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.

Honestly i clicked the spoiler box mostly because i am about to tell you that if you saw the original Fright Night, or even just the 2011 remake with Collin Farrel, well you saw this movie pretty much.First of all its not a bad movie. There some special effects that could use some work at times (while others are pretty good) but other than that, i would say mostly everything in this movie is very decent production wise for a low budget DTV. The problem is, its just another remake of Fright Night from 1985. Don't take the "2" in title in consideration, its not a sequel at all, not even to the remake.For example I spit on your grave 2 was pretty much a retelling of the remake, but it had different characters. Its one of those sequel that ditch the first movie characters and tell a very similar story as the first one but with slight difference. Fright Night 2 New Blood kinda do the same but use the same characters from the original and remake, only changing Jerry the male vampire for a "Gerri" female version. There is another slight change as now its not just a regular vampire but "Elisabeth Battory" herself. The problem is, this slight change does not affect much on how the movie flow. The same events as in the first movie appear almost in the same exact orders.So as i said above the production is good, and ultimately the movie is not bad to watch at all, its a decent time, but its like somebody saw both the original, its sequel and the remake, and decided to do some kind of mash up of the 3 with his own vision, yet trying to remain truthful to the original, maybe a bit too much actually considering it was already remade 2 years before being also very close to the original. Don't get me wrong, i like when a remake stay truthful to its original, but when a remake was done 2 years before also staying close to its original, i feel its just too soon. It was even for me watching it in 2017.But ultimately if you never saw any of the Fright Night movies, i would say this one is as valid as the other ones. I prefer the Farrel remake a bit more because i prefer the vampire neighbour set up rather than the exchange student one, and Peter Vincent was not only better portrayed but also more present in the movie.

s far as I can tell,this movie is a re-imagining of the original Fright Night(1985).it's not a remake Per SE,but it does pay homage to the original. some of the characters have the same names as in the original(with different actors) and there are also some new characters.i like how they took some of the original characters and went in a new direction with them.this film ignores the the sequel,Fright Night part 2,which came out in 1988.i rather enjoyed it.it currently has a rating of 4.3/10 on this site,and while I don't think it's a masterpiece,i would rate it higher than that.i thought it was entertaining and well acted.i liked the music as well.for me,Fright Night 2(2013) is a 5.6/10.

I didn't have high expectations and I figured it would at least be worth viewing to the end. However, at almost an hour into the movie; I just stopped watching.Pros: The actress that played Jeri. There was enough money for a good film. The original story was brought to the present: Fright Night as a reality series. Vampire cannot be filmed. Comic book story. Cons: Evil (Eddy) was too distracting (like a flock of flies buzzing around your head) to the point that you wanted to see him die early (terrible actor); so the story can develop and maybe have a chance to recover. The story starts good and to me stayed OK for about 40 minutes, then it took a nose dive. Charlie & Eddy are reminded of class attendance, then suddenly they have free time and aren't bothered by attending classes; perhaps the writer/director could have thrown it in that it was the weekend and they didn't have class to attend. The actress that played Jeri had her time, as well as talent wasted by doing this movie. Peter Vincent agrees to assess the Vampire for $3,000 and I guess just took Eddy at his word. Instead of Charlie discovering Jeri is a Vampire; it just gets thrown out there from the very beginning.When you have a good story with a steady unfolding of events, then it involves you, so that you don't have time to notice things like no class anymore.I would address the movie further, and feel I wasted enough time already by watching the movie.