A glam rock band heads up into the mountains to shoot a video for their latest hit song and everything seems to be going fine until an avalanche traps them in their cabin. Things turn worse when a couple of the film crew members wander off to look for help and end up disturbing the home of a family of killers who've been hiding out for the past forty years.
The following review has had some slight revisions due to Film Bizarro receiving a copy of an official release for "Blood Tracks" from Studio S.
If "Blödaren" is the Swedish equivalent of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" then "Blood Tracks" is Sweden's answer to "The Hills Have Eyes". Oddly enough, like "Blödaren", "Blood Tracks" features a band heading out into the middle of no where and people start getting picked off one by one. Going by the track record of previous Swedish horror movies I've watched, I had no hopes for "Blood Tracks", not even as a good-bad movie. I was surprised though, in the beginning it showed signs that it was going to be entertaining but it managed to get progressively worse as it went along.
The story here is so basic that it's hard to believe writers were actually involved in its conception. The terrible dialogue, plot-holes, and general lack of cohesiveness also makes it hard to believe. There isn't anything more to it than a glam rock band heading up to the snowy mountains to shoot a music video for their latest single, Blood Tracks. And as luck would have it, they just happen to pick a location where a murderous family who's been on the run for the past forty years is hiding out. The family feels 'threatened' by the crew’s presences so they start killing off members of the band and film crew.
"Blood Tracks" has some what of a following and from doing a bit of reading, the fans say that the movie starts off horribly but then it gradually gets better. For me, it was just the opposite. Yes, it does have some of that genuine backwoods-slasher feel to it but the best moments are at the beginning and then it descends into a flaming pile of dog shit. It's not even a so-bad-it's-good movie. Its just bad. There are some entertaining moments in beginning from the stupidity of the whole mess. Such as the silly prologue that's used in an attempt to have the movie make sense that features some horrendous acting and line delivery that is amazingly shitty. The movies seems like its nothing but one idiotic scene after another of crap acting and people doing things that do not make any sense. Even the narrator gets in on the action by being extraordinarily awful in explaining the movie's plot. The fun ends there though because once the family of killers becomes involved, suddenly "Blood Tracks" tries to become a legitimate horror movie and sucks all the fun out of it in the process.
Oh sure, it tries to salvage some of the entertainment with random moments of stupidity: like the rest of the survivors getting together to look for one of their friends that's missing. Then suddenly a girl looks to the guy she's with and says, "Hey, have you ever had sex in the snow?" Then off they go to have sex. Apparently the concern and sympathy they showed indoors was just an act they put on so they could go outside and screw. Anyway, the movie tries to be a serious attempt at horror but it is so basic that it becomes redundant and quite boring. Actually it was redundant before I even hit play but that's neither here nor there. The simplistic nature of the movie is the only reason it has an ounce of sensibility because everything else sort of happens without reason and with a general lack of logic. While irrelevant, it bugged me that this family went into hiding while all the kids were young so they were normal human beings before they started running. Now, forty years later, most of the family members look like mutants, and communicate through primal screams and grunts, while the mother and eldest brother simply look like gypsies. Leaving the audience to their assumptions as to why this happened. However, in retrospect, it's not just the small things like that, the movie never really bothers to explain or make sense of anything; "Blood Tracks" merely drunkenly stumbles from point A to point B.
I know horror movies have never really operated in the realm of logic and reason, and I'm not asking "Blood Tracks" to either. It’s just that the movie seemed to have no effort put into it -- the people behind the movie wanted to make their version of a Western horror movie but did nothing more than mimic without thought. Sort of like when you make a copy of a copy; the general idea is there but with a severe loss of quality. It's not just with the story though, everything about this movie felt lazy; there's nothing here that gives "Blood Tracks" any sort of identity.
But, in the end, things can always be worse. How can they be worse? Oh, I don't know, maybe having to watch "Blood Tracks" twice? Yeah, that would be about right. Studio S sent us their release so we felt obliged to revisit the movie and for the most part, I still feel the same way about the movie. I thought I hated it more this time around but it was nothing more than me being bitter about having to watch the movie again. With that being said, the release looked good -- it's not perfect (i.e. HD) and the aspect ratio seems a bit off, but it beats a washed out multi-gen VHS bootleg. For better or for worse, at least now "Blood Tracks" is more readily available for folks with this DVD release.