FRIGHT NIGHT PART 2 - REVIEW


Fright Night was certainly a rarity: a vampire comedy that actually works both as a vamp flick and as a horror movie satire. The film had an irresistible charm with its cool 80's score, its turtle neck-wearing villain and its genius Peter Cushing/Hammer homage.

This sequel takes the same formula and introduces new dastardly vampires to add to the mix.

It's years later, Charlie (William Ragsdale again) has undergone a lot of therapy and has accepted that everything that happened in the first film had been the result of group hypnosis and never actually happened. Peter Vincent (the ever-reliable Roddy McDowall), however, still remembers the truth of the events that unfolded but being the only one who believes that reality, it's hurting his work to say the least. Basically, the first half of the film is nothing but build-up to resuming the status quo of the first movie: Charlie being a douche to his girlfriend, Peter Vincent losing his job, vampires orgy-biting victims with the curtains open...

By the halfway point you're basically back in the first Fright Night except it's much less entertaining and much less funny.

You've got a decent new bunch of villains which may not be quite as memorable as turtle neck guy but which feel a bit more threatening: sexy vamp lady, vampire Prince, vampire Ivan Drago and bald werewolf dude make a good team for sure and they all die in fantastic ways. This is actually the highlight of the film, the visual effects during the vampire death scenes are really impressive and genuinely gross.

Otherwise, the film is frankly a little dull.

The first half of the film doesn't feel necessary and is completely predictable while the second half, despite admittedly having its moments, drags a bit until the only-ok climax. It's frankly a bit of a disappointing sequel. Yes you do get the Fright Night experience with McDowall as good as ever but at no point does Part 2 feel useful, innovative, intense or crazy-fun. Mostly, it's like watching a slightly less good version of Fright Night. Maybe instead of trying to recreate the first film they should have opted for a whole new, bigger vibe with the same main characters. Like an army of vampires taking over the town or something...

What would Hammer do?

Actually, bad example.

Overall, as a vampire flick, Fright Night Part 2 isn't bad. It's worth a look I guess but it's hardly a must-see. If you enjoyed Fright Night you'll find some things to enjoy here but if you weren't a fan in the first place you might want to give it a miss altogether. Honestly, it's a bit too boring for its own good. There are better vampire films out there, I'm thinking Near Dark, and there are better Fright Night films:

Fright Night and...

Fright Night. The remake, that is.

Meh.

Lacks bite.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT - REVIEW

Image
Finally free from the clutches of the iconic Original Series , Picard and co. finally got their own movie to play with and delivered this much better, much darker, much less gimmicky outing. This time, we're introduced to the Borgs, a race of soulless, zombie-like drones capable of assimilating people completely. A popular race of bad guys in the series, their Hellraiser -style S&M look certainly begged for a movie! First Contact opens with Picard having a nightmare about the time he almost became a Borg forever and little by little, as the current Borg threat increases, he starts to crack up, feeling a responsibility to sort that problem out himself as he still has a slight connection to them but also wanting a kind of revenge, closure if you will, for what they did to him the first time around. The plot sees the crew of the Enterprise witness the Earth get completely assimilated by the Borgs so they go back in time before Earth made its "first contact" with al
Read more

24: SEASON 1 - REVIEW

Image
I know, I'm like 100 years late. But I'm The "Retro" Critic! :P I remember catching a glimpse of this iconic show back in the day and actually finding it pretty entertaining. Sadly, I hadn't followed the thread from the very beginning so it felt like catching the season about halfway through would be a bit of a waste. I decided to wait until I could check it out on DVD. 10 years later... Well I finally made it, that's the main thing, right? So was it worth the wait? What do I make of this very first season? It's good. I thought it would be quite good and it was. Basically I'm rarely taken by a cop-themed series unless you've got a mad scientist in there ( Fringe ), evil twins ( Alias ) or... Columbo ( Columbo ). But 24 did a hell of a good job keeping me entertained throughout and making me care about MOST of what was going on. Kiefer Sutherland's Jack Bauer is a hard one to dislike and is pretty much the glue holding the whole sho
Read more

THE ADDAMS FAMILY MUSICAL - REVIEW

Image
 Looks like every Broadway comedy musical these days is trying to be The Producers ... Mel Brooks' hugely successful show now being the basic template for shows based on movies (with the exception of the admittedly *ahem* unique Spiderman musical), after Dirty Rotten Scoundrels we're treated to Broadway's The Addams Family. An odd release but probably an inevitable one. Not based on any of the movies, the story actually follows up from past adaptations and sees a now grown-up Wednesday falling in love with a "normal" dude and having to face her unconventional family. It's essentially Addams Family Values with Wednesday taking on the Fester role. A good idea which should please both fans of the films and those looking to see something new. But what works for The Producers just doesn't work for everything. Nathan Lane as Gomez Addams? So much for the tall, suave, maniacal Gomez we all know and love! Don't get me wrong, I love Nathan Lane but list
Read more