Horror Movie Reviews

Gaudiness, soft focus photography, an overemphasis on zoom shots (especially as far as shocked faces are concerned), awful (stilted) dialogue and a lot of old mansion baroque (seventies style). Reading that you might have mistaken this strange film for a hybrid of "Love Boat", "Murder she Wrote" (minus an iota of coherence) and, perhaps, a snuff film (well, the sensibility thereof at least). The film does have some merits as an unintentional comedy, and the opening minutes are eerie (before that damned zoom function starts taking a front seat). The constant and consistent zooming in and out and in and out, peripeteia, is more than a little annoying after a while, it spoils the film somewhat. Overall, a decent venture, worth a look if you're into seventies kitsch or want to see what all the fuss was about. The DVD quality is awful (soft image, a lot of colour bleed, with no acceptible black levels, evidence of minor print damage and mono-sound): if only those folks at Anchor Bay had got a hold of it first, natch.

I saw House of exorcism and I think it's pretty bad... But what is the deal to order the 2 movies Pack at 36$ when each of them are 13.50$ if you buy them separatly????

On tour in Italy, Lisa Reiner first sees a fresco of the devil carrying away the dead. "The face of Satan expresses a quality that reflects the pleasure in evil," says the tour guide. The local villagers also believe that "only the power of the devil keeps the fresco from ruin." Later, Lisa encounters a bald man in a shop who resembles Satan in the fresco. She later sees him carrying and talking to a dummy he was examining in the shop.

It gets weirder. Lisa then encounters a living likeness of the dummy, a guy who kind of looks like Omar Sharif, who calls her Elena! She is very freaked out and flees. However, she is unable to find the main square. She fortunately gets a ride from Francis and Sophia Lehar in a nice classic car resembling a Model A or T. The car makes its way to a large desolate country mansion, where the butler is none other than the dummy-carrying stranger! Not only that, a sensitive young man sees her and also calls her Elena! What is going on here?

"The entire setting is right for a tall tale with a setting of gloom and tradition," says Sophia while at dinner. We have the right ingredients, a dark night, this house, it's all so spooky!" That about sums up the atmosphere for this movie, where things go from weird to weirder, with a murder that starts the ball of madness rolling.

Lisa And The Devil underwent quite a butchering under American hands, where much of the original was cut, with extra scenes with Robert Alda as Father Michael were added to become House Of Exorcism, which was the original title of Bava's film. Never fear--this is the original uncut version.

Also included after the movie are three scenes cut as they were thought to be too explicit for a "mainstream horror film": an explicit sex scene, the more gory parts of a murder, and a bedroom scene. Including these things in the final cut might have spiced things up just a wee bit.

If the love theme to the movie is familiar, it is Rodrigo's "Concierto of Aranjuez," the tune forming the highlight of Miles Davis's Sketches Of Spain. Of the performers, Telly Savalas comes off best as the lollipop-sucking Leandro the butler. Was this a prelude to Kojak, I wonder? This is his show all the way. Alessio Orani portrays Maximilian as a tortured soul, a sensitive young man living under the thrall of death. And yet another sinister role for Alida Valli (the Contessa), best known for coming out in Dario Argento's Suspiria and Inferno. Despite being pretty, neither Elke Sommer (Lisa) nor Sylvia Koscina (Sophia) shine bright, displaying a hollow, antiseptic beauty.

More a psychological, atmospheric thriller like Black Sunday, but not as good despite being in colour. It will take at least two or three viewings for the movie to make sense, and given time, one may like this better, but what a twist ending!

Gaudiness, soft focus photography, an overemphasis on zoom shots (especially as far as shocked faces are concerned), awful (stilted) dialogue and a lot of old mansion baroque (seventies style). Reading that you might have mistaken this strange film for a hybrid of "Love Boat", "Murder she Wrote" (minus an iota of coherence) and, perhaps, a snuff film (well, the sensibility thereof at least). The film does have some merits as an unintentional comedy, and the opening minutes are eerie (before that damned zoom function starts taking a front seat). The constant and consistent zooming in and out and in and out, peripeteia, is more than a little annoying after a while, it spoils the film somewhat. Overall, a decent venture, worth a look if you're into seventies kitsch or want to see what all the fuss was about. The DVD quality is awful (soft image, a lot of colour bleed, with no acceptible black levels, evidence of minor print damage and mono-sound): if only those folks at Anchor Bay had got a hold of it first, natch.

I saw House of exorcism and I think it's pretty bad... But what is the deal to order the 2 movies Pack at 36$ when each of them are 13.50$ if you buy them separatly????

On tour in Italy, Lisa Reiner first sees a fresco of the devil carrying away the dead. "The face of Satan expresses a quality that reflects the pleasure in evil," says the tour guide. The local villagers also believe that "only the power of the devil keeps the fresco from ruin." Later, Lisa encounters a bald man in a shop who resembles Satan in the fresco. She later sees him carrying and talking to a dummy he was examining in the shop.

It gets weirder. Lisa then encounters a living likeness of the dummy, a guy who kind of looks like Omar Sharif, who calls her Elena! She is very freaked out and flees. However, she is unable to find the main square. She fortunately gets a ride from Francis and Sophia Lehar in a nice classic car resembling a Model A or T. The car makes its way to a large desolate country mansion, where the butler is none other than the dummy-carrying stranger! Not only that, a sensitive young man sees her and also calls her Elena! What is going on here?

"The entire setting is right for a tall tale with a setting of gloom and tradition," says Sophia while at dinner. We have the right ingredients, a dark night, this house, it's all so spooky!" That about sums up the atmosphere for this movie, where things go from weird to weirder, with a murder that starts the ball of madness rolling.

Lisa And The Devil underwent quite a butchering under American hands, where much of the original was cut, with extra scenes with Robert Alda as Father Michael were added to become House Of Exorcism, which was the original title of Bava's film. Never fear--this is the original uncut version.

Also included after the movie are three scenes cut as they were thought to be too explicit for a "mainstream horror film": an explicit sex scene, the more gory parts of a murder, and a bedroom scene. Including these things in the final cut might have spiced things up just a wee bit.

If the love theme to the movie is familiar, it is Rodrigo's "Concierto of Aranjuez," the tune forming the highlight of Miles Davis's Sketches Of Spain. Of the performers, Telly Savalas comes off best as the lollipop-sucking Leandro the butler. Was this a prelude to Kojak, I wonder? This is his show all the way. Alessio Orani portrays Maximilian as a tortured soul, a sensitive young man living under the thrall of death. And yet another sinister role for Alida Valli (the Contessa), best known for coming out in Dario Argento's Suspiria and Inferno. Despite being pretty, neither Elke Sommer (Lisa) nor Sylvia Koscina (Sophia) shine bright, displaying a hollow, antiseptic beauty.

More a psychological, atmospheric thriller like Black Sunday, but not as good despite being in colour. It will take at least two or three viewings for the movie to make sense, and given time, one may like this better, but what a twist ending!

Little Michael has everything his ten-year-old heart could desire - including a great dinner every night. But soon he questions where all the "leftovers" come from and discovers that his dad is bringing home much more than the bacon. Yikes, his parents are cannibals!

I feel I made a good synopsis on this film. That is the trick people will do, to get people to watch their films. Obviously I made the wrong choice on agreeing to rent this. This film was so boring. I can't believe anyone else liked it. I just can't believe I'm the only one who couldn't stand it.

The only good part is the ending. Throughout the movie I was thinking about how stupid I was for renting this. It was too weird and stupid to take seriously. I would assume only a younger child would like this because of how bizarre it is.

Do yourself a favor and rent this on a two-for-one night. I know that I'll never rent this movie again. Even if my life depends on it. It's too much torture sitting there for half an hour watching a movie like PARENTS. I'm just glad I know what it's like now, so I'll never have to worry about renting it again.

I hope my review was helpful to you!

Parents is a fantastic film with alot of exciting moments. If you like comedy with horror BUY THIS ONE!!!!!

Parents is one of those rare film gems that, although is masterfully crafted, may never get the recognition it deserves. It's a 'film', not a 'movie'. It is a horror film, psychologically and with a bit of grossness thrown in. It really tells the tale of idle young minds which can stagnate and rot in the tepid pools of parental medicority - probably secretly funded by wealthy vegetarians. The boy has a lot going on inside his head - just like his father's boss tells him about his father. Worth owning - especially if you can get a DVD copy.

The entire religion-based horror genre (exorcist, bless the child, ninth gate, etc.) has always bored... me. It seems they are always very slow paced and are nearly always written by people who have no idea what they are writing about.

I have found two exceptions to this, one being Stigmata, and the other Steve Miner's Warlock.

Warlock is not terribly original, nor is it incredibly well written, but its sure a fun ride. My biggest problem with the film is Julian Sands playing the title character. We are supposed to believe this skinny, geeky-looking, long haired blond is scary. HA! That's funny. But if you can get passed that the story is pretty cool. Satan's son is sent into the future to gather pages from the satanic bible (which if put together can undo creaton). Along with him comes a 16th century demon-hunter, played excellently by Richard E. Grant. Sands takes residence with Lori Singer and her gay roommate, who is soon killed by the warlock in a most spectacular manner. More killings ensue (including J.T. from Step by Step as a little boy!)
The film combines comedy, action, and horror brilliantly and never lets the audience get bored.

I reccomend this film to anyone looking for a fun friday night with a taste of blood.

This movie have meant a lot to me over the ages. Sands best film ever (with Phantom of the Opera as second). He have a great carisma that is unusual when thinking of all mainstream-actors that is out there. And when a movie also deal with my favorite subject it's even better. I myself own a copy of the Grand Grimoire (it isn't that hard to find it as in the movie!) and The Key of Solomon. Too bad they use the name Book of Shadows (which is widely used today as a general term for a witch's personal spellbook), but in general people don't know such things. Anyway, I think it still is one of my favorite movies even if it's old. Go and see it and get inspired! But do not follow the Left Path though :-)

I bought this movie off of Amazon because it looked good.It was AWSOME!Ask anyone who's seen it and they will tell you they loved it!Julian Sands makes a great Warlock!It is very creepy and there are a few scenes that will make you jump.Well you probably get the picture,it rules!Any true horror fan will not be disappointed!In shorter words,JUST GET IT!

I so wanted to love this film, there's so much in it that could make it a personal favorite, but the director's use of blurred pixelled-up images constantly took me right out of the story. There is great mood, acting, ideas and dialogue, but whenever there is conflict or eroticism brewing the screen becomes murky and thick with large squared pixels that blur action to the point where at times you cannot tell which character is doing what. The screen often remains muddled for two or three minutes and there is an important sequence at the vampire's mansion where the screen remains like this for nearly ten infuriating minutes and I began shouting at the screen. I just can't for the life of me figure out what the director was trying to accomplish by destroying the visual images of his story. A few seconds here and there to indicate the vampire's perspective--though, if anything, a vampire's senses should sharpen when blood and skin are to be revealed--would have been more than enough to make his point. I recently tried a second viewing because I really do want to love this film but ended up twice as infuriated and left wondering what statement thick black squares have to make about eroticism and violence.

"Nadja" was yet another movie that I bought on the spur of the moment because of some of its high reviews. While not a bad purchase, it was a little too artsy for me, mainly because of its overuse of pixel-vision. One moment the screen would be in black-and-white, then suddenly go grainy. It was more of an eyestrain than good artistic expression, and I wasn't quite sure what the purpose of it was, or whose viewpoint it was meant to be, if it was even supposed to be of someone's.

Belying its moody black-and-white cinematography (which is one of the movie's strengths), "Nadja" has a lot of tongue-in-cheek black humor. It's rarely scary--unless you count the bad acting and script--and should appeal to viewers who like relatively low-key, surreal vampire flicks. It's not surprising David Lynch had a hand in this movie. He even makes a two-line cameo as the morgue receptionist.

Even after just watching "Nadja" a few moments ago, I still can't recall the exact plot of it, but I'll try to summarize the events anyway. Near the beginning, Nadja's father (Count Dracula) is killed, having been staked by Van Helsing (Peter Fonda), a vampire-hunter. Nadja (Elina Löwensohn) then goes in search of her ill twin brother, Edgar (Jared Harris), who is being tended by his nurse, Cassandra (Suzy Amis), in Brooklyn. (For some reason, Nadja and Edgar don't get along. Apparently, he thinks she's pure evil.)

Before she finds him though, Nadja seduces a young woman named Lucy (Galaxy Craze--is this even her real name?) and turns her into a zombie. Lucy's husband, Jim (Martin Donovan), joins up with his uncle, the above-mentioned Van Hellsing--who is actually his father (weird "Star Wars"-esque moment here)--and they follow a hypnotized Lucy to Nadja's place. The movie then wraps up in Nadja's native land (Transylvania, who'd have guessed it) in a somewhat predictable ending.

While watching this movie, you'll probably notice how practically every character is related, from the two bastard child of Count Dracula to the mousy nurse and her vampire-hunting relatives; it was all a little too absurd. Yet vampire fans should like this one, especially considering all the attractive actors/actresses in it--it's all eye candy. Rated R for some profanity and blood-drinking (including a lesbian menstruation bit); unfortunately, the blurry pixel-vision ruins most of the graphic scenes.

This is definately a classic vampire movie. The story is unique & facinating. The director used a Pixel 2000 when telling the story through Nadja's eyes...hence the pixel usage. (The Pixel 2000 was a toy video camera Fisher Price released in the 80's). Personally, I think it gives a fabulous perspective to the film. If you are into films that are gothic, intense, & have many layers, you will like this film.

I liked it. It wasn't as good as my Boss made it sound but it
was worthy of a bag of popcorn. I will never look at cabbage
the same way again. It is not a good movie to watch alone.
I watched it alone the 4th time and I could not sleep at all
that night, but I also was having cramps so it could have been
the beans I had for supper. I just hope they don't make a movie
about me someday.

MOTEL HELL is the most hilarious of the 80's B movies. You have got to love this one, as Farmer Vincent routinely preys upon passers buy...so that he can create new flavors of "jerky."
A great end sequence with dueling chainsaws and gore!
This DVD is a double feature...containing "deranged" a spin off of the true storey of Ed Gein..the quasy-canibal/ necrophile!
This just adds another star to the rating!
A GREAT FILM FOR THE KIDS!

Deranged is one of the best films I have ever seen. It will stay in your mind and make you want to learn more about the real man the film is based on. This is horror at it's best. Better than Silence of the Lambs, better than Texas Chainsaw Massacre and I would even say it goes beyond Psycho on my list. As for Motel Hell...well did I mention Deranged is SPECTACULAR?

Bad News: this kind of movie isn't typically very good. If you like semi horror/suspense movies, it's great. Just be aware that it's that kind of movie.

"Arachnophobia" is a suspense movie with all the elements of a classic horror movie: a small town, a Bad Thing happening, a local hero (Jeff Daniels) that nobody wants to believe, a wise professor to help him out, a jolly fellow for plucky comic relief, and a man vs. beast showdown at the end. But instead of trying to scare you with an extremely scary monster or super-human psychopath, this movie uses more tactfull suspense (and a more realistic enemy--there are some pretty nasty real spiders out there). Everyone shakes in their boots waiting for the venomous spider to bite the old guy's toe, because they just KNOW it's going to happen.

If you only buy movies that are really good and plan to watch 100 times, just rent this one. If you are even the slightest sort of movie buff and have ever bought a movie to fill a "gap" in the collection, Arachnaphobia is a fun, ocasionally funny, and creepy movie that uses classic elements with style.

This is a solid piece of quality filmaking and i believe it presses all the right buttons, if not being exactly spectacular.
The plot: an expedition team to the deepest jungles of South America discover what they believe to be a new species of spider. On the way back to camp, a gargantuan tarantula hitches a ride on the team's equipment housing, and promptly bites a member of the crew, killing him on the spot with it's deadly poison. Unknown to the team, the same spider stows away in the man's coffin. The exact same coffin is shipped back to a small sleepy little wilderness town, where by coincidence an arachnophobic doctor played by Jeff Daniels has just moved in. The large spider escapes from the coffin and mates with a local spider, creating hundreds of deadly-poisonous baby spiders and mayhem ensues all over the town.
Contrary to the image this all may conjure up, this is actually a well constructed and clever little fim, which instead of the recently avaliable on video and DVD 'Eight-Legged Freaks', uses suspense instead of action as it's main weapon. And it uses it well. Obviously, comparisions between arachnophobia and ELF will be, of course, made, and if i had to make one i would say this is the marginally better film. It is not a spectacular film, and contains little big set-pices or FX, but is heavy on dialogue, suspense and does produce shocks a-plenty. The spiders in question are not huge as in ELF, but tiny and deadly poisonous. There are only a handful of deaths in the film, which may seem low, but a suspenseful film like this does not need gore or action to be scary. As in most horror-type films, it's what you can't see that is the most scary, rather than what you can. This is a film that will have you checking all your dark corners of the house with a long broom handle to make sure they are free of spiders totally, and frightened me when i first saw it, being a sort of low-case arachnophobe myself.
This film is actually hugely different to most of it's competitors in the genre, not FX laden or gore-splattered, but finely set up and crafted. Although it is somewhat wasted on DVD, due to the type of film it is, it is a great addition to any collection and i would highly recommend this to most people, particularly horror buffs or people who, indeed, like this sort of thing. I think arachnophobia is one of the best horror-comedies ever made, being as it is, a scary yet tongue-in-cheek film. Arachnphobia is definately a fine film, and is not too scary to be a family film either, making it a versatile piece of cinema. A word of warning though: do NOT show this to any pople who are very highly arachnphobic, as the end sequence will have them sleepless nights for a long time afterwards.

Out of all the movies that have been re-released out on DVD, this has to be one of the ones I'm most grateful for. It's been years since I saw this movie last, but when I saw it for sale, I could not resisit the urge to buy it. This film is fantastic. Jeff Daniels is surprisingly good, and helps to carry the movie along well. The entire cast is rather zany, and that really makes it a great movie to watch. The plot revolves around incredibly venomous spiders from Argentina who have cross-breeded with a common house spider here in America. Jeff Daniels plays a doctor who suffers from arachnophobia. Hence you can see where this is going. Daniels ineviatbly has to face his fear and the results are funny, tense, and frightening. If you are afraid of spiders, I wouldn't watch this movie, it seriously can frighten you. But, John Goodman appears as Delbert to liven things up and make the atmosphere more humerous. Topped off with a very good soundtrack, this movie is far beyond your average horror flick. Sit back and enjoy this one, it's excellent.

Has it been that long since I sat stoned watching this on it's release in 3-D? I was 17 years old and just learning about Warhol as an artist and filmmaker. This was the first film he was associated with that I saw in a theater. I was blown away. Watching it now through adult eyes after all these years doesn't blow me away but I appreciate it still on a different level. The snots who put this film down don't have a clue. It's not for everyone but what is? The over-the-top gore, the characters and the acting are pure camp. Even the non-acting of Joe Dallesandro is part of the whole effect. The campy over-acting of Monique Von Vooren and Udo Keir are part of the skewed approach to the material as well. (Speaking of Von Vooren, the only other film I know of she was in was as the She-Devil in 1953's "Tarzan and the She-Devil" with Lex Barker.) "Flesh" is tongue-in-cheek and meant I think as a satire on art films as a genre using the Frankenstein motif as a springboard. Warhol made his career satirizing art and Paul Morrissey was the perfect director for this film endeavor. Nothing is taken seriously except the superb photography (which is quite beautiful) and perhaps the music score which works very well. But if I'm wrong in my theory and it's horror films being satirized as "art" then for me it still works because I still find it very off-beat and a fun film to watch anyway---even after 29 years. I look at it as a very, very black comedy as well as a satire on "art" films. Utterly tasteless yet enjoyable because it's all a spoof. And a good one at that. But as I said, it's not for every taste---but then, what is? As for Criterion's DVD presentation, it's OK but they could've done better with the print.

This masterpiece will have your sides splitting (no pun)--

Basic premise-- Frankenstein lives in a nondescript east european castle with his wife/sister/baroness (who enjoys taking extensive rides in a shetland pony driven carriage), 2 damien-esque children, & a manservant Igor... in his lab he is constructing the ultimate male & female super humans from the best body parts of several subjects... frankenstein is in need of a head for his male monster, but unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how your mind works) the head he picks is that of a would-be monk with a propensity to admiring joe dellesandro's buns.. and so the fun begins...

best lines --

Frankenstein: "two women--he must be very powerful", "there he comes", "KISS HIM!", "my wife... my seestah" --

The baroness : "what's goin on here"(spoken as a line straight out of a 70s porn flick), "how DARE you... you TRASH" --

Monique van Vooren, i am now convinced, was born to play the baroness-- and it must be, because i haven't seen her in anything else -- she is arguably the campiest female lead in film history, though elizabeth berkeley in "showgirls" runs a close second (and i would gladly argue such matters with anyone who's brain is warped enough to be concerned with such issues)

And the two demon children are perfectly twisted, and I especially like the scene with the bats (I can almost see the nylon strings)--

No particular explanation as to why igor freaks out at the end

I recommend watching this in an altered state of mind, though be forewarned- if you are not in the right frame of mind, you might have a bad trip... otherwise you will be laughing till it hurts

just the scene with the stitches still freaks me out (snip, snip, snip)ugh-- i think they may have edited that out of some versions -- it's still pretty sickening, even by today's standards (or maybe i was just too toasted):)

FIVE FAB STARS

Brilliant film from director Paul Morrisey.Udo Keir is outstanding as the misunderstood Baron.He's hilarious in fact,especially when chiding his assisstant Otto.Everything about this comes together really well-music,art direction,cinematography are all first-rate.The score especially is one of the most beautiful I've ever heard.Be warned though:very,very strong stomachs are required but once seen this film is not easily forgotten.

*
Okay... so everybody's going ga-ga over this "Stephen Cloud" guy, whoever dahell he is.
Okay... so everybody's jamming about how great a movie this is and how much it "rocks."
Okay... so everybody and their house cat are "recommending" it.

Okay... fine. Just one question:

WOULD SOMEBODY PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT THE HELL THE MOVIE IS ABOUT!!!!

Accolades mean NOTHING if the "rest of us" have absolutely NO IDEA what the story is! Imagine if everyone dumped heaps of praise on the movie "DEEP THROAT," then someone went into to it with the idea that it was probably going to be a movie about the Nixon/Watergate leak, because nobody bothered to mention anything about the film's plot or content. That's the situation we have here.

So "HALLOW'S END" is a "horror" movie. Okay, but that's "ALL" the "rest of us" know about it until somebody breaks the pattern and tells "the rest of us" a little something about the movie itself other than "Stevie Clod is soooooo HOT!"

I watched this movie and I have to admit, that Stephen Cloud is damn cool. His acting was great, and he tried his best to help the story along. This was the worst movie lighting I've ever seen. You can't see anyone. But Stephen Cloud's acting was very good throughout the movie and I definitely think he's going places quick.

Listen up, folks, almost every review I've read on Amazon (no matter what the movie) is whining and squealing about how there is not enough character development. Now, finally a movie comes along like Hallow's End that has as much character development as any movie I can remember (hey, let's give the audience characters to actually CARE about, what an idea), and some of the reviews are complaining about there being too much character development!! What a joke!! Take the movie for what it is, a Halloween bloodbath with lesbian action and characters we care about. The acting was subtly better than a lot of you are giving credit for, especially Stephen Cloud and Matt Moore. Cloud is going to be a star sooner rather than later people!! I can't wait to see his next project, I will be there opening night! Don't listen to the hating Cloud, just reach for the stars!!

Although the premise of this movie was interesting in and of itself, the execution was drawn out way too much.

Aside from bland to melodramatic to horrible acting, the beginning of the film, while it explains and give us an idea of the main characters, it does it too much, adding useless scenes that could have been taken out or done more "to the point". If the exposition is TOO MUCH of an exposition, in other words, if the begining of the movie throws in your face the characters and who they are, being all too well aware that that's all it's there for, it becomes boring. The begining, should, in my opinion, not only give us a well-rounded look of the main characters (and ONLY the main characters - lest you spread yourself or the script too thinly) but be in some way related to the rest of the film. In Habit, this is not true. I was too much aware that the first 20 minutes was simply to get the characters, their motivations, etc. out of the way, so that you could understand them, which is fine. The problem, really, for me, is that it's done in a way that does NOT set the mood for the rest of the film and does NOT introduce anything of real interest. About 5 minutes of the first 20 minutes was really necessary.

Basically, they movie should have started about 15 minutes after it actually did.

I DID force myself to watch the entire movie, but as another reviewer noted, the tone throughout the film it bland and monotonous.

Honestly this isn't a true vampire film but it is an exotic and independent effort. The acting from the main characters was mediocure with the exception of Anna. Anna ws the vampire woman and she wasn't a very good actress. Being that this was her first role it is somewhat excusable. But I will tell you one thing about the directer's choice in casting her. She was very exotic looking and unisex, She was a woman in deed but there was something unusual about her appearance. Through the movie there were hints that she was Bi sexual,but there was never an illustration. Anna was indeed an alluring woman and to some extent made the movie believable and interesting. Basically she had sex with this guy but never told him her secret. In exchange she took a little blood from him each time while they were in ectasy with one another, Way to do it HUh? Well anyway he began to get real sick and drained. And that is when he realized who and what she was doing. When he threatens to leave her and go back to his X that is when the mystery and Mayhem unravels! Anna doesn't take No for an answer in this film. But the sad part about it all she was lonley and she really loved him but she didn't give him a choice. I think this is a good movie, but you have to except that this is a sick love story not a horror movie.

Arish

This is probably one of the best relationship movies I've ever seen. A couple falls in love, it's intense, but she's hurting him. Is it on purpose? Is she a vampire? The vampire metaphor makes for an amazing comparison to modern realtionships. In the beginning of an intense relationship, real issues of trust and paranoia can arise. How vulnerable do you want to make yourself to this new person? This movie captures those feelings and so much more in an exciting, fresh way.