Fright Night Part 2 (1988)

Sorry, this movie sucks

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

Even a horror film with vampires must follow a logical path. This is the general rule for supernatural films in order to create credibility with the audience. "Fright Night Part 2" tries to obey but completely ignores this rule, which makes it an under average film. The film opens with Charley (William Ragsdale) finishing his 3-year psychological treatment believing all those things happened three years ago were not real. What kind of treatment manages to do that, is a mystery to me. He is in college now, has a different girlfriend, trying to lead a normal life but his old nightmares return when Jerry Dandrige's sister comes in town with her company to take revenge of her brother.A constant denial is the main object of both films but here it is exaggerated. It is a film of 104 minutes and at the minute 54, they are still denying vampires even though a lot of weird things are happening around them and Charley even see vampires with his own eyes. We were taught vampires can be killed with posture in sunlight, a stake in heart or holy water; here in "Fright Night Part 2," we find out that they can be killed also by falling from buildings or with a cut in their belly. This made me believe, even without Charley and the vampire killer Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall), those vampires would get themselves killed because they are really trying very hard to get killed. Another mystery to me is how they managed to survive all those years. It is mentioned that Jerry Dandrige was 1000 years old when he was killed.I never leave a film in the middle but with this one, temptation was high. In order not to spoil the story anymore, I will no further talk more about the senseless scenes. Human brain tends to refuse to believe illogical things. Everything we perceive must be rational. Therefore, in both films, Charley is having a very hard time making people believe in him including himself. He is suffering from Cassandra Effect.Also seeing in the first film, I am now convinced that vampires tend to do a lot of things near the windows so people can see them and not believe. Their supernatural powers make them arrogant creatures which eventually lead to their death. Both Jerry (Chris Sarandon) in the first film and Regine (Julie Carmen) in the second, find a lot of opportunities to kill Peter and Charley but they never do. This arrogance can only be explained by their trust in their supernatural powers or by a stupid screenplay. I tend to see this a lot in horror films. If an evil character does that a lot in the film, keep in mind that most probably that character is going to be defeated in the end. There are thousands of horror films following this post-modern path and this makes horror films repeat themselves.Directed by Tommy Lee Wallace, "Fright Night Part 2" shows some artistic scenes. Regine comes as a performance artist. No matter what she does, people will never think she is a vampire. Apparently, performance artists can do a lot of things. She doesn't cast shadow in the mirror and that's because she is a performance artist, she can turn into smoke and disappear because she is a performance artist. The only explanation for these constant refusals in the film are because the director desperately tries to lead his film logically and fails big time in my opinion. You are making a horror film with vampires and still trying to be logical about that. This chain is the weakest point of the film and it effects everything in it. Other than the logical part of the film, "Fright Night Part 2" can be considered watchable. In the end it is a film about vampires and you get to see a lot of them in different shapes. Charley's doctor being a vampire and the way he kills himself is still ridiculous but acceptable. Not everyone must have the necessary style.I like makeups better in this one compared to the original film. There are indeed some good scenes that manages to give you chills. I like the fact that those scenes are accompanied by nice underground disco music of 80s. I also like the references to the Dracula from Bram Stoker. The atmosphere of the film is dark. It is suitable and even good. If the logical part was not left aside, "Fright Night Part 2" could even have been considered a good film but under these circumstances it fails to reach its destination in the eyes of the audience.

I watched this film or it was seen by me. I like vampire movies, but I didn't like this vampire movie and worse than that Fright Night 2 is better than most other vampire movies. How is it hard to make a good vampire movie? This film features a sad reliance upon sex to create tension and interest for the viewer, a failing shared with most films of the vampire genre. It's not even good sex either, it's stale intangible Hollywood sex, as fake and empty of real life as any movie set backdrop. All I want to see is shadows and human life, make that movie and make it about vampires. Throw in a sh*tload of gore and violence and most importantly of all, no happy ending.

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

Roddy McDowall, William Ragsdale, Traci Lind and Julie Carmen star in this 1988 horror sequel. This takes place 3 years after the events of the original film where Charlie Brewster (Ragsdale) is in college. He's also been seeing a therapist trying to get over the vampire events and has a new girlfriend, Alex (Lind). Soon, Charlie reunites with his vampire killer friend, Peter Vincent (McDowall) and they meet attractive woman, Regine (Carmen) who turns out to be Jerry Dandridge's sister seeking revenge on them. Regine seduces Charlie and Peter must save him from being her vampire slave with Alex's help. This is a pretty good sequel with neat make-up effects and Carmen is great in it. I recommend this.