Hayden Kane
There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes
Sameer Callahan
It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.
Aiden Melton
The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.
ac_wade
This movie was BEAUTIFULLY done in the genre of "Movies no one will ever want to watch." Gary Busey is the only redeeming factor, and not even because of his acting, but because he's Gary Busey. If this movie was never made, I probably would have done something better with the time that was wasted from my life watching this flick. The question every single one of you will have with this movie is...WHY THE GLASSES? The guy NEVER takes off his glasses, except to sleep. Ridiculous.Overall, I'm willing to give this a star. Only one though. Out of 10. What's that? You want more? You can't have more. Not yours.One (1) star out of Ten (10)
jerronspencer
Oh, the stink of a really bad movie just won't wash off. Gary Busy must have owed someone a favor. Why else would he make this, um, film.****SPOILER****When a mercenary is turned into a vampire, his lust for blood drives him to kill those closest to him. This is after he walks in the daylight, grows absurdly long hair and leaves a tome on vampire lore for his former commander. I know, I know–where's Gary? Well, he's telling this story, which is a flashback to events that took place ten years earlier. Gee, isn't that a compelling tale? Anyway, the former commander kills his vampiric buddy and just fades into the background. Then the story ends with a supposedly blind Busey pulling off his shades, revealing himself to be a vampire. One that can walk in the day, has absurdly tall hair and knows all about vampire lore. Hmm? Decent cinematography, shot on digital, good music–the rest is crap. This is a film to be avoided, unless you just have to watch vampire flicks. And if so, just remember that you were warned. Sniff. Do you smell that?
gypsycaine
Ok, I admit to two things. First, I've never (until now) written a bad review for any movie.Second, I'm a vampire freak.Now, there are so many glaring things about this movie that I just can't get my brain back on straight again.At first, we're told the time is ten years, or something. Then we discover it's 1989. Then a year goes by (with the long-hair issues there!).
My biggest issue (besides the Afghani vampire's death which I agree "sucked!") is WHY did Jack remove his shades at all? Strange, strange...That scene could be perhaps the best of the movie which is an even worse thought!No movie is totally without redemption, but this sucker comes pretty close.I do like Jack, though. I was always a fan of Don Johnson and George Michael. :)
Lorx
Im one of those suckers that Always needs to see a new Vamp movie, just cant help myself i guess, but seeing this film made my past "all time worst" look like a dream (witch was Cross Roads by the way). The actors cant act, the story dont hold up, and the producer may just need a new job. It's all about making a 80'ish action hero look cool, walking around with a beard and sunglasses that any sign person vold rather die than wear, (i know it's suppose to be in the 80's but this is just a joke) and if this was'nt enuf, the "hero" has even less emotional expressions than Steven Seagal. To top it of the special effects are like what an 8 year old could do.
