Boring, long, and too preachy.

Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

This movie fails on all accounts.The script is pathetic. The story is weak and the characters shallow. You couldn't set out to write a B-movie script this bad. The plot is so weak that the framework seems like it's designed for pornography.The cinematography is juvenile. The camera angles are contrived, close-ups are used without good purpose and the lighting always seems artificial. It feels like one never leaves the same simple set.The acting, save Josh Hammond as Dan, is really bad. The actors' deliveries are monotonous. The range of emotions is zero.The men are all beautiful, each one an Adonis, but to what end? Adolescent girls and adolescent gay boys will surely revel in these images but beyond that, there is no artful purpose served by the physiques.I hate to pan someone's work so badly but this movies is truly horrible.

I stepped into the story with a third of the running time passed & seemingly nothing vital to the story had yet occurred. A 30 second flashback near the end wrapped the missing part up nicely. Any brief outline wraps up the entire movie as well, for that matter. The president of a vampiric college fraternity needs to occupy a new body every century or he'll die as will his brethren. His victim manages to sabotage the plan in the final 15 minutes of the movie. The end. I don't want to examine the illogicalities of the present vampire mythology; you can't enjoy a vampire movie without accepting that part of the story. However, there's plenty left to pick out of this corpse. The bright illumination & the sets somehow reminded me of 1990's video erotica, the cast consisted of annoying Baywatch stereotypes with the acting talent of wooden dolls & every opportunity to insert some flesh or gore into the pelicule (classic lifesavers for crummy B-movies) was thoroughly waisted. Overall the feeling occupies the middle ground between gay horror-erotica & the Worst of Buffy. This could've been a film loaded with evil charisma, Freudian subtlety & psychological confusion from the part of the victim ...plus some nudity & blood where fit. I've never seen THE LOST BOYS but no doubt it's a superior treatment of the same theme. As a final remark, the plot served one so-called twist: the female sidekick is a traitor. She happened to be the one out of 3 "heroes" to carry an invitation to the Brotherhood's party where the first contacts are established, wasn't that a hint ?

It is nonsense to say this is a "gay" horror film. We see these same shots of women in conventional horror films and don't think about the director's sexual orientation. Would this be considered gay if the director was a woman? I think not. This film is meant to be a beefcake horror film for the ladies. And while it delivers some handsome faces and a few fleeting shots of boys in theirunderwear, it's strictly G-rated stuff. Indeed, I've seen more nudity in G-rated films from the 1960s where bare butt shots of men and boys can be seen in"Planet of the Apes" or "Maya" where 15-year-old Jay North appears nude from the back side. The "Brotherhood" series films are surprisingly bloodless and nudity-free, which bucks the trend for horror films and teen sex comedies and may be why so many people feel a bit "cheated." One wonders why on direct- to-video releases David can't push the envelope a bit and show more explicit nudity of either sex. Probably because the video rental chain which finances these films through pre-production distribution agreements would decline to participate. Or it may be that the young actors who appear in these films draw the line at showing their gear or bare butts. But if you're going to have a scene where nudity is the logical costume, as in a shower scene, it doesn't make much sense to show guys showering in their underwear -- something we have seen in more recent DeCoteau films. There is a similar problem in "The Brotherhood," with the frat initiation ("make- out") scene being more logical as a nude scene. On another point, since so many have commented on why the protagonist wears black boxer briefs, this is an obvious nod to Alfred Hitchock's use of a black bra on Janet Leigh in "Psycho" after she turns "bad." (Before she turns bad she is seen in a white bra). Or more classically, the boy in the black briefs is akin to the outlaw in the black hat.

The writer had a good plot, but the writing is just plain hokey. Many of the scenes just go on and on with this forced, contrived dialogue that had me squirming in my chair. The sarcasm went too far as well. The actor playing Devon has a nice body, but his performance was noticeably stoic compared to the other actors. Despite being a low-budget film, some money was put into the sets. I would have laid off of the thunder and strobe lights though. If it was lightning and thundering that much here in Oklahoma, I would be hiding in the bathtub. The odd thing is, it never rains in the movie. The idea of a gay vampire movie is a good one; however, it was poorly executed in this movie.