In the Blood (2006) User Reviews

Thriller with a supernatural twist

[lastliberal · 5/10 · 30 October 2007]

Take a decent script and you can cast a bunch of unknown actors and it will still work. It did here except for the ending.

Columbia University is having a rash of rape/murders. The killer is looking for innocent looking blonds. Senior Cassidy Clarke (Tyler Hanes) is looking out for Freshman Jessica (James Katharine Flynn), his sister. (Who names their daughter James?). She is being pursued by Michael (Robert Dionne), who aims to relieve her of that virginal innocence. Is he also the murderer? One thing for sure is that he is a total sleaze. Who takes a girl to the gym to seduce her? How romantic! Cassidy has issues of his own. He is struggling with his sexual identity and, after failing with a gorgeous co-ed, realizes that he has to hook up with Victor (Carlos Alberto Valencia). Why? Well, that would be a spoiler as it relates to the supernatural aspect of the movie. This was certainly an interesting twist. Something I have never seen before. Not the gay sex, but the reason why he had to have sex.

Everything comes to a head after that and we are hoping to find the rapist/murderer. However, the writers must have gone to sleep or tried to be cute, as we are left shaking our heads. The ending ruined a very interesting movie, and kept me from rating it as "good."

One BIG problem

[octobercountry-2 · 4/10 · 28 October 2007]

I was curious to see this film; sounded like fun. It's a sort of supernatural thriller with a gay twist---meaning, the main character is gay, but the film isn't solely focused on that fact. And for the most part I enjoyed the movie; nicely creepy, with a background score that was quite good. Oh, there were a few eye-rolling moments, where I was thinking "now THAT seems likely," but for the most part I thought the film wasn't bad at all; easily superior to many of the other low-key supernatural/psychic films out there.

But the last ten minutes of the picture TOTALLY SUCKED. A crappy, crappy ending---boy, did it tick me off! Ruined the entire thing, in my eyes (can't say what happened without giving everything away!), and it brought my overall rating for the film WAY down. A huge disappointment.

Great Film...totally anticlimactic ending

[editman21 · 5/10 · 29 October 2007]

I have to rate in the middle of the road on this one. Everything was fantastic, even when compared to high-budget studio flicks. Classy, yet haunting score, wonderfully lit, skillfully shot, competently edited, and most of all, the acting didn't leave me looking for the door like some indies I've seen.

But the writing surprised the hell out of me in the end. The whole movie was brilliantly written except for the last ten minutes! We had about eighty minutes of suspense, skillfully woven into a plot that automatically draws you in, even if you happen to just be standing in the room (which I was). I was unwittingly drawn into this movie when I wasn't even intending to watch it. That's the mark of a great plot (among other things). But we get to the climax, we found out that the writers' misguided pseudo-Hitchcockian attempt to be avant-garde completely fell flat and left the audience (meaning me) going "what the..."

Hitchcock killed off the main character in the middle of 'Psycho' but quickly replaced her with another before the audience developed an intense and sincere rapport with her. Her character had depth, but not much, which allowed Hichcock to have her die as a plot twist without damaging the value of the story and leaving the audience irritated and confused.

In The Blood's ending was almost subterfuge. We watched as the writer fully developed a character we cared about, and killed him as an experimental ending. The only time you kill off a fully developed character is when their death is either expected, or when the audience realizes ahead of time that it is perfectly reasonable, or imperative, that this character dies, or could die, in order to end the story in the only way it can end.

It's almost as if we were fooled into believing he would survive. For instance, we watched as Cassidy envisioned his sister's death, and we saw Michael holding the gun. Michael had a COMPLETELY different expression on his face in the premonition than he did when he finally shot Cassidy...leading us to incorrectly assume that he intended to kill Jessica rather than defend her. I also believe he may have been wearing a shirt in the premonition (not sure) which he wasn't in the ending.

Then in the final minute, we see a catatonic Jessica rise up and clutch Michael...then have a nosebleed. First of all, Michael would have been in jail pending investigation of manslaughter charges. Secondly, I doubt this girl would be clutching (and, hence the nosebleed, arguably becoming aroused by) the man who accidentally shot her brother the week before.

It would have made more sense to have Michael accidentally kill the hustler. We would have still had a surprise ending, and perhaps a resolution, where we had none before. Ugh!

Very Low Budget - and shows it

[Franco-LA · 2/10 · 12 November 2007]

When people talk about low budget films, they tend to think (and therefore comment on) the very visible elements of the film -- often, the criticism is to the camera work, lighting, visible flaws in the film, or more frequently, the acting. In the case, the acting, while not award-winning, isn't the biggest criticism -- although the actors do have to accept some blame for some of the lack of believability of their performances, especially towards the middle and particularly to the end of the plot. However, in this particular case, the low-budget appellation has far more to do with the horror/thriller elements of the plot and how they were conveyed, but the most responsibility lies with the script (which could easily have used more polish and a rewrite of key points) and the director, who ultimately must accept responsibility for the overall finished product, if he uses the script as written.

As a movie, there's not enough over-all, from start to finish -- to recommend this. If I did not have a friend into horror who thought there would be eye candy in the film, I would never had seen it at a film festival last year, on a free ticket. The movie is being offered as a free preview for the Logo channel, on demand to digital subscribers, which is what reminded me of the movie recently, but just watching the first ten minutes of it -- again for free -- reminded me of all the problems this movie had.

Not at all recommended, other than as an experiment on how to finish and finalize a movie.

In the Bloody Mess this is

[thesar-2 · 2/10 · 18 May 2009]

All the way through 'In the Blood' I kept thinking, "well, the production value, acting and eye candy isn't that bad. I've seen a lot worse, especially from gay-themed and/or independent films." Unfortunately everything else, sucked: from wooden/clichéd dialogue, a university campus that's apparently small enough for people to find each other in seconds and such an incredibly laugh-out-loud premise – a family passes on a psychic trait only exhibited through sexual energy and causes nose bleeds. If you can make it through all that, regrettably the worst is yet to come: the most hideous, outrageously bad ending with some twists to try and save this mess. They don't work. I give them an extra half a star just for a cast and crew that at least attempts to be interested the material they're given. Some male is sexually assaulting blond-haired women (you Nazi!) and the Dean is concerned as is maybe 1 of a thousand students. Meanwhile we have a (maybe) closeted-gay senior who has to deal with his sexuality, visions of blondes and blood and nose-bleeds. Double meanwhile, we have his equally horny friend who fancies his sister. Triple meanwhile, we have a male hooker with a mean-streak. Quadruple meanwhile, a long-lost Aunt returns to set the closeted gay straight, well, sort of. I'm sure there are more subplots, but I guess it's supposed to be about a mysterious murdering rapist while accepting one's sexuality identity. However, we learn the main possible-gay character only, finally, explores this gay-side to get to sexual satisfaction to crack the case he's barely shown any interest in the first place. It's almost like a straight man in prison agreeing to sex in order for either protection/survival, not because he actually desires it. Stay away, and remember, sex with a hooker and blood should never mix.

The Unfortunate Usual "Surprise Ending"

[otsoko1 · 2/10 · 3 November 2007]

Why, Oh Why? Why do writers / directors feel obliged to kill off gay characters for no reason in the last 10 minutes of a film? In this case, it did not advance the story, it did not create any kind of interesting plot twist, it did not do anything except make sure that the audience knew that the main character was punished for being gay. Nothing foreshadowed this ending in the film, it was just bad, bad writing.

Note to directors: Killing off the gay character in the last ten minutes of the film is no longer a surprise ending; it is now officially a tired, overused and offensive cliché which any competent director or writer will avoid.

In this case, it is even more unfortunate: he is the protagonist. I was left shaking my head in sadness and disgust. It is really too bad. Otherwise this was great stylish indie movie, with a solid little cast, and great use of locations, good pacing and music, and fun use of lots of horror themes and tropes. It was also competently shot and recorded. If you want to watch a decent indie horror movie, watch it until our hero runs into the gym to save his sister. Then turn it off, and make up your own ending. Otherwise you are going to watch a train wreck.

Don't watch the last 10 minutes unless you are the kind of sick puppy who gets their rocks off seeing gay people killed for no reason.

Has its moments...but not enough

[preppy-3 · 6/10 · 18 September 2008]

Cassidy (Tyler Hanes) and his younger sister Jessica (James Katharine Flynn) are in the same university. Cassidy is also gay but not out to anyone. He sees a Latino hustler named Victor (Carlos Alberto Valencia) and starts having visions of his sister Jessica covered in blood. He realizes he has to reconcile his gay identity to discover what the visions mean.

Sounds confusing doesn't it? It's not a bad movie. It's well directed and shot. There's also some good acting by Flynn, Valencia and Robert Dionne and some hot guys with their clothes off once in a while. However the plot gets muddy and increasingly sillier as the movie goes on. Also there are TERRIBLE performances by Alison Faser and Maria Bova. Worst of all it has a homophobic ending and Hanes is REALLY bad in his role. He's supposed to be a popular guy but he comes across as ugly, obnoxious, controlling and WAY too protective of his sister. I also find it hard to believe that any college student in this day and age (especially one enrolled in a college in NYC) would have trouble coming out. This movie does have its moments (the sex scene between Hanes and Valencia is a highlight) but the lousy ending and a REAL pointless last shot destroy this.

Worst Movie EVER!

[dmoorejdrf · 1/10 · 25 June 2021]

This has got to be one of the worst written, worst acted movies in the history of movie making! These "actors" are void of any talent whatsoever! They sound like they're reading the dictionary rather than representing a character. The acting is reminiscent of the zombies in Night If The Living Dead, but the zombies had more character!

An excellent, affecting, true indie film

[Juano2003 · 9/10 · 9 October 2006]

I lucked out to be able to see this movie when it premiered at the Newfest in June of 06. It outshone the many low budget movies being shown, and was better than some of the bigger movies being featured. It's about a popular college jock whose life is turned upside down by brutal murders on his campus that are somehow linked to mysterious visions and a conflict over his identity. I loved the movie and just saw it again at the IFC Center down in the village (in NYC). There were several aspects of the film that were impressive.

The music was very well done and did a lot to set the mood. A main theme used throughout was haunting, reminiscent of horror movie music of the 70s, like the theme from Halloween. The direction was taut and provided a real sense of suspense throughout, with dashes of humor, and the editing was tight and kept the film moving along at the right pace. The writing was well done as well, with occasional nods to, again, 70s thrillers like The Night Stalker or When A Stranger Calls, right up to the climactic ending.

The performers were talented, committed to the story and consistently strong throughout. Carlos Alberto Valencia was tough as the street-smart hustler but with touches of kindness kept the character from being one-dimensional. Alison Fraser had a loopy charm as the mysterious aunt. Her character had some of the most difficult and central revelations in the film, and in lesser hands would have been over-the-top camp. But Tyler Hanes carries the movie as the confused, concerned Michael trying to sort out his identity, take care of his sister, and deal with his disturbing visions. He was engrossing as a handsome college student who seems to have it all but is dealing with secret after secret.

Some of the descriptions of the movie refer to it as a horror film, and maybe this is because of some of the violence in the film, which is never excessively done. It's actually more of a psychological thriller in how it unravels both Michael's personal dilemma and the brutal campus murders. This is a wonderful movie that deserves wider distribution and to have the chance to find its audience.