Night Junkies (2007) User Reviews

Genuine Review

[rubyjuno · 4/10 · 29 July 2007]

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.

"You are a fart & I want you out of my ar*e." Terrible low budget boring Vampire thing.

[poolandrews · 3/10 · 13 September 2008]

Night Junkies is set in London where thirteen prostitutes have been brutally murdered & a killer is on the loose, against this backdrop of fear lap dancer Ruby Stone (Katia Winter) works in a strip club. While walking home one morning she meets a guy named Vincent Monroe (Giles Alderson) & she ends up going back to his flat & having sex with him. Unfortunately for Ruby Vincent happens to be a Vampire addicted to human blood & one bite from him infects her with the addiction. Afterwards not much else happens actually as Ruby has to come to terms with what she has become...

This British production was written, executive produced & directed Lawrence Pearce & I thought it was total crap to put it bluntly. As usual for these low budget pieces of crap the IMDb comments section seem to be overrun with users proclaiming it to be the best film ever & handing out 9 & 10 out of 10 star ratings which always make me wonder whether we have seen the same film or whether these users have other agenda's for trying to big certain films up. Anyway I throughly believe that if you were to take 100 random people off the street & showed them Night Junkies the majority of them would struggle to get through it & there certainly wouldn't be many 9 or 10 out of 10's handed out. For those who claim Night Junkies is original & a fresh take on the Vampire genre obviously haven't watched films like George A. Romero's modern take on Vampire lore Martin (1977) which was made three decades before Night Junkies & just about any Vampire film ever made deals with a central romance between a Vampire & a woman he falls for that goes right back to Bram Stoker's original Dracula novel while the whole 'hidden knife in the tip of a shoe' is ripped-off from the James Bond flick From Russia with Love (1963) & that was made nearly forty five years ago. I suppose that the makers have tried to make Night Junkies relevant in todays society & as it's title suggests it portrays the Vampires in this the same as drug addicts which is where the term 'junkie' actually comes from. From moralising about leaving dead bodies for people to find & making the comparison between drug addicts leaving their syringes lying around to the process of going Cold Turkey to dealing with the Vampire issue in a very cold & clinical way constantly making reference to real life drug addicts. The plot sucks, the dialogue is forgettable (although there's a nice little speech on farts) there's some crap about a killer Vampire that ends in a duller than dull climax & there's a fair bit of romance as Vincent & Ruby try to support each other & fall for each other & the pace is very slow with little going on to maintain ones interest, well mine anyway.

The start of the film is alright as it's set amongst the seedy London world of strip clubs & prostitution but this is all but abandoned by the half way mark at which point Night Junkies becomes an absolute bore & I personally started to read my newspaper listening to the soundtrack & occasionally peeking at the screen to follow what was going on & I still felt bored. There's no gore or special effects to speak of, there's a bit of fake blood but that's it. The Vampires don't have fangs & Night Junkies presents them as real people just with an addiction for blood which begs the question why don't they feed on animal blood? At least then they wouldn't have to kill anyone. There's some nudity during the first half but that really can't save it.

According to the IMDb this had a budget of about £405,000 which isn't as low budget as one might think, that's nearly half a million quid which is a lot make no mistake & considering that there's no special effects, no star names or action & a small cast I am not overly impressed. The cast of no-one I have ever heard of before make no impact & are fairly poor.

Night Junkies is a film that bored me to tears, I thought it was a basic boring piece of crap the only interest being the London red light district it sets itself in during the first half. A boring 100 odd minutes that you can live without seeing.

Nothing Original or Inspiring Here

[Jakealope · 4/10 · 6 January 2008]

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.

Oh dear...

[ballaterbboy · 1/10 · 12 September 2008]

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.

Whiny Emo-ers whimper about their Un-Life, thoroughly plodding and boring

[mactechg4 · 1/10 · 11 March 2008]

Dear Og is this a *BAD* film, it's not so much a Vampire film as it is a druggie drama, with Blood taking the place of controlled substances (which also appear in the film)

I consider myself a fan of "B" movies, I love a good MST3K-class movie, or a good horror film, this is neither, this is nothing but a slow, plodding melodrama, and a thorough waste of time, I couldn't even finish watching it, I gave up at the halfway point, I just couldn't take all the Emo whining

Heck, I'd rather watch Un-MST'ed Manos the Hands of Fate before I'd watch this, or even the Star Wars Holiday Special without Rifftrax enhancement

The Pros; Decent amount of female nudity (always a bonus) ;) uhh.......sorry, can't think of anything else

the Cons; the "vampires" have no fangs, a problem I've noticed in many current vampire films, especially the direct-to-video crap like this the total lack of the ability of the main characters to hold your interest for any amount of time No characters worth caring about, at the halfway point, I wanted everyone involved in this film to die

Junk

[JuniorBains · 1/10 · 16 February 2009]

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.

A flash of inspiration is not enough

[MBunge · 4/10 · 4 May 2011]

Night Junkies is what you get when the Muses bestow a flash of inspiration on a filmmaker who possesses neither talent nor skill. The end result is a good idea butchered almost beyond recognition and a movie that is only watchable when one of its attractive actresses gets naked.

The talentless incompetent in this case is Lawrence Pearce and his inspiration is to portray vampires as the equivalent of heroin junkies. That's a promising genesis, but everything pretty much goes to hell after that. Pearce starts undermining his own premise from the very beginning by casting the male-model-like Giles Alderson as the main junkie vamp, Vincent. Junkies don't look like male models. They look like 2 miles of bad road after a flash flood and a cattle stampede. When you make the main bloodsucker character look as handsome and fresh faced as an Osmond brother from 1975, you've already lost the point of the "vampire as junkie" analogy.

Anyway, Vincent hooks up with a stripper named Ruby (Karia Winter) and ends up turning her into a vampire. But Ruby is tortured by the memory of her drug addict father and vows to reject her compulsion for blood. Again, that's not a bad outline for conflict. But again, Pearce fails to fill in that outline with anything interesting. Ruby and Vincent meet, they have sex, he bites her, they have sex again, Vincent explains the "vampire junkie" concept to Ruby, they don't have sex again and Vincent tries to free Ruby from the clutches of her strip club owner and a stalkerish weirdo who works at the club. Then there's something about someone murdering whores and something else about a cure for vampirism, a lot of fancy editing that proves Lawrence Pearce has spent too much time looking at music videos and way too many moments that are supposed to be serious and suspenseful but are just laugh-out-loud funny.

Let me give you an example of just how badly written Night Junkies is. The climax of the film is a fight between Ruby and Vincent and the stalkerish weirdo from the strip club. To start with, the weirdo is never called an actual name during the movie and is listed in the credits simply as "Psycho". Not "Psycho" as in, that was his nickname but "Psycho" as in "the stupidly pretentious writer/director thinks it's cool if the character doesn't have a real name". Whatever you call him, this doofus is supposed to be a deadly threat to Ruby and Vincent. But earlier in the film, Ruby kicks his ass twice all by herself. One time, she knocks him to the ground with a single slap. The other, she knocks him out with one whack to the head with a small lamp. How in the world is any viewer supposed to see "Psycho" as a legitimate menace after you establish him as a complete and utter wuss? Far too much of Night Junkies is like that, with basic storytelling errors and ineptitude turning a supposed gritty supernatural drama into a farcical disaster.

Now, Karia Winter is cute as the dickins and does get buck naked. The movie also puts on display the amazing bosom of Lauren Adams, who plays one of Ruby's fellow strippers. Granted, Adams' boobs are so big, firm and perfect that they're probably fake. When they look that good, though, who cares?

This film is also crammed full of crudity. Not just obscenity but a generalized vulgarity that might appeal to the terminally adolescent. And this English-made production also has one of the oddest collection of accents you'll ever hear. It's like every different British inflection you've ever heard on public television jammed into your ear all at once.

But besides the quality female nudity, its generally coarse nature and some audio anthropology, Night Junkies has absolutely nothing to offer anyone. Unless you've got a taste for good ideas that get made into bad movies, skip this one.

misogyny abounds!!

[pseudosalon · 13 April 2008]

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.

Bad British film

[amgee-89551 · 1/10 · 3 June 2018]

I saw this years ago on the horror channel. I thought it was terrible. Most of the acting is unbearable. I did like Katia Winter init. Her performance was the whole highlight of the film. Katia Winter Is such an underrated actress. I'm glad she got some popularity from being in Sleepy Hollow the tv show and she appeared in some episodes of Dexter. This film has got a lot of nudity and blood. Night Junkies has got one of the best sex scene in a movie. It's quite explicitly. Hats off to Katia Winter for doing that scene. That's the best scene in Night junkies in my opinion. The plot is ridiculous bad. A stripper has sex with a vampire who apparently is a junkie lol. Katia Winter Was sexy as a vampire stripper. This film is just rubbish tbh. I don't recommend it. I do recommend the sex scene with Katia Winter lol.

Original Low-Budget Vampire Movie

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 13 October 2012]

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")

Grubby and unlikeable with a split personality

[neil-476 · 5/10 · 6 April 2010]

I wanted to like this, really I did. And it did show some promise, principally with cinematography - the seedy underworld in which it was set was well portrayed.

But it forgot to have a story, and it forgot to give any of its characters anything to empathise with, so I really didn't care what happened to them.

I hated the bad language, which didn't appear to have any dramatic purpose whatsoever, and achieved nothing.

Oh, and I was expecting a vampire movie, and what I got was a movie about junkies. OK, so the clue was in the title, but the title also mentioned vampires, and these weren't.

Lawerence Peacre has truly revived the long dead sub genre of vampires.

[DrunkenGoon · 9/10 · 11 May 2007]

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.

Night Junkies

[Scarecrow-88 · 7/10 · 22 March 2008]

Lurid vampire film, set within a seedy part of London where night feeders feast on the blood of prostitutes. Well two, in particular, both bitten by a mysterious woman, never named(..and whose face is never shown). One is Vincent Monroe(Giles Alderson), a night feeder who waxes existential about how the addiction for blood is akin to a heroine junkie's need for the next fix. He falls in love with a tough-talking, street-wise exotic dancer, Ruby(Katia Winter, who smolders on screen)for whom he bites, and turns, into a feeder. Ruby is haunted by the nightmarish childhood where memories of her heroine-addicted father(..seen at the opening as we view his puss-oozing arm, infected by the ugly needles)who would commit suicide in the next room. Ruby is being groomed as the top stripper of a club magnate, Max(Jonathan Coyne), a bald vicious sort, in tailor-made suits who "protects" the female investments under his employ. The lucrative prostitution ring he runs in his stripping establishment is ran under Max's iron fist and, along with his muscle(Daniel Kobbina), persuades his girls to participate in keeping the business a success. Ruby is continuously pressured by Max to take her position as a dancer one step further by making more money having sex with clients. Soon Ruby will attempt to leave her boss with Vincent working as her avenger..but a Jack-the-Ripper type psychopath(René Zagger), under Max's employ, also a feeder(..the other male turned by the mysterious female who seems to meet men she picks up at bars with the sole intent on spreading her "sickness" to others)has a fixation with Ruby and will seek revenge for what Vincent does to his boss, as well as to settle a score with the one who denounced his advances. This psycho is the actual one feasting on his boss' employees.

I commend the effort of director Lawrence Pearce whose obviously working with a rather low budget..it really shows because he shoots most of the film at night, with characters shot in darkened rooms and streets. Set in London, the director opts to show very little of the characteristics associated with the city, probably due to financial woes than choice. Yes, he does use modern techniques, but the director seems intent on keeping this "vampire" tale story-driven, even if the setting is riddled with foul characters and ugly circumstances. London, in this film, is portrayed as a nasty world replete with loathsome people. The title is quite appropriate..this views vampirism as an addiction with the need to feed insatiable, always there yearning for blood as the body desires oxygen. We are privy to Vincent's methods in how he selects and disposes with his victims. He tries to be selective, but there are times where he must not be choosy.He informs Ruby as they stroll a bridge that over the edge is his "..cute little community which rests at the bottom of the Thames." Ruby finds this repulsive, but Vincent believes he's doing them the community a service, if he left the bodies he fed from lying dead, "..it'd be like a user dumping needles on the street." This film is very talky with Vincent narratively explaining the burden of his addiction. At the forefront is this tragic love story between two lost souls trying to make a pact against feeding, but fighting the craving for blood(..along with the psycho searching for them and his climactic confrontation)will test their bond. Not a bad little movie, I rather liked it. But, the film is drenched in unpleasantness(the sleazy nature of Max's business is exploited; René Zagger's sadistic psycho beats a drunken hooker across the face in a rage, lapping up the blood on her face like a starving mutt), so it's not for all tastes(..pun intended). Many might feel that René Zagger is a bit too over-the-top..he certainly seems to be enjoying himself, relishing his violent behavior theatrically.

How Disappointing

[Uriah43 · 2/10 · 26 February 2013]

This film has just about everything it needs to be a great vampire movie. It has a dark and dreary atmosphere, seedy nightclubs, sexy women, good background music, a good overall plot and credible performances by the actors, most notably by Katia Winter as "Ruby Stone". But it fails miserably when it comes to the dialogue and the vampires themselves. For starters, the dialogue seems to be one long pitiful complaint of "why me?" throughout the film. The vampires also inspire no great awe either. Although they have an amazing healing ability they lack many of the things we typically associate with being a vampire. For example, they drink blood but they have no fangs. Neither do they have any special speed, strength or agility. Garlic and holy water do nothing to them. So in essence, what this film offers is all the trimmings but no real meat when it comes down to it. How disappointing.

Vampires behaving badly (unvampire-like).

[Someguysomwhere · 6/10 · 6 August 2007]

Ahh, yes! -Another take on the vampire lore! I like the fact that the writer of this thing is trying to do something different with the vampire idea (as others have tried to do). The basic change always seems to involve removing some of the traditional qualities of the vampire that most of us are familiar with. In this instance, the writer went for broke and removed almost everything but the need for blood.

I'm none too happy with that.

The vampires in Night Junkies seem like ordinary junkies or ordinary people with a chemical addiction. There is nothing eerie or supernatural in their appearance. FOR GODSAKE, THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE FANGS! IMAGINE THAT! Practically speaking, having extended incisors makes taking blood more efficient; "neater" in fact, since you need only make 2 puncture holes in the right place. However, with regular "human" teeth it becomes a messier affair as it requires some tearing of flesh to get what you want. We could therefore say that these particular vampires are not as evolved as traditional vampires with there long sharp "practical" fangs.

I think the main reason for these untraditional vampires is that the writer (and most of the IMDb commentators) wants a fresh perspective and to "update" the vampire idea. I'm all for a fresh look at the vampire idea but I really believe you do a disservice to it when you take away the eeriness and creepiness of it; the "supernatural" or "otherworldly" flavor of it, if you will. This is a big part of what scares you. So why take it out by stripping the vampire of so much of their power? The vampires in this movie are horrific only in the sense that serial killers are. Nothing preternatural about them, just psycho. This is one reason I did not like the movie that much. But also, with these human-like vampires, the movie seemed more like a depressing slice of life of those who live on the fringes of society due to mental disorders, drug addiction, and prostitution. Everybody in this movie seemed depressingly dysfunctional. In fact this "vampire" movie comes off as a METAPHOR for drug addiction and the sad lives of those so addicted. So if you want to see this movie -BE WARNED! It is a drug addiction-type movie more than a "vampire" one.

I guess some writers feel that the vampire idea is more believable (and more interesting) if they are more human than they traditionally are. There may be some truth to this. But I say there has to be a way that the traditional vampire who is able to become a bat, a wolf, smoke, and able to climb sheer walls and hypnotize the hell out of you could still be interesting to today's more sophisticated audience. Love, Boloxxxi.

proud to proclaim myself a night junkie

[turnerlara · 10/10 · 13 May 2007]

As a puritanical fan of cinema and the concept of vampires, I have felt woefully let down by the spate of vampire flicks in recent years. The low budget ones especially have been cringe worthy. And then Lawrence Pearce comes along with his debut feature to restore my faith. It goes to show what someone with talent and vision can do on a true shoestring of a budget.

Night Junkies banishes the supernatural and elitist aspects that are always tied to the vampire genre, and gone too is the un-relatable overly brooding protagonist. Pearce's vampires are junkies in the truest sense of the term, and it is certainly a much more disturbing context, particularly with a view to the more than psychotic character: these are just people, albeit with a very unusual addiction. It creates a vulnerability in the characters that is endearing, and allows for the humanising moral debate within the vampires on who they feed on, or even if they could bring themselves to do it at all, giving them fantastic depth instead of emotional flat-lining.

Neither the sex nor the violence are at all gratuitous – although it is certainly shocking in places. Misogyny is not a keyword for this movie, but sexy certainly is. While most vampire movies flirt with the idea of eroticism, this film puts out. And the key thing to it is that it is never out of place, you never think that it is there for audience titillation; it flows smoothly with the plot, as it should.

The Tarantino references are well earned, and like all good Tarantino movies, this movie has plenty of lines to quote. The script is fantastic in fact; the dialogue is never over fussy or disjointed. And as with any script, the delivery can make or break it. Despite the general rule that low budget equals less than second-rate acting, this film refuses to conform. The acting is far superior to other low budget movies in the genre, divine in places I would go so far to say. And while the plot is certainly dark, it is never gloomy, there is a humour to it that us horror fans particularly enjoy, especially when it is done so well so as not to detract from the mood or to create moments where it becomes a parody.

I think one of the biggest joys of this movie is that it doesn't just appeal to a singular demographic or type of movie fan: it isn't limited to the enjoyment of the die-hard vampire or horror movie buff. It is enjoyable on both those levels, of course, but also for the drama and thriller audience this would hold a thrall. In fact the romance that unravels between Ruby and Vincent is truly captivating; it is a real romance, not the numb emotionally stunted whim so often portrayed in films of the genre that Pearce has managed to give the kiss of life. In short, seeing this film almost makes you feel that you have seen a number as it fills the need that each of the genres of horror, drama, thriller and romance fill – you finish it feeling satiated in the best sense of the word.

I can't wait to see what will come next from this director, and I can only hope and pray for another instalment in this world he has created so expertly.

Actually a brilliant movie

[scottjwhite · 7/10 · 24 August 2007]

Gets so many points across metaphorically without shouting them out, for 70% of the time its a vampire revenge movie, for the rest its a love story and all the time it's a story about addiction of any kind. To my mind it's pure genius. I haven't heard of this director before, but I will be looking for anything in the future and anything including shorts in the past. I cannot believe this movie is not being hyped by the studio, other than the sex/stripper scenes it's not too strong. The cinematography while stealing from other directors, is timed well, placed well and gives the movie the look it is aiming for. If you see a film about vampires and you smoke, drink too much or do too much Peruvian Marching powder, then this is a movie that shows you what you are.

(spoiler) tired of endings but good flick

[picadilli · 6/10 · 10 March 2011]

May have been low budget but the acting for most of the characters was good and the story was good. Thoroughly enjoyed this, did not find it slow- maybe if you are a blade vampire type of movie person you might have found it slow. Only thing that gets me is I am tired of vampires offing themselves in the end! What is so wrong with being a vampire that they all go from living the high life and drinking blood to - oh no- we can't do this anymore- let's fry ourselves. Can we please have a non tortured accepting vampire once in a while? Overall though, I did enjoy this movie.Being that vamps are an old topic, there is not much left to be original. I don't mind a movie that follows a formula.

I loved this... and now I want more...

[handbagbitch · 10/10 · 11 May 2007]

I was at the premiere screening of "Night Junkies" in London on 6th October 2006, and I absolutely loved it - it exceeded all of my expectations.

The film is well shot, atmospheric and really grabs the audience's attention. The humour that runs through it lifts the tension without breaking it altogether. The storyline is original while still staying true to the genre. The dialogue is sharp and natural, the characters likable and well-developed. The acting is superlative in parts.

All in all, very entertaining viewing. I can't wait to see more of Lawrence Pearce's work in years to come.

Performances save this movie

[TdSmth5 · 6/10 · 26 May 2009]

During the first minutes of this movie I was ready to absolutely hate it. Cheap looking, filmed entirely at night, darkness, ultra cheap sets, very narrow focus on just people- little scenery, unintelligible British accents- and yet another re-interpretation that butchers vampirism.

But as things progressed, I found myself looking past those shortcomings and actually liking this movie. The problems didn't go away by any means, but the performances by Katia Winter (Ruby), who is a hottie, and by the main villain played by René Zagger, make this movie actually worthwhile.

The movie begins somewhat incongruously mixing past and future in short unconnected scenes. There's the murder of a woman by a serial killer, a guy chatting to a girl on a phone-sex line, the same guy driving a car and talking about addiction, strippers dancing. Among those strippers is Ruby who is abused and mistreated by her boss and his muscle because she doesn't want to offer "additional services" to clients at the club. She runs into our main male character who is a vampire. He treats vampirism as an addiction that needs to be satisfied every night. He cannot control himself and turns Ruby into a vampire.

Ruby, however, is not willing to kill others for blood. They both agree to try and quell the urge by taking relaxants, pain relievers and other pills until they can drive to a dr. who can help them. But their plans are foiled by the club-owners muscle who is in love with Ruby. Not only that but he's also the serial killer who has been brutally killing women. And eventually he finds Ruby. But he has another surprise: he's a vampire as well! At the end of the movie all of the short scenes that were put at the beginning of the movie are reconnected to clarify things. Personally, I hate vampire movies that aren't vampire movies. This is one of them. This could very well be an addiction movie. Aside from that though, this movie grows on you because Ruby is well-acted, sympathetic, pretty, and sexy. The villain is brutal and ruthless yet comical in a way. The actor mixes your standard sadistic misogynist with Elvis, making a remarkable character. There's one outlandish scene of him licking the face of one of his victims that starts out just looking funny but becomes cringe-inducing after a while. As a vampire movie, this is pretty bad, but if you look at this movie as a human drama it's actually worth a look.

Addictive!

[joee_19 · 10/10 · 11 May 2007]

This movie is exactly what a modern day vampire movie should be. We have moved on from the immortal, emotionally numb vampire characters seen in older films of this genre. This movie highlights thoughts, feelings and strength of character that you wouldn't expect to see and the whole storyline is dark and extremely sexy.

The way in which this movie has been directed shows the vulnerability of the characters superbly, making the characters likable despite what they are. Lawrence Pearce's directing has made this movie dark, romanticised and intense. A fantastic achievement for a first film.

The acting gets 10/10 for me also, Giles Anderson as Vincent is extremely captivating and perfectly matched with his female counterpart, Ruby. The idea of treating these vampires like real life drug addicts adds an original twist to the story, making this my favourite vampire movie to date. The only thing that could possibly contend is a second instalment of Night Junkies!

One of the sexiest vampire flicks you'll ever see.

[pkourakos · 8/10 · 4 May 2007]

Set in the winding streets and dark alleyways of riverside London, the story centers on Ruby and Vincent. Ruby works as a lap dancer whose "pimp" is intent on promoting her as a call girl. In a dark alleyway Vincent was 'turned' by a prostitute, and after weeks of battling with his condition, he has finally give in to his addiction: blood.

Vincent and Ruby meet through a chance encounter in a London café and fall in love during one special night. Vincent tries to feed on Ruby to satisfy his addiction which goes against his heart. Ruby escapes, but has now been 'turned' and has also become a vampire. Ruby has come from a very dark past, and has always had to be a fighter. Her father was a heroin addict who killed himself in the next room when she was a little girl. After she has turned into a vampire, she keeps getting creepy flashbacks about him. Unsure of what is happening to her, she returns to a remorseful Vincent who convinces her to stay and work things out. Together hey try to go 'cold turkey' on their blood addiction. Ruby's previous 'owners' want their star girl back and Matt, a man from her recent past, seeks her out.

Made for under $100,000, the production value is exceptionally good. Since the movie was low budget, you might expect acting typical for alow budget movie, but surprisingly the actors did a really good job. I especially liked Giles Alderson as Vincent. Lawrence Pearce also found some beautiful women to play the strippers. They are some of the hottest women I've seen in a vampire flick, and yes, there's plenty of nudity. This movie has an addicting sexiness that grabs you from the start. In fact, this movie has a sexiness that most vampire movies forget to include.

The writing is very Tarantino-esquire and his influence is obvious as well. Not that this is a bad thing, some of the conversations are fantastic and this movie offers some decent quote-ables. We also get some really great scenes, for instance, after Ruby turns, she is involved in a dominatrix fantasy with a John. He's bound, naked and bending over. She then grabs a strap-on dildo and is about to apply it when she faints from the changes that she's going through.

This movie seems very misogynistic at times. There are several scenes where women are beaten. One woman is beaten to death by a man who then proceeds to lick the blood off of her face.

The action scenes were decent, but there could have been more of them and there wasn't too much gore, but vampire movies shouldn't have all that much. There is, however, an ample amount of blood that is used very nicely. The way this movie was made, it's almost hard to tell that it's low budget.

What sets this movie apart from other vampire movies is the vampires themselves. They are portrayed as real people, but just have been dealt a "bad hand." They have no supernatural powers except for some enhanced senses and there was no evidence of them being stronger than an ordinary human. The vampires in this movie are junkies. Their addiction is blood, and when Ruby is sitting in a hotel room trying to quit "cold turkey" she was going through withdrawal. This reminded me a bit of "Trainspotting".

The bites are also different from typical vampires. Instead of the two marks on the neck, we are shown a full human bite mark. The standard weaknesses aren't in play either. They are not immortal. Holy water and garlic don't work, although sunlight causes their skin to crisp up. It seems the best way to kill them is by a stake through the heart, a bullet in the head, or by draining all of their blood. Of course any ordinary human would die with these methods as well.

While this was very good, there is some bad but not much. The only bad I can think of is that it's not as graphic as I would have liked and the story moves very slowly and plays out as a horror/drama.

This is Lawrence Pearce's first film and it's done very well. Like I said, it runs a bit slow and it's more dramatic than action-packed, but if you like vampire movies that are out of the norm, you may enjoy this movie.

Even though the movie moved really slow and more action would have been very welcome, I'm going to recommend this.

A dark love story :)

[JJlikeshorror · 9/10 · 13 May 2007]

I watched this movie expecting to see a gore, blood and guts slasher vampire movie, but actually what I saw was a love story told in a world of vampires. And even the vampire element isn't what I expected as the characters are literally 'junkies' instead of the supernatural fangs and capes vampires you expect.

I loved the fact that the film challenged me to actually empathise with the vampires by making them tragic, afflicted characters that appealed to my sense of the melancholic. This film is a perfect tragic love story for the goth in you, and whilst I'm not a goth, this film really touched me, which seems bizarre to say because in some areas it is very crude and violent, and there is a lot of blood (very realistic blood) on show. I finished the film feeling a real sense of loss and pain and even now weeks later I can still remember how the climax affected me in so many different ways.

Night Junkies is amazingly original in it's approach, or at least to me it is, and the dark but beautiful relationship between Vincent and Ruby stole my heart. The most beautiful of dark, violent movies!

An excellent take on the Vampire movie

[ewyse · 10/10 · 14 May 2007]

Night Junkies proves that original vampire movies aren't as dead as you may think. Focussing on the character's addictions, it provides us with a different take on a genre, which has been lacking in recent times.

Without giving too much away, Giles Alderson plays a convincing Vincent, a vampire who happens upon a lap dancer named Ruby, played by Katia Winter. Yes, I know it may seem difficult to just 'happen upon' a lap dancer, but they actually meet in a cafe, rather than a club and fall for each other. As the story unfolds, we follow the two main characters as they fight against their addiction for blood and there is a good back story of Ruby's father, a heroin addict, which provides a nice mirror for Ruby's new addiction and her reasons to fight it. They are hunted by 'Psycho', who has a few secrets of his own and is played convincingly (Too convincingly???) by Rene Zagger. Successfully ignoring much of the vampire Mythology, we have no fangs here (Look for a great scene, where Ruby checks her teeth in the mirror), no garlic, no holy water. A stake through the heart or bullet in the head will kill, but then, that would kill anyone right? Set in the back streets on London, Lawrence Pearce's vision of life as a night junkie, mixes the sensual, haunting life of Vincent, with the rather more sexual background of Ruby, producing a film charged with both.

This is Lawrence's first 'flick' and there should be many more to come on the strength of this. Hopefully Night Junkies will get the recognition it deserves, paving the way for Night Junkies 2 and restoring our faith in dark, edgy vampire movies.

All in all a great movie, make sure you get to see it.

Worth the wait

[ryanisameateater · 9/10 · 6 August 2007]

Night Junkies is a movie you will either love or hate. I, like most people I think, found out about this movie from the directors Myspace site where he's been using all sorts of marketing tactics to keep people interested during the long wait for the US release. Most of it fun, sometimes a little heavy handed.

Was it worth the wait? For me, definitely. For some others, definitely not. If you were hoping for a blood and guts Vampire movie with lots of special effects like the Blade movies, then you'll feel disappointed that Night Junkies is in fact more like a dark Vampire drama than a high action blood-sucker movie. Like Interview With a Vampire's more talky scenes set in modern day England.

I, however, really enjoyed it. I found the atmosphere throughout richly textured with the colors and lighting, the sets, the music and the style of it being deep and dark and sexually charged.

Some of the characters could have been a more explored and the movie could have been a more ambitious in it's aims. It ends up being quite a small story between just a few characters, but I read that it was made for $100,000 which is pretty amazing really. Night Junkies ends up being an interesting, and pretty unique vision of a type of Vampire movie I haven't seen before.

Lawrence Pearce is obviously not a director afraid of being in the public eye, by his Myspace site and the interviews I've read on the net. But well done, he should be very proud of his achievements so far.

The actors who played Vincent and Ruby gave admirable performances too, and the guy who played the Jack the Ripper characters is hilarious is a psychotic sort of way. Special mention should go to the composer and bands that made the music, it is a soundtrack that I'd buy.