Greetings and salutations; welcome to my review of Thirst 1979
The story gets a 1.25 out of 2: The Direction and Pace receive a 2.5 out of 4: The Performances get a 1 out of 2: And my Enjoyment level hits a 1.25 out of 2:
Giving Thirst a 6 out of 10:
To be honest, I wasn't expecting much from this picture, and I recently came across the title. Admittedly, I dislike it when writers begin messing around with a monsters mythos: in this case, the Vampyre. I was surprised to find myself being drawn deeper into the progressing tale. John Pinkney carries out a splendid job of constructing a modern Vampyre fable. These are not your night-stalking blood drinkers. No! These creatures can walk by day and have developed an ominous way of farming their beverage of necessity. These thieves of life discover Kate Davis to be the only surviving descendant of the notorious Elizabeth Bathory, and they undertake anything to usher her into their fold. So will the industrial and corporate side of vampirism defeat the older Monarchy's rule? Though this modern take is a breath of fresh air to the sub-genre, there is more to keep your attention. Pinkney adds nightmare scenes and elaborate operatic rituals, which adds to the strength of the story.
The strength of the film comes from Rod Hardy as he directs with a deft hand. On the whole, he keeps the direction pretty standard, which helps to build a feeling of normalcy into the telling. When something shocking happens, it's not overemphasised, and you're left temporarily believing it could happen. But when we get to the nightmare sections, the lights are lowered, and the shadows grow deep and ominous. It's subtle but represents such a contrast to the norm it works to heighten the tension.
I will furthermore say Thirst possesses one of the best opening sequences of any horror film. I loved it. It's the ideal way to hook the viewer. That said, there were times when the film could have upped the tempo a tad. A few overly long scenes begin tapping at dullness's door. But they are few.
One irk I did have with the film is that, even though it's not a special effects showcase, the effects they did show were poor: The double exposure red-eyes made me sigh with disgrace. Granted, at the time, they couldn't have done it any other way. But still, it would have looked dated then as it does today.
Next, there's the acting. I am sure Hardy asked them to be as utterly every day as they could be. Because of this, there's little spark in their personalities. Dr Fraser (David Hemmings) furthers his agenda for helping Kate (Chantel Contouri), but you don't feel he's that driven. And, the characters in the movie suffer from the same malady: Everyone needed a bit more oomph to them. It helps to create the normalcy of the happenings on the farm; everyone is going about their ordinary lives. However, in one scene, a walking blood bottle asks Kate to be kind to his friend because she would be frightened. After all, Kate had chosen her to be the one. This mundanity at knowing you're nothing more than a walking supply of blood is annoying. Nobody in the herd is rising against their suckers. It's merely life Jim, but not as we know it. Hence, when there should be conflict, no matter how small, there's just this plodding normality.
This downside could be due to the writing or the direction. But my point is the actors and actresses are so good at being ordinary that it hurts the film. I can't believe I'm saying this, but a smidgen of wooden or ham acting would have been nice. Not everybody is this mundane.
It's a minor issue though, and I would recommend all horror and macabre lovers to give Thirst a viewing, at least once. Who knows, you may enjoy it so much you may even take a second or third look.
Come on over to my Killer Thriller Chiller and Absolute Horror lists to see where Thirst resides in my charts.
Take Care & Stay Well.
The story gets a 1.25 out of 2: The Direction and Pace receive a 2.5 out of 4: The Performances get a 1 out of 2: And my Enjoyment level hits a 1.25 out of 2:
Giving Thirst a 6 out of 10:
To be honest, I wasn't expecting much from this picture, and I recently came across the title. Admittedly, I dislike it when writers begin messing around with a monsters mythos: in this case, the Vampyre. I was surprised to find myself being drawn deeper into the progressing tale. John Pinkney carries out a splendid job of constructing a modern Vampyre fable. These are not your night-stalking blood drinkers. No! These creatures can walk by day and have developed an ominous way of farming their beverage of necessity. These thieves of life discover Kate Davis to be the only surviving descendant of the notorious Elizabeth Bathory, and they undertake anything to usher her into their fold. So will the industrial and corporate side of vampirism defeat the older Monarchy's rule? Though this modern take is a breath of fresh air to the sub-genre, there is more to keep your attention. Pinkney adds nightmare scenes and elaborate operatic rituals, which adds to the strength of the story.
The strength of the film comes from Rod Hardy as he directs with a deft hand. On the whole, he keeps the direction pretty standard, which helps to build a feeling of normalcy into the telling. When something shocking happens, it's not overemphasised, and you're left temporarily believing it could happen. But when we get to the nightmare sections, the lights are lowered, and the shadows grow deep and ominous. It's subtle but represents such a contrast to the norm it works to heighten the tension.
I will furthermore say Thirst possesses one of the best opening sequences of any horror film. I loved it. It's the ideal way to hook the viewer. That said, there were times when the film could have upped the tempo a tad. A few overly long scenes begin tapping at dullness's door. But they are few.
One irk I did have with the film is that, even though it's not a special effects showcase, the effects they did show were poor: The double exposure red-eyes made me sigh with disgrace. Granted, at the time, they couldn't have done it any other way. But still, it would have looked dated then as it does today.
Next, there's the acting. I am sure Hardy asked them to be as utterly every day as they could be. Because of this, there's little spark in their personalities. Dr Fraser (David Hemmings) furthers his agenda for helping Kate (Chantel Contouri), but you don't feel he's that driven. And, the characters in the movie suffer from the same malady: Everyone needed a bit more oomph to them. It helps to create the normalcy of the happenings on the farm; everyone is going about their ordinary lives. However, in one scene, a walking blood bottle asks Kate to be kind to his friend because she would be frightened. After all, Kate had chosen her to be the one. This mundanity at knowing you're nothing more than a walking supply of blood is annoying. Nobody in the herd is rising against their suckers. It's merely life Jim, but not as we know it. Hence, when there should be conflict, no matter how small, there's just this plodding normality.
This downside could be due to the writing or the direction. But my point is the actors and actresses are so good at being ordinary that it hurts the film. I can't believe I'm saying this, but a smidgen of wooden or ham acting would have been nice. Not everybody is this mundane.
It's a minor issue though, and I would recommend all horror and macabre lovers to give Thirst a viewing, at least once. Who knows, you may enjoy it so much you may even take a second or third look.
Come on over to my Killer Thriller Chiller and Absolute Horror lists to see where Thirst resides in my charts.
Take Care & Stay Well.