Bloodsuckers Handbook (2012) User Reviews

Very slow. Well done surrealist film, but just a bore.

[Mike_T-Little_Mtn_Sound_Archive · 2/10 · 28 February 2019]

Before making any real comments, I should say that the film itself is very well made for what it is. There is a true surrealist quality to it, with deeper meanings than the told-story, and the writer knew exactly what he was shooting for with storyboarding and subsequent production. The direction was excellent, the acting just OK, and the editing was well done.

That said, I was just flat-out bored. I enjoy thought provoking films and don't mind a slow burn. But this was DEFINITELY not the movie I thought it would be. I was looking for a horror movie...and I enjoy "occulty" films with religious undertones, especially when they involve the church battling evil. The synopsis gave me the impression this would be a true horror flick, with demons/vampires in an all out battle with a Catholic Priest - channeling Keanu Reeves - with some blood, gore, and good old blasphemy. The film couldn't have been further from this, and had I found this while searching for a surrealist film with tongue in cheek humor and allegorical content, my opinion and rating would have been substantially higher. BUT...since I was hoping for a true horror film with this particular content, and found THIS, it was just a let down.

So beware...if you're looking for a cool horror movie, and have any even minor desires for blood and gore, DO NOT WATCH THIS.

If you're looking for a surrealist drama,, told with subtle allegory in an almost satirical way - capitalizing on an almost film noir, arty vibe - then definitely check it out, as it's quite well done.

Just wasn't for me.

Parental content:

• nothing intense about it, other than one or two scenes which quickly come and go. In fact, they're more surprising than intense.
• I don't recall any profanity. If it was there, it was quick, and certainly is not an important element of the dialog.
• there is a sex scene that lasts about 1 minute, but there is no nudity. The priest is in a crisis of faith, and there is a woman in underwear seen a couple of times, but otherwise there is nothing to speak of with regards to sexual content.
• violence and gore is almost zero. There are a couple of scenes that involve people being bit, and a killing or two, but they are extremely benign, with almost no blood. They occur in a similarly artful & surrealist manner and are largely symbolic more than as a mechanism for depravity. In other words, there's not much violence, virtually no blood, and zero gore.

Just plain terrible

[travislhendrix · 1/10 · 14 June 2017]

the first half of the movie and the second half seem to be two different movies. The first half of the movie is the priest talking to the vampire who is captured. It is slow but holds potential for a different take on the vampire genera. The second half is just plain terrible.

The first half of the movie has a relatively good plot and acts like it is going somewhere. The second half throws any attempt at story telling out the window and jumps from one odd disconnected scene to another.

the acting is the only thing about this movie that has any redeeming value.

The special affects where what really threw me off in this movie. It was like they took claymation from the 50s and added some cgi on top of it. This movie was absolutely horrible do yourself a favor and go watch your lawn grow for an hour, it will be a better use of your time.

Philosophical indie

[Leofwine_draca · 2/10 · 21 June 2021]

A zero budget indie horror with a philosophical angle. Some imagination and originality present. A NOSFERATU-style vampire battles a priest amid blue tints and cheesy FX.

Straight faced surrealism

[larcher-2 · 9/10 · 25 December 2013]

Straight faced surrealism that mixes the look and feel of an off beat, low budget late noir film (it's set in 1966) with a vampire movie and a priest's crisis of faith story. There's a gritty, trench coat wearing detective who happens to be a greyhound (well at least he's a dog, not a bus). Nobody seems to think that's odd--in fact the more important fact about him is that he's a recovering toad-licker. There's a very good, very restrained jazz score that matches the equally restrained acting and visual style, all of which somehow keeps one from thinking how absurd the whole thing is. A bit like a David Lynch film, especially Eraserhead, but with a cooler sensibility.

Maybe the oddest thing about it is that it has what is perhaps the movies' most positive image of a Catholic priest in many years.

Despite the absurdities, it isn't really a comedy; despite the vampires, it's not a horror movie or a action pic. But it's one of the best and most engaging bits of surrealism I've ever seen--surrealism used not as a prop but as an integral structure.