IMDb > Fright Night Part 2 (1988) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Fright Night Part 2
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Fright Night Part 2 More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 4 of 8: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [Next]
Index 76 reviews in total 

Classic Sequel!!

Author: LadyBeth10 from United States
9 November 2013

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!

Was the above review useful to you?

Little-Seen Sequel.

Author: AaronCapenBanner from North America
1 October 2013

William Ragsdale and Roddy McDowall return in this sequel set three years after the first. Charley Brewster is now in college, and has a new girlfriend named Alex(Traci Lind) He has undergone therapy to help him deal with the stress of vampires, whom he know believes no longer exist. He will realize the error of this after a mysterious new woman named Regina Dandridge(Jerry's sister, also a vampire) comes to town looking for revenge against Charley and Peter Vincent, who tries to convince Charley of the danger. Can they defeat this new menace? Directed by Tommy Lee Wallace, this sequel tries to emulate the first with disappointing results. Violence is a bit too much here, overwhelming the attempted dark comedy, and that therapist subplot was stupid. Still, both returning Ragsdale and McDowall are fine, and Regina a worthy opponent, with an exciting climax.

Not a hit in theaters, this film still has a loyal fan base, and is not yet on (Widescreen) DVD for some reason, though that will one day change I'm sure!

Was the above review useful to you?

What I Expected!

Author: atinder from United Kingdom
8 August 2013

Fright Night Part 2 (1988)

I don't think sequel was really needed. it didn't really add anything to the series at all.

I liked the first movie series very much, one few vamp movies that I actually like,

I thought the movie started of a little slow, I bored about the whole , I didn't really like how the movie started off.

After the 40 min mark, movie start get going, thing start to REAL happen, a lot action scenes in this movie.

I didn't find this movie that funny at all, I don't think I laughed once or even smiled

Some the effects were not as good or as fun as the first movie but still better then some of effect with get horror movies these days.

The acting was good but the plot could have be a lot better, I yet to Remake and upcoming sequel to this remake. (I don't think it be as good as the first movie)

5 out of 10

Was the above review useful to you?

Back in blood

Author: p-stepien from United Kingdom
13 January 2013

Three years after defeating Jerry Dandridge, Charley Brewster (William Ragsdale) manages to convince himself that the events of that time were mere figments of mass delusion. Now a hapless student head over heels with Alex (Traci Lind) he is slowly returning to normalcy. Naturally he still remains friends with the diminishing horror star Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall), but tries not to entertain the notion that vampires could truly exist. However, when Regine (Julie Carmen) and three awkward individuals move into the same building as Vincent, it seems like its history repeating.

Naturally devoid of the originality of the first part, "Fright Night Part 2" redoes several aspects of the plot, sometimes in ways which are replicated in ways too close to comfort. Keeping the humorous quality, Tommy Lee Wallace manages to add a sense of atmosphere, while Julie Carmen instills rapturous sensuality to her vampire. Lacking Evil Ed and Jerry Dandridge a bit too much of character lays on the shoulders of Peter Vincent, aptly British vampire killer with a side order of nut-case. Julie Carmen's allure does add some spice, but unfortunately mostly through sexual enticement, not intriguing character concept. Nonetheless the story is significantly more compact and coherent, thus I actually found myself enjoying it just a tad more than the first instalment, even if it is admittedly less memorable overall. The special effects do improve, but the intangible quality of magnetic charm has fleetingly escaped.

Was the above review useful to you?

Nothing Special(**1/2 Out Of ****)

Author: kylehaines96 from United States
30 October 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Belated Day 23 Of My 31 Days Of Horror 2.

I think that this film does not deserve the cult following it has. While the film is entertaining It is not all that great.

The film follows the main character from the first film but this time the villain is a vampire woman who was a sister from the main vampire from the first film. Thats about it.

The film is very entertaining and a good popcorn flick. But the film drags and the main character is basically not as fun as the first. This film has a cult following because it is hard to find on VHS and DVD. So if you find it hold on to it.

Rated R For Nudity, Violence And Language.

1hr 44min/104min.

1 use of the F-word.


Was the above review useful to you?

Decent sequel but not as good as original.

Author: deatman9 from Canada
28 October 2012

I have been a fan of the first Fright Night since I was young and I have never actually seen the second one until last night. I thought it was a good little sequel but I prefer the story line in the first one and this one does tend to try to be silly sometimes.

This movie is about Charlie Brewster the survivor of the vampire attack in the first one. However a shrink has convinced him it could not of been real and it was all in his head. When he starts to see signs of new vampires though he begins to worry.

If you liked the first one or your a fan of 80s horror movie gives this one a watch.

Was the above review useful to you?

Disappointing sequel

Author: GL84 from Los Angeles, Ca
20 August 2012

When young Charley begins to suspect that his mysterious new neighbors are the clan left behind following their previous encounter, he and Peter reunite to take them out before they can exact their revenge.

A bit cheesier than Part 1, either a sign of the fact that this one really had no point in being made or just the nature of the genre at the time, but again, the clashing tone is really off-putting and makes little sense, as does the replication of what's going on like in the first part, and coupled with the fact that there's a lot more investigation here than in the first one, it's a lot slower and really drags itself out far more than necessary, especially with the lower amount of confrontations which are a sad sight, but there is enough attempts at suspense that there's some fun there, the brawls are quite good and the vampire make-up looks really good. A true middle-of-the-road affair.

Rated R: Graphic Language, Violence and Nudity

Was the above review useful to you?

Disappointing and unnecessary

Author: Dave from Ottawa from Canada
15 April 2012

Years have passed since the events of Fright Night, but vampires have long memories and one of them shows up in town to take revenge on Charlie. The resulting mayhem and frights fall far short of the white knuckle ride of the first film. Indeed, the slow pace and lack of suspense and atmosphere are major shortcomings for any horror film and doubly disappointing here, since the original had pace and atmosphere by the carload. There is a lush and sensual quality to the new vampire's scenes (if not bite - no pun intended), so the film is not without visual interest, but don't be looking for the sudden shocks and twists of the first movie. They ain't here. Frankly, My Best Friend is a Vampire was a better movie, which isn't saying much.

Was the above review useful to you?

"Good Vampire Sequel!"

Author: gwnightscream from United States
18 March 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

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 good sequel with neat make-up effects and Julie is great as Regine. I recommend this.

Was the above review useful to you?

An Unfrightful Night

Author: thesar-2 from United States
12 December 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 4 of 8: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards Newsgroup reviews External reviews
Parents Guide Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history