So, when it comes to most of these movies I watch for the blog, my intent is to go as semi-blind as possible, form my opinions of it, then see the overall consensus and history surrounding it. Helps in my situation. So, I had known that this movie was a direct sequel to the original Fright Night from 1985. I knew that William Ragsdale and Roddy McDowell returned. I watched it and, honestly, I think it worked more for me than the original did even if the plot has a bunch of very cliche sequel stuff involved. What I wasn't aware of was what happened shortly after the film's release. But we'll get to why there was no Fright Night Part 3 in a bit. Let's talk about the movie first.
The sequel sees Charley Brewster (Ragsdale) now in college with a new girlfriend, an aspiring psychology major named Alex Young (Traci Lynd), and through hypnotherapy by the college psychiatrist, begins to believe that vampires don't exist and the events involving Jerry Dandridge were more that Dandridge was a murderer and not a vampire. The same treatment has been given to Peter Vincent, who also begins to be skeptical of everything. That's always a trait I hate in sequels where we have to treat big events like they didn't happen in order to start our movie fresh, but at least they give us a reason why later with the psych being a vampire.
However, a new vampire arrives named Regine (Julie Carmen), who we later learn is the sister of Jerry Dandridge because that's also a cliche, who is out to get revenge for Jerry by slowly turning Charley into a vampire to torture him for eternity. Along with her are Louie, a horny werewolf, Bozworth, a bug eating heavy who, I think is like an Oogie Boogie thing given the implications when he's offed. And then there's Belle, an androgynous vampire who stalks his prey on roller skates. Look, this movie is bad in terms of being a movie, but when I saw the roller skates that was it. I was going to love this bad movie. Charley, Alex and Peter soon discover Regine's plans and have to stop her, all while Charley is slowly turning into a vampire, which is a cool idea, but The Lost Boys did it better.
So, what did I like about it that made me like this one a bit more? Well, for one, Roddy McDowell as Peter Vincent is still my favorite character in the series. Even if it does feel like a case of "here we go again", I like that he's more the one who comes to the full realization before Charley, even if Charley is the one who gets Peter involved again. Though, did he get his pocket mirror fixed because that thing was broken in the last film. And, like, why didn't he use that mirror in the climax instead of a big broken piece? Semantics aside, he's such a charming character who, more so than the end of the first, comes to the realization that he truly is meant to be a vampire killer, particularly when it involves defeating Regine.
Speaking of Regine, she's a solid villain, though honestly I was less interested in her than her goons. They're a wonderfully eccentric trio who decide to go bowling and murder the people working there. For all of the wonderful weirdness though, I do wish we got AN answer about what happened to Evil Ed. We know he's still alive given the twist ending. So unless he's just trapped in Dandridge's house, having the one mention of him being that he was killed didn't help. And, the lack of Amy making the whole crux of the first movie feel like it matters less didn't help either. Though, I think Charley and Alex worked better. They play off each other a bit stronger and Alex gets some solid moments like freeing Peter from the mental hospital. She feels less like a damsel than Amy did which was refreshing. Also her speed reading Dracula was neat.
The effects were mostly neat. I think the creature effects and the gruesome deaths of the villains are really great. Better than the original in my opinion even with the lower budget. That being said, some scenes, like Peter Vincent hanging from the building ledge look really bad. And a few other cheap effects that don't really hit perfectly. But what works still works and I love me some practical makeup effects. And, of course, is this movie as much of a sexual romp as the last one? God yes. I mean, aside from Belle just being what would have no doubt been my gay awakening character if I saw this as a kid, this movie's villain Regine is definitely fits the bill of titillation. She takes over Peter Vincent's Fright Night show and does a provocative dance that, if you didn't know she was a vampire, that would make you at least think she was. Although, I'd have loved to see her do that whole shtick then intro a movie. That would have been hilarious.
The movie wasn't a box office hit, though that had to do with a far more limited release, initially by a company called New Century Vista Film Company. It also didn't have any involvement from Tom Holland, the original director and producer of Fright Night, though he is credited for creating them, so I guess that counts for something. So, in hopes to get a third Fright Night movie made with Holland involved, McDowell set up a meeting with then-Carolco Pictures exec Jose Enrique Menendez. This wouldn't come to pass however as before the meeting happened, Jose and his wife Mary were murdered by their sons Lyle and Erik Menendez. That's right, this all, unfortunately, ties together with the Menendez brothers. More so the intended movie that would have followed, though Tom Holland does want to make a third. And yes, that name does continue to confuse me for a millisecond.
I called the first movie a cult classic last time and it definitely fits the bill in terms of a movie that earned its fandom through subsequent viewings. Fright Night Part 2 could easily be looked at as a cult classic in its own right, though its mostly mixed reception makes this more of an underrated gem in my eyes. By no means any pure work of pure horror perfection, and a shaky plot to force this into a direct sequel, it still is a fun eighties horror movie. Less the blood fest of its contemporaries but still offered, to me at least, an enjoyable time with perhaps my favorite group of villains in any of these movies. Then again I'm still very new into giving much horror a watch so this is still feet wet in the genre and finding what suits me. And it seems like highly queer-coded shlock is up my alley.
So, while I loved this movie more, I'm going to give it a fairer score given that it has a lot of problems in terms of its plot overall. I think a more fair three stars fits my bill. You'll either like or dislike this one more, probably more in the latter camp, but I do think it's worth a watch, especially if you like more schlocky movies such as these. It's a shame that Fright Night didn't continue. Though, would we just follow up with more Dandridge relatives trying to kill Charley with Peter Vincent having to save the day? Could you make a third movie on that idea? I wish we got it. It's a series of movies that I definitely appreciate what they attempted even if it's not always the best foot forward in most places. Won't be our next movie blog, but I'll see what awaits me in the remake eventually. But for now, I have two movies I'll try to check out again around Halloween time for sure.
RATING: ***
No comments:
Post a Comment