Interesting idea - it is accepted that vampires live amongst us. As such, they are quarantined to the smoky desolation of 'section 5'. As would probably happen in real life, pro-life protesters proclaim that they are people and are being treated like prisoners when they have a right to life. As a contrast to that, the vampires are also described as 'an affront to God' and deserve to be segregated by other-minded souls. Within the vampire community, comprising of low-lives who make undercover exchanges of synthetic blood substitute for the right price, there is an even bigger danger; something is killing the vampires. To this end, a group of hardened criminals are granted a partial pardon if they make it their mission to destroy this new threat.The characters presented are exactly the kind of designer-stubbled, black-leather jacket wearing poseurs that I feel has given the vampire concept an image that goes against everything interesting about the original concept. The 'good guys' fair no better, a crew of strutting wise-cracking men or perfectly manicured, improbably attractive females who are strong in determination but always happy to bow to the wishes of the men folk. Impossible to like, everyone postures, smoulders and puckers as much as the screen time will allow them to do. The one exception is the main cop's right hand man, who is from the North of England and is the relentless victim of the team's self-obsessed put-downs. The good central ideas aside (which apparently are startlingly similar to teen-soap 'True Blood') this well-shot, nicely scored film is a chore to get through. No-one is remotely real, just a collection of glistening catwalk models happy to parade themselves, self-satisfied, through a series of borrowed tension-free set-pieces and the whole enterprise emerges as darkened, elongated day-time soap filler.

Seriously, I do. I love vampire movies. Old, new, cheesy, whatever. I even mildly enjoyed Twilight(s). This, this whore of Babylon, this abomination, this true liar, this un-entertaining, deeply boring, badly acted, awfully produced, blindly directed piece of swamp smeg is dire. Really dire. DON'T GO THERE kids. Just say no.Oh and, btw, goth241984, how deeply involved with this movie were you?I love b-movies. I live with the stigma, I defend my kin who share my love. I normally use low reviews on IMDb as a promising start for my likely level of enjoyment. This time though, I'm left naked, removed of all defence. My self respect burned in a mercurial (really) fire. Will I recover? I'll live to watch Priest another day. I'll swashbuckle my way through Blade. I'll see your Soldier and raise you a Gallowswalkers (yeah, I loved the wigs too). I'll be OK. Time, and wine, are great healers. This is my first, and possibly only, review. Don't let this be your first vamp flick, because it will be your only if you judge them all on this.

Maybe I went into watching this movie for entirely the wrong reasons. Primarily those were that a) I like a good vampire flick, heck... sometimes I even like a very bad vampire flick ( but not this one ) and b) I like Andrew Lee Potts. I had a bit of a soft spot for him after totally falling for Hatter in Alice that I then followed him to Primeval where that cheeky little chipmunk face just made me want to hug a pillow. So during a late night bed-avoidance TV channel surf I came across this little nugget of mucus on the SyFy channel... which incidentally should stop changing it's title cos we all know that a rose by any other name will still smell of horse manure at it's base. There are some moderate performances, but no real character depth to speak of. The best of the bunch, in my opinion, was probably Neil Jackson who came across best when he was being a bit angsty, but as for Andrew...dear sweet Andrew... no. Just.. no. Awful. He slide in and out of his accent so often I'd swear he was lubricated. The Assorted Girls With Long Hair ran around and looked pretty and there was so much clichéd sci-fi posturing I wish I'd turned it into a drinking game.So in summary, it was never ever going to win an Oscar. The script was underwhelming, the effects look like they were funded with someone's lunch money, acting didn't overwhelmingly stink .. but you wouldn't want to sit next to it on the bus either. I gave it a 3 because sucky as this may be it's still a vampire movie, and Andrew is still gerbilishously adorable. That said, when my daughter vomited all over her bed just after the ending credits due to a particularly nasty gastric flu I can't say I wasn't relieved to have something less dire than this film to focus on as I climbed into bed.

Is this the best film every made? No. Not by a long shot. Is it the best film SyFy's ever made? No, not at all. Is it fun to watch? HELL YES! The bad stuff, the writing isn't great and the side actors are not the best. That being said, let's be honest, the writing is always bad in these kind of movies. None of the actors appearing in them are looking to collect an Oscar for a made for TV movie. OK, so, let's move on. The main cast did a great job with what they had. I completely LOVED watching Andrew Lee Potts in this role. He puts his all in every role he does and I love it. Neil Jackson was fantastic in this and I actually liked him in this more than I did in Push. I've never seen Ben Lambert in anything before but he did a very good job as Nickolai. This is especially true of his interactions with Heida Reed. I would have loved to have seen more of her character; I think it was under used which is a shame because I really think she could have risen to the challenge. My only complaint with the entire SyFy production is the name. True Bloodthirst was trying way too hard. They would have done better to leave it as a true SyFy original and left the title as simply Bloodthirst or Vampyre Nation. By adding the True to it, they seem desperate to cash in on another shows popularity. As I said before, the entire film is well worth watching. I really enjoyed it for what it was and I'd definitely by the DVD. :-)