Fright Night 2

'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

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

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.

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.

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.