Batur GГѓВјney

(2012-05-01 19:31:32)

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!

nostalgic1961

(2012-05-01 08:21:25)

Yet another rehash.

No 1 could ever play Peter Vincent the way Roddy McDowell could, as forCharlie needing to be convinced that his neighbor was a vampire it wasthe other way around, Charlie was the 1 who was at his whit's endconvincing Ed, Amy, and his mother that the suave next door neighborwas a blood sucking vampire. As for how well the rest of the cast canpull off their parts, I don't really care I do not watch movies that inmy opinion were perfect the first time around. Star Trek had the entirebridge crew attending Star Fleet Academy at the same time, and inclassic Trek it was mentioned more than once that the only 1 of thecrew Kirk knew from his academy days was McCoy. Was that Star Trek orStar Wars it is clear that many who have seen, or even merely heardabout it cannot make that distinction. When will the lame untalentedscreen writers in Hollywood go back to school and acquire somecreativity, I guess when it comes to entertainment LaLa land has becomemundane.

rougexk1

(2012-04-30 18:49:29)

Not As Good As The Original!!!

Please be aware this review contains spoilers!!Whilst being a huge fan of the original movie (Even though it was made2 years before I was born) I think this was an OK attempt at trying tobring this movie into the modern cinema.What it lacked so much of in my opinion was the suave and charmingdemeanour of the character of Jerry Dandridge. Colin Farrell seemed toplay it as just a 'beer guzzling' guy looking for a quick way to gethold of woman and girls and create some 'Tribe' or some nonsensestoryline to fit into and it just didn't work for me. What got me sopulled into the original was the fact that he just fed and disposed ofthe bodies afterwards (No tribe nonsense) the only time he turnedanyone was when Charlie p*ssed him off and he decided to take Ed andAmy and change them and the scene when he does actually bites her, hetakes his time and she quite willingly lets him bite and turn her. Ididn't get any of that from Farrell's version of Jerry, just arrogance.(At least from my perspective) I think Colin Farrell is a good actor,but feel the direction he was given was very...Blah, if you get mymeaning?The character of Amy was beyond annoying and the way they wrote her wassimply too different from the original. (I know it's a Reboot, but forgoodness sake at least make the characters a little like their originalcounterparts) Charlie was just an absolute douche bag in this versionand I actually disliked his character all the way to the end. Not SoEvil-Ed was the most pointless part for me because their was nocharacter development before he got munched practically straight away.Peter Vincent was funny and made me laugh, but he just happened to havewhat was needed to turn everyone back. How Lame!!!I did like the way they used Vegas and the whole sleep during the day,work all night concept as it fit a Vampire story quite well and seemedto be the only thing in the movie that actually made sense! IMHO I being a huge fan of the original had gone into the cinema withthe mentality of being disappointed and I seriously was, but as a standalone for this tween generation they'll probably love it,Unfortunately!!!(This is my opinion only)The Original is Better so I'll stick with that one instead!!

Krellamp

(2012-04-30 05:11:02)

A very poor remake but a good entertaining vamp movie !

If I have to rate this movie as a remake of the classic 1985 then itwould get a big fat ZERO. I've given a 6 star rating purely on theentertaining value of the movie as a vampire movie and NOT a remake.This movie does not even come close to being as good as the original.The characters in this movie simply don't resemble the characters fromthe 1985 version in any way whatsoever.The original version is a gazillion times better and did not require aremake in any shape or form. There are only a handful of remakes thatreally are successful. This is NOT one of them. Another terrible remakein my opinion was 'Psycho'.To see this movie the way it was originally intended, then watch the1985 version and simply see this one as another vampire movie that'ssimilar in storyline to the original.

Christian_Dimartino

(2012-04-29 16:12:17)

A lot of fun!

What a year Colin Farrell has had! I hadn't seen him in a while, and inone year he comes back with Horrible Bosses, where he stole maybe notthe whole show but he stole the moments he was in. Then after that hewas in Fright night, which he only did, apparently, because he wasbored.The film is a remake of an 80's B-movie with the same title. The filmrevolves around Charley(Anton Yelchin), a suburban teen who finds outthat his neighbor Jerry(Farrell) is a vampire, and enlists the help ofPeter Vincent(non other than the brilliant Dr. Who actor DavidTennant), a Chris Angel based character, to help him.I have never really liked Yelchin. I liked him as Charlie Bartlett, butbesides that I can't find a whole lot in him. But this is not hismovie. The film belongs to Farrell and Tennant, who really steal theshow here. Every moment with them is a lot of fun.Actually, almost every moment was a lot of fun. It feels like the filmreally stays on it's feet most of the way through. It just keepsthrowing things at you left and right, like Scream 4(the year's besthorror movie). Well, it's been a good year for horror(Scream 4,Insidious among the best, and Fright Night), and Romanticcomedy(Midnight in Paris, Crazy Stupid love), two genres that usuallyfail. Well, I'll see you in 2012.A-

drew_atreides

(2012-04-29 10:05:33)

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.

kosmasp

(2012-04-29 03:49:48)

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 ...

anoma lyanoma

(2012-04-28 07:14:27)

Not Quite Fright Night...Not Quite Shyte Night

The original Fright Night(1985) is one of the best vampire movies evermade. At the time of it's release vampire flicks weren't even popular,yet that little jem beat all summer horror films, and was number two onthe list of best performing horror film that year. Receiving a largedeal of critical praise.For good reason, too. It combined horror, comedy, and vampires so wellthat it really took everyone by surprise. It should come as no surprisetoo that Hollywood wanted to remake the film. I won't get into whetherthey should or shouldn't have; it's done. It also isn't too horrible aremake either, with parts of the film working very well, while manyother central parts fell flat.I personally loved what they did with Peter Vincent for the most part.I think going the horror-illusionist route was clever and contemporary,with David Tenet giving a very nuanced and hilarious performance. Idon't think Roddy McDowall would be spinning in his grave.I didn't mind the changes they made for Charlie. Him moving into astate of teenage popularity was a very modern approach to hischaracter. I think it could have been explored a bit more, with himeventually coming back to accept his friend Ed, but while it wasn'tmuch of a character arch, it still worked.Here is where it fails for me: Jerry-2011: He has no real character. All subtly is completely thrownout the window. He has no charms, no charisma, and most of all no realmotivation. He doesn't even bother to try to "seduce" his femalevictims. He is just a good-looking manic killer that takes incrediblerisks in order to catch a bite to eat. He doesn't even seem to care whofinds out about him, yet for some reason cares that some teenage nerdsdo. The original Jerry took careful steps to blend into theneighborhood as much as possible. He dined on women that weren't on thesame block, or even in the same area. He didn't take a dump where heeats so to speak.Not this Jerry. He's content to take out the whole neighborhood andwon't even consider that someone might notice he murdered the womanacross the street or committed a number of brazen absurdities. Take forexample the scene where he takes a shovel, digs up the gas line,ignites it, and blows up Charlies' house. Was it cool? Yeah. Was itnecessary? Absolutely not. No one would have even believed Charlie hadhe not confirmed not only that he is an arsonist, but quite possibly achild-killing vampire.All of this happens...yet not a single cop shows up to do anythingabout a house exploding in an affluent neighborhood. In spite of beingwarned earlier about Jerry as a possible threat to the community.In fact, the inept police department is as clueless as the citizens.Are we supposed to believe that in a town that size, no one bothered tocheck on all the missing children and parents? The "everybody movesthrough this town fast" is a flimsy excuse, because obviously some ofthose people form bonds with those around them.Are we expected to believe that no one files a missing person report inLas Vegas? Good thing for a vampire like Jerry, whose actionspractically screams "Look I am a psychopathic killer", while at thesame time saying "if you find out, I'll kill you." He's a terriblevampire that didn't capture the sense of personal dread and sympathy wefelt for the original Jerry who killed not because he could, butbecause he had to.Evil-Ed-2011: One of the best things about Evil Ed from the originalwas that he had an awkward charm, yet was accepted by his friendCharlie. In the original, Ed's fate is tragic because we connect withhim and his pain of being unaccepted. We understand why he would makethe choice he did, and revel in the power that he never had.None of that in Evil-Ed-2011. We barely get to know him before he'salready gone down that path in about 15 minutes. There is no realdevelopment in his relationship with Charlie because at this pointCharlie has become "popular" and moved on. I don't so much have aproblem with this turn of events but it ends up alienating the audiencefrom Ed because we are just told they were good friends, and not shownit. He EXPLAINS the old relationship he had with Charlie but because wedon't see it, he ends up being a hollow semi-eccentric character.His confrontation with Jerry would have been much more powerful...andmade more sense had we had a chance to care about him, and understandhow Jerry could possibly try to sway him to the dark side.The pacing was TOO fast, and at the expense of character developmentand tension building. The action? Jerry throws a bike. Lackluster.While the performances were actually believable, characters like Amywere so absent we couldn't care what really happened to her.Their attempts to make Jerry a fearsome erratic killer end up actuallydefanging the film. With no vampire powers other than teeth andstrength, why not simply make Jerry a serial killer and call it a day?I'll end this with a very telling quote from Colin Farrell himself:"I don't think I'll have a copy of this version in my library, but Ihave the original at home," Yeah. One viewing is more than enough.

phd_travel

(2012-04-28 04:27:28)

Fun & very enjoyable - terrific cast

I enjoyed this one a lot. It's a good storyline with more comedy thanhorror and doesn't have any irritating plot lines. Things move quicklyand the situations and dialog are right on. The horror is amusinghorror not gruesome. Doesn't rely on CGI etc too much. With a goodstory you don't need effects for excitement. The Las Vegas setting isquite well incorporated into the story. The cast is good. Anton Yelchinis a watchable central character. Imogen Poots is quite a prettygirlfriend. Toni Colette's as Mrs Brewster looks prettier than usual.Her role could have been a bit bigger. Mintz Plasse (Fogel fromSuperbad) is pretty good as the nerdy best friend - the role is reallyright for him. It's really Colin Farrel as the central vampire nextdoor who carries the movie with the right mix of menace and humor. Helooks better than of late and gives a terrific performance. There is alot of unexpected humor along the way esp the way they fight thevampires. This is the kind of vampire movie that I like - funny andexciting and a good cast. I saw the original Fright Night and rememberit was enjoyable but this one is really good - worth at watch.

tequila101

(2012-04-27 20:31:02)

Amazingly Surprising

All I can say is.... WOW. I was totally blown away by this film! Firstoff I have to say that when I saw the trailer at first for this film, Iquickly attacked the film and went on like a broken record: "How couldthey remake a classic and blah blah blah". After watching the trailermany more times for my benefit, I decided to go tonight to watch thefilm with my cousin. And what a Frightening treat we got out of this.This remake surprisingly blends in some psychological themes, manysupernatural elements, intense action, gruesome blood, excellent comedyand some scary horror tactics. People this is another remake to mewhich is never bad nor just a decent one, it's another remake that's in"One of the better Remakes section". It's up there with TCM 03, Dawn ofthe Dead 04 and Hills Have Eyes 06, naming a few.This remake works: It has some talented actors who don't flop much,many intense moments, comedic dialog and some excellent scenes ofaction. The story is kept mostly the same with a boy wondering if hisnext door neighbor is vampire. I'm gonna do a few comparisons to theoriginal though, it only being fair.I loved the original film and I was peed-off when I saw and heard aboutit. But seeing this was a big change and a surprisingly good one whichwas able to follow the story but working on it's terms.WARNING: THIS PART CONTAINS SOME SPOILERS!!!! The Charlie character wasa big believer of vampires in the original while as here he is just anormal teen living his own life, and minding is own business. His buddyEd was an annoying twit while as here, he was tempted to get rid ofJerri. Peter Vincent was more stern and stale in the original and hewas very sensitive. Here he is just plain funny with the drunk-gitattitude and funny sense of mind. Amy is more a less the same in bothversions, maybe just a bit more hyped and all than the original's.Charlie's mum is more hot-headed and out of control while as theoriginal mummy had no idea what was going on. And as for Jerri, theoriginal's was more charming and cheese. He was motivated to turn intothe horrible soul at any time. The new Jerri is far more dangerous,sadistic and more brutal.Most of scenes were similar though changed and kept at different pacesto make the rest of the film flow.This film also has more sexual references, nudity and over the toplanguage which was a big difference.Anyway it's definitely worth the scene to check out. One of the betterremakes in my opinion. If they could do a top notch job on FrightNight, Hopefully remaking Holland's other classic "Child's Play" won'tbe a prob. I give Fright Night an 8/10 P.S: The CGI actually works in this film :) and the 3-D effects werepretty good :)

Cam Silver

(2012-04-27 09:41:35)

Lack of appeal

I saw the of the original and I went WOW This remake lacked a goodscreenplay and character development This movie worked in the 80sbecause it was it was a good take on the horror movie genre. Anton didnot do a very good job at bringing out his character, he looked veryout of place and did not fit. Remakes are very hard to do, the endingwas PLAIN AWFUL! It was a selfish ending! That did not flow with themovie I love in the original how a cliff hanger was there so that apart two could happen. The director lacked the horror spirit, thismovie did not grab me the way that it should of. Casting was very poor,some of the actors did not mesh well with others Overall a huge lack ofappeal

JTheGoblinKing

(2012-04-26 13:09:54)

I loathe this movie

I loathe this movie. I can't even put into words how much I hated thismovie so instead I will list ways I feel this film could have beenimproved. Pay attention because my view of this movie is revealed inthe list.Ten things that would have improved this remake:1. Tom Holland as the writer or another writer familiar with Draculastyle vampires. Even the writer of Dracula of 2000 or Van Helsing wouldhave been better than Marti Noxon. 2. Respect for the intelligence of the audience. i.e. keeping PeterVincent as a has-been horror actor who perhaps now has a web series asto modernize his position.3. Kept the shapeshifting abilities to become wolf, mist, bat, fly andenthrall minds because it's freaky and makes the vampires all the morepowerful. There was no reason to strip them of most of their powers andadd extra limitations to them.4. Leave the hint of humanity in that Jerry was looking for thelook-a-like of a lost love. This gives a twinge of sympathy and alsomakes it all the more twisted and frightening when he does somethingevil because you're taken off guard. 5. Find a director who actually was a fan of the original and remembersit fondly and knows how to do Gothic atmosphere, who can make suburbscreepy, like Tim Burton or Del Toro. 6. Leave it set in the suburbs. Every country and state has suburbs.Most places don't have their own Vegas. 7. Make sure the hero is relatable and a decent human being. Aself-absorbed tool who abandons friends for popularity just doesn't cutit.8. A better budget. Fifteen million is pocket change today by Hollywoodstandards.9. Knowledge of what is popular in the genre. The director and writerof this remake THINK things like Saw and Final destination are in andGothic is old. Actually it's the opposite.The last Saw movie didpoorly. Let me in did fairly well for what it was. And the Wolfmanremake got an Oscar while Final destination five is struggling. TwoFrankenstein films are in development, Dark Shadows is in production asis Harker, and Dracula 3D. Priest did well and Woman in Black is aboutto hit theaters. Slasher films are out. Gothic horror is back with avengeance and the ones who made this remake are really out of touch tonot know that.10. An effort to NOT appeal to any particular demographic. Notice howTim Burton's films are always successful even when people complainabout how formulaic they've become. He never tires to appeal to ademographic. He makes films that appeal to his own tastes and to Hellwith what the studio thinks kids want today. Sleepy Hollow was going tobe a generic, low budget slasher film with no romance or atmospehre butthen Tim Burton got a hold of it and added the supernatural, added thelove story, and added the Hammer Horror-esque atmosphere and he made itwork where it would have failed. If Hollywood would just stop trying tocondescend to what it thinks is a simple minded audience we might startgetting quality horror films again. Some people are already trying andit's working. This film is not.

abq767

(2012-04-26 14:31:48)

Go read a good book

I saw this tonight at a free preview. I got what I paid for 1. Ifyou're over 30, you probably won't like this 2. If you've never seenthe other Fright Night, you won't like this 3. If you don't likegratuitous cursing, you won't like this 4. If you like a plot that isnot 100% predictable, you won't like this. The 3D effects were "ok" butnot great.The movie is made for the teenage crowd, but there are some minorattractions for non-teenagers. There were a few funny lines that gottheater-wide chuckles, but they were far and few.The only saving grace was the CGI effects. For that I give it a 3/10

mrbblee

(2012-04-25 19:07:08)

Once Bitten...

Sometimes I wonder if Dreamworks really is the hit making machine itwould like its public to think it is. Why do I ask myself thisquestion? Allow me to answer if you will...It seems that our friends at DW have their scheduling all messed up. Sofar this year (in the live action stakes) we've had The Help,Transformers DOM and Cowboys & Aliens yet for some unknown reason thismovie was deemed less worthy of a true Summer release than those justmentioned. Maybe it's because, out of the three, this was deemed lessof a cash cow. Either way Dreamworks made a BIG mistake.Had this movie been given a prime release date it could have gone on tomake a lot of cash for the studio. But as it stands what we could havehere is a disappointing box office return that will only make its moneyback once it's unleashed on DVD & Blu Ray.Director Craig Gillespie and writer Marti Noxon have done a fine job ingiving us a movie that feels different while staying close to thespirit of the original. With brilliant performances from Tennant (whois woefully under-used) and Farrell this movie is one of those perfectpopcorn flicks. It's simply 90 + minutes of scares, great 3D andsilliness that won't change the world but will leave you with thefeeling that you really did get your money's worth.My only gripe is that Christopher Mintz-Plasse seems cast to type. Ifound very little to like about him and his character seemed to benothing more than a clone of Chris/Red Mist.In the week or so this movie has been out I've seen a lot of peoplemoaning about the special effects and the overall appearance of theVampires so I'll close this review with a message for them in the formof a quote by the great Homer Simpson "Lisa, Vampires are make-believe,like Elves, Gremlins, and Eskimos."

Wayne Malin

(2012-04-25 05:10:58)

Finally! Evil vampires are back!

Remake of the 1985 movie. Teenager Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin) issuspicious of his new next door neighbor named Jerry (Colin Farrell).He finds out he's a vampire and is slowly killing all the teenagers inhis small town near Las Vegas. He tries to enlist the help of magicianPeter Vincent (David Tennant) who supposedly knows all about vampires.I usually hate remakes and was horrified (and not in a good way) when Iheard this was being done. The 1985 film was a great mix of humor andhorror and had two wonderful performances by Roddy McDowell (asVincent) and Chris Sarandon (as Jerry). It was made to introduce thevampire to the MTV generation and it was a huge hit. I saw it twice upthe theatres, owned the VHS AND now have the DVD! Obviously I wasn'tgoing to see this. I thought it was a joke when I heard Farrell wasgoing to play the vampire. He's a great actor but I just couldn't seehim playing the role. It came out a few days ago and reviewers praisedit to the high heavens. THAT made me curious (reviewers usually hatehorror films). I went to see it and almost left when I found out thatthey only have it in 3-D and were charging the outrageous price of$15.50! But--I figured I was there so what the hell. I went inpreparing to hate the film...and ended up LOVING it!It follows the plot of the original but makes a few changes. Jerry nolonger has a human helper living with him; this takes place near LasVegas not in a small town; the house in the original was large anddelightfully creepy (not this one) and Charley's girlfriend is NOT areincarnation of the vampire's ex-girlfriend from long ago (a plotpoint that I'm glad they got rid of). This one retains most of the setpieces from the original but changes them in various ways. I also lovehow they recreate a scene from the original novel "Dracula" here.However they do add plenty of scenes that were not in the original.There's a car chase down a highway here that's downright terrifying.It's not all scares though. Like the first there is some intentionaland funny humor (they take a swipe at the revolting "Twilight" seriesearly on). The special effects are superb all the way through. LOVEDthe scene where u see Farrell turn swiftly from a vampire to a human.The film is somewhat bloody and gory but never overdoes it. The actingis pretty good. Yelchin is likable as Charley and Imogen Poots (as hisgirlfriend Amy) is OK. I never liked David Tennant but I do admit hewas OK as Vincent--but he won't make you forget McDowell. ChristopherMintz-Plasse was just terrible as Ed (who was MUCH better in theoriginal). Best of all is Farrell. I never thought he could do it buthe plays the vampire beautifully. You see his bloodlust and anger justbelow the surface even when he's being friendly. Great music score too.Finally we have a movie about evil vampires instead of that nurtured"Twilight" crap which turns them into romantic anti-heroes. This is asgood as the original but in different ways. I give it an 8. I hate toadmit this but the 3-D was GREAT! It was never over or underused andreally worked. Still $15.50 is way too much to pay.

Elena Katrina

(2012-04-24 13:24:04)

Quite enjoyable.

I went to see this last night with little to no expectation what soever and left pleasantly surprised especially as I've been told bysomeone else who has reviewed this film here on IMDb that there are 3reasons I will not like this film. I disagree with each point and don'tthink it's up to anyone to tell anyone else what they will and won'tlike unless you know that person.A horror though it is not, well not what I think of as a horror. Ifound myself laughing quite a lot. There are many points at which youare most certainly supposed to be laughing but I even laughed at the"scary" parts, was I supposed to? I don't know, I don't much care, Iwas enjoying the film! I did think that the 3D was going to be stupidand pointless, much like it is in most things but there were a fewpoints where it worked really well by throwing things out at you(something that a lot of 3D action films really fail to do - make youmove out of the way whilst in your seat). The only problem with 3D isthat the film is too dark. Yet again I was faced with only outlines ofpeople rather than being able to see their faces and expressions insome shots, why hire an actor if you're not going to let me see himproperly because I have to look through black 3D glasses to watch thefilm. (Though this is more of a generic rant than specific to thisfilm).I thought the actors were great in it and David Tennant was superb andhow nice of him to come along and present it to us too! Loves it whenhis character de-characterised himself (Is that even a word?) andwhipped off his wig etc. I was in hysterics then. I'd have liked tohave seen a little bit more of Toni Collette as she is a fantasticactress and sadly her part was fairly boring in this.I will admit that I haven't seen the original but I will make a pointof seeing it now in order to compare the two. I imagine there will havebeen a lot of changes, there always are, but hopefully it will havebeen for the better. I'm not sure I'd have paid to go and see itthough, as much as I enjoyed it at the time. I might get it on DVDthough, it would be especially great for Halloween!

Christopher Smith

(2012-04-22 22:23:40)

Another weak remake

All that needs to be said about the remake of Fright Night is that itends with a terrible cover of Jay-Z's already bad "99 Problems"blasting over the ending credits. This is a completely random songchoice that belongs in another movie and is tonally out of nowhere, afeeling that permeates most of the picture's long 105-minute runningtime. The movie starts off like a typical teen horror movie, onlyslightly worse. The dialogue in the high school scenes is horriblyinauthentic, feeling like an R-rated CW drama of "The Vampire Diaries"variety complete with the usual clichГѓВ©s of bullying jocks, superstereotyped nerds, and the aforementioned "hip" teen dialogue. When thesecond act kicks in, the movie heads in the direction of thecomedy-horror hybrid it should have been going for all along. The onlyproblem with this is that there is no real sense of tension as theblood is all CG and anyone who has seen the original knows what'scoming long in advance. The Las Vegas setting sounds cool in theory,but it's never used in a way that adds to the proceedings. Despitehaving the very cool idea of having the remake set in Vegas,screenwriter Marti Noxon and director Craig Gillipse decide to keepalmost all the basic story beats from the original movie instead ofusing the new setting to their advantage. The one change that is madethat actually does work is the new interpretation of Peter Vincent,hilariously played by David Tennant. Tennant is the pulse that keep thefilm alive. His energy and dead-on comedic delivery almost give theremake a purpose to exist beyond making a buck off a cult classic.Other performances are okay, but Anton Yelchin is too old to beingplaying a high school kid and Imogeen Poots is given the girlfriendrole that hasn't changed since the 80s. One thing that has changedsince the 80s: there used to be original horror movies. 3/10

oneguyrambling

(2012-04-22 11:43:11)

A modern day update of the classic 85 flick. Doesn't embarrass itself.

There was nothing much wrong with the original Fright Night from 1985.I reviewed it earlier this year and gave it what I think is a solidrecommendation.But a generation has passed since that was released, and movieaudiences experience precious little rush at discovering a film aquarter century old that their parents like. So here we are. A funlittle remake of Fright Night with an update to more present dayconventions – meaning more swearing, more frank discussions of sex,more skin and more relevant music. None of these are bad things by theway.Right this guy is Charlie Brewster. Charlie is the son of a single mum(Toni Collette) living in a small housing estate on the outskirts ofLas Vegas, a settlement with an itinerant population boasting manyshift workers and night owls.Charlie was until very recently one of the class geeks, though somehowhe has ascended up the popularity ladder and is now one of the coolkids. This apparently entitles him to a hot girlfriend named Amy(Imogen Poots) and unsolicited comments from neighbouring hot chicks intight pants along the lines of "Gee Charlie you're getting big" whilesaid hottie takes out the garbage.I now invite, suggest, demand that you look again at the picture ofCharlie taken from his performance in this very film. If that allsounds logical and above board the next bit shouldn't test your powersof imagination one iota.Charlie's childhood friend – and unfortunately still a nerd – Ed(Christopher Mintz-Plasse, 4 years on from McLovin and STILL resignedto nerdy sidekick roles) is not distracted by the writing on thederrieres of hotties nor the stirrings in his own fashionable slacks,therefore he sees what others do not. Ed points out the fact thatseveral kids in class have simply and inexplicably stopped showing up,then backs up this anomaly with a theory: it must be the work of avampire.Ed not only theorises the proximity of an undead bloodsucker but healso identifies his accused, Charlie's brand new next door neighbournamed Jerry, who conveniently pops by shortly afterward to introducehimself and to make drooling puddles of both Charlie's Mum andgirlfriend. Jerry is buff, hot, mysterious and nice… initially.For those who saw the entertaining low key original not much haschanged, Charlie and co quickly learn the truth – it's fair to say thatJerry isn't too fixated on maintaining anonymity – and the remainder ofthe film has them dealing with the new development.This time though instead of a creaky old has been horror show hostCharlie seeks out the advice of the only man who could possibly providea plan of attack, a renowned Vegas magician and supposed guru regardingall things vampire named Peter Vincent, who is initially reticent tobecome involved but is gradually drawn into proceedings. The characterof Vincent starts out a little one note but he becomes increasinglyamusing and reminiscent of Russell Brand at times.The Fright Night remake wisely doesn't take things too seriously likeremakes of Nightmare on Elm Street and Halloween have done in recentyears. It neatly tiptoes the line between shlocky horror and sillycomedy, ably assisted by the performance from Colin Farrell that leavesthe film no option but to stay at least a little silly. (It is a'vampire next door' comedy set in Vegas after all.) Things only get alittle out of hand in the closing scenes where it all gets a littleS.W.A.T. Paintball Commando for a few moments, with the predictableresults that would ensue given such a description, but the CGI assistedgore thankfully never oversteps the mark and Peter Vincent and Jerrykeep the film on the right side of the fun ledger.Final Rating – 7 / 10. Fright Night 2011 is a fun way to spend anevening, and like 2010's remake of 'Let the Right One in' called 'Letme in', it benefits from more or less remaining faithful to the sourcematerial and by not being too clever for its own good.(I still think the least plausible thing in the film is the nerdy kidwith the hot girlfriend receiving random compliments from similarly hotstrangers.)

nevthur

(2012-04-21 18:28:30)

lifeless disposable remake of a beloved cult classic

Somewhat mildly entertaining, but compared to other recent horror filmslike Incidious, this movie is about as scary as an episode of WizardsOf Waverly Place.Most remakes suck, that's just reality, and this fails to disprove it.The original, which was by no means a Lost Boys, was, for the time, aseamless blend of horror, comedy, superb (but now outdated) specialeffects, and a new wave soundtrack to fit the time and place the filmwas made. It was as creepy and campy as the 60's and 70's Hammer Horrorfilms which it pays homage as well as making fun of.But, beyond that, the original had a solid story line, with multiplecharacters with multiple motives. Gone is the creepy "Evil" Ed who, despite being a horror fan, refusesto believe Charlie that his next door neighbor is a vampire. In hisplace is another one-note performance by a character who serves more aswallpaper and who is a sad joke when he turns vampireGone is the charming and subtle Jerry Dangridge and instead we have asingle-note boring one dimensional Collin Ferral who spends the entirefilm walking with heavy footsteps and hissing like a cat. Gone is Danridge's zombie day-time protector who added an even greaterdimension of story layers replaced by, well, nothing.Gone is the charming Peter Vincent a cowardly tired old B-movie starwho faces his fears to become a hero, replaced by yet anotherone-dimensional ex-Dr. Who.And perhaps most important of the omissions of this boring life-lessremake is that of the big creepy decrepit American-Gothic old mansionin the heart of suburbia (like a tiny virus, and a metaphor for thevampire, which goes on to be so many other metaphors I can't list themall here).The original is dated, no freaking duh! Because it captured the essenceof the time (date) and place it was created. The remake fails to evenbe dated because the sets and atmosphere are so lifeless this filmcould have been made anywhere between 1990 and now.The original is a "cult film" and so, by definition, it only has asmall cult of fanatics, so, if you don't get why the original is sobeloved then you're in majority of people who just don't get it.20 years from now this sad remake will be sitting in the Walmart $5.00bin, cast aside by all those but Collin Farrel fans.P.S. the computer animated blood splashes are horrible, they look likemid 90's effects. Also, where's the remake of Brad Fiedel's "Come ToMe" which was in the original as well as it's sequel? They must havebeen crazy not to put an update of that in the film. It's up there withBela Lugosi's Dead and Cry Little Sister. Oh, and one finally littleupdate: Imagine Poots IS actually very hot and a wonderful actress aswas Amanda Bearse at the time.

aharmas

(2012-04-21 05:42:43)

At least the vampire has a heart, but this movie...

Tom Holland's original is so much fun because its heart (no punintended) is in the right place. It's a campy, funny, and scary tributeto the movies and stories that inspired it. Each of the main charactersfeels real, with his or her own identity. The film takes its timeexploring and developing each character, and by the end we care whathappens to them.Of course, having McDowall and Sarandon in the original was extremelyimportant to give the film the right tone. Colin Farrell is perfectlycast in the new ones, yet he literally sleep walks through film becausenot much is expected from him but to snarl and mock both his prey andthe audience, and he'd better make sure to stand in the right place, sothat the 3-D effect can be properly showcased. It's really a terriblewaste because he does have a dangerous presence, and he certainly fitsthe image of a player. His best scenes have him challenging andtaunting his victims because he knows how much more powerful he is.Sadly, everyone else in the film is a caricature, from Charly's bestfriend to the Vegas Vampire Killer, with his own set of demons. Infact, there is much that is NOT explained, and we are just supposed toeat it up. Great actors are wasted, some decent special props andspecial effects are definitely underutilized, and as everyone knows bynow, there is just something special about the vampire lore, with itsritualistic killings, its ties to immortality and sexuality, and whatamazing adversaries they can be. As I said before, Farrell is probablybetter than Sarandon in the lead role, but there is not much for him tochew.A final note on the use of 3-D. It wasn't really necessary since therewas so much more than could have been accomplished with a tighter,better developed script and director who would have thought a littlemore of his audience. This film is the equivalent of those disposableplastic fans that annoy both the person who wears them and those of uswho have to look at them.Pretty dull entertainment.