jacobjohntaylor1 This a great horror movie. It is very scary. It has a great story. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. It a Dracula movie and they are very scary most of the time. This is a sequel to Dracula. 3.8 is underrating this movie. This a great movie. It is scarier then the Exorcist. I give it 10 out 10. If you like good horror movies from the 80's you like this movie. This a great movie. It is very scary. Dracula (March 1931) is better. Still this a great movie. It is scary. Dracula (1992) is also better. So Dracula (1979) is also better. Dracula (1958) is also better. Still this a great horror movie. See it. It is one of the best movies ever.

Paul Andrews Son of Darkness: To Die for II tells the tale of of a 500 odd year old Vampire named Vlad Tepish who now goes by the name of Max Schreck (Michael Praed) & works as a doctor in a Californian hospital, apparently he is the guy whom Bram Stoker based the character of Dracula upon all those years ago... Local small town resident Nina (Rosalind Allen) takes her young baby son Tyler (Devin Sims) to the hospital because she feels something is wrong with him. Doctor Schreck takes a look at the little fella, pops out the room with him for a few minutes, comes back & gives Tyler back to his Mother as good as new. However Nina starts to become suspicious when Tyler sleeps during the day & only wakes at night, her Brother Danny (Jay Underwood) begins to undergo a sinister change as he starts to go out with a Vampire named Cellia (Amanda Wyss) & a man named Martin (Scott Jacoby) contacts her & says that Max is a Vampire & to be wary of him. Meanwhile violence breaks out because there is a power struggle in the Vampire hierarchy as Max's Brother Tom (Steve Bond) dislikes the idea that all Vampires should drink blood from blood banks in hospitals, no Tom likes the hunt & the kill of human prey too much...Directed by David Price this is the sequel to To Die For (1989) which I must admit to having not seen so I can't compare the two or how much this sequel follows on from the original. The script by Leslie King moves along at a reasonable pace, just about enough happened to stop me from getting too bored. You know I think I was put at a bit of a disadvantage by not having seen the original, certain scenes & snippets of dialogue seemed to refer to things that weren't specifically in this so I'd imagine that a few ideas & plot threads were carried over like Martin & his friend Jane (Remy O'Neill) who appear in the credit listings for the original & aren't really introduced or fleshed out that well, almost as if you should know everything about them already. At certain times it felt like I was watching an episode of a soap opera having missed the previous one & not quite getting it. Anyway, I thought it was an OK Vampire film, nothing spectacular but it passed the time harmlessly enough & there are a few decent ideas here like the Vampire working as a Doctor trying to save lives & trying to get his kind to drink from the blood bank in his hospital.Director Price does an OK job, it has a decent atmosphere & is competent. The sequence in which Tom & Cellia attack the couple in their home & kill them is nicely done & pretty unsettling. The blatant Nosferatu (1922) homage of calling it's main Vampire character Max Schreck is as self referential as it gets, right? There isn't much gore, a few bites, a few blood stained crime scenes, someone has their head chopped off with a chainsaw (it sounds better than it is), a gory hospital patient wound, death by sunlight & a couple of stakings.Technically Son of Darkness: To Die for II is OK, it's not brilliant & it ain't going to win any awards but it's competent if nothing else. The special effects are good but they could have done with a bit more blood to make it all a bit juicier. The acting was alright & Wyss makes for quite a sexy Vampire.Son of Darkness: To Die for II is an OK watch if your desperate & there's nothing else on, you could do better for sure but at the same time you could do a lot worse, the decision is yours...

lthseldy1 Two things I like, Micheal Praed and vampire flicks but when I saw this movie, I found out that the two just did not mix well together. Micheal Praed is one person that I'm used to seeing in his older more prominent role as Robin Hood and when I see him in this film as a vampire, his character seemed more like a sympathetic character than a character of mystery and that sense of allurement that most vampires seem to possess. He had a little mystery in the movie but I just couldn't see him playing this role as a kind, caring loving vampire. And the British accent didn't help either. I was also lost in the explanation of the movie when all of the sudden the victims brother knows the vampire and what he's all about and begins to tell this tale to his sister that I just couldn't see fit in this movie. This is not the worst of vampire flicks but it's not the best.

GWAR-2 Now, when we rented this film, we thought it would be a cheesy vampire flick. Well, it wasn't cheesy at all. It was just plain boring. I have no intentions of seeing the first one now. This movie was horrible. I give it credit for being shot well, but the plot was boring. The acting wasn't all that bad. It just makes me wonder why someone would want to make such a boring movie.