I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Three years after defeating Jerry Dandridge, Charley Brewster (William Ragsdale) manages to convince himself that the events of that time were mere figments of mass delusion. Now a hapless student head over heels with Alex (Traci Lind) he is slowly returning to normalcy. Naturally he still remains friends with the diminishing horror star Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall), but tries not to entertain the notion that vampires could truly exist. However, when Regine (Julie Carmen) and three awkward individuals move into the same building as Vincent, it seems like its history repeating.Naturally devoid of the originality of the first part, "Fright Night Part 2" redoes several aspects of the plot, sometimes in ways which are replicated in ways too close to comfort. Keeping the humorous quality, Tommy Lee Wallace manages to add a sense of atmosphere, while Julie Carmen instills rapturous sensuality to her vampire. Lacking Evil Ed and Jerry Dandridge a bit too much of character lays on the shoulders of Peter Vincent, aptly British vampire killer with a side order of nut-case. Julie Carmen's allure does add some spice, but unfortunately mostly through sexual enticement, not intriguing character concept. Nonetheless the story is significantly more compact and coherent, thus I actually found myself enjoying it just a tad more than the first instalment, even if it is admittedly less memorable overall. The special effects do improve, but the intangible quality of magnetic charm has fleetingly escaped.

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/****

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.