User reviews

This movie sounds interesting but is just so mediocre. The plot synopsis might sound like a horror movie, but it's a drama, could be a TV movie of the week (back when that was a thing): John's addicted, watch his life fall apart, albeit in unusual circumstances. Never mind that his addiction is a doozy that no suburban rehab is going to fix, the potentially novel setup rapidly becomes melodramatic. The story so desperately wants to say something but in the end just meanders through the paces-John not knowing what to do, his friends not helping him, and help coming from the wrong places.

This movie has decent resources-budget, cast, locations-and does so little with it. Many of the set designs were poor, the costuming was off, the characters were unbelievable because the actors had so little to work with. The poster boasts a "special appearance by Mischa Barton" that's nothing special; her agent must've gotten her a hell of a deal for that billing. This must've seemed like a promising project but it just never came together. It was nice to see Madeline Zima from Californication in another role, too bad it was in this.

A surgeon fooling around whilst driving crashes his car, killing his young son. He then suffers from a very rare form of PTSD, the only thing that can stop his violent shaking is drinking fresh human blood! I really do not know what the writer was thinking when they came up with this idea. Yes, it is a different, modern take on the vampire story but a ridiculous one at that. I found the acting weak, as is the film as a whole. It plays more like a TV drama than a horror movie. Thankfully it is reasonably short.

I couldn't even sit through this, i had to turn it off, not much to say about this than, do yourself a favour and find something else to watch.

The trailer is more exciting than the movie. The plot that goes no where!!! Save your 90 min and watch something.

The pain start when you begin to watch it and by the end you wished you would have just killed yourself....

'Painkillers' aka 'The Incredible Shaking Man' has a remarkably novel premise, in that it is an entirely toothless Vampire movie that in actuality is no less pallid than the iconic, blood-sucking Mythos it tries so desperately hard to reinvent! 'Fashionably be-stubbled, Daytime TV Handsome Surgeon' suffers a paralyzing, palsy-inducing emotional trauma after surviving a tragic auto accident, only to discover that this ceaselessly excruciating neurological malady is temporarily assuaged by the consumption of human blood; the steamy fresh, wholly organic, ikky-poo variety mind you, absolutely NONE of that Vegan/hybrid muck, thank you very much!!! On the lugubrious evidence of this anemic, torpor-inducing travesty, one sincerely hopes that the timorous filmmaker's egregious plan to spawn a similarly gutless Zombie movie remains no less stillborn than their execrable concept of an entirely fright-less re-make of 'Fright Night', oh...

6/10 is not a bad rating in my opinion. There is no huge drama or suspense. I think this was never intended. Occasional moments of violence flow but don't over dominate the story. There is no certain conclusion to the film. And if you watch it you may share my opinion it does not need one. The uncertainty of life and addiction does not need one. I thought it was very well acted by the main actor and the actor playing the sinister role. Was this intended as an example of addiction in a different premise to show it is not a choice of life of it or just the situation of a character in an almost impossible to escape or both? I don't know if it is one or both of them. Or maybe just a different take on vampire films? Whichever way what is given to you is a film which is in no way entertaining. It is gruelling in its horrible story of a man who has not made wrong choices in his life though feels he has. It is unclear for some from the offset of opening scenes. If I had done his actions in the first scenes I would have blamed myself. But I don't blame him for his actions at the start. That put you in to his psyche from the start. I would blame myself for what initially happens at the start of the film. But I in no way at all think he is guilty of anything and it is just a terrible event. That, I think, may be the intent of the filmmakers. If so that is very deep thinking of an uncontrollable event that leads to a mental torture and then into addiction to blank out the pain. I could imagine myself unravelling very quickly in to a non confirming life only controlled with the use of anything, in this case blood (as a metaphor?). And again can see if someone else in that situation had suffered itto think they should have no guilt. I found this very interesting and quite upsetting. It opened more unanswered questions than it answered. Almost like life itself. I can't give it higher for me 6/10 because it is not a huge blockbuster that will never be forgotten. That causes me guilt. I need a fix. Blood!

Sorry, I just had to end on a joke. Amusement is sometimes my fix. Luckily! I was taken by this movie a lot. I hope you do to if you decide to view.

I found it to be very entertaining, a bit heartbreaking and thoughtful. Yes, it's a modern take on vampires but I saw it more as an allegory about what trauma does to a person and how different people choose to deal with it. Will I let the pain control me and lash out at others? Or will I find a way to move past it however difficult that may be? It's more of a suspense/thriller than horror. Worth a watch.

It was a goo horror movie, short and to the point!

Painkillers: A new take on the Vampire Mythos. Opens with a woman being attacked by another (crazed) woman in an alley. The victim's wrist is cut with a knife and the assailant starts to drink her blood. Surgeon John Clark (Adam Huss) is involved in a car crash in which his son is killed. Physically he recovers but for no apparent reason he suffers from great physical pain. He meets a stranger, Herb Morris (Grant Bowler) who offers a solution to his suffering - blood. Clark dismisses this but his debilitating condition makes him realise that blood is indeed a palliative.

The film convincingly portrays the breakdown of a surgeon, the only way he can stop shaking is to ingest blood. But when he returns to work he is caught drinking waste blood after an operation. A doctor of course would have access to the hospital blood store but eventually discrepancies would be noted. These vampires operate in daylight and are not deterred by garlic or crosses, nor do they possess eternal life, but to function "normally", drinking blood is a necessity. Morris offers to supply Clark but it's at a cost, either he joins in hunting society's pariahs and using them as bloddanks or he pays a high financial price.

Effective horror showing that a vampire doesn't need a cape and fangs to be scary. This is the very banality of evil in action. But an evil which has been visited upon these Vampires, the great pain demands blood. Director Roxy Shih has created an interesting addition to the Vampire Film Canon. 7/10. On Horror Channel.

From the previous reviews I was not expecting much from this but having just watched it on the horror channel and whilst it is more of a Drama Thriller it does possess a certain element of horror and is well above my expectations for a tv style movie and based on the other poor reviews.

The film is well shot, directed, paced and acted although Grant Bowler really does steal the show as he is a superlative actor and makes this movie even more enjoyeable than it otherwise would have been. The main protagonist also plays his part well and is quite convincing as the Vampyr.

Yes it is more of a TV style movie but why should that make it rubbish as some of the other reviewers have made it out to be. Me, well I try and give a movie a fair shake based on the budget and this is well above par!

Solid 6/10 from me!