IMDb > Fright Night (2011) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Fright Night
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Fright Night More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 2 of 25:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]
Index 246 reviews in total 

41 out of 72 people found the following review useful:

Fright Night's back!

Author: Kristine ( from Chicago, Illinois
24 August 2011

*** 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.


Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

Fright Night 2011

Author: doctorsmoothlove from United States
11 September 2011

*** 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.

Not Recommended.

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

I don't get all the super positive reviews on here

Author: J Ritty from Canada
24 August 2011

*** 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.

Spoiler alert

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Sin City's Night & Frightless

Author: thesar-2 from United States
12 December 2011

*** 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

A crude landscape of plot errors with various fun parts

Author: mr_Goodbomb from United States
20 August 2011

*** 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

This Fright Night has fright, but lacks charm

Author: yeti_dude from United States
20 August 2011

*** 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

Another weak remake

Author: Christopher Smith
29 February 2012

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

Was the above review useful to you?

27 out of 50 people found the following review useful:

One good performance can't make this a good movie

Author: Tim McNeil from Forest Park, Illinois
19 August 2011

It took me a while to see the original Fright Night (1985). I had one of those mothers who tried to impose her own uneasiness with the horror genre on her children. Actually, she held crazy beliefs like that KISS stood for Knights in Satan's Service and Rush (the Canadian prog-rock band) meant Ruling Under Satan's House and is still afraid to watch the movie 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 – and its inferior sequel – and found a movie I really liked. It had the right amount of camp and humor, but it was the slow build to the horror element that made it, to me, a classic.

Don't expect that from the new version. Fright Night '11 takes the same basic premise, but has none of the fun with it. Marti Noxon – the Queen of Mean – transplants the Angelus character from the Buffy/Angel Whedonverse and hands the role to a more talented actor in Colin Farrell. Let me make this perfectly clear: if you are going to see this movie, Colin Farrell is the reason to go. He does truly embody the inhuman menace of the shark from Jaws, but is somewhat hampered by the direction and editing that occasionally sets him up as a vampiric Pepé Le Pew. Though largely robbed of any kind of a backstory or motivation beyond being a vampire – and what little we do get to learn about his kind mostly goes to waste – Farrell does his best to make this movie work.

The problem is that he isn't enough.

Anton Yelchin, an actor who has yet to impress me in any role I've seen him in, is the lackluster lead. We learn that he is the kind of man who would betray his friends and hang out with assholes in order to score a tasty girlfriend, but still nerdy enough to not be able to close the deal. Seemingly, a mere ten minutes – it may have been a little more or less – Yelchin's Charley Brewster is already aware (in a way) that vampires are real. That sucks all of the tension out of the ensuing scenes and helps get the leaden feeling of the movie going. Yelchin does 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 Roddy McDowell in the original, David Tennant (as Peter Vincent) is required to start off with what looks like a Ben Stiller impersonation of Johnny Depp in any of the Pirates movies. There is too much unpleasant self-loathing in this new Vincent to make him accessible. He is a pompous coward – which could have worked – that never really is given a chance for redemption; it is up Charley to do that, too.

Imogen Poots (as Amy) and Emily Montague (as Ginger) make for attractive and mildly compelling potential victims of the vampire. Both seem to have unreasonable faith in the Charley character, though this is a problem with the screenplay and not the acting. Much less effective are the other potential victims that wander about the film. Most are disagreeable and unlikeable, and in the case of Dave Franco seem to be too old to fit into the film's high school age group characters. Toni Collette (as Charley's mother, Jane) is largely wasted. She looks good and should be a calm, capable, strong woman that has given Charley his moral compass and conviction. Instead, she is quickly turned into just another potential victim and is removed from the third act in an unsatisfying way (though, to be fair, it does work in the overall story). Chris Sarandon makes an appearance – my one lone laugh of the night – as does Lisa Loeb (???).

The film looks bland and uninspired, and that isn't due to the special effects. The FX work, almost without exception. It is the sets and landscape that robs the movie of any sense of life. Watching a cookie-cutter, Las Vegas McMansion in an oddly isolated subdivision burn provokes no reaction from me, except that many built unwisely during the housing boom. There is no vibrancy to the movie, and that is a problem.

I cannot comment about the 3D. There was a problem with the projection during the previews, and while it was resolved to the point of where it wasn't just blurry, most of the effects that were in 3D never really popped. Some are obviously meant to, and if they do it will add more to the experience. Other than those flashy (and repetitive) sequences, there are only three or four shots that effectively make use of the technology (no, I am not counting the crossbow bolt shot seen in the previews). Gillespie does a great job with one particular shot in a swimming pool early on, then seems to degenerate into some level of amateurism with his shot selection. This is his first feature, and in retrospect, it looked as though he wasn't ready.

My suggestion is to watch the original Fright Night (1985) instead of the 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 great in what he is allowed to do (I never thought I'd ever write a sentence like 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 more accomplished director – and definitely no Noxon influence – for this movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

32 out of 60 people found the following review useful:

I loathe this movie

Author: CountVladDracula from United States
18 August 2011

*** 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 the list.

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Really dumb teenage horror crap

Author: krycek19 from Denmark
20 January 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Geek has gorgeous blonde girlfriend. (the only thing that kept me interested) Geek won't sleep with her because Colin Farrel is a vampire who has killed his even dorkier friend. And nobody cares because it's just stupid.

Farrel is the nicest vampire I have ever met and for an R-rated movie there is almost no blood and no swearing.

I think this is meant to be a comedy but I didn't laugh once. I was just bored.

Really, really, really stupid moronic crap-snooze-fest. Don't watch this even if someone pays you to watch it.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 2 of 25:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history