STARRING- Chris Sarandon, William Ragsdale, and Amanda Bearse
DIRECTOR- Tom Holland
Synopsis taken from IMDb
When a teenager learns that his next door neighbor is a vampire, no one will believe him.
When I say that "Fright Night" is my second favorite vampire film ever, the first question I'm asked is the obvious 'what's your first favorite?' So, I'll nip that in the butt now, and say that if you want to know what my favorite vampire film of all-time is, you'll have to pop back in next Thursday once I review it, and see. Tom Holand's classic blood sucker tale, "Fright Night" is an ageless classic that has stuck with me since my childhood. Still considered by some genre fans as the best of its kind, and still has as strong a fan base as ever.
RATED- R RUN TIME- 100 MINS WRITER(S)- MATT VENNE STARRING- WILL PAYNE, JAIME MURRAY, AND SEAN POWER DIRECTOR- EDUARDO RODRIGUEZ Synopsis taken from IMDb By day Gerri Dandridge is a sexy professor, but by night, she transforms into a real-life vampire with an unquenchable thirst for human blood. So when a group of high school students travel abroad to study in Romania, they find themselves ensnared in Gerri's chilling web of lust and terror. Charley and "Evil" Ed must stop Gerri from drinking and bathing in the blood of a "new moon virgin," which just so happens to be Charley's ex-girlfriend, Amy. They enlist help from Peter Vincent, the vampire hunting host of a reality show called "Fright Night," to drive a stake through Gerri's plan and save Amy from a fate far worse than death.
The original"Fright Night" (1985)is my second favorite vampire film ever, has been since I can remember, right behind"The Lost Boys" (1987). I didn't mind the "Fright Night" remakeback in 2011, either.Granted, it wasn't the original in any comparison, but they did a good job with keeping you entertained. It was a fun movie. Much to my surprise, the new film, is more of a remake than a sequel. I did not know this, nor expect it. I saw the redband trailer a few months back, and that's all I knew going into it. And honestly, I was expecting good things, after being pleased with the remake. I knew by the trailer that this new movie was going to have some nods to the original, such as the vampire moving next door, and the lead vampire's name being Gerri. I never thought this was going to be another retelling, and not a follow-up to the 2011 flick. Truth be told, I knew I was in trouble within the first 10 minutes. There's a good jump before the opening credits, but after that, you can instantly see the change in quality it takes. When we get character time with Charley (Will Payne) and "Evil" Ed (Chris Waller), it's very clear the acting is poor, and not believable. The dialogue was almost as lacking as the performances. Right here, as I aforementioned, I knew I was in trouble.
Reason being; you can't set up a good story that's heavily character induced, when the actors and actresses can't pull the roles off. If they're laughable, and or unbelievable, than the whole feel of the film is shot to hell. Such is the case with this, unfortunately. I was even disappointed in Jaime Murray's acting as the lead vamp, Gerri Dandridge. I've somewhat followed her career after seeing her on season 2 of Showtime's "Dexter", which is my all-time favorite show. But, this movie isn't her best body of work...
With basically the whole premise of the original movie, from back in 1985, "Fright Night 2: New Blood" hardly offers up anything extra worth watching for. You know, I really hated Christopher Mintz-Plasse's "Evil" Ed, and compared to Chris Waller's version in the new movie, I'd kiss Mint-Plasse's feet. Not to mention the travesty that's become of a once iconic character, Peter Vincent... The story, and character development are rushed. Now, couple that with the laughable, and or forgettable acting, and you see what a mess this film is. They tried to go to new territories with making Gerri really be Elizabeth Bathory, but it doesn't stick. It's not the right story, and it's not pulled off right. I think we're all overdue for a good horror film about Elisabeth Bathory. The 2006 flick, "Stay Alive"tried to make it happen, but much like this picture, didn't know how to properly execute a decent plot. I'm overall very let down by this sequel/remake. There's nothing memorable about it, and quite frankly, I was happy when it ended. Other than some decent gore, there's nothing impressive offered. And the gore doesn't really mean anything with lazy makeup applications. I don't understand the point, purpose, or need for this film's existence. But, then again, it's not my place to say what films should and shouldn't get made. I can't say that if there's another installment in the "Fright Night" series that I'll be anxious to see it. Unless by some great power someone steps up to get the series back on track for a 3rd film, which I'm not holding my breath for. I actually would prefer the original "Fright Night: Part II" (1988), and I didn't even really like that one either!. "Fright Night 2: New Blood" is honestly just as bad as the "30 Days of Night" sequel.
In the end, this motion picture goes into the bin of films this year that I'll never watch again. That about sums it up.
This is such a hard movie to find and get ahold of that I'm very pleased I was finally able to see it after all this time. The DVD goes for almost $70 on amazon, and seeing as I've never seen it there was no way I'm spending that kind of money on a movie that I don't know if I like or not.
As I've mentioned I've never seen this film up until now and I'm glad the opportunity finally arose. I have a few friends who have seen it and whenever I asked them how it was I just got the generic "it's okay, not as good as the first" reply. So I didn't have high hopes going in to this because they didn't exactly make it seem appealing.
But as the movie played and I saw not only William Ragsdale reprising his role as Charley Brewster but Roddy McDowall also reprising his role as Peter Vincent. So right from the start my feeling changed and I figured this would be a good movie after all.
This film takes place shortly after the first with Charley no longer believing in vampires due to seeing a shrink. He believes Jerry Dandridge was just a psycho and he imagined the vampire scenario. Peter Vincent however is still hosting Fright Night and believes in vampires. When Jerry's sister comes to town wanting revenge for her dead brother Charley starts to realize he's not crazy and that vampires are real. This leads him and Peter Vincent on another vampire hunt.
There were so many funny moments in this movie as well as jumps. It turned out to be a damn good sequel and did the first justice. The story was strong, the acting was good, the effects were cheesy but awesome. Alot of memorable moments came from this film including the vampire and werewolf bowling scene! Yes, I know it sounds ridiculous but it's a great scene.
Now the big question- is Fright Night Part 2 better than the first?
No it isn't. It's like Halloween H20 to the original 1978 Halloween. It was a good sequel and it kept the feel of the first and stayed true to it but it just didn't have the same amount of lightning in a bottle the first had. Good sequel though and I would proudly own it one day when I don't have to spend $70 on a used copy of it.
I found Jerry's sister, Regina Dandridge, very seductive and beautiful. Good job on the casting as well. But really to experience this movie you have to see it. It's funny and very entertaining. I'm glad to say that after all these years of wondering that Fright Night Part 2 did it's job with flying colors. It puts a smile on my face. And as I said in my review for the remake, I liked the remake alot so that means that all 3 films made in this franchise have my approval.
Seeing Charlie and and Peter Vincent together again was so cool! I didn't even know they were going to be in it!
The original Fright Night is my 2nd favorite vampire film ever after The Lost Boys. So it's to be expected that I was going to be very judgemental of a remake. The original has so much to offer as a horror film, it's fun, campy, scary and just overall a great vampire flick. So many great scenes and moments from that movie. A personal favorite scene is Evil Ed in the Raggedy Ann wig acting like Charlie's mother.
So I'm pleased to say that I really enjoyed the remake. I thought the cast was great and Colin did a great job as a rugged blue collar Jerry Dandrige, unlike the pretty boy Chris Sarandon played back in '85. I liked the similarities to the original and the throwbacks they threw in, but they made it quite apparent that this was it's own movie by changing alot about the characters and the story. And the cameo Chris Sarandon made was awesome. Good to see him in this film if only for a brief minute.
The movie is basically the same with Charlie Brewster (Anton Yelchin) having a new neighbor who is a vampire (Farrell). He finds out by his friend, Evil Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) who has been following Dandrige around and found solid evidence to prove his case. Once Dandrige finds out they know about him and what he is he starts to destroy their lives.
The weakest point of the film to me was I didn't like Evil Ed nearly as much as in the original. Overall I still like the original more but this was a great remake and I'm proud that it did the original justice.
I'd give this movie a solid 3 stars. Good flick. Trailer below.
