Teringer An Exercise In Nonsense

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

mwidunn-95-631875 Picking up a few years after the previous film, we find that Charlie has been undergoing psychotherapy. His therapist has convinced him that his neighbor was really a serial killer, rather than a vampire. So, he goes and throws out all of his crucifixes and holy water and stakes. He's cured, right? Well, . . . no. No sooner does Charlie do all of this than he's back to seeing people carrying coffins into buildings and women sucking the blood from his friend's wrist.And, that, My Dear Reader (as Peter Vincent would say), is the whole problem with this sequel: The story is both rushed and convoluted. Nothing is allowed to develop. Charlie starts out absolutely sure, that there are no vampires. No, wait! Now, he's sure there are. Nope -- back to being sure there aren't. And -- poor Peter Vincent -- he's caught in the middle, with Charlie telling him to go away . . . no, come here and help . . . no, just seeing things, go away . . . If there were filler material to show development and build tension, then the back-and- forth might have been much less annoying to me than it was.Except for one scene with a vamp roller-skating down a hallway, I did not find anything to creep, shock, or scare. It's just such a boring redux.The vampire this time is "Regine," the previous vampire's sister. She intends to get revenge for her brother's death by making Charlie into a vampire. Then, she can torture him forever (which really doesn't make any sense to me: How does she intend to torture him?). She makes vague threats towards Peter Vincent, without seeming to have any urgency about carrying through on them. Her major coup is to get Vincent fired in order to take over his T. V. show. Why? Was drawing an unemployment check the kind of torture about which she was speaking? (The lines at government offices can be long, you know. And, that paperwork. Oh! the paperwork.) It makes no sense whatsoever. In fact, it's completely lame.On the positive side, however, FRIGHT NIGHT II is immensely better than the turd excreted by Colin Farrell or the insipid "sequel to nothing," FRIGHT NIGHT II: NEW BLOOD.

skybrick736 With Roddy McDowall and William Ragsdale returning as the co-stars, Fright Night: Part 2 became pretty much a direct follow-up to the original. There didn't seem to be a whole lot of difference between the styles of filmmaking with both films either, creating a feeling of a continuous fluid story. Traci Lind and Julie Carmen were stunning as their parts taking the stage as gorgeous female leads. The film lost a bit of flavor and comedy but still managed to get a couple chuckles. Search out this movie if you're into 1980's cheese, classic horror vampires or even the original film, perhaps missing out or passing on the chance to watch it for a long time like myself. There's nothing extraordinary or groundbreaking about Part 2, but the Fright Night flick is a fun, under the radar sequel that happened to pan out successfully in the eyes of many fans.

SnoopyStyle It's 3 years later. Charley Brewster (William Ragsdale) has come out of psychotherapy believing he imagined the vampires. He reluctantly meets up with Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall) who tries to convince him and his girlfriend Alex (Traci Lind) of their adventures. Mysterious strangers Regine, Louie, Belle and Bosworth move into Vincent's building. Regine has a revenge plan for Charley after he killed her brother Jerry Dandrige in the original.It's great that Ragsdale and McDowall have returned for the sequel. They are the only pillars holding up this movie. The franchise is nothing more than a B-horror movie at this point. It doesn't have the same 'Rear Window' aspect of the original. It's not compelling. It's not well filmed. It's a disappointment.

thesar-2 Oh, God, this movie, Fright Night Part 2 (or II as some sources say) was a mess.From the already pointed out mismanaging of the sequel #, to lame and irrelevant bowling jokes, to the once awesome Peter Vincent reversing his belief in vampires only to remember at the appropriate time, to the lame excuse to get (SOME of) the original stars back…this movie was a tragedy to those who loved part one. Like me.When I was a kid, I loved the original Fright Night and didn't really get into going to see as many movies as I could, on my own and mostly at the dollar theatre, until I was about 15ish. And coincidentally, both my movie-outing and this film were in 1989. Surprisingly, I wasn't as much a critic back then: I loved going to the movies, action and horror were my favorite, didn't matter about plot, depth or characterizations – I just loved entertainment. And still…I hated this movie.Really quickly, let's explore the wonderful plot: Charley Brewster has moved on from his encounter with his neighbor/vampire of years past through therapy and college. He's got a new girlfriend and the infamous Peter Vincent friend he ignores. Well, SHOCKING, Peter's new neighbors are vampires and maybe a werewolf, though that's not really explored. This time around, Charley is slowly – and weirdly – becoming one of the undead. Too much a spoiler on why, but the reason is just as boring as this slow paced, barely recognizable sequel, is.Yeah, I'm aware they produced countless horror films in the 1980s and multiple that by five for the number of horror sequels. A lot hit, mostly miss. This is the latter. There's absolutely no reason to see this follow-up. The first classic is simply sufficient.