Softwing
Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??
HottWwjdIam
There is just so much movie here. For some it may be too much. But in the same secretly sarcastic way most telemarketers say the phrase, the title of this one is particularly apt.
PiraBit
if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.
Janis
One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.
disdressed12
I enjoyed this true sequel to the original Fright Night(1985).once again Charley Brewster(William Ragsdale)and Pter Vincent(Roddy McDowall)return to battle some new vampires.this film,unlike the original film has some humorous bits mostly courtesy of John Gries who played Louie.the musical score was once again done by Brad Fiedel,and was again very appropriate to the movie.the acting is good enough for the most part.i thought Traci Lind was good as Charlie's girlfriend.however,Julie Carmen,who plays Regine,really didn't do anything for me.I also thought the special makeup effects were inferior to the original.nevertheless,the movie is watchable and a worthy sequel.Fright Night Part 2 is a 6/10
jessegehrig
I watched this film or it was seen by me. I like vampire movies, but I didn't like this vampire movie and worse than that Fright Night 2 is better than most other vampire movies. How is it hard to make a good vampire movie? This film features a sad reliance upon sex to create tension and interest for the viewer, a failing shared with most films of the vampire genre. It's not even good sex either, it's stale intangible Hollywood sex, as fake and empty of real life as any movie set backdrop. All I want to see is shadows and human life, make that movie and make it about vampires. Throw in a sh*tload of gore and violence and most importantly of all, no happy ending.
kylehaines96
Belated Day 23 Of My 31 Days Of Horror 2.I think that this film does not deserve the cult following it has. While the film is entertaining It is not all that great.The film follows the main character from the first film but this time the villain is a vampire woman who was a sister from the main vampire from the first film. Thats about it.The film is very entertaining and a good popcorn flick. But the film drags and the main character is basically not as fun as the first. This film has a cult following because it is hard to find on VHS and DVD. So if you find it hold on to it.Rated R For Nudity, Violence And Language.1hr 44min/104min.1 use of the F-word.**1/2/****
GL84
When young Charley begins to suspect that his mysterious new neighbors are the clan left behind following their previous encounter, he and Peter reunite to take them out before they can exact their revenge.A bit cheesier than Part 1, either a sign of the fact that this one really had no point in being made or just the nature of the genre at the time, but again, the clashing tone is really off-putting and makes little sense, as does the replication of what's going on like in the first part, and coupled with the fact that there's a lot more investigation here than in the first one, it's a lot slower and really drags itself out far more than necessary, especially with the lower amount of confrontations which are a sad sight, but there is enough attempts at suspense that there's some fun there, the brawls are quite good and the vampire make-up looks really good. A true middle-of-the-road affair.Rated R: Graphic Language, Violence and Nudity
