I would have preferred a cliche movie rather than something so lame. Long and painful to watch from start to finish. The actors are very good but it's the script that is just terrible. I'm hoping my rating will make some small contribution and this movie will be given the rating it really deserves which is much much lower.Like seriously what kind of person would believe rubbing roses on a werewolf hurts him? Maybe my mistake is watching this movie in 2018 way after I'd watched movies like Fright Night (2011), Werewolf in London, Van Helsing, Twilight where the werewolves and vampires are more believable.

"Fright Night Part II" has Charley Brewster attending college and seemingly cured via psychotherapy of the trauma from his encounters with Jerry Dandridge— he now believes his thoughts of vampires to be nothing more than delusions. That is, until he runs into a gang of vamps led by the seductive Regine, who are living in the same apartment building as horror TV host/vampire hunter Peter Vincent.With the original "Fright Night" being such a solid piece of '80s excess-meets-vampire classicism, one would think a sequel would be a tough feat to pull off, but director Tommy Lee Wallace ("Halloween III", "It") does a fine job at crafting this film. While the script directly follows the events of the first film (and there are multiple nods to the original throughout), "Fright Night Part II" has a totally different feel to it; where the first film was rooted in the "terror comes to a small town" kind of plot structure, "Part II" is a bit more expansive, and the grandiose historical apartment building lends it a notably Gothic feel.With a well-established backstory provided by the first film, "Part II" pulls no punches and makes no bones about itself, giving fans exactly what they're expecting, and in a good way. The special effects here are on par with those of the first film, and perhaps even gorier at times. The bulk of the film takes place on a college campus (UCLA, to be exact) and in a huge Gothic apartment building, so the settings here give room for lots of fun to be had. Like with the first film, a solid cast really supplements the proceedings: a grown-up William Ragsdale reprises his role of Charley and is just as memorable here, while Roddy McDowall is as quirky and lovable as ever, and is truly the film's guiding light. Traci Lind is great as Ragsdale's likable girlfriend, while Julie Carmen's villainess Regine is equal parts seductive and destructive.Overall, "Fright Night Part II" is one of the stronger sequels in the horror genre, despite having a remarkably small audience compared to its predecessor. It respectfully treads the line in making nods to the first film without ever becoming a carbon copy of it. Atmospherically and tonally, it's remarkably different, with the first film's two central characters anchoring the proceedings. Just as much fun, spills, and thrills here as the first film, and in some ways I appreciate it even more than the first. Highlights: the chase scene in the library, and the finale at the apartment building. 8/10.

This one starts with a small montage of the original flick so you can pick up easily if you haven't seen that one. Fright Night 2 is rather a hard item to catch on DVD although it do has a cheap release in Germany mostly it goes for a lot of money on the internet. still it's worth picking up although it do has it flows.What I did like was that the original cast was back to see here. Charlie has started to believe it was all his imagination and do think vampires aren't real. But after 3 years suddenly 4 people do enter the house of Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall) and are having interest in Charley (William Ragsdale) and his girlfriend Alex (Traci Lind) and of course Peter himself. One of them is Regina (Julie Carmen), the sister of Jerry (from the original flick) It becomes clear that Regina is Jerry's (the vampire in the original film) sister and is determined to get revenge on Charley by turning him into a vampire. Of course they tried to add a bit of comedy like they did in the original one but it failed completely for me, for example the werewolf his nails being cut by a window, nah. And there are other moments that I though, stop trying to add laughter in it, bring on the gore but even that doesn't appear. It's only in the last part that the effects and gore comes in. And I must say that it looked great. The way the vampires are killed and do die is the real stuff but you have to sit a flick that have it's flows. Gore 1/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 3,5/5 Story 3/5 Comedy 0/5

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