Genres

Visitors Review

yeti_dude 2012-05-25 08:17:34

This Fright Night has fright, but lacks charm

Normally I am con 80's remake trend 100%, but Fright Night has TomHolland on board the original writer and director of the first filmunlike the sequel which had no input from Holland. That factor, thestrong trailers, previews, and the positive reviews changed my tune onseeing the film.Thus I threw down 23$ for me and my date and checked it out.-What my first thought is that it takes some VERY unexpected turns fromthe original as well as from most vampire films made about a"dracula-type," so you will be in for a lot of surprises when seeingthe film.-The other thing is that Jerry (not named Dandrigde in the film, justJerry) is quite different from our Danrige. He is about the leastambitious head vampire I've come across and seems purely bent onsurvival much less showing off ambiance in his surroundings. IfDandrige was white collar this Ferrel incarceration is blue collar tothe bone. He's just a beer-guzzling, chick-nailin', wide-screen TVwatching schmoe. And his house illustrates this with it's sparse setdesigns and unfinished interiors. Dandridge was a snob showing off hisReagan-ite values and high-end living: a collector of fine art andhaughty furniture. Jerry Ferrel is just trying to get by. -No EvilEd,just Ed man or Edward Lee as the teacher calls him during rolecall.Well boo to that, but it works for the most part. Ed is more ofCharley's past life friend, since Charlie is a 'cool guy' now gettinghot babes and hanging with the upper-crust of high school society. Edrepresents Charley's geek past and *early spoilers* is the firstinvestigator into the Jerry's tomfoolery. Ed wants to tell Charley, butCharely blows him off and doesn't return his calls. Odd, Charleydoesn't own a cell phone, since Ed has to call Charley's house... Sowhat does Ed do to get Charley to change his rejection tune? Threatento send a video to the entire senior class that shows Charley LARPINGwith Ed and some other dweeb. *Major Spoiler* Ed does not last as longas the original in human form and could have used some developmentIMHO.-Supporting characters are, I suppose, there to, uhhh, support, and arepretty much caricatures: the geeks, the socialites, the modern mom, thestripper, the pretty girl, and even Peter Vincent (demystified, jadedentertainer). They all revolve around Charley and Jerry, who are themore complex and colorful characters.STRENGTHS:-Easily, Jerry Ferrel's screen presence - I'm glad he is now playing anantagonist and can show his chops cuz he seems like a shady guy inprivate. I've already talked about how he is written and he executes itwell while taunting and killin' innocent folk. He pulls off what avillain character portrayel is supposed to do - you want him to die!!And when I say die, I mean in excruciating pain for his arrogance andoverall evil-dome in oppressing society with being deceitful and hisabominable acts.-Directing - this is really one suspenseful film and the scenearchitecture for this type of attempt is marvelous. I am glad they justdidn't rely on technology in creature/gore effects and went for muchmore difficult aspect in shooting: creating tension. Eerily similar toHolland's work in Psycho II.-Plotting. What can I say? The film keeps you guessing. If you know theoriginal by heart, you're in for a lot of surprises. The story takes alot of unexpected turns, and end up thinking 'how will they get out ofthis?' or 'how is this going to get back on track to the original'soutline?' -Jump scenes. There's some great, don't-see-it-coming, dare Isay 'frights' some of them involving the three-D quite well. I don'tthink the film wastes the three-D potential like many others anddoesn't really distract from the film except for maybe one exception.Weaknesses: -The bullying of non-evil Ed, it seemed very stereotypicaland somewhat forced. Necessary? Not really. Ed could have used morescreen time early on as well. Getting beat up for being on the wrongstreet? More like grade school than high school, especially in a newlydeveloped suburban area.-Certain instances of effects didn't work. Like at one point Jerry islifting a van on his back like Supes and it doesn't look like it hasweight at all or that he was connected to it - there were also someother effects involving cars that looked like unfinished CGI. Butover-all the CGI isn't over-indulgent. Some of the fang-work was kindaobvious though.-Peter Vincent's wife. Ugh, so much slapschticky dialog exchangedbetween the two. It's not bad acting. It's just lame comedy, but I amsnob when it comes to this, however I thought it was hackey. Basicallythe two-some do 'can't get it up' exchanges and other such datedbanter. Comic relief fodder that came up snake eyes.-The relationship between Peter and Charley. I really didn't buy thecomradery, so when their side-by-side fighting the vampire and getting'all jokey, you really don't feel the pay-off. I suppose this has to dowith Vincent's not so great character-arc. I thought his transformationof going from skeptic to believer was sloppily handled, which is theaspect that puts the first one head-and-shoulders above this reboot.So the reboot is, overall, a roller-coaster thrill-ride, not a charmingfilm where you re-visit over and over because you love the characters(aka the original Fright Night), but it is an effective bumpy ride.

David Ferguson 2012-05-24 17:33:18

We miss you Roddy

Greetings again from the darkness. We can't really discuss this moviewithout referencing the 1985 original. Writer Tom Holland was involvedwith both (including directing the original) and gets credit forupdating the story while maintaining the look and feel. It seems as ifvampires are everywhere these days, but the Fright Night recipeexpertly mixes suspense, danger and campy humor.Charley (Anton Yelchin) and his single Mom (Toni Collette) live in aquiet Las Vegas suburb. Charley's nerdy friend Ed (ChristopherMintz-Plasse) notices the place is getting quieter everyday ... peopleare disappearing! These disappearances correspond with the arrival ofCharley's new neighbor Jerry (Colin Farrell). Yep ... Jerry theVampire.Charley at first ignores Ed's investigative skills and concentrates onAmy (Imogen Poots), the out-of-his-league girlfriend whom hedesperately wants to get to know better. And then ... Ed disappears.Charley tries to push Amy aside and solve this mystery. It doesn't takelong since he breaks into Jerry's house and discovers where he storesthe bodies of his victims. As you might expect, Jerry doesn't take wellto the invasion.Charley goes to Vegas showman Peter Vincent (David Tenant) to seek helpin destroying Jerry. See, Peter Vincent's crazy Vegas show is all aboutfighting the evil dead among us. Of course, Vincent isn't quite astough off stage.There are plenty of moments of campy fun as Charley pursues Jerry. Notthe least of which is a fender bender which includes Chris Sarandon,who played Jerry in the original. While it's a nice homage, it justmade me miss Roddy McDowell, who originated the role of Peter Vincent.Still, watching McLovin as a tough-talking vampire is quite a bit offun as are the few moments of doubt from Collette and Poots.Craig Gillespie directs the film, and his success a few years ago withthe indie hit Lars and the Real Girl brings an added touch of class tothe film. He really does a nice job of balancing the terror of thestory with the humor necessary to make this one enjoyable anddifferent.A tip of the cap to the casting of the movie. Yelchin (Star Trek, TheBeaver) is a real up and comer. Ms. Poots was very effective in JaneEyre and it will be interesting to follow the direction of her career.Collette is a real pro. Colin Farrell seems to really enjoy his turn asa vampire and adds some subtleties and quirks that make it fun. DavidTenant (Dr. Who) really captures the Vegas Peter Vincent. Mintz-Plasseis one of the few who can effectively bounce from high school nerd topowerful vampire. Must also mention some hidden gems: singer Lisa Loebmakes a quick appearance as Ed's mother, Charley's friend Mark isplayed by Dave Franco - brother of James (you will spot theresemblance), and Peter Vincent's girlfriend Ginger is played by SandraVergara, sister of Sofia from Modern Family (again, you can't miss theresemblance).In this day and age, it isn't easy to assemble such a strong cast,script and director for a movie that isn't centered around alienaction, terminal disease or toilet humor. If you enjoy campy horrorfilms done with an acknowledged tongue planted in cheek, then Irecommend this one. It delivers exactly what you hope and expect.

liam f 2012-05-23 13:16:14

A gleefully gory and highly entertaining remake

In this remake of the 1985 cult classic, Anton Yelchin stars asCharley, a likable yet misguided young man who after witnessing hisfriend's murder becomes convinced that his new neighbour Jerry (CollinFarrell) is a vampire. His incessant pleas with his mother (ToniCollete) and his girlfriend (Imogen Poots) to believe him failcontinuously until Jerry turns his sights on them and they are forcedto confront him with the help of a foul mouthed vampire slayer (DavidTennant). It's wonderful to finally see again a good old fashionedvampire movie, where the vampires are portrayed as blood hungry killingmachines, rather than broody, gentle souls with skin that shimmers inthe light. Craig Gillespie (Lars and the Real Girl) really pulls it offin this gleefully gory and slick horror/comedy. David Tennant andCollin Farrell are both spectacular as the drunken supernaturalist andthe terrifying vampire respectively. But unfortunately the film didhave a few little problems, for one I found Anton Yelchin's performancereally quite lacking, and also there was quite a few elements of apredictable cheesy teen comedy in there. But all and all Fright Nightproved to be quite an entertaining film and a lot of fun to watch withfriends.7/10

cyanideXvampire 2012-05-22 19:21:09

Liked it more than the original

Maybe it's because I'm a Lost Boys fan-girl, but I really didn't carefor the original. Aside from Chris Sarandon, the acting was terrible,it didn't scare me or make me laugh (on purpose), and there were a fewplot holes that bothered me. But I'm not reviewing that movie! The newFright Night is actually a pretty thrilling movie. A few silly parts,but they didn't seem too forced or anything. I was kept entertained thewhole time. I wasn't expecting much from this movie, just hoping for aREAL vampire movie, and it gave me that and more! I liked that in thisversion they gave Vincent a motive and he had more of a distinctpersonality. David Tennant was great and pretty funny. The 'magician'thing seemed a little weird, but it worked and so I'm not complaining.Colin Farrell also did a great job as Jerry. He was suave, frightening,and charming. Can't say if I liked him or Chris Sarandon more, but hewas definitely more modern (obviously) in a good way.The other characters weren't amazing, but I didn't think they were badeither. I liked that Jerry's guard wasn't in this one too. Charlie andEd also have history in this one which I liked because I really didn'tknow what to make of them in the original. Amy was also fine, again notgreat but not bad.The only thing I would caution is the 3D. It was useless in this movieand only managed to give me a headache. So if you can't find a theaterthat's playing in 2D, wait for the DVD (Unless of course you enjoypaying more for a ticket).

Neil Doyle 2012-05-22 02:54:05

Poor remake lacks the "bite" of the original...CGI is at its worst...

FRIGHT NIGHT has two saving graces: Anton Yelchin, who plays CharlieBrewster with the right mix of humor and a good grip on his character,and David Tennant who plays the TV vampire destroyer with a good dealof cultivated arrogance and outlandish attitudes.Beyond these performances, the rest of the film is only mildlysuccessful in the casting. Colin Farrell is a disappointment in therole that Chris Sarandon played to perfection as the original "vampirenext door" type with a lot more sexual heat than Colin exhibits in anunderplayed style. And even back in 1985, the special effects were alot more horrifying than those employed here which represent CGI at itsworst.But most of all, the entire script has made drastic changes in thestory that "for better or worse" are strictly for the worse. Fans ofthe original film will hardly recognize what has been done to thestory, much less the characters.However, Toni Collette as Brewster's mother and Imogen Poots as hispretty girl friend are excellent, given what material they have to workwith, and Christopher Mintz-Plasse gets some comic relief from the EvilEd character that he becomes after "the bite." In this case, his EvilEd is much less effective than the one in the original film.So many of the key scenes are played in virtual darkness, making itimpossible to see what is actually going on at important moments in theaction sequences. This is way below standard for a horror film that issupposed to be scaring the audience realistically.Summing up: A waste of time and money. See the original and you'llunderstand why I lack enthusiasm for this remake which attempts to bestylish and cool and full of rough language.

kosmasp 2012-05-21 09:22:44

Don't be afraid of the Remake

Many of the moviegoers have grown tired of Remakes, just recycling oldmovies instead of coming up with something new, that actually is goodtoo. But this movie shows us, that Remakes don't have to be awful. Italso shows us, that a remake does not have to copy the original movie1:1! While I still would recommend you to watch the original FrightNight first (I haven't seen the sequel it spawned), I can also tell youthat a few things have been changed around here, so that watching thiscan be fun too.And while Chris Sarandon seemed to own his role in the Original, ColinFarell does a great job with the character in this too. He is obviouslyenjoying this and why shouldn't he? This is how a fun, light HollywoodRemake can look like ...

Tim McNeil 2012-05-20 22:08:21

One good performance can't make this a good movie

It took me a while to see the original Fright Night (1985). I had oneof those mothers who tried to impose her own uneasiness with the horrorgenre on her children. Actually, she held crazy beliefs like that KISSstood for Knights in Satan's Service and Rush (the Canadian prog-rockband) meant Ruling Under Satan's House and is still afraid to watch themovie Jaws (1975). I'm pretty sure the first time I saw Fright Night'85 it was on cable television. I soon went out and and rented it – andits inferior sequel – and found a movie I really liked. It had theright amount of camp and humor, but it was the slow build to the horrorelement that made it, to me, a classic.Don't expect that from the new version. Fright Night '11 takes the samebasic premise, but has none of the fun with it. Marti Noxon – the Queenof Mean – transplants the Angelus character from the Buffy/AngelWhedonverse and hands the role to a more talented actor in ColinFarrell. Let me make this perfectly clear: if you are going to see thismovie, Colin Farrell is the reason to go. He does truly embody theinhuman menace of the shark from Jaws, but is somewhat hampered by thedirection and editing that occasionally sets him up as a vampiric PepéLe Pew. Though largely robbed of any kind of a backstory or motivationbeyond being a vampire – and what little we do get to learn about hiskind mostly goes to waste – Farrell does his best to make this moviework.The problem is that he isn't enough.Anton Yelchin, an actor who has yet to impress me in any role I've seenhim in, is the lackluster lead. We learn that he is the kind of man whowould betray his friends and hang out with assholes in order to score atasty girlfriend, but still nerdy enough to not be able to close thedeal. Seemingly, a mere ten minutes – it may have been a little more orless – Yelchin's Charley Brewster is already aware (in a way) thatvampires are real. That sucks all of the tension out of the ensuingscenes and helps get the leaden feeling of the movie going. Yelchindoes have a couple of good scenes, but he – or director Craig Gillespie– doesn't know what to do with them.Instead of giving an actor as good a role as they did with RoddyMcDowell in the original, David Tennant (as Peter Vincent) is requiredto start off with what looks like a Ben Stiller impersonation of JohnnyDepp in any of the Pirates movies. There is too much unpleasantself-loathing in this new Vincent to make him accessible. He is apompous coward – which could have worked – that never really is given achance for redemption; it is up Charley to do that, too.Imogen Poots (as Amy) and Emily Montague (as Ginger) make forattractive and mildly compelling potential victims of the vampire. Bothseem to have unreasonable faith in the Charley character, though thisis a problem with the screenplay and not the acting. Much lesseffective are the other potential victims that wander about the film.Most are disagreeable and unlikeable, and in the case of Dave Francoseem to be too old to fit into the film's high school age groupcharacters. Toni Collette (as Charley's mother, Jane) is largelywasted. She looks good and should be a calm, capable, strong woman thathas given Charley his moral compass and conviction. Instead, she isquickly turned into just another potential victim and is removed fromthe third act in an unsatisfying way (though, to be fair, it does workin the overall story). Chris Sarandon makes an appearance – my one lonelaugh of the night – as does Lisa Loeb (???).The film looks bland and uninspired, and that isn't due to the specialeffects. The FX work, almost without exception. It is the sets andlandscape that robs the movie of any sense of life. Watching acookie-cutter, Las Vegas McMansion in an oddly isolated subdivisionburn provokes no reaction from me, except that many built unwiselyduring the housing boom. There is no vibrancy to the movie, and that isa problem. I cannot comment about the 3D. There was a problem with the projectionduring the previews, and while it was resolved to the point of where itwasn't just blurry, most of the effects that were in 3D never reallypopped. Some are obviously meant to, and if they do it will add more tothe experience. Other than those flashy (and repetitive) sequences,there are only three or four shots that effectively make use of thetechnology (no, I am not counting the crossbow bolt shot seen in thepreviews). Gillespie does a great job with one particular shot in aswimming pool early on, then seems to degenerate into some level ofamateurism with his shot selection. This is his first feature, and inretrospect, it looked as though he wasn't ready.My suggestion is to watch the original Fright Night (1985) instead ofthe cynical, cold-hearted '11 Fright Night. The new one isn't horrible,but like a vampire, it has no life of its own. Colin Farrell is greatin what he is allowed to do (I never thought I'd ever write a sentencelike that), but the rest of the cast is subdued and improperly handled.This is a solid C effort, but I would have like to have seen a moreaccomplished director – and definitely no Noxon influence – for thismovie.

george.schmidt 2012-05-20 07:36:19

Better than anticipated remake; Farrell having a field day

FRIGHT NIGHT (2011) *** Colin Farrell, Anton Yelchin, Toni Collette,Christopher Mintz-Plasse, David Tennant, Imogen Poots. Better thananticipated remake of the '80s cult classic horror/comedy about ateenager (Yelchin) discovering that his new neighbor is a vampire (!)(Farrell having a field day) endangering his sweet mom (Collette) andhis sexy girlfriend (beguiling Poots). With nods to the original(including a nifty cameo by Chris Sarandon the first flick's vamp)director Craig Gillespie and scribe Marti Noxon make a fine team of theold Reese's Peanut Butter way of filmmaking: you put laughter in mygore! And kudos to former "DR. WHO" Tennant as Peter Vincent, this timedecked out as a Russell Brandian Vegas act and superaturalist enlistedby Yelchin. While the 3-D is spotty at best the over all production isfirst rate and the scares and laughs are liberally sprinkled for thepopcorn purists.

kloxalot 2012-05-18 22:45:55

are you serious

This movie is for kids from the ages of 12 to 16. The blood in thismovie might as well be from a simple cartoon. It looked like somecandied gel. It was a typical high school freshman scary movie. Istopped watching it when the " vampire " ripped the gas line out of theground to blow up the house. Whoever enjoyed this movie...and thoughtit was a scary one...needs to google " top ten scary movies of alltime. " i wasted 2 hours of my life. My favorite part of this movie iswhen I threw it like a Frisbee and it sailed off to the unknown. It wasjust a horrible attempt to lure in kids who are obsessed with thisvampire trend. I give it a three out of ten only because the mother wasa milf. Enough said.

Batur Güney 2012-05-18 10:23:37

excellent remake; so sad that it went down in such a spectacular fashion

I finally got to see the remake of Fright Night. As a fan of theoriginal who has seen it countless times since the 80s, I canwholeheartedly state that this new version is one of the best remakes Ihave ever seen.The original story was brought wonderfully up to date. It was so clearthat everything was deeply thought out. The original had a slightbalance toward comedy. Here that balance is shifted a bit more towardsthe horror side so the film has a perfect mix of both elements in myopinion. It made me seriously tense and left me creeped out and thiscoming from someone who knows the flow of the main story by heart!Colin Farrell was in one word spectacular. Here is a vampire thatreally scares you underneath those extreme good looks, capable ofturning out to be a ruthless monster in the blink of an eye. Theviolence by the way was pretty strong. I was positively surprised bythe amount of gore for such a big budget studio production. And the 3D.I loved the 3D of the film. So subtle but at the same time as in yourface as it gets when the scene necessitates it.Which brings me to the unbelievable box office failure of thiswonderful film Stateside. How did this happen? I will tell you. Anunfortunate release at the tail end of the summer when in fact the filmpractically screams for a fall Halloween release date, coupled with twoother 3D pictures (Conan the Barbarian and Spy Kids 4) at the same weeknot to mention another regular 2D release (One Day). They all died aquick death, with American audiences rejecting all four of them andflocking to a Southern anti-racist drama and an ape movie in hugenumbers. I did not see the other 3 films as of today but I have to saythat the flopping of Fright Night 2011 is one of the most unjustfailures in the whole history of movies. The current 3D fatigue ofAnmerican public was the main benefactor in this case. How else can youexplain that all three of these 3D releases flopped in such aspectacular fashion during the same week? They clearly did not botherto make any distinction among the good and bad films that week and wentwith a to- hell-with-them-all attitude. Sorry but this I can notunderstand. Another thing I cannot understand is why this film was alsopractically ripped to pieces by professional critics and internetcommentators unanimously. What's wrong with you guys? Is none of youable to spot a decently made gem of a film among all the familyentertainment trash anymore? This film certainly did not deserve thefate it endured. I am soo sad about it all..And one side note: Cinemablend.com meticulously analyzes and rates each3D release regularly which greatly helps me when picking up what towatch in 3D. But in the case of Fright Night 2011, even that trustedsite seems to have erred. At the time of the film's release in the US,the relevant article headed "Fright Night: To 3D or Not to 3D"specifically stated that the film was a terrible choice to be filmed in3D since the many night scenes did not fare well in 3D mode because ofthe dimming of the projection light by the 3D glasses and that as aresult it was impossible to see what was going on during most of thefilm's night scenes. Wroooooong! In the showing I attended at my localcinema, the film was very clear and there was absolutely nothing wrongwith the dimness settings of the picture. The action was very clear tofollow and at no point did I experience any difficulties regarding the3D aspect of the film. So I am itching to ask: Could there possibly besomething wrong with the projection settings of the films shown in theUS theaters in general? American moviegoers seem to be really upsetabout these 3D projection issues for quite some time now and the wholething now started to result in such box office anomalies as what wasexperienced by this unfortunate movie. Someone better do somethingStateside about this whole issue or the future of 3D really is introuble as regards the American market in my opinion since the notionof "3D" itself seems to have turned into box office poison as of late.Ooops!

Paul Haakonsen 2012-05-18 02:30:58

A remake that was worth watching, for a change...

Initially I had some restrictions against watching this movie, as I wasrather fond of the original, plus Hollywood remakes of older moviestend not be worthwhile watching.However, this 2011 remake of "Fright Night" was actually surprisinglynice. It held true to the original movie, but still went one stepbeyond, instead of just being an updated frame-by-frame remodeling.This version was everything the old movie was and then some.The cast in the movie was actually quite good. One of the initialreservations I had against the movie was Colin Farrell (playing Jerrythe vampire), but hand on heart, then he was actually amazing in thisrole. It was like he was tailor-made for this particular role and hedid a great job. Now, I am not saying that Anton Yelchin (playingCharlie) was bad, far from it, but I enjoyed William Ragsdale (playingCharlie in the 1985 version) better. In this 2011 version they totallyset up a whole new Peter Vincent (played by David Tennant), though Ipreferred Roddy McDowall who played Vincent in the 1985 version. Therewas just something more fun and charming over him. However, the waythat the 2011 Peter Vincent was portrayed was good, especially with hisbackground story.There was one really, really cool scene in the movie. And withoutsaying too much, then I will say that fans of the 1985 version will geta kick out of seeing Chris Sarandon making a return to the movie.The effects in the movie were great, and the vampires did look nicetoo."Fright Night" (2011) is a movie that can be thoroughly enjoyed bymovie watchers both familiar with the old "Fright Night" movies andnew-comers to the series as well. Lots of action, good effects and agreat story. And it is also nice if you are tired of watching vampireswith sparkling skin and sickening large hair styles.I was thoroughly entertained and I think for a remake, then theyactually took the 1985 version and gave it a very nice boost in theright direction. So thumbs up for this remake. Finally a Hollywoodremake that was worth watching.

Weird_and_Proud1 2012-05-17 23:23:28

A Fun and Retro teen flick.

The inevitability of comparisons with Hollands 1985 original juxtaposedwith the current pandemic convulsion towards remakes put Fright Nightat an immediate disadvantage. However a polished script coupled with akiller soundtrack and eccentric cast makes this a remake worthwatching.Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin) is a dweeb riding his luck havingscored the high school babe after ditching his geeky childhood friend"Evil" Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) – of course his face clearing uphelped. His stereotypical teenage Idaho is threatened, however, when Edinsists his roughish (supposed lotharios) new neighbour (Colin Farrell)is in fact a night-working, blood-sucking vampire. This teen paradiseis set asunder only after Ed goes missing and Charley goes snooping.Discovering sinister footage of a wheel-burrow pushing itself along, inthe twilight, on his friends computer Charley surrenders to the absurdtruth. His neighbour is a vampire.Here the action kicks off with a majestic start as Charley, hopelessly,seeks the help of famed Vegas illusionist and 'vampire slaying expert'Peter Vincent (David Tennant).This of course is before Jerry blows uphis house, via a natural gas leak (he doesn't need an invitation ifthere's no house).Fright Night soars and this is largely owed to Director Craig Gillespieand Script-writer Marti Noxon's loyalty to the franchises 80's origins.Noxonsscript in particular expertly balances the dark humour, bloody plot,and teen angst trademark of such 80's classics as Heathers, and TheLost Boys. David Tennant and Colin Farrell give much needed gravitationto an otherwise weak young cast. Tennants elaborate costumes andappropriately camp performance further retains the nostalgic atmospherearound which the film is built. It is Farrells subtle performance asCharming, vicious vampire Jerry, however, that shines through theduration of the film. A stand-out moment being Jerry lingering onCharleys doorstop, nose twitching in anticipation as he cranes his neckinside, enticing Charley to invite him intothe kitchen.Fright Night is a cleverly crafted teen-movie and ironically a breathof fresh air after the exerting outpour of formulaic and underwhelmingadditions to the genre so far this year.

Harleyflhrc 2012-05-16 17:08:18

Best Horror Remake I've seen in a LONG time

Like most of the reviewers posting on here, I was a big fan of theoriginal that came out my freshman year in college, and when I heardthat yet another 80's movie was being remade, I immediately thought ofthe new Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street, both of which fellFAR short of the originals. This one is MUCH better. It stays true tothe original, and the movie is paced fairly quickly. A great scene is acool cameo appearance by the original Jerry Dandridge, Chris Sarandon,although this time he is on the other side of the fangs. The setting inthe decimated real estate market of Las Vegas was an excellent thought,and makes the movie quite believable and more entertaining. The onlydisappointment, and it is a small one, is the new Amy is not nearly asscary as a Vampire as the original one was. This film has excellentmodern touches to bring it up to date. Well done!

maraven12 2012-05-16 09:39:14

Absolutely Pathetic Remake

IT was a pathetic attempt to include scenes and pieces from theoriginal fright night, but at the same time, incorporate a more uniquestoryline and character development. A 12 year old could have directedsomething with more flow. It jumps from the beginning with openingchars, then in 15 minutes, rushes to the actual idea that he is avampire. Colin Farrell must have hated making this movie b/c he did notdo nearly a good job as a vamp. Peter Vincent character is a retardedcomic relief that makes no sense to the film at all. Its a half-breedretard who tries to be funny and then some. I never seen a morepathetic film that tried to throw everything into one movie. It is aretarded , piece-mewled film that was not worth a movie ticket and wontbe worth the time to watch FREE on TV.

Robert W. 2012-05-15 21:04:11

One of my favourite films of 2011...SURPRISE!!

I love going into a film with little to no expectations and coming outhooting and hollering because you just saw a movie that was amazing,fun, entertaining, brilliant...Fright Night for me was exactly that. Iactually saw it three times in theatre and I rarely ever see anythingmore than once in theatre...I loved it every single time. First of allif you have the opportunity to see this in 3D...this might be the onlyfilm I have ever seen where the 3D actually impressed me. It was funand in your face and really brilliantly shot. I am not giving this aperfect score lightly...you would know from my other reviews I don'thand this out easily...Fright Night for me was simply perfectlyentertaining. That doesn't make it a perfect film but I loved everysingle second of this and it will be a permanent favourite of mine. Thestory is fun, the one liners are hilarious, the characters are wild andcrazy, and from beginning to end I loved it.Years ago I called Anton Yelchin one to watch and now his career isbecoming something to really take notice of. He headlines this filmwith ease and humour and kick butt action and he is fantastic! I lovethis kid! He is a pro and he has some great roles ahead of him. I knowa lot of people don't like Colin Farrell, mostly because of hispersonal life, but I think he can be a very versatile actor and whilehe doesn't blow away this film, he does a great job in his role. He'sdark and twisted and a little campy and perfect. Him and Yelchin havegreat chemistry. Toni Collette adds a certain level of class to thecast in a role that isn't her usual indie subject matter. But she doesa good job as the 'cool' mom to Yelchin's character. Imogen Poots issort of the typical hot young teenie girlfriend to the main characterbut what I liked about her is that she actually had some substance andheld her own on the cast. And finally but certainly not least Dr. Whofans will squeal for David Tennant in his role as the consummateVampire expert Peter Vincent. I liked him a lot in the role but Icouldn't help but thinking it would have just been a littleentertaining if they had gotten someone bigger for the role...asurprise fun cameo...but I know Tennant definitely has his fans and hedoes a good job. Also worth checking out is Christopher Mintz-Plasse(McLovin') who is hilarious (although almost overused) as Ed/Evil Ed.Amazing special effects and terrific scenes make this a must see.Director Craig Gillespie comes from Television but I think he must be ahorror fan or even an expert at thriller because the everything aboutFright Night just works. The pace, the setting, the characters, justmade one of the entertaining and fun films of the year. That's theimportant thing...FUN. I know people will read this and scoff and sayhow much they hated Fright Night but those are the same people thatexpected more than what you should from a movie like this. This movieis one of the best popcorn flicks I have seen in months. Please seethis and have a great time!! 10/10

drew_atreides 2012-05-15 14:00:54

Once the action kicks in it's actually pretty good!

I'm a big fan of the original Fright Night. Growing up in the 80's itwas one of my favourite horror flicks. Roddy McDowall and ChrisSarandon give 2 of the classic horror movie performances.However, there are elements of it that have not aged well. They aredecidedly 80's, and so when i heard it was up for a remake i have toadmit i was kind of excited. This was one of those instances where ifelt bringing the story into a modern setting could actually work.Movie starts off slow, and decidedly dark (in that sense of "i can'tsee what the heck is going on up there on screen!" dark!) There issomething incredibly mute and somber about the whole affair.However, once the action kicks in (with a considerable bang!) it reallydoes capture the flavour and fun of the original FRIGHT NIGHT. David Tennant has got some real shoes to fill in Peter Vincent, and ithink he's charismatic enough to pull it off. His well-timed deliveryelicited quite a few surprising laughs.Farrell's alpha-male intimidations of Charlie and Peter get more andmore sinister as the film progresses. A very entertaining performance.Normally i hate the 3D cash grabs, and i payed to see this one in 2D,but to be quite honest there were quite a few shots that had methinking "That looks like it could've been cool in 3D".. I think thisis one instance where the 3D might not be a total rip-off.Overall a solid effort, and one i will be happy to add to my shelf nextto FRIGHT NIGHT and FRIGHT NIGHT 2.

witster18 2012-05-14 00:14:26

refreshing remake...

It's refreshing in the sense that it did not completely copy or degradethe original work. Sure, many elements are the same, but the remake ofFright Night is not only a good remake; it's better than the original.Now, I realize that this is 6.6 here, and the original is 6.9, but Istill think this is a clear cut above the original. The fact that it ISa remake is probably the only thing keeping it from exceeding its'predecessor in terms of score.The two things that really set this remake apart for me were the artdirection, and the casting. Both were exceptional. I knew from themoment the film spelled out Fright Night that somebody cared about thisone.Anton Yelchin is perfect for the lead role. He has the perfect balanceof charm and nerdiness. He caught my eye with his strong performance in"Charlie Bartlett", and I don't think the casting director could havepicked anyone better for this role. The same goes for Toni Collete asthe single mother, and Colin Farrell as the vampire.David Tennant is also perfect for his role of Peter Vincent. They put alittle spin on the role that added a littlelight-hearted-ness(something also present in the first film). And Imogen Poots is the perfect hotty to play the girlfriend(a HUGEimprovement over Amanda Bearse in EVERY way). Amanda Bearse has neverbeen the best actress, and she always seemed to really annoy me onscreen. There's a reason she always plays the 'unlikable/annoyingneighbor or girlfriend.. Poots isn't just a hotty - she comes off asgenuine and likable here. This time around the audience actually caresabout the girlfriend. It's an added bonus that we can have scenes here that involve thegirlfriend, the mom, and the lead in harrowing situations together.That's something we didn't get in the original. There are othersignificant, welcome changes. One is the 'number' of vampires, and theother is the fate of Peter Vincent.There is one scene in particular where Farrell is trying to get invitedinto Charlie's house, and the interaction between the character's isfantastic. It's realistic. It's an improvement over the original. It'swell-written.There isn't much to gripe about here other than maybe the climax of thefilm isn't quite as thrilling and effective as the films first 75minutes. The only thing the original has on this is 'camp', and I really don'tsee how that makes it better. It just makes the original a product ofthe mid-80's, and a bit cheesy. There's nothing cheesy about thisremake. This one is worth adding to the collection. Stands with "Let MeIn" as one of the best of these 'remakes', and this is by far the bestof the 70's/80's horror remakes.73/100You'll like this if you liked:Disturbia, Fright Night(orig), Near Dark,and The Lost Boys.I think the nitpicker reviews are hilarious. One said, "all the kidsare absent/missing from school and the police don't notice"...laughable... the point was that the kids were disappearing at a fastclip... not to mention they're kids.. missing class... omg. The nitpickreviews on this title in particular are funnier than the movie.This film has style - especially considering it's shoe-string budget(atleast by today's standards). I figure after they paid Collette andFarrell - they probably had about the same amount invested as theoriginal.Recommended for all those except nitpickers and 10/10 cult-followers ofthe original. It wasn't very scary or funny, but it was pretty darnentertaining.

Pascal Zinken 2012-05-13 09:06:52

Good popcorn fun

Remakes of classics usually end up being pants. Every once in a whilethough some comes through holding up to their original counter part -or at least enough to be worthy of cinema time.Fright Night is one of these. It's a typical vampire story where oneperson detects the unbelievable truth and then needs to repair thedamage before it gets really out of hand. It has a very nice pace anddoesn't wait long with making sure everyone knows who is who and wherethings are going - it's as predictable as the average soap opera but itplays out fun.Adding to that the fact that it doesn't take itself serious and you canadd good bits of laughter to the otherwise gruesome effect of havingpeople close to you being hassled by a vampire and you not being ableto do much about it. It rolls on and never looses track and all in allits highly enjoyable.7 out of 10 bite marks on the neck

rebecca-ry 2012-05-12 22:15:10

Not The Best Film In The World

I haven't seen the original 'Fright Night' so I cannot compare it toanything. What I can say is that it's adequate, that's all.The acting is pretty good to be fair, Colin Farrell's villain role isplayed very well. Anton Yelchin and Imogen Poots' roles were also good.Christopher Mintz-Plasse was good but I was annoyed that he was playing- yet again - McLovin from 'Superbad', he just can't seem to escapethat role and it would be nice to see what else he is capable of.However, I feel David Tennant stole the show with his performance andit would have been better if he had been in the film more often as heprovided 90% of the comedy here. The comedic aspect of this film is what makes it good, I'm not sayingit needed more laughs but there are moments where you are neitherfrightened or laughing. These dull bits are what weakens the film as awhole. It can be genuinely frightening in parts, making you jump quitea lot with great effects most of the time but in others it can be quitecartoon-like. Overall, I would not recommend this film as a film you HAVE to watchbut I would also not advise anyone to specifically avoid it. It'saverage and it's ashame it is that because the performances and thestoryline work, there was just something missing.

justin-298 2012-05-12 03:37:43

Mr. Frights' Spoiler Free Review of Fright Night 2011

By now everyone has vented their frustrations about remake hell thatall movies, especially horror movies, are going through. It's no secretthat most people seem to hate the idea that FRIGHT NIGHT even gotremade at all. I'm a genuine big fan of the original as Mr. Frights wasactually inspired by my boyhood love for the character of PETERVINCENT. I on the other hand, am always willing to give something thebenefit of the doubt before decrying how terrible it might be.I was very much looking forward to this movie. It has some of myfavorite actors in it. It looked like fun in the trailers and the ComicCon teaser video. It is horror. And I have a strong fondness for theoriginal film and it's sequel. I loved Roddy McDowall and I love DavidTennant from Dr. Who. When I got passes I was pretty excited. I triedto get a bunch of friends to go, but no one was interested. THAT RIGHTTHERE BLOWS!! If you can't get people interested in seeing a film forFREE, what kind of chance does it have at being a success if it's anygood, and what kind of chance will horror films from here out have ifthey keep posting crappy box office stats? I say complain if you want,but if you're a horror fan, if you're a fan of the original FrightNight film or any of the other stuff I just mentioned, then your assshould be in a theater seat watching this movie! So, are you curiousyet? Do you want to know how bad the movie was? Well, you pre-screeningcritics will be disappointed to know it was FREAKING AWESOME!!! I don'tthink there was a time in my life where a remake took me so by surpriseand body slammed all my expectations producing such an amazing film.And you can quote me on that and on everything I say from here on inthis review.I went in thinking that it might be fun but that's about it and leftabsolutely raving mad about the movie. The people who made this puttogether a genuinely terrifying leap from the original film to a brandnew story that happened to have some characters named the same, in thesame sort of situations, but completely different from the original. Inthat way, I can't honestly say it was a remake. There is no shot forshot anything, the characters are all different in a big way, there aremore characters to consider, the things that go down are not the samefrom the 80's movie, and the differences don't stop there. Oh and don'tbe worried because every change that was made WORKED!! The story goesthat CHARLEY BREWSTER lives in Vegas and that infamous vampire neighbormoves in next door and so Charley boy has to figure out how to killhim. That's the basics. He still has his girl Amy, his buddy 'Evil Ed'and a host of other characters as well as the great PETER VINCENT whois a Las Vegas magician act the likes of Criss Angel.There are evensome surprises to be had as the movie progresses that I really want toleave alone because if your reaction is anything like my reaction thenyou'll appreciate it more having me not spoil it for you.Colin Farrell is brilliant as Jerry the vampire. As I had hoped, DavidTennant is brilliant as Peter Vincent, but does his own thing with it,not at all trying to take over anything from Roddy. Anton Yelchin, fromStar Trek (he played Checkov), was really good too as was the rest ofthe cast.The creators behind this new film (Craig Gillespie; Marti Noxon; & ofcourse Tom Holland) took a lot of risks and put a lot more horror intothis film. While still delivering on some well placed laughs, the movieis way more intense than the original. There's not as much hokey to itwhich serves it well to set it apart from Fright Night of the 80's. Ihave to say that at parts, this movie actually scared me and it's beenforever since I've seen a horror film that could do that! This movie isa refreshing departure from remake hell even though it is based onanother film and has the same sort of characters. I was reallyimpressed with this production and it was even more impressive in 3Dwhich I advise everyone to check it out that way. I mean horror moviesare why 3D was created man!!! Don't miss out on that. Seriously. Thekills alone, the deaths of the vamps alone is worth the 3D.I want to rave on more about how awesome and brilliant and amazing thisnew movie is, but I can't give anything away. All I can do is tell youguys how wonderful this thing turned out to be and plead with you allto give it a chance and go see it! If there was EVER a horror film thatdeserved support and big box office numbers in recent years, it's thisone. Mr. Frights would not steer you wrong, trust in me horror peeps,if you miss this in theaters you'll be spanking your own hams for itfor a long long time. I'm already overly, excitedly, anticipating theDVD release.Hell, if I had the time I'd go see it three more times.- Mr. Frights http://about.me/mrfrights