Customer Reviews

The Brotherhood II: Young Warlocks

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

Aspect ratio: 2.39:1 (Lomoscope)
Soundtrack: Stereo

THE BROTHERHOOD (USA - 2000): A high school jock (Nathan Watkins) is targeted by the leader of a vampire cult (Bradley Stryker) who needs to transfer his soul into Watkins' body to survive...

THE BROTHERHOOD 2: YOUNG WARLOCKS (USA - 2001): A group of high school outcasts are given strange powers by an influential new student (Forrest Cochran) who turns out to be a murderous demon...

Following the unexpected success of his gloriously homoerotic horror-thriller VOODOO ACADEMY (2000) - particularly the unrated DVD version - director David DeCoteau set up Rapid Heart Pictures to exploit this newfound gap in the market. The company's inaugural ventures - originally paired together on Ventura's all-region DVD - are aimed specifically at teenagers, but they compare unfavorably with VOODOO ACADEMY, for a number of reasons.

Firstly, they were both filmed in less than a week (!), which precludes a certain degree of cinematic flair (despite DeCoteau's use of the 35mm scope format), and the plot is consequently driven by dialogue rather than action - too much dialogue, in fact. Secondly, whereas 'Voodoo' overcame numerous plot deficiencies by celebrating its erotic excesses to the max, stripping its hunky cast down to their designer underwear at every given opportunity, the 'Brotherhood' movies are a great deal less forthcoming in this regard. Indeed, during the commentary track he recorded for DVD, DeCoteau claimed that the blatant gay undertow in both movies is 'accidental', despite the unsubtle narrative device of a monstrous entity which takes the shape of a beautiful young man in order to seduce (figuratively speaking) another equally beautiful young man. And both films contain an eye-popping set-piece in which the two male leads take off their clothes and ravish a young girl who's been hypnotised into submission, but the coverage in both sequences is focused almost exclusively on the guys themselves, and the scene in 'Brotherhood 2' is staged and photographed in a manner which suggests that one boy is actually seducing the other! I mean, c'mon...

Part of the problem this time around (at least for an adult gay audience) is DeCoteau's apparent unwillingness to concede the homoerotic angle which he had explored so effectively in VOODOO ACADEMY. His insistence that these movies are intended for teenage girls suggests a reluctance to challenge established mainstream parameters. In other words, he's trying to have his cake and eat it by indulging a commercial preoccupation with beautiful young men whilst refusing to pursue this concept to its logical narrative conclusion. In 'Brotherhood 1', for instance, very little attention is lavished on Bradley Stryker's ultra-buff torso except for a couple of sequences during the latter half of the film, and the equally hunky Donnie Eichar (playing an axe-wielding doorman) remains fully clothed throughout! In 'Brotherhood 2', actor/model Sean Faris (most recently seen in the higher-profile action pic NEVER BACK DOWN [2008]) doesn't make much of an erotic impression in his first leading role, though he's clearly the sexiest guy in the entire movie.

All this would be immaterial, of course, if the production schedule had allowed for a stronger storyline, less reliant on prolonged stretches of mundane dialogue. In his own defence, DeCoteau argues that many actors - particularly those most suited to this kind of movie - refuse to do nude scenes (Stryker, sharing DVD commentary duties on 'Brotherhood 1', asserts his own reluctance to 'go naked' on-camera), though I suspect their caution is due more to the (virtual) all-male environment of DeCoteau's movies than a wholesale aversion to nudity as such. Refusal to do a full-frontal is one thing, but if his actors won't even allow rear-view nude shots, then the likelihood of a daring, sexually unambiguous horror film from this particular stable seems remote, to say the least. That aside, the 'Brotherhood' movies have been assembled with a fair amount of professional skill, and most of the acting is fine (Josh Hammond steals the show in part 1 as Nathan Watkins' not-so-nerdy sidekick, while the gorgeous Sean Faris holds his own against Forrest Cochran's low-key villain in part 2). Younger viewers may get a kick out of the simplistic storylines and sumptuous young actors, but there's little here to engage a wider audience.

One final point: DeCoteau's stated intention of filming everything in the scope format is laudable but impractical, given that these movies are aimed specifically at the video/DVD market. Rapid Heart's commercial 'trump card' - the showcasing of hot young guys in various stages of undress - is ill-served by an ultra-wide format which reduces shirtless actors to the size of a postage stamp and barely allows for decent close-ups, even on a 16:9 monitor. By contrast, the less extreme 1.85:1 ratio would encourage a tighter visual structure whilst retaining an essential cinematic dimension when viewed anamorphically on the new generation of widescreen TV's. The 'Brotherhood' movies are available separately in 4:3 video transfers which go a long way towards resolving some of these compositional difficulties whilst simultaneously cropping away almost half of the original image!

NB. 'Brotherhood 1' was released overseas as I'VE BEEN WATCHING YOU, while 'Brotherhood 2' - not a direct sequel to the original - is sometimes abbreviated as YOUNG WARLOCKS.

It seems low-budget director David DeCoteau has created a new horror sub-genre. Explotation of women in horror films has been an expected part of the genre for decades. But now the tables have been turned. DeCoteau delights in casting hunky young guys and putting them throuh their paces, usually in nothing but a pair of boxerbriefs. DeCoteau has developed quite a following among teenage girls and gay men. His films appeal to both groups for obious reasons.

Brotherhood I and Brotherhood II are both available seperately in a no-frills DVD edition. But the Special Edition Double Feature disc includes both films in their widescreen format (approx. 2:35) and has a commentary track on both films featuring DeCoteau who is joined by actor Bradley Stryker on Brotherhood I. It's fun to hear all the behind-the-scenes secrets on low-budget movies like these. The disc also features a small photo gallery and trailers for both films.

The disc isn't mastered all that well ( digital artifacts are visible in some scenes) Still, it's well worth the price. If you're a fan of Davis DeCoteau's other films (I highly reccomend the lunar edition DVD of Voodoo Academy) you're sure to love these!

These two films are geared to the gay market, with lingering shots on young studs; some other reviewers may deny this but they obviously didn't notice how the chief vampire eyed the young stud. (It's not that subtle!)

I can say though that these two movies are well filmed

The first movie is about a frat of vampires who want to initiate a young studly jock. These vampires are fangless though, using instead an amulet (similar in concept to 1983s "The Hunger").

I can't understand why, when two guys get into bed with a lady to feed from her they all remain in their underwear. She obviously gets a high from feeding them, but I can't see why... whether she's on drugs already, or not, because these vampires don't seem to be able to mesmerise their prey.

The second film is about a young warlock who tries to initiate 3 studs into a covern. This is even less interesting than the first, but just as elegantly filmed.

Producer/Director David DeCoteau is trying to create a new genre of movie. I'm not sure what it is. "The Brotherhood" and "The Brotherhood 2--Young Warlocks" have elements of horror movies, yet are not scary; they have elements of suspense, but do not raise any tension; they have elements of homoeroticism, but the one sexual scene in each movie is pretty darn straight (or bi, at best, featuring two guys and one girl, although the guys are focused on the girl and not each other). The genre seems to be built around young men in various states of undress (but never seen completely undressed) and is being marketed to gay audiences. Feh. Gay men would be better served by renting or buying any number of softcore movies out there from the likes of Bel Ami than pay for this lame bait and switch.

The plot of "The Brotherhood" is your relatively standard modern T&A (in this case, P&A--and I'm thinking pecs) horror movie, but without the sex or any significant amounts of blood. It takes place at a college where one frat is high above the others. What is it about the frat and its members that make it so special is the core "mystery", although hardly a compelling one by any means. The college seems to exist in a time and place of its own with no real town nearby.

Into this setting come two freshmen roommates, Chris (Nathan Watkins) and Dan (Josh Hammond). Chris is your standard issue jock and Dan is your standard issue geek. If you've seen any horror movies from the 80s or 90s, you know the pair. There is an air of sexual tension between the two in the filmmaking, but the movie takes great care to establish that the boys are straight and both interested (kinda) in Megan (Elizabeth Bruderman), one of the few girls on campus. Dan desperately wants to belong, Chris has no interest in being part of the crowd. Chris becomes seduced by Devon, the charismatic president of the top frat. (I base the assessment of the character solely on the mechanics of the plot and not on Bradley Stryker's self-conscious acting.) It is up to Dan to save his friend/roommate. It's a by-the-numbers affair with nothing to make to stand out.

Nathan Watkins is attractive (DeCoteau's camera lingers on his scantily-clad body many times) and his acting is adequate. Josh Hammond gives an animated performance, perhaps too lively. His eyes dart about constantly and his head always seems to be in motion. At least he looks alive, which is more than can be said of some of the other performers. Of the lot, his is the most appealing and interesting performances. He could have a solid future in sitcoms and light comedies if he keeps working.

The script is perfunctory at best. The filmmaking matches the script step-for-step. (That's not a compliment.) There were many cases where I wanted DeCoteau to pull his camera back. He seems to favor close ups, not giving his actors much room within the frame to move. It becomes very claustrophobic, and when combined with some choppy editing, there are times when it becomes very difficult to follow the action.

"Young Warlocks"--Okay, we all know that sequels tend to be lame. This one is no exception. Unfortunately, it's a lame sequel to a lame movie. Talk about the law of diminishing returns.

Producer/director David DeCoteau and screenwriter Matthew Jason Walsh reunite for the second installment of their Brotherhood series. However, other than recycled sets and recycled themes, there is nothing to connect this movie to "The Brotherhood"--except actor Forrest Cochran who is theoretically playing the same character, but as I don't remember the character at all in the first movie, it's hard to call it a true connection.

To be fair, the underlying premise of this installment is slightly stronger than the first, even if it isn't related, and the plot is a little more interesting. However, the execution is weaker. The acting never rises above adequate, with only Sean Ferris exhibiting any real charisma. This is unfortunate, as the whole point of the character Luc is supposed to be his incredible charisma, and Forret Cochran doesn't have the presence to pull it off.

This time, the story takes place at a private high/prep school, although it appeared to me to be the same location on which the original was shot. The student body is keep in a perpetual state of anxiety by a quartet of shirtless bullies. Three outsiders are the primary focus of the bullies. New student Luc arrives and offers the outsiders a way to get even which involves swimming in their boxer briefs and sitting in a satanic circle while wearing boxer briefs.

The quotient of screen time of guys in boxer briefs is higher than the first, and there are two female quasi-leads, doubling the number from the previous installment. The camera work and the editing is slightly better than the first, but there are still times when DeCoteau would better serve his audience by pulling the camera back and using more fluid editing.

It's weak, but what truly appalled me was the amorality of the ending. As a reviewer, I don't think it's fair for me to give away the ending, and I won't, but I have to admit that it really angered me. Screenwriter Walsh hasn't thought through the ramifications of his characters' actions, and this left me quite annoyed.

In the orginigal pressings of these movies, the DVDs were in 1.33:1 screen aspct ratio. This pressing purports to be widescreen, which I suppose is a step up. Unfortunately, from my viewings, seeing more of the frame wouldn't improve the movies. The original pressings had no secondary audio tracks or extras. None are mentioned for this release either.

If you are considering purchasing this DVD because you are looking for a thriller with gay elements or a cheesy guilty pleasure, look elsewhere. The gay audience should put its money into movies with true gay content rather than settle for this weak tease. If you want thrillers with gay characters and gay themes, check out "In the Flesh" or the far better, and far more interesting "Rites of Passage." Neither of them have the occult overtones of the Brotherhood movies, nor is the nudity quotient quite as high, but they are far more interesting movies. If you want to look at young guys without their clothes on, I'm sure there are much better options.

(C)2001 Joe Edkin

The combination of these 2 movies is great. The widescreen version adds a lot of the scene that you could not see in the fullscreen version.

This is a fun little romp through the world of the supernatural. The acting and the sets are pretty decent. It's not great, but I enjoyed it.

Having heard about this movie, I had a vague idea that it was going to be highy lacking in plot and dialogue, but hopefully somewhat entertaining in a Seinfeldian fashion-so still worth viewing. I could never have imagined, in my most wildly confused dreams, that ANY movie could be so entirely TURGID!!! The poor acting only served to accentuate the poorly written scrpit and complete lack of direction in this pathetic excuse for a film.

In a few scenes we start to see a rather homoerotic sort of lust or attraction between the main character (who is, by the way, chosen to be the body into which the evil fraternity brother will transport himself when the main character is stretching shirtless and glistening outside of a gazebo...) and the evil frat brother of doom. Once the main character, Chris, is good and drunk the evil characer proceeds to initiate him as a pledge of the ATO fraternity. He takes a small needle from his large and pretty necklace of doom and sticks the obtrusively handsome and naive main characer in the hand and proceeds to suck his blood in the most boring blood sucking vampire of doom scene I have ever seen on film. When Chris wakes up the next morning he is greeted by his equally uninterestingly written roomate, Dan, and a suitacase of clothes from his new frat brothers sitting on the kitchen table. Strangely, though, the top outfit in the suitacase is a silky white shirt and pleather pants--clubbing attire perhaps? Or just a friendly fashion tip from your new brothers?

Ignoring the fact that most important aspects of this film reeked of ham left out in the sun for days, the least the director could have done was added some non confusing/disturbing sex scenes. In the one overtly sexual scene in the movie the evil frat brother decides to show Chris the ropes of boring blood sucking. He chooses the most intoxicated looking forty year old at the party and proceeds to lead her into the chamber. Chris undresses and goes at it...he pricks her arm and starts sucking her blood. The evil character, watching, becomes intrigued and decides to strip down to his designer underwear and join in. The scene climax is a pathetic fake orgasm (assumably induced by the sucking of the vampire frat brothers) by the intoxicated forty year old--hardly an arousing scene to say the least.

In any case the movie ends anticlimatcially (suprise suprise) with several of the frat brothers, the evil character, and the main character engaging in the body swapping ritual that, of course, must be performed in the designer underwear and nothing else. How else would one possibly achieve a proper body swap?!?

Overall, this movie was an atrocity not only to horror films but also to goth/vampire/fantasy films as well as homoerotic thrillers. This movie is so not worth your time and is good, for lack of clever cinematic design or plot or dialogue or good acting, only as a joke for you and your friends to view time and time again in order to revel in the glory of its unintended comical nature. Perhaps the director's intent was not to make an eloquently done vampire/fantasy film but merely to produce a film whose intent was to showcase young male verility at its finest. If this indeed was the case then DeCouteau did a splendid job. However I'm not sure how many film makers would make the sort of film this is their goal style.

If you like well done vampire flicks with homoerotic undertones and--dare I say it?!?--a plot, I would highly recommend Interview with the Vampire as well as the rest of the films based on the Vampire Chronicles of Anne Rice.

It's fitting that Brinke Stevens is one of David DeCoteau's favorite stars. Leering voyeurism at it's best - but this time with boys. Boys in underwear and more boys in underwear. So why did that guy shower in his underwear. No butt shots - more like a tasteful Kalvin Klein ad.
It's slow and there's not much of an edge but hey there's guys in underwear. Was there a plot. Uh something about a vampire fraternity - but hey there's guys in underwear.
A definite guilty pleasure. Get this guy a script writer.

If you believe there is any homoerotic subtext at all on these movies - Just because both of them feature young men in briefs - you desperately need a psychiatrist! UNFORTUNATELY this is just another bloody awful STRAIGHT teenage movie. A waste of time! :-(

well what can i say, I got this movie as a birthday present! It's shocking just how bad the movie is, the acting is wooden, the storyline non existent and the loop holes are gigantic - the only good thing was the sexy half naked studs especially the blonde guy, what a pair of pecs. The guys should have kissed and made it what it was meant to be - soft porn.I did enjoy those bits mind you, very homoerotic.
Next my unfortunate friend who witnessed the horror:-
The only thing this movie is good for is maybe as a door stop. There is so much badness in the film, it makes me sick! I consider myself a bad actor, but compared to them, i'm oscar material. I can't believe they went so low as to use a plastic axe! And I'm pretty sure that the actors are all previous porn stars. Only sex - or teasing - makes this film half bearable. I think I would rather spend an hour and a half picking my nose rather than watch it again.