Fright Night Part 2 (1988)

Even a horror film with vampires must follow a logical path. This is the general rule for supernatural films in order to create credibility with the audience. "Fright Night Part 2" tries to obey but completely ignores this rule, which makes it an under average film. The film opens with Charley (William Ragsdale) finishing his 3-year psychological treatment believing all those things happened three years ago were not real. What kind of treatment manages to do that, is a mystery to me. He is in college now, has a different girlfriend, trying to lead a normal life but his old nightmares return when Jerry Dandrige's sister comes in town with her company to take revenge of her brother.A constant denial is the main object of both films but here it is exaggerated. It is a film of 104 minutes and at the minute 54, they are still denying vampires even though a lot of weird things are happening around them and Charley even see vampires with his own eyes. We were taught vampires can be killed with posture in sunlight, a stake in heart or holy water; here in "Fright Night Part 2," we find out that they can be killed also by falling from buildings or with a cut in their belly. This made me believe, even without Charley and the vampire killer Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall), those vampires would get themselves killed because they are really trying very hard to get killed. Another mystery to me is how they managed to survive all those years. It is mentioned that Jerry Dandrige was 1000 years old when he was killed.I never leave a film in the middle but with this one, temptation was high. In order not to spoil the story anymore, I will no further talk more about the senseless scenes. Human brain tends to refuse to believe illogical things. Everything we perceive must be rational. Therefore, in both films, Charley is having a very hard time making people believe in him including himself. He is suffering from Cassandra Effect.Also seeing in the first film, I am now convinced that vampires tend to do a lot of things near the windows so people can see them and not believe. Their supernatural powers make them arrogant creatures which eventually lead to their death. Both Jerry (Chris Sarandon) in the first film and Regine (Julie Carmen) in the second, find a lot of opportunities to kill Peter and Charley but they never do. This arrogance can only be explained by their trust in their supernatural powers or by a stupid screenplay. I tend to see this a lot in horror films. If an evil character does that a lot in the film, keep in mind that most probably that character is going to be defeated in the end. There are thousands of horror films following this post-modern path and this makes horror films repeat themselves.Directed by Tommy Lee Wallace, "Fright Night Part 2" shows some artistic scenes. Regine comes as a performance artist. No matter what she does, people will never think she is a vampire. Apparently, performance artists can do a lot of things. She doesn't cast shadow in the mirror and that's because she is a performance artist, she can turn into smoke and disappear because she is a performance artist. The only explanation for these constant refusals in the film are because the director desperately tries to lead his film logically and fails big time in my opinion. You are making a horror film with vampires and still trying to be logical about that. This chain is the weakest point of the film and it effects everything in it. Other than the logical part of the film, "Fright Night Part 2" can be considered watchable. In the end it is a film about vampires and you get to see a lot of them in different shapes. Charley's doctor being a vampire and the way he kills himself is still ridiculous but acceptable. Not everyone must have the necessary style.I like makeups better in this one compared to the original film. There are indeed some good scenes that manages to give you chills. I like the fact that those scenes are accompanied by nice underground disco music of 80s. I also like the references to the Dracula from Bram Stoker. The atmosphere of the film is dark. It is suitable and even good. If the logical part was not left aside, "Fright Night Part 2" could even have been considered a good film but under these circumstances it fails to reach its destination in the eyes of the audience.

This follow-up to the minor 1985 hit FRIGHT NIGHT is everything that a sequel shouldn't be. It basically copies the plot from the first film, tries to be cool and funny and ends up being pathetic, and lends absolutely nothing new to the plot. Interesting plot developments - that the vampire is the sister of the vampire in the first film - are brushed aside to make way for some tacky "romantic" moments and endless scenes of stupid '80s vampires trying to be hip... culminating in a new genre low, when a rollerskating vampire appears on screen. Frankly, screen vampires have never been scary since, even though there have been a couple of good efforts. This is one of the films which helped ruin their credibility and power back in the cheesy '80s.The film does have one saving grace, and his name is Roddy McDowall. McDowall once again puts in a brilliant performance which lifts the film as a whole and stops it being totally worthless; his Peter Vincent character brings much-needed class, wit, humour, and a likability to the film which makes it very easy to sit through. William Ragsdale gives a passable turn but his character is slightly irritating this time around (due to his confused, disbelieving nature). Elsewhere, Julie Carmen camps it up as the chief villainess and is, frankly, terrible. Jon Gries plays a stupid "comedy" werewolf/vampire creature and desperately wants to be like Stephen Geoffreys in the first film, but doesn't come close. The only other character of interest is the underused Brian Thompson, who is a typical "heavy" in this film but has fun with a quirk which sees him quoting Latin and eating butterflies.Much of this film is terrible and nothing really goes anywhere. The new characters are modelled rather too closely on ones in the first film and the spark of vitality is missing. While the makeup effects look nice, the actors wearing them gurn and overact so much that it makes the vampires hard to watch. As if the transsexual rollerskating vampire wasn't enough. However, there are three special effects which are really quite good, and each involves a main vampire dying. The first sees Brian Thompson's internal organs spill out of his stomach, mixed in with a healthy quota of maggots - Fulci would have been proud. The second sees the transsexual vampire die in a variation of the standard Hammer Dracula deaths, ie. it slowly dissolves. Here, it turns translucent via some nifty early computer effects which are impressive. The final, and best, death is an extended one and is saved for the chief vampire, of course. She basically burns via a nifty ray of sunshine from a mirror and turns into a blubbery skeleton - nice! Otherwise, apart from these short schlocky moments and McDowall's fine turn, FRIGHT NIGHT PART 2 is a worthless affair.

Years have passed since the events of Fright Night, but vampires have long memories and one of them shows up in town to take revenge on Charlie. The resulting mayhem and frights fall far short of the white knuckle ride of the first film. Indeed, the slow pace and lack of suspense and atmosphere are major shortcomings for any horror film and doubly disappointing here, since the original had pace and atmosphere by the carload. There is a lush and sensual quality to the new vampire's scenes (if not bite - no pun intended), so the film is not without visual interest, but don't be looking for the sudden shocks and twists of the first movie. They ain't here. Frankly, My Best Friend is a Vampire was a better movie, which isn't saying much.

Oh, God, this movie, Fright Night Part 2 (or II as some sources say) was a mess.From the already pointed out mismanaging of the sequel #, to lame and irrelevant bowling jokes, to the once awesome Peter Vincent reversing his belief in vampires only to remember at the appropriate time, to the lame excuse to get (SOME of) the original stars back…this movie was a tragedy to those who loved part one. Like me.When I was a kid, I loved the original Fright Night and didn't really get into going to see as many movies as I could, on my own and mostly at the dollar theatre, until I was about 15ish. And coincidentally, both my movie-outing and this film were in 1989. Surprisingly, I wasn't as much a critic back then: I loved going to the movies, action and horror were my favorite, didn't matter about plot, depth or characterizations – I just loved entertainment. And still…I hated this movie.Really quickly, let's explore the wonderful plot: Charley Brewster has moved on from his encounter with his neighbor/vampire of years past through therapy and college. He's got a new girlfriend and the infamous Peter Vincent friend he ignores. Well, SHOCKING, Peter's new neighbors are vampires and maybe a werewolf, though that's not really explored. This time around, Charley is slowly – and weirdly – becoming one of the undead. Too much a spoiler on why, but the reason is just as boring as this slow paced, barely recognizable sequel, is.Yeah, I'm aware they produced countless horror films in the 1980s and multiple that by five for the number of horror sequels. A lot hit, mostly miss. This is the latter. There's absolutely no reason to see this follow-up. The first classic is simply sufficient.