Avis des utilisateurs

This was so, so much better than Part One. There's one exposition scene that doesn't fit, but it's over almost as soon as it starts. The film is consistent throughout, isn't afraid to be brutal, and finally delivers on the tone the trailers promised for this trilogy.

Part One had such a bizarre tone for me when I watched it... I didn't know who to root for. I kept wondering why all of the characters were so emotional, angry, and annoying... and yes, the constant 90's nostalgia music being shoved down our throats I thought was too overwhelming. Trust me, I noticed it too lol.

This one however, I thought kept it pretty lean... by continuing on Part One in the beginning with the C. Berman character starting her part of the story... enough to keep you intrigued for what's to come.

And it doesn't disappoint.

Sadie Sink did a fabulous job, and the rest of the cast did as well. Not a lot of whiny dialogue, and you got to know each of the characters in a more relaxed way instead of everyone simply yelling at each other all the time like in Part One.

I was glad to see that the story in Part Two had mostly to do with what happened to C. Berman, and included none of the characters from the first film (minus in the bits in the beginning and bits in the end, respectfully.)

And it's set at a camp right?!? Especially back in 1978... I mean, c'mon man! That camp full of all of those kids back in those days in 1978 would be ripe for the pick in' for a serial killer. And this film doesn't cut back on the slasher flick-type gore either. You'll be satisfied, I assure you.

Again, unlike Part One I really didn't find myself rolling my eyes once. Great addition to the story!

Overall, looking forward to Part Three after this!!

If you watch it as a regular slasher flick instead of comparing it to the book, it's actually much more fun to watch. Not everything has to be taken seriously lol.

This second movie is far better than it's precursor. Just introducing a few changes and focusing on being a slasher, gets a decent product. Inferior to Friday the 13th but still watchable. At least, this movie is what people expected from part one. Obviously, It's not original, it's not the best slasher, but it has what fans want: blood, fun and nostalgia.

On the other hand, worst part is when the kid and the girl from part one show up. Total anti climax.

Anyway, I really recommend watching this one, far from perfect but better than part one.

The 70s camp theme didn't quite deliver as much as I was hoping, however it's a lot of fun to watch the story come together. Much like its predecessor, this movie struggles to feel like the decade it's based in. Which is a real shame because I could see these becoming cult classics if they pulled off the retro look. I preferred 1994, but Sadie Sink was a joy to watch on screen, she really carried the movie. I'll definitely be watching 1666, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't nervous, olden days horror movies scare the crap out of me!

This one has a good setting which kinda transports us viewers to the late 70s n early 80s slashers a la the camp ones.

This time they showed some brutal slashing via an axe but i am happy that at the same time they restrained the violence towards kids.

The only crib is that there is no nudity n the makers tried their level best to hide nudity which kinda looked too forceful.

Can someone tell me why there wasnt lottuva poop inside the tunnel underneath the outhouse.

Hope they show some good atmosphere n terror in the final chapter.

I have to say that the second movie it's much better than first fear street movie.

It was more interesting and scary.

But there are still things that need to be improved.

Really recommend.

Having seen Fear Street Part 1 I did wonder if this one would basically be much of the same, but with a 70's music score. I was pleasantly surprised to find this one was better than Part 1.

There is only so much that you can do in a slasher movie, that hasn't already been done. Normally there is minimal story line, lots of screaming and bloodshed and possibly a single survivor at the end - no spoilers there. This 2nd instalment is set in a 'Summer Camp', so quite reminiscent of Friday the 13th, only this time the addition of the kids makes for more blood spillage.

The thread of story line woven through the trilogy keeps you hooked, as you learn a little more each time. It's also interesting in the way that the story is in reverse, instead of starting at the beginning.

The acting was really quite good, given the ages of those starring. Far better than some I have seen lately where teens have been played by twenty/thirty somethings who are so wooden and stilted they are painful to watch.

My one big gripe is that I know filming at night is supposed to make it more frightening and to build up tension but that fails completely when the audience can't see a thing or barely glimpses what is happening.

If you are into the old 'slasher' type movies you will probably find it entertaining, for younger viewers, expecting the big production CGI horror, it will no doubt be underwhelming.

I'm glad I decided to give part 2 a try. I didn't like part 1 very well, but 2 definitely made up for it. I love the whole summer camp person gone crazy story, even if it has been used five million times. This was pretty good.

I've come to this directly after watching the first, I liked the first, I thought this was the better film.

Being a prequel and a continuation, we are able put the pieces together, and there's is a lot of content to digest, plus a few surprises in store.

It perhaps lacks some of the scares and thrills of the first film, this has a less obvious horror, the scares here are somehow more subtle. I thought the set of monsters/killers looked great here.

Terrific music again, the costumes and sets look terrific, I preferred the 1970's setting, and I think they really did capture the time.

A more accomplished film, 7/10.

If you're looking for a watchable slasher movie, this just might make the cut. The vibe and feel for the late 70's was still a bit off, but not as much as Part 1. It was the little details that were missing, for example, where was the iconic BIG hair from the 70's? As for the music, it was a nice touch and used better throughout the movie. Acting was pretty decent, especially that of Ziggy, the main characte. As for the story itself, it felt more straightforward and to the point than Part 1. All in all it was an improvement on the previous movie.

I cannot tell you how much better 1978 is than 1994. I actually cred about the characters, since they actually had character development. The story itself was way better. It felt like an actual plot and not a quick concept. Things that happened actually made sense and deaths seemed more realistic and freightening. I actually enjoyed watching the story unfold and for once, cared to remember what was said about Sarah and the curse.

The bad side is that the movie is a bit more older teeanager/young adult oriented. More violence, more gore, more scenes and nudity comes along (albeit briefly). Even with the added "mature" content, this was a way better watch. To be honest, if it had not been for the turn around in this movie, I wouldn't have watched part 3.

If part 1 off put you, give part 2 a try, its actually an enjoyable movie on it's own.

I know I am not the target audience for this film, as I was born in the late 60's, but the period, setting, and genre are right in my wheelhouse.

I wasn't quite old enough to see the original Halloween and Friday the 13th in cinemas on first release, but I certainly watched them as soon as I could after the fact (on home video for both, actually). Both of these movies really scared the crap out of me, but I loved them at the same time.

"Stranger Things" really brought back the nostalgia for when I was growing up - I had four close friend (three boys, and one girl), and we were all Uber geeks, with great imaginations. I can see us reflected in each of the main characters of the first season, without the actual supernatural stuff.

This instalment of Fear Street also has nostalgia feels for me. It took me right back to the Friday the 13th franchise, or, at least, the original trilogy.

This film is not a masterpiece, and is not an accurate reflection of the '70s, but it is enjoyable as a popcorn movie, and is a substantial improvement over part one.

As others have said, the cast from the scenes set in '78 are all excellent.

I find myself now eagerly anticipating the next film in the series. I assume this is the finale, as I never read any of the R. L. Stein books - I think I was just the wrong age when they were popular, and had started reading Stephen King, etc, around that time - but I understand there were at least five about "Fewr Street"?!?

Also, is it just me, or was anyone else looking for a steel rebar whenever they played "Carry On, My Wayward Son" (I'm not even sure if that is the correct title for this piece)? I know it was written in the '70s, but I will always associate this music with "Supernatural".... :)

Cheers,

Finally got to see something that I expected after watching the trailer. The first part was terrible,but this one is way better than the first part. Good acting performances and better script made the movie engaging.

Waiting for the last part.

I liked the first instalment, this one was better. What's not too like tbh. Easy watching gore "horror". 👌

The atmosphere is great for late night and the kids are believable as a real, diverse group (not glossy like the cast of Riverdale or Gossip Girl). The next installment looks incredibly promising!

This one was it. Music was great. This looked more 70s than the other did 90s. Sure hairstyles weren't the same and clothes were a little bland but nothing besides the bombardment of music showed us the last was 94. Acting was way better in this one as well. Can we just talk about that closing scene with Cindy and Ziggy like damn did that hit hard that's when I knew the movie did it's job of making likable characters. Since it won't have nostalgia tropes to rely on I'm looking forward to 1666 as more of a story based suspense than the horror slasher we had in the first two films. Let's see how this started and end(?) this thing.

Improving slightly upon its predecessor- and proving to be even more entertaining- Fear Street Part Two is still a bit uneven, but the sum of its parts manages to bring along a familiar but engaging ride. I was much more impressed with the acting in this one than in the last one. It's nothing incredibly profound, but Sadie Sink is just perfectly cast in the lead role of Ziggy- and the other supporting actors never feel like they are forcing their performances despite their thinner characters. The film is incredibly entertaining and does add a bit more to the potential and worldbuilding that the first one set up, which I think they did a good job on. The issue lies more in the story of this film itself, as it takes the steps it needs to forming its story, without providing anything truly original or memorable. It's beginning, although partially necessary, feels like it's used as nothing but to kill time- and the majority of the film feels rather pointless in the trilogy's plan- as we don't get to anything truly important until the end. Also, just a small thing, we didn't need to hear Cherry Bomb three whole times throughout the course of the film- it's a good song and all- but seriously it just feels forced. Despite all that though, the film is moving with its relationships at hand, and truly allows you to care about the characters on screen even despite their flaws- a great improvement from the melodramatic writing of the characters in the first film. In the end, Fear Street Part Two 1978 is a decent sequel and decent film with decently sized flaws. It's far from the potential it could have had, but like the last one, still manages to be a solidly enjoyable film.

My Rating: 7.3/10.

Mostly everyone can agree: better than the first but is not breaking any new horror movie boundaries.

The villain in this movie was plain. A guy with an axe is as generic as you can get when it comes to horror movies bad guys. No where near as memorable as other slasher film stars like Jason Voorhees nor Michael Myers because Tommy Slater just doesn't have the "it" factor. You can argue that it's hard to create new horrifying movie icons after so many popular films before it, but Tommy Slater is as default as you can get. Surely if they can come up with an elaborate plot about a witch, they can give their villain a little more depth. I really don't know why I'm getting so passionate about this lmao.

Though entertaining, I still found myself thinking of how a large portion of the film reminded me of other movies. Not to say that's entirely bad, but to say I wish it drifted from that pit of references.

I liked the soundtrack, I liked the acting more than the first, but, like the title suggests, you can really take it or leave it.

Nothing to do with the fear street books and again trash acting.

The survivors from part 1 visit C Berman who called them on the phone at the end of part one. She recounts what happened at summer Camp Nightwing in 1978 where the witch possesses one of their number, who, armed with an axe starts splitting people up.

Rather better than part 1, with a engrossing story featuring fun, well acted characters whilst still paying homage to the slasher horror films of that era. It is all backed up by mandatory good blood thirsty effects and scares and a well managed / edited mystery featuring many new faces which under less skilled direction would have been a total mess. To top it all off there is a great soundtrack of seventies music plus a strong original score (reminded me of Jerry Goldsmith's Alien soundtrack). Overall, great late night entertainment and an enjoyable slice of blood thirsty hokum.