Let's make one thing clear right at the start: this is not a good film.
There is nothing new or inventive about this film. I do not mind film- makers using old-and-tried tropes IF they use them to make a polished and accomplished B-movie. But in cases like The Bleeding, where mediocrity was all that ever seemed achievable (or worth aiming for) for everyone involved, you need to come up with something new: low budget needs to be outweighed by higher creativity. But there is nothing creative about this script or this film. It has a very average "seen-it-before" plot, and many things in this film I consider well below average (writing, directing, etc.).
However, there are worse films than this, so 1-star-ratings do not seem justified to me. This is probably a 3 out of 10; I gave it one extra star for Michael Madsen's performance, who - unlike Vinnie Jones - actually put in some effort.
There is nothing new or inventive about this film. I do not mind film- makers using old-and-tried tropes IF they use them to make a polished and accomplished B-movie. But in cases like The Bleeding, where mediocrity was all that ever seemed achievable (or worth aiming for) for everyone involved, you need to come up with something new: low budget needs to be outweighed by higher creativity. But there is nothing creative about this script or this film. It has a very average "seen-it-before" plot, and many things in this film I consider well below average (writing, directing, etc.).
However, there are worse films than this, so 1-star-ratings do not seem justified to me. This is probably a 3 out of 10; I gave it one extra star for Michael Madsen's performance, who - unlike Vinnie Jones - actually put in some effort.