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 6 of 23: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [Next]
Index 224 reviews in total 

3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:

A remake that was worth watching, for a change...

Author: Paul Magne Haakonsen from Denmark
26 November 2011

Initially I had some restrictions against watching this movie, as I was rather fond of the original, plus Hollywood remakes of older movies tend not be worthwhile watching.

However, this 2011 remake of "Fright Night" was actually surprisingly nice. It held true to the original movie, but still went one step beyond, instead of just being an updated frame-by-frame remodeling. This version was everything the old movie was and then some.

The cast in the movie was actually quite good. One of the initial reservations I had against the movie was Colin Farrell (playing Jerry the vampire), but hand on heart, then he was actually amazing in this role. It was like he was tailor-made for this particular role and he did a great job. Now, I am not saying that Anton Yelchin (playing Charlie) was bad, far from it, but I enjoyed William Ragsdale (playing Charlie in the 1985 version) better. In this 2011 version they totally set up a whole new Peter Vincent (played by David Tennant), though I preferred Roddy McDowall who played Vincent in the 1985 version. There was just something more fun and charming over him. However, the way that the 2011 Peter Vincent was portrayed was good, especially with his background story.

There was one really, really cool scene in the movie. And without saying too much, then I will say that fans of the 1985 version will get a kick out of seeing Chris Sarandon making a return to the movie.

The effects in the movie were great, and the vampires did look nice too.

"Fright Night" (2011) is a movie that can be thoroughly enjoyed by movie watchers both familiar with the old "Fright Night" movies and new-comers to the series as well. Lots of action, good effects and a great story. And it is also nice if you are tired of watching vampires with sparkling skin and sickening large hair styles.

I was thoroughly entertained and I think for a remake, then they actually took the 1985 version and gave it a very nice boost in the right direction. So thumbs up for this remake. Finally a Hollywood remake that was worth watching.

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:

Something smells

Author: Sir_Cellophane_Beak from Aukland
8 February 2012

I watched this movie after reading the reviews, but was pleasantly shocked by the movie. The movie is horrendous, no doubt but once you shut your mind and adjust to the nonsensical background score, it's pretty much a free ride. It's quite dull without actually meaning to be. The acting is horrible, the script more so, but somehow the chemistry between the two leads is fierce, esp. the bantering when they are discussing the vampire "myths"... Pretty much explained the anomalies of Twilight, like walking in the sun and not being affected by stakes, etc. and they made sense too. With that said, the sexy boys are the main attraction and the music was awful and certainly did not help the mood of the movie. At times, it was better to look away from the screen and concentrate on the subtitles that hear that god-awful sound, but we got along. I especially hated the weird background score whenever Charley- not Charlie- touched Jerry. Not too mention the overdose of shirtless guys and the meadow threesome scene with shocking wiener shot was absurd and not required, but i believe as the target audience was probably teens it made sense, at least to the film-makers. The only token girl was Imogen Poots, but she was covered up to her ears - literally. The final scene was pretty touching, though. All-in-all, it is a pretty awfsful movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

A Remake That Fails To Deliver

Author: james1844 from United States
19 August 2011

I was anxious to see this remake and while it had a decent look over all, I came away with several complaints and many problems with the overall story board. There were moments when the action was exciting and even thrilling to watch. I just wish the producers had used the storyboard from the original Fight Night and redeveloped it with today's possibilities of tools.

One major complaint that really bothered me and seems to be a pattern in today's films geared to the youth and young adults today is the heavy handed use of vulgar language. This film literally beat a dead horse with the constant puke of four letter words. This, in no way, made the film a classic as was the original. This patter of insulting foul words showed me that today they (Hollywood) take cheap shots with the script. A very sad state of script writing that tells me we're in trouble in Tinsel Town.

Last note to share is that so few films are getting over the C rating or maybe it's just me wanting more quality from the movie industry.

Was the above review useful to you?

18 out of 35 people found the following review useful:

"Really?" "Seriously?" Drivel teen-talk of today

Author: calicocombs from United States
6 September 2011

Am I the only one who is noticing the "epic" overuse of saying "really" and "seriously" as though you've just heard the most f*****g shocking thing in the world? It's so overused in culture today that I throw up a little every time I hear it and this movie had an abundance. Also, any remake that has Jerry f'n Dandridge uttering the line "Do me a solid" should come with a free round of shock treatment so I can forget what the hell I just heard. Hey, thanks also for turning Peter Vincent, made famous by Roddy McDowall, into a carbon copy of Russel Brand. Jesus Christ people are getting dumber by the minute in Hollywood. Another pointless remake to capitalize on 3D technology, which will be forgotten in a few years time, along with this movie.

Was the above review useful to you?

78 out of 155 people found the following review useful:

This rip-off remake should never have been made in the first place.

Author: NightOwl0 from United States
10 August 2011

I had the grave misfortune of attending an early preview screening for this piece of garbage. The audience I saw it with was less than enthused as well. I credit them with having some actual taste. I must disclose that I am a fan of the original film. In fact in the pantheon of great vampire movies I feel that "Fright Night," stands tall as one of the best ever. It's a very clever idea for a vampire film and the original characters are a lot of fun. The original film is in many ways a love letter to horror films and horror fans. The main character in the original is a horror fan, his friends are horror fans and he idolizes Peter Vincent who is the host of a late night horror movie show. The film was post modern and gave the audience credit for having some kind of prior knowledge. Now we are confronted with this brain dead remake. It is hard to know where to begin in explaining how awful this new film is.

We can start with the sad fact that the very essence of the original characters, their arcs and their dynamics have been changed almost completely. The main character, Charlie, is now a self-absorbed and selfish jerk. Charlie treats his much more intelligent friend Ed like human waste. Charlie has a hot girlfriend and is hanging out with a much more popular crowd. Ed's intellect and peculiarities set him apart so of course Charlie has to drop him as a friend. When a movie starts off and your protagonist is a fake and hateful cretin it is a serious problem.

Then there is the character of Evil Ed himself who is unfortunately played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse. Mintz-Plasse has now given the exact same tiresome performance in God knows how many movies. In the original film Ed was a tragic character. In this one he is at best an annoyance.

The main problem with the new characterizations lies in the re-imagining of Peter Vincent. He is now a Las Vegas magician who prances around like Russell Brand and almost seems like a complete afterthought in the film. Vincent's arc in the original movie was touching and central to the narrative's success. In this new incarnation he hardly drives the film at all. Like every other poor decision made by the filmmakers, the casting of David Tennant is merely a stunt to draw the geek crowd in. He might as well not even be in the picture.

Colin Farrell is not a disaster as Jerry Dandridge, but he is hardly a success either. Chris Sarandon's portrayal was sly and full of little touches that really sold the implicit threat of Dandridge. Farrell is a very obvious actor and he gives a very obvious performance in this movie. His character is really more of a serial killer/sexual predator than a true master vampire. As the movie progresses he goes steadily over the top and seems less and less threatening for doing so. By the time he is chasing Charlie, Charlie's mom and Charlie's girlfriend on a motorcycle he might as well be The Terminator. His supernatural abilities rarely if ever come into play.

The film has zero atmosphere and barely comes to anything approaching excitement. Product placement is rampant and so frequent that it becomes hilarious. The fun, new-wave Gothic feel of the original film has been replaced by a slick treatment more befitting a luxury car commercial. There is no edge to this movie. The computer effects are terrible and poorly rendered. The editing is desperate and the gotcha moments are lame in the extreme. I was so bored watching it I resorted to checking my watch every few minutes to see when the ordeal would be over. If you are thinking about viewing this abomination I would suggest streaming the original on Netflix or watching it for free on Hulu. Your time would be better spent and you will not have wasted thirty dollars or more on crappy, post-production 3D.

Was the above review useful to you?

Its a painfully average remake of better original film

Author: Mr_Wieczor from United States
27 June 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

It is okay film is not to bad like many remake of old film, and is can be watch-able but its not very fun. it try to be like original but it come off bland and many character some who are interesting, go nowhere their development fall flat i mean. Colin firth also is no very good in the role and is teeth is CGI which is shameful. no horror makeup at all. some part in this movie have CGI and is not very good CGI. also the scene that try to build suspense go on for much to long it became silly. Yelchin was very okay in the film he is capable actor but the material for him was not very nice, same for Tennant who is very interesting but again character fall flat in this movie because of poor script. Spoiler; When this movie get to 3rd act it basically prefer CGI action over substance or real horror. which is a shame because it had potential at least to be a much better film but Colin firth no matter what was bringing it down plus a weak script. Overall is not super bad but i really do not like it much is a bit painfully average.

Was the above review useful to you?

At least it's wasn't scene from scene remake,and Yet they still ended up with a messy remake!c

Author: atinder from United Kingdom
11 June 2014

Fright Night (2011)

I am finally seen this movie, it take me while to see this movie, (With out sounding like broke record,I not keen on Vamp movies, however Oringal Fright Night.

Is one of few Vamps movies that I actually really like, The only one main reason I actually watch this was because David Tennant , I was fan of him, when in was Doctor Who, I was gutted when left role.

Back to this movie, I liked some parts but disliked more. I start with good point first,

I clad it wasn't just another scene from scene remake, I liked how story was some-what different from first, I liked the fact his girlfriend and Mum were involved.

What I did not like was that, are really meant to care for Charley. who was Ass to Friend at the start.

Why you make lead person in the movie the most hated person in the movie, who would care, I didn't not.

The script in this movie was really bad in some places, I could not believe some of thing they come out with.

The worst thing in this movie was the effect, I hated, the vampire dissolving, I liked old fashion deaths.

The acting wasn't all that great but not saying really bad either, it was decent at best, in parts of the movie.

4 out of 10

Was the above review useful to you?

Not my full cup of tea, but still...

Author: Bene Cumb from Estonia
15 November 2012

I have not seen the original from the 1980ies and vampire stuff is not totally for me, but the names Colin Farrell and Anton Yelchin did invite me to spend this 1 hour 40 minutes among zombie-like vampires and stuff related to their extermination. I was right about the two above mentioned actors, they are really great, but the plot, directing and another actors (well, Tony Collette had too small part to play, she is usually brilliant) were just above average. There was some kind of tension, but some illogical events and peculiar turns gave the movie shallow undertones. I assume it must be okay for those fond of vampire sagas but when the credits appeared I just shrugged my shoulders - without a desire to see the first movie and to compare.

Was the above review useful to you?

Cant beat the original

Author: deatman9 from Canada
10 November 2012

This movie was not all bad but after the original you cant even really compare the two. This one was just not where near as good the story line was not as good or the actors and it was just not even the least bit creepy it was just boring.

This movie is about a young boy who suspects his neighbour might be a vampire. So he enlists the help of peter vincent a magician (yes i said that right a magician) to help him kill the vampire.

This one is just bad compared to the original the writing is bad the story is bad and its poorly directed. If you are in the mood for a night of fright definitely check out the first one not this modern age garbage

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 6 of 23: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [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