Steineded How sad is this?

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Kirandeep Yoder The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

Kayden This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

fjaye Not a terrific movie by any stretch, but not as bad as its rep, either.Instead of taking it seriously, watch it for what it is: a cheesy remake of "The Most Dangerous Game." Of course, it's not suspenseful--except as the runtime nears its end, with no obvious resolution in sight--but the story's been told so many times, how could it be? You might have a better time by focusing on its little quirks: why does the dangerous, experienced hunter go into a steamy jungle wearing a buttoned-up leather jacket and a black fedora? Why do the henchmen all dress exactly alike--horizontally striped shirts, dark pants and dark caps? (All they need are "clever" name tags to resemble the interchangeable thugs on the "Batman" TV show.) Finally, take pity on poor Pete. Quicksand around? Pete steps in it. A club-wielding looney? Pete gets clobbered. "Someone needs to scout around for the madman with a crossbow, while the rest of us stay safe. Pete, YOU do it." "Ummm...okay..." Poor guy.

Chris Haskell This was an enjoyable retelling of 'The Most Dangerous Game'. I can't imagine this movie was meant for anything other than drive-ins, so it's got a low production quality and doesn't try to be anything it's not. Campy teenagers tell campy jokes until campy trouble strikes and concludes with campy action. Understand that you're not getting into a movie that will ever join the 1932 release in the Criterion collection, rather a cheesy old horror movie with a young Pa Brady trying to save the day. For fans of vintage camp, not for someone looking for the next undiscovered gem of classy cinema.Rating: 22/40

johnstonjames Not as funny as some bad movies, but definitely worth watching for good campy fun. The sets are better then a lot of low budget movies, but they are still not very good. I like bad movies. People shouldn't be so hard on them. They are more entertaining then a lot of the big-budget mainstream crap that comes from the big studios.This movie is not a low budget bad movie gem like 'Plan 9' or 'Ro-Man' but it is pretty funny at times and very violent for the period when it was made. It proceeded the films of Herschel Gordon Lewis which is a noteworthy foot note in cinema. The main problem with 'Bloodlust' is that it is not as surreal as other bad movies. Bad movies can seem very far-out, even more far-out then major studio films that try to be strange. People should be kinder to bad films, often they are cinema at it's most fun.

Michael_Elliott Bloodlust! (1961) * 1/2 (out of 4) Yet another take off on The Most Dangerous Game but here's a case where you should stick with the original. Four friends go to what they think is a deserted island to have some fun but they are taken hostage by a deranged hunter (Wilton Graff) who plans on stalking them as prey. It's strange but I find the source material to be one of the greatest stories out there and I think it would be very hard to not be able to make a good film out of it. However, that's exactly what's done here as the screenwriter obviously sucked every bit of life out of the story and left us with a dull mess of a film. The most interesting aspect of the story is the hunt between the two sides but that's not the case here as the hunt doesn't happen until the film is pretty much over and even then that so called hunt doesn't go anywhere. It also doesn't help matters that one never fears for any of the main characters as they aren't ever put into any real danger. Graff doesn't make for the best bad guy but while watching the film I couldn't help but wonder what Vincent Price would have been like in the role. Robert Reed from The Brady Bunch plays the main guy and is okay in the film but the rest of the teens are just boring.