Fright Night 2

"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.

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.

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

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.