In London, Vincent Monroe 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 ... See full summary »
Keep track of everything you watch; tell your friends.
If your account is linked with Facebook and you have turned on sharing, this will show up in your activity feed. If not, you can turn on sharing
here
.
In London, Vincent Monroe 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 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 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. Written by
Claudio Carvalho, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
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.
5 of 7 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
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.