Lost Boys: The Tribe (Uncut Version)

When I think of a really good sequel to a horror film these days, I automatically think of James Cameron's brilliant "Aliens." Or even "Jeepers Creepers II." There've even been some outstanding horror remakes like John Carpenter's "The thing" and also "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." But that's it. These days, when you watch a sequel or a remake of some grand old classic, you get junk. This is a prime example. The movie is so low-budgeted, it would barely make a showing on the Sci-Fi Channel, notorious for its wretched line-up of originals. In this movie, there's no suspense, as there was in the first, as to who the vampires of. In the original, we were teased and treated like intelligent movie buffs. In this one, it's just thrown into your face. We're asked to believe that even vampires go around butchering their buddies, for fun, since we all know they can regenerate themselves.

But to splice open the chest of a fellow cohort and then stagger around whooping and laughing as the victim grunts and curses and then he somehow reforms himself. The brother and sister are totally unlikable for their idiocy. We're asked to believe that the hero is so erotically turned on by this skanky, sluttish girl that he makes out with her--knowing that she's a vampire. And of course, he becomes one. And then his sister becomes one.

It's like the people behind this sequel geared it for the mentally retarded or the very young male, in his early teens, who might dig all this sluttish rolling around.

Oh, for the days, when we were given occasional brilliant sequels and remakes of our old favorites. The original creators of "Lost Boys" are probably rolling around in their graves if they're still alive.

This could have been a winner--instead, it's strictly for the brain dead.

Maybe it is just me. But it the worst film I have seen in a long time.

This movie really falls flat compared to the original. Angus Sutherland makes for a very dull and unconvincing leader of the vampires. He and Autum Reeser have very little on-screen chemistry, yet we are to believe that she falls for him. The plot is incredibly predictable and unoriginal. The film fails to make you care about any of the characters. The production values are good, and the acting is decent, but the story is not at all engaging. In short, there is a good reason this one went straight to video - it's completely lackluster. Do yourself a favor and pass on this film...

i feel like i should really apologize to myself for watching this. this is one of the most godawful things i've done to myself in a long time. ranks up there with delta farce and gigli.

Look, is this a five star movie? No. It is a three star movie. I gave it five to help try and get the overall rating up closer to the three it deserves. This movie does not have the all charm, fun and fright of the first, but it is an enjoyable trip down memory lane for those who loved the first one. The script is a bit of a let down, as it is essentially the same story all over again. What saves the movie are the surprisingly good performances by the three leads: cute and sexy Autumn Reeser, the unfortunately named Tad Hilgenbrink, and of course, Corey "Frog" Feldman. It was interesting to see the younger Sutherland playing Keifer's old role, but he doesn't have the chops, if you'll excuse the pun. He's a little too smooth, which eliminates the danger factor.
So, overall, I say if you enjoyed the first one, get this one too.
Just don't expect it to be as good, and you can enjoy the surprise of having it not totally suck.