Son of Darkness: To Die for II (1991) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
9 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
"It's feeding time at the OK corral."
Backlash0072 April 2006
Well, during the credit sequence for To Die For 2: Son of Darkness, I noticed that the film at least LOOKED cinematic. That makes it leaps and bounds better than its predecessor. But is it a good movie? Nope. They managed to get pretty much the entire cast of the first film (minus the two leads oddly enough) back in action. And at least there is a bit of action in this installment. It's not just a silly romance. So Drac is back and he's seducing a new chick who might have adopted his son. The "hero" of the series informs us some mysterious explosion was able to bring Dracula back after he turned to ash in the original. And somehow, all the other vampires who were KILLED in the original are all also reincarnated. It never explains that part. I really didn't expect it to. So that didn't bother me as much as it should have. The thing that bothers me is in the first film, the head vamp tells everyone his name is Vlad Tepish and no one blinks an eye. Now he's a doctor (?!?!) going by Max Schreck! Geez, do people in horror movies not watch horror movies? Or are these characters just idiots. I'm going for the latter. The only other new actor, other than the leads, is The Boy Who Could Fly. And yes, he finally gets his head lopped off with a chainsaw. So if you hate those Not Quite Human movies, rent this for a little payback. Otherwise, stay far away.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Loved IT!
iamkassandre2 May 2003
This movie has been one of my favorite vampire movies since 1991. It's got hot vampires, twists and a love story that's doomed, of course, what more could you want from a vampire flick??? A vampire with a heart that holds humanity dear to his heart, what woman wouldn't want this vampire??? ENJOY!!!!
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
This one just did not do it for me....
lthseldy17 December 2003
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.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Michael Praed is what makes this movie fun to watch.
kittycat-6088324 July 2019
It's a vampire B-flick, not much more. But Michael Praed is so hot in this movie! The perfect vampire :) He's actually the only thing that makes this movie worth a watch.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Bland and unimpressive romantic-vampire effort
kannibalcorpsegrinder11 February 2015
Moving to a small mountain town, a woman learns that her adopted infant is the son of a legendary vampire count looking to control his contentious underlings threatening his rule and must stop them from harming her baby.

Overall, this one was a pretty disappointing effort that doesn't really have a whole lot to really remark about it. One of the biggest issues with this one is the fact that nothing at all happens here, spent for the large part on trying to convince her of the vampire heritage of everyone around her to no avail, which results in countless visits to her both at work and her home in vain attempts to get the truth revealed when the surmounting evidence should've been sufficient regardless of his antics. The decision to have the brother spellbound by the female vampire doesn't have nearly the same effect it should've done because it's just too obvious what's going on here and her blindness to it all doesn't instill fear in the situation but rather infuriation at her being unable to notice it, much like the frequent trips to the clinic to meet with the doctor who takes it away to be satisfied mysterious only to have to come back again and again for the exact same reasons. By infusing all of this with a tepid and utterly clichéd romance angle that doesn't in the slightest bit feel interesting or really worthwhile as it's a retread of the last film anyway during the first half here, the horror part of this is shoved so far aside it barely even feels like one during this time except for the presence of the vampires and their bloody feedings. That does change slightly once we get to the second half where the vampiric tendencies come more to the forefront as the attacks grow more violent in execution which allows for a bit more action anyway as well as the addition of more carnage and bloodshed which is always a good notion here. This is more evident in the big action scene for the finale where the big brawl between the two vampires leads to a whole lot of action throughout with plenty of flying around on wires, powerful punching and the kind of punishment that comes from being inhuman result in a fantastic scene that really generates a lot more goodwill than initially expected and helps to overcome some of the other flaws here. Otherwise, there's not a whole lot to really like here.

Rated R: Graphic Violence, Graphic Language and Nudity.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
"I have a good body doll, I would like to keep my limbs attached." Average Vampire film.
poolandrews14 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
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...
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
This a very scary movie.
jacobjohntaylor114 November 2017
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.
1 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Pretty good B-movie
minamurray20 April 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Medieval torturer Vlad Tepesh as soft, romantic humanitarian?! Whose next, Mengele? If the hero's very unfortunate identity is forgotten, this sequel for To die for is nice, unpretentious vampire romance. It has stylish Gothic touches - old mansion, flying white curtains during romantic sex scene - and decent photography: no CGI, no draining of colors etc. Michael Praed plays Fabio look-a-like Vlad Tepish (sic) who works as a doctor and falls for a human heroine. Villains of earlier film are there, too. Full moon shines, Vlad can turn to a wolf and no one uses PVC costumes, thank God! (I am probably only person in the world who thinks that PVC looks just terribly ugly and unerotic, like a material for trash sacks.) All and all, pretty good B-movie, pleasant minor effort and notably better than overrated Underworld series or garbage like From dusk till dawn.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I would've had more fun watching Young Einstien
GWAR-226 September 1999
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.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed