Customer Reviews

Bloodthirst: Legend of the Chupacabras

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

If you have seen any of J. R. Bookwalter's early "Ohio" films (e.g. "Chickboxer,") you know about low-budget filmmaking. The Bookwalter films are not very good even by his own standards, but stand the test of time as amusing cheese. Bookwalter has nothing on Jonathan Mumm, creator of "Bloodthirst" for Z-grade filmmaking on a miniscule budget. The big difference is that Bookwalter's films are amusing as camp, where "Bloodthirst" is a patently trying experience. I have rated it two stars for two reasons: first, I like to encourage independent filmmakers; second, there are several wholly unintentional moments of hilarity to be found here.

The production, acting, sound, and image quality are incredibly amateurish, and it really is like watching a home video. The film revolves around the existence of a chupacabra in an old mine, and the subplots run all over the place, trampling the movie into submission: there's a murder (and vampiritic resurrection,) the lamest bar fight ever, the stupidest newspaper journalism subplot in recent memory, a vampire who looks like a fratboy on a bender, and even a crazy witch called "The Mago," who claims that the chupacabra is a hungry pet left on Earth by space aliens! Beyond that, I can't really tell you much about the plot as it makes next to no sense whatsoever. My favorite diversion in the drunkenly-reeling storyline was when a group of investigators (including two reporters) decide to go after the chupacabra, who by all accounts lives in a cave, which may or may not be a gold mine, too: I was a bit unclear on what parts of the story were legendary and which are not within the framework of the film. What better vehicle, then, to hunt for the goat sucker but in a World War Two DUKW amphibious vehicle? Yes, they went via a lake on the "Duck Tour" of the chupacabra's home turf, all of which is tenuously related to the mayor's reelection campaign. (Somehow.)

Another motif in the film is that of walking. Mumm shows us seemingly endless shots of people walking all over creation (mostly in the woods.) It may sound boring, but wait until you see it! Eventually there is a convergence of moronic subplots on a rocky outcropping. The Mago (Lenore Sebastian) reveals that she actually is the chupacabra, and a horrifying battle for survival (which includes the least credible hypnosis subplot I can recall) ensues.

This is a terrible movie in every way. If you want serious B-movie pain, this is for you. Thank goodness there's no "Bloodthirst 2." What's that you say? Oh that's right, there is. I watched them back to back in one night. The one takeaway is this: as bad as "Bloodthirst" is, "Bloodthirst 2" is even worse. Believe it or not.

OMG dude this movie sucked bigtime!! "Bloodthirst" was about a stupid, bloodthirsty (duh)monster thing that drains blood from goats. The "Chupacabra" looked like a child in a pink/green rubber suit. It looked like it was filmed with a normal video camera, like a home movie. There were like 2 killings you actually SAW in the whole movie. I strained my eyes to watch the entire movie somehow, and afterward I felt like bashing it to pieces with a crowbar! I just returned it to the movie store instead, and got my precious money back. But seriously, if you see this movie on the shelf in any video store, no matter how low the price is, DON'T BUY IT!!!

i couldnt believe this movie as it started. it was so bad i couldnt turn it off! i loved it! there was so much tongue in cheek i think you have to be intelligent to get it. (and im not insulting those who didnt like it) it wasnt about having good special effects, good god thats what hollywood is for. anytime now i hear "did you hear something?" i crack up. and the first guy to get "sucked" was wearing sheep pajamas and boots! come on, a farmer, wearing sheep pj's..... yes, the movie was out there but if you can handle that, watch it.

I'm probably not the best qualified to write a review of this film, because I haven't seen it. That is to say, I haven't seen all of it. I started to watch it, but I turned it off about half-way through because it simply got too stupid to bear. I'll try to explain at least as far as I got.

Somewhere in Arizona in the foothills fo the Rockies, a sleepy town is being attacked by a bloodthirsty killer. Goats are turning up dead, drained of blood, and the locals are attributing the killings to the creature known as the chupacabra, the goatsucker. Soon, people being turning up dead, also drained of blood (hmmm, there's a surprise). This prompts to editor of a nearby paper to send a reporter to cover the story.

Meanwhile, a prospector passing through town gets wind of a local who might have a map to an abandoned mine that is supposed to be laden with gold (who knows why no one has followed up on this before now?). As it turns out, the old man is a retired vampire hunter and the mine is not a mine, but a cave, the lair of the chupacabra. Do you see where this is heading?

Enter the old gypsy woman, who explains to our heroine (the reporter) that the chupacabra is the pet of creatures from outer space, accidentally left behind on Earth. It is alone, frightened, and hungry. Yeah, okay. Right about here was when I decided that this film had lost any entertainment value, but I pressed on.

The mayor, in a desperate bid for re-election, forms a posse consisting of the gypsy, the vampire hunter, and some others to hunt down the killer (this was his wife's idea), but the vampire hunter discovers the map to the creature's lair missing (it was sold to the prospector by his grandson to get the money to pay his family's rent). They head off anyway, trusting on Gramp's memory to lead them there, I guess. The grandson insists on going, of course. After all, it's his fault that the map is gone. I figure that's the last we'll see of them.

When the corpse of one of the people attacked by the chupacabra rises from the morgue table, complete with extra-long canines and thirsting for blood, I turned it off. I couldn't watch any more. What could have been an entertaining film has degenerated into a poor excuse for a vampire flick.

Overall, I can't recommend this film to anyone. The production values are poor, the actors seem like they're reading thier lines off of cue cards, and the special effects aren't. The creatue looks nothing like the monster shown on the cover (or for that matter, nothing like the chupacabras have been described in folklore). I can't begin to describe what a waste of celluloid this film was. It's something I might have expected and eve tolerated in the 1960s, but not in 2003.

I'm not really sure how to review something that was so unwatchable, I had to force myself to view it all. The production quality (if there is any) is lower than that of your standard adult video, with sound and music that make porn look like "masterpiece theater". Horrendous editing kills more of the victims in the movie than the creatures do, and there are SO MANY characters I felt the movie should have included some sort of chart. For such a neat little myth, it was a terrible try at capturing it. The halfway done CG effects are just embarassingly laughable, as is the acting of everyone in the movie. AVOID THIS MOVIE AT ALL COSTS!

As horror TV host Mr. Lobo says: "They're not bad movies, just misunderstood."
BLOODTHIRST has been getting a lot of negative horror fan website reviews, but those of us who made the movie think it's because it's not being looked at in the right way. It's a horror spoof, first of all, a throwback to the old schlocky monster movies of the 50's where half the fun was laughing at the film's shortcomings! There are a couple of good scares, some laughs and its okay for the whole family. So, please, lighten up and try it again! Thanks.

How could this be horror? No graphic violence, the ending wasn't so good(probably the guy who said "Let's go home" in the ending was going to be a whole new El Chupacabra, because he had blood on his head). The ending SUCKED! Or maybe he was going to be a 3rd Moca Vampire. I would call this movie a horror/mystery/thriller genre. One more question: What does this movie have to do with Cryptozoology?

where to begin! first the creature on the cover is not even in the film!! surprised?? seems like thats the only way horror movies can sell themselves anymore is by putting some cool lookin creature with huge teeth on the cover and the movies not even about a creature that looks anything like it. god what a worthless film!! one of the worst i've seen in a while and i've seen a lot of low budget film. its pretty much a low budget vampire film to be honest. don't even think about checkin this doozy out.