You are not logged in. Please register or login.

James
 Rep: 664 

Re: Thirst

James wrote:

Just a reminder.....

Five days until its release. If you have Netflix, should probably move it to the top of your queue. I'm gonna try and time sending a movie back with this film's release so I don't get put on the waiting list.

RussTCB
 Rep: 633 

Re: Thirst

RussTCB wrote:

removed

mickronson
 Rep: 118 

Re: Thirst

mickronson wrote:

Wil try watch it tomorrow...after "9"

James
 Rep: 664 

Re: Thirst

James wrote:

Too funny. For some reason I didn't even think to grab this off the torrents.


*Removes Thirst from Netflix queue*

misterID
 Rep: 475 

Re: Thirst

misterID wrote:

Got it in today. Will review later tonight...

James
 Rep: 664 

Re: Thirst

James wrote:

Yeah I need to break down and watch this too. Already downloaded it but haven't watched it yet.

misterID
 Rep: 475 

Re: Thirst

misterID wrote:

Thirst is a good film. Not great. Nowhere near as good as Oldboy, but its pretty fresh. I really wouldn't even call it horror, but a vampire without fangs was pretty interesting. There is blood. The virus is nasty. There's a couple of few and far between brutal kills, but overall it was pretty mild for what I was expecting for a vampire film. Especially a Park vampire film.

The first half of the movie is very long, but not slow, mostly because of the comedic aspects and the characters were so interesting, especially the wife, who steals the entire movie for me. 

The priest was a bit disappointing, though. I never really felt his guilt or sudden instinct to kill. He just mentions it a few times. He was always in complete control the whole time when it came to his "murderous impulses." I just never truly felt his anguish or dilemmas about being a vampire. Also, with Park being such a visual master, and this film is visually cool, there was no visual highlights or "Wow" moments to show off his new "hyper senses" or even his "thirst." Park does, however, focus on the priest's insatiable lust with some really nice steamy sex scenes. My favorite character was the wife. My second favorite was the wifes tits.

The film was basically a funny little melodramtic soap opera for the first hour and a half, but after a nice bloody scene comes in the (very) late second act the film really takes off. The problem is it should have taken place in the first 20 minutes, not the first hour and 20 minutes. It would have made this one of the best vampire films ever. It just didn't work out that way.

Another thing is they never explain (or maybe I just missed it) how he turned into a vampire. Was it the disease or the blood transfusion? If it was the transfusion that opens the door for a fantastic film; a vampire would have intentionally given blood knowing it was going to infect someone. Then it could have turned into a quest for the priest to find that vampire and find out why, leading him to other vampires (and some killer fight scenes), and try to find out who or what created vampires, and was there a way to reverse it? Sigh...

This movie basically takes place in a hospital, a dark road and loft, or wherever he can have sex. There's a pretty nice chase scene through the city and his tricks, or powers, are pretty cool and a high point when they're shown. When they're shown, is the key phrase. But overall, the film was good. Acting good. CGI was good. The naked chick was great.

I give it 3.5 out of 5 stars.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB