Night Junkies

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")

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.

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.

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.

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.