Fright Night Part 2 (1988)

Featured Audience Ratings

• John H

  
  "Such a thing simply couldn't happen twice." This completely destroys the credibility of the first Fright Night. Not only does this take Charley, the hero from the first and vampire-enthusiast, three years of therapy to recover from what everyone believes from… More
  "Such a thing simply couldn't happen twice." This completely destroys the credibility of the first Fright Night. Not only does this take Charley, the hero from the first and vampire-enthusiast, three years of therapy to recover from what everyone believes from delusional imagery of who the vampire Jerry was, but after that therapy he starts to become a vampire himself... acting like fucking Teen Wolf now. I am a fan of Fright Night part one, but this installment went the extra mile by ruining the main character and making it possible for us to no longer root for him. On top of that, how dare the writers throw in sexual lady vamps and a single werewolf to. This movie reads more like a bad teen sex comedy than a bad horror movie. Here's the villain line-up A body-building... thing... that eats bugs A sweaty, horny awkward werewolf A roller skating vampire that seems to be gender neutral And the lead vampire... who's a prostitute. I'm sorry, "performance artist" Only plus I can give it is Charley new girlfriend is stronger and more capable of taking care of herself than Amy was.

• KJ P

  
  This was a completely unnecessary sequel to a great film, not to mention it is more than just a major downgrade in filmmaking. Vampires randomly come in, the main cast change their minds from the thoughts they originally had by the end of the first movie, which makes absolutely no… More
  This was a completely unnecessary sequel to a great film, not to mention it is more than just a major downgrade in filmmaking. Vampires randomly come in, the main cast change their minds from the thoughts they originally had by the end of the first movie, which makes absolutely no sense, and overall, this film disgusted me. A director who had nothing to do with the first film decided to helm a sequel that stared lead female vampires and a vampire that doesn't like blood, but enjoys to eat insects. Besides the ridiculously similar plot line, the bad acting, the untrue dialogue, and the stupid jump scares, there are a few moments that reflect on the original and would make any viewer smirk. However, the originality is missing, which makes this film almost unwatchable to think it is a sequel to a classic. I will never watch this movie again and quite frankly I despise the creators for thinking of it! What a shame!

• Phil H

  
  Pretty much the same plot and layout as the first film really which I guess is a shame as its nothing very original but I suppose they stick to what works and this does work..again. Slightly more speedy with the plot and more interesting as you know whats happened previously so… More
  Pretty much the same plot and layout as the first film really which I guess is a shame as its nothing very original but I suppose they stick to what works and this does work..again. Slightly more speedy with the plot and more interesting as you know whats happened previously so there's not much boring teen angst stuff going on at first, it doesn't take long before we hit vamp speed. So we have more vamps this time round which is nice as the small group are quite a cool little bunch with plenty of variation and imagination on display, I especially love 'Louie' the werewolf looking vamp, 'Belle' is a unique looking vamp kinda in the flashy outrageous style of singer 'Prince' and Carmen is beautiful as 'Regine' the sister of 'Dandrige' from the first flick. As said its the same as before plot wise so nothing special there but again we have some lovely makeup and special effects to show yet more melting, crumbling, exploding and dissolving vampires in their last throws, still have some dodgy looking puppets at times with some obvious cheesy sets and bluescreen but it still manages to look better than cgi in my opinion cos at least the effects/sets/makeup are real. Its a good sequel which just gives you more of the same with more imagination in the way they do it, 'how can we make a vampire death look even more fantastic and gooey?' Interestingly some ideas and sequences do seem to have been heavily borrowed from the classic sexy vamp flick 'Vamp' (1986) with Grace Jones, if you watch the two there are definitely similar ideas being used with the sexy dance routines of Regine and even her final death scene where she raises a skeletal forearm from her freshly cooked corpse. I still find myself asking why on earth 'Brewster' doesn't give in and become a vampire lover with Regine...I would of for sure haha.

• AJ V

  
  A mediocre vampire movie, a revenge sequel to the first movie. The best part is that Roddy McDowall is in this one too. Overall, it's just okay.

• Eric S

  
  As a fan of 1985's "Fright Night", I was a bit reluctant to see this 1989 sequel which passed me by. I've seen parts of this over the years, but not in it's entirety. This film in no way compares to it's predecessor as it is a comical film that takes the… More
  As a fan of 1985's "Fright Night", I was a bit reluctant to see this 1989 sequel which passed me by. I've seen parts of this over the years, but not in it's entirety. This film in no way compares to it's predecessor as it is a comical film that takes the scary concept of the original and transforms it into a formulaic horror/comedy piece of it's time. However, I did end up enjoying it. Far be it from me to recommend a sequel since I can count the ones I like on one hand, but this one caught me by surprise. It follows the lives of a college-age Charlie Brewster(William Ragsdale), and B-movie vampire slayer Peter Vincent(Roddy McDowall) who yet again face vampires, etc. on a college campus. Surely this film has it's flaws, but it has a charm to it for simply being what it is. The director Tommy Lee Wallace is someone I have respect for since he was the production designer for John Carpenter's "Halloween" and is the person who picked out the 1975 Captain Kirk mask which was spray painted white and used as the mask worn by Michael Myers in "Halloween" and "Halloween 2". So back to this film. If you're up for some silly vampire stuff with a splash of werewolf activity, etc., I think you'll have a good time with this one.

• Dean M

  
  What William Ragsdale and Roddy McDowall didn't realise when they despatched the vampire in Part 1 was that he had a sister.

• Dr Blood  

  
  The effects are ok but it isn't scary at any point... except for the vampires on the pointy end of Charlie's stake!

• Cindy I

  
  Not nearly as good as the original. Barely held my attention.

• Anthony V

  
  This is what happens when you don't use the writer/director of the original.

• Barry L

  
  Never a patch on the first but it did have a lot to contend with. Not too bad really.

• Nicky M

  
  A pretty good sequel that builds on the original.

Read all 11 featured audience ratings