I've been a horror fan all my life, and ever since we moved into a bigger house, and I had my own room for evening solitude, I've been swallowing horror movies in bundles. On the common living space in this sense, much not to walk, because the rest of the family, to put it mildly, dislikes this genre. You have to give up your passion in your corner. True, from the phone, but I'm already used to, good, Internet speed allows you to watch in HD. But "science": darkness, headphones and no one around. All in all, to scare you.
True, it is very difficult to scare me, but - and now to the point - Blood has succeeded. Not that I could not sleep later (I never had any problems with this at all), but I had to wrinkle and crook during watching more than once.
I have two requirements for horror: the first in the previous paragraph, the second - to look with interest, keeping you awake. And these two criteria "Blood" fully satisfies.
Not to mention the fact that the plot is quite easy to see quite worthy of a big drama question: what is a mother capable of saving her child?
The answer the film gives is everything. Even if the child, thanks to maternal assistance, quickly turns into a real monster. I don’t care – for his mother, he remains a small suffering boy, so she is ready to condemn anyone to suffering, as long as his son lives on.
In this sense, I put a solid five Michelle Monaghan. She's such a great mother. Moreover, you even sympathize with her, because both the plot and the dialogue make it clear that she does not feel the slightest pleasure from what she is forced to do. And he fully understands what condemns the person who comes under the hand. So much so that he is willing to ask for forgiveness. But do not turn away from your own.
In short, in order not to spoil more, I can note that the film is firstly more than suitable to brighten up the evening for fans of the genre, and secondly, gives some kind of food for the mind, which is not at all characteristic of horror.
The only reason I will take away a couple of points from the well-deserved nine (ten only for unconditional masterpieces) is the lack of an explanation of what this “creature” / “spirit” / “curse” was all about. Not that it changed anything in the interpretation of the plot and drama, but nevertheless I would like to know.
So
Former drug addict Jess is leading a lawsuit with her ex-husband Patrick for the right to custody of her children, Owen and Tyler. Moving to a large country house, their dog suddenly escapes into the woods... and after a while returns with already “burning”, like demonic, yellow eyes. We've seen it somewhere before ("pet cemetery").
From the bites of the dog, doctors did not find any diseases in Owen, but the boy’s condition is rapidly deteriorating. Now Owen needs more blood. Apparently well aware of what withdrawal means for a drug addict, Jess tries to find more and more ways to get fresh blood for her son. And how convenient it is that she works as a doctor and a hospital where plasma reserves are stored! But Owen's appetite grows, and when he gets hungry, the boy behaves inadequately, as if possessed by dark forces. Vampirism is even more disgusting than in Let Me In. Saga."
Michelle Monaghan had been seen in many films (such as Source Code or Pixels), so the appearance of the actress immediately seemed familiar to me. There are no complaints about her acting. But here, the plot is nothing, and its implementation is even worse. As if written with the left heel on the knee, the script is absolutely not catchy, and how it will end, you can easily guess before it all began. Couldn't you have put a little strain on your brain, writers? In the yard of 2023, and the dull obscurity of the viewer at the screens can not keep. Saved only that the film watched with one eye, along the way making other actions on the laptop.
2 out of 10
I bought a relatively high rating for horror. In the first 20 minutes of viewing, I experienced all possible types of irritation, facepalms and eye rolls. Because of the predictability, platitude and emptiness of the plot. It's a completely gray passerby.
The dog, constantly breaking off the leash, a ruined house in the wilderness, a parent-child conflict, dad/mother/divorce, noisy foliage in which ' as it were ' who is it. Bloo. Really?
How many times have we seen this? All those -- hundreds -- times chewed cliches and stamps. And, well, you could say, ' eternal themes', ' the same, but masterfully drawn'. But all this is presented and implemented mediocrely. You know every moment what will happen next. What kind of horror movie is that? 'Now the dog will break out of habit' and voila... it breaks off. How unexpected. And then this trick is repeated again. You can turn it off at this point.
Unmanageable children cause - not sympathy, but irritation. An impulsive boy who commits one stupidity after another, and hears only himself, doing everything for evil. And don't convince me that ' all kids are like that' Nope. Not like that.
The inner tension of the mother (the main character, the hero, the guy, the girl, anyone, substitute what you like, as if we have not seen it all two hundred times), a divorced drug addict, is superimposed and mixed with the growing oddities of external events (and in itself this technique is banal and dragged). A trembling camera, sinister music, hysterical children should 'Add tension'. In fact, in terms of dynamics and plot, the film is completely empty and predictable.
Now the boy will tell her that she is to blame for the divorce, Dad loved them more and blah blah blah blah. And voila. He's mean-spirited about what you foresee. ': You don't like this dog because it was given to you by your dad.' ': I can see why Dad left you.' Conflicts are banal. Quotes are banal. Directorial techniques are banal. Everything is predictable. I've seen it hundreds of times. It's like all the clichés are assembled.
This film was supposed to cause some emotions, interest, presumably... fear (horror), empathy (drama), but the only thing it causes is boredom and irritation.
I'm annoyed at how this can be filmed in 2022. And why this void does not have ' triple ' in the ranking, where it belongs.
The most touching relationship in the art world has always developed between the mother and her children, since they reflect not only the spiritual (moral) beginning of interaction (love, upbringing or development of the conscious side of the personality, including morality), but also the natural (natural) beginning (saving life, caring for offspring, protecting it and teaching basic principles of safety and survival).
When such a relationship is invaded by a disease that affects the child and threatens to destroy him (natural or natural), the maternal instinct to save his offspring (natural) comes into force, but, due to the centuries-old developed morality, the postulates of accepted patterns of behavior (spiritual), which do not allow you to act as the natural principle dictates, so as not to suffer a strict assessment of actions that threaten consequences, a conflict of natural (natural) and spiritual (moral) principles is born in a person at stake.
In such a collision as the film shows, the mother will be in a dangerous position, as she will first choose to save the child through donation, first by herself and then by others. And it will be possible to understand it because it follows an instinct that has been instilled in us through the formation of the human organism since ancient times. And then, with the complete collapse of natural (natural) principles, turn to the side of morality (spirituality), and deliverance from the torment of his child.
The film unpretentiously follows the path of development of such a conflict, sometimes very well winning (magnificent scenes of drinking blood by a boy with an angel-like appearance or scenes with the awareness of the redundancy of the father character in the relationship between mother and child).
The actors followed the plot perfectly, fully reflecting the emotional sides of the conflict, but Michelle Monaghan, who plays the role of the mother of a sick child, deserves a truly high rating. And director Brad Anderson, on whose account many well-directed films, skillfully displayed the above plot, creating a shell of depressing reality with a moderate level of drama.
Many talented films are perceived superficially, with the mistaken intention to see what the director planned to show, which causes sadness, looking at the low popularity and audience ratings for this film.
Brad Anderson’s Blood tells the story of a single mother named Jess who moves to a family farm with two children and a dog. Soon, the dog runs away into the woods, and returning a few days later, attacks his son Jess. Bites cause a strange infection, and the boy’s behavior becomes more frightening and dangerous.
We can safely say that this film does not represent anything new in terms of history. Starting with director Richard Donner’s iconic Omen, filmmakers are eager to exploit the fear of ordinary viewers that “something is wrong” with their children. At the same time, for an abundance of films on this topic, exploring the chosen topic back and forth. In this regard, having achieved such a result that it is impossible to come up with something new and look at the topic from a different point of view. However, the authors of this tape definitely succeeded.
If usually in films on this topic the emphasis is on the child and the atrocities committed by him, then in this case the emphasis is shifted in the other direction. Slowly but surely turning a seemingly ordinary and loving mother into a broken and cold-blooded person. It is against this background of personal transformation and raising the theme of how far any parent is willing to go for their child. This is reinforced by a very strong ideological end. When, from an entertaining point of view, the story leaves an absolutely "even" impression.
Brad Anderson is definitely a very uneven director, who does not have bad work side by side with frankly weak or passing. In this case, Anderson clearly "stepped on the bright side." The film is not moving fast enough. However, once the film goes from words to action, Anderson immediately sets the atmosphere of suspense, anxiety and tension, which slowly increase as the plot develops and most importantly - without much need for scenes of a violent or spectacular nature. It is worth admitting that the experience of the serial director makes itself felt throughout screen time and the picture due to this turned out to be a little uneven. However, the overall excerpt of the picture does not allow us to call this film bad.
The starring actress Michelle Monaghan played very well and convincingly demonstrated the personal transformation of her character on the screen. Finlay Voitak-Hissong and Skylar Morgan Jones also performed well. Despite her young age, perhaps even outplaying Monaghan herself and other age actors.
7 out of 10
Blood isn’t perfect, but it’s definitely a horror movie. At first glance, we have another story about another child with whom “something is wrong.” However, the authors of this film managed to find a fresh look at the chosen topic and tell a really strong story from the point of view of drama about how far any parent is willing to go for the sake of their child.
Everyone has their own phobias. Mine are related to blood, and it is in the hospital environment (analysis, etc.), so half of the film ' Blood & #39; I literally sat with my eyes closed. But that's my problem.
Brad Anderson is a fickle director. For every great 'Machinist' he has a dull ' Disappearance on 7th Street' Thankfully, 'Blood' is a good thing. On secondary and uncomplicated material (I will not spoiler, but who is usually the hero of horror stories about blood?), he managed to tell the story of King’s depth.
And indeed, in the story of a missing dog who returns from a creepy abandoned place in the forest biting creatures and attacks children easily find traces and ' Cujo' and ' Pet Cemetery' Because the worst stories are not about fictional horror stories. The worst is the metaphors of real life. Real nightmares.
You can't envy Jess' life. Her husband started a new family, took the house, and now he wants to take the children. You could say that Jess is guilty herself: drugs are evil. But she managed to tie up, and now she is huddled in the back of the house (got from a dead aunt). My son and daughter have plenty, just like Labrador Pippin. But in the forest, in the swamp, something bad is waiting. . .
Without any mysticism, the fears of the heroine are easily read - the ex-husband will take the children, harsh aunts from custody knock on the doors, children can get hurt and get sick, and there is also cancer, unexplored diseases, withdrawal, the eternal stigma of a drug addict ... and even the former nanny took her husband and started a child with him and a happy family in her former home. So all the nightmares of the film are almost a reflection of reality.
Michelle Monaghan manages to create a complex and controversial image of a mother willing to do anything for a sick child. And the stakes are constantly rising. It comes to the edge... and walks over the edge.
Sket Ulrich got a simpler role - he is a compassionate father who believes that children with him are better than with a sick mother. The main interest here is to see in him the same kid Billy from ' Scream' whom he played in his main film. You look at his character and you think that's what would have happened to Billy Loomis if he hadn't gone down the curve. . .
In such stories, child actors are the weak link. Not in this case. Both Finlay Voitak-Hissong and Skylar Morgan Jones play the heroine's children very authentically. And if makeup decides a lot for a boy, then the girl gets a much more complicated role. The choice that her character makes in the film is almost more difficult than the choice of her mother.
Don't miss 'Blood'. And don't miss the post-credits scene.