Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

ThiefHott Too much of everything

UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

bowmanblue 'Night of the Demons 2' is the unimaginatively-titled sequel to 'Night of the Demons,' but at least when a film gives you such a big clue as to what it's going to be about, you should know what you're getting. And, unsurprisingly, here you get one night (and some demons).However, I was a little disappointed at the lack of demons. There's only really one main one and, granted she can possess people to help swell her ranks, but I was expecting hordes of the nasties. Perhaps I was thinking it would be more in line with the Italian horror classic B-movies 'Demons' and its own unimaginatively-titled sequel 'Demons 2.' Despite also having demons in it, 'Night of the Demons 2' was its own movie.You have the typical mix of obnoxious, over-s*xed teenagers, all of which attend a religious school run by nuns and priests. They hear an urban legend of a haunted house and decide to go and investigate on Halloween. Naturally, rumours are true and they end up unleashing one nasty old demon-woman among their numbers.It doesn't sound like anything too memorable, but it does have its traits which make it stand out. For a start there are a few nice touches which go against the horror genre's conventions (no spoilers here – you'll have to watch it to find out!). Plus it's surprisingly quite a slow burner. You'll either see it as a plus or a minus at how the plot progresses, but it takes quite a while before the heads (literally) start to roll.Then there's the plot itself. Normally slasher/horror films are set in one location, however this one seems to bounce its location back and forth between various sets. Again, this can be seen as a positive or a negative. Some may find it refreshing that the story defies the norm, others may find it a bit disjointed and think that it doesn't really have any direction.There's gore and bits that stand out, but what saves it from being totally forgettable amongst the infinite ranks of similar movies is one character: the nun. Far from being one of God's more passive servants, she kicks demon butt at every given opportunity and, as a result, single-handedly saves the movie from oblivion.If you like tongue-in-cheek horror with the occasional moment of story brilliance and a nun who wouldn't look out of place wielding an Uzi, then sit down and watch this. As long as you're in a forgiving mood you'll find enjoyment here.

FlashCallahan Angela returns, and this time, she has a sister, Mouse, who is taken by her bullying Catholic school classmates to a party at Angela's favourite haunt.It's not long before everybody's being turned into demons and only a nun, who wields her ruler like a mighty sword of steel, can save the day.....The first movie was a bit of exploitative fun, but what made it that more interesting was the fact that the film was original, and featured a wonderful villain in Angela.As with all sequels, especially horror, they have tried to recreate the magic of the first one. But here, they have basically remade the original, but added a sibling to the villain. And it's pretty lazy of the makers for doing this.So for the first two acts, we have the boys flirting with the girls and vice versa, and there is nudity aplenty for the boys (in the film) to drool over. So far, so bland.But it's also a negative for the film also, as we get to know the characters, and mouse aside, all the characters are of the dislikable kind, so when it comes to the third act carnage, you couldn't care less about them.The effects are good though, and there are a few tense moments, but it's a lazy sequel.Even the boring remake is better.

oprlvr33 At least the original was creepy and decent acting, with great direction. I honestly couldn't tell if this thing was a horror sequel, or an Evil Dead comedy spin off. It isn't scary, nor creepy. In fact, it was downright lame. We almost turned it off, we were growing so bored.Normally film sequels pick up 2-3 years after the original. This one didn't. And they tried to give it that late 80's fix, but it didn't work. And the opening scene was pathetic. At least the Angela/Demon in the original was creepy. Here, I sat gape-mouthed, hoping the rest of would improve instead of wasting our time. Only Christina Taylor, Zoe Trilling, and Jennifer Rhoades could truly act. The rest of the cast was lame to boot, or way over-acted. And evidently this was low-budget, based on the cheap spookhouse effects and the plastic cobwebbing commonly sold in Halloween stores. And don't forget the super cheesy lipstick tube ending "effect".I truly expected far more than what this thing delivered. Director Trenchor-Smith should not be making Horror films.

mattbaxter72 It's a largely forgotten 90's horror flick, starring no one you've ever heard of or are likely to hear of again. It has the requisite boobs and gore, probably went straight to DVD, and it's the sequel to a truly awful film that no one liked. You know pretty much what to expect from this one, right? Think again. Against all odds, this is one of the most inventive and bizarre horror films I've ever seen. From breasts that turn into grasping hands, rape by lipstick and a decapitated body that stumbles blindly around, to badass nuns with party balloons filled with holy water, this movie takes you to places you never thought you'd go. The plot is more or less by the numbers, but the characterization is well done and believable, the acting is on a decent level, and the whole thing is much more entertaining than it has any right to be.Admittedly, there's a LOT of set-up to get to the good parts - the whole first half of the movie is splatter-free, apart from a couple of door-to-door evangelists who meet a sticky end. But once the movie does get going, it's full of wit, invention and, yes, frightening scenes. This is how you do low-budget horror.