Fright Night 2

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.

I had some mixed feeling to go watching this flick. The reason is simple. First of all, the remake of Fright Night (2011) couldn't stand up against the original of 1985 and was even boring and laughable sometimes. To make part 2 with none of the actors involved in part 1 I was a bit afraid if they just didn't want to make money of the cult status of the title. The only reference we had was Peter Vincent returning as done in the original ones and in the remake.

The story had nothing to do with the original 1988 version and nothing to do with the remake of the 1985 version. So here we are left with some students leaving for Romania (how original) to study they have one hell of a sexy teacher (Jaime Murray) with a dark secret. She needs virgin blood to make her look beautiful (Bathory again). That's the main part here in this flick. It wasn't that bad sometimes but it also had some ridiculous situations that should have been funny but failed completely for me.

For those not familiar with Murray, I knew her from Dexter were she goes nude a few times and from Spartacus were she almost always nude. And that's exactly what this flick delivers, nude juggs and one full frontal nudity. Further we do have one very good scene that remembered me of the Hostel franchise with the nude girl hanging upside down to be slashed and her blood dripping in the bath. We do have that scene here too but Hostel was much better. Still, it's the best and most gory part here.

The most terrible thing is the way they are showing Peter Vincent as some reality TV host. That fact tears Fright Night 2 down. And as I have written in so many review lately, horror is back death in Horrorwood. Nobody was waiting for this remake of a remake or whatever. It doesn't add a thing except boobs to the story. Although Murray was the best thing to see, acting and nude, this flick is out there for, euh, nobody. There are so many bad flicks out nowadays and a lot is based on remakes of cult titles. Had it been given, sigh, another title it would be a bit better to review but to say this is the next Fright Night, na.

Gore 2/5 Nudity 2/5 Effects 3/5 Story 2?5/5 Comedy 0/5

"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.

'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

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.