An exercise in embarassment. The first novel-to-movie adaptation was released only 2-3 years before. I thought they wanted to offer something else, maybe a budget, with some visual flair. But there's nothing. In fact there is an uninteresting Elias Koteas as the investigator (there was basically none in the earlier movie), and the companion of the vampire (played by an extrememly uninteresting Richard Jenkins, who bored me horrendously in Eat Pray Love). But these greedy motherfuckas just wanted to exploit a good story, and give nothing in return. In fact, the even got lazy, walking briskly over material that was dealth with more depth in the first movie. But, I don't know the details of the novel, so who knows, they might be more faithful than the first movie. So I guess they just wanted to make an extra buck from an audience that's too lazy to read subtiles.
While watching this, I kept wondering if would I give it more praise had I not seen (or known) about the original movie. I'm not sure, because it comes across as yet-another-horror movie, even though there's a gal vampire. But that's not exactly a new concept (remember Interview With A Vampire). It's not even remotely interesting. What's most puzzling, beyond that the shit (it's not that smelly, I just hate it) got made is the positive response it received from critics. WTF!