Fright Night 2

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.

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.

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.

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

"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.