Son of Darkness

Well, during the credit sequence for To Die For 2: Son of Darkness, I noticed that the film at least LOOKED cinematic. That makes it leaps and bounds better than its predecessor. But is it a good movie? Nope. They managed to get pretty much the entire cast of the first film (minus the two leads oddly enough) back in action. And at least there is a bit of action in this installment. It's not just a silly romance. So Drac is back and he's seducing a new chick who might have adopted his son. The "hero" of the series informs us some mysterious explosion was able to bring Dracula back after he turned to ash in the original. And somehow, all the other vampires who were KILLED in the original are all also reincarnated. It never explains that part. I really didn't expect it to. So that didn't bother me as much as it should have. The thing that bothers me is in the first film, the head vamp tells everyone his name is Vlad Tepish and no one blinks an eye. Now he's a doctor (?!?!) going by Max Schreck! Geez, do people in horror movies not watch horror movies? Or are these characters just idiots. I'm going for the latter. The only other new actor, other than the leads, is The Boy Who Could Fly. And yes, he finally gets his head lopped off with a chainsaw. So if you hate those Not Quite Human movies, rent this for a little payback. Otherwise, stay far away.

This a great horror movie. It is very scary. It has a great story. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. It a Dracula movie and they are very scary most of the time. This is a sequel to Dracula. 3.8 is underrating this movie. This a great movie. It is scarier then the Exorcist. I give it 10 out 10. If you like good horror movies from the 80's you like this movie. This a great movie. It is very scary. Dracula (March 1931) is better. Still this a great movie. It is scary. Dracula (1992) is also better. So Dracula (1979) is also better. Dracula (1958) is also better. Still this a great horror movie. See it. It is one of the best movies ever.

Two things I like, Micheal Praed and vampire flicks but when I saw this movie, I found out that the two just did not mix well together. Micheal Praed is one person that I'm used to seeing in his older more prominent role as Robin Hood and when I see him in this film as a vampire, his character seemed more like a sympathetic character than a character of mystery and that sense of allurement that most vampires seem to possess. He had a little mystery in the movie but I just couldn't see him playing this role as a kind, caring loving vampire. And the British accent didn't help either. I was also lost in the explanation of the movie when all of the sudden the victims brother knows the vampire and what he's all about and begins to tell this tale to his sister that I just couldn't see fit in this movie. This is not the worst of vampire flicks but it's not the best.

Moving to a small mountain town, a woman learns that her adopted infant is the son of a legendary vampire count looking to control his contentious underlings threatening his rule and must stop them from harming her baby.

Overall, this one was a pretty disappointing effort that doesn't really have a whole lot to really remark about it. One of the biggest issues with this one is the fact that nothing at all happens here, spent for the large part on trying to convince her of the vampire heritage of everyone around her to no avail, which results in countless visits to her both at work and her home in vain attempts to get the truth revealed when the surmounting evidence should've been sufficient regardless of his antics. The decision to have the brother spellbound by the female vampire doesn't have nearly the same effect it should've done because it's just too obvious what's going on here and her blindness to it all doesn't instill fear in the situation but rather infuriation at her being unable to notice it, much like the frequent trips to the clinic to meet with the doctor who takes it away to be satisfied mysterious only to have to come back again and again for the exact same reasons. By infusing all of this with a tepid and utterly clichéd romance angle that doesn't in the slightest bit feel interesting or really worthwhile as it's a retread of the last film anyway during the first half here, the horror part of this is shoved so far aside it barely even feels like one during this time except for the presence of the vampires and their bloody feedings. That does change slightly once we get to the second half where the vampiric tendencies come more to the forefront as the attacks grow more violent in execution which allows for a bit more action anyway as well as the addition of more carnage and bloodshed which is always a good notion here. This is more evident in the big action scene for the finale where the big brawl between the two vampires leads to a whole lot of action throughout with plenty of flying around on wires, powerful punching and the kind of punishment that comes from being inhuman result in a fantastic scene that really generates a lot more goodwill than initially expected and helps to overcome some of the other flaws here. Otherwise, there's not a whole lot to really like here.

Rated R: Graphic Violence, Graphic Language and Nudity.

In a Northern California mountain town, Nina (Rosalind Allen) raises her adoptive infant son Tyler (Devin Sims) after her husband left her with her younger brother Danny (Jay Underwood) now living with and helping out her. As Tyler is prone to prolonged fits of crying with no way of soothing him, she takes him to various different doctors trying to understand what the underlying issue is until she meets Dr. Max Schrek (Michael Praed) who is able to sooth Tyler's cries and also strikes up a relationship with Nina unaware he is in fact vampire Vlad Tepes and the father of her child.

Son of Darkness: To Die For II is the sequel to the original To Die For produced by Greg Sims and written by Leslie King both of whom return for this sequel. Made for the emerging direct-to-video market of the 90s, the film calls upon some flimsy logic to justify continuation (wholesale ignoring aspects of the events of the first film) and also recasts Vlad Tepes while also writing out Sydney Walsh's Kate. While the central concept of a vampire-human hybrid seems like an interesting route, the film largely puts this plotpoint in the background so it can more or less follow the same points as the first film.

While Michael Praed and Rosalind Allen are fine as Max/Vlad and Nina respectively, the movie really doesn't get the same opportunity to create that same chemistry from the last film despite it's best efforts with the lingering questions of how Vlad is even still alive let alone Tom and Cellia from the last film with the explanation they go with not holding any water especially considering the first film's ending made it impossible. The filmmaking is perfectly serviceable for a direct-to-video film and there's some enjoyable kills and sequences in the film courtesy of the returning John Carl Buechler, but it just doesn't work as well as the first one did because there isn't as much care grafted onto the material.

Son of Darkness: To Die For II is perfectly watchable, but it's also unexceptional as it doesn't really do anything new and largely leaves new developments like Vlad's half vampire son in the background without much to do (maybe they were saving that for an unmade To Die For III, who knows?). The performances are at least energized with some nice hammy deliveries, so it's a reasonably enjoyable type of bad even if not a particularly memorable one.