User reviews

Noelle Terry (Emily Hampshire) is a desperate junkie. She hasn't seen her brother Chris Terry (Jacob Tierney) for 5 years. Chris visits her in Montréal. She demands $300 from him. Then she tells him that a man is going to pay $500 to have a threesome with them. Chris is a recovering alcoholic and starting his theology studies. Chris has sexual feelings for his sister and she is willing to push all of his buttons.

This is a simple 2 person play in mainly one room. The movie tries a few things like split screens to keep it interesting. There isn't much of a plot. These are two characters clashing in more and more destructive ways. Tierney is pretty good but Hampshire is the real force. In the end, this is a movie with limited scope but Hampshire shows some power.

This is a lesser know independent Canadian film. Only briefly reading the synopsis and seeing that it only features two characters in the film. Also noticed that it is based on a play.

The positives are the acting feels authentic and a lot of the dialogue feels unscripted at times. Both actors do portray their roles decently enough to carry the film.

However the film is certainly too long. Nearly an hour thirty minutes with only two characters and setting around entirely in almost one sole location.

The film is very dialogue driven with a lot of it consisting of these siblings bickering back and forth talking about mainly the sister's past relationships, and some topics about their childhoods.

It does start off relatively intriguing where we see these two characters and are waiting for the inevitable (which one makes the move first). Besides the two characters, there are a lot of phone calls which are picked up by the sister (we don't actually hear the voice of the person on the other end).

We are continually waiting for another person (as suggested by the sister to enter the room but of course no one does). We don't necessarily know if the sister is lying regarding these "clients" coming or not as she mentions a variety of different people.

The film certainly teases a lot with these siblings with the furthest they go is as part of a role play session where they furiously make-out on a chair and as it seemed that they were going further, the phone rings interrupting them. Nearing the finale with the "tie-up" to the bed got rather dull and could have been reduced. It's very clear they both wanted one another, with the brother getting more desperate.

Although the very end we do see them both strip fully nude, lay on the bed briefly with the sister then "piggy-backing" on the brothers back as they go into the bathroom presumably in the shower. The camera then pans to another unrelated scene as it ends.

There are a lot of camera angles and split screens the film uses. In the end this film is nothing more than a bunch of nonsense casual talk with sexual teases waiting for something major to occur (with them going all the way or another character to come into the picture). Surely they could have went "all out" but opted not to.

Certainly about twenty minutes could have been edited down as the pacing got boring and scenes very repetitive.

BLOOD is an adaptation of a play by the same name. It's a dark comedy that revolves around a brother and sister desperate to have sex with each other. The sexual tension between the two main (and only) characters was authentic, which they later confirmed during the Q&A.

What makes the film truly unique is that it was shot in one long take, four times. And they just choose the best one. The dialogue is thick, biting, and hilarious. The characters even seriously injured each other during one take and kept on going. The entire film was shot on a Montreal sound stage, with a couple of exteriors. The director explained how he tricks the eyes of his audience into not being bored by one small set by having each room a different color, and then using an occasional split screen during rapid dialogue. I thought that was pretty cool because it totally worked on me.

I like the fact that the director replaced the main characters, originally intended to be in their late forties, with young twenty-somethings. I think the sexual tension would have seemed weird and gross otherwise. Instead it was actually pretty hot. This is what Canadian film is all about. (7/10)

This film is wonderful and artful. many dynamic and visually interesting techniques used in filming, primarily at the beginning. as the story advances, then the techniques get more subdued, as the story itself takes over. it is inventive and creative, and not at all what one is used to. thank god that there are still some films out there which are not the basic mundane crap. it is nice to view cinema which is made for an audience with an intelligent mind. it is very close to a European film, such as Italy or Spain. the cast of two is dynamic and engaging. the film grips you the entire time, with a mild titillation. i highly recommend this film.

visually inventive, which is more than can be said about most films... incredibly sordid storyline/character dynamics however and without the aforementioned inventiveness it would probably be a bit too much to take. good collaborative acting b/w the two cast members also... 8/10 get this flick a poster image; it deserves at least that

*sigh* ten lines minimum now all of a sudden ? OK then... what else can i say... this really isn't a good idea. certain people are good at being concise and five lines are all they really need. why force people to be superfluous? not a good decision on the behalf of the IMDb webmasters i'm afraid... am i there yet... ?