True Bloodthirst (2012) User Reviews

Like 90 minutes of poking yourself in the eyes with a sharp stick.

[SlinkyVamp · 3/10 · 15 October 2012]

Maybe I went into watching this movie for entirely the wrong reasons. Primarily those were that a) I like a good vampire flick, heck... sometimes I even like a very bad vampire flick ( but not this one ) and b) I like Andrew Lee Potts. I had a bit of a soft spot for him after totally falling for Hatter in Alice that I then followed him to Primeval where that cheeky little chipmunk face just made me want to hug a pillow. So during a late night bed-avoidance TV channel surf I came across this little nugget of mucus on the SyFy channel... which incidentally should stop changing it's title cos we all know that a rose by any other name will still smell of horse manure at it's base. There are some moderate performances, but no real character depth to speak of. The best of the bunch, in my opinion, was probably Neil Jackson who came across best when he was being a bit angsty, but as for Andrew...dear sweet Andrew... no. Just.. no. Awful. He slide in and out of his accent so often I'd swear he was lubricated. The Assorted Girls With Long Hair ran around and looked pretty and there was so much clichéd sci-fi posturing I wish I'd turned it into a drinking game.

So in summary, it was never ever going to win an Oscar. The script was underwhelming, the effects look like they were funded with someone's lunch money, acting didn't overwhelmingly stink .. but you wouldn't want to sit next to it on the bus either. I gave it a 3 because sucky as this may be it's still a vampire movie, and Andrew is still gerbilishously adorable. That said, when my daughter vomited all over her bed just after the ending credits due to a particularly nasty gastric flu I can't say I wasn't relieved to have something less dire than this film to focus on as I climbed into bed.

Not a great movie, but compared to other SyFy features, True Bloodthirst is tolerable

[TheLittleSongbird · 5/10 · 27 October 2012]

Most SyFy movies are terrible, but to me there is something compulsively watchable about them, and I always do hope that they churn out something decent in a while. Actually they have, but as I've said, a vast majority of them are really bad to bottom-of-the-barrel. True Bloodthirst is one of their more tolerable movies. It is far from perfect, I have certainly seen worse special effects but they are rather artificial looking, and the creatures are more dumb than they are menacing. The script is rather hackneyed with too much of a goofy tone and more complicated than it needed to be, and the story while less dull than most SyFy features and it actually has a promising concept suffers from a lack of focus, it never knows what it wants to be, and too many scenes that fall into predictability. The characters are again an improvement, they are not that annoying and not made to do stupid things as often as these SyFy characters tend to but at the same time they could have here done with more development. On the plus side, the locations are beautiful to look at and actually used atmospherically. The soundtrack is more than decent too, not overbearing and much more fitting with the style of the film. The editing is not as choppy as I thought it would be as well, and the acting is better than average. I loved Andrew Lee Potts in Alice, he made that series work, and while not as good, he brings some charisma to his role as a vampire slayer if not as consistently hardcore as he could have been. Ben Lambert immediately appealed to me especially in his interactions with the sadly underused Heida Reed. Neil Jackson captures the angst of his character very well. Roark Chritchlow is both slimy and authoritative, his character is clichéd but he being a veteran in this kind of role he makes an effort to make it more interesting despite the accent. All in all, a tolerable if flawed SyFy movie. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Absolutely one of the worst vampire movies I have ever seen.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 3/10 · 6 August 2012]

With all of the vampire movies out there it's of course hard to stand out or do anything new. But that's not even the problem with this movie. It does in fact has a pretty original and promising main premise but it just doesn't know how to handle it and suffers greatly from an extremely poor script.

Sort of funny how it has become a sort of a trend to have movies and series in which vampires and humans are now living alongside each other. It's an interesting evolution for the genre but perhaps it has run its course already. As this movie also demonstrates, there is only so much you can do with this premise.

And this movie isn't really doing anything all that interesting with it anyway. The way the story is getting told makes it actually hard to understand what is going on at times. Not that it has a complicated script but the overall movie doesn't really has a good flow to it, making the story come across as messy and uninteresting at times. I still don't really know were the story was trying to take the movie, or why vampires and humans had to team up in this.

All of the story developments in this movie just didn't ever made enough sense to me. It seems as if stuff just happens and you are simply supposed to just go along with it. The movie isn't focusing enough on telling one good and clear main story, making this movie mostly unpleasant to watch.

It just doesn't really offer enough entertainment either. There is plenty of action but it's just hard to ever feel involved or taken by any of it. You'll have a hard time caring about this movie, or any of its characters. All of the emotions fall incredibly flat because of that and it just doesn't ever makes this a fun or thrilling or tense movie to watch.

There just is no good reason why you should ever watch this movie!

3/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Plagiarism Isn't a Crime Anymore?

[laurademonaught · 2/10 · 23 March 2013]

For those of you thinking about watching this movie, I should inform you that almost every scene and every plot element in this movie is "borrowed" from other movies/TV shows, and brutally mutilated. This state of incompetence is coupled with casting every part with actors who have no acting talent, needless posturing and muscle-flexing in literally EVERY scene, and a cheap cop-drama feel, where nothing and nobody matters as long as the token main characters look cool. I use the term "cool" loosely. A more appropriate term would be "Twilight-challenged Power Rangers".

Don't get me wrong, I quite enjoy True Blood (oh, how we laugh at those zany human supremacists), Underworld Evolution, Daybreakers, and to a lesser extent, Priest and District 9, but I have a major bone to pick when their plots are so blatantly stolen, mushed up into one, and royally screwed over from every angle.

Truly Awful.

[jflosli2 · 1/10 · 23 September 2012]

The entire film is not worth watching. Unless your a director doing research on what not to do. Like a vampire being made in 5 seconds. Also a new vampire making a human into another vampire before they have even fed for the first time.

The actors needed to get a clue. Vampires do not fidget. There is no such thing as a vampire with ADHD. It makes them look too human. None of the actors did well. They should get an F for effort and research on their characters.

The plot was pathetic and predictable. The graphics were boring but thats to be expected, why try when everything else is so sub par?

This is one of the worst movies ever made in a vampire genre. Was it fun to watch? Hell no.

Wow, really?

[etschuetz · 2/10 · 14 July 2012]

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.

I like big bats, and I cannot lie

[danrmau5 · 1/10 · 31 July 2013]

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.

Who is Jonathon Hargreaves?!

[PsychoBeard666 · 1/10 · 31 July 2020]

This is his only acting credit and for a very good reason. He must be friends with someone involved with the film because there's no way he was cast for his acting ability! I hate-watched this film but it was no fun at all. Every actor is shocking. The script is shocking. The accents are shocking. The FX... sweet Jesus! For the premise, think Blade 2 without Blade. The only credit I'll give this film is that it was less than 90 minutes.

Not the best film ever but a ton of fun to watch

[ZippyNardwar · 7/10 · 20 July 2012]

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. :-)

Vampire nation.

[parry_na · 3/10 · 30 July 2015]

Interesting idea - it is accepted that vampires live amongst us. As such, they are quarantined to the smoky desolation of 'section 5'. As would probably happen in real life, pro-life protesters proclaim that they are people and are being treated like prisoners when they have a right to life. As a contrast to that, the vampires are also described as 'an affront to God' and deserve to be segregated by other-minded souls. Within the vampire community, comprising of low-lives who make undercover exchanges of synthetic blood substitute for the right price, there is an even bigger danger; something is killing the vampires. To this end, a group of hardened criminals are granted a partial pardon if they make it their mission to destroy this new threat.

The characters presented are exactly the kind of designer-stubbled, black-leather jacket wearing poseurs that I feel has given the vampire concept an image that goes against everything interesting about the original concept. The 'good guys' fair no better, a crew of strutting wise-cracking men or perfectly manicured, improbably attractive females who are strong in determination but always happy to bow to the wishes of the men folk. Impossible to like, everyone postures, smoulders and puckers as much as the screen time will allow them to do. The one exception is the main cop's right hand man, who is from the North of England and is the relentless victim of the team's self-obsessed put-downs.

The good central ideas aside (which apparently are startlingly similar to teen-soap 'True Blood') this well-shot, nicely scored film is a chore to get through. No-one is remotely real, just a collection of glistening catwalk models happy to parade themselves, self-satisfied, through a series of borrowed tension-free set-pieces and the whole enterprise emerges as darkened, elongated day-time soap filler.

I actually loved this movie

[goth241984 · 10/10 · 23 August 2012]

I loved this movie,I have never saw a TV movie as good as this one,though it would be better with a different name just get rid of 'true'. I liked all the characters in it especially Ben Lambert he is made for his character Nikolai he did a very great job with this movie. I also liked Neil Jackson's character as well as Andrew Lee Potts. The actors and actresses did a great job acting,it wasn't bad at all in my opinion. The storyline was easy to understand and I like what this movie was about it is way better than those teen vampire movies that are out there now. I wish this movie had gotten better reviews it isn't a bad movie at all.

Solid decent vampire film

[MydnightRose · 7/10 · 27 June 2017]

Of course it has bad effects and makeup; but for Syfy this was actually a pretty good movie with a decent plot and characters. I loved watching the interaction between the humans and vampires and after years of True Blood it's nice to see humans who aren't weak and can take care of themselves. The romances were pretty shallow and forced but I could tolerate it. I recommend watching the movie just don't go in with high expectations.

Hope there's no sequel

[ljmcfarland · 4/10 · 21 January 2020]

Sucky (pardon the pun) vampire movie. An Eastern European RIP off of "True Blood" but more of a C movie rather than B. All the contrived and expected stereotypes, special effects, cleavage and scenes. Can't help but be reminded of the Sharkado series except with blood suckers.

Derivative but at times enjoyable SPOILERS - really?

[moorek · 4/10 · 14 August 2014]

If you paid money for this as I did in a Walmart discount bin then you'll like hate yourself. But really... I knew what I was buying. Thought I would try some low budget, poor acting, poor SFX etc. vampire movie. That is what I got but I still found I followed it and only rarely fast forwarded. I've seen some of the actors before and don't know why they got themselves involved in this. Must have had mortgage payments due. So it has almost everything derivative you can think about (synthetic blood, silver (mercury) hollow bullets, retrovirus, misunderstood vampires, human/ vampire love interest, sacrifice loved one to vampirism instead of death, evil human conspiracy, etc. So what did I like about it: 1. Harsh sharp images in some scenes. To me showing lack of technical funds but at times gave some scenes an interesting perspective. 2. Actors who were okay but never great. 3. Some odd background characters that often have no lines but look quirky. There was one weird guy on the dance floor. Also liked the female member of the vampire team but we didn't see much of her. Had few lines. Her male counterpart had no lines. 4. The setting of much of the movie is an abandoned mill or processing facility. I found the scenes there interesting to watch. 5. Sense of isolation. The factory, the use of fires in 45 gallon drums, the overground weeds came a sense of desolation to the vampire area. Or I assume they were often in that vampire area as we never seemed to see them leave it - although they must have in some cases. 6. Did have a limited sense that the vampires were "slumming" and were relegated to camps. They could have added a few more scenes to increase this sense.

So these are not reasons you buy a movie but they are things that make you watch it when you have it.

Ignore the title or at the least the one on IMDb (it is called Vampyre Nation on my DVD). They are copying many vampire elements but I did not find it reflective of True Blood at all. So think of it copying other poorer vampire flicks.

Uninvolving Cross-Genre Thriller

[Theo Robertson · 4/10 · 28 April 2013]

Hardly surprising that VAMPYRE NATION as it's known in Britain has a very poor reputation on this website . It's never a good sign that a film is known by multiple titles and being a SyFy Chanell production this movie was never going to win too many popularity awards . Some people here have criticised it for its lack of originality and you can see where this opinion is coming being part DAYBREAKERS ( Itself a derivative film ) and DISTRICT 9 minus the biting and witty satire

A lack of originality isn't really the problem with VAMPYRE NATION . Rather than this the film suffers from being a cross-genre film , one of horror and one of police thriller but doing neither source very well . The cops are an uninteresting mix of characters in their late 20s /early 30s who mainly exist to spout uninteresting lines and drive the plot forward . Certainly horror fans will be bitterly disappointed since you could have a plot featuring Interpol investigating drug dealers in Romania and hardly change a scene

Indeed the whole Vampire angle is very much underdeveloped and unexplored which is a shame because I was very intrigued to seeing a society where humans and Vampires find it difficult to coexist with one another . Alas this aspect of the film goes totally unnoticed to the producers

Interesting mix of better movies rip-offs, puts Romania back where it belongs - a country of vampires!

[Mad_Max_1979 · 4/10 · 6 August 2013]

This film can be seen with an open mind and interpreted in several ways: as a parable (vampires are the Romanian lawmakers and politicians that we managed to stay together with one way or another, and the bloodthirsty mutant vampires are the multinational corporations and the International Monetary Fund - draining our life force completely), as a documentary (vampires are Gypsies, probably not by coincidence, exactly where it is indicated the vampires' nests location in the film it is a large population of Gypsies), as a cinematic project of our Bulgarian neighbors, as a relaxing pastime by disconnecting your brain, or as a terrifying picture of a dystopian future (you never know what can happen as a side effect of the shale gas extraction, our beloved Government recently approved it, following the indications of the powers that be). Do not watch it with great expectations (pun intended!) - it is not written "Dogville" in the TV program or the rented DVD, there are not great directors and great actors in the cast -it is exactly what is: a small-budget Sci-Fi film. You may be a little disappointed, but if you want to be really disappointed, go see GI Joe 2 - it makes Transformers look like it was made ​​by Ingmar Bergman.

Oh dear,,,

[svenja-mason · 3/10 · 3 February 2021]

Take off the corny dialogues, the needlessly overacted conversations, the poor CGI and the awfully overdone dialects and you end up with a poor script. The idea behind the film is not bad, albeit nicked from a few different sources. It's not the worst vampire film out there, but it's by far not the best. It's okay for some mindless Friday evening entertainment - unless you're a purist in which case the opening scene will already be enough to drive you to drink. Would I recommend this film? No. Would I watch it again? No. But I watched it until the end so I am proud of myself.

Very poor vampire B-movie

[Leofwine_draca · 3/10 · 15 January 2018]

VAMPIRE NATION is a very poor vampire action B-movie shot in Bulgaria with an unknown cast. The plot and style are borrowed from bits and pieces of BLADE, the UNDERWORLD franchise, plus any other Hollywood vampire flick to come out in the last fifteen or so years. The story is set in the near future, where humans and vampires co-exist peacefully in society, until that peace is shattered by violent events. It's entirely predictable and lacking in atmosphere and originality, with no action or even a decent performance. At least director Todor Chapkanov went on to greatness by directing BOYKA: UNDISPUTED IV in 2016.

Not that bad, actors tried but let down by sloppy cheap production

[elench257 · 6/10 · 26 November 2012]

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)

Really Bad

[phil_stevenson · 2/10 · 21 February 2021]

Awful, cringe worthy film. Pretty much a poor man's Blade 2 with a man-child in the lead instead of an action star.

Fun, somewhat original vampire tale

[kannibalcorpsegrinder · 9/10 · 20 August 2015]

After a rash of brutal killings, vampires and a team of cops must work together to solve the mysterious killings, only to find the source to be a greater enemy than they imagined and race to stop it's deadly origins.

Overall this was a pretty enjoyable vampire effort that comes off rather well. Among the better qualities here is the smarter story than expected, working with a couple smarter ideas than normally found in these kinds of films. The main idea of vampires coming out to expose their existence willingly is something that may have been done before elsewhere, but the follow-up part of a high-level governmental cooperation between the two societies to the level here where fake blood is produced and developed for them, special sections of town devoted to them and the sort of alliance set here that are not only fresh and original but make for a great basis for the final half which really utilizes the better story aspects here to really come off with a better story than expected. As well, the great story here allows for the film's biggest selling point, the high level action on display. There's no shortage of incredibly fun and enjoyable scenes here that move this along at a frantic clip as mass swarming attacks, raids, shootouts and gunfights which are all utilized into quite exciting. The early attack underground in the catacombs, the gunfight with the hyper-vampires in the night-club and a fantastic encounter in the main coven all make for great action scenes with the vampires flying around, exploding into dust and chasing after their targets while offering plenty of impressive defensive tactics, a few graphic kills and a couple rather exciting encounters that that make these so enjoyable. The finale as well offers some rather exciting action as well with the massive swarm of creatures loosened upon the population, a series of fine gunfights to both get their teammates free and hold down their advantage points as well as the confrontation on the roof which definitely offers this one with some really good moments to end this on. These are enough to prevent it from falling to a few missteps here and there, mainly from the origin of the disease and how it affects the vampires to begin with. Though this states that the mutations are caused by the synthetic creations, there's also a rampant problem in the film of black-market human blood, which tends to make no sense as that would supposedly keep them from turning by not being exposed to the other products. That ends up leaving this one somewhat confused about what's it's trying to tell by offering up both explanations yet never doing much with either. The other flaw here is the usually-atrocious CGI present, not just for usual blood-splatter during the kills but also during the action scenes which make them look quite cheap and obvious with their lame fireballs and constantly changing appearance giving away their origins. Overall, though, this was still far better than expected.

Rated R: Graphic Violence and Language.

may not be original, but totally FUN to watch!

[mpool-941-809330 · 6/10 · 12 September 2012]

I caught this late at night when I really needed to go sleep, but I couldn't stop watching ! and I loved it! The plot was not original,( there are several movies out sort of like it ,but its still GOOD ) and it was fun. I think all the cast did a great job with the script, but I especially loved Ben Lambert as Nikolai , he was perfect for the part! I haven't seen him before this but will be looking for him in other things! Andrew Lee Potts is always good in anything I have seen him in ( I loved him in Primevil ) and he did great in this too. Neil Jackson was very good too, and yes I think he did better in this than Push too.. Some of it was pretty goofy, but that is what made it so much fun! I think All the actors and actresses did a great job in this and I will be looking for it on DVD.

Storyline : Bucharest, Romania , Filming Locations: Bulgaria. This say it all...

[ciprian-622-874587 · 12 August 2013]

Quote "A little trivia...Romania once was known as Transylvania". Guess again ! ROmania is more than Transylvania, Moldavia and Wallachia . And YES this is really a SF movie...see Wikipedia.

Vampires are mythological or folkloric beings who subsist by feeding on the life essence (generally in the form of blood) of living creatures, regardless of whether they are undead or a living person/being.Although vampiric entities have been recorded in many cultures, and may go back to "prehistoric times", the term vampire was not popularized until the early 18th century, after an influx of vampire superstition into Western Europe from areas where vampire legends were frequent, such as the Balkans and Eastern Europe,[8] although local variants were also known by different names, such as vrykolakas in Greece and strigoi in Romania. This increased level of vampire superstition in Europe led to mass hysteria and in some cases resulted in corpses actually being staked and people being accused of vampirism.

Not great, but better than expected

[grantss · 4/10 · 13 February 2015]

Not great, but better than expected.

This movie had the makings of a B-grade (at best) vampire movie: Syfy channel, no-name actors. Plot seemed reasonable though, so I gave it a go.

Plot turned out to be reasonably basic, and just a platform for action scenes. Action scenes were okay though. Performances were so-so, but not terrible.

Ultimately, not that good, but not terrible. Had its moments, moved along briskly, and was reasonably short. Still had the feel of a made- for-TV B-grade movie though.

yes i liked it..people ALL FILMS DON'T HAVE to Hugh budgets.

[mikevonbach · 7/10 · 3 February 2014]

OK lets get down to biz. this film swiped a lot of stuff from different VAMP MOVIES. BUT THAT'S OK because what they took they used wisely to entertain us.The fact that they did not have the cash of a underworld sequel to work with impressed me.American moviegoers cry when they get films like that new HERCULES MOVIE because they had too much money and not enough expertise in storytelling with special effects.Now this film used what they had available to make something good.the casting worked all actors did not over play it .....this film gets 7 stars for the kind of (B) movie it is no i would not want to pay 12 dollars and 10 dollars to park the car.But sitting at home with popcorn and friends and wine OK it's a winner.