Customer Reviews

Lost Boys: The Tribe (Uncut Version)

5 star:		(19)
4 star:		(15)
3 star:		(28)
2 star:		(24)
1 star:		(45)

 

 

Although I am a big fan of the original "Lost Boys", I went into this movie with a VERY open mind and with no real expectations. I just hoped that the film was, at the very least, watchable. Well let me just say, BARELY. This movie isn't good. Period. It's poorly executed - sequel or no sequel. The pacing is off. The direction is amateurish - like "The Grudge" or "Pulse" meets a bad MTV video. The movie uses gratuitous nudity and language to try and make up for the fact that it sucks, yet it brings out the film's flaws even that much more. The original "Lost Boys" didn't need extreme gore or nudity because it was relying on other things like a good story and good acting. This story is just a rehash of the first "Lost Boys" with a few things switched around. The movie even incorporates lines from the first film, which may have been cool if the movie was good, but since it's not, it comes off as more of an insult.

In the movie, there is a love scene between Reeser and Sutherland that is shot like the Michael/Star scene in the original with the same "Lost Boys" theme song playing. However, the love scene is emotionless. Any vampire could see it's just a bloodless imitation of the thirst-quenching original (sorry, I couldn't resist using some vampy adjectives there). Also, the film's vampire death lore is inconsistent. For example, sometimes when a vampire is killed, it turns to stone. Other times it explodes, turns to dust, vomits gallons of blood -- WTF? Edgar Frog, (played by Corey Feldman) addresses it with the same line from the first film: "No two bloodsuckers go the same way. Some yell and scream, some go quietly, some explode, some implode, but all will try to take you with them". That kind of explains it but no vampires turned to stone or dust in the first one. Since this is a sequel, shouldn't they have stuck to the original? "Death by stereo", anyone? I don't know it just seemed like an excuse to use some CGI.

As for the acting -- the lead actor, Tad Hilgenbrink (who plays Chris Emerson) is horrible -- please don't act again, dude. PLEASE!!! This guy may look like Jason Patrick but he has zero acting skills. Autumn Reeser who plays Nicole Emerson is not much better and is pretty forgettable. Angus Sutherland, who plays the main vamp, Shane, falls really far from his family tree. He possesses none of the skills of his famous father, Donald, or his half-brother Kiefer. What's up with his accent? He's like half-surfer, half-Brit? Very strange. So acting-wise, this movie gets like an F+. That excludes, Corey Feldman, of course, the only ray of hope in the whole mess. Jamison Newlander (Alan Frog) was cut out of the entire film and Corey Haim (Sam Emerson) appears in a 20-30 second cameo in the end credits. Why would they cut Alan Frog out of the story? Jamison Newlander filmed several scenes for this movie and all were cut. Why? He could have been a great addition. In fact, they should have just scrapped the two leads and made the entire movie with Haim, Feldman, and Newlander. In fact, if you like "Lost Boys" (which I'm guessing you do since you're reading this), check out the four comic mini-series, "Lost Boys: Reign Of The Frogs". It tells the story of the original gang between the end of first film and the beginning of this one. It's far more enjoyable than "The Tribe".

Out of everything in this disaster of a movie, I enjoyed Corey Feldman and the Haim cameo at the end. I also liked the alternate endings available on the DVD's special features. Other than that, this movie was a complete letdown and ruined what could have been a successful franchise theatrically or on home video.

When I first heard that they were making a sequel to the 1987 hit "The Lost Boys," I was floored. Why would they do such a dumb thing? I wondered. Supposedly, a script for a sequel floated around Hollywood for years before it finally fell through, and after watching "Lost Boys: The Tribe," I see why the legitimate Hollywood gave up on it.

Forget the fact that there isn't one single original idea in the script. Forget that, even after 21 years, the special effects in the original film are far better than "Tribe." Forget that there is a lot more nudity, gore, and foul language in "Tribe" than there ever was in the original. Forget all of that. This film is just plain bad. It sucks, if you'll pardon the pun.

If you have seen "The Lost Boys," then you've pretty much seen a vastly superior version of "Lost Boys: The Tribe." In my opinion, a great horror movie must have several things...a really good script, characters you actually care about, superb actors to bring those characters to life, some humor, and decent special effects. "The Lost Boys" had all of that, and more, whereas "Lost Boys: The Tribe," only wishes it had 1/10th of what its predecessor had.

The story is the same...siblings move to a crappy little coastal town where the missing person population is staggering and jobs are hard to come by. This time, it's Chris & Nicole Emerson (any relation to Mike & Sam from the first film? Apparently, the writers were too lazy to come up with a different last name.) Their parents are dead (instead of divorced, as in the first film; Mike & Sam show up at Grandpa's house with mom,) so they are forced to rent a house owned by their aunt.

They go to a party. Nicole (Autumn Reeser) catches the eye of obvious head vampire Shane (Angus Sutherland, who definitely does NOT have brother Kiefer's talent at all.) She drinks from a flask, which obviously has more than booze in it, and voila! She becomes a half-vampire, much to the shock and dismay of her brother, Chris (Tad Hilgenbrink.) Enter Corey Feldman as Edgar Frog, the only returning original cast member that has any decent screen time. He's still getting ideas from the comic books, slaying vampires, and is still a complete weirdo. Feldman is LONG past his prime here. What worked for him as a teenager definitely does not work in his mid-30s. His character, who makes it clear that he lost a loved one to the vamps a while ago, should be more darker, and have more of an edge. The childish, home-made gadgets should be left behind, but they're still in use. I would have liked to see Jamison Newlander reprise his role as Allen Frog, because that may have made the film slightly more tolerable, but instead, we only see him in the 2 alternate endings that are included on the DVD. Don't get me started on Corey Haim showing up as a vampire during the end credits. That made no sense at all, and the 2 alternate endings he's in (as a human) make no sense. It was nice to see them on screen together, but Haim is not the cute kid he once was, and Feldman just looks pissed that he's even there to begin with.

As far as the other vampires go, they were all annoying, obnoxious adrenaline junkies (think "Point Break" meets "The Lost Boys," & you'll get the idea.) They surf, skate, ride motorcycles, and take great joy in stabbing each other for fun. They videotape their kills, and go "whoooooo hooooooo" a lot. They are nowhere near as evil or menacing as the original 4 vamps from the first film (Kiefer Sutherland, Alex Winter, Brooke McCarter, & Billy Wirth.) Kiefer Sutherland, as nice a man as he may be, has the most evil, menacing face and voice that I've ever seen & heard on film, and he was absolutely perfect in the original. He really should give his brother, Angus, some serious acting lessons. Apparently, the filmmakers thought that casting a Sutherland boy would give the film an air of credibility, which, sad to say, it did not. Kiefer's David in the first film had an evil, menacing seductiveness about him, whereas Angus' Shane only has plain seductiveness, without any real evil or menace, and even the seductiveness isn't that convincing.

The amount of gore, nudity, & unnecessary foul language in the film is substantial, as well as the serious lack of creativity (in one scene, dialogue from the first film is recited, word for word; it's Edgar talking about the various ways a vampire will "buy it...it's never a pretty sight. Some yell & scream, some go quietly. Some explode, some implode. But all will try to take you with them.") I was flabbergasted. It's one thing to recite a famous line, like Bruce Willis does in the "Die Hard" films ("Yippee-ki-ay, motherf***er,) but to recite dialogue, verbatim, from an earlier film...it only goes to prove how hard "Tribe" tries to be like the original "Lost Boys." They even went so far as to put the tag line from the original film in as dialogue. All I could do is shake my head in amazement. What little humor it has seems forced, as well.

I must say, however, that I did chuckle a couple of times at some of the fresh one-liners. I already forgot what they were, but they were funny. And most important, they weren't ripped right out of the original film. I also like the remix of "Cry Little Sister," Gerard McMann's theme to "The Lost Boys." The video for this remix is included on the DVD, although it's not on the official soundtrack to "Tribe." There is another cover of "Cry Little Sister" (done by another band) that is on the soundtrack, though; you can hear it when you're at the main menu.

Also, I must say this about the Coreys. They are more than their past mistakes. If Hollywood were as forgiving back in the 80's as it is today, I feel they would still have very strong careers. They are both very talented actors; all one has to do is watch films like "Stand By Me," "Lucas," "Silver Bullet," or "The Goonies" to see that. Hopefully, they will both realize that what worked for them when they were younger won't work for them today. They don't have to be a Hollywood joke or stuck in an A&E reality show for the rest of their lives. Even though my teenage crush on both of them ended years ago, I still like them as actors. They just need better parts (and, apparently, better agents.)

"The Lost Boys" had a great story, a strong cast, characters I actually gave a crap about, just the right amount of humor, and great special effects for its time. "Lost Boys: The Tribe" tries in vain to be all of these things, but it only achieves one thing...being a truly disappointing and forgettable piece of trash that deservedly went straight to video. The magic that was "The Lost Boys" was left back in 1987, and even though this film tries in vain to recapture that magic with nearly identical characters, storylines, and a "stunned-look" ending, it only succeeds in gloriously failing to do so. Perhaps the makers knew all along that it would be a failure that never should have happened. Now, I must cleanse myself of the memories of this film. I'm going to watch "The Lost Boys." 100 viewings should do it.

I didn't hate it. I went into it expecting nothing better than an on-screen fanfic with more nudity, or something along the lines of some of Feldman's bad 90's movies, so I was fairly surprised. It had holes and a generic plot line, and I didn't like the cover of Cry Little Sister, but besides that...

The gore was so over the top it was funny (I laughed anyway), none of the acting was cringe worthy. Some of the writing was iffy, but it wasn't terrible. Feldman played Edgar *exactly* as he did in 1986--there's a character with zero growth. He even had the same hair and red bandanna. (He cleaned up really well, not his usual scruffy, sleazy self.) I liked the soundtrack, the sets weren't bad. The bike tricks were pretty cool.

Yes, it plays homage to the original A LOT. They even stole a chunk of memorable dialogue. The sex scene isnt nearly as well shot as in the original.

It's not a good movie, but it's not terrible either. If you go in hating it, you will. If you go in with a sense of humor and low expectations, it might surprise you. It was written as a love letter to the original. It wasn't trying to be its own movie, and it wasn't trying to be better. If you're a fan you will love it or hate it, it all depends on your attitude. If you're not a fan, well, there are many worse vampire movies out there.

First thing I wanna say is stick around during the credits as there's a brief scene; now with that out of the way onto the review.

There's a lot of hype surrounding Lost Boys: The Tribe and fans of the original have been waiting 21-years for a follow up. There were plot ideas thrown around, but the movie never came to be until now. The original Lost Boys I personally don't know if I'd call it a classic movie, but is a cult classic and the movie is so fun and entertaining that it elevates the movie to almost greatness. The Lost Boys is a cult classic for a reason and now with Lost Boys: The Tribe expectations might be a little high.

Simply put Lost Boys: The Tribe isn't as good as the original, which I think most people would assume going into the movie, but with that said Lost Boys 2 is actually a surprisingly fun ride. I didn't really expect much, but hoped for at least a fairly decent flick, but it actually turned out a lot better than I thought it would; like the original Lost Boys: The Tribe is campy and a bit silly, but it does step up on the gore and nudity.

The screenplay by Hans Rodionoff wasn't bad, but it's never as fun and creative as the original movie and the characters are entertaining, but lack the depth like the characters from the original. But overall the screenplay was a lot better written than I thought it would be. There's some funny and creative moments and very much plays out like a homage to the original. Overall the script isn't without flaws, but works on an entertaining level like the original. The biggest problem is it relies too much on the original screenplay. If not for mentions of the first film this could actually pass as a remake.

Director P.J. Pesce does a solid job with the movie and gets the best out of all the scenes for the most part, around the hour mark the pacing does start to drag in some spots and while it never gets bad I thought it might just start to fall a part, but it quickly gets back on track. Even when the pacing lags its still an entertaining movie just doesn't fully work. There are some good vampire action and fun action movies. While his directing credits may not be anything to write home about he does show some talent and makes an entertaining film.

Angus Sutherland as Shane is the head vampire and his character isn't nearly as cool or as mysterious as David played by his brother Kiefer. That's actually the biggest flaw with the movie. Shane feels like a poor mans David and while a fun character he just doesn't really shine as much as he could have due to the writing making him too much like David. Angus Sutherland gives a fairly good performance, but he's still early in his career and has potential and seeing as his brother is Kiefer Sutherland and his father is Donald Sutherland I'm quite sure he'll be fine as his career goes on.

The rest of the characters are a bit mixed; the vampires are alright, but aren't nearly as fun as those in the original and like Shane, the vampires are too much a clone of the original vampires and they don't work as well. They were fun, but could have been stronger. Tad Hilgenbrink as Chris Emerson gives a fun performance and his character was pretty good as well. Autumn Reeser as Nicole Emerson was a fun character and steals the show early on.

About the only complaints I have with their characters is the same as I did with Shane's; Chris is pretty much a take on Sam and Nicole is a take on Michael. But both characters at least get a little more than just playing a new version of Sam and Michael, but a bit more could have been done, but regardless both characters work well overall.

Corey Feldman reprises his role as Edgar Frog and bottom line is Corey Feldman is what elevates the movie. His character is the same as the original only older. Any scene with Edgar was highly entertaining and like the original Feldman plays it straight, which makes it so funny since both movies are a bit silly. But that's the whole point on both his performances. I've always liked Feldman and it's great to see him back. Even though Lost Boys: The Tribe is direct to video it's still a high profile movie and its great seeing Feldman in a solid role rather than some of the movies he's done the last decade. Lost Boys: The Tribe may not lead to bigger things, but it's a step up and Corey knocks it out of the park.

Lost Boys: The Tribe is rather gory at times and it's a mixture of practical and CGI. But both really look excellent for a DTV movie and I have no complaints on the F/X and it's always good to see the red stuff shooting out.

Overall Lost Boys: The Tribe is a surprisingly fun and very entertaining, while some parts of the movie does drag in spots it always remains mostly fun. It's not as good as the original, but that should be expected. Like the original it works on a campy level even if not as good. Fans of the original should enjoy this on some level as long as you don't expect too much you won't be let down. And if anything the movie is very much worth watching due to Feldman who really delivers a great performance.

The DVD features 2 alternate endings both feature Corey Haim and Jamison Newlander. Newlander is listed in the credits, but his scenes aren't in the movie itself. Also Tom Savini makes a cameo in the opening scene.

Personally, I think people are ripping on this movie a little too harshly..
On some points I will agree, however:
Is this film as good as the original? No, it's not...But then, few sequels ever are.
Does this film borrow heavily from the original screenplay? Yes it does. However, there IS a reason why...

The synopsis on the back of the case refers to the film as "a modern reimagining of the original", so naturally there will be similarities. That being said, I suppose it's not so much "Lost Boys 2" as it is "Lost Boys Redux".
Now, I may not be as high brow as some. When I look for a vampire film, I base my decision on three factors:
1. Special Effects
2. Babe Factor (Sex)
3. Action
I really don't need a deeply engrossing script to be entertained. It's a vampire flick, how deep does it have to be? But I digress...

I really wasn't expecting too much from The Tribe... and I'm happy to say that I was pleasantly surprized. For a straight to DVD release, it's not all that bad. Were there flaws? Sure.
But at least it wasn't "From Dusk Til Dawn 2(or 3)"...

All in all. I enjoyed this movie... You might too.

Now.. To all the nay-sayers:
Sure, I would have loved to see a "Lost Boys 2" film about 15-20 years ago too.
But when ya really think about it...
How bad would it have probably sucked?

I for one was dissapointed.....not even close to what the original was.....This lacked Oomph, Panache what ever you want to call it.....What happened to the rest of the old crew, they could have came back as parents at least that would have helped this thing.....What happened to Santa Carla...Now Malibu....they tried to make up for story with campyness and sillyness,too much damn gore and nudity.

The screenplay by Hans Rodionoff was terrible....What a waste of 21 years....I am a "B" Movie lover but this this was a complete "F"

Sorry, My Opinion...

Alright. I had my doubts. After watching this movie I give it a 3 out of 5. The script had the right idea but it could have used more of that original "umph" that the first flim had. Not to mention Haim is an "after thought" not really part of the movie. Feldman overacts, as usual. BUT, that's to be expected... after all, Lost Boys is kinda campy. However, I was impressed with Angus Sutherland. His presence was very well done even if he could have used more lines and a better death scene. Overall, it's worth watching just for the funny campy-ness of Feldman and the little after thought of Haim.

After waiting 21 years I finally saw the sequel to my favorite movie of all time. It's weird thinking there are people of drinking age who weren't even born when the original came out. As we all know, this was a straight-to-DVD release; so, from the start, I didn't have much hope. Though, to be fair, some of the best horror films in recent history, like Session 9, have been straight-to-DVD. Once I heard Kiefer Southerland's half-brother was playing the lead vampire role I had a glimmer of hope (a sense of continuity). Then once Feldman was cast I knew it would at least be watchable (for nostalgia if nothing else).

I cautiously awaited its release.

I sat down expecting the worst; this is a vampire film after all, and most modern vampire films suck a**, not blood. However, I was pleasantly surprised. First of all, it felt like a true sequel. There's nothing I hate more than when a sequel has none of the feel of the original -- a sequel in name only. In contrast, Lost Boys: The Tribe opens up EXACTLY like the original, at least style-wise. The camera shots, music montage, etc., all reflect the original. Good start. I was dreading the standard quick-cut/choppy editing that plagues so many modern horror films. Surprisingly, it wasn't there -- total 1987 style film making. It was if the director actually made the effort to make it fit with the original (imagine that). In fact, some scenes were eerily similar to the original, stylistically, that is. The tone, pacing, even the jokes were in the spirit of the original. The use of classic songs from the original like, "Cry Little Sister" made it really feel like one was watching "a Lost Boys movie". The movie is FULL of subtle in-jokes only the super-fans will pick up on.

*spoiler alert* Though I'll try to be very vague.

Onto the vampires: Angus Sutherland did a great job as the head vampire. Granted he has only a fraction of his step-brother's charisma and intensity, but it still worked. After all, he plays a surfer, not a punk-rock biker, like David. Therefore, he has a more laid back and casual persona, common with most surfers. Now, the surfer thing sounds totally lame -- I know -- but if I was a vampire in Northern California, hell, I'd probably surf too. Why not? What else are you going to do for kicks when you're forever young? The shots of full moon surfing were actually kind of cool looking. In fact, I wish there had been more, or perhaps surfing more dangerously (since they can't die). The other vampires had personality and weren't cardboard cut-outs. They even had lines! (unlike the one or zero lines given the vampires in the original). While the in-the-background/brooding attitude of the original Lost Boys made them a bit scarier, it also made them rather one dimensional. There is a vampire girl in this one who is totally unneeded (pretty much there just for eye-candy). Though they did learn from the first movie's mistakes -- no vampire kids! Thank god. The ridiculous character of "Laddie" in the original has always bugged me. The vampires were updated to the current "underground" look (whatever that is), which makes sense. As much as I love the look of the original gang, the mid-80s headbanger hair would just look silly now.

On to Feldman -- Edgar Frog: Honestly, when he first shows up it seemed like he didn't really fit. As much as I wanted Edgar Frog in this movie, I'm not sure it was such a good idea after all. Yes, he's the link to the original, but he really looked out of place with the rest of the film. Part of it was because he looked EXACTLY like he did 21 years ago (right down to the red bandanna). I think they should have updated his look to reflect the times a bit -- maybe some facial hair. But then again, if they had, I'd probably complain about "Where's the bandana and camo?". So you can never make fans 100% happy. After a while he started to mesh better with the film and had a few funny one-liners, much like the original.

No Haim: At first I was disappointed Corey Haim was cut from the cast. Now, all I can say is, "Thank god!". If he had been in the movie it would have just turned into "The Two Coreys: The Movie". Haim does appear in the outtakes and alternate endings. He looks terrible and can't act worth a damn. He needs to stick to reality TV. I'm glad some producer somewhere put his/her foot down and cut that walking train-wreck from the project.

The Extras: Not even worth mentioning unless you like low budget music videos.

Final analysis: The acting was fine -- about on par with the original. However, the film doesn't have nearly the same energy and atmosphere as the original, nor the darkness, but it makes a good effort. I wouldn't want a carbon copy anyway. Some scenes were wrapped up far too quickly making it somewhat anti-climactic. There were also a few camera techniques I didn't care for, like the sped-up movement of the vampires. There were other moments where I could definitely, and unfortunately, sense how the ever-influential Buffy the Vampire Slayer had left its mark, like the vampire make-up, for example.

I could go on, but I don't want to give away too many specific details. So over all I would say it was a pleasant surprise. It's slightly above average, so I'd give it a solid C+. Who knows, maybe if I watched Lost Boys II as a 12 year old (as I did the original) it would've had a far more powerful impact on me. I'll probably buy it. What the heck.

So I must admit, that as everyone knows that a sequeal rarely lives up to the original - so in saying that, take this movie as is. Its a vampire movie that tried to capture the essense and vibe of the original, but also tried to bleed new life (excuse the pun) and new ideas from today into a tale that was perfect in the 80's.

Frankly, this movie is not going to win any major awards. But should you still watch it? Sure. Its a great, entertaining movie as far as that is concerned, but it does not provide the realistic and cinematic ground work that the original was able to produce.

It felt to me like a great, made for tv movie - which it pretty much is. But it still should be watched, and will probably be appreciated by fans of the original and cherished as an amusing movie by others who are not fans of the original.

So in closing, this movie is not the original - very true. We know that going into it - its a new story, rehashing old ideas and blending new and modern ideas into a classic tale that audiences have loved since they first viewed the original Lost Boys movie back in 80's. Corey Feldman's performance as an older, yet not as yet fully matured Edgar Frog was likeable, yet comical and almost cartoonish. But that was his character in the original - so take this movie for what it is and what it offers - a decent escape for 90 mins.

First of all, I'm whacking myself for not only buying this, but spending the extra bucks to get it on Blu-Ray, which my High Def TV proved to show Just How Bad this straight to DVD is. I've never even seen a standard DVD show up as fuzzy as this alleged Blu-Ray did.

On to the DVD, though discussing the sheer vileness of the Blu-Ray quality is much more entertaining than reviewing this movie. I know it sounds like a bad pun, but it sucks. It sucks bad. It sucks big. It sucks beyond human or vampire belief. There was more of a plot in the occasional speculation about WHAT the plot of the movie would be than there actually was in the actual movie.

For example, the orphaned Emerson siblings - how are they related to the original Emersons? First I heard they were supposed to be Michael and Star's children, then I heard they were some random cousins. Regardless, it is never, ever brought up in the movie. They might as well be, and apparently are, people who coincidentally have the same last name as the original name. Certainly Edgar Frog (Corey Feldman) has absolutely no recognition or acknowledgement of them being in any way related to the Emerson's he knew, even in a surprise scene hidden in the credits and a deleted scene available in the extras which show him interacting with the late, unlamented Corey Haim reprising Sam Emerson.

And, yes, I know that Haim isn't dead. I just can't help but notice in those two brief scenes not actually in the movie that there was all the plot you needed for a really interesting and decent movie. Judging from the massive bad press revolving around Haim, his 'issues', and his self-declared war with Feldman - well, knowing that most of his stuff in the film was not filmed and the bit that was filmed was tossed; I can only blame Haim for the massive mess leftover and the massive mess certainly is why the movie didn't make it to the theatres. In short, Haim's killed himself and his career for good this time, I'd say, and took down a bunch of other innocent people in the bargain.

Moving along, the other massively unused potential plot-builder was the fact that the master vampire in this film is played by Keifer Sutherland's young half-brother. Angus Sutherland's resemblance is close enough to have actually made use of that connection - his character of Shane could very well have been the brother of Keifer's David. Unfortunately, like the Emerson connection was utterly ignored as a potential plot point, so was the use of the Sutherland brothers.

There were a few blink and you missed it moments, such as the muscular, oily saxaphone player from the first movie now playing sax on the corner, in the daylight, still oiled, still pretty muscular, still long-haired, but with a beer gut like a Green Bay Packer fan. Tom Savini, one of the masters of horror prosthetics and special effects (who is oddly showing up in a lot of movies for the sake of being dismembered, if Planet Terror is any indication), is a master vampire taken down by Shane and his crew in the beginning of the film. When the Emerson's take a drive up to the Frog Brother's surfboard shaping shop, there is a sign that is briefly glimpsed which states essentially 'no one is invited in.' If you don't get that reference, sorry, I'm not explaining it.

The only occasional glimpses of fun is when Edgar Frog is on the scene. He's mostly doing a re-run, but there are a few fun elements such as him becoming an ordained priest online so he can make his own holy water, which he does over many water balloons as part of his arsenal. He only occasionally references the absent Frog brother, but the full story is in the deleted scene.

Every other attempt to make this a worthwhile sequel is full of downfalls. In the original you had the quirky grandfather who delivers the famous last line in the movie, "The one thing I always hated about Santa Clara is all the damned vampires." In this movie you have an aunt whose quirkyness manifests in barefisted greed (she's charging her orphaned nephew and niece $600 a month for a hut) and total cluelessness (having won the battle against the vampires, the Emerson siblings, covered in blood and gore and drinking beers despite at least one of them being underage, have their front door slammed in as their aunt rails about knowing exactly what's going on and it had better stop or she'll turn them in - yes, that's essentially the last line in the movie, her accusing them of being potheads and stating "zero tolerance!").

The extras are pathetic, no commentary to explain why this is so horrible, the deleted scene which shows what kind of movie it COULD have been (ironically with Haim at one point telling Feldman that he needs to grow up and take a realistic view on things), and about half a dozen music videos that really aren't worth watching.

Now I have to go email some friends and hopefully warn them against buying this abomination.