ManiakJiggy This is How Movies Should Be Made

Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Steineded How sad is this?

Isbel A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

danrmau5 Seriously, I do. I love vampire movies. Old, new, cheesy, whatever. I even mildly enjoyed Twilight(s). This, this whore of Babylon, this abomination, this true liar, this un-entertaining, deeply boring, badly acted, awfully produced, blindly directed piece of swamp smeg is dire. Really dire. DON'T GO THERE kids. Just say no.Oh and, btw, goth241984, how deeply involved with this movie were you?I love b-movies. I live with the stigma, I defend my kin who share my love. I normally use low reviews on IMDb as a promising start for my likely level of enjoyment. This time though, I'm left naked, removed of all defence. My self respect burned in a mercurial (really) fire. Will I recover? I'll live to watch Priest another day. I'll swashbuckle my way through Blade. I'll see your Soldier and raise you a Gallowswalkers (yeah, I loved the wigs too). I'll be OK. Time, and wine, are great healers. This is my first, and possibly only, review. Don't let this be your first vamp flick, because it will be your only if you judge them all on this.

elench257 The story is not terrificly original but what vampire flick is? Any cleverness or wit was severely hampered by sluggish editing, badly executed effects (the slap!), poor/lack of decent music to set any kind of mood or drama, and barren sets (the club and strip club were really awful).I had already read the True Blood rip off theory and although they do have synthetic blood the similarity is mild. There are elements from a few in the genre, even Bram's original. The title was unfortunate.What I did like: the Romanian setting; with mention of old Drac himself, and vamp hunter Jonny Harker ha! The big beasties are quite cute, and the double cross intrigue mildly interesting. The actors were not wooden (well most of them) A decent story poorly executed. It had potential for so much more, shame.I've seen better effects in TV shows and think it would have made a better TV miniseries with CGI. Would love to know the budget? and if it wasn't very big then basically why bother?? With all the other movies out there and technology of today it should have been better.It kept my interest all the way through and apart from the forced camaraderie between vamps and humans being a bit lame I liked the characters, they were more likable than in some Hollywood Blockbusters.6/10 for effort of the actors and writers (and some of the production staff)

ZippyNardwar Is this the best film every made? No. Not by a long shot. Is it the best film SyFy's ever made? No, not at all. Is it fun to watch? HELL YES! The bad stuff, the writing isn't great and the side actors are not the best. That being said, let's be honest, the writing is always bad in these kind of movies. None of the actors appearing in them are looking to collect an Oscar for a made for TV movie. OK, so, let's move on. The main cast did a great job with what they had. I completely LOVED watching Andrew Lee Potts in this role. He puts his all in every role he does and I love it. Neil Jackson was fantastic in this and I actually liked him in this more than I did in Push. I've never seen Ben Lambert in anything before but he did a very good job as Nickolai. This is especially true of his interactions with Heida Reed. I would have loved to have seen more of her character; I think it was under used which is a shame because I really think she could have risen to the challenge. My only complaint with the entire SyFy production is the name. True Bloodthirst was trying way too hard. They would have done better to leave it as a true SyFy original and left the title as simply Bloodthirst or Vampyre Nation. By adding the True to it, they seem desperate to cash in on another shows popularity. As I said before, the entire film is well worth watching. I really enjoyed it for what it was and I'd definitely by the DVD. :-)

etschuetz I couldn't stomach this film. It was an atrocious amalgamation of Blade and True Blood. How can I come up with this? Early on in the film, we learn about a synthetic blood substitute for the Vampires. However, in this "film", it doesn't have a name, at least I didn't catch it. Oh, and it was developed in Romania. A little trivia...Romania once was known as Transylvania. Anyhoo, there is a retrovirus turning vampires into a sub-species that hunt on whatever they can feed on. Beyond that, couldn't finish this film. Why? Let us see.The acting was ridiculous. You can't help but not take any of the characters seriously. You have the goof ball kid from BBC's Primeval trying way to hard to hide his accent, and pretend to be a bad ass vampire hunter. Then, we have his hottie sister, who says virtually NOTHING in the whole show. Then the third member, a stripper that wants to be all pissy with the "badboy" vamp hunter, but is obviously not bright enough to remember long enough why she was mad in the first place. The cop? Eh. His sidekick? Pure comic relief...except he isn't very comical. By the way, Neil Jackson was the main bad guy in the decent Blade TV series.Anyway, this was NOT a made for TV movie based on the True Blood novels. It was just a rip off of them. Avoid it.