Night Junkies

It is very disappointing that the IMDb reviews are ruined by people involved with a film posting 10/10 ratings and reviews that are so obviously false. Just about all the reviews/ratings for this film appear to be of that type.

My review is independent and unbiased. My son asked me what the film was like after I had watched it and I replied "mediocre", which is exactly what it is. The actor playing the lead character (Vincent) was miscast - he looked the part, but his delivery was far too wooden. The other actors were okay I guess, but none of the characters made me care about what happened. The basic plot outline - modern day Jack the Ripper meets Vampires/Junkies - had promise, but it was not developed well enough. In the end it was one of those films that you watch and forget about. I have seen much worse, but I cannot recommend it to anyone.

I will say there there were aspects of the film that suggest Lawrence Pearce has potential. However, he has a lot of learning to do, and would probably benefit from a screenwriter. With help, experience and a suitable leading actor, he may yet make a film that earns good reviews from more than just his family and friends.

Just saw this on Zone Horror, home of the dodgy horror film. I've seen a fair amount of bilge on this channel (Nazi zombies, cheap cash-in titles) but this one takes the biscuit, the wafer and the whole selection box.

First off... what accent was the lead supposed to have? Beyond terrible. And the Ripper thing? Good lord. The other reviews have this film as a groundbreaking, revitalising-the-vampire-genre masterpiece. Have they seen the same film as the one I witnessed?

Dreadful performances, horrible editing, awful script. Plus they plagiarised the Halloween theme at one point. Shocking.

Rubbish. Rubbish. Rubbish.

Avoid at all costs. Not even so bad it's good. It's just bad.

Having been privy to a preview screening of this film back in October 2006 (although I gather that this was in fact the 'premiere'), I can only hope that some serious time in the editing suite has been undertaken by the team behind this film.

The comparisons with Tarantino are grossly misplaced. Long, drawn out, unfunny monologues coupled with crass, misplaced violence do not a Pulp Fiction make.

The relationship developed between the leads of Vincent and Ruby never convinces. Their first meeting in a coffee shop is, frankly, embarrassingly scripted (blueberry muffins are not an aphrodisiac, no matter how much writer, director, producer etc etc Lawrence Pearce would have us believe).

It is usually difficult to put a finger on where to place the blame in these circumstances. But considering the director chose to undertake all of the roles listed above himself, I am afraid the blame must lie firmly at his door.

This is not to say that others are not to partly responsible. The acting of Rene Zagger (a stalwart of The Bill) is, at times, woeful. I have not seen this much ham since I visited Preble County Pork Festival.

Some jumbled dream sequences are well shot and at times interesting. But by the time you've seen them for the third time over viewer interest has been lost. The same applies to the general look of the film (one assumes Mr Pearce was not in charge of the cinematography). The film looks superb in places having been filmed in DV. However, pretty pictures do not make up for a clunking and, ultimately boring, script.

Neither scary, funny or sexy, those of you expecting Night Junkies 2 will have a very long wait indeed I'm afraid.

I'm not saying this is a bad flick, but if you miss this you haven't missed a thing. Jude Law's "Immortal" is far better and far more interesting to look at. Abel Ferrara made "The Addiction" in 1995, which seems to have "inspired" this one. So non Bram Stoker - Hammer Horror vampires are hardly an original concept. It is a brutal, ugly movie made up with stock characters: the hooker with a heart of gold, the unwilling blood addict, the psycho, punk kids, and totally non present police. I mean there is a crime wave of hookers being brutally murdered ala Jack the Ripper, yet not even a stock bobby trying to restore order.

Mining the seedy underworld of strip joints and prostitution in Dickens like modern London, which seems to be old dark alleys, is nothing we haven't seen before. Mining drug addiction with intelligent but routine observation about addiction that one can find at any 12 Step meeting or a hundred horrors of drug movie is hardly inspiring. Ditto for non traditional vampires. So there is nothing groundbreaking or original in this movie. I saw bits and pieces of previous films spliced into this one. So it is hard to pretend this is something brave and new that is going to knock your socks off. It is full off some really brutal violence, though nothing exceptional by today's standards and the sexuality is there and is probably the only redeeming feature of the flick, Tarantino like dialog is routine too these days. Just cut and paste some lines in MS Word and viola! This is an indy movie as far as improvisation, location shots and low budgets go, but at heart it is a cheap exploitation flick with plenty of brutal violence, psycho behavior and some soft core sex thrown in to pander to sophistos by glossing it over with a patina of some intelligent dialog. In my book, if you shoot for some intelligent and arty effect but end up being mainly ugly, common, derivative and brutal, then you are better off just watching some mindless Alien tear them apart type flick or some cheesy Hammer high Goth vampire flick cause at least you be getting an honest product.

What a piece of trash. How anyone can call this piece of filth good or even mediocre is beyond me. Those who posted and stated such superlatives as "excellent" "Addictive" "Great", I ask this, did we watch the same movie? The one set in the London sex trade? The writing, directing and acting were all amateurish,. I did not care for a single character and ended up not watching the whole movie. The lead actress, was definitely bargain basement. Given that there was a budget, albeit a small one, it would make sense that a quality actor could have been hired. This obviously wasn't the case, which goes to show how bad your script was. The fact that this film was enjoyed by anyone and got distribution is a testament to how screwed up show biz is and doesn't say a whole lot about us as an audience. I would rather pluck out my toenails.

To the filmmakers: If you take yourself seriously as an artist, you will undoubtedly seek honest feedback of your work at some time in your life. Having your friends/colleagues write rave reviews of something that is not only bad, but harmful, is like a doctor stating you are healthy when you actually have cancer. Why did you make this film, what were you trying to say? I sincerely hope that you see the folly of your ways and strive to be better.