The Lost Boys is a successful horror film from 1987 that is looked upon quite favourably as one of the best vampire movies ever made.  So why not make a sequel twenty-one years later?  Have we not waited long enough?  Yes and no.  This film is strikingly different from that original movie, both in style and substance and if you were looking for a comparable experience to the one you had while watching that first film, then you will be sadly disappointed.  Whereas the first movie relied upon expert direction, good storytelling and strong performances from the cast, this film relied more on violence, gore and nudity to hook you in.  It is ultimately not terrible, but definitely not as good as the original.

The film is directed by P. J. Pesce and he keeps the small town setting, as well as the introduction of our protagonists, a brother and sister who are moving to live with their aunt after the death of their parents.  Chris and Nicole, being new in town, and much like the first film as well, get invited to a party which is being hosted by none other than the local vampires.  During the party, Nicole is hanging out with their host Shane, and unknowingly imbibes his blood.  Soon, she is starting to transform into a vampire and Chris has no idea what to do.  Back home, he meets up with Edgar Frog who assaults him and tells him that his sister is turning into a vampire and that he is going to need Edgar’s help.  The film then takes us through the confrontation with Shane’s band of vamps and finally Shane himself in a climactic showdown.

Haim comes back – older and undead.

While the movie was a sequel to the original, it felt little like one.  Sure it had vampires and Edgar Frog, and even a little cameo from Corey Haim, but aside from that, there was nothing to tie it to that first one and if Haim and Feldman were not in this film, it would just be another generic vampire slasher which is exactly what it was.  It had none of that humour from the original, which felt casual and fit the film like a glove.  Here, the film does attempt it slightly with Gabrielle Rose as the inept Aunt Jillian, but she is no match for the wit that Haim and Feldman brought to the original roles and the script by Hans Rodionoff is not as smart or as good as that of the first film.

A lot of what made the first film work has disappeared.  There is no great villain though Angus Sutherland tries his best as the big-bad Shane, but he is no Kiefer.  He does not have that evil glee about him, nor the charisma to carry the role and elevate him into memorable status.  He could just be your average vampire on Buffy that she stakes out on patrol without a second thought.  Angus is forgettable and to build your story around him as a threat does not work because he has nothing to proclaim himself as such.  Most of the actors in the film were the same as well, just stock, cookie-cutter roles that any person could have filled and done just as good a job.  Speaking of missing, there is little chemistry between anyone and aside from our leads, you do not really get invested in anyone whatsoever.

Brother and sister.

One of the few bright spots in the film are Tad Hilgenbrink as Chris Emerson and Autumn Reeser as his sister, Nicole Emerson.  They do a good job and while they are not the greatest actors to have ever been seen on screen, they make do with what they are given and save this film from being completely terrible.  Feldman, who returns as Edgar Frog was decent and it was nice to see him back, but it almost seems like he is playing a caricature of himself from the first film.  Whatever magic his character had back then, whether it was the innocence Edgar radiated or perhaps it has to do with Feldman growing up, it has disappeared.  He is not terrible, but he does not add that missing element to the film like he did in the previous one and is almost distracting at times in this one.

The effects that were present looked good and were effective in putting the vampires across, but it is a shame that they could not have done something to elevate these vampires from every other vampire you see on screen or found some better actors to play the ‘tribe.’  The fact that they had to inject nudity and up the blood and violence to hold the audience’s attention where the first one did not, tells you just how weak this film really is, both in script and direction.  All in all, it was an average movie, with some good points going for it, but outnumbered by a lot of bad points against it.  There is not a lot of excitement to be had and it is not really a lot of fun either, though people who have never seen too many horror films might find it a bit of a better view.  It definitely does not rank among the worst films ever made, though by no means should it ever be considered a screen gem.  Where the first film can be watched multiple times over, it is doubtful you will ever want to see this one again.

2.5 out of 5