Review by: Christopher Haskell
June 29, 2010
There are three assumptions I like to make about films before I see them: 1) That someone read the screenplay and actually thought it was a good idea, 2) That while shooting said film, that the cast and crew actually thought it was still a good idea, and 3) that after wrap, the director and producer actually watched the film before sending it out into the public. “Thirst” was one of those films that made me take away all of my assumptions. “Thirst” was plain and simply bad. The story was bad, the dialogue was bad, the acting was sub-par, and the production-quality was bad. The story of four people getting lost in the wilderness has obviously been done before. The tag line “Open Water in the desert” was somewhat right because it was slow and painful, much like “Open Water.” The days were strung out and uneventful. Everyday appeared to be the same. You argue that this is what the director was going for but if he was also going for putting his audience to sleep, then he succeeded. The “twists” of the film are seen from miles away. No character attempts anything that would actually work in getting them out of the situation and what they actually do is laughable. Torch the truck? Why not try and move the truck first?
The dialogue was the worst part of the film. Almost every line spoken was poor foreshadowing of the events that would occur mere seconds from the lines being spoken. The driver assures the passengers he is a great driver. Seconds later, they are in the ditch. This is the ABC’s of storytelling. Most dialogue before the trip was slander about water and how “gross” it is; “water is for dogs and grass.” Nothing against the actors, but when you have a bad script, the acting merely follows suit. The production value of the film is almost non-existent. The viewer sees obvious reflections of the camera lens when pointed at the sun, the worst car camera angles since reality television, and audio that peaks and valleys during conversations. The only thing this film had going for it was the majestic and overwhelming scenery, which, even for the worst cinematographer, is a process of pointing and shooting. The film’s plot is transparent, the dialogue unbelievable garbage, and the ending is damn near incomprehensible. I would definitely not watch this film again and wonder how anyone thought it was a good idea to put this out into the world besides the writers and director.
June 22, 2010
First Look Studios
(for some language and disturbing material)