Leprechaun 2 (1994)

As I wrote the review for Leprechaun 1, I shall write this one and with more enthusiasm, since this was way better. YES, this 2nd installment of the devilish little heathen known as The Leprechaun was cooler and better than the 1st one.The acting was a little more colorful and less dull than the original. It moves the setting from a droll backwoods scenery to a vivid but gloomy tourist part of the land of the free. The stars of this one actually tried their best to sell this plot and most of it goes to Sandy Baron as Morty, who you may recognize as Jack Klompus from the legendary show "Seinfeld". Anything Mr Baron did was awesome, he was a genuine character who always added his brash humor into any part he played. The Leprechaun, as always, did his part and sold the antagonistic delivery. Part of his charm is the way he rhymes and can actually command your attention with his creepy antics. In this movie, he returns after being ''killed'' in the original and searches for his long lost bride which he finds after a 1000 years and is a direct bloodline next of kin to the one he originally wanted back then. The movie is not much to analyze but it is fun to watch and makes an otherwise sketchy script work nicely. Don't put too much thought into it. If you see it on SyFy, treat yourself, you deserve a laugh and this movie is great at delivering it without overdoing the horror.

A Leprechaun on his 1000th birthday can choose any bride by making her sneeze 3 times unless someone says "God bless you". A man is enslaved by The Leprechaun who promises his freedom once he gets a bride. The bride turns out to be his daughter and he says "God bless you, my child". The Leprechaun promises to return in 1000 year to find his descendant. In present day L.A., Bridget has a boyfriend Cody who runs a Hollywood death tour. He is joined by his drunken uncle Morty. After being awaken with some blended whiskey, the Leprechaun hunts for his bride-to-be.The bride angle is something different from the first movie. It's not better but I'm willing to give them credit for trying. The Leprechaun continues to look silly and most importantly, not scary. This one doesn't have Jennifer Aniston or for that matter, any actor of interest. These novice actors have no charms whatsoever. The girl is not up to the demands of a lead and neither is the guy. They are definitely trying for the Freddy Krueger here but he established himself first as someone scary. This franchise has never been scary.

An evil leprechaun (Warwick Davis) is to take the daughter of his slave as a bride, but loses her when the slave sacrifices his life for her. One thousand years later, the leprechaun is determined to take the beautiful descendant of the woman for his bride.This is your standard 1990s horror sequel, not much different than the direction "Child's Play" or "Children of the Corn" took at this point. Not that the original was a terribly serious film, but it only goes downhill from here (should I even mention the Leprechaun in space or in the hood?) Whether you like this or not might depend on when you grew up. I was very much a child of 1990s, so the mid-90s films are a bit nostalgic for me. Are they good? Probably not. But 1993-1998 had a feel that has not been seen since -- this film falls in that category.

Is back again! This movie was no were near as decent as first one, which was just about decent with fun factor put in there. This movie did not have any of fun factor that first movie had, The lead girl in this movie, which wide eyes and Scream, . Which was way over the top.After that, I knew I was in tough ride. As ^ That was first scenes, as the movie went on, I got bored of it. I left the movie on and started doing another things as well, I Don't think there was one scenes that I actually liked in this movie.The acting was really bad in this movie as were the effects and the dull plot! 1 out of 10 (This is were series stopped for me. Even had 3 Beers before this movie, was drinking my 4th beer while it was on, that didn't even help!)