jacobjohntaylor1 This is one scary movie AHHHHHHHHHHHH!. If does not scary you no movie will. Fright (1985) is better. Fright II (1988) is also better. Fright (2011) is also better. This not a sequel. It is a remake. Is a great movie. It has a great story line. It also has great acting. It also has great special effects. If it does not scary you no movie will. It is very scary. AHHHHHHHH! It is scarier then The Exorcist. That is not easy to do. It is a very scary movie. It is scarier then A Nightmare on elm street and that is not easy to do. It is scarier then Friday the 13th V a new beginning and that is not easy to do. It will scary you. It is a very scary movie. It will scary you.

CountVladDracula I decided to check out the 2013 Fright Night. I wanted to see how well Jaime Murray (the Black Fairy from Once Upon a Time) did as a vampire because I love her girlish (original Dark Shadows' Angelique Collins-esque) giggle.At first I was ready to heckle it, from the cheesy blue tint and an explosion at the one minute and thirty second mark but it fast improved. I'd say it was better than the 2011 version despite 2011's remake having David Tennant (Even that couldn't save it).Charley Brewster, Amy, and Evil Ed (as I said it's not the same continuity as the 2011 film, so yes, Ed is alive) have decided to attend college in Romania. Their new professor is Gerri Dangridge (a female version of Jerry) is a vampire. Like the original Fright Night Charley sees her taking victims from his window and at first no one believes him. She follows traditional Dracula-esque rules such as needing an invitation to enter a home, but unlike the gutter trash version of Jerry from the 2011 film she also has a lot of Dracula's traditional powers.Her shadow can move of its own accord (I like that a lot). She can leap great heights and probably even fly. She can read thoughts and enter dreams. She can stop a moving car and damage it, with her own body. And she heals fast. I love her growling. Her powers put the 2011 Jerry Dangridge to shame. She also has more of the charm you would expect from a traditional vampire. Suave and seductive yet dangerous. I just wish that like the original 1985 Jerry Dandridge and 1988 Regine she could take bat, wolf, and mist form.Also, much like how the original 1985 Fight Night suggested that Jerry Dandridge was really Dracula (at least in its novelization), this film heavily suggests (actually it out right tells you) that Gerri is Elizabeth Bathory, which I don't mind at all. She even has a hidden bathtub of blood in her flat along with a collection of clocks (much like the 1985 Fright Night).There's a bit of a twist though that she has been searching, for centuries, for someone born on the blood moon (and still a virgin) whose blood can cure her of her curse. So though we see her revel in predatory behavior and seem to wickedly enjoy it, apparently she does not actually like being a vampire. The new Evil Ed is a LOT better than the 2011 version as well. This Evil reminded me of the original, right down to the facial expressions and eyebrows. He even has the laugh. He felt like Evil Ed, like he studied the original. This version of Gerri has UV filters over her windows, a very nice modernization without oing too far. I wish I had seen this when it first came out. It's not as good as the 80s version or even the 1988 sequel but it makes up for the 2011 Fright Night in its own way. This shouldn't be called Fright Night 2. It should be its own movie, stand on its own, as its own attempt at a Fright Night remake since that's what it actually is. This version deserved to be more than a direct to video sequel to the 2011 film. Unfortunately it does have its flaws…The new Peter Vincent is a TV host for a cheesy Syfy Channel-esque monster hunting reality show. I'm glad he has a TV show but he's still disappointing. He's too much like the 2011 version. I miss the timid horror host who finds his place as a real hero like Roddy McDowell's Peter Vincent. Becoming the hero he always wanted to be. The way the 2011 and 2013 Peter Vincent is tackled is all too cynical. Amy's a bit stand-off-ish and keeps ignoring Charley trying to give her chocolates and flowers but I still like her better than the "Hot chick" version from the 2011 film that completely obliterated her Girl Next Door quality from the original 1985 film. Evil Ed and Gerri Dandridge are fantastic and they make this movie! There are parts in this that actually managed to make me laugh. Nothing in the 2011 version made me laugh. This should have gotten its own theatrical release as its own Fright Night remake. It's NOT a sequel, it is its own reboot. This should not be called Fright Night 2.I miss the 1985 gay overtones with Ed being in the closet but this version of Evil Ed is fun just the same. Every time a vampire screeches and all through the chase scene and later climax there is a flickering light effect that I absolutely hate. That's not scary. It's annoying and potentially headache inducing. The scene would have been a lot creepier without it. The chase scene and Peter Vincent are the biggest let downs of the movie but I love Evil Ed and I love Gerri Dandridge and her new array of powers that make the 2011 Jerry look pathetic in comparison. I just wish she would take wolf, bat or mist form.I also don't like that the vampires won't show up on camera, a trope lifted from the 2011 film. Cameras never stopped Regine in the 1988 Fright Night Part 2, in fact part of the plot was her taking Peter Vincent's TV show and becoming it's new host. Not showing up in a mirror doesn't necessarily mean you won't show up on camera. The ending is a bit incoherent and has it that a mere bite will change you into a vampire and yet in the original 1985 Fright Night, despite the feeding decapitations we distinctly saw Jerry feed Amy his blood. The stupid flicker effect every time a vampire screeches is really obnoxious too,during the chase and the climax.

Brandon Stephens As everyone who knows me, I AM quite anal when it comes to remakes...esp. in the horror genre. That being said, when I first heard about FN2 needless to say I wasn't thrilled esp if it was going to be anything close to the debaughtery that was Fright Night (2011). In 2011, Marti Noxon's script was presented to us as a remake of the 1985 Cult Classic with starred Colin Farrell & Christopher Mintz-Plasse. IMHO, Both were miscasted, Jerry was more of a sociopath/rapist type who was turned into a vampire & Christopher Mintz-Plasse just CAN'T act which completely ruined the film for me.That being said, when the Part 2 remake came out I expected the same...Thank the gods I can say I was wrong....DEAD WRONG! This film was bloody amazing, from the unknown cast members that impressed the hell outta me (esp. the "evil ed" character such a improvement over Plasse's portrayal) , the opening sequence that started out with a great scare & a hell of a opening title sequence all the way to the location changes & the twists at the end. The part I enjoyed most about it was they actually took time into details about certain characteristics of our "Vampire Friend's powers and the nice lil "hat tips" they took & made their own from the original & the 1988 sequel.This film has enough scares, blood, & nudity to make any fan of the Vampire Mythos happy. I myself can not wait to watch it again, & the best part is it IS a stand alone film, even though it's a so called sequel & a remake of a remake. I Highly Recommend this movie if you have the chance.

bowmanblue Okay, there are very few horror fans that really approve of their favourite slasher movies of the seventies/eighties being 'remade, re-envisioned' or 'rebooted' (or whatever the producers want to call it when they basically want to cash in on a popular film franchise's name with the next generation of cinema-goers). However, occasionally you get a remake that sort of works. When they made the original 'Fright Night' a couple of years ago, it was reasonably successful and just about tolerated by fans of the eighties original ('tolerated' being 'high praise' for a remake!).Now we get 'Fright Night 2.' And I can't really work out where it sits in the franchise's chronology. For a start we have the two surviving characters from the first film returning. Only they're not played by the same (good) actors – a sure sign that 'part II' is heading straight to DVD. So, having them in it (in character name only) may make you think that this is a direct sequel. Only it's not. Despite being the same characters, it's a new film which ignores the first (remake). They don't know anything about vampires again and are therefore surprised when they discover that vampires exist in Romania this time (how original).Fright Night 2 is basically a remake of the first remake, because nothing before has happened. If you can get over that, you'll realise that it's just a poor retelling of the first story. This time we have Jamie Murray as the vampire who's preying on teenage virgins on school trips. Yes, she's sexy, but she's a much better actress that this role allows. Her lines are stilted and she has been known to do so much better you end up feeling sorry for her because she's about the biggest name in the film.If you like Fright Night and vampires in general, you should probably stick with the original eighties film. However, if you want something a little more modern, the Colin Farrel remake is actually quite acceptable. As for Part II... in places it got so bad I was longing for Twilight.Jamie Murray... have a word with your agent.