jacobjohntaylor1 It is a great horror film. It has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. Fright night (1985) is scarier. But still this is pretty scary. If it does not scary you no movie will. This a very scary movie. It is scarier then The Exorcist and that is not easy to do. 5.9 is a good ratting. But this such a great horror film that 5.9 is underrating it. This is a 10. See this movie it is a great movie. It is scarier then A Nightmare on elm street and that is not easy to do. This is scarier then Friday the 13th and that is not easy to do.

Lucabrasisleeps I think I don't want to rate it lower. I enjoyed it quite a bit. There are certain things I am a little surprised by.I do think the look of the film is different to the original. Generally remakes have a higher budget I think. But from what I saw, this movie seemed a little cheaper than the original. The original was quite classy and was gorgeous to look at. But I still thought this one was one of the better sequels I have seen from the 80s. I understand the intent of the film. If Chris Sarandon could ooze such sexuality in the original, why not have a woman in that role? That would be absolute dynamite.And it does work. Julie carmen is incredible as the vampire Regina. The dance in the sequel is quite interesting (does she have any sort of training or something) and they even use the Come to me song! That is like the icing on the cake.It seems that certain horror movies made in that period have also made an impression. Near dark, for example. But unlike Near dark, I think, having multiple vampires is not really an excellent idea in this movie. It is just difficult to believe that these multiple vampires couldn't defeat this guy and an old man. Their deaths are not highly believable. Now if they were regular human beings, how hard would it be to defeat them? Brian thompson alone would have been difficult if he had been just a regular human being.Despite its drawbacks, it has high sentimental value with its seductive 80s style look, the beautiful Julie carmen and the antics of Roddy mcdowall. The song Come to me is also beautiful and it is a nice version of the original. I also liked the lack of a shock ending. But then maybe I have watched too many recent horror movies and have become used to that stuff. It also seems to remind me of certain vampire movies of the 70s with its erotic atmosphere. Which is always a plus.It is not a perfect film by any means but it is a good sequel.7/10

SnoopyStyle It's 3 years later. Charley Brewster (William Ragsdale) has come out of psychotherapy believing he imagined the vampires. He reluctantly meets up with Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall) who tries to convince him and his girlfriend Alex (Traci Lind) of their adventures. Mysterious strangers Regine, Louie, Belle and Bosworth move into Vincent's building. Regine has a revenge plan for Charley after he killed her brother Jerry Dandrige in the original.It's great that Ragsdale and McDowall have returned for the sequel. They are the only pillars holding up this movie. The franchise is nothing more than a B-horror movie at this point. It doesn't have the same 'Rear Window' aspect of the original. It's not compelling. It's not well filmed. It's a disappointment.

deatman9 I have been a fan of the first Fright Night since I was young and I have never actually seen the second one until last night. I thought it was a good little sequel but I prefer the story line in the first one and this one does tend to try to be silly sometimes.This movie is about Charlie Brewster the survivor of the vampire attack in the first one. However a shrink has convinced him it could not of been real and it was all in his head. When he starts to see signs of new vampires though he begins to worry.If you liked the first one or your a fan of 80s horror movie gives this one a watch.