Stylish but barely mediocre overall

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Blistering performances.

The movie is wonderful and true, an act of love in all its contradictions and complexity

Picking up a few years after the previous film, we find that Charlie has been undergoing psychotherapy. His therapist has convinced him that his neighbor was really a serial killer, rather than a vampire. So, he goes and throws out all of his crucifixes and holy water and stakes. He's cured, right? Well, . . . no. No sooner does Charlie do all of this than he's back to seeing people carrying coffins into buildings and women sucking the blood from his friend's wrist.And, that, My Dear Reader (as Peter Vincent would say), is the whole problem with this sequel: The story is both rushed and convoluted. Nothing is allowed to develop. Charlie starts out absolutely sure, that there are no vampires. No, wait! Now, he's sure there are. Nope -- back to being sure there aren't. And -- poor Peter Vincent -- he's caught in the middle, with Charlie telling him to go away . . . no, come here and help . . . no, just seeing things, go away . . . If there were filler material to show development and build tension, then the back-and- forth might have been much less annoying to me than it was.Except for one scene with a vamp roller-skating down a hallway, I did not find anything to creep, shock, or scare. It's just such a boring redux.The vampire this time is "Regine," the previous vampire's sister. She intends to get revenge for her brother's death by making Charlie into a vampire. Then, she can torture him forever (which really doesn't make any sense to me: How does she intend to torture him?). She makes vague threats towards Peter Vincent, without seeming to have any urgency about carrying through on them. Her major coup is to get Vincent fired in order to take over his T. V. show. Why? Was drawing an unemployment check the kind of torture about which she was speaking? (The lines at government offices can be long, you know. And, that paperwork. Oh! the paperwork.) It makes no sense whatsoever. In fact, it's completely lame.On the positive side, however, FRIGHT NIGHT II is immensely better than the turd excreted by Colin Farrell or the insipid "sequel to nothing," FRIGHT NIGHT II: NEW BLOOD.

I think I don't want to rate it lower. I enjoyed it quite a bit. There are certain things I am a little surprised by.I do think the look of the film is different to the original. Generally remakes have a higher budget I think. But from what I saw, this movie seemed a little cheaper than the original. The original was quite classy and was gorgeous to look at. But I still thought this one was one of the better sequels I have seen from the 80s. I understand the intent of the film. If Chris Sarandon could ooze such sexuality in the original, why not have a woman in that role? That would be absolute dynamite.And it does work. Julie carmen is incredible as the vampire Regina. The dance in the sequel is quite interesting (does she have any sort of training or something) and they even use the Come to me song! That is like the icing on the cake.It seems that certain horror movies made in that period have also made an impression. Near dark, for example. But unlike Near dark, I think, having multiple vampires is not really an excellent idea in this movie. It is just difficult to believe that these multiple vampires couldn't defeat this guy and an old man. Their deaths are not highly believable. Now if they were regular human beings, how hard would it be to defeat them? Brian thompson alone would have been difficult if he had been just a regular human being.Despite its drawbacks, it has high sentimental value with its seductive 80s style look, the beautiful Julie carmen and the antics of Roddy mcdowall. The song Come to me is also beautiful and it is a nice version of the original. I also liked the lack of a shock ending. But then maybe I have watched too many recent horror movies and have become used to that stuff. It also seems to remind me of certain vampire movies of the 70s with its erotic atmosphere. Which is always a plus.It is not a perfect film by any means but it is a good sequel.7/10

It's 3 years later. Charley Brewster (William Ragsdale) has come out of psychotherapy believing he imagined the vampires. He reluctantly meets up with Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall) who tries to convince him and his girlfriend Alex (Traci Lind) of their adventures. Mysterious strangers Regine, Louie, Belle and Bosworth move into Vincent's building. Regine has a revenge plan for Charley after he killed her brother Jerry Dandrige in the original.It's great that Ragsdale and McDowall have returned for the sequel. They are the only pillars holding up this movie. The franchise is nothing more than a B-horror movie at this point. It doesn't have the same 'Rear Window' aspect of the original. It's not compelling. It's not well filmed. It's a disappointment.

When young Charley begins to suspect that his mysterious new neighbors are the clan left behind following their previous encounter, he and Peter reunite to take them out before they can exact their revenge.A bit cheesier than Part 1, either a sign of the fact that this one really had no point in being made or just the nature of the genre at the time, but again, the clashing tone is really off-putting and makes little sense, as does the replication of what's going on like in the first part, and coupled with the fact that there's a lot more investigation here than in the first one, it's a lot slower and really drags itself out far more than necessary, especially with the lower amount of confrontations which are a sad sight, but there is enough attempts at suspense that there's some fun there, the brawls are quite good and the vampire make-up looks really good. A true middle-of-the-road affair.Rated R: Graphic Language, Violence and Nudity