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.
Buy Lost Boys: The Tribe (2008) Now
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.
Read Best Reviews of Lost Boys: The Tribe (2008) Here
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.
Want Lost Boys: The Tribe (2008) Discount?
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...
Save 47% Off
Frank Capra directed this film twice. The second version was called Pocketful of Miracles, starred the fearless Bette Davis, and was made in glorious technicolor. Both were actually very good films.
