It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

This is a must-see and one of the best documentaries - and films - of this year.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

The acting in this movie is really good.

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.

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.

Again another vampire movie ....I really didn't like the remake in 2011 of the original cult film from 1985. And this sequel is also for me just a lame excuse to bring in money, feeding on the cult sounding movie title. There is absolutely nothing innovative or original in this film. It's just another story about vampires with all the familiar clichés. Just like its predecessor, the SE's are standard and nothing spectacular. Besides one thing that I have never seen in such movies : the production of sonar-like waves to locate the two students in the dark tunnels. That was an original contribution.The functional nudity and eroticism was taken to a higher level than in the movie from 2011. Murray as the biting vampire herself is one to bite and nibble on. Enormously tasteful to watch. But her delicious nudity isn't shown explicitly. What a pity. However, I think that this strategic move is a way to cover up the lack of talent.This movie isn't a complete disaster and ultimately the whole movie industry is only interested in one thing, and that's money. So I have no problem with the fact that there is a weak decoction made with a huge low budget, in order to hit the market with this product for the fans of such movies. Haven't you seen a Fright Night episode before, good advice, skip this one and watch the original.More reviews at http://opinion-as-a-moviefreak.blogspot.be/

Only Fanboys can Tell You what this is and Even those Obsessive Types have Trouble Agreeing Exactly what to Call this. It Ranges from Sequel to Remake to Sequel of a Remake to Remake of a Sequel and in the End does it Really Matter? It Should but it Doesn't, because this is a Mess and its Label becomes Inconsequential.Of the Five Leading "Actors", take Your Pick as to Who is the Worst because it is Awfulness Across the Board. Evil Ed gets the Most Votes it seems because He is the most Irritating. The Movie does look Professionally Artsy at Times and the Costumes, Makeup, and Sets are Impressive for a Low Budget DTV.However, the Thing Jumps all over the Place and Never Finds its Footing and there are Times when Enough should have been Enough and it becomes too Much. For Example, the Swimming Pool Full of Blood (actually it looks more like red water) just seems to be there for Everyone to Jump in and Everyone goes for a Dip or Two just Because. Recommended for the Most Forgiving of Horror and Vampire Fans but those that Think that the Fright Night of the Eighties is a Classic are going to Find this Pointless and Sloppy and at Times Amateurish.