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 »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 6 of 25: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [Next]
Index 242 reviews in total 

5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Poor remake lacks the "bite" of the original...CGI is at its worst...

Author: Neil Doyle from U.S.A.
28 December 2011

FRIGHT NIGHT has two saving graces: Anton Yelchin, who plays Charlie Brewster with the right mix of humor and a good grip on his character, and David Tennant who plays the TV vampire destroyer with a good deal of cultivated arrogance and outlandish attitudes.

Beyond these performances, the rest of the film is only mildly successful in the casting. Colin Farrell is a disappointment in the role that Chris Sarandon played to perfection as the original "vampire next door" type with a lot more sexual heat than Colin exhibits in an underplayed style. And even back in 1985, the special effects were a lot more horrifying than those employed here which represent CGI at its worst.

But most of all, the entire script has made drastic changes in the story that "for better or worse" are strictly for the worse. Fans of the original film will hardly recognize what has been done to the story, much less the characters.

However, Toni Collette as Brewster's mother and Imogen Poots as his pretty girl friend are excellent, given what material they have to work with, and Christopher Mintz-Plasse gets some comic relief from the Evil Ed character that he becomes after "the bite." In this case, his Evil Ed is much less effective than the one in the original film.

So many of the key scenes are played in virtual darkness, making it impossible to see what is actually going on at important moments in the action sequences. This is way below standard for a horror film that is supposed to be scaring the audience realistically.

Summing up: A waste of time and money. See the original and you'll understand why I lack enthusiasm for this remake which attempts to be stylish and cool and full of rough language.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Pointless, soulless, dumb, not thrilling, not scary

Author: the_wolf_imdb from Prague
15 October 2011

I have not seen the original, only the remake so I cannot judge the quality of original nor quality of the remake. The movie itself feels like "afternoon teen movie for MTV generation" - lots of "dudes", lots of shots of Las Vegas, total lack of logic or sense, no thrills at all, no horror at all.

The Underworld series was stupid but at least it had some depth, cool costumes and some cool fights. This movie feels like cheap rip off of the Disturbia combined with the most stupid vampire move you can ever imagine. Plus some action at the end so we do not leave the cinema too early.

I'm somewhat horrified that anyone could actually like it. The two first Blade movies were really good and the John Carpenters Vampires was really great. So Americans actually can make really good vampire movies - but this one is definitely not the case. What the hell, even Salem's Lot was better, more clever and more scary! In Blade there were cool vampires, there was depth, mystery, war between clans and between vampires and humans.

In here we have lousy neighborhood, one not particularly bright paranoid teenager, two not particularly bright blondes, one confused nerd, several "dudes" and one vampire which is not normal vampire, he is "almost unkillable killing machine" but actually behaves like another "dude". There is nothing important going on, everything that happens is more or less somewhat escalated neighbor conflict completely ignored by anyone else in the vicinity.

What a lousy movie. This is one of the worst vampire movies I have ever seen and definitely the most dumb one. Total disappointment.

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

This movie AT BEST is a Rental

Author: quadlings from Tennessee
23 August 2011

You've seen the scary vampire! You've seen the sexy vampire! Now presented for your boredom Colin Farrell is the "Dateline:To Catch A Predator" vampire!! (He comes off seriously creepy, but not in a good way.)

Loved the original, BUT they ruined it. They've done the usual 2000's vibe where everything has to be cool. You lose all the cheese of the 80's and replaced it with douche baggery.

My ratings for a movie are - Opening Night- a MUST SEE! - Theatre Watch- watch the following week(s) - Lazy Day Kill- When there's nothing better to do and you're killing time - Rental- Not worth seeing at the theatre, just rent it! - Saturday Preview- It may be worth wasting a lazy day at home over

This movie AT BEST is a Rental. Do not pay full price for this crap! And if you're going for McLovin you may also be rather disappointed in the character.

I recommend staying home and renting the original :-).

And if you read ANYWHERE how scary it was... the person must be under 8 years old. Telling your money!!!

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 11 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:

Flawed, but fun and spooky update of the classic

Author: sgtking from United States
23 December 2011

Many of us have gotten burned out on movies with vampires. Of course Hollywood overusing a concept is nothing new. It was done in the 80s with slasher films, but these days it's gotten out of hand. Remakes, sequels, vampire movies, and zombie movies are rampant. So it's no surprise that the 1985 Horror/Comedy 'Fright Night' has been redone for the new generation. Now some of these remakes have actually turned out better than expected. Others are completely forgettable and you wonder why they even bothered. The good news is that this one is better than average. It's just not something that'll have the same kind of longevity the original has.

Pros: Great work by the cast. Good, moody score. Eerie atmosphere. Quick pacing. Some of the effects work is quite good. Some really effective shocks. Ups the stakes by a lot. Some cool homages to the original.

Cons: Some underdeveloped characters. Awkward dialogue, mainly in the first half. Some of the CGI really doesn't measure up. Attempts at humor don't always hit the mark. A bit predictable.

Final thoughts: If compared with the original, this film just doesn't come close to matching it. However, on it's own it's a fun and edgy undead flick that should put a smile on your face and liven up a dull day. And like '30 Days of Night,' it gives us vampires that don't mess around.

My rating: 3/5

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 15 people found the following review useful:

Fewer laughs and less chills than 1985

Author: davidgee from United Kingdom
7 September 2011

Excellent 3D in this (especially when executed vampires explode into sparks which come right up to your nose!), but it's a pointless remake of the 1985 version. Colin Farrell has screen presence but Chris Sarandon made a more charismatic and scarier vampire. Anton Yelchin is nothing special as teenage nerd Charley, and David Tennant's reworking of the reluctant vampire-hunter has none of the engaging quality that Roddy McDowall had. This re-vamped (oops!) Peter Vincent has a very potty mouth and the grunge look of violinist Nigel Kennedy.

The 1985 version had a pacier script, more suspense and (without the 3D) better special effects. This comedy-horror has fewer laughs and less chills. I hope there isn't going to be a remake of THE LOST BOYS.

Was the above review useful to you?

24 out of 47 people found the following review useful:

Awful Remake of the 1985 New-Classic

Author: Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
14 January 2012

The Tom Holland's 1985 "Fright Night" is one of the most charming films of the cinema history. The story is funny and the humor is witty, with the handsome Chris Sarandon performing one of his best roles and William Ragsdale, Amanda Bearse and specially Roddy McDowall hilarious. In summary, the 1985 original film may be considered a new classic, worshiped by a legion of fans.

This teen remake is simply awful, with explosions, car chase and a cynical and charmless Colin Farrell in the role of Jerry Danridge. People who have positively voted in this garbage have certainly not watched the original film. My vote is one (awful).

Title (Brazil): "A Hora do Espanto" ("The Fright Hour")

Was the above review useful to you?

like the original, not without flaws but with a stupendous cast and sense of fun

Author: MisterWhiplash from United States
6 July 2016

At the time it came out, a remake of Fright Night seemed like one of those unnecessary movies - what was so wrong with the Tom Holland original, which gave us a subtle/over-the-top performance from Chris Sarandon and some cheeky humor from Roddy McDowell as a vampire named Jerry and the would-be 'celebrity' vampire hunter? Did it need an update? But upon the sudden and to put it mildly tragic death of Anton Yelchin, I thought it was certainly time to watch it. And among a cast that features really major talents like Colin Farrell, David Tennant and Toni Collette, Yelchin holds his own. More than that, he is necessary for the movie to work: he has to be believable as a young guy who starts off somewhat unsympathetic (trying to be 'cool' by ditching his nerdy friend for an attractive girl), and over the course of the story has to man up and not do what his dad did, which was ditch the family behind.

Yelchin plays the 'straight man' to a point where we can find him believable as being both completely scared and yet ballsy enough to go for what he has to go through to save and protect the ones he cares about - his mother and then, when she's taken by this 'Jerry' fella, Amy - and it's interesting to see this *after* Green Room, where he played a somewhat similar character though in a different setting (actually substitute Nazis for vampires and you got a somewhat similar premise, with Yelchin as the vulnerable but strong-willed and tough protagonist). If you've ever liked this actors work, this is a must-see of his.

Looking at 2011 Fright Night on its own terms, outside of viewing it as some kind of after the fact thing for Yelchin, it's... good. Better than expected, really, as far as these kind of remakes can go (in other hands it could be easily disposable trash like Sorority Row or something). With Yelchin there as the main core for the audience to put their 'what would I do if' perspective on, Farrell and, in the second half of the film, Tennant get to have the time of their lives in these roles. Farrell is so evil he even eats an apple to show off how much of a nasty fella he is! Though it may not possibly require, shall one say, 'range', it takes real screen presence and a sense of menace, and I think Farrell makes this a memorable vampire as far as a) sex appeal (I mean, women and some men wouldn't kick him out of bed), and b) when he gets nasty and violent, the threat feels real. For Tennant, it's not a complicated character either - a fraud of a "vampire hunter" who is mostly for Las Vegas show - but he also gets to have fun in the role and can deliver exposition that is not in the least boring or distracting. And Toni Collette is... Toni Collette, good in all of her scenes. Even McLovin' and Dave Franco give some good supporting turns, turning cliché parts into something with personality.

At any rate these characters are put into a setting that is rather novel: having it in/around Las Vegas makes it so that it's believable that people would be out and about largely at night, being the primary time vampires get their food. I liked seeing that and that it was used to good effect. Where the movie loses me most is in certain parts of the execution of the action. I don't know if it's because I'm tired of wasteful or lackluster CGI, but any time Farrell or any of the other vampires "Fully turn" (which doesn't seem to have a lot of logic, it only seems to occur when they're extra mad) it looks really bad and fake, and a particular over the top car chase, which is attempted in part in one "long" take ala Spielberg's War of the Worlds (no coincidence I think it's a Dreamworks production, the setting and lack of/absentee father seem like Spielberg notes). Practical effects could have taken more time or been more intensive, but the results would last longer and not take one out of the movie like here.

If one can look at the substance of Fright Night it does work - the screenplay comes from Buffy the Vampire Slayer creative Marti Noxon, and the sense of whip-smart timing in the dialog and come-backs about how people look at vampires is especially funny, even from Peter Vincent most of all - and is a fitting tribute to the original. That film had a little more deadpan wit due to McDowell as Peter Vincent, though it too had some dated things as well (maybe in a cool way) like 80's synth music. Will this hold up so well? I don't know. But for what it is, it's entertaining and successful for being bloody (it looks as if the blood is not all CGI which is good) and knowing of the genre (it's self-conscious of vampire lore and movies, but it doesn't wear you out on it like the other 2011 post-modern horror, Scre4m)

Was the above review useful to you?

Improved as it went along

Author: Davis P from United States
7 June 2016

Fright Night really did improve in qualify as it went along. At first, I wasn't too sure if it would be my cup of tea, but soon I realized that it was exactly my cup of tea. The actors do their characters justice, especially Colin Farrell, he was by far the film's best performance! No one could have done Jerry better justice or fit the role better than Farrell. Anton was awesome too! He was the perfect choice for that role! He totally embodied the starring role of Charlie, and brought some real depth to him. Toni Collete is here too, and I was very pleased with her portrayal of Charlie's mother here, she doesn't have a whole whole lot of screen time, but she definitely makes good use of the time she is given. The plot is intriguing and the execution of the plot is what makes this remake of the 80s film so good. The chemistry that the characters have on screen is spot on and it brings a lot to the movie, chemistry is very crucial factor when it comes to all films. The screenplay is entertaining, fun, and engaging. The fight/action scenes aren't too overly graphic, and they are thrilling and fun to watch. Now, as far as the effects go, I wasn't all too impressed with them, they seemed just a bit lackluster if you ask me, but that's one of very few flaws in the movie. The beginning is slightly slow, but I mean I guess it's not snail pace slow. But not to worry, it picks up quickly, hence the title of my review. 8/10 for fright night. A job well done.

Was the above review useful to you?

Fright Night Is Good

Author: paul-heys-im from United Kingdom
7 December 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

As a huge fan of the originals, I have to say, I was pleasantly surprised by this remake. Most remakes are terrible, in fact, I don't know why Hollywood insists on making remakes because they are money losers. All these remakes barely break even, if they do at all, and the film industry is over-saturated by pointless and ineffective remakes. Nevertheless, this is one remake that is actually worth watching. It takes the simplistic premise of the original, and gives it a modern day spin. The actors are all solid, especially David's Peter Vincent, who I actually like more than the original P.V, and he was great (Roddy rocks) and the script is competent. The fx are OK, although I'd have preferred less CGI and more prosthetics like the original, but the cgi is serviceable. Good soundtrack, too. All the ingredients that make a good popcorn flick, are there. It's an hour and a half of mindless vampire fun. And in the age of the vampire=romance, it's good to see a vampire on screen who is a straight up monster. The guy who plays Chris the mofo from Kick Ass is also in this film, and does a great job of playing a nerdy outcast who tips off his friend, Charlie, that Jerry is a ruthless killing machine with fangs.

Even if you don't like the original, I suggest you see this film, it's a great, fun ride for what it is. No pretentious nonsense, no vampire romance, no pretty boy vampires, just some good, horror movie fun. It doesn't surpass the original, but is a close second. Colin Farrel is great as Jerry. It's time Hwood did more worthwhile remakes of cult classics which were failures upon their release back in the 1980's. There is a multitude of cult hits that could be improved upon and brought to a new audience but it seems Hwood are only concerned with remaking the films that did well, and destroying their superior originals in the process. But not to get sidetracked, I was expecting another crappy remake, but this film gets it right, for once.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 6 of 25: [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