You won't be disappointed!

Great Film overall

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Charley Brewster and Peter Vincent must face more vampires, out for revenge. Fright Night Part 2 feels like a cheesy mediocre sequel to the great original from 85'. It's neither scary or entertaining, the acting is sure as hell not that great and except some good special effects and the return of the original actors nothing really makes it on being a memorable movie plus seeing a werewolf climbing a building, trying to get threw the window, the girl closing it and him falling felt more like a kid's sunday morning cartoon than a horror movie. Such a disappointing and awful sequel to a great movie. (3.0/10)

This follow-up to the minor 1985 hit FRIGHT NIGHT is everything that a sequel shouldn't be. It basically copies the plot from the first film, tries to be cool and funny and ends up being pathetic, and lends absolutely nothing new to the plot. Interesting plot developments - that the vampire is the sister of the vampire in the first film - are brushed aside to make way for some tacky "romantic" moments and endless scenes of stupid '80s vampires trying to be hip... culminating in a new genre low, when a rollerskating vampire appears on screen. Frankly, screen vampires have never been scary since, even though there have been a couple of good efforts. This is one of the films which helped ruin their credibility and power back in the cheesy '80s.The film does have one saving grace, and his name is Roddy McDowall. McDowall once again puts in a brilliant performance which lifts the film as a whole and stops it being totally worthless; his Peter Vincent character brings much-needed class, wit, humour, and a likability to the film which makes it very easy to sit through. William Ragsdale gives a passable turn but his character is slightly irritating this time around (due to his confused, disbelieving nature). Elsewhere, Julie Carmen camps it up as the chief villainess and is, frankly, terrible. Jon Gries plays a stupid "comedy" werewolf/vampire creature and desperately wants to be like Stephen Geoffreys in the first film, but doesn't come close. The only other character of interest is the underused Brian Thompson, who is a typical "heavy" in this film but has fun with a quirk which sees him quoting Latin and eating butterflies.Much of this film is terrible and nothing really goes anywhere. The new characters are modelled rather too closely on ones in the first film and the spark of vitality is missing. While the makeup effects look nice, the actors wearing them gurn and overact so much that it makes the vampires hard to watch. As if the transsexual rollerskating vampire wasn't enough. However, there are three special effects which are really quite good, and each involves a main vampire dying. The first sees Brian Thompson's internal organs spill out of his stomach, mixed in with a healthy quota of maggots - Fulci would have been proud. The second sees the transsexual vampire die in a variation of the standard Hammer Dracula deaths, ie. it slowly dissolves. Here, it turns translucent via some nifty early computer effects which are impressive. The final, and best, death is an extended one and is saved for the chief vampire, of course. She basically burns via a nifty ray of sunshine from a mirror and turns into a blubbery skeleton - nice! Otherwise, apart from these short schlocky moments and McDowall's fine turn, FRIGHT NIGHT PART 2 is a worthless affair.

This one starts with a small montage of the original flick so you can pick up easily if you haven't seen that one. Fright Night 2 is rather a hard item to catch on DVD although it do has a cheap release in Germany mostly it goes for a lot of money on the internet. still it's worth picking up although it do has it flows.What I did like was that the original cast was back to see here. Charlie has started to believe it was all his imagination and do think vampires aren't real. But after 3 years suddenly 4 people do enter the house of Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall) and are having interest in Charley (William Ragsdale) and his girlfriend Alex (Traci Lind) and of course Peter himself. One of them is Regina (Julie Carmen), the sister of Jerry (from the original flick) It becomes clear that Regina is Jerry's (the vampire in the original film) sister and is determined to get revenge on Charley by turning him into a vampire. Of course they tried to add a bit of comedy like they did in the original one but it failed completely for me, for example the werewolf his nails being cut by a window, nah. And there are other moments that I though, stop trying to add laughter in it, bring on the gore but even that doesn't appear. It's only in the last part that the effects and gore comes in. And I must say that it looked great. The way the vampires are killed and do die is the real stuff but you have to sit a flick that have it's flows. Gore 1/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 3,5/5 Story 3/5 Comedy 0/5

I have loved this movie since the first time I saw it, when it came out. Why do they give it 2 stars? I loved the original, and found this to be the perfectly grown up book end. It has the same panache as the first one. The pacing is a little slower, but to good effect. It's sensual when it should be and picks up where it needs to. Very well acted, directed, edited, and overall executed. Still have a big crush on William Ragsdale! I'm watching it now and he's still a doll! I have seen this movie over and over again, as I've watched the original. I enjoyed the remake, but it will never reach the wonderful mix of horror, comedy, and sensuality of the original 2. And William, I'm single, if you are too, CALL me!! You're a babe!