IMDb > Fright Night Part 2 (1988) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Fright Night Part 2
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
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
Promotional
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 8 of 8: [Prev][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
Index 78 reviews in total 

1 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Equal Sequel

Author: choppyno from United States
27 July 2005

Charlie and Peter return to slay ferocious 80's bloodsuckers that still walk the earth after the duo's first crusade in 1985. This casting of original players is vital to the movie's success. 3 years later, Charlie has convinced himself that the events of the 1st film never happened except in his mind. Slowly things around him begin to suggest that maybe he wasn't crazy for thinking that vampires are real. Great acting from a script that holds the tone of the first film perfectly. Sadly, no Chris Sarandon in this outing, but a great job by Brian Thompson of Stallone's COBRA fame, in a small supporting role. All in all equal to Fright Night and a perfect example of big-budget 80's horror.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Like A Duran Duran Video With Fangs

5/10
Author: bob_bear from Germany
19 August 2005

Filmed in the 80s and it shows. This sequel has a touch too much of the New Romantic fashion fad. The party sequence looks like Ultravox's Vienna video and the mullet hairdos - a la Simon Le Bon - are in full swing. It just looks so dated. The vampires look like the cast of "Cats". Though the lead vampiress is stunning and one wonders why she faded into obscurity after this starring role. She certainly has charisma.

Having said that, I only watched the first hour before I switched it off. I don't think it's a bad film - it's not that different from its predecessor, but it just didn't inspire me to persevere until the end. It's not funny enough to be comedy and it's not scary enough to be horror. Bit of a curiosity that's all.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Average

Author: Gary-161
14 December 2001

Disappointing sequel replaces the original's deftness with waffle in search of a plot. Irritating sepia filter, too (cut it out, Mark, it isn't fuuuun-NAYE!) Regine continues her bonehead brother's penchant for chowing in front of a window with curtains left open and lights full on which proves conclusively that IQ actually diminishes over a thousand year period. McDowell is still endearingly hammy but the shapely Tracy Lind disappoints by mostly wearing more clobber than a Siberian bag lady.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Watch only if you have the extra time to spare.

4/10
Author: Johnny Brooks from Nakuru, Kenya
13 October 1999

I saw this movie many years ago, and just for kicks decided to rent it and watch it again. The plot is a carbon copy from Fright Night. I did like the hairy vampire and the bug eating driver. Otherwise it was not good at all.

Was the above review useful to you?

2 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Welcome to Fright Night! Again.

6/10
Author: BA_Harrison from Hampshire, England
31 August 2009

Student Charlie Brewster (William Ragsdale) and horror show host Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowell) return for more vampire slaying in this identikit sequel that struggles in vain to emulate the precise blend of horror, laughs, and sensuality that made the first film such fun.

The story continues three years after the duo's successful battle against bloodsucker Jerry Dandridge, and begins as Charlie completes a course of intensive therapy to convince him that vampires do not exist; now he is free to concentrate his mind on more productive things, like groping his tasty girlfriend Alex (Tracy Lin). But Charlie's thoughts soon return to far less pleasant matters after he spies the beautiful Regine (Julie Carmen) and her creepy pals moving into the same apartment building as Peter Vincent, and suspects that history is about to repeat itself.

He's right, of course: Regine is Jerry Dandridge's equally vampiric sister, and she is after revenge.

Saddled with this predictable plot that retreads ground already thoroughly covered in the first film, director Tommy Lee Wallace certainly has his work cut out for him trying to make any of it seem fresh. To his credit, though, he gives it his best shot, and manages to deliver several effective scenes that prove he has a keen eye for a stylish shot: a rollerskating vampire emerging slowly through swirling fog; Regine laying on the roof of Charlie's car; the maggoty demise of moth-eating ghoul Bozworth (Brian Thompson). He also throws in some decent vampire meltdowns, a nice bat creature, a fun severed head gag, and a brief gratuitous shot of a pair of breasts for all of us pervs (NOT Tracy Lin's, though; she keeps her curves safely hidden under several layers of bad 80s fashion!).

Unfortunately, for every sublime moment he creates, the painfully idiotic script ensures that there is an equally inane one just around the corner: Peter Vincent's unbelievably silly escape from a looney bin; the dumb vampire bowling sequence; Alex's way too convenient ability to speed read. The list goes on...

The poorly constructed script also concentrates far too heavily on the dull romance between Charlie and Alex, when it should be offering monster mayhem, meaning that the film only gets into serious vampire whoopin' in the closing moments.

The last ten minutes, however, are great; it's just the getting there that is rather painful.

5.5 out of 10, generously rounded up to 6 for IMDb.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Decent enough follow-up, but nothing more

6/10
Author: The_Void from Beverley Hills, England
14 August 2006

Fright Night was never one of the best horror films of the eighties; but as high camp and cheesy fun go, it was certainly one of the better ones. I suppose a sequel was always going to be on the cards, and Tom Holland's film got one three years later, with this imaginatively titled 'Fright Night Part 2'. Fright Night Part 2 isn't as good as the first film; it has a number of problems, first and foremost is the fact that it runs too long. This makes the plot feel stretched, and it often seems like the team of writers didn't really have a good idea between them, therefore rendering this film as merely a cash-in. The plot isn't too brilliant, and once again focuses on Charlie Brewster. He's been lead to believe that the events of the first film were just his imagination, but this idea is thrown into disarray when several strange events transpire and Charlie is forced to team up once again with vampire killer Peter Vincent in order to dispatch a new vampire foe; this time the sister of the bloodsucker that Charlie and Vincent killed in the first 'Fright Night'.

This film features the return of original stars William Ragsdale and Roddy McDowall, although Amanda Bearse has been replaced by Traci Lind, and gay porn star Stephen Geoffreys didn't return either. Ragsdale is good in the lead, although he looks more bored this time - but Roddy McDowall is on hand to camp it up, and as he did in the original Fright Night, steals every scene he's in. The film once again delivers the over the top vampire action that films of the original liked, and director Tommy Lee Wallace isn't afraid to utilise some rather suspect special effects. The plot is a little too wayward for my liking as well; as aside from the main film, there's also a load of subplots going on, most of them rather pointless - like Charlie's 'romance' with Alex - and it feels a lot like padding for a lack of ideas. Julie Carmen is sultry and seductive as the central vampire, and despite some boring moments leading up to it; the final half hour finale is well played out and fun to watch. Overall, I wouldn't recommend going out of your way to watch this film, but fans of the original may get a kick out of it.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

A mediocre sequel

5/10
Author: Kristine (kristinedrama14@msn.com) from Chicago, Illinois
13 July 2008

I saw Fright Night a few months ago and absolutely enjoyed it, it reminded me of Rear Window, only vampires, it just made the story a lot of fun and a cool new twist on vampires. Of course I waited too long to see the movie, I came across the sequel so many times over and over again while looking for movies to rent, and right when I finally get to the sequel, they took it off DVD. Thank goodness though I was able to find this movie on youtube and watched it tonite, I'm actually in some ways glad that I didn't have to pay to see it. Sadly, I was disappointed, while it's by no means the worst sequel I have ever seen, just compared to the other movie, this was just too typical with the horror and gore, Fright Night was a brilliant and original film that was not only scary but a lot of fun to watch. Fright Night 2 isn't so original and the story lacks something.

It has been three years since Charley and Peter Vincent faced his vampire neighbor, but Charley has gone to therapy and is convinced there are no such thing as vampires. He has got a new girlfriend and life in college; Peter is still working on TV with his Fright Night show. But a new vampire gang is in town working their way around, they charm and kill the people, while we find out that one of the vampires is related to Charley and she wishes for him to be an immortal and to join her and her vampire gang.

Fright Night 2 is over all an alright film, if it was just on it's own, I honestly wouldn't have judged it that bad, but like I said, when the first one was so clever and original, I was expecting the same with the sequel. But it was really cool to have Peter and Charley working together again, they make such a great team, but they don't have the same charm and chemistry like they did in the first movie. Over all it's worth the one watch alone, if you saw the first film and are just curious, by all means, watch it, but the one time was more than enough for me.

5/10

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Revenge of the 80's: The bad and unnecessary sequel.

5/10
Author: Miyagis_Sweaty_wifebeater (sirjosephu@aol.com) from Sacramento, CA
30 June 2004

Fright Night Part II (1989) was an unnecessary sequel (in my humble opinion). I felt that the film-makers should have left well enough alone and found something else to do. Since this movie was made during the 80's, the obligatory sequel just had to be made. What made the first film unique and interesting (the underlying homo-sexual theme and a feeling of personnel loss) is totally missing from this movie. The results are just another sequel trying to live on the reputation of the first film. The main problem with this one is there's too much glad handing and back slapping. I don't like movies that spend too much time trying to be "hip" and cool. There's just too much grandstanding and homaging for my own taste. I guess since the script lacked originality, they decided to include as many horror film cliches and nods and winks as possible.

Overall I felt that this movie was totally unnecessary. If they were going to make a sequel they should have tried to make it as original as possible. Instead it felt like a wanna-be throwback to the old monster films of the 40's. Oh well, what do I know. Except to not waste my time watching this movie again!

Not recommended unless you absolutely want to know what happened to Charlie Brewster and Peter Vincent. For completists only. Other stay away!

D-

xxx

Was the above review useful to you?


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

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