Fright Night 2 (2013 Video) User Reviews

And so it begins. Again. Literally.

[Gregburnscds · 4/10 · 1 October 2013]

From the talented mind who brought you White Noise 2: The Light, Mirrors 2, and the forthcoming Leprechaun: Origins and the highly sought after Mexican director of…well, absolutely nothing comes a new vision of a new vision of horror. Fright Night 2, being a remake of a remake, takes the exact same characters as the first film, dumps them in Romania, and instead of continuing the story in any sane fashion, decides it's just easier to start from scratch…again.

Jaime Murray as the new Gerri the vampire is completely wasted in this throw away film that lives more for moments than anything else. Particularly impressive is her little sonar bit in the tunnel of a tunnel of a subway. The rest of the cast is absolutely boring. I don't understand why the filmmakers decided not to continue the story from the 2011 (*ahem) blockbuster. Or why didn't they just create a whole new bunch of characters? Or why not try and remake the original sequel—now, THAT would have been interesting.

And another thing, why is it that all these low budget straight-to-DVD horror sequels have to be so poorly made? There are plenty of great low budget films. All you need is a writer that cares enough about the story, a director that cares about more than getting another title under his belt or paycheck, and a studio that wants to deliver a quality product to its audience. Is that so hard?

Jesus.

Promising Beginning, Awful Conclusion

[claudio_carvalho · 4/10 · 8 November 2013]

A group of American students travel to Romania for classes in a local university; among them is Charley Brewster (Will Payne), who has a crush on his ex-girlfriend Amy Peterson (Sacha Parkinson), and his friend "Evil" Ed Bates (Chris Waller). On the first day, they have classes with the sexy Arts Professor Gerri Dandridge (Jaime Murray). When Charley sees Dandridge kissing a student and then he goes missing, he sees from his window a woman dumping a corpse in a truck. Charley investigates and discloses that Dandridge is a vampire that baths on the blood of women. When he finally convinces Amy and "Evil" that Dandridge is a vampire, they request the support of Peter Vincent (Sean Power), who is the host of the TV show Fright Night, to hunt down Dandridge. But the sexy vampire discovers that Amy is capable to break her curse and she brings her to her swimming pool in the underground of her castle.

"Fright Night 2: New Blood" has a promising beginning, despite the annoying and silly "Evil", but goes downhill with an awful conclusion. This movie is not a sequel of "Fight Night" and the camera work and the cinematography are great. But from the moment that Charley and Amy take a taxi to the airport, the story is completely wasted. What in the hell is that hissing sound that Dandridge does in the tunnel? If you want to see this flick, better off watching the 1985 "Fright Night" again and forget either the remake or this unfunny turkey. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "A Hora do Espanto 2" ("The Fright Hour 2")

This 2013 film much closer resembles the 1985 original.

[Hellmant · 5/10 · 31 October 2013]

'FRIGHT NIGHT 2: NEW BLOOD': Two and a Half Stars (Out of Five)

Sequel to the 2011 vampire comedy/horror film (which was a remake of the 1985 cult classic of the same name) about a teenager who learns his mysterious neighbor is a vampire. This sequel has none of the 2011 film's impressive cast (Colin Farrell, Anton Yelchin, David Tennant, Toni Collette, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, etc.) and was released directly to video (on a much smaller budget, I'm guessing). It's less of a sequel and more just another remake (and probably a more faithful one at that, if I remember the original that well) except this time the main evil vampire is a sexy female professor and the film is set in Romania (where a class of exchange students are studying). The film is not as entertaining as the 1985 original or it's 2011 remake but it does have a decent amount of amusing vampire thrills and a smokin' hot femme fatale villain (played by the gorgeous Jaime Murray).

The film focuses on three exchange students studying with their class in Romania: Charley (Will Payne), Amy (Sacha Parkinson) and 'Evil' Ed (Chris Waller). Charley is on the outs with his girlfriend Amy because she thinks he cheated on her. As he and his best friend Ed are checking in to their hotel room Charley sees a very attractive woman biting another woman in the building across the road from their hotel. He later learns that the sexy biter is his class professor, Gerri Dandridge (Murray). He also later learns that she's a vampire, as he secretly follows her into a sacrificial chamber, when she drains a prostitute of her blood and bathes in it (to restore her youth). Charley and Ed seek out TV paranormal investigation host Peter Vincent (now played by Sean Power) to help them stop the sinister vampire.

The original vampire antagonist, in the 1985 film, (played by Chris Sarandon) was also named Jerry Dandridge (with a J and a y) but the main villain in it's 1988 sequel was his sexy vampire sister Regine (played by Julie Carmen). I know I saw both films but I don't remember much about the second movie at all. So I can't say if this new sequel is better than it, or not, but I do know that this 2013 film much closer resembles the 1985 original (than it's 1988 follow-up). All of the characters names are the same, including 'Evil' Ed (who was originally played by Stephen Geoffreys), except for the slight spelling change of Gerri. The film was directed by Eduardo Rodriguez (who also directed the 2012 action film 'EL GRINGO', which was a lot of fun) and written by Matt Venne (who's made a career out of writing direct to video sequels, like 'MIRRORS 2' and 'WHITE NOISE 2: THE LIGHT'). I have no big problems with the film, it has some decent gore and frights, but it's just not very involving and is a little dull. For me the best thing about it is it's villain. I really like Jaime Murray (who also played a stunning femme fatale villain in the 2007 horror film 'THE DEATHS OF IAN STONE', which was pretty good). It's not a bad sequel but it's also not nearly as good a film as it's predecessors.

Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llO-AVcYkfI

Atrocious

[movieman_kev · 2/10 · 30 October 2013]

Having recently watched "Curse of Chucky", my long-held belief that DTV sequels were always crap was shattered as that film exceeded all expectations. So still reeling from my beliefs being shattered, I approached Fright Night 2 with a small sense of renewed optimism. However, dear reader, this DTV film sent me straight back to stark reality.

Firstly, despite the inclusion of the number 2, this is NOT a sequel to the Fright Night remake, but rather another remake. Yes a remake of a remake, and a grossly incompetent, boring one at that. No tension, no frights, indeed not much of anything that can remotely be considered entertaining. You won't want to spend 10 minutes with these characters, much less 100.

Murray is great but it's the epitome of an 80s horror sequel

[amesmonde · 8 October 2013]

American students on a visit to Romania get more than they bargained for when they encounter a female vampire on which the legends are really based and call on help from Peter Vincent, a monster hunting reality star.

Despite a critical and fan black lash the 2011 Fright Night remake it was surprisingly entertaining enough. Fright Night 2 - New Blood starts well enough with its explosive and Paranormal Activity-esqe opening where an unseen vampire (on camera) assailant murders its victim. From pole dancing clubs to underground stations story wise with elements reminiscent of the fictionalised version of the real Elizabeth Báthory, this instalment may have fared better as a standalone vampire film.

Following a gratuitous Jamie Murray moment as Gerri Dandridge (and others littered throughout) we're introduced to a handful of stereotype characters, and a recast Peter Vincent (Sean Power) on his Most Haunted, Ghost Hunters, Faked or Fact-like programme which coincidently is being filmed in Romania. Aside from characters names it shares very little, if anything as a sequel to Fright Night the remake or the originals.

Writer Matt Venne serves up a sequel in the vein of a 80s horror cash-in follow-ups, it's a rehash/retelling of the same story, the overarching concept with a different backdrop. It features a nice touch where the antagonist uses bat like sonar to locate the leads. There's a few one liners, even a borrowed line from 'Happy Days' Fonz.

With a fitting soundtrack, a horned eerie score and some good blood and makeup effects it mainly benefits from Murray's natural allure and performance. To director Eduardo Rodriguez credit it has some great Gothic settings and locations and some novel camera work - other than that think a hybrid execution of it predecessor, the Subspecies series and American Werewolf in Paris. Aside from being more graphic it presents what the likes of Teen Wolf the TV series, True Blood, Vampire Diaries and Grimm to name a few offer.

What it lacks in originality, epitomizing all the trappings of a horror sequel it makes up for with its Hammer looking settings, violent and bloody soaked fun setups and surprising production values given its direct to video debut. Murray fans will be pleased.

All in all much of the same, unfortunately

[Evil_Fred · 5/10 · 4 October 2013]

Tho i am a massive fan of horror movies and my opinion might be slightly biased, this "horror" movie wasn't all that i hoped for. The story, like the original from the 80's, is exactly the same as the first part. Main character meets suspicious vampire looking person( in this case, a woman) , goes on to investigate which evolves into a showdown between the pro and antagonist.

Lack of budget means we get lesser known and lesser experienced actors, which is not necessarily a bad thing if only the story or the directing or the pacing or at least SOMETHING is done well and/or original, but nope This one was made purely to cash in on the genre fan base and the fright night name.So unfortunately its a step backwards in the series. If there is going to be a part 3, i would be surprised.

Enjoy. Evil_fred

A horrifyingly bad movie

[BandSAboutMovies · 1/10 · 28 October 2018]

This direct-to-video sequel completely ignores the first remake, instead being a simultaneous remake of the first two films. The Gerri Dandridge in this one is a Romanian history and culture professor who teaches Charley, Evil Ed and Amy when they take a class trip to Romania. And this Peter Vincent hosts a reality show where he hunts vampires.

For some reason, Fox greenlit the movie and rushed it into being at a record pace. The first draft was written in a week and it was finished in 23 days. If only it didn't feel like it went on for 24. This movie is a complete waste of time and the name of this franchise. It was like they heard someone say, "Nobody can make a worse remake than the last Fright Night." And replied, "Hold my cup of blood and apple."

I should have saved my time and money

[tags_skeewee · 1/10 · 31 October 2013]

I wanted 'Ed' to die a horrible death within 1 minute of his screen time, that was my first sign that this 'sequel' was trying to pull one over on unsuspecting audience. Anyone with an IQ above 1 can understand what drivel this is. No suspense, no build up, no pacing, no seduction, I didn't care one iota about any of the characters, the acting is atrocious, the vampires had sound bites of lions and screaming banshees. The sound track sucked, the ending, who cares. From the start, nothing any of the characters does makes any cotton picking sense...why and how 'Charlie' scales 2 story building.....the chemistry between actors, oh, I forgot, there wasn't any...a band a monkeys could have written a better screen play.Save your time, money, and sanity.

Bullsquaggle!!!! Do NOT SEE

[chappleclan1 · 1/10 · 7 December 2013]

I was a fan of the original FRIGHT NIGHT 1 and 2. I loved them.. The remake of the original was decent.. But I though this was going to be a remake of part 2.. This version was a real joke!!!!! Only thing they did was used the premise from the original and put it in this and set it in Romania.. There are a lot of vampire movies that need not be seen in the wake of this Vampire Revolution.. This is one of those movies that need not to be seen!!The only good thing is that they found a sexy vampire to play the evil vampire, but the casting for this movie really reeked! The actor playing Charlie was like a Disney kid. and the love interest reminded me of a child off the nickelodeon shows.. No real acting at all. The Peter Vincent character reminded me of a reality ghost show reject!!! they should have left the original alone!!

Great B Sexy Vampire Movie, it's not a sequel though....

[tuatharui · 7/10 · 19 January 2014]

I was expecting a remake of the 1988 Fright Night 2 with Regine Dandrige and Her crew of vampires. I was taken aback when evil Ed and Amy were there in the beginning because they were not in the 2ncd Fright Night at all. But I decided to keep an open mind. I was a bit confused that the really sexy Vampire Woman was named Gery, I think it would have done a lot more if her name would have been Regine like in the the 1988 Fright Night 2 original. The Elizabeth Bathory was a good twist but I feel that could have been worked in that Regine was also Bathory. Since in the 1988 FN2, Regine said that Jerry was a thousand years old, which could put his sister in the time frame as the historic Elizabeth Bathory. I did really like Jaime Murray a lot, she made a awesome Vampire Goddess. I also am able to use detachment from my wants and needs and look at movies for what they are. So I did enjoy the movie quite a bit. I think it would have been better to call it Fright Night:New Blood, rather then Fright Night 2:New Blood.

My Review Of "Fright Night 2: New Blood"

[ASouthernHorrorFan · 5/10 · 22 January 2014]

"Fright Night 2: New Blood" is a sequel that isn't really a sequel at all. The film is directed by Eduardo Rodriguez and brings to life the characters first brought to life in 1985 by Tom Holland. The story as some hinted acknowledgement of the 1988 sequel in the "Fright Night" franchise but truly is an independent film not anchored to the mythos of Charley Brewester and the evil he must battle in vampire Jerry, or in 2013 "New Blood", Gerri Dandrige. In "New Blood" Charley Brewester and his friends travel to Eastern Europe on a senior class trip to study for a semester in Romania. "Fright Night 2: New Blood" stars Will Payne, Jaime Murray, Sean Power, Sacha Parkinson and Chris Waller.

The story of "Fright Night 2: New Blood" has some good points and some bad points. On the good, this film creates the elaborate melodramatic nightmare that manages to capture the Gothic romance vampires in horror held in the 80's, very much like the original "Fright Night" and "Fright Night 2" managed to create. For the bad point to this "sequel", "New Blood" totally ignores everything about the "Fright Night" franchise except the characters names and that they are vampires. It really creates a weird frustration about watching the film. I found myself having to fight back the need to be p.o.'d that "Fright Night 2: New Blood" had characters that where killed off in 2011's "Fright Night" and yet called itself "Fright Night 2". That is a big fail when tapping into an established franchise's mythos. Yet I found this story more entertaining and far more viable than 2011's "Fright Night" starring Colin Farrell. As a vampire film "New Blood" really does work and actually brings in a new vampire aspect that offers vampire and Gothic- styled horror fan's some thrills. It really is a much better film than it should have been and would have really topped my list had it just been "Fright Night: New Blood" instead of the "Fright Night 2" moniker. The 2 forces a set unwritten rule that the film should have respected and if they would have left it off then I would have had nothing but positive remarks for the film.

As for the effects and sound of "New Blood", it is all really standard stuff expected in this genre and even gives a bit of a creative edge much like "30 Days Of Night" pulled off in the world of vampires. There is no real hokey, or lame effects in this movie, save the dreaded use of CGI that one just has to tolerate in cinema these days. However the practical effects and visual aspects used in "New Blood" allow the film to flow smoothly enough to entertain. The sound effects and over all quality of suspense and "chills" work on a mediocre but acceptable level that doesn't really disappoint but isn't overly impressive either. For the most part "Fright Night 2: New Blood" is just a really good spin on a classic tale that manages to both sh*t on a franchise while simultaneously paying tribute to it as well. For a good Gothic vampire horror "New Blood" rocks, but it does walk all over the established story of Charley Brewester and Jerry Dandrige so be ready for it.

An Obvious Homage to the Original

[joeywyss · 8/10 · 12 November 2013]

This is definitely a 'reboot' of the original, not a sequel to the Colin Farrell one. I was such a fan of the original that I appreciated the nods to the original script, and they also stayed close to the story- line and actual scenes in some cases. There was even the hint of the originals' overall production look and music. They flipped enough of the original story to make this one feel more self contained. While not as perfect as the original, this one is fun enough to rank above what unfortunately passes for most B Horror popcorn movies these days. and felt more truthful than Colin's version. The director clearly made this as an homage to the original, and if only the kids were as seasoned as Jaime Murray and Sean Powers, they could have actually been much more successful with the end result. I wasn't disappointed at all but maybe just one more run through on the script would have been beneficial. Effects were great, production was great, but unfortunately the 'kids' here were not the stars in the making that those in the originals were. All of those continued into solid still active careers, although Geoffrey's went into an 'alternative' route.

Better than expected...

[paul_haakonsen · 6/10 · 17 June 2018]

Normally I am not one whom enjoy re-makes, but this re-make of the 1988 sequel to the "Fright Night" movie was actually quite good.

Sure, it wasn't fully up to par with the original sequel, but it was still a good movie.

One of the best things in the movie was the good special effects and CGI. The vampires looked pretty nice in all their forms, although I didn't like the animal growling at all.

"Fright Night 2" had some good acting from the cast, which helped bring the movie to life - pardon the pun - on the screen quite nicely. However, the Ed character in this re-make was not as memorable as the one in the original sequel.

If you enjoyed the first re-make of "Fright Night", then you will definitely also want to sink your teeth into this re-made sequel from 2013.

Why was this even made?

[sirjrcalvin · 1/10 · 1 November 2018]

So, we have a title advertised as Fright Night 2 implying that it is a sequel to Fright Night, a cult classic from 1985 which was given a relatively successful remake treatment in 2011. Both of which told a near identical story with near identical timing and plot points with near identical characters. So surely, a sequel would mix things up a little and tell a different story following a different formula, right? Nope. In fact, it's not a sequel in any respects as we see the return of the EXACT SAME characters from the previous incarnations of Fright Night. Even those who were killed off. We follow the EXACT SAME story structure and see the EXACT SAME plot events happen at the EXACT SAME time points they have before. This film is a blatant insult to fans of Fright Night and I would not be surprised they just took the script from one of the previous films, brushed the dust off and called it a day. If you have any love for Fright Night, then make sure you pass on this cinematic abomination.

It's not a sequel

[wjdornjr · 30 September 2013]

Unlike the original Fright Night movies from 1985 and 1988 this time around we're not getting a sequel even though the title bills it as such. None of the events from Fright Night 2011 have happened in the 2013 Fright Night 2 universe. What we have here is a re-imagining.

Charlie and the gang are back and this time they're on a high school trip to Romania. Ed Evil is still a tool, Amy is still the girl of Charlies affections and monster slayer Peter Vincent just so happens to be in town filming a special episode of his show at the same time. Let's not forget the vampire. This time he is a she and her name is Gerri instead of Jerry...

So knowing that it's an enjoyable movie with a familiar plot. Unlike 2011's Fright Night I never once felt like Gerri was an intimidating shark on the prowl like Colin Farrell's vampire. She's just hot and wicked. I enjoyed the cinematography a great deal and for a direct to DVD movie they had a decent budget and it shows for the most part. The CGI is a little sloppy a couple of times but for the most part practical effects are used and done well.

I think you'll enjoy it as a once over, but nothing more. Personally I would have preferred to see a true sequel to the 2011 remake.

Ho and Hum...

[imdb-783-507847 · 4/10 · 9 October 2013]

The Review: So just what you needed right? A direct to video sequel to the remake of the 1985 cult horror film 'Fright Night'. Not that it is a sequel as much as a remake of the remake as well as a remake of the sequel to the original… Oh hell I have no idea what this film is. Other than a bit pointless.

By day Gerri Dandridge is a sexy professor, but by night she transforms into a real-life vampire with an unquenchable thirst for human blood. So when a group of high school students travel abroad to study in Romania, they find themselves ensnared in Gerri's chilling web of lust and terror.

So does this seq-make ( or re-qual) offer anything new? Well other than heaps of nudity ( although oddly not from the seemingly perpetual professional nude Jamie ) no. Not really. Even the blood isn't that forthcoming.

Murray and the mostly unknown cast are fine, as are the FX (when they do happen). The payoff is well handled but it's all a bit seen it all before.

Don't get me wrong- this isn't a terrible movie BUT if you have seen the original, it's sequel or it's remake, very quickly you will notice almost every element is borrowed from one or more of these far superior films. Yup this is DTV Lost Boys 3 territory fun at times but instantly forgettable. As original as a Katy Perry song and about as interesting, at least for those people who don't get their kicks from bargain basement horror films.

So if you are a horror fan who (gasp!) has yet to see a Fright Night movie… Watch the 1985 original. Or it's better than expected remake. At least that had Colin Farrell and David Tennant.

For more check out www.thefilmpodcast.co.uk

Wastes Its Best Vampiric Asset

[By-TorX-1 · 5/10 · 6 July 2014]

This is a very strange film. I expected a remake of the original Fright Night 2 only to find that it wasn't that at all. Then I assumed it was a sequel to the remake, but as Charley Brewster had no knowledge of vampires or Peter Vincent, it wasn't that either. OK, so how about just being a fun trashy horror film with an absolute knockout lead actress as a seductive vampire? Well, yes and no. Jamie Murray is marvellous and she is the saving grace of the film, and her performance partially rescues the affair. However, she needed to be featured more and her character been allowed to cut loose more extensively. As it is, the film misfires in the belief that the audience will be rooting for the drippy and charisma-free Charley and his vapid girlfriend, an ex-Coronation Street luminary (I'll skip over 'Evil' Ed, as should you) and I'd have been quite happy to see Countess Bathory triumph! As for 'Peter Vincent', Sean Power isn't Roddy McDowell (or David Tennant for that matter) and we'll leave it at that. Also, the Countess Bathory angle is confusing as Gerri ultimately has three forms: the seductive 30-something Gerri, a wizened Gerri who needs to bathe in blood to get back her youthful visage, and a monstrous vampire form. Of the latter, if that is what a vampire truly looks like then why does she age in her human guise? It doesn't make sense, but since little does in the movie I don't suppose it is worth pondering. So, more Gerri and less moping Charley and Fright Night 2 could have been an effective B-feature. But it isn't. Oh, well, there's always the next season of Defiance.

Someone kill me

[robbyt-75987 · 1/10 · 12 November 2022]

1 star is honestly being generous. 10 minutes in and I was begging someone to just randomly pop up and kill Ed, Charlie, or me so I wouldn't have to suffer through Ed's juvenile stupidity and Charlie's constant predator staring at Amy.

Then there's the 'story', a multi-century old vampire has been waiting years for a special type of virgin to show up so she can be younger. This, by some coincidence miracle where all planets in the universe align, and a total solar and lunar eclipse happen at the same time, happens to be Amy.

Then there's the dialog. Do the writers and director not know that people don't actually talk like William Shatner's Captain Kirk?

Watch this movie if you really hate yourself, if you do, however, like yourself at least a little, don't watch it.

"Fright Night 2" gets off to a promising start, despite the irritating and bland "Evil," but it goes downhill with a terrifying conclusion

[fernandoschiavi · 4/10 · 3 October 2021]

The first 'Fright Night, from 1985 by the master Tom Holland, is an absolute classic of the golden 80s, one of the best films about vampires and one of the most entertaining films of that decade. The sequel that came out in 1988 was almost as good as the original and one of the funniest sequels in the horror genre. The 2011 remake and starring Colin Farrel was a box office failure and lukewarm from the critics, but I liked it, even more in times when vampires lost their charm and their "glow in the sun" strength in a certain teen saga. Now comes a "doubtful" sequence straight to DVD and Blu-Ray.

The plot tells the story of Charlie (Will Payne) and his friend Ed (Chris Waller) addicted to "Evil" movies. The two head to Romania to study some local history and, as the place plays host to one of the most famous legends in the world, the vampires, Charlie becomes obsessed with his teacher Gerri (Jaime Murray), who appears to be a vampire from truth. Then, in the course of the plot, some things are revealed and Charlie, his friend and his girlfriend, will have to face a more real danger than ever, however, they will need to count on the help of the television star Peter Vincent (Sean Power).

For starters, none of the actors from the first remake wanted to star in this second part, something that already disrupts a whole plot. Another, wanted to create a new story and only took advantage of the protagonist's name. I don't know, I found it pointless to carry out a sequel without anything referring to the original. Then it was a meaningless movie, without any connection. It would be better if they did an independent work anyway. Here, Charlie doesn't know Peter Vincent, Amy doesn't believe when Charlie thinks his teacher is a vampire or anything. It's a sequel that ignores pretty much everything from its predecessor. For what? Why weren't other characters created then? Inexplicable.

One of the most critical points here is the lack of pace and budget. Nearly eighty percent of the film is slurred, slow, with uninspired dialogue and cartoonish characters. Added to this is the fact that Venezuelan director Eduardo Rodriguez does not know how to build any suspense or involving construction in the narrative. When the last act arrives, we even have good times from the moment Amy is captured by Gerri and taken to her castle. However, the characters are so poorly constructed that we don't care about the fate of each one. As already mentioned, the budget of a movie released directly to home video doesn't help at all. We even have some interesting scenes of violence involving beautiful nude female bodies, but laughable visuals and makeup (notice the fangs of vampires) take away any credibility and seriousness you might expect, turning to the involuntary comic side for good.

The director Eduardo Rodriguez could really have done a better job. Many unnecessary scenes that even for a "trash" movie, came to exceed the line of common sense. Does anyone tell me what those things vampires did with their mouths were? In addition, the edition features extremely chopped scenes in order to hide the precarious visual effects and makeup. These "cuts" gave the impression that there was some kind of race against time, as some takes had no connection.

In the end, this sequel to the 2011 remake is totally unnecessary. Not that the movie sucks. It features a beautiful and scary-sized villain. The beautiful Jaime Murray (from the 'Dexter' series) does the trick! Some scenes are very violent and try to be scary. The final fight in the blood pit almost breaks through and the film holds some surprises. Nudity, sensuality and some gore and trash artifices are present. It's a reasonable movie to watch once, - but note - only if you're a fan of horror, the saga in question and vampires, or if you're looking for something simple and unpretentious.

"Fright Night 2" gets off to a promising start, despite the irritating and bland "Evil," but it goes downhill with a terrifying conclusion. This film is not a sequel to "Fright Night" and the camera work and photography are very good. But from the moment Charley and Amy take a taxi to the airport, history is completely wasted. What the hell is that hiss Dandridge makes in the tunnel? If you are thinking of seeing this movie, consider the option of reviewing "The Hour of Amazement" from 1985, this is guaranteed fun.

Could have gotten a better rating if it wasn't for the ending

[eprusulis · 5/10 · 17 October 2020]

The movie started off good pretty good acting with the story was pretty good I like the female Dracula that was original the only problem I had with this movie was the ending family was awful almost all vampire lord vampires will always be loyal to the to their maker

The Vampiric seductress..

[andymaranam · 7/10 · 23 May 2019]

The original remake' if your not confused, was surprisingly good & possibly better than it's predecessor,.unfortunately as with the sequel to the original(stay with me) this sequel to the remake of the original falls short. Although some good cinematics, Jaime Murray is the only thing really that holds you too the movie, partly yes because she is extremely beautiful! but she puts her all in one of the best depictions of a seductive vampiress to date. Worth a watch & a solid 7/10

The only way anyone could like this is if they've never seen any other "Fright Night" movie

[ersinkdotcom · 3/10 · 8 October 2013]

I have nothing against straight-to-DVD sequels to theatrical films. If a movie does minimally well in the theater and there's an audience for a lower-budget and less risky follow-up, I say why not? With that being said, sometimes it works and other times it doesn't. I actually enjoyed "30 Days of Night: Dark Days" and even "The Scorpion King" sequel and prequel. Unfortunately, I can't say the same about "Fright Night 2: New Blood."

Charlie Brewster, his ex-girlfriend Amy, and best friend "Evil" Ed are part of a group of high school students studying abroad in Romania. At the same time, ghost-hunting reality TV host Peter Vincent is exploring the haunted castles of the area. Charlie's professor, Gerri Dandridge, has a hidden motivation for teaching at a school full of teens. By night, she's a vampire searching for the blood of virgins to bathe in to keep her beautiful form. The bloodthirsty creature sets her sights on Amy and only Charlie and Peter Vincent can stop her from taking the essence of the new moon virgin.

Why "Fright Night 2: New Blood" is even advertised as a sequel is beyond me. It's more a remake of a remake, which is awfully (literally) redundant. Instead of the vampire antagonist being a male, this time around it's a female. To add even more insult to injury, her name is Gerri Dandridge versus Jerry Dandridge. Wow, how original.

The uselessness of this "sequel" or "reboot" doesn't end there. The characters in the film don't even acknowledge the events in the first "Fright Night." It's as if they never happened. Charlie and Amy are broken up. "Evil" Ed isn't a vampire. Peter Vincent is some loser who hosts a reality TV show about ghost-hunting and frequents topless bars. Yes, it really is as bad as it sounds.

"Fright Night 2: New Blood" didn't have to be this bad. Granted, it had a lot going against it from the start. The original actors wouldn't or weren't asked to come back. Most fans of a film aren't very forgiving when different actors take the place of familiar faces. The straight-to- DVD route is also a point of contention and warning to many that producers and studios are just trying make a desperate cash-grab. Filmmakers of this sequel could have at least put forth some sort of effort to do something decent with this new entry in the series.

They could have Charlie, Amy, and "Evil" Ed studying abroad in Romania and Gerri Dandridge following them to exact revenge for the death of her brother. "Evil" Ed could be a vampire who decided to try to be good but still battles with his temptation for human blood. All screenwriters needed to do was switch up some dialogue and add a few different establishing shots of the characters. I can't see how it would have boosted the budget in any way.

"Fright Night 2: New Blood" is rated R for graphic violence, gore, adult situations, nudity, and language. The 1980's "Fright Night" had a couple of scenes of nudity, but nothing compared to this. It's very obvious that the nudity in this film is used to make up for a lack of talent and for a weak script.

Being a huge fan of the original "Fright Night" and its sequel, I was very disappointed in "Fright Night 2: New Blood." I knew I shouldn't have such high expectations, and I really don't think I did. That's why I was so sad about my whole experience seeing the film. I had low expectations already and even those weren't met.

Very rarely do I come right out and say this, but avoid "Fright Night 2: New Blood" if you have fond memories of the 1980s movies and the 2011 remake. The only way anyone could like this is if they've never seen any other "Fright Night" movie and are looking for a low-budget vampire film to waste 90 minutes of their life. In that case, they need to pick up a copy of either versions of "Fright Night" and see what they've been missing.

So much better than the 2011 remake

[beren-writes · 10/10 · 22 October 2013]

The wiki page for this film says it's a straight to DVD sequel to the 2011 remake of Fright Night - it's a lie. This isn't a sequel, it's another remake and this is how the first one should have been done.

I am a huge Fright Night (1985) fan, I love it and Fright Night 2 (1988), so when they remade Fright Night in 2011 I ran to the cinema ... and was hideously disappointed. However, Fright Night 2: New Blood is brilliant. This is the kind of vampire movie I love. It has sexy vampires, it has humour, it has an adorable lead, it has action, it has romance.

This is the type of vampire movie that made me fall in love with vampires in the first place.

It's full of British actors playing what I assumed were Americans because they were talking about dollars and such, but I may just not have been paying attention and just expecting Americans because of the original. I didn't realise they weren't American until I looked them up on IMDb :).

Personally I thought the cast was brilliant.

This film takes the premise from Fright Night (1985), but adds in parts of Fright Night 2 (1988) by gender swapping Gerry for Gerri. It recreates small parts of both films in its own way, but has an entirely new and original back story, which I loved. This is recognisably Fright Night (1985), but fresh and new and simply wonderful.

I do have to admit, there are a couple of bits that don't quite make sense, like the whole opening scene which appears to have nothing to do with the film except for illustrating what vampires can do and the fact they don't show up on cameras. However, most of it hold together beautifully.

The two things I really, really disliked about the 2011 remake of Fright Night were Ed and Gerry; I thought the casting and the way they were played were totally and completely wrong. In Fright Night 2: New Blood they have got it so, so, so right.

Jaime Murray is simply fantastic as Gerri. She is sexy, in control and plays with Charlie so beautifully. Never for a second did I believe she was vulnerable. She was the epitome of the vampire; immortal, powerful and so far above the human cattle pitched against her.

Then there was Chris Waller as Ed, the unashamed horror geek who is slightly left of normal. I loved him, he was just enough like the Ed from the original (who I thought was the best character in the original film), but with his own spin to make him brilliant.

Will Payne as Charlie and Sacha Parkinson as Amy are also great and they shine in the final scenes, as does Sean Power as Peter Vincent. I have to admit, David Tennant did do a better Peter in the 2011 remake, but Sean was still great. The part where he figures out Gerri really is a vampire has the most superb timing.

This film is so good that originally I bought the DVD, but I've now gone back and ordered the blu-ray because I want it in HD.

Nothing New

[jmmendoza · 6/10 · 1 October 2013]

I actually didn't know that there will be a sequel to the first film of Fright Night (which I rated 10/10). I felt excited when I saw it here at IMDb.

But when I was watching it, I was kinda bored and just fast forwarded some scenes. Cause honestly, the story was just the same. Same old story, like the boy has suspicions on his neighbor, and has a friend who's into vampires, and has a stereotype girlfriend that in the end, will be bitten by the vampire, and of course, the celebrity hero that will kill the vampire. And also, the characters' names are still the same? Why is that? Much more like a remake, not a sequel.

The ending part was almost the same as in "Jennifer's Body". And oh, by the way, is it supposed to really be a Comedy/Horror film? Cause I didn't laugh or even smile at all. It's a Thriller movie. But over-all, it was still entertaining. Especially the thriller parts. Still not bad for a 6/10!

Nothing's more terrifying than the prospect of watching this again...

[natashabowiepinky · 3/10 · 12 November 2014]

Okay... Pardon my French... but WTF is this? What we have here is an indescribably bizarre production... It takes NO account of the events of the first Fright Night film which came out two years earlier (Despite it being classified as a sequel) and is in itself, a virtual remake of the ORIGINAL 1985 Fright Night... Which was rebooted in 2011!! Didya get all that?! If you did, gold star for you... If not, don't worry, because you could get all the top scientists and academics in the world into a little room... And they STILL couldn't come up with any idea as to why this film should exist.

What they've done is take some of the best characters ever found in a comedy/horror, stripped them of all personality so much so that even calling them generic would be a kindness, removed all the tongue-in-cheek laughs that made the 80's Fright Night so funny, and added non-stop brainless gore. Oh, and the fantastic Jerry Dandridge (The Big Bad from the original) has had a sex change... she's now known as Gerri. This adds nothing of consequence to the plot...

Apart from adding in lots of NEARLY nude scenes where we get to see ALL of Jaime Murray's breasts... apart from the nipple. The attention to detail to avoid the unveiling of said teat is astounding for sure... If it isn't her long hair covering it up, it's a background item. She must have had a clause in her contract... show me tits, you pay an extra million. Shame they didn't shower that kind of attention on the rest of this sorry production.

Peter Vincent is now a charmless fake paranormal investigator instead of a lovable old ham film actor, and love interest Amy is a nagging annoyance rather than a supportive girlfriend. Our 'hero' Charlie Brewster has lost most of his brain cells in transition, and now makes mistakes left,right and centre that put everyone in jeopardy. Only Evil Ed seems to retain SOME of his manic persona, but his jokes aren't half as funny this time around, and when he gets staked as a vampire, what was a very moving moment in the 80's Fright Night is mishandled by epic proportions.

Entire segments of that film seem to have been ripped out and given a 'modern' direct-to-video rewrite... Which in other words means, they screw them up royally. They remove all subtlety and intelligence, and replace it with hokey dialogue, predictable last minute escapes and buckets upon buckets of blood. It's tedious, mind-grating and not rewarding in the slightest, particularly if you're like me and have witnessed the wonder that is the original.

If you want to make a crappy horror flick, that's GREAT... But please don't steal the script and characters from a classic, and urinate all over them from a great height with your nonsense. Special mention to the mawkish, cheesy, sick-inducing ending which made me scream at my TV like a crazy man. They were SERIOUS with that scene? There was no IRONY behind that nauseous spectacle at all? No last minute JUMP like you get from so many others of this genre? Nope. I suppose in a way though, it DOES wrap up nicely what has been a complete pile of... manure from start to finish. Well done for consistency, at least. But nothing else. Now, get ye gone thou Spawn Of Satan disguised as a DVD, lest I smite ye through your case with my patented stake. GO!!! 3/10