|Page 11 of 24:||               |
|Index||237 reviews in total|
This film (obviously a remake) for me was well executed and visually well done. I know a lot of people hate remakes (and yes some of them should have never been made), but I actually liked this one. It had very good effects and the cast was great I thought, with a cool cameo from the original 'Jerry' Chris Sarandon. I thought Colin Farrell actually played the part of 'Jerry' well too. The blood and kill scenes were well done (yes some of them were CGI but it worked) and the story kind of kept to the original too (apart from the 'Peter Vincent' back story, which was obviously updated to fit the 'Vegas setting). So overall I give this an 8 out of 10.
I know I've seen the original film, but I don't remember anything about
it. But just from this film, I'd have to say it's more horror than
humor. It's an OK movie, nothing great, but entertaining enough for 100
Colin Farrell, plays Jerry, the vampire that moves next door to Charley and his mom. Charley's high school friends spy on Jerry, but disappear before they can reveal what they found. But Charley finds some video tape exposing Jerry for what he is. It doesn't take Jerry long before he knows he's been had and he starts "smoking" out Charley. Then it's a chase between Charley and his girlfriend and this vampire showman they find, Peter Vincent.
So, there's some OK special effects. Jerry's face turns into a monster, then there's the ending back at Jerry's house.
FINAL VERDICT: OK, fun film.
Chris Sarandon doesn't have to worry about this contender. His status
as vampire supreme has not been usurped.
This film is proof that having fancy computer graphics in a horror film are no substitute for the visceral 'just like being there' feel of inventive special effects that were utilized back in the Eighties. The movies that come to mind from that era are 'Nightmare on Elm Street', 'The Thing', and, of course, the original 'Fright Night'. The special effects work was amazing in those films with no computer trickery.
David Tennant does his best, but Roddy McDowall made a much better Peter Vincent. Actually, Tennant isn't in much of the film compared to McDowall, so it's hard to maintain any sort of empathy for his character.
If there's anything good that this movie has done, is that it invokes the good memories of the original, causing one to shut off the remake and start watching the real thing.
I had low expectations for this movie from the previews. Sure, Collin
Farell being the "evil vampire" was an intriguing idea, but I had been
getting sick of the Vampire phase that seems never-ending.
Boy was I surprised. I had never seen the original Fright Night.
It wasn't all attempts to add stupid humor in with horror. It made me jump, and there were some funny moments, but it was more horror; which I enjoyed and did not expect.
The acting was pretty good (another surprise for me, then again I had been expecting some cheesy vampire movie) and the make-up fx were beautifully done.
My only real complaint would be the CG effects. Sure, some of it was pretty good, but the overall was disappointing. Not nearly as bad a sparkly vampires, but that's a different story.
Overall, I do suggest this movie. It's a good watch with a decent story. Especially if you're not trying to compare it to the original.
Now, I will admit, I grew up on the original "Fright Night" (1985) and
it's sequel, "Fright Night, Part 2" (1988). So, I was a little hesitant
to watch the remake in theater (be it the full price or even at the
second run theater near where I live). So, I caught this on one of the
movie channels and I will admit: It's okay, but not great.
Judging as a film by itself, it was somewhat decent as a vampire movie, up until they resorted to using a fully CGed Jerry at the end of the film. However, the characters could have been better developed and the story made even more solid if the script had been fleshed out a bit more.
But as a remake, across the board, it was somewhat of a let down. The characters are heavily modified and their development throughout the film fell flat. A good example is Peter Vincent. In the original film, he was just an actor who accidentally got dragged into the situation through Charlie and his friends, who eventually grew a spine and actually became the thing he portrayed within the movies-within-the-movie through his own will: a fearless vampire killer. In the remake, though we get a bit of back story behind Peter Vincent (who I thought was portrayed very well by David Tennant, given with what he had to work with) in the remake, he didn't grow a backbone like his 1985 counterpart and was mainly in an alcoholic fueled pursuit of revenge. Another thing that fell flat in comparison to the original was the friendship between Ed and Charley. You never get a real sense that they were ever really friends, even with the video footage of how "things used to be."
There are a couple of perks in the remake that the original didn't have. For example, the threat to Charley's mom (which was only an idle threat through a phone call to Charley in the original) was brought up to the forefront, giving him even more reason to fight to protect the people he loves. The fact they brought Charley's mom into the fold of things (where as in the first film, she was not directly involved short of unknowingly inviting a vampire into her house and was "away at work" during the events of the original) helped back up Charley's reason to fight even more than in the original.
Long story short, it's okay, but it could have been better if they had worked more on the script.
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.
|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|