|Page 2 of 22:||           |
|Index||220 reviews in total|
Tom Holland's 1985 vampire romp "Fright Night" was a fun, campy little
horror flick that had some good laughs, good scares, and some pretty
awesome effects. Soon enough, the movie developed its cult fan base. In
the end, I find the original "Fright Night" to be one of the most
underrated horror films of the 80's.
Frankly, I was actually quite excited for this remake, knowing that it had a great cast and Marti Noxon(who commonly wrote for "Buffy the Vampire Slayer") was at the helm of the script. I personally don't mind remakes. Some people take them way too seriously. Of course, there are some that fail, but a lot of them work really well. The 2011 edition of "Fright Night" works!
Set in a beautiful suburban area of Las Vegas, the movie introduces us to Charley Brewster, a nerdy but charismatic teenager who we find out has given up his relationship with his friend "Evil" Ed to be with the cooler kids, including his hot new girlfriend Amy. Then he meets Jerry Dandrige, a buff, sweet new neighbor that Charley's mom and Amy take a liking to. When Ed tries to warn Charley of Jerry's hidden, and gruesome, intentions, things take a turn for the worse. More people wind up missing, and it becomes evident to Charley that Jerry is a vampire. Nobody believes him before it's too late, and it's up to him and Hard Rock celebrity Peter Vincent to kill this sucker(pun intended) once and for all.
While it pays so much respect to the original movie, "Fright Night" also adds a few new elements that elevate it above other remakes. There are some scenes that are lifted right from the original, even two of the original's most classic lines, but the movie breaks several horror movie rules and invents new ones, like whether or not a vampire can come into another person's house.
The CGI effects in this remake are surprisingly quite good. I didn't see the film in 3D(which I heard doesn't do much for the movie), but in its 2D format, the geysers of blood shoot out magnificently without going over the top, and the makeup is true to the original vampire look in the 1985 film.
"Fright Night" boasts a fantastic cast of well-known actors. Anton Yelchin, as always, does a great job and fits the role of Charley perfectly. Toni Collette stands out as Charley's mother, and Imogen Poots is terrific as Amy. Unlike other horror blonds, the script allows Amy to be smart, and at times brave enough to try to take down Jerry herself. Also, Ms. Poots is an awesome screamer. Christopher Mintz- Plasse is great for the role of "Evil" Ed, and he was born to play that role in this remake. He gets some pretty funny lines and an enjoyable amount of screen time. David Tennant, known for starring in the recent TV revival of "Doctor Who," takes over from Roddy McDowall as Peter Vincent, and makes for a funny vision of the character.
And then there's Colin Farrell as Jerry. Don't get me wrong. The cast is wonderful. But Farrell eats his role up and nearly steals the show. Sometimes, he doesn't have to do anything, and he still creeps you out. One particular scene in which he has a conversation with Charley sets the character up to be quite fearful. This is not a "Twilight" vampire that Farrell creates. This is a "rip your throat out with no regrets" monster that is impossible not to be freaked out by. Basically, Colin Farrell bathes in his role like the character bathes in human blood.
Marti Noxon's script is clever, funny, and smart, and by the looks of other recent horror outings, it's a script that's better than it should be.
I'll just say that "Fright Night" is not particularly scary. But it's all about the entertainment here. The movie doesn't need to be scary. It's a horror-comedy that allows some good shocks with some great laughs. The original was always on the border of becoming too funny, but it stayed on its feet and kept the horror going. The remake does just that. It's carefully made and done with love for its source material. But otherwise, you can tell that director Craig Gillespie("Lars and the Real Girl"), his cast, and his screenwriter had a ball making this movie. The nostalgia factor is high here, bringing us a combination of both 80's and 90's horror. If you loved "The Lost Boys" and the original 1985 flick, you will surprisingly love 2011's "Fright Night." I welcome it with open arms, and I'm glad I got to see it. Welcome to Fright Night...FOR REAL!
P.S. For those of you who saw the original, you get an unbelievable cameo.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Once again, Hollywood is running out ideas and it's Fright's Night's
turn for the remake. Fright Night is a huge cult classic that I'm sure
was expected to flop, instead turned into a pleasant surprise. It's a
fun film that came out of the 80's and is a classic treasure; it's like
Rear Window with vampires. I didn't see the film until a few years ago,
not sure how I missed it, I guess The Lost Boys was my vampire film of
the 80's. But I loved the film and its clever mix of horror and humor.
Plus it has a great cast, fun effects and a cool story. To remake it,
again, everyone gets upset at first but from the trailer the film
actually looked pretty good. I saw this opening day looking forward to
seeing a reboot and while it's certainly flawed, this is actually a
pretty decent remake.
Charley Brewster is a teenager who discovers he has a new neighbor moving in next door to him. Charley's geeky ex-friend, Ed, tells him that many fellow students have gone missing. Charley disregards this, but talks him into coming to an old friend's house to check if he's alright.When Charley goes home after school, his mother introduces him to Jerry, who is the new neighbor. Charley meets up with Ed who informs him that his new neighbor is a vampire, Charley doesn't believe Ed and leaves. On his way home Ed is confronted by Jerry who convinces him to become a vampire and bites him. The next day Charley realizes that Ed is missing and decides to go to his house to investigate. As Jerry begins to attack more people throughout the neighborhood, Charley goes into Jerry's house and finds out that he is keeping all of his victims in secret rooms. Charley decides to go to Las Vegas magician Peter Vincent, a supposed expert on vampires and hope to destroy Jerry before he gets to his mother and beautiful girlfriend.
Colin Ferrel, what can I say? Who could have been a more perfect choice? After his stint in rehab, I'm sure he more than enjoyed getting back into playing the bad boy. His Jerry may not have the exact same charm as Chris Sarandon, but you can tell he had a lot of fun and brought a lot to the character. However I wasn't as excited on the choice for Charlie, Anton Yelchin, who was actually kind of boring in my opinion. You can tell he tries but I don't think he had the best lines to work with. Now David Tennant who replaces Roddy McDowall was actually a decent replacement almost like a Cris Angel character, but honestly, even if I get hate for this comment, I think I would have loved to see Russell Brand in this role if they were going for that direction.
There are a few disappointments with the film like not having the same chemistry that the original Charlie and Peter had, it seems like their relationship is more rushed in the remake and not like they really belong together. Also, since the film does take itself seriously as if we are supposed to buy that this is happening in our real world, how is it that there is absolutely no police investigation when people are missing? I mean, they say that people pass through Vegas and are never heard from again, but an entire family is missing and nothing is questioned? Also I was upset with the lack of Ed, I loved the plot change with him, but we didn't have enough Ed which Christopher Mintz-Plasse plays pretty well. The script may need work however; I still had fun watching the action and special effects. Though I don't think that the 3D was exactly needed for the film, they stuck to the original look to the vampires which I'm glad they did. But please, no more Twilight references, let's just try to forget those books or movies ever existed. Before I end the comment since I'm running out of room here, doesn't the poster remind you of No Country for Old Men? Maybe it's just me no, it's not me, they copied the poster. But I enjoyed the film, I'm pretty sure those who loved the original will get a good kick out of the remake. Its fun, stylish, sexy and exactly the good time horror movie we needed this year.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Fast-forwarding to 2011, both slasher cycles have ended and vampires
have risen from their graves into pop culture saturation. Tom Holland
probably never envisioned a world where his nostalgia would be so
relevant. Eighties worship, as unwarranted as it is, is huge right now,
so making a new Fright Night as inevitable as it is unwarranted. The
original movie was fueled by Holland's personal interest in updating
his beloved genre and forced to be creative by its tight budget. Today,
it's an enjoyable if underwhelming effort that's just good enough to
not need to be remade.
So, is there any reason to watch the new Fright Night? For the majority of viewers, the answer is a terse "no." The seasoned movie-goer may find it another example of how to downgrade a superior film by placing it through the meat grinder of pedestrian production. The new film regurgitates the original's plot, adding unnecessary secondary characters while keeping the perfunctory subplots of the original. The flavorful parts of the original like Charlie's silent preliminary observations of Jerry have been streamlined into arriving at the action sooner. The movie feels cobbled together, the result of its poor editing, into a visual summary of its inspiration.
What results from this process is the kind of stale movie the original would have been had Holland not spiced up the screenplay. Writer Marti Noxon attempts to add some humor by including putrid pop cultural jabs at Twilight that have no place in the narrative. Seeing as this is a Dreamworks release, I guess should have expected them. And if that weren't lame enough, Noxon actually manages to completely destroy the original's subtext. Charlie begins the story as a geek-turned-average guy who must be emasculated by his too-hot-for-me girlfriend Amy. The rest of the film is his heteronormative redemption by putting Amy into her distressed place and kicking butt. Even Jerry has been updated as brusque Blade-like baddie. At least casting Colin Farrell gives the role, ironically like the first film, some unintentional charm. Farrell can poke fun at his playboy lifestyle nicely, if he only had a better screenplay The original Fright Night's plot may have been followed though its humor wasn't. Unless you are homophobic, you aren't going to laugh very much. So, we have a redundant copy of an original that wasn't even that pleasant itself. Farrell gets a chuckle now and then, but only those people who refuse to watch older films will enjoy this one.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
while the film is entertaining for most parts (and yes tedious and
clichéd in others...many others) it fails on many, many levels. The
plot has more holes than a slice of swiss cheese and everything is
awfully convenient in this this movie. Ferrell was entertaining as a
vampire, Toni Collette was wasted and I liked David Tennant but hated
his character. I thought of Russell Brand like a lot of people did when
I fist saw him.
Three things I really had a problem with...
1. The fact that all these kids/people are missing and the cops don't seem to care. This was the worst of the plot holes to me.
2. I was really entertained up until the part where Ferrell rips the gas line out of the ground and blows up the house...the actions of everyone during that scene and in the car chase afterwards was awkward and silly to me and again the police don't notice the gas line dug out of the ground or investigate their house EXPLODING!? etc etc...
3. The pre credits sequence. Ending a movie well can really help a mediocre film out. If they can send you out smiling in a sense you'll be like "that was OK" instead of "that was crap"...they lost me right at the end during the scene in the loft. Also, the closing remake song was awful in my opinion.
Those are my main grips and honourable mention goes to, as someone else here put it: the constant "douche baggery" of our main character - that really stuck in my crawl...but he did kick ass at the end...
End of Spoilers
So while it was entertaining, it was NOT a well made movie. too many reason to list. If this were siskel & ebert, I'd be doing "thumbs down". I wouldn't even recommend a rental, this is straight cable fare.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I loathe this movie. I can't even put into words how much I hated this
movie so instead I will list ways I feel this film could have been
improved. Pay attention because my view of this movie is revealed in
Ten things that would have improved this remake:
1. Tom Holland as the writer or another writer familiar with Dracula style vampires. Even the writer of Dracula of 2000 or Van Helsing would have been better than Marti Noxon.
2. Respect for the intelligence of the audience. i.e. keeping Peter Vincent as a has-been horror actor who perhaps now has a web series as to modernize his position.
3. Kept the shapeshifting abilities to become wolf, mist, bat, fly and enthrall minds because it's freaky and makes the vampires all the more powerful. There was no reason to strip them of most of their powers and add extra limitations to them.
4. Leave the hint of humanity in that Jerry was looking for the look-a-like of a lost love. This gives a twinge of sympathy and also makes it all the more twisted and frightening when he does something evil because you're taken off guard.
5. Find a director who actually was a fan of the original and remembers it fondly and knows how to do Gothic atmosphere, who can make suburbs creepy, 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. A self-absorbed tool who abandons friends for popularity just doesn't cut it.
8. A better budget. Fifteen million is pocket change today by Hollywood standards.
9. Knowledge of what is popular in the genre. The director and writer of this remake THINK things like Saw and Final destination are in and Gothic is old. Actually it's the opposite.The last Saw movie did poorly. Let me in did fairly well for what it was. And the Wolfman remake got an Oscar while Final destination five is struggling. Two Frankenstein films are in development, Dark Shadows is in production as is Harker, and Dracula 3D. Priest did well and Woman in Black is about to hit theaters. Slasher films are out. Gothic horror is back with a vengeance and the ones who made this remake are really out of touch to not know that.
10. An effort to NOT appeal to any particular demographic. Notice how Tim Burton's films are always successful even when people complain about how formulaic they've become. He never tires to appeal to a demographic. He makes films that appeal to his own tastes and to Hell with what the studio thinks kids want today. Sleepy Hollow was going to be a generic, low budget slasher film with no romance or atmospehre but then Tim Burton got a hold of it and added the supernatural, added the love story, and added the Hammer Horror-esque atmosphere and he made it work where it would have failed. If Hollywood would just stop trying to condescend to what it thinks is a simple minded audience we might start getting quality horror films again. Some people are already trying and it's working. This film is not.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Look, listen. I defend a lot of remakes, redo's and reimaging films.
Most are actually bad, some are priceless. The best thing I could say
about 2011's Fright Night is: At least it's better than the pointless
and horrid 1989 sequel. But
not by much.
PLEASE don't watch this movie if you're a fan of the 1985 original. Or, softer: for those Fright Night virgins, watch the first movie even if this might still work on a miniscule level. The only thing this movie had in common with the first movie was: A> the title. B> The Character's Names and C> There's a vampire living next door.
Those three qualities take about 1/1000th of the script. Fill in the blank with new, too serious material. I mean, the original was CAMP, pure and simple. A lot of comedy, some horror and fun. This one takes it too deadly serious, plus they added too much of the annoying "CW" atmosphere. That kiddie, 90210, trend is really starting to get on my nerves. It's not working for people my age, and according to the box office receipts, it's not working for the teen crowd either. So, Hollywood, please dump this idea of bringing back classic horror to the "CW" absent movie-goers.
I haven't even got to the worse part of this movie: The reimagining of the great character, Peter Vincent, now played by a third-rate Russell Brand-Rip-off, David Tennant. He was absolutely awful. It would be in the same category as hiring Pauley Shore as James Bond. Of course, this is coming from some who loved the original Roddy McDowall version. But, besides that, for those who haven't even heard of the original, he was still incredibly lame.
This also goes for the quickly-turned "Evil Ed" character. I do like Christopher Mintz-Plasse, but he's certainly no Stephen Geoffreys from the 1985 film.
This movie's a mess. It had a great scene of the family being evicted by the neighbor vampire and their journey to the Las Vegas strip, but other than that, it's a complete waste of film. It took the original movie's idea (new neighbor is a vampire and kid-Charley Brewster must defend his girl and kill the monster with aid of vampire killer, Peter Vincent) to a new depth of boredom. There's only one Night that's Frightful. Watch that one and skip this atrocity.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Normally I am con 80's remake trend 100%, but Fright Night has Tom
Holland on board the original writer and director of the first film
unlike the sequel which had no input from Holland. That factor, the
strong trailers, previews, and the positive reviews changed my tune on
seeing 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 from the original as well as from most vampire films made about a "dracula-type," so you will be in for a lot of surprises when seeing the film.
-The other thing is that Jerry (not named Dandrigde in the film, just Jerry) is quite different from our Danrige. He is about the least ambitious head vampire I've come across and seems purely bent on survival much less showing off ambiance in his surroundings. If Dandrige was white collar this Ferrel incarceration is blue collar to the bone. He's just a beer-guzzling, chick-nailin', wide-screen TV watching schmoe. And his house illustrates this with it's sparse set designs and unfinished interiors. Dandridge was a snob showing off his Reagan-ite values and high-end living: a collector of fine art and haughty furniture. Jerry Ferrel is just trying to get by. -No Evil Ed,just Ed man or Edward Lee as the teacher calls him during role call.Well boo to that, but it works for the most part. Ed is more of Charley's past life friend, since Charlie is a 'cool guy' now getting hot babes and hanging with the upper-crust of high school society. Ed represents Charley's geek past and *early spoilers* is the first investigator into the Jerry's tomfoolery. Ed wants to tell Charley, but Charely blows him off and doesn't return his calls. Odd, Charley doesn't own a cell phone, since Ed has to call Charley's house... So what does Ed do to get Charley to change his rejection tune? Threaten to send a video to the entire senior class that shows Charley LARPING with Ed and some other dweeb. *Major Spoiler* Ed does not last as long as the original in human form and could have used some development IMHO.
-Supporting characters are, I suppose, there to, uhhh, support, and are pretty much caricatures: the geeks, the socialites, the modern mom, the stripper, the pretty girl, and even Peter Vincent (demystified, jaded entertainer). They all revolve around Charley and Jerry, who are the more complex and colorful characters.
-Easily, Jerry Ferrel's screen presence - I'm glad he is now playing an antagonist and can show his chops cuz he seems like a shady guy in private. I've already talked about how he is written and he executes it well while taunting and killin' innocent folk. He pulls off what a villain character portrayel is supposed to do - you want him to die!! And when I say die, I mean in excruciating pain for his arrogance and overall evil-dome in oppressing society with being deceitful and his abominable acts.
-Directing - this is really one suspenseful film and the scene architecture for this type of attempt is marvelous. I am glad they just didn't rely on technology in creature/gore effects and went for much more difficult aspect in shooting: creating tension. Eerily similar to Holland's work in Psycho II.
-Plotting. What can I say? The film keeps you guessing. If you know the original by heart, you're in for a lot of surprises. The story takes a lot of unexpected turns, and end up thinking 'how will they get out of this?' or 'how is this going to get back on track to the original's outline?' -Jump scenes. There's some great, don't-see-it-coming, dare I say 'frights' some of them involving the three-D quite well. I don't think the film wastes the three-D potential like many others and doesn't really distract from the film except for maybe one exception.
Weaknesses: -The bullying of non-evil Ed, it seemed very stereotypical and somewhat forced. Necessary? Not really. Ed could have used more screen time early on as well. Getting beat up for being on the wrong street? More like grade school than high school, especially in a newly developed suburban area.
-Certain instances of effects didn't work. Like at one point Jerry is lifting a van on his back like Supes and it doesn't look like it has weight at all or that he was connected to it - there were also some other effects involving cars that looked like unfinished CGI. But over-all the CGI isn't over-indulgent. Some of the fang-work was kinda obvious though.
-Peter Vincent's wife. Ugh, so much slapschticky dialog exchanged between the two. It's not bad acting. It's just lame comedy, but I am snob when it comes to this, however I thought it was hackey. Basically the two-some do 'can't get it up' exchanges and other such dated banter. Comic relief fodder that came up snake eyes.
-The relationship between Peter and Charley. I really didn't buy the comradery, 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 do with Vincent's not so great character-arc. I thought his transformation of going from skeptic to believer was sloppily handled, which is the aspect that puts the first one head-and-shoulders above this reboot.
So the reboot is, overall, a roller-coaster thrill-ride, not a charming film where you re-visit over and over because you love the characters (aka the original Fright Night), but it is an effective bumpy ride.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I really wanted to enjoy this. I enjoyed the original, I liked the
cast, I love David Tennant, and it seemed like it might have been
treated with respect (it, the remake, showing respect for the
original). That wasn't so much the case. I understand modernizing. But
this was a bit much. The biggest issue, however, was plot devices that
made zero sense. This is where the spoilers come in:
- Evil Eddie has been tracking the new neighbor and decides he's a vampire very early on. We get very little explanation as to why he thought this, until later we see he's been watching him since the day he moved in. WHY? Why would you be watching a man the day he moves into a new home, hiding behind things and videotaping him because you believe he's a vampire? There's such little explanation for this, it's difficult to digest. - The character is said to feed to victims like snacks, keeping them locked up in little crudely-constructed rooms in his house. Just before this explanation, we see him kill two kids in the street at dusk. Not bite, not drag inside, kill. Blood everywhere, leaves the car in the middle of the road, straight up murders them. - The key element here is the relationship between the protagonist and his girlfriend. For this, the Ed character is essentially little more than a motivator, no longer a key element, and the new ending dictates that Ed does not live until the last shot. In fact, he's pretty useless. Anyway, the girlfriend resists the vampire's allure very little. While she cries when bitten, she is an unsympathetic, unburdened vampire once turned. Why would should care is beyond reasoning.
Overall, the performances were fantastic, but the script seemed the it was thrown together in order to make a script for a half-hearted remake by someone who had only paid some attention while watching the original once, and knew enough about vampire myths to get by.
Predictably, it's in 3D (Hollywood's attempt at keeping independent film out of the box office, by making every summer blockbuster attempt in 3D). This is great in some regards because the camera movements are slower, more deliberate, and less fast-paced for the sake of being fast-paced. Performances are worried with more, and the shooting style is less thrown together. The down side is, most of the effects are digital (I'd venture to say almost all), so that the 3D elements on them can be controlled better. Great for people who love 3D, not great for people who have taste and enjoy actual, legitimate film (sorry 3D lovers, I mean no offense, it's mostly sarcasm).
All in all, if you like the actors, see it for them. If you like the original, you'll probably see it anyway, but don't expect much respect to be paid. If you like genuinely unnerving, fun horror films, look elsewhere.
I'm a big fan of the 1985 original "Fright Night". I'm not saying that
it's ever going to be thought of as being in a class with "Casablanca"
or "Citizen Kane", but it's a fun diversion and does boast a truly
excellent performance from Roddy Mcdowell, good performances from
William Ragsdale and Stephen Geoffreys, and possibly the most menacing
and frightening vampires I've ever seen in Chris Sarandon. Hell, even
the presence of Amanda Bearse wasn't too offensive !!
On the other hand, I've just watched the remake and find it hard to believe that, even with some of the absolutely awful movies that are being released now, that this unutterable piece of crap could have EVER made it to a screen.
There is NOT ONE likable character in this version, and to add insult to injury, they're all so badly played that you won't know whether to laugh or cry.
All in all, unless you are a teenage girl with an IQ that pretty much matches your bra size, and thinks that the completely ridiculous "Twilight" things are "Like, soooo coool, avoid this horror story of a horror story LIKE THE PLAGUE...which, come to think of it, probably would have been more fun to watch.
Fright Night is directed by Craig Gillespie and written by Tom Holland.
It stars Anton Yelchin, Colin Farrell, David Tennant, Christopher
Mintz-Plasse, Imogen Poots and Toni Collette. Music is by Ramin Djawadi
and cinematography by Javier Aguirresarobe. Film is a remake of the
1985 film of the same name, also written by Tom Holland, it sees
Yelchin as Charley Brewster, a teenager living in a suburb of Las Vegas
who finds the new handsome neighbour, Jerry Dandridge (Farrell) is
actually a blood sucking vampire. With nobody believing him and the
vampire homing in on his mother and girlfriend, Charley turns to
enigmatic playboy magician Peter Vincent (Tennant) for help.
Ah remakes, a word that often spells trouble in film fan circles, especially when populated by the horror faithful. So no surprise, then, that Fright Night has been met with much division whilst hardly making waves at the box office (it made a small profit when various costs wee taken of the gross). Yet it did receive some favourable reviews in critic's offices, where like myself they feel that this more than lives up to the original, which was fun and scary but hardly what you call a horror comedy masterpiece. I often have my rose tinted spectacles on for the likes of the 85 Fright Night, but whether we choose to accept it or not, they were real fun films back then, but because they were viewed through younger eyes. Now when viewing in the haze of nostalgia, it's not hard to see why some modern film makers feel a remake is possible and can work; Fright Night is one such case.
This is no masterpiece either, it drags for the first third and the CG malarkey really doesn't offer anything particularly worthy to the film's substance. In fact the transformation sequences are quite frankly, weak. You don't have to be a nostalgist to lament the absence of a Bottin or Baker. But for all its little missteps, it still rounds out as great fun and scores high in the last third with the well blended mix of comedy, suspense and terror. The dialogue, too, is very enjoyable, with many lines bringing the chuckles. The casting is very good, particularly with the core three characters of Charley, Jerry and Peter. It's great to see Farrell having such fun, free of emotional character restraints, he just lets rip with a sexy and vengeful performance. Yelchin is just so likable, a rising blockbuster star after turns in Star Trek and Terminator Salvation, here he crafts top work as Charley shifts from geeky teen into babe magnet bravado. While Tennant slots in and steals the movie with a glorious excess of profanity, sexuality and witticisms that befit the nature of the piece.
Next up Farrell is going serious and threatening to run the wrath of sci-fi fans with his star turn in the Total Recall remake. He comes out of this horror remake, like the film in general, with good credit. So those 80s teens like me, should shake off the dust and strap themselves in to a seat for this particular ride. It may not surpass the original, but it is every bit its modern equal. And that is something that newcomers to the Fright Night world should hopefully rejoice in. 7/10
|Page 2 of 22:||           |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|