Bloodknot

Audience Reviews

View More

Briana I. @Anaire May 23 This movie was very interestingly bad! The acting was so bad it was hard to watch but something about the characters made it somewhat tolerable. So the only one who did a decent job acting was Julie played by Krista Bridges and it felt like they either over sexualized Nancy Cser's character Connie or being overly sexual is her only range, I am unsure because that's the only film I saw her in, either way it was pretty bad. So my overall opinion is that the 2006 movie Irresistible with Susan Sarandon and Emily Blunt was way better, they had the same exact plot but the execution of the entire movie from acting to just everything was much more entertaining. This movie was so bad towards the last 15 minutes it became comical, for instance the last scene when Julie and Connie are tussling down the stairs, I guess the director or camera guy didn't notice the fake knife bending on the floor it was hilarious to see such an epic fail in film making. None the less I finished the movie. See more Braxton M @RT41436031 Jun 7 Decent enough for a five star. See more 12/13/2019 I must to see this film to say my comments See more 02/11/2011 Terrible acting, and essentially an adult Poison Ivy. Honestly, figuring out Connie's motive was the only thing that was of any interest. The rest is sheer rubbish. See more 04/14/2010 I had a really fun time watching this movie for several reasons: 1. The score was awesome. 90s B-movie awesome, of course, with plenty of Psycho-inspired ree-rees and jazz flute and faraway-sounding dramatic baby laughter and Lifetime-y schmaltz synth. 2. The twist--I'm not sure it was a twist, per se because I think maybe we were meant to know beforehand--was telegraphed so early that it provided some really fun/grotesque dramatic irony. It had me yelling at the screen, "Don't do it! Yuck! No!" (I won't reveal the almost twist, though.) 3. Margot Kidder is terrible. I'm not convinced she was not on heavy sedatives during the filming of this movie. She really looked pained to be in it. She also had me yelling at the screen, "Why are you running, Margot? Where are you going, Margot? Are those dentures, Margot?" Fun. 4. I love it when the good girl has to resort to using the bad girl's tactics, and of course that happens. Additionally, the good girl (played by someone who could be Ellen Barkin's baby sister) and the bad girl (played by someone who could be Kate Capshaw's baby sister) both turned in compelling performances. The bad girl also had great eyebrows, which she used to superb femme fatale effect. And everyone had chemistry. The movie was very well-cast, in general. Except for poor somnambulant Margot. Ok, now the bad parts: 1. A repeating cycle of nudity and yucky sex. 2. Patrick Dempsey. I hate that guy. Also, this movie's 1995 release date means that his wardrobe is grungy. 3. I wish the plot would've been plotted tighter and thrillinglier. Mostly it was edge-the-seat stuff, but it could've been trimmed. And Margot needed to be in it more to stiffly chew up the scenery. Why didn't they give her more ridiculous stuff to do? Maybe she wasn't willing to do any yucky sex scenes, like the rest of the actors. 4. What's with the weird anti-adoption message? See more 02/28/2008 Too melodramatic. But I liked it. See more Read all reviews

Bloodknot

My Rating

Read More Read Less WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW POST RATING