Night Junkies

In London, Vincent Monroe (Giles Alderson) is a young man addicted in blood that wanders through the red light district looking for lonely people to satisfy his addiction, dropping their bodies in the Thames River. When the stripper Ruby Stone (Katia Winter) meets Vincent in a coffee shop after her show, they immediately fall in love with each other. They have one night stand and Vincent does not resist and bites Ruby's neck, freaking her out.

Ruby leaves his apartment and returns to the night-club, where the psycho pimp (René Zagger) that is obsessed on her harasses her. Vincent finds Ruby fainted in an alley and soon she discovers that Vincent has turned her into a vampire. Ruby convinces Vincent to stop drinking human blood and seek out a cure in Edinburgh. But the sadistic psycho, who has killed fifteen women, has discovered their address and is stalking Ruby.

"Night Junkies" is an original low-budget vampire movie, where vampires are not supernatural beings but creatures compared to junkies addicted in blood. The film is very erotic, developed in low pace with a dark cinematography, but the story is attractive, entwining horror, romance and drama. I only do not understand why there are so many unnecessary fake reviews giving 10 out of 10 to promote "Night Junkies". My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Criaturas da Noite" ("Night Creatures")

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.

Have you ever wanted to just sit down and watch a great vampire film? Yea well if you are looking for one you won't find one until you go way back to probably Near Dark. I am always hesitant when it comes to watching vampire films. Especially low budget vampire flicks. I have seen so many failed attempts at the sub genre that I really gave up on it. But Lawrence Pearce has come to the rescue with what I feel is the best Vampire flick I have seen since Near Dark hit the screen in 1987.

Night Junkies begins in a seedy strip joint in London where prostitution is heavily endorsed. Unfortunately its hottest ticket in town, Ruby, is not going for it. So her "pimps" are trying their best to make her "rethink" her situation. While Ruby is constantly under stress on the other side of town is Vincent. A low key guy with a nasty addiction, blood. He only appears at night and if he doesn't get his fix every night you don't want to be near the guy. Slowly you begin to see he is not the only one with this need to feed. Slowly Pearce brings you into Vincents world and shows you what life is like for a vampire on the streets of the seedy underbelly of London.

Before we know it Ruby and Vincent have a chance encounter at a café and they strike up a conversation. What was supposed to be a one night stand turns into a complete disaster when things head south.. WAY south. No one is safe as Ruby's pimps want her back and working. Vincent soon realizes that he has to do something and fast.

Night Junkies at the very core is a love story told against the wonderful backdrop of London. What is best about this film is that you could completely take away the vampire slant and just inject any kind of drug into the story and it would play perfectly. But with the horror slant it works fantastic for us horror fans. Not only is this movie pretty violent but it also has a healthy dose of T&A from the lovely Lauren Adams. This woman is truly a goddess and I hope she pursues her career further because I would love to see much more of her in the future. Her role in this particular film was much to small.

I would not be surprised if we saw this movie play with the After Dark Horrorfest '07. It was brilliantly crafted and handled very well on a meager budget. Its not as low budget as some movies we review on this site but this movie was made for less then what some Hollywood movies use for catering. But the best thing is it doesn't show. Night Junkies could play in a theater near you and you wouldn't know the difference between it and the million dollar trash that Hollywood will pump out.

To every single fan that has been dying for a great vampire flick, the wait is over. Lawrence Pearce has delivered a fantastic take on the vampire affliction that truly rocks. With its amazing locations, fantastic performances and not to mention a great looking cast this is one flick you don't want to miss out on.

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.