The Thirst Reviews

I'm torn between two and a half stars and three on this one, so I'm giving it 3 out of fairness.
it's not the worst film I ever saw, but it certainly does fall short. On the plus side, I liked Clare Kramer's Lisa, an interesting character, (and liked her as an actress on Buffy also). I'm not sure who plays her boyfriend, but he is also fine. The story between them and Lisa's death and return is quite good.
On the downside - the gore. This is a really quite gruesome film. I don't mind horror, but I really don't like blood and gore scenes made to be as disgusting as possible. Also a big downside - the vampire "family" - like a bunch of savages, and played as convincingly. Did not like or buy any of them, not even remotely convincing.
I could not honestly recommend it, but if it interests you, give it a go, you may enjoy it. It is not all bad, but the acting from the majority of the cast leaves a lot to be desired and it is not very nicely filmed either.

So-so vampire film about a young woman who ends up not dying from cancer but instead gets bitten by a vamp much to the initial suprise of her boyfriend but he eventually gives in and gets turned into a vampire to and lives with a vampy family led by Jeremy Sisto who can't decide whether he wants to speak in an eastern European, English or American accent. One point he even sounds Irish! To be fair thats the only really shit thing about the film as the director uses some interesting shots and styles, the soundtrack is pretty cool and theres some gore to. Basically the girl and her boyfriend become addicted to blood and don't want to be but are told its forbidden and all that stuff. It wasn't as bleak as i thought it would be actually. I haven't worked out if thats a good thing or not. Not the best and most original vampire movie but not the worst either.

omg. seriously the worst film that I have seen this year, if not ever. was like a cross between soft core porn and overly excessive gore.

since when do vampires drool so much???

if it werent for the fact that it was incredibly boring and dead at work, I would have never even sat through this. at least it made me laugh a few times at its stupidity. for that, it gets one star.

The bad editing and the camera work really took a pretty bad movie and made it worse. With the people that were actually involved in this movie, it should have looked better. As far as the cast, the acting in this was just as atrocious. Movie was too stupid to follow.

It was as good as can be expected with something of this obvious...quality (or lack there of, depending).

I can't rate this piece of celluoid sewage and lower.
so pointless.
filled with bad lines, bad acting, bad effects, and a bad ending.
It was 90 mi nof my life (although it felt a helluva lot longer) I'll never get abck.

I've seen worse...I'm sure I have...oh, wait

I felt no compassion for any of the characters. Even when the funneral happens in the begining it is not well shot so you feel nothing again. To entertain some the decide to have nudity every couple of minutes, some may like it but to me is just ackward. The film moves to fast and then says "what do we do now?" All there effect were unimpressing...

Characters that you feel no sympathy for turn into even less sympathetic or even interesting bloodsuckers. So bad, it's...well boring.

This flub of a film was polluted with unneccessary nudity and sex. The special effects were terrible and the acting was so dry. no thanks...

This movie is trying waaay to hard. The acting is laughable and the plot is no existent

Biggest disappointment! There's a host of Buffy/Angel alumni in this low budget flick which had some interesting ideas but just ends up being a joke. (But not a terribly funny one.) Don't be enticed by the tagline 'Requiem for a Dream' meets 'After Dark." If only someone would make THAT movie.