Blood Creek is a solid if unspectacular genre effort from Joel Schumacher, of all people. Touting a great premise and intriguing cast, the film moves at a breakneck pace after a short prologue that takes place just before WWII. Henry Cavill (Stardust, Tristan + Isolde) and Dominic Purcell (Gravedancers, Blade Trinity) are fine as brothers forced to battle some serious evil in an undead Nazi occult agent played by the always great Michael Fassbender (Eden Lake, Inglorious Basterds). In addition, Emma Booth (The Boys Are Back, Clubland) and Shea Wigham (Splinter, Tigerland) both do well enough in supporting roles. The only major problem with the movie is that it ends up being not as awesome as you would think it'd be. Granted, it's still pretty fun, but the setup leads you to believe something much more intense and epic is about to take place. The possibility of a sequel is set up without coming off as crass and the ending doesn't make you feel like you've wasted your time, like a lot of other horror movies succeed in doing. All the effects work and blood/gore are well done and there's a memorable scene involving Fassbender controlling zombie horses. Yeah, you read that right. Zombie horses. Anyway, with every decent film Schumacher makes, the bad taste of his Batman whoopsies seem further and further away. Almost...
62 Reviews
Guess who's coming to dinner
kosmasp19 October 2010
Joel Schumacher seems to have fallen. I didn't expect him to be doing low budget Horror thrillers anyway. But then again, the guy knows a bit about filmmaking, so this movie is pretty solid (and has a very good cast, not only Mr. Fassbender).
While it seems uncertain and not tonally correct at times, has a few script flaws here and there, it does flow quite nicely (if you let it and you're not interrupting it with questions that is). The story is kinda nice, the ending more or less predictable. Some nice scenes of gore and suspense. I guess if you don't have high expectation, it's the best way to watch the movie.
While it seems uncertain and not tonally correct at times, has a few script flaws here and there, it does flow quite nicely (if you let it and you're not interrupting it with questions that is). The story is kinda nice, the ending more or less predictable. Some nice scenes of gore and suspense. I guess if you don't have high expectation, it's the best way to watch the movie.
Went in with low expectations, got my $1s worth and then some
pipecock24 September 2009
I hadn't heard anything about this movie prior to today, but checking IMDb to see what the local cheap theater had to offer came up with this. Having no desire to see anything else that was playing, my wife and I decided to drop a couple bucks on it and we were not disappointed.
In general, I am not a fan of WW2, Holocaust, or Nazi related films simply due to the obvious nature of nearly every plot line related to them. Even Inglorious Basterds irritated me because of this. Thankfully, Blood Creek takes itself not very seriously and throws in lots of other random plot devices (Viking runes, zombies, the occult, the war in Iraq, etc.) that make little to no sense but serve the film well.
If you like crappy modern B style horror films (I saw another commenter mention Drag Me To Hell, which I also enjoyed more than just about any other "big" release I've seen this year), then you can't really go wrong here. Iffy acting, senseless plot, and bad CGI are not enough to defeat the high entertainment value of this fast-paced flick. If I had expectations for this, or had I paid $10 to see it, I would probably be pretty irritated. But if you can catch it at your cheapo second run theater, I can think of far worse ways to spend an hour and a half.
In general, I am not a fan of WW2, Holocaust, or Nazi related films simply due to the obvious nature of nearly every plot line related to them. Even Inglorious Basterds irritated me because of this. Thankfully, Blood Creek takes itself not very seriously and throws in lots of other random plot devices (Viking runes, zombies, the occult, the war in Iraq, etc.) that make little to no sense but serve the film well.
If you like crappy modern B style horror films (I saw another commenter mention Drag Me To Hell, which I also enjoyed more than just about any other "big" release I've seen this year), then you can't really go wrong here. Iffy acting, senseless plot, and bad CGI are not enough to defeat the high entertainment value of this fast-paced flick. If I had expectations for this, or had I paid $10 to see it, I would probably be pretty irritated. But if you can catch it at your cheapo second run theater, I can think of far worse ways to spend an hour and a half.
Bloody, underrated gore fest
NateWatchesCoolMovies29 December 2017
A Joel Schumacher helmed horror flick starring Michael Fassbender as a deranged, occult obsessed Nazi zombie vampire, hunted by Lincoln Burrows from Prison Break. Sounds like a flick from an alternate dimension that doesn't exist, right? Well it's out there, tough to find as it was somehow buried around it's 2009 release, and relegated to a relic before it was even a decade old. Shame, because it's a ton of warped, bloody fun. Officially titled 'Blood Creek' on iTunes, it can also be found as 'Town Creek' or simply 'Runes' elsewhere, but like they say, a rose by any other name. Fassbender is all kinds of scary in a black and white prologue as a Nazi occult agent who shows up at a rural American farm to study ancient Nordic runes which may hold the key to resurrection of the dead. His chilling work initially is nothing compared to the balls-out, gory makeup covered incarnation he gets to prance around in later though. In present day, two brothers race into the foggy backwaters to stamp out this evil, and they're played by an intense Dominic Purcell, as well as Superman himself, Henry Cavill. Not a whole lot of time is spent on character development for all involved, the film choosing instead to jump headlong into a notably gory free for all, banding together with the poor German family who has had to deal with this psycho for almost a generation on their farm. At a crisp ninety minutes, there ain't much time for anything but action and gore, with a few scarcely scattered, breathless moments of exposition that were already made clear in that prologue, the one interlude of the film that isn't soaked in adrenaline. Hats off to Fassbender under all that chatty, gooey makeup, his physicality is really menacing, and who else gets to play a Nazi vampire zombie who pounds a metal stake into his own forehead to make room for an emerging third eye? Truly a villain for the ages, had the film been allowed to gain any notoriety. And what other film can boast a sequence in which Purcell eagerly blasts zombified, rabid horses with a shotgun, chunks flying all over the barn? Such are the levels of disturbed imagination on parade. Poor Schumacher though, really. This would've been his first good film in awhile back then, and the studio goes in for the kill on every single marketing front, not even giving it decent room to breathe on DVD. At least it's still floating about on iTunes, where any horror fan would be rewarded with a rental.
What a Letdown
Athanatos17322 October 2020
Joel Schumacher, Henry Cavill and Michael Fassbender.
With those 3 names I was expecting a fairly good movie, I mean most people would.
What we got was a plotless, mindless, illogical, idiotic, stupid mess.
I don't like speaking ill of the dead, but for a man who's career includes The Lost Boys, 8mm, Falling Down, and quite a few other very good movies, there was no excuse for what Joel Schumacher delivered here.
As for Michael Fassbender, I'm fairly certain that the only reason he signed on was because of how much he admired Schumacher.
The movie started off quite well, and I believe it would have been a better movie if they had continued in the original timeline, watching Fassbender's character slowly gaining power and mastering the runestone until the war started and then perhaps he could have rushed a ritual and chaos could ensue.
A waste of time, Not Recommended.
What we got was a plotless, mindless, illogical, idiotic, stupid mess.
I don't like speaking ill of the dead, but for a man who's career includes The Lost Boys, 8mm, Falling Down, and quite a few other very good movies, there was no excuse for what Joel Schumacher delivered here.
As for Michael Fassbender, I'm fairly certain that the only reason he signed on was because of how much he admired Schumacher.
The movie started off quite well, and I believe it would have been a better movie if they had continued in the original timeline, watching Fassbender's character slowly gaining power and mastering the runestone until the war started and then perhaps he could have rushed a ritual and chaos could ensue.
A waste of time, Not Recommended.
Started great and then dived into mediocrity
siderite4 October 2012
This is a horror movie about a Nazi necromancer, that means he can raise dead things to do his bidding. The actor interpreting the Nazi is Michael Fassbender. The director is Joel Schumacher. Now, with a premise like that, I expected a great movie, especially since I've read a review describing it in very positive words. Instead, I get a slight twist of a typical zombie/monster movie. I was disappointed.
What was amazing was how the movie started. Fassbender coming from Germany to the US, doing his nice guy voice (but with a German accent) explaining to a little girl how he can raise the dead, now that he had found a runic stone. Then a lot of detailed action and scenes explaining the story of the paramedic brother of a soldier lost in Iraq. Then suddenly the brother returns, all rags and long hair, asking for help to get guns and shoot people.
Then the film turns into the typical "group trapped with a monster and they have to kill him before it kills them" thing. The dichotomy between to two parts of the movie was shocking, like someone did two different films and then spliced them together, and therefore I can't really recommend the movie, except as a well done monster flick. Go in with low expectations and you might enjoy it fully.
What was amazing was how the movie started. Fassbender coming from Germany to the US, doing his nice guy voice (but with a German accent) explaining to a little girl how he can raise the dead, now that he had found a runic stone. Then a lot of detailed action and scenes explaining the story of the paramedic brother of a soldier lost in Iraq. Then suddenly the brother returns, all rags and long hair, asking for help to get guns and shoot people.
Then the film turns into the typical "group trapped with a monster and they have to kill him before it kills them" thing. The dichotomy between to two parts of the movie was shocking, like someone did two different films and then spliced them together, and therefore I can't really recommend the movie, except as a well done monster flick. Go in with low expectations and you might enjoy it fully.
Nazi Vampire/Sorcerer? Less cool than it sounds.
Ar_Pharazon_the_golden30 June 2012
Warning: Spoilers
The premise is interesting, but it never becomes anything more than a premise. Forgetting the various, small and big, plot holes (arriving at the farm-lair in the morning, then an hour later it's already night and oh man, we've procrastinated so long we haven't done anything; then again we never quite realise why the family has been feeding the trapped vampire, or how and why he made them immortal), the film doesn't really use its promising elements: the nazi-side of the villain is virtually forgotten after the intro. The third eye thing seems a sloppy addition put there because it seems occult. The final confrontation is an unnecessary move by the bad guy so he can be defeated. All in all, you'd think a good actor like Fassbender would have been given a more substantial role. A decent horror film, but nothing particularly memorable.
Why had I never heard of this?
funtasticfour24 September 2018
A friend raved about this movie, which I'd not seen nor heard of. A good cast which surprised me, and a possible attempt at a series. The idea was not wholly original, but I've seen it more on tv and comic books than in movie format. Not bad, some great visuals with the horses, and some good make-up effects. Not as good as I'd hoped from my friends recommendation, but enjoyable enough.
Nazi Necromancers?
Polaris_DiB23 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers
For the third time this year comes a movie that on paper sounds like good ol' fashioned campy Nazi fun, and then turns out to be something quite a bit different than its premise, turning it in directions it really doesn't need to go. This one comes way of Joel Schumacher, the world's most uneven and undependable filmmaker, and this is probably the film that reflects that the most: uneven, undependable. There's a good idea and a good story here, but instead Schumacher actually goes the Uwe Boll route (and you'd think he'd know better...) and just add things that don't make sense. Like dialog about Iraq. And voice-over narration. That repeats itself.
It takes a good twenty minutes before anything that happens really becomes clear. First we get a completely unnecessary prologue of the Nazi coming to a German immigrant farmhouse in the US that seems more like a chance for Schumacher to play around with Sin City-like neo-noir lighting and extreme contrast black-and-white effect. This prologue would help immensely for the understanding of what happens in the rest of the movie if it weren't for the fact that it's all explained later, again, by dialog, in a much more succinct and interesting fashion. Then we get this completely unnecessary transition where our hero, a physician, is somehow involved with some violent bloody something or another that involves a man dying of blood-lose and some woman wigging out. What this has to do with the story is establish that he's a physician. Which he then explains later in dialog, in a much more succinct and interesting fashion. THEN we get this bitter argument between our hero the physician and his father over his brother, who has been missing for two years, and how much his father appreciates the brother more for going to Iraq and being a hero. Which is explained later in dialog, in a much more succinct and interesting fashion.
Finally in the middle of a completely unnecessary dream sequence that explains the brother's disappearance (something that's explained later in dialog, in a much more succinct and interesting fashion), brother guy returns and drags physician boy off to the middle of the woods to some farmhouse populated by weird people, and they go around busting stuff up and threatening the people's lives and yelling at each other and what the heck is going on? At roughly this point the movie finally becomes interesting in a "What is happening here, and who is the badguy, and what was done?" sort of way until it finally gets established that the farm people are the never-aging caretakers of the Nazi necromancer from scene one, who have been keeping him from breaking out into the world and becoming more powerful than we can possibly imagine, only tonight, on a lunar eclipse, he is going to make one last bid to take over the world. FINALLY. I knew this movie was going somewhere!
And from there it's some pretty decent action horror, albeit tone deaf. If there's anything going for this movie, it is that the action is relentless and very few characters really get a moment to breathe. Otherwise it's hard to really differentiate when we're supposed to be scared, excited, thrilled, or really feel much of anything because nothing really slows down long enough to build a sense of tension or drama in the scenes. One scene becomes another in rapid succession and it's pretty easy to let the movie charge ahead at its own expense while deciding not to really care yourself. Meanwhile the dialog is absolutely ridiculous and gratuitous, all of this "Our father loved you more!" "You don't know what happened to me in Iraq!" "You don't understand what it's like being held in thrall by a Nazi necromancer!" "Who's the real victim here!" type of stuff that would be poignant character development in a slow-building drama where characters finally let themselves go over a cup of tea or something, but is absurd to be shouting at each other while being chased down by a 100 year old guy with a face he keeps peeling off and an eye growing out of his forehead.
It's not often this happens, but, this movie should be remade immediately. There are some really nice ideas that could make for a very entertaining and interesting movie if you cut the Iraq stuff, the Nazi stuff, the family drama stuff, and actually let some mystery and suspense build by getting characters to discover things instead of have everything explained to you in flat, wooden dialog. Worse is when, at the end, a bit of voice-over repeats what a character stated less than a minute before hand, showing indeed one of those pesky and annoying horror movie motifs where apparently the director or producer or maybe the studio or something decided that the audience wasn't intelligent enough to get the point (plus, it leads the way to a possible sequel, which is predictable). Honestly, it's a conceptual misfire. Somebody should grab this idea and, with a bit more creativity and an actual plot structure, make a good movie out of it.
--PolarisDiB
It takes a good twenty minutes before anything that happens really becomes clear. First we get a completely unnecessary prologue of the Nazi coming to a German immigrant farmhouse in the US that seems more like a chance for Schumacher to play around with Sin City-like neo-noir lighting and extreme contrast black-and-white effect. This prologue would help immensely for the understanding of what happens in the rest of the movie if it weren't for the fact that it's all explained later, again, by dialog, in a much more succinct and interesting fashion. Then we get this completely unnecessary transition where our hero, a physician, is somehow involved with some violent bloody something or another that involves a man dying of blood-lose and some woman wigging out. What this has to do with the story is establish that he's a physician. Which he then explains later in dialog, in a much more succinct and interesting fashion. THEN we get this bitter argument between our hero the physician and his father over his brother, who has been missing for two years, and how much his father appreciates the brother more for going to Iraq and being a hero. Which is explained later in dialog, in a much more succinct and interesting fashion.
Finally in the middle of a completely unnecessary dream sequence that explains the brother's disappearance (something that's explained later in dialog, in a much more succinct and interesting fashion), brother guy returns and drags physician boy off to the middle of the woods to some farmhouse populated by weird people, and they go around busting stuff up and threatening the people's lives and yelling at each other and what the heck is going on? At roughly this point the movie finally becomes interesting in a "What is happening here, and who is the badguy, and what was done?" sort of way until it finally gets established that the farm people are the never-aging caretakers of the Nazi necromancer from scene one, who have been keeping him from breaking out into the world and becoming more powerful than we can possibly imagine, only tonight, on a lunar eclipse, he is going to make one last bid to take over the world. FINALLY. I knew this movie was going somewhere!
And from there it's some pretty decent action horror, albeit tone deaf. If there's anything going for this movie, it is that the action is relentless and very few characters really get a moment to breathe. Otherwise it's hard to really differentiate when we're supposed to be scared, excited, thrilled, or really feel much of anything because nothing really slows down long enough to build a sense of tension or drama in the scenes. One scene becomes another in rapid succession and it's pretty easy to let the movie charge ahead at its own expense while deciding not to really care yourself. Meanwhile the dialog is absolutely ridiculous and gratuitous, all of this "Our father loved you more!" "You don't know what happened to me in Iraq!" "You don't understand what it's like being held in thrall by a Nazi necromancer!" "Who's the real victim here!" type of stuff that would be poignant character development in a slow-building drama where characters finally let themselves go over a cup of tea or something, but is absurd to be shouting at each other while being chased down by a 100 year old guy with a face he keeps peeling off and an eye growing out of his forehead.
It's not often this happens, but, this movie should be remade immediately. There are some really nice ideas that could make for a very entertaining and interesting movie if you cut the Iraq stuff, the Nazi stuff, the family drama stuff, and actually let some mystery and suspense build by getting characters to discover things instead of have everything explained to you in flat, wooden dialog. Worse is when, at the end, a bit of voice-over repeats what a character stated less than a minute before hand, showing indeed one of those pesky and annoying horror movie motifs where apparently the director or producer or maybe the studio or something decided that the audience wasn't intelligent enough to get the point (plus, it leads the way to a possible sequel, which is predictable). Honestly, it's a conceptual misfire. Somebody should grab this idea and, with a bit more creativity and an actual plot structure, make a good movie out of it.
--PolarisDiB
'Blood Creek'
Ence198120 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Not sure how a filmmaker as prolific as Joel "Lost Boys" Schumacher could make his return, in essence, to the vampire horror subgenre only to find his finished product, "Blood Creek," tossed into second-run theaters in a handful of locations with virtually no heads up to the popluace. (As of this writing, the IMDb listing is still "Town Creek," and not "Blood Creek.") Lionsgate apparently thought they had a marketing nightmare on their hands... which may indeed be the case.
This imperfect yet original thriller deals with such batshit insane subject matter as undead Nazis, demonic horses, Viking runestones, suits of bone armor, human sacrifice, and the beginning of an occult war that Germany began back in the 1930s. So okay, perhaps it's easy to see, at least on the surface, why this might have been a hard sell. It's just too bad most horror fans won't get a chance to see this one-of-a-kind original in the wake of so many remakes, reboots, and sequels. At least somebody had their thinking cap on when conceiving this thing... or at the very least were taking some heavy duty crazy pills. I mean, did I mention that a Nazi "vampire" (for lack of a better word) possesses a horse that nearly kills our protagonists like some kind of man-eating beast? Or that he later hammers a hole in his forehead before tearing off his face and growing a third eye? WTF?!
True, "Blood Creek" isn't for everyone, which probably explains why it will find its audience primarily on the DVD circuit even had its release not been as top secret as Germany's occult activities during WWII. The concept is so insane, so bereft of screaming teenagers, so utterly lacking in irony despite the absolute insanity splashed upon the screen, it's bound to turn a lot of viewers off. To make matters worse, a tedious black and white prologue complete with unnecessary voice-over stains the beginning of the film, hinting too much at the later goings-on when it would have been more fun to learn the truth as the film surges forward. This seems like a studio afterthought, tacked on gracelessly before an otherwise inspired and fast-moving siege flick.
If you want a fresh take on "vampires" and aren't yet tired of evil Germans circa 2009, this promotionless horror flick should fit the bill despite its issues. Once the pace kicks up, it never relents, and the mythology it creates is interesting albeit completely daft. What's here certainly falls into the "Night of the Living Dead" formula (a house under siege by supernatural forces), but with an off-the-reservation twist. Check it out... if you can find it.
This imperfect yet original thriller deals with such batshit insane subject matter as undead Nazis, demonic horses, Viking runestones, suits of bone armor, human sacrifice, and the beginning of an occult war that Germany began back in the 1930s. So okay, perhaps it's easy to see, at least on the surface, why this might have been a hard sell. It's just too bad most horror fans won't get a chance to see this one-of-a-kind original in the wake of so many remakes, reboots, and sequels. At least somebody had their thinking cap on when conceiving this thing... or at the very least were taking some heavy duty crazy pills. I mean, did I mention that a Nazi "vampire" (for lack of a better word) possesses a horse that nearly kills our protagonists like some kind of man-eating beast? Or that he later hammers a hole in his forehead before tearing off his face and growing a third eye? WTF?!
True, "Blood Creek" isn't for everyone, which probably explains why it will find its audience primarily on the DVD circuit even had its release not been as top secret as Germany's occult activities during WWII. The concept is so insane, so bereft of screaming teenagers, so utterly lacking in irony despite the absolute insanity splashed upon the screen, it's bound to turn a lot of viewers off. To make matters worse, a tedious black and white prologue complete with unnecessary voice-over stains the beginning of the film, hinting too much at the later goings-on when it would have been more fun to learn the truth as the film surges forward. This seems like a studio afterthought, tacked on gracelessly before an otherwise inspired and fast-moving siege flick.
If you want a fresh take on "vampires" and aren't yet tired of evil Germans circa 2009, this promotionless horror flick should fit the bill despite its issues. Once the pace kicks up, it never relents, and the mythology it creates is interesting albeit completely daft. What's here certainly falls into the "Night of the Living Dead" formula (a house under siege by supernatural forces), but with an off-the-reservation twist. Check it out... if you can find it.
Highly disappointing.
Rodrigo_Amaro4 October 2011
Once again we traveled through the dark forces of evil in a plot involving occultism and the Third Reich but this time these forces resurrected in the present days. In "Town Creek" (or "Blood Creek" depending on the place you live the title is changed) the story of two brothers (Henry Cavill and Dominic Purcell) must fight against a diabolic creature (Michael Fassbender) that needs human bodies and souls to being brought back to a new and eternal life (I might be wrong with this presentation but it's something like that)
Now, did I care about this story and these characters? Not even for a moment. Everything is quite predictable, nothing is scary, the gore was uninteresting, the visual effects are quite laughable if not cheesy (the one with the flaming horse was really funny). The plot is a complete mess that not even a good director like Joel Schumacher could've save from its own sake. Why is he wasting himself away with such projects? After the 2000's the guy only had one interesting film ("Phone Booth"), the others were between okay and disappointing but "Town Creek" puts him in the bottom of the barrel for good.
You can't learn anything from here (but it wasn't the mission of this film) but you can't even have a decent entertainment to put your brain to rest from problems and more elaborated flicks. In fact, here's what I got from this ridiculous piece of garbage. 1) One hour and half thrown to the wind with few compensations, Henry Cavill's looks being one of those, not to mention he's great playing an action hero and 2) I finally get it why they had to edit the film in that awful shaky way where you can't watch the images. They did that to make average viewers who only uses one percent of the brain never see the countless flaws and mistakes this film has in terms of script, everything is so bloody distractive.
If wasn't for Cavill and for a nice appearance of Michael Fassbender (the one at the beginning with the story's introduction with him playing a Nazi once again; the ones with visual effects and make up on his face are just boring), this film would be one of the worst I've seen in a long time. Certainly, it was the worst of Joel Schumacher (so far!) and one of the weakest I had the unfortunate pleasure to watch. 2/10
Now, did I care about this story and these characters? Not even for a moment. Everything is quite predictable, nothing is scary, the gore was uninteresting, the visual effects are quite laughable if not cheesy (the one with the flaming horse was really funny). The plot is a complete mess that not even a good director like Joel Schumacher could've save from its own sake. Why is he wasting himself away with such projects? After the 2000's the guy only had one interesting film ("Phone Booth"), the others were between okay and disappointing but "Town Creek" puts him in the bottom of the barrel for good.
You can't learn anything from here (but it wasn't the mission of this film) but you can't even have a decent entertainment to put your brain to rest from problems and more elaborated flicks. In fact, here's what I got from this ridiculous piece of garbage. 1) One hour and half thrown to the wind with few compensations, Henry Cavill's looks being one of those, not to mention he's great playing an action hero and 2) I finally get it why they had to edit the film in that awful shaky way where you can't watch the images. They did that to make average viewers who only uses one percent of the brain never see the countless flaws and mistakes this film has in terms of script, everything is so bloody distractive.
If wasn't for Cavill and for a nice appearance of Michael Fassbender (the one at the beginning with the story's introduction with him playing a Nazi once again; the ones with visual effects and make up on his face are just boring), this film would be one of the worst I've seen in a long time. Certainly, it was the worst of Joel Schumacher (so far!) and one of the weakest I had the unfortunate pleasure to watch. 2/10
Unusual horror-action-zombie-supernatural film
fung025 June 2010
I'm surprised at the lackluster ratings for this one. Joel Schumacher does have a reputation as a bit of a Hollywood hack (based chiefly on the abominable Batman Forever and Batman & Robin), but has actually turned out a surprising number of well-crafted films (Phone Booth, The Client, Flatliners, etc.) Thematically, Blood Creek is a departure even for him, but it's an excellent new spin on the usual horror-by-night formula.
Blood Creek starts out looking like a sequel to Texas Chainsaw Massacre (or the similarly named Australian film Wolf Creek). But it quickly veers off, taking us through a Night of the Living Dead zombie scenario, then spinning into the more gruesome supernatural elements of Hellboy. The shifts are somewhat disconcerting, but also highly entertaining. In hindsight, all the elements do hang together, so you won't feel cheated on a logical level.
No, this isn't a 'classic' film in any sense. But it's got good performances, excellent visual design, all the blood and gore you could ask for, and a whole bunch of solid action that could almost make a film on its own. I enjoyed the weird mix from end to end, and I can't see why any horror aficionado wouldn't.
Blood Creek starts out looking like a sequel to Texas Chainsaw Massacre (or the similarly named Australian film Wolf Creek). But it quickly veers off, taking us through a Night of the Living Dead zombie scenario, then spinning into the more gruesome supernatural elements of Hellboy. The shifts are somewhat disconcerting, but also highly entertaining. In hindsight, all the elements do hang together, so you won't feel cheated on a logical level.
No, this isn't a 'classic' film in any sense. But it's got good performances, excellent visual design, all the blood and gore you could ask for, and a whole bunch of solid action that could almost make a film on its own. I enjoyed the weird mix from end to end, and I can't see why any horror aficionado wouldn't.
Welcome to Blood Creek
ksj87019 June 2012
Who knew Joel Schumacher had a horror movie in him? Let alone a good one? Blood Creek takes the Nazi fascination with the occult and uses it as the springboard to an exciting, suspenseful scarefest. The absolutely brilliant cast--including Michael Fassbender, Dominic Purcell, and Henry Cavill--does a stalwart job all round, and where some other directors and their performers would have allowed a picture like Blood Creek to succumb to low camp, everyone involved with the film plays it razor straight. The atmosphere is dark and malevolent, and the limited setting--primarily an isolated farm somewhere in West Virginia--used to great effect. This is a gory film, and while some of the on screen mayhem should have probably been left to the imagination, the copious bloodletting is realistic and certainly holds viewer attention. The only reason this isn't a minor classic is because of the numerous plot holes--lots of things happen that even within the context of the very bizarre plot don't make a lot of sense, and other plot threads are left frustratingly unexplained. Otherwise, if you can take the graphic carnage in stride, this is a superior horror film that would see several of its stars go on to bigger and better things.
Another Joel Schumacher mess.
valleyjohn18 December 2011
I should have known better really. Whenever a film is made that consists of actors who are more well known for being in TV shows ( In this case Henry Cavill - Tudors and Dominic Purcell - Prison Break ) they tend to turn out to be Turkeys. In the case of Blood Creek , this is a Turkey big enough to feed a whole country at Christmas.
As far as i can tell , this is the story of a family of German descendent's who call on the services of a Nazi general from Germany but only end up being haunted by this man who has occultist powers.
I think that's what it was about anyway because this film was a complete and utter mess from start to finish. I have no idea what director Joel Schumacher was on when he made this film .It looks like he shot a few hundred scenes , threw them on the cutting room floor and put them all back together in the wrong order.
I haven't seen a horror film as bad as this since The number 23 - Directed by ? You've guessed it . Joel Schumacher.
On this showing i think it's about time he gave up directing and concentrated n something he's good at because directing isn't one of them.
As far as i can tell , this is the story of a family of German descendent's who call on the services of a Nazi general from Germany but only end up being haunted by this man who has occultist powers.
I think that's what it was about anyway because this film was a complete and utter mess from start to finish. I have no idea what director Joel Schumacher was on when he made this film .It looks like he shot a few hundred scenes , threw them on the cutting room floor and put them all back together in the wrong order.
I haven't seen a horror film as bad as this since The number 23 - Directed by ? You've guessed it . Joel Schumacher.
On this showing i think it's about time he gave up directing and concentrated n something he's good at because directing isn't one of them.
An unspeakable travesty that marks the downfall of a fairly decent director
wellthatswhatithinkanyway9 November 2011
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning
A few years before the outbreak of World War 2, the Third Reich send a professor to live with a poor German family who've relocated to Virginia in America. He reveals himself as a practitioner of the dark occult arts, who takes over their home and takes on a venomous blood lust to survive. Years later, two brothers are driven back to the house he stayed at on a mission of personal revenge, only to find the real perpetrator come back to life and try to exact his venom on them.
This is the 'latest' Joel Schumacher film that it would seem has actually been held back for two years and appears to have arrived straight to DVD on these shores. His last (and most recent) foray into the horror genre The Number 23 with Jim Carrey was a rockety, shambolic road indeed that showed a pretty decent (if never great) director veering off course a bit, but Blood Creek is sadly evidence of a past it hack who's gone over the hill.
An unfathomable mess, the story is a ridiculous, convoluted mess, opening in a pretentious black and white film noir style before flitting the story to the present day and back into colour again, with a plot that's lost you about twenty minutes in, marred with a blurry, slap shot filming style that's even with the even more shambolic story, before finally revealing a villain that seems like Freddy Kruegger with a liver problem.
It's all just a nonsensical, sad revalation of a director who's deteriorated into what could at best be called senility and at worst madness. *
A few years before the outbreak of World War 2, the Third Reich send a professor to live with a poor German family who've relocated to Virginia in America. He reveals himself as a practitioner of the dark occult arts, who takes over their home and takes on a venomous blood lust to survive. Years later, two brothers are driven back to the house he stayed at on a mission of personal revenge, only to find the real perpetrator come back to life and try to exact his venom on them.
This is the 'latest' Joel Schumacher film that it would seem has actually been held back for two years and appears to have arrived straight to DVD on these shores. His last (and most recent) foray into the horror genre The Number 23 with Jim Carrey was a rockety, shambolic road indeed that showed a pretty decent (if never great) director veering off course a bit, but Blood Creek is sadly evidence of a past it hack who's gone over the hill.
An unfathomable mess, the story is a ridiculous, convoluted mess, opening in a pretentious black and white film noir style before flitting the story to the present day and back into colour again, with a plot that's lost you about twenty minutes in, marred with a blurry, slap shot filming style that's even with the even more shambolic story, before finally revealing a villain that seems like Freddy Kruegger with a liver problem.
It's all just a nonsensical, sad revalation of a director who's deteriorated into what could at best be called senility and at worst madness. *
Unbelievable Promise, Good Start, Fizzled
witster1816 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I took a shot on this one. I saw the name Schumacher, and said 'what the hay'.
I read the back of the cover so I had a pretty good idea of what was coming.
Blood Creek starts strong. They lay down the foundation for a pretty good storyline, and everything really seemed to be going in the right direction.
It was about 35-45 minutes into the film when I started to get that 'hidden gem feeling'. At that point, I really thought I had found something special. If you cut this thing off 45 minutes-in - you'd be ticked. No worries.
It is right when they unleashed the hell that is this immortal SS commander when this super-train of a sleeper gets derailed. The Villain is truly creepy, and really fits perfectly into the storyline. Reminded me of 'The Gimp' from pulp fiction - only with a cape.
For about 5 minutes after his introduction I was about to call in the movie buff troops and make a recommendation. Then the director took a vacation.
The second half of this film ruins the first half with awful CGI, and truly distasteful and unnecessary gore. It also seemed that they thought they needed to add some little bits to the plot(the third eye etc). They didn't. The acting derailed too.
This is the worst kind of failure. To go from so good to so bad in such a short time is nearly inconceivable. This movie kicked #%% for the first 45 minutes. Then some horse sticks his head through a window and that was the end of it. Ruined. How frustrating.
The really sad thing about this - is that somebody is going to remake this thing. It will probably be better than this, but this film had immense potential, and improving on the first 40 minutes won't happen. Can we get these people back together and just fix this thing. Blood Creek Take 2 - instead of part 2. The first 45minutes is one of the best sleeper horror films of the last 30 years. The last hour is painful.
54/100
You MIGHT like it if you liked: Midnight Meat Train, Dead Snow, or NightFlier(Sp?)
I read the back of the cover so I had a pretty good idea of what was coming.
Blood Creek starts strong. They lay down the foundation for a pretty good storyline, and everything really seemed to be going in the right direction.
It was about 35-45 minutes into the film when I started to get that 'hidden gem feeling'. At that point, I really thought I had found something special. If you cut this thing off 45 minutes-in - you'd be ticked. No worries.
It is right when they unleashed the hell that is this immortal SS commander when this super-train of a sleeper gets derailed. The Villain is truly creepy, and really fits perfectly into the storyline. Reminded me of 'The Gimp' from pulp fiction - only with a cape.
For about 5 minutes after his introduction I was about to call in the movie buff troops and make a recommendation. Then the director took a vacation.
The second half of this film ruins the first half with awful CGI, and truly distasteful and unnecessary gore. It also seemed that they thought they needed to add some little bits to the plot(the third eye etc). They didn't. The acting derailed too.
This is the worst kind of failure. To go from so good to so bad in such a short time is nearly inconceivable. This movie kicked #%% for the first 45 minutes. Then some horse sticks his head through a window and that was the end of it. Ruined. How frustrating.
The really sad thing about this - is that somebody is going to remake this thing. It will probably be better than this, but this film had immense potential, and improving on the first 40 minutes won't happen. Can we get these people back together and just fix this thing. Blood Creek Take 2 - instead of part 2. The first 45minutes is one of the best sleeper horror films of the last 30 years. The last hour is painful.
54/100
You MIGHT like it if you liked: Midnight Meat Train, Dead Snow, or NightFlier(Sp?)
Not as bad as others are making out
bowmanblue14 December 2014
I do love a good horror film, which is a shame, seeing as there's so few about. Nowadays, I judge a film with how long it can hold my attention before I start logging onto the net and only half-watching.
Blood Creek actually held my attention until the end. Not that I'm saying it's a masterpiece, but it seemed to at least hold a shred of originally in its matrix.
There is some bad though - lack of character development, rushed beginning (normally you have to wait ages to get into the story, but it seemed that the viewer got thrown in there pretty quick) and jerky/dark fight scenes where you can't tell who's who.
However, I felt it was slightly original and you didn't quite know where it was going. It's about a man who's haunted by the loss of his brother (who disappeared during a fishing trip). The brother returns late one night and they embark on a quest for revenge that takes them up against those most dastardly of villains - Nazis (and supernatural ones at that - and, let me tell you, they're the worst kind!).
The gore was good (you may have to squint a bit to ignore the slightly bad 'horse on fire' scene), but, apart from that, it has enough twists and turns to hopefully keep you interested to the end.
Blood Creek actually held my attention until the end. Not that I'm saying it's a masterpiece, but it seemed to at least hold a shred of originally in its matrix.
There is some bad though - lack of character development, rushed beginning (normally you have to wait ages to get into the story, but it seemed that the viewer got thrown in there pretty quick) and jerky/dark fight scenes where you can't tell who's who.
However, I felt it was slightly original and you didn't quite know where it was going. It's about a man who's haunted by the loss of his brother (who disappeared during a fishing trip). The brother returns late one night and they embark on a quest for revenge that takes them up against those most dastardly of villains - Nazis (and supernatural ones at that - and, let me tell you, they're the worst kind!).
The gore was good (you may have to squint a bit to ignore the slightly bad 'horse on fire' scene), but, apart from that, it has enough twists and turns to hopefully keep you interested to the end.
Cheap horror movie
Michigan8824 January 2010
This movie was hands down the worst I have seen from director Joel Schumacher.
I actually really like some of his films but was surprised (in a bad way) of this one. The characters don't develop throughout the movie and the Plot was just infantile.
Dialogue was too simple and the occasional German did not fit in with the movie nor with the characters.
For the horror fans out there, I would recommend you see Night of the Living Dead (1990). Plotwise similar but much more original. And if you want some Nazi bad guy story just watch Indiana Jones.
I actually really like some of his films but was surprised (in a bad way) of this one. The characters don't develop throughout the movie and the Plot was just infantile.
Dialogue was too simple and the occasional German did not fit in with the movie nor with the characters.
For the horror fans out there, I would recommend you see Night of the Living Dead (1990). Plotwise similar but much more original. And if you want some Nazi bad guy story just watch Indiana Jones.
Disappointing Gore Horror Tale
claudio_carvalho19 November 2010
Warning: Spoilers
In the early 30, Hitler and Third Reich dedicated to explore the occultism and in 1936 they sent emissaries to North America. In Morgan County, West Virginia the immigrant German family Wollner accepts to lodge the historian Richard Wirth (Michael Fassbender) in their farm for one month, receiving a large amount in return. Richard demonstrates a great interest in a Nordic runic stone the Wollners have in the barn.
In the present day, the paramedic Evan Marshall (Henry Cavill) misses his older brother Victor Alan Marshall (Dominic Purcell) that has vanished two years ago in the fields nearby Town Creek. Out of the blue, Victor appears in his house during the night, haired, dirty and tattered, and tells that he had been imprisoned for two years in the Wollner's farm. They take their weapons and return to the farm, where they discover that the Wollners have sealed off evil in their real estate and are paying a high price for this action.
"Town Creek" is a disappointing gore horror tale, considering that the director is Joel Schumacher. The supernatural story is violent and gruesome, but never scary; very confused and lacking explanation why the vampire necromancer has a third eye, or why he can not drink his own blood. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "Renascido das Trevas" ("Reborn from the Darkness")
In the present day, the paramedic Evan Marshall (Henry Cavill) misses his older brother Victor Alan Marshall (Dominic Purcell) that has vanished two years ago in the fields nearby Town Creek. Out of the blue, Victor appears in his house during the night, haired, dirty and tattered, and tells that he had been imprisoned for two years in the Wollner's farm. They take their weapons and return to the farm, where they discover that the Wollners have sealed off evil in their real estate and are paying a high price for this action.
"Town Creek" is a disappointing gore horror tale, considering that the director is Joel Schumacher. The supernatural story is violent and gruesome, but never scary; very confused and lacking explanation why the vampire necromancer has a third eye, or why he can not drink his own blood. My vote is six.
Title (Brazil): "Renascido das Trevas" ("Reborn from the Darkness")
Amateurish and poorly written
McQualude13 September 2011
The acting is passable and the concept interesting but the film is so poorly written as to defeat any positive. Thirty minutes in and the film could have ended. If you want to kill a houseful of people, why go in and chase them down one at a time, risking capture or injury, just set the house on fire and shoot them as they come out or let them burn up. Sure, he was looking for one person in particular but what did it matter, he knew exactly where to look and found him within minutes anyway. Story over. Or he could have brought the police and story over. Ultimately there is no reason for the last hour except as padding and that is exactly how it felt.
Surprising
paul_haakonsen26 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I decided to watch this movie based solely on the cover of the movie. So I had no expectations to the movie, as I had no idea who was in it or what it was really about.
The movie starts out slow but quickly builds up in pace and intensity. The story is somewhat strange up until maybe two-fourths into the movie where it dawns on you what is going on. It picks you up and drops you right in the middle of the action, for an exciting thrill ride.
I found this movie to be surprisingly nice, despite the relatively unknown cast.
Anything that have undead Nazis in it is somehow bound to be good entertainment. I was a bit perplexed by the appearance of the nazi, but it turned out to be alright. I am not going to be giving out any spoilers here.
The ending of the movie was somewhat anti-climatic.
The movie starts out slow but quickly builds up in pace and intensity. The story is somewhat strange up until maybe two-fourths into the movie where it dawns on you what is going on. It picks you up and drops you right in the middle of the action, for an exciting thrill ride.
I found this movie to be surprisingly nice, despite the relatively unknown cast.
Anything that have undead Nazis in it is somehow bound to be good entertainment. I was a bit perplexed by the appearance of the nazi, but it turned out to be alright. I am not going to be giving out any spoilers here.
The ending of the movie was somewhat anti-climatic.
Great film, great performances!!
joiningjt16 May 2020
Wampyre story
Siamois24 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
It's been a while since I have seen so many cool concepts thrown into a horror film. We get everything from action to dialogue-driven historical context. The film throws ample nods to "wampyres" as they evolved in culture, including German cinema. It is no wonder that several viewers have debated whether this is a "zombie" or "vampire" flick when actually, these two modern phenomenon grew originally from the same source.
Joel Shumacher's latest project is rather ambitious. The starts starts in pre-WWII America with German immigrants that sets a cold, creepy mood with a slow pace. It then shifts to modern times and quickly gains a lot of speed. Unfortunately, the narrative at the beginning is not terribly helpful for what unfolds later. And several plot holes and incongruities make it hard to suspend disbelief. As a result, all the weird ingredients that could have made this an absolute classic (Norse rune magic, Nazis, vampires with slave zombies and some sort of unwilling cultists) instead just become a nice little horror that could spawn several direct-to- video sequels.
The main weakness of Town Creek is the numerous inconsistencies when it comes to the powers and weaknesses of the main antagonist. He holds certain powers over death but they are poorly explained and seem to only serve as device to advance the story as needed. There's talk of a third eye, but it's unclear what it does. There's talk he can't feed off his own blood and bones belonging to his family line are introduced but with little effect. There's talk people are forced to feed him but the whole process is confused, since they were apparently able to hold him thanks to runes. Why feed him at all then?
Watch for several cool references to beliefs and artistic representation of "wampyres" as seen through numerous cultures and eras and as social commentary on nazi Germany. It is worth it just for that. But big fans of classic horror will lament what could have been with one more pass at the screenplay.
Joel Shumacher's latest project is rather ambitious. The starts starts in pre-WWII America with German immigrants that sets a cold, creepy mood with a slow pace. It then shifts to modern times and quickly gains a lot of speed. Unfortunately, the narrative at the beginning is not terribly helpful for what unfolds later. And several plot holes and incongruities make it hard to suspend disbelief. As a result, all the weird ingredients that could have made this an absolute classic (Norse rune magic, Nazis, vampires with slave zombies and some sort of unwilling cultists) instead just become a nice little horror that could spawn several direct-to- video sequels.
The main weakness of Town Creek is the numerous inconsistencies when it comes to the powers and weaknesses of the main antagonist. He holds certain powers over death but they are poorly explained and seem to only serve as device to advance the story as needed. There's talk of a third eye, but it's unclear what it does. There's talk he can't feed off his own blood and bones belonging to his family line are introduced but with little effect. There's talk people are forced to feed him but the whole process is confused, since they were apparently able to hold him thanks to runes. Why feed him at all then?
Watch for several cool references to beliefs and artistic representation of "wampyres" as seen through numerous cultures and eras and as social commentary on nazi Germany. It is worth it just for that. But big fans of classic horror will lament what could have been with one more pass at the screenplay.
Ugh
lqe18 September 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I'm one of about 300 people who have seen this movie... and it kind of sucks.. Joel Schumacer is the 2nd worst director ever (behind Michael bay) and the movie goes from confusing to stupid to flat out silly. Dominic Purcell delivers his typical "strong bald man with optional facial hair" performance he gives in everything he's in.. the other cast members did nothing to stand out.
it's also slow, boring, and I was the only one in the theater. it was still much better than "Drag Me To Hell". and I did enjoy the ending.
But all in all, a typical Lionsgate release. They did nothing to promote this film, changed titles multiple times (at theaters it was listed as "Blood Creek"), and it went straight to the cheap theater on a very limited release, and it will probably be a box office bomb.
it's also slow, boring, and I was the only one in the theater. it was still much better than "Drag Me To Hell". and I did enjoy the ending.
But all in all, a typical Lionsgate release. They did nothing to promote this film, changed titles multiple times (at theaters it was listed as "Blood Creek"), and it went straight to the cheap theater on a very limited release, and it will probably be a box office bomb.
At least is has Henry Cavill....
gradyharp23 February 2010
BLOOD CREEK (aka TOWN CREEK) is pretty much a mess of a movie - in more ways than expected. But at least this very minor effort by Joel Schumacher continues his tradition of introducing fine lads to the screen in hopes of launching a career (Colin Farrell in TIGERLAND is a typical example). The story/screenplay by David Kajganich tries very hard to be substantial (Viking runes were left in about eight farms and the Nazi's preoccupation with the occult made them spend years tacking them down - the runes being a means toward immortality if you drink the right blood yada yada yada...), but in the end this is just another of the genre as SAW 1 - 6(?), Seven, Silence of the Lambs, Halloween 1 - 5, etc. If lots of blood and crazy behavior on a farm in dark territory inhabited by ageless creatures under the spell of a crazy guy is what rocks your boat, then welcome aboard.
The redeeming factor in the movie is the presence of Henry Cavill (of the Tudor series fame and fine actor waiting to be used in some choice roles) and Dominic Purcell. As brothers bent on vengeance they make the most of this plot, giving it as much dignity as could be expected. They deserve better material as they are both fine actors and personalities. So Joel Schumacher can't really be run out of town for this movie - he at least gave the two primary actors the chance for screen time. Only or those who love gore.
Grady Harp
The redeeming factor in the movie is the presence of Henry Cavill (of the Tudor series fame and fine actor waiting to be used in some choice roles) and Dominic Purcell. As brothers bent on vengeance they make the most of this plot, giving it as much dignity as could be expected. They deserve better material as they are both fine actors and personalities. So Joel Schumacher can't really be run out of town for this movie - he at least gave the two primary actors the chance for screen time. Only or those who love gore.
Grady Harp
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
