*SPOILERS, you stubborn people, SPOILERS* DarkSarcasm's Opinion

Overall, it wasn't a complete disappointment. It's much different than the original... I'm gonna try to take this point by point, not sure how that's gonna turn out.

The plot, in general... I'm not sure what was wrong with it. It just felt incomplete. The acting was alright, but the characters... ugh. Maybe it's just me, but I didn't feel anything for them. In the original, as much as Sam annoyed me, I wanted him to get out alive (mostly). In this one, I was hoping Feldman would stake them all. The only character (other than Edgar) I liked in this one was Shane, the new head vampire (played by Angus Sutherland). However, I absolutely LOVE what they did to Alan Frog. I wasn't happy about it at first, but now I'm overflowing with fangirly joy and trying to figure out how that happened.

It's much more gory than the first. The original had a few bloody scenes, but this one goes way overboard. A lot of it seemed unnecessary - like it was there just to remind the audience that the guys were vampires. These guys were pretty sadistic - even to the point of hurting each other just for the hell of it. I also didn't like their methods of killing - vampires are supposed to kill because they need to feed, not for the fun of it. Like I said, unnecessary (and kinda gross, at some parts). It's not supposed to be a slasher movie, dammit.

I also extremely disliked the fact that this movie portrays all vampires as whores. Every vampire had his/her tongue down somebody else's throat at some point. There were two major sex scenes, one done much more tastefully than the other, but this supports the vampire=whore thing.

First, let me say this - I am by no means an against cursing. In fact, I support it wholeheartedly... usually. The excessive use of the word 'fuck' was annoying. I think it's one of those deals where it's just to remind you what year it is and what they could get away with now. The same theory applies to all the nudity. It's 2008, we understand that, we know what you can get away with in movies now - but you don't have to constantly remind us by pushing the limits. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

The ending of the movie... absolutely sucks. Definately check out the alternate endings on the DVD's special features - you will not regret it. More of the original cast appears in the alternate endings (although I'm not gonna say who just yet, on the off-chance that someone hasn't watched it yet). The alternate endings were my favorite part of the entire movie, they were worth the 3 stores I went in before finding a copy and the $20 I eventually spent. 'Edgar Frog's Guide to Coming Back Alive' is also a pretty cool feature.

Oh, did anyone else say "EDGAR!" every time that stupid kid called him "Eddie"?

Thoughts after watching the movie the 2nd time:

References to the first movie (that I noticed, anyway)
-The shirtless guy playing the sax *shudder* (Tim Cappello, the sax guy from the first movie is said to be in this one. He is credited as "Homeless man #2)
-A reference to "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre"
-Hazardous antlers
-The mysterious red light (although it may have just been there as a coincidence this time)
-"Vampires Everywhere", the comic book/slayer bible
-The comic book that Chris is looking at... pause it and look closer. There, you will see a tree full of vampires and close-ups that strangely resemble Jason Patric and Kiefer Sutherland. At least that's what I thought, after staring at it for a few minutes.
-Edgar's speech about the death of vampires, taken word for word from The Lost Boys - awesome.

Other Thoughts
-For a bunch of ex-surfers, there's a surprising lack of surfing from these guys.
-Why couldn't they just leave the poor emo kid alone?
-Knowing that Chris & Nicole's last name was Emerson, yet not explaining the connection to Sam was just wrong. He was supposed to be their uncle, according to numerous sources.
-I've decided that one part of the problem was the interaction between Tad Hilgenbrink (Chris) and Autumn Reeser (Nicole). It was unbelievable, and not in a good way. They had no chemistry, at least with Sam & Michael, they seemed like they could be siblings. Autumn Reeser is a surprisingly good actress, can't say much for Hilgenbrink, but they just should not be on screen together.
-Also, Autumn Reeser makes a great annoying little sister. ;)
-Angus Sutherland was a pretty good vampire. Not Kiefer, but he did a great job. It seemed so effortless, yet effective.
-WTF was with the Goonies thing?
-The black eyes - I don't recall seeing any of those in The Lost Boys. The Covenant, yes, but not TLB.
-These vampires seemed almost too easy to kill.
-Teeth - way too big. These (on some more than others) were almost twice as big as they should be... which was not how it was in The Lost Boys. Did vampires really evolve that much since 1987?

OK.. I'm disappointed. I agree with all of your complaints, but I have even more to add.

Why did the makeup of the vampires constantly change throughout the movie? And why do they look like "Buffy" vampires at the end?

Why were Allen and Sam cut from the movie?

Why did they go with this half-baked plot instead of doing a story about Allen?

Why was the ending so anti-climactic? They could have at least gone with the whole "mysterious head vampire" thing.

And most importantly.. why wasn't it even slightly funny? The first one had a good, witty script.

But I agree, I liked the head vampire. He was the only good new character. I really wanted something bad to happen to their wicked Aunt.

Good points, Muffin. I'd like to have a one-on-one conversation with the person who decided to cut Alan/Sam from the movie - that would end well. ;)

I think with the ending they chose, they were trying to make a reference to The Lost Boys - where Grandpa reveals that he knew all along and the boys stare dumbfounded at him. Only she didn't know anything (surprise!), so it was really just stupid. *kicks Warner Bros*

I just watched this movie! And it wasn't as bad as people said it was. I was told that it was nothing but a porno,but that didn't seem true to me. Sure there were a lot of sexual scenes, but it wasn't centered around sex too much. I thought the vampires always having sex fit because of the characters in the movie. They seem way more uh....should I say...horny than those of the first lost boys. The way they stabbed each other reminded me of scream so I sorta lauged. I also think this was just part of them- they were playing around-boys hurt each other all the time on purpose- the boys in this movie were just doing it vamp. style. And vampires (well these ones) are into the whole seduce the victim thing. It's part of what makes them sexy.

The eyes were done horrbly. OH I could have cried. The Lost Boys they had such cool eyes- not stupid black ones. and they ran like the vamps in the twilight movie( which I hated in that movie too).

Yes-the surfer thing was sorta- well- I mean vampire surfers? -_- Vampire bikers is cooler. But vampire surfers-that's stupid.

The head vampire was the best! Oh man is he a hunk;course he isn't even close to David's greatness. *fangirl comes out in me*

And I love the Goonies- though I hate their aunt.

And they were related to Sam?That would have been nice to know.

I think with a better script writer this movie would have had greater potential-and maybe some recasting too.

And the guy calling him Eddie- why did he do that?

I have watched the Lost Boys 2 several times to get my head round it. There is too much posing going on with the female Vampires. And the make up changes all the time. I didn't like Nicole's last Vampire seen. They all do look like Buffy Vampires. Chris looked too young to be a vampire. In the fight seen at the end when he was walking through the lair he was wearing a grey sweater with vampire teeth. Didn't look right. And you will never beat David. I thought Shane wasn't as cruel as David. He brought an innocent vibe to being a vampire. Hated Shane's boys. There laugh was really annoying. Like Shane though. Didn't like Nicole, she was opinionated at first and after the sex seen she was a dummy staring into space and stroking Shane all the time. Loved Edgar Frog hes the man. Loved Sam too at the end what a teas. Would have loved to see him in the 3rd. In the 3rd its suppose to explain all. Defo better script needed. The other day, I was thinking. 1987 Lost Boys one was just cool, maybe warners think this is our definition of cool for this generation. Vampire surfers that wasn't cool, wearing flip flops not cool.

Good things - like the stunts. Not a bad sound track. Like the idea of putting blood in hip flask. Like Shane - aka Angus Sutherland. Liked the bikes. EDGAR,EDGAR YOUR THE MAN - and the sex scene was okay.