|Page 11 of 24:||               |
|Index||232 reviews in total|
Surprise, surprise: the original was better! But that doesn't mean the
2011 version was bad. Gone was the humour in it and the preparation of
the story. It all comes suddenly, frighteningly and gory. But not
really scary. You know what is going to happen a long time before it
does, the monsters are not really monstrous and the whole thing seems a
I was expecting a horror comedy, but it wasn't a comedy at all and was mildly frightening. The actors played well and the effects were decent. The only issue with it: the script. Could have been better in the character development. As such, you get the lucky geek with a gorgeous girlfriend who is forced to accept his geekiness when fighting a real life vampire.
Bottom line: A suburb kid and a scrawny Brit kill Colin Farrell. How likely is that? :-)
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Colin Farrell, Anton Yelchin, Imogen Poots, Toni Collete and David Tennant star in this 2011 horror remake of the 1985 film. Teen, Charlie Brewster (Yelchin) lives with his mother (Collete) and has a girlfriend, Amy (Poots). They meet new next-door neighbor, Jerry Dandridge (Farrell) who is kind and handsome. After some of his friends go missing, Charlie discovers that Jerry is a vampire who soon sets his sights on Amy. Charlie tries to protect her and seeks help from magician/vampire killer, Peter Vincent (Tennant). When Amy gets bit by Jerry, Charlie and Peter endure a night from hell trying to save her. Colin is good as Jerry, but Chris Sarandon defined the role and makes a cameo. This isn't a bad remake, but it's not as good as the original. I still recommend it.
So the truth is I loved the original back in the 80's and thought oh no
not another remake! However sitting down watching it after only about
5-10 minutes started to thoroughly enjoy it.
FrightNight is a remake, with a difference. (It comes in 3D as well if u wish). Based on the original Fright Night, but with a few differences, for once the vampire is not in love with his lunch....now there is a turn up for the books! Las Vegas neighbour hood people start to disappear as Colin Farrell (Jerry) moves in next door. Hes broody in his character because hes a Vampire! (Some reviewers really need to see bigger picture and step away from Twilight and the original FrightNight, as there are some differences). Brewster has to step in and save the day, armed with stakes and crossbow he enlists the help of Vincent,(David Tennent)who is a Las Vegas magician. The film gets 5 stars as its a little different from the original, however still maintains its story line without the kissy kissy bits! Both Farrell and Tennent steal the show, putting in a good performance, even the original vampire from FrightNight (Chris Sarradon) has a small role to play in the film, no hints for spotting him. (spoiler alert..hes the guy who rear ends their car!)There are lots of similarities between the original, for example, in one the vampire trashes Brewsters car, in this one, he trashes the motorbike...well, lobs it anyhow! The banter between Vincent (Tennent) and Brewster is funny, there are enough teeth shots, gore shots to keep any vampire fan happy. I would recommend this film in a heart beat, it contains everything a horror fan would enjoy.
Fright Night is a remake and reinterpretation of the classic 1985 film, Fright Night, about a teenager, addicted to TV horror series (particularly a show called "Fright Night", which has a vampire hunter named Peter Vincent), who discovers that his new neighbor is a vampire, and after the neighbor noted that he knows these secret, he tries to prove this to everyone, together with his friend and girlfriend. The big difference between this version and the previous one, is that this is move fells more for a horror one, and can not recreate the atmosphere of the first film. The roles are reinvented and adapted to modern times, and to a different city (Las Vegas): Jerry Dandrige works well, but I think as Jerry Dandrige (the vampire) is not at the same level as Chris Sarandon in the classic movie, that was a better villain. The actors now, are usually better (the vampire slayer Peter Vincent, played by David Tennant is very good and funny in the role), but the film has another air, pulled into the action and horror genre (but ends up being a bit tedious) and have a end that gives the impression that the movie ended too soon. Still, it's a good entrainment as a movie, although lower than the original - My Score: 6.7 / 10.0
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I didn't quite know what to expect from this one but it turned out to
be entertaining and enjoyable.
Charley used to be a nerd but now that he has a hot girlfriend he's trying to join the popular crowd leaving his nerdy friends behind. But his friends are starting to disappear. The one left, Ed, tries to convince him a vampire is responsible for their disappearance- the vampire who turns out to be Charley's new neighbor Jerry. He dismisses this at first but then Ed disappears as well. Now Charley on his own decides to investigate further.
As it turns out, Jerry is indeed a vampire and knows that Charely is snooping around. Charley rescues some girl Jerry has kidnapped and bitten but she is instantly cremated as she is exposed to the sun. To complicate things further, Charley's mom has the hots for Jerry.
Charley is forced to seek the guidance of Peter Vincent an English Vegas entertainer who presents himself as an expert on vampires and dark forces, but turns out to be a fraud.
As expected Jerry will set his sights on the hot girlfriend and Charley will have to battle him.
I don't recall much of the original, but this version is fairly enjoyable. All the women are beautiful and have a normal attitude, as opposed to the obnoxious super females in movies these days. The scene of the girl going up in flames is very well done. Some of the CGI effects later in the movie aren't that convincing. The obligatory British character is an annoying caricature. Had this movie gone for an R rating it could have been a winner. As it is, it's mellow, good natured, and light fun.
A teenager suspects that his new neighbor is a vampire.
I've never seen the original, so if your suspecting a review comparing the two (which I never do) stick along. Fright Night seemed to be an average movie. I never seen anything about it but the trailer, which made it seem like a teenage-popcorn flick, which I really hate. So with this, I sat down with NO expectations and had no idea what I was getting myself into. The beginning started off like a cheap slasher but soon evolved into something much better, and it was awesome. If your not into fun flicks, that don't serve purpose (most don't) then your probably going to be questioning your viewing. Otherwise, I suggest you take a spin. The acting in this movie was good. It wasn't OUTSTANDING or anything like that, but it felt real, if that makes sense. He made it believable and THIS is how vampires are supposed to be. I'm thankful that the vampires didn't sparkle and fall in love with humans, they wanted blood; their main desire. Thank you, Craig Gilliespie. The most notable was Colin Ferrell, who did his part playing the vampire. I enjoyed the directing. For the director's third movie, he did well. The movie was actually, surprisingly, hilarious. I didn't expect this, because I came in expecting a vampire slasher, but I was taken by surprise. The scenes know when and where to place a joke and a suspenseful scene, and the editing they placed was great. Last, but not least, we have the occasional flaws. They weren't intentional, but were annoying, in my opinion. They were added for extra comedic effect, but they're easily passable. If your not to hard on movies, and don't look for deeper meaning, and love to be entertained; RECOMMENDED! This was some of the most fun I've had with a movie, and I'm sure it will be for you to. I have 99 problems, but this movie ain't one. 8/10.
I didn't expect much going into this film but it turned out to be very
good. It managed to recapture the scariness and humor of the original
but with a snappier, updated look. The cast and script were great and
the pacing was just right.
Although the setting was expanded and the script was updated for this film, it kept the same basic story and main characters as the original. And, just as important, it kept the proper blend of humor and horror that the original had.
I enjoyed the original and I enjoyed this remake just as much. It has give me the belief again that good remakes are still possible.
This is obviously a well crafted film so it puzzles me why it has such a low rating. It barely beat out that Karate Kid remake. This is appalling. This is a much better film than that.
Formula part: Yes, another vampire movie vying with zombies, aliens,
and werewolves as cash cows for studios with props and/or CGI of any
quality - doesn't matter because audience tastes run in the Pizza
anything, Taco anything, Burger anything, Sub anything acceptance mode.
More teen lovers fighting the evil one and his minions. A few years ago
some CGI company came up with the CGI effect of burning some evil thing
by turning them into glowing ashes and has been used by studios many
times since. Evil thingies with piranha teeth has been a hot prop the
past few years but is also getting a bit old.
Creative part: There were enough twists to the story in terms of who our lead vamp was; who was bitten; the search for the teen vamp hunter's helper and the tools acquired to accomplish the fait accompli. OK, the burning ashes CGI, although overused, worked in this case. And OK, in this case the piranha green screen teeth were rather tasty. They even have a person that specializes in only that effect.
Basics: Decent acting, directing, editing, setting and props.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
The inevitability of comparisons with Hollands 1985 original juxtaposed
with the current pandemic convulsion towards remakes put Fright Night
at an immediate disadvantage. However a polished script coupled with a
killer soundtrack and eccentric cast makes this a remake worth
Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin) is a dweeb riding his luck having scored the high school babe after ditching his geeky childhood friend "Evil" Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) of course his face clearing up helped. His stereotypical teenage Idaho is threatened, however, when Ed insists his roughish (supposed lotharios) new neighbour (Colin Farrell) is in fact a night-working, blood-sucking vampire. This teen paradise is set asunder only after Ed goes missing and Charley goes snooping. Discovering sinister footage of a wheel-burrow pushing itself along, in the twilight, on his friends computer Charley surrenders to the absurd truth. His neighbour is a vampire.
Here the action kicks off with a majestic start as Charley, hopelessly, seeks the help of famed Vegas illusionist and 'vampire slaying expert' Peter Vincent (David Tennant).This of course is before Jerry blows up his house, via a natural gas leak (he doesn't need an invitation if there's no house).
Fright Night soars and this is largely owed to Director Craig Gillespie and Script-writer Marti Noxon's loyalty to the franchises 80's origins. Noxons
script in particular expertly balances the dark humour, bloody plot, and teen angst trademark of such 80's classics as Heathers, and The Lost Boys. David Tennant and Colin Farrell give much needed gravitation to an otherwise weak young cast. Tennants elaborate costumes and appropriately camp performance further retains the nostalgic atmosphere around which the film is built. It is Farrells subtle performance as Charming, vicious vampire Jerry, however, that shines through the duration of the film. A stand-out moment being Jerry lingering on Charleys doorstop, nose twitching in anticipation as he cranes his neck inside, enticing Charley to invite him into
Fright Night is a cleverly crafted teen-movie and ironically a breath of fresh air after the exerting outpour of formulaic and underwhelming additions to the genre so far this year.
On the outside, making a movie looks a lot like cooking in the sense
that it transforms the "raw ingredients": script, actors, music,
cinematography, art, decorations, and costumes into a complete, ready
for consumption product.
Just as with cooking, it all starts with the ingredients. How often have we seen a movie with the bleeding with high fructose corn syrup script, expired actors, rotten directing, tasteless music, or saturated with fat cinematography?
Moreover, just as with cooking, decent ingredients alone are not sufficient for making a quality movie: what you do with these ingredients matters a lot and the 2011 remake of "Fright Night" is a good proof of that.
Despite having the overall solid components: cohesive plot, convincing acting, suspenseful music, nice visual effects, "Fright Night" was unsuccessful in blending all its fine quality ingredients into an original, exciting, savory product. As a result, the movie turned out somewhat bland, lifeless, and easily forgettable.
In particular, the 2011 remake failed to properly mix and stir comedy and horror into a delicate combination that would be both scary and funny at the same time - something that the original "Fright Night" made in 1985 had generally excelled in.
It does not help that laughter and fear are known to be the opposites. Humor drives off fear, and fear paralyzes and blocks humor. That is why it is usually a big challenge to combine a comedy and a horror in such a way, that they would highlight and enhance each other (as it worked in the original "Fright Night"), rather than dilute and cancel each other (as it happened in the 2011 remake).
Another weakness of the remake lies in how it treats the sexual undertones inevitable in most of the vampire movies. While the original 1985 movie generally focuses on a comical side of things and makes (mostly innocent) fun of a teenage hyper-sexuality, the remake is much more into a hardcore, uncontrolled lust that becomes a main, all- absorbing motivation for the adolescent movie characters.
Overall, "Fright Night" is not a bad movie, but a typical example of a remake that lacks vision and is weaker than the original in almost every area.
While the remake has some funny scenes, some decent scares, and some suspense, the original movie is funnier, scarier, and more suspenseful.
While the remake has some decent acting, still Chris Sarandon is a more comically ironical and charismatic "vampire Jerry Dandrige" than Colin Farrell, Roddy McDowall is a more colorful and versatile "Peter Vincent" than David Tennant, and Stephen Geoffreys is a quirkier and funnier "Evil Ed" than Christopher Mintz-Plasse.
One would think that at least the modern, computer generated special effects of the remake should surpass the 25 year old "ancient" effects of the original. However, as it turns out, while slightly outdated and slightly less realistic, the special effects in the 1985 "Fright Night" are still more creative, more diverse and more effective than the freshly baked, but somewhat scarce and fast food-ish effects of the 2011 remake.
|Page 11 of 24:||               |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|