep killing and eating other people!

Title: Bleeders
Post by: Eagle on October 08, 2005, 08:55:08 AM
Well it seems, that its probably impossible today to create a cool and funny b-picture. They´re all too serious in one way and look like created only for tv.

Title: Bleeders
Post by: Maria and Shannon on November 25, 2006, 04:10:12 PM
Well...this movie was quite entertaining on many levels. This was the funniest thing we have ever seen in our entire life. It is funny to us how the towns people are actually intimidated by "the Van Dammes" who are deformed, physically inept, lumps of flesh who dont even have legs. They drag themselves around with their arms for christ's sake. How is it so hard to just shoot them in the head? Our personal favorite scene was when the "town mute" jumps in the hole bearing a large serrated knife, and exclaims "NO f**kING WAY!" only to die about 12 seconds later. Not only does she die, she orgasmically smears the blood allover her chest. We can honestly not think of anything more funny than this movie.

Title: Bleeders
Post by: Dave on July 21, 2005, 12:21:42 PM
This movie sucked ass. I only rented it because of the cover. It had fake blood packs on it. thats what happens when you spend more on the box then on writers

Title: Bleeders
Post by: Radioman970 on November 25, 2006, 04:09:49 PM
EAGLE:  Don't forget, they also have crummy cgi which is hard to laugh at.  Just groan inducing.  

I posted above as James Perry.  I still haven't given this another go, but want to.  I saw a DVD in the bargain bin called Breeders that I nearly bought thinking it was this...  :D  

Title: Re: Bleeders
Post by: Joe on December 11, 2006, 06:38:09 PM
I cant believe that anyone thinks that this is a good movie.  there are so many obvious flaws with it.  First of all, why can't anyone seem to kill these things?  they don't even have legs, you could just walk up to one and hit it in the face with a shovel.  like the scence where they just stand by and let the old woman get killed.  also, the character delevopment is terrible, every character that is actually nice and that you start to like gets killed.  and what was the deal with the girl that couldnt talk?  they mentioned her once and then she just came back in the end.  god, im so angry for renting this movie.  it could have easily been much better

honestly the worst movie ive ever seen

Title: Re: Bleeders
Post by: Walkingdead on December 23, 2006, 10:31:35 PM
I loved the blonde woman in the movie, she's hot...
and I liked this movie, not the little creatures, but
the story and the places. I think the only problem
is the monsters, they're too little. I got the DVD.

Title: Re: Bleeders
Post by: Tom on November 12, 2007, 11:16:24 PM
bahaha i love it how i love on the island of where it was filmed.. at any rate i love the drunk and her only 3 words! :teddyr:

Title: Re: Bleeders
Post by: Jay the Magnificent on January 17, 2008, 04:54:34 PM
surly, when i the misfortune to watch this, the gods were p**sed at me

Title: Re: Bleeders
Post by: indianasmith on January 18, 2008, 08:08:07 PM
I saw this one a couple years back; don't remember much detail, but I think I liked it at the time.

Title: Re: Bleeders
Post by: Lord of B movieland on April 28, 2008, 10:12:55 AM
Heh, it is not such a terrible film. At least it has a great sex scene, the acting is passable and the premise is interesting. It is one of the better adaptations of Lovecraft's work, not as good as reanimatior or From Beyond, but it's not that bad.

Title: Re: Bleeders
Post by: Valentine Kutter on September 02, 2008, 11:04:05 PM
First of all, this is one of the best examples of film gone bad. You have great  scenery, excellent mood, boobs, an interesting backstory ...that is actually historically incorrect, boobs, actors that are at least trying to put complete sentences together, boobs, monsters that a 90 year old could escape from...errr...maybe not, boobs, plenty of blood & guts...and seminal fluid, boobs, and a dude eating a pickled punk. Not to mention his wife slipping him the tounge after said din-din. If your a true fan you have to at least give this one a look.
I actually lucked out when my video store went under and scored one of the promo boxes with the blood pack on the front.....that thankfully after 11 years hasnt sprung a leak yet.
So guys if you havent seen this one at least give it a try.....seriously its time well wasted.  VK :thumbup: