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 guidemessage board
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 »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 5 of 24: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [Next]
Index 232 reviews in total 

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:


Author: accosta77 from United States
14 July 2012

Yes my dear movies fans, another BAD remake! Can you believe that someone will see an old movie, analyze, convince producers, sponsors...and with all of it, make a worse movie. I really understand movie language changes. Many movies where people got lost for being unable to read a map? It would be stupid to be filmed today when people have cell phones, GPS, I-pods,many other stuff. This one is stupid. The original was so much better despite the fact that it was too about vampires. This remake is boring, cliché and looks like something is missing. There are not enough good movies out there to horror movies fans, but this remake explains why.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:


Author: poe426 from USA
14 February 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The original FRIGHT NIGHT, while no great shakes by any stretch of the imagination, was at least mildly entertaining. The idea of a late night horror host being recruited to help a young fan battle the vampire who's moved in next door, was a good one; the execution, however, left more than a little to be desired. This remake doesn't even have the virtue of being original- and in execution makes the original look like a masterpiece. When the fullest extent of a filmmaker's storytelling ability has to do solely with the technical execution of an fx shot or a slick, television-commercial-like moment or two (while the "story" being told comes across as disjointed, at best), you end up with something like this. Anyone who thinks that this is a film worth the time it takes to wade through it has far too much time on their hands.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Absolutely horrible

Author: RealTyche from United States
12 September 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This review contains spoilers. Do not read on if you wish to avoid them.

As a long time, cheering fan of the original Fright Night, which I saw in 1985 with a girlfriend, I was hoping that this remake would capture at least the essence of the original and bring back memories of a better time. It failed on both counts.

I found this movie pretentious, and obnoxious in an apparent attempt to disregard everything that the original feature had going for it except the character names. It struck me as a movie that looked at the source material and decided they could 'do it better', tossing out *everything* that made the original so memorable. Jerry Dandridge is supposed to be suave and debonair, always carrying a hint of malice. The new one is the sort of vampire that stands on the street corner and hisses, his motivations in this film make no sense whatsoever. Charley, whom in the original was a bit of a bumbling nerd with a heart of gold, is in the remake a clueless twit that isn't even the one to realize Dandridge is a vampire. And why on earth does Mom suddenly become an action heroine? The one concession to this movie I do make is David Tennant, whom has perfect comedic timing.

Please don't bother with this one if you've seen and loved the original. it's not worth the time to watch it.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Not much Fright For my Night

Author: blandiefam from United States
31 December 2011

I had high hopes for this movie and I ran home from the Red Box to watch it. I had glorious memories of being in my 20's and seeing this movie with my fiancé. Now my wife of 26 years, I was grasping for touches of the old thriller which made her cling to me until the end of the original Fright Night. Instead, I got a not fully developed hurry up version. It lacked any of the newness the original had. Ferrel seemed as if he was phoning in his performance and the development of the characters was abandoned as if the director left it up to the original version to be our platform. I'm not too sure why they decided the success of the 80's version could be out done by a synopsized poorly developed watered down version. I believe if they stuck with the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" theme, they would have had as much box office success as the original did.This a definitely a missed opportunity. By the way, what's up with the Evil Ed rewrite and the creepy associate?

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

what a load of bull plop

Author: melucy_rox
20 September 2011

Now I am not going to pretend that this I am a film critic, though i would just like to say that i feel i have just wasted my time and money on this BAD, terrible, awful movie. It is 2hours of clichés where i felt the only exciting bit in the entire movies was the previews.

The acting was okay, nothing extraordinary possibly with the exception of David Tennant who was the only intentionally funny character in the entire movie. The fact that it was YET ANOTHER 3D movie probably didn't help it at all, and the CGI was sub-par and its YET ANOTHER disappointing 2011 movie.

Save your time and hard earned money guys, if you would like to see it wait for the DVD.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

Only okay.

Author: VWstarwars from United States
15 September 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Yeah, I gotta' give it a one because a 6.9 is way too high for this movie and I want my vote to count. Really and honestly this movie is only mediocre at best. It is no where near as good or interesting as the original "Fright Night," which was one damn good and fun movie. This remake's lackluster performance at the bock office is just another example of audiences really displaying what they want and don't want . . . Remakes being something that horror film fans are burned the "F" out on!!! Get this Hollywood, Please!!! The ORIGINAL "Fright Night" was a hit, made more money, not in 3D and with 1985 ticket prices. This should make your realize something as well, because it was ORIGINAL. All of the talk about how the 1985 film was a commentary on vampire horror in the mid-80's, which was almost non-existent at that point, and your new version being a commentary on the current swamp of boring, rip-off vampire titles should also tell you that coming out with another, cheap rip-off is a mistake! We've heard all the "We're updating for modern audiences" garbage until we want to vomit!!! Or "We're improving" because no, you are not making better movies when you do this! CGI effects are not that great and do not save or make better films. What we keep getting are vapid rehashes directed by someone who really wants to direct something else.

All and all . . . wait for video here.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:


Author: gradyharp from United States
3 January 2012

Confession: this viewer has not seen the original 1985 version of FRIGHT NIGHT and is not a fan of the interminable line of vampire movies that flood the screens year after year. So why watch FRIGHT NIGHT 2011? Seeing the names of fine actors such as Colin Farrell, Toni Colette, +/- Anton Yelchin suggested this might not be a bad movie if those actors committed to it. And perhaps it is partly due to the fact that lack of exposure to this genre creates the problem of deciding why some people find these films funny while other find them frightening. So, preface over. Given the virginal approach to this vampire film, this viewer finds it silly, poorly written, self indulgent - and an unexplainable waste to talent.

Tom Holland is recycled by Marti Nixon and the updated Las Vegas suburb community form is handed to director Craig Gillespie. The 'plot' centers on the presence of one Jerry (Colin Farrell, subtle acting at first and then falls apart) as the resident vampire next door to Century 1 Realtor Jane Brewster (Toni Collette) and her nerdy son Charley (Anton Yelchin). Charley's equally nerdy friend Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) is convinced that Jerry is a vampire and carries crosses and stakes etc in preparation for meeting him (an early taste treat for Jerry, Ed becomes a ridiculously distorted mad man). The two lads are mocked by fellow classmates Mark (Dave Franco, brother of James Franco) and Ben (Reid Ewing) and teased by the very beautiful Amy (Imogen Poots). Kids go missing and soon Charley becomes a believer and form there on out it is a detective game to rout out Jerry. Charley, once convinced that Jerry is indeed a vampire, seeks guidance from the alcoholic scare-showman Peter Vincent (David Tennant) who has secrets of his own. Of course it is evident that it will turn out just fine, but getting there (to the end) is a tedious bore. The musical score is by Ramin Djawadi and the cinematography (thankfully mostly in the after hours dark vampires so need) is by Javier Aguirresarobe.

Perhaps this is funny to some and perhaps it is frightening to others: after all there is a faithful cult of addicts who run to the theaters whenever one of these vampire flicks is released. It is an acquire taste....

Grady Harp

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

A movie that when compared to the original is no where near as good. If you haven't seen original you may like this. I say C-

Author: Tony Heck ( from United States
1 November 2011

"There's a lot of bad people out there, Charlie. Everyone's gotta look after their own business." Charile (Yelchin) has a new neighbor named Jerry (Farrell) who Charlie thinks is a vampire. Trying to convince his mom and girlfriend isn't as easy as he thinks, and it could wind up biting him if they don't realize it soon. This is a tough movie for me to review. I saw the original for the first time a few days ago and was really looking forward to this one. Comparing the two...this one sucked. Bad. The original, while very cheesy was still more interesting and much more tense then this one. Without trying to give anything away, the "mystery" of is Jerry a vampire is drug out in the first one. This one shows Jerry biting someone in the first scene he is in. The Ed character in the original was very over the top and watching it I though how great the choice of "McLovin" to play him was. He was entirely wasted in this movie and would have been better if both he and the Peter Vincent character were just left out. All that said if you haven't seen the original you may like this one. But for me this is another remake that didn't need to be made. Overall, a movie that when compared to the original is not as good at all. I give it a C-

*Also try - Fright Night (original) & Let Me In

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Fright Night had a few good moments but is mostly flawed.

Author: FanPerspective from United States
4 September 2011

When seeing a remake, it is very difficult to get the original film out of your mind; you compare every little detail as you watch. In some cases, you actually forget the original and enjoy the remake because they did some patch work that really improved the film as a whole and better developed the characters. Fright Night, however, did not live up to its 1985 origins. Don't get me wrong, I didn't hate it as much as I thought I would... there were actually some new twists I found to be pretty clever. Overall, though, I feel like it failed to live up to the original film (of which I am a big fan) and had there not been an original and this stood on its own... I feel like it still wouldn't have played out so well.

The story centers on high school student, Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin), who begins to sense that something isn't quite right about his new next door neighbor, Jerry (Colin Farrell). When Charley's best friend Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) goes missing after trying to convince him that Jerry is a vampire, though, Charley's suspicions rise and begin connecting the dots surrounding his neighbor and the string of recent disappearances. With no one to believe his vampire theory, Charlie attempts to enlist the help of self-proclaimed vampire slayer, Peter Vincent (David Tennant), to help him take Jerry down.

While the producers were able to wrangle a pretty decent list of actors for the film, it all just felt horribly miscast. It may sound like a contradiction, but while giving pretty good performances... hardly any of the actors felt right for the characters they were portraying, especially Farell who made for a lousy vampire. Yelchin was probably the most convincing of all, which was good because his character had to carry the story.

As was with the original, the film did manage to keep a good sense of humor about itself. I do think it did a good job of building up a looming suspense throughout and keeping the tension high. It very quickly became more an action-comedy than a horror flick, but it did manage to get in a few unexpected and even frightening moments. Unlike the original, though, the writing was very shaky. I felt like it was trying to walk the line of keeping true to the original and at the same time define itself as its own, which made it a bit sloppy at times.

Director Craig Gillespie relied a bit too heavily on CGI for certain aspects, such as the transformation into a vampire or squirting blood that was just as bad, if not worse, than the CGI we saw a few years ago in I Am Legend. It just didn't mesh well with the reality of it and almost made you laugh it was so poorly done. The 3D aspect wasn't really needed here. There were a few gimmicky moments for it during the more climatic scenes, but most of the film didn't need it. I will admit that it adds a nice depth to a scene, but still not worth the extra money.

So, while I didn't totally hate it... I didn't totally love it either. I will say that I enjoyed certain moments of it, but overall it was one of the countless classic films that should have been left alone because the original still hasn't gone out of style yet.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Well security is a little lax since everybody got their throat torn out.

Author: Spikeopath from United Kingdom
1 July 2012

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

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 5 of 24: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [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