Rating: 
Summary: Lamer than the First
Review: Okay, we all know that sequels tend to be lame. This one is no exception. Unfortunately, it's a lame sequel to a lame movie. Talk about the law of diminishing returns.Producer/director David DeCoteau and screenwriter Matthew Jason Walsh reunite for the second installment of their Brotherhood series. However, other than recycled sets and recycled themes, there is nothing to connect this movie to The Brotherhood--except actor Forrest Cochran who is theoretically playing the same character, but as I don't remember the character at all in the first movie, it's hard to call it a true connection. As with the first, it is a thrill-less thriller and about as "straight" a piece of homoeroticism as you're likely to encounter. Actually, to be fair, the underlying premise of this installment is slightly stronger than the first, even if it isn't related, and the plot is a little more interesting. However, the execution is weaker. The acting is adequate, with only Sean Ferris exhibiting any real charisma. This is unfortunate, as the whole point of the character Luc is supposed to be his incredible charisma, and Forret Cochran doesn't have the presence to pull it off. This time, the story takes place at a private high/prep school, although it appeared to me to be the same location on which the original was shot. The student body is keep in a perpetual state of anxiety by a quartet of shirtless bullies. Three outsiders are the primary focus of the bullies. New student Luc arrives and offers the outsiders a way to get even which involves swimming in their boxer briefs and sitting in a satanic circle while wearing boxer briefs. The quotient of screen time of guys in boxer briefs is higher than the first, and there are two female quasi-leads, doubling the number from the previous installment. The camera work and the editing is slightly better than the first, but there are still times when DeCoteau would better serve his audience by pulling the camera back and using more fluid editing. It's weak, but what truly appalled me was the amorality of the ending. As a reviewer, I don't think it's fair for me to give away the ending, and I won't, but I have to admit that it really angered me. Screenwriter Walsh hasn't thought through the ramifications of his characters' actions, and this left me quite annoyed. Another place where Young Worlocks matches its predecessor is in the lack of any bonus material on the DVD. The movie is presented in 1.33:1 screen aspect ratio. As this was probably shot for direct-to-video, I don't know if there was a version with a wider screen aspect ratio. ... (C)2001 Joe Edkin
Rating: 
Summary: Sean Farris is the next Tom Cruise.
Review: Overall, the only one that carries the movie is Sean Farris. He is the most gorgeous young actor I have seen since Tom Cruise in Risky Business. I rate this movie a four since I got to see Sean Farris in his undies. Delicious!
Rating:
Summary: Not the best film, a unique genre, and talent!
Review: With great respect for all opinions expressed and implied by many of the "reviewers" on Amazon and those critics in print: The fact is simple. What David DeCocteau is doing here is taking a cheesy, 5-10 day shoot horror genre and making something a little different out of it... twisting the traditional T&A into P&A (a humorous comment made by an earlier reviewer, and it is totally true!, I think a fair amount of good judgement is required before purchasing this DVD. Does this film cater to the young female audience? YES!
Does it cater to a gay audience? YES!
Does it require or demand any substantial brain matter or deep analysis to enjoy or otherwise "figure out" this flick! Heck NO! We are dealing here with cheesy horror and a small tad of "sexploitation", even though, in a review of the Brotherhood I, I stated that David DeC. was not being a sexploitation artist, it seems that it is now necessary for me to correct that statement, as to avoid confusion... First... there is absolutely NO GRATUITOUS NUDITY. There are NO "in-your-face" sexual contents in this film. There IS however, a plain and simple fact: This film, like several others by David DeC. have a blatant, and, gratefully unashamed, appreciation for the male form, and the unique sensibility to delve into the taboo areas of male-bonding, body worship, and the ability for lead characters of the male genre to exercise psychological control over their male counterparts. This clearly makes some of David DeC.'s works "HOMOEROTIC". This may make some uncomfortable, it may also stimulate others. I humbly disagree with those who may object to this film because of the homoeroticism as deeply as I disagree with those who find that they have been misled into thinking this title is a "gay film". It is neither! It is simply a different way of dealing with the genre of fast produced, low budget, horror films that this reviewer, as a lover of the horror genre, was pleasantly surprized by! This film is well acted with a usual lineup of young TALENTED males of whom Dave DeC. is well known to acquire. I see nothing wrong with giving a handsome young man a "first break" in the film industry... because it seems that David DeC. does that quite a bit, and the results are usually rather good! (Frankly, I am glad that David hired them first... what is the other possible option for a young talent? Without mentioning it, smart ones know the answer!) In particular, the perfomance by C.J. Thomason should be noted. The guy was only 18 when this was shot, and it was his first role in any film production. I wish him the ABSOLUTE BEST! There were several scenes in this film that other young actors had problems with,(specifically, the locker room, intimidation scene)which C.J. handled BRILLIANTLY! (C.J. was not the first actor to audition for this role, but his ability to handle it resulted in his hiring just two days before shooting began). (Reference source: David DeCocteau's commentary on the double collection dics of "The BrotherHood") If you simply can not stand the sight of bonding between young men, then do not buy this title. If you want love scenes that are explicitly gay or a 100% gay film then don't buy it either. (There are so many other titles out there.. but if you are a true collector of gay-themed cinema, I would urge you to not pass this one up!) And, certainly, if you want a complex horror movie with all the trimmings, (say the like of "Poltergeist" or "Alien" or the "Shining") this is not the film for you either. [ A special note to readers of this review who are GLBTQ: David DeC. is so much smarter than one could think... In the "BrotherHood I" it was necessary to share "blood" as part of the plot... In this 2nd film (note: NOT a sequel) there exists a similar element, which the director was keen to point out: the "sharing of tears" is necessary to be part of the second "brotherhood". So we have BLOOD and then TEARS. Both, bodily fluids, but the parallel between the two speaks volumes. I suspect David DeCocteau is sending a message to all GLBTQ people... at least, to those of us who lived through the horror of the 1980's and the pan-demic of AIDS. So... I will not simply discard this film as without any complexity of thought.. in fact,, I think the director knows exactly what he is doing.. since parts 3 and 4 are now in production, we should all see within the year if there is such a depth to my thinking. For now, it makes sense to me! ] But... if you want a film that is off the edge a bit, has no great depth of thought, but rather a simple storyline (predictable), smacks clearly of homoeroticism, has beautiful male leads (that are talented) and maybe redfines the word "THRILLER" (only becuase it may "thrill" the viewer in a unique way that it thrilled *this* viewer)... then I think it is worth investigating! Respectfully submitted. Bob
| 
