Fright Night 2 Reviews

  • Jan 20, 2020

    Yet another really disappointing remake.

    Yet another really disappointing remake.

  • Nov 04, 2019

    Not as interesting as part-1. Half the time passes searching in the dark with phone lights. Over 90% of movie is shot in the dark - you can hardly see anything. No wonder it did not do well at the box office.

    Not as interesting as part-1. Half the time passes searching in the dark with phone lights. Over 90% of movie is shot in the dark - you can hardly see anything. No wonder it did not do well at the box office.

  • Nov 02, 2019

    New Blood still remains an unnecessary remake to a film that didn't need one in the first place. However, where this remake succeeds while the previous one didn't is in taking the basic elements but crafting something totally different while retaining the spirit of the original 1985 movie. Instead of taking on nostalgia to rip it apart for cynical modernisation of current Hollywood trends as the 2011 movie did this film partly captures the fun of the original but within entirely different situations. It's still a retelling of the same plot but done with more originality and effort than the previous remake. It's the remake they should have launched out the starting gate first time around. This Brewster isn't cool yet but with an overall damn better job as a remake than its predecessor it really does feel like Fright Night for real this time.

    New Blood still remains an unnecessary remake to a film that didn't need one in the first place. However, where this remake succeeds while the previous one didn't is in taking the basic elements but crafting something totally different while retaining the spirit of the original 1985 movie. Instead of taking on nostalgia to rip it apart for cynical modernisation of current Hollywood trends as the 2011 movie did this film partly captures the fun of the original but within entirely different situations. It's still a retelling of the same plot but done with more originality and effort than the previous remake. It's the remake they should have launched out the starting gate first time around. This Brewster isn't cool yet but with an overall damn better job as a remake than its predecessor it really does feel like Fright Night for real this time.

  • May 18, 2018

    Just a generic vampire movie, with the Fright Night brand slapped on. Terrible acting, terrible plot, just terrible all around. Stay away, you have been warned.

    Just a generic vampire movie, with the Fright Night brand slapped on. Terrible acting, terrible plot, just terrible all around. Stay away, you have been warned.

  • Jan 02, 2017

    The first movie was better than this

    The first movie was better than this

  • Sep 24, 2016

    Garbage that is worse than the original sequel. Also, all characters from the former Fright Night have been replaced by other actors.

    Garbage that is worse than the original sequel. Also, all characters from the former Fright Night have been replaced by other actors.

  • Jun 14, 2016

    I'm going to try my hardest to tap that. Ed Bates and Charlie Brewster are best friends on a school trip to Romania. They have a new professor in Romania who teaches them the history of art and vampires in Romania. The best friends see the professor in some weird sexual activity across the street from their hotel room that gives them doubts about her identity. "Romania can be a very dangerous place." Eduardo Rodriguez, director of Stash House, El Gringo, and the television series Blood Cell and Fear Itself, delivers Fright Night 2. The storyline for this picture is a cliché blend of the original plot in a new setting. The horror aspects were below average as was the acting. The cast includes Will Payne, Jaime Murray, Sean Power, Chris Waller, and Joelle Coutinho. "Are we going to do this shit or what?" This was recently added to the Netflix queue so I added it to the wish list. This was a pretty miserable addition to the genre. There wasn't much new here and what they were trying to do didn't work for me. I'd skip this. "I know you liked what you saw." Grade: D

    I'm going to try my hardest to tap that. Ed Bates and Charlie Brewster are best friends on a school trip to Romania. They have a new professor in Romania who teaches them the history of art and vampires in Romania. The best friends see the professor in some weird sexual activity across the street from their hotel room that gives them doubts about her identity. "Romania can be a very dangerous place." Eduardo Rodriguez, director of Stash House, El Gringo, and the television series Blood Cell and Fear Itself, delivers Fright Night 2. The storyline for this picture is a cliché blend of the original plot in a new setting. The horror aspects were below average as was the acting. The cast includes Will Payne, Jaime Murray, Sean Power, Chris Waller, and Joelle Coutinho. "Are we going to do this shit or what?" This was recently added to the Netflix queue so I added it to the wish list. This was a pretty miserable addition to the genre. There wasn't much new here and what they were trying to do didn't work for me. I'd skip this. "I know you liked what you saw." Grade: D

  • Avatar
    Gimly M Super Reviewer
    Jun 03, 2016

    The inappropriately named "Fright Night 2" is far and away the worst entry in the Fright Night franchise, but not completely lacking in merit. I say inappropriately named because it is neither a sequel to the original Fright Night (which already had a Part 2) nor is it a sequel to the 2011 remake of Fright Night as I had assumed it would be. Instead it is another remake of Fright Night, completely ignoring the events of all 3 previous films and re-casting/re-telling/re-imagining the first plot. So yeah, you should probably know that going in.

    The inappropriately named "Fright Night 2" is far and away the worst entry in the Fright Night franchise, but not completely lacking in merit. I say inappropriately named because it is neither a sequel to the original Fright Night (which already had a Part 2) nor is it a sequel to the 2011 remake of Fright Night as I had assumed it would be. Instead it is another remake of Fright Night, completely ignoring the events of all 3 previous films and re-casting/re-telling/re-imagining the first plot. So yeah, you should probably know that going in.

  • May 16, 2016

    It was actually pretty good. If it weren't for the two migraine strobe light scenes it would have got 4 stars. The vampiress was smoking along with the scenes. Peter was cheesy. But overall it has familiar rings of the first one.......which I'm a huge fan of. Its entertaining, see it.

    It was actually pretty good. If it weren't for the two migraine strobe light scenes it would have got 4 stars. The vampiress was smoking along with the scenes. Peter was cheesy. But overall it has familiar rings of the first one.......which I'm a huge fan of. Its entertaining, see it.

  • Jesse O Super Reviewer
    Apr 20, 2016

    Color me surprised when I come out of this movie not thinking that it was as awful as one might have expected from a low-budget, direct-to-video sequel of what was already a remake. I know the rating says that this movie is bad, and it is, technically speaking, it's just not as bad as one would imagine. Perhaps the problem with this, and many other movies like this, is that they take a generic script, make some slight changes to it so it fits with the name of the famous franchise that they're attaching to it and voila. I'm 99.9% certain that this script did not start out as the sequel to Fright Night's remake. I'd be willing to be on that. They just called it Fright Night 2 because it might entice some people to give it a shot, because they enjoyed either the original (or the sequel to that) or its remake. That's the only way. The changes to the film are pretty much the same stuff you saw in the original or the remake. Guy comes across vampire, nobody believes him, guy recruits an 'expert' on these mythological creatures, expert helps guy gets rid of vampire. It's, essentially, the same shit here and that's where, I think, the movie falters. Instead of, at least, trying to carve its own path, in however limited that path may have been, they instead went with what worked two previous other times. I never saw the original's sequel so I have no idea what that film did. It's not like anybody would've expected this movie to set the world on fire, it's a movie that was meant to cash in on the name of a successful horror movie, so I think you can take some sort of risk while still fulfilling Universal's goal of trying to cash in on the franchise. The movie's 'selling', if it can be called that, based on the name and not on the content. That's just a matter of fact, so part of me wishes that they would've taken some more risks in trying to differentiate itself from a lot of the other direct to video sequels. But it is what it is, but the fact that they tried to appease to fans of Fright Night instead of trying to do something is one of the lamer parts about the movie. The acting isn't great, the cinematography is substandard and the gore isn't strong either. But it doesn't really take itself that seriously and that added some sort of B-movie enjoyment to the proceedings. You know it's not great, they (being the cast and crew) know it's not great, so you can just sit back, relax and just laugh at or with the movie, as long as they get a reaction out of you. So at least the film knows its place. And, thankfully, there's not the usual 'it's over, but it's not really over' trap that so many horror films fall into. The movie just ends and it's over. That's refreshing. I will say that this movie isn't boring and I think that a horror flick being boring is the worst sin possible. Yes, this isn't a good movie, but at least it's campy and that adds something to watching this. Not much, of course, but it does. What does hold it back is its unwillingness to do something fresh. Neither the acting nor the writing is anything to write home about. So there's that. I can't recommend it, of course, but I've seen considerably worse films like this out there.

    Color me surprised when I come out of this movie not thinking that it was as awful as one might have expected from a low-budget, direct-to-video sequel of what was already a remake. I know the rating says that this movie is bad, and it is, technically speaking, it's just not as bad as one would imagine. Perhaps the problem with this, and many other movies like this, is that they take a generic script, make some slight changes to it so it fits with the name of the famous franchise that they're attaching to it and voila. I'm 99.9% certain that this script did not start out as the sequel to Fright Night's remake. I'd be willing to be on that. They just called it Fright Night 2 because it might entice some people to give it a shot, because they enjoyed either the original (or the sequel to that) or its remake. That's the only way. The changes to the film are pretty much the same stuff you saw in the original or the remake. Guy comes across vampire, nobody believes him, guy recruits an 'expert' on these mythological creatures, expert helps guy gets rid of vampire. It's, essentially, the same shit here and that's where, I think, the movie falters. Instead of, at least, trying to carve its own path, in however limited that path may have been, they instead went with what worked two previous other times. I never saw the original's sequel so I have no idea what that film did. It's not like anybody would've expected this movie to set the world on fire, it's a movie that was meant to cash in on the name of a successful horror movie, so I think you can take some sort of risk while still fulfilling Universal's goal of trying to cash in on the franchise. The movie's 'selling', if it can be called that, based on the name and not on the content. That's just a matter of fact, so part of me wishes that they would've taken some more risks in trying to differentiate itself from a lot of the other direct to video sequels. But it is what it is, but the fact that they tried to appease to fans of Fright Night instead of trying to do something is one of the lamer parts about the movie. The acting isn't great, the cinematography is substandard and the gore isn't strong either. But it doesn't really take itself that seriously and that added some sort of B-movie enjoyment to the proceedings. You know it's not great, they (being the cast and crew) know it's not great, so you can just sit back, relax and just laugh at or with the movie, as long as they get a reaction out of you. So at least the film knows its place. And, thankfully, there's not the usual 'it's over, but it's not really over' trap that so many horror films fall into. The movie just ends and it's over. That's refreshing. I will say that this movie isn't boring and I think that a horror flick being boring is the worst sin possible. Yes, this isn't a good movie, but at least it's campy and that adds something to watching this. Not much, of course, but it does. What does hold it back is its unwillingness to do something fresh. Neither the acting nor the writing is anything to write home about. So there's that. I can't recommend it, of course, but I've seen considerably worse films like this out there.