User Reviews

Having recently watched "Curse of Chucky", my long-held belief that DTV sequels were always crap was shattered as that film exceeded all expectations. So still reeling from my beliefs being shattered, I approached Fright Night 2 with a small sense of renewed optimism. However, dear reader, this DTV film sent me straight back to stark reality.

Firstly, despite the inclusion of the number 2, this is NOT a sequel to the Fright Night remake, but rather another remake. Yes a remake of a remake, and a grossly incompetent, boring one at that. No tension, no frights, indeed not much of anything that can remotely be considered entertaining. You won't want to spend 10 minutes with these characters, much less 100.

A group of American students travel to Romania for classes in a local university; among them is Charley Brewster (Will Payne), who has a crush on his ex-girlfriend Amy Peterson (Sacha Parkinson), and his friend "Evil" Ed Bates (Chris Waller). On the first day, they have classes with the sexy Arts Professor Gerri Dandridge (Jaime Murray). When Charley sees Dandridge kissing a student and then he goes missing, he sees from his window a woman dumping a corpse in a truck. Charley investigates and discloses that Dandridge is a vampire that baths on the blood of women. When he finally convinces Amy and "Evil" that Dandridge is a vampire, they request the support of Peter Vincent (Sean Power), who is the host of the TV show Fright Night, to hunt down Dandridge. But the sexy vampire discovers that Amy is capable to break her curse and she brings her to her swimming pool in the underground of her castle.

"Fright Night 2: New Blood" has a promising beginning, despite the annoying and silly "Evil", but goes downhill with an awful conclusion. This movie is not a sequel of "Fight Night" and the camera work and the cinematography are great. But from the moment that Charley and Amy take a taxi to the airport, the story is completely wasted. What in the hell is that hissing sound that Dandridge does in the tunnel? If you want to see this flick, better off watching the 1985 "Fright Night" again and forget either the remake or this unfunny turkey. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "A Hora do Espanto 2" ("The Fright Hour 2")

I had some mixed feeling to go watching this flick. The reason is simple. First of all, the remake of Fright Night (2011) couldn't stand up against the original of 1985 and was even boring and laughable sometimes. To make part 2 with none of the actors involved in part 1 I was a bit afraid if they just didn't want to make money of the cult status of the title. The only reference we had was Peter Vincent returning as done in the original ones and in the remake.

The story had nothing to do with the original 1988 version and nothing to do with the remake of the 1985 version. So here we are left with some students leaving for Romania (how original) to study they have one hell of a sexy teacher (Jaime Murray) with a dark secret. She needs virgin blood to make her look beautiful (Bathory again). That's the main part here in this flick. It wasn't that bad sometimes but it also had some ridiculous situations that should have been funny but failed completely for me.

For those not familiar with Murray, I knew her from Dexter were she goes nude a few times and from Spartacus were she almost always nude. And that's exactly what this flick delivers, nude juggs and one full frontal nudity. Further we do have one very good scene that remembered me of the Hostel franchise with the nude girl hanging upside down to be slashed and her blood dripping in the bath. We do have that scene here too but Hostel was much better. Still, it's the best and most gory part here.

The most terrible thing is the way they are showing Peter Vincent as some reality TV host. That fact tears Fright Night 2 down. And as I have written in so many review lately, horror is back death in Horrorwood. Nobody was waiting for this remake of a remake or whatever. It doesn't add a thing except boobs to the story. Although Murray was the best thing to see, acting and nude, this flick is out there for, euh, nobody. There are so many bad flicks out nowadays and a lot is based on remakes of cult titles. Had it been given, sigh, another title it would be a bit better to review but to say this is the next Fright Night, na.

Gore 2/5 Nudity 2/5 Effects 3/5 Story 2?5/5 Comedy 0/5

From the talented mind who brought you White Noise 2: The Light, Mirrors 2, and the forthcoming Leprechaun: Origins and the highly sought after Mexican director of…well, absolutely nothing comes a new vision of a new vision of horror. Fright Night 2, being a remake of a remake, takes the exact same characters as the first film, dumps them in Romania, and instead of continuing the story in any sane fashion, decides it's just easier to start from scratch…again.

Jaime Murray as the new Gerri the vampire is completely wasted in this throw away film that lives more for moments than anything else. Particularly impressive is her little sonar bit in the tunnel of a tunnel of a subway. The rest of the cast is absolutely boring. I don't understand why the filmmakers decided not to continue the story from the 2011 (*ahem) blockbuster. Or why didn't they just create a whole new bunch of characters? Or why not try and remake the original sequel—now, THAT would have been interesting.

And another thing, why is it that all these low budget straight-to-DVD horror sequels have to be so poorly made? There are plenty of great low budget films. All you need is a writer that cares enough about the story, a director that cares about more than getting another title under his belt or paycheck, and a studio that wants to deliver a quality product to its audience. Is that so hard?

Jesus.

'FRIGHT NIGHT 2: NEW BLOOD': Two and a Half Stars (Out of Five)

Sequel to the 2011 vampire comedy/horror film (which was a remake of the 1985 cult classic of the same name) about a teenager who learns his mysterious neighbor is a vampire. This sequel has none of the 2011 film's impressive cast (Colin Farrell, Anton Yelchin, David Tennant, Toni Collette, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, etc.) and was released directly to video (on a much smaller budget, I'm guessing). It's less of a sequel and more just another remake (and probably a more faithful one at that, if I remember the original that well) except this time the main evil vampire is a sexy female professor and the film is set in Romania (where a class of exchange students are studying). The film is not as entertaining as the 1985 original or it's 2011 remake but it does have a decent amount of amusing vampire thrills and a smokin' hot femme fatale villain (played by the gorgeous Jaime Murray).

The film focuses on three exchange students studying with their class in Romania: Charley (Will Payne), Amy (Sacha Parkinson) and 'Evil' Ed (Chris Waller). Charley is on the outs with his girlfriend Amy because she thinks he cheated on her. As he and his best friend Ed are checking in to their hotel room Charley sees a very attractive woman biting another woman in the building across the road from their hotel. He later learns that the sexy biter is his class professor, Gerri Dandridge (Murray). He also later learns that she's a vampire, as he secretly follows her into a sacrificial chamber, when she drains a prostitute of her blood and bathes in it (to restore her youth). Charley and Ed seek out TV paranormal investigation host Peter Vincent (now played by Sean Power) to help them stop the sinister vampire.

The original vampire antagonist, in the 1985 film, (played by Chris Sarandon) was also named Jerry Dandridge (with a J and a y) but the main villain in it's 1988 sequel was his sexy vampire sister Regine (played by Julie Carmen). I know I saw both films but I don't remember much about the second movie at all. So I can't say if this new sequel is better than it, or not, but I do know that this 2013 film much closer resembles the 1985 original (than it's 1988 follow-up). All of the characters names are the same, including 'Evil' Ed (who was originally played by Stephen Geoffreys), except for the slight spelling change of Gerri. The film was directed by Eduardo Rodriguez (who also directed the 2012 action film 'EL GRINGO', which was a lot of fun) and written by Matt Venne (who's made a career out of writing direct to video sequels, like 'MIRRORS 2' and 'WHITE NOISE 2: THE LIGHT'). I have no big problems with the film, it has some decent gore and frights, but it's just not very involving and is a little dull. For me the best thing about it is it's villain. I really like Jaime Murray (who also played a stunning femme fatale villain in the 2007 horror film 'THE DEATHS OF IAN STONE', which was pretty good). It's not a bad sequel but it's also not nearly as good a film as it's predecessors.

Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llO-AVcYkfI

American students on a visit to Romania get more than they bargained for when they encounter a female vampire on which the legends are really based and call on help from Peter Vincent, a monster hunting reality star.

Despite a critical and fan black lash the 2011 Fright Night remake it was surprisingly entertaining enough. Fright Night 2 - New Blood starts well enough with its explosive and Paranormal Activity-esqe opening where an unseen vampire (on camera) assailant murders its victim. From pole dancing clubs to underground stations story wise with elements reminiscent of the fictionalised version of the real Elizabeth Báthory, this instalment may have fared better as a standalone vampire film.

Following a gratuitous Jamie Murray moment as Gerri Dandridge (and others littered throughout) we're introduced to a handful of stereotype characters, and a recast Peter Vincent (Sean Power) on his Most Haunted, Ghost Hunters, Faked or Fact-like programme which coincidently is being filmed in Romania. Aside from characters names it shares very little, if anything as a sequel to Fright Night the remake or the originals.

Writer Matt Venne serves up a sequel in the vein of a 80s horror cash-in follow-ups, it's a rehash/retelling of the same story, the overarching concept with a different backdrop. It features a nice touch where the antagonist uses bat like sonar to locate the leads. There's a few one liners, even a borrowed line from 'Happy Days' Fonz.

With a fitting soundtrack, a horned eerie score and some good blood and makeup effects it mainly benefits from Murray's natural allure and performance. To director Eduardo Rodriguez credit it has some great Gothic settings and locations and some novel camera work - other than that think a hybrid execution of it predecessor, the Subspecies series and American Werewolf in Paris. Aside from being more graphic it presents what the likes of Teen Wolf the TV series, True Blood, Vampire Diaries and Grimm to name a few offer.

What it lacks in originality, epitomizing all the trappings of a horror sequel it makes up for with its Hammer looking settings, violent and bloody soaked fun setups and surprising production values given its direct to video debut. Murray fans will be pleased.

Normally I am not one whom enjoy re-makes, but this re-make of the 1988 sequel to the "Fright Night" movie was actually quite good.

Sure, it wasn't fully up to par with the original sequel, but it was still a good movie.

One of the best things in the movie was the good special effects and CGI. The vampires looked pretty nice in all their forms, although I didn't like the animal growling at all.

"Fright Night 2" had some good acting from the cast, which helped bring the movie to life - pardon the pun - on the screen quite nicely. However, the Ed character in this re-make was not as memorable as the one in the original sequel.

If you enjoyed the first re-make of "Fright Night", then you will definitely also want to sink your teeth into this re-made sequel from 2013.

The original remake' if your not confused, was surprisingly good & possibly better than it's predecessor,.unfortunately as with the sequel to the original(stay with me) this sequel to the remake of the original falls short. Although some good cinematics, Jaime Murray is the only thing really that holds you too the movie, partly yes because she is extremely beautiful! but she puts her all in one of the best depictions of a seductive vampiress to date. Worth a watch & a solid 7/10

"Fright Night 2: New Blood" is a sequel that isn't really a sequel at all. The film is directed by Eduardo Rodriguez and brings to life the characters first brought to life in 1985 by Tom Holland. The story as some hinted acknowledgement of the 1988 sequel in the "Fright Night" franchise but truly is an independent film not anchored to the mythos of Charley Brewester and the evil he must battle in vampire Jerry, or in 2013 "New Blood", Gerri Dandrige. In "New Blood" Charley Brewester and his friends travel to Eastern Europe on a senior class trip to study for a semester in Romania. "Fright Night 2: New Blood" stars Will Payne, Jaime Murray, Sean Power, Sacha Parkinson and Chris Waller.

The story of "Fright Night 2: New Blood" has some good points and some bad points. On the good, this film creates the elaborate melodramatic nightmare that manages to capture the Gothic romance vampires in horror held in the 80's, very much like the original "Fright Night" and "Fright Night 2" managed to create. For the bad point to this "sequel", "New Blood" totally ignores everything about the "Fright Night" franchise except the characters names and that they are vampires. It really creates a weird frustration about watching the film. I found myself having to fight back the need to be p.o.'d that "Fright Night 2: New Blood" had characters that where killed off in 2011's "Fright Night" and yet called itself "Fright Night 2". That is a big fail when tapping into an established franchise's mythos. Yet I found this story more entertaining and far more viable than 2011's "Fright Night" starring Colin Farrell. As a vampire film "New Blood" really does work and actually brings in a new vampire aspect that offers vampire and Gothic- styled horror fan's some thrills. It really is a much better film than it should have been and would have really topped my list had it just been "Fright Night: New Blood" instead of the "Fright Night 2" moniker. The 2 forces a set unwritten rule that the film should have respected and if they would have left it off then I would have had nothing but positive remarks for the film.

As for the effects and sound of "New Blood", it is all really standard stuff expected in this genre and even gives a bit of a creative edge much like "30 Days Of Night" pulled off in the world of vampires. There is no real hokey, or lame effects in this movie, save the dreaded use of CGI that one just has to tolerate in cinema these days. However the practical effects and visual aspects used in "New Blood" allow the film to flow smoothly enough to entertain. The sound effects and over all quality of suspense and "chills" work on a mediocre but acceptable level that doesn't really disappoint but isn't overly impressive either. For the most part "Fright Night 2: New Blood" is just a really good spin on a classic tale that manages to both sh*t on a franchise while simultaneously paying tribute to it as well. For a good Gothic vampire horror "New Blood" rocks, but it does walk all over the established story of Charley Brewester and Jerry Dandrige so be ready for it.

Tho i am a massive fan of horror movies and my opinion might be slightly biased, this "horror" movie wasn't all that i hoped for. The story, like the original from the 80's, is exactly the same as the first part. Main character meets suspicious vampire looking person( in this case, a woman) , goes on to investigate which evolves into a showdown between the pro and antagonist.

Lack of budget means we get lesser known and lesser experienced actors, which is not necessarily a bad thing if only the story or the directing or the pacing or at least SOMETHING is done well and/or original, but nope This one was made purely to cash in on the genre fan base and the fright night name.So unfortunately its a step backwards in the series. If there is going to be a part 3, i would be surprised.

Enjoy. Evil_fred

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.

This is definitely a 'reboot' of the original, not a sequel to the Colin Farrell one. I was such a fan of the original that I appreciated the nods to the original script, and they also stayed close to the story- line and actual scenes in some cases. There was even the hint of the originals' overall production look and music. They flipped enough of the original story to make this one feel more self contained. While not as perfect as the original, this one is fun enough to rank above what unfortunately passes for most B Horror popcorn movies these days. and felt more truthful than Colin's version. The director clearly made this as an homage to the original, and if only the kids were as seasoned as Jaime Murray and Sean Powers, they could have actually been much more successful with the end result. I wasn't disappointed at all but maybe just one more run through on the script would have been beneficial. Effects were great, production was great, but unfortunately the 'kids' here were not the stars in the making that those in the originals were. All of those continued into solid still active careers, although Geoffrey's went into an 'alternative' route.

Unlike the original Fright Night movies from 1985 and 1988 this time around we're not getting a sequel even though the title bills it as such. None of the events from Fright Night 2011 have happened in the 2013 Fright Night 2 universe. What we have here is a re-imagining.

Charlie and the gang are back and this time they're on a high school trip to Romania. Ed Evil is still a tool, Amy is still the girl of Charlies affections and monster slayer Peter Vincent just so happens to be in town filming a special episode of his show at the same time. Let's not forget the vampire. This time he is a she and her name is Gerri instead of Jerry...

So knowing that it's an enjoyable movie with a familiar plot. Unlike 2011's Fright Night I never once felt like Gerri was an intimidating shark on the prowl like Colin Farrell's vampire. She's just hot and wicked. I enjoyed the cinematography a great deal and for a direct to DVD movie they had a decent budget and it shows for the most part. The CGI is a little sloppy a couple of times but for the most part practical effects are used and done well.

I think you'll enjoy it as a once over, but nothing more. Personally I would have preferred to see a true sequel to the 2011 remake.

In Fright Night 2: New Blood, a group of American students travels to Bucharest on a class trip. The main cast is some guy named Charley, his best friend who does nothing but joke around and fool around, and the girl he is after. As soon as they arrive, someone goes missing, and Charley sees a woman presumably biting another woman's neck across his room in a another building. Then he sees someone jump with something that looks like a bagged corpse from the same window.

During class we are introduced to the professor, who is the woman Charley saw biting the other girl. Now he starts having visions of vampires going after his flame.

On a castle tour he sees the professor with a guy and he finds her lair where some creature kills a beautiful girl and drains her blood into a bathtub, she then bathes in the blood and then the professor emerges. Of course she knows Charley is watching all this. He tells his friend, who suggests they visit Peter Vincent the expert on monsters who is in town.

Vincent is more interested in strippers and money but accepts to look into this problem for a sum of money. Now the professor vampire is after the three and bites Charley's friend. The other two barely escape and now Vincent is convinced. As it turns out the professor/vampire/Bathory lady needs the blood of a virgin born at midnight and during new moon in order to be able to withstand the sun, and wouldn't you know, Charley's girl happens to fulfill the requirements. That leads to the inevitable confrontation in the vampire's castle between all involved.

Fright Night 2, is a well-made B horror movie with a Euro feel, and you have to see it as such. The story is alright and there are some twists and things don't go as expected until the very end. The effects and stunts are good, there is some gore, some very fine nudity, and of course fantastic locations and sets in Romania. On the other hand you have a fairly week cast with the exception of Jaime Murray who just looks a tad bit too artificial. The inexperienced director also has some troubles directing people and as most directors these days is happier directing dialog-free action, of which there is plenty near the end.

I'm all for serious and sexy vampire movies, and even prefer B movies of the genre than sanitized A movies, so I enjoyed Fright Night 2. Of course it's not perfect but plenty entertaining nonetheless.

I submit that the direct-to-video "Fright Night 2″ (2013) is the paragon of average horror movies. It is neither great nor terrible. You don't immediately call your friends to recommend it, but you don't bemoan its $1 rental price at Redbox either. I'd give it a 6 out of 10.

The movie suffers greatly from an insufferably irritating iteration of protagonist Charlie Brewster. He's uncharismatic in every scene, including those showing his weaselly entreaties to the girlfriend who left him after he cheated on her. (He is played blandly by Will Payne; she is played rather well by Sacha Parkinson.) Entirely absent is the charm and likable innocence that Anton Yelchin brought to the role in 2011's "Fright Night." (Kyle Reese fought vampires in 2011, then aided John Connor in the future to fight terminators, evidently.)

The lackluster Charlie here is compensated for by a terrific villain. Jaime Murray is a fantastic female equivalent of Dracula. She's a strong actress, she's a quite tall brunette who looks the part, and she knows how to both sex it up and scare us. I love her as a bad guy (gal). I'd love to see her play a conspirator on one of the nerd community's most anticipated upcoming revivals: "24" or "The X Files." I'm told she has a role on that medieval show that people watch. "Shame of Thrones?" "Dame of Thrones?" I've never seen an episode.

"Fright Night 2″ benefits from Romania as a wonderful shooting location, and it's captured nicely by the talented eye of director Eduardo Rodriguez. What is the deal with average or mediocre horror films being filmed on location in Romania? Is it just really cheap to shoot there, like Prague?

Anyway, this movie's title is a misnomer. This movie isn't a sequel to the terrific 2011 film. It is actually a remake — we again meet Charley Brewster and Peter Vincent (the very cool Sean Power). It's confusing.

And here is my requisite exposition to silence the pedants in advance — of course we are all aware that this is a "remake of a remake." The 2011 film is a nice update of the 80's classic. (And wasn't that fun flick the talk of the neighborhood back in the day?)

Sooooo, seeing how average this film was, I really can't recommend that you ether watch it or skip it. I guess I can just offer a neutral "hmm." I'd suggest that it is acceptable fare if you're an especially ardent vampire movie fan who has already viewed the classics that are easily available.

I actually didn't know that there will be a sequel to the first film of Fright Night (which I rated 10/10). I felt excited when I saw it here at IMDb.

But when I was watching it, I was kinda bored and just fast forwarded some scenes. Cause honestly, the story was just the same. Same old story, like the boy has suspicions on his neighbor, and has a friend who's into vampires, and has a stereotype girlfriend that in the end, will be bitten by the vampire, and of course, the celebrity hero that will kill the vampire. And also, the characters' names are still the same? Why is that? Much more like a remake, not a sequel.

The ending part was almost the same as in "Jennifer's Body". And oh, by the way, is it supposed to really be a Comedy/Horror film? Cause I didn't laugh or even smile at all. It's a Thriller movie. But over-all, it was still entertaining. Especially the thriller parts. Still not bad for a 6/10!

The first 'Fright Night, from 1985 by the master Tom Holland, is an absolute classic of the golden 80s, one of the best films about vampires and one of the most entertaining films of that decade. The sequel that came out in 1988 was almost as good as the original and one of the funniest sequels in the horror genre. The 2011 remake and starring Colin Farrel was a box office failure and lukewarm from the critics, but I liked it, even more in times when vampires lost their charm and their "glow in the sun" strength in a certain teen saga. Now comes a "doubtful" sequence straight to DVD and Blu-Ray.

The plot tells the story of Charlie (Will Payne) and his friend Ed (Chris Waller) addicted to "Evil" movies. The two head to Romania to study some local history and, as the place plays host to one of the most famous legends in the world, the vampires, Charlie becomes obsessed with his teacher Gerri (Jaime Murray), who appears to be a vampire from truth. Then, in the course of the plot, some things are revealed and Charlie, his friend and his girlfriend, will have to face a more real danger than ever, however, they will need to count on the help of the television star Peter Vincent (Sean Power).

For starters, none of the actors from the first remake wanted to star in this second part, something that already disrupts a whole plot. Another, wanted to create a new story and only took advantage of the protagonist's name. I don't know, I found it pointless to carry out a sequel without anything referring to the original. Then it was a meaningless movie, without any connection. It would be better if they did an independent work anyway. Here, Charlie doesn't know Peter Vincent, Amy doesn't believe when Charlie thinks his teacher is a vampire or anything. It's a sequel that ignores pretty much everything from its predecessor. For what? Why weren't other characters created then? Inexplicable.

One of the most critical points here is the lack of pace and budget. Nearly eighty percent of the film is slurred, slow, with uninspired dialogue and cartoonish characters. Added to this is the fact that Venezuelan director Eduardo Rodriguez does not know how to build any suspense or involving construction in the narrative. When the last act arrives, we even have good times from the moment Amy is captured by Gerri and taken to her castle. However, the characters are so poorly constructed that we don't care about the fate of each one. As already mentioned, the budget of a movie released directly to home video doesn't help at all. We even have some interesting scenes of violence involving beautiful nude female bodies, but laughable visuals and makeup (notice the fangs of vampires) take away any credibility and seriousness you might expect, turning to the involuntary comic side for good.

The director Eduardo Rodriguez could really have done a better job. Many unnecessary scenes that even for a "trash" movie, came to exceed the line of common sense. Does anyone tell me what those things vampires did with their mouths were? In addition, the edition features extremely chopped scenes in order to hide the precarious visual effects and makeup. These "cuts" gave the impression that there was some kind of race against time, as some takes had no connection.

In the end, this sequel to the 2011 remake is totally unnecessary. Not that the movie sucks. It features a beautiful and scary-sized villain. The beautiful Jaime Murray (from the 'Dexter' series) does the trick! Some scenes are very violent and try to be scary. The final fight in the blood pit almost breaks through and the film holds some surprises. Nudity, sensuality and some gore and trash artifices are present. It's a reasonable movie to watch once, - but note - only if you're a fan of horror, the saga in question and vampires, or if you're looking for something simple and unpretentious.

"Fright Night 2" gets off to a promising start, despite the irritating and bland "Evil," but it goes downhill with a terrifying conclusion. This film is not a sequel to "Fright Night" and the camera work and photography are very good. But from the moment Charley and Amy take a taxi to the airport, history is completely wasted. What the hell is that hiss Dandridge makes in the tunnel? If you are thinking of seeing this movie, consider the option of reviewing "The Hour of Amazement" from 1985, this is guaranteed fun.

The wiki page for this film says it's a straight to DVD sequel to the 2011 remake of Fright Night - it's a lie. This isn't a sequel, it's another remake and this is how the first one should have been done.

I am a huge Fright Night (1985) fan, I love it and Fright Night 2 (1988), so when they remade Fright Night in 2011 I ran to the cinema ... and was hideously disappointed. However, Fright Night 2: New Blood is brilliant. This is the kind of vampire movie I love. It has sexy vampires, it has humour, it has an adorable lead, it has action, it has romance.

This is the type of vampire movie that made me fall in love with vampires in the first place.

It's full of British actors playing what I assumed were Americans because they were talking about dollars and such, but I may just not have been paying attention and just expecting Americans because of the original. I didn't realise they weren't American until I looked them up on IMDb :).

Personally I thought the cast was brilliant.

This film takes the premise from Fright Night (1985), but adds in parts of Fright Night 2 (1988) by gender swapping Gerry for Gerri. It recreates small parts of both films in its own way, but has an entirely new and original back story, which I loved. This is recognisably Fright Night (1985), but fresh and new and simply wonderful.

I do have to admit, there are a couple of bits that don't quite make sense, like the whole opening scene which appears to have nothing to do with the film except for illustrating what vampires can do and the fact they don't show up on cameras. However, most of it hold together beautifully.

The two things I really, really disliked about the 2011 remake of Fright Night were Ed and Gerry; I thought the casting and the way they were played were totally and completely wrong. In Fright Night 2: New Blood they have got it so, so, so right.

Jaime Murray is simply fantastic as Gerri. She is sexy, in control and plays with Charlie so beautifully. Never for a second did I believe she was vulnerable. She was the epitome of the vampire; immortal, powerful and so far above the human cattle pitched against her.

Then there was Chris Waller as Ed, the unashamed horror geek who is slightly left of normal. I loved him, he was just enough like the Ed from the original (who I thought was the best character in the original film), but with his own spin to make him brilliant.

Will Payne as Charlie and Sacha Parkinson as Amy are also great and they shine in the final scenes, as does Sean Power as Peter Vincent. I have to admit, David Tennant did do a better Peter in the 2011 remake, but Sean was still great. The part where he figures out Gerri really is a vampire has the most superb timing.

This film is so good that originally I bought the DVD, but I've now gone back and ordered the blu-ray because I want it in HD.