I have to rate in the middle of the road on this one. Everything was fantastic, even when compared to high-budget studio flicks. Classy, yet haunting score, wonderfully lit, skillfully shot, competently edited, and most of all, the acting didn't leave me looking for the door like some indies I've seen.
But the writing surprised the hell out of me in the end. The whole movie was brilliantly written except for the last ten minutes! We had about eighty minutes of suspense, skillfully woven into a plot that automatically draws you in, even if you happen to just be standing in the room (which I was). I was unwittingly drawn into this movie when I wasn't even intending to watch it. That's the mark of a great plot (among other things). But we get to the climax, we found out that the writers' misguided pseudo-Hitchcockian attempt to be avant-garde completely fell flat and left the audience (meaning me) going "what the..."
Hitchcock killed off the main character in the middle of 'Psycho' but quickly replaced her with another before the audience developed an intense and sincere rapport with her. Her character had depth, but not much, which allowed Hichcock to have her die as a plot twist without damaging the value of the story and leaving the audience irritated and confused.
In The Blood's ending was almost subterfuge. We watched as the writer fully developed a character we cared about, and killed him as an experimental ending. The only time you kill off a fully developed character is when their death is either expected, or when the audience realizes ahead of time that it is perfectly reasonable, or imperative, that this character dies, or could die, in order to end the story in the only way it can end.
It's almost as if we were fooled into believing he would survive. For instance, we watched as Cassidy envisioned his sister's death, and we saw Michael holding the gun. Michael had a COMPLETELY different expression on his face in the premonition than he did when he finally shot Cassidy...leading us to incorrectly assume that he intended to kill Jessica rather than defend her. I also believe he may have been wearing a shirt in the premonition (not sure) which he wasn't in the ending.
Then in the final minute, we see a catatonic Jessica rise up and clutch Michael...then have a nosebleed. First of all, Michael would have been in jail pending investigation of manslaughter charges. Secondly, I doubt this girl would be clutching (and, hence the nosebleed, arguably becoming aroused by) the man who accidentally shot her brother the week before.
It would have made more sense to have Michael accidentally kill the hustler. We would have still had a surprise ending, and perhaps a resolution, where we had none before. Ugh!
But the writing surprised the hell out of me in the end. The whole movie was brilliantly written except for the last ten minutes! We had about eighty minutes of suspense, skillfully woven into a plot that automatically draws you in, even if you happen to just be standing in the room (which I was). I was unwittingly drawn into this movie when I wasn't even intending to watch it. That's the mark of a great plot (among other things). But we get to the climax, we found out that the writers' misguided pseudo-Hitchcockian attempt to be avant-garde completely fell flat and left the audience (meaning me) going "what the..."
Hitchcock killed off the main character in the middle of 'Psycho' but quickly replaced her with another before the audience developed an intense and sincere rapport with her. Her character had depth, but not much, which allowed Hichcock to have her die as a plot twist without damaging the value of the story and leaving the audience irritated and confused.
In The Blood's ending was almost subterfuge. We watched as the writer fully developed a character we cared about, and killed him as an experimental ending. The only time you kill off a fully developed character is when their death is either expected, or when the audience realizes ahead of time that it is perfectly reasonable, or imperative, that this character dies, or could die, in order to end the story in the only way it can end.
It's almost as if we were fooled into believing he would survive. For instance, we watched as Cassidy envisioned his sister's death, and we saw Michael holding the gun. Michael had a COMPLETELY different expression on his face in the premonition than he did when he finally shot Cassidy...leading us to incorrectly assume that he intended to kill Jessica rather than defend her. I also believe he may have been wearing a shirt in the premonition (not sure) which he wasn't in the ending.
Then in the final minute, we see a catatonic Jessica rise up and clutch Michael...then have a nosebleed. First of all, Michael would have been in jail pending investigation of manslaughter charges. Secondly, I doubt this girl would be clutching (and, hence the nosebleed, arguably becoming aroused by) the man who accidentally shot her brother the week before.
It would have made more sense to have Michael accidentally kill the hustler. We would have still had a surprise ending, and perhaps a resolution, where we had none before. Ugh!