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 7 of 24: [Prev][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [Next]
Index 231 reviews in total 

As good as the original in its own way

Author: gnix1979 from United Kingdom
21 November 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

If you have not seen this movie yet, please do so as soon as possible, I believe Netflix has it and maybe Amazon's on demand service has it too but don't know, but you have to see this film.

Considering the original Fright Night is a masterpiece of creative thinking, I tried to look at this movie as I did with the Italian Job, and look at the movie as more of a reinvention or even a montage to the original because if one looks at a movie as a remake, then you will automatically set a bar that is way to high. That's why I liked the newer Italian Job.

As for Fright Night, in comparison to the original it is definitely modern, the soundtrack, the sets and atmosphere are refreshed and the initial back story to Peter Vincent was interesting considering the location of the movie and was a good substitute for how he is introduced in the original.

However watching this movie it did lack on a few things which prevents be giving this 10/10, and in short it was the things I liked in the original that I thought were missing. First of all the character of Ed (Evil Ed), in the original he was a sidekick for Charlie, and he was used just enough to make him a likable character and saddened by his demise at the end, in the newer version, the character is under used and his I was less impressed when we see him as vampire. The second thing that I thought was lacking was the relationship that Charlie has with Jerry. In the original the main focus of the film is that Charlie knows Jerry is a vampire because he catches Jerry with a woman, that moment was amazing, but because of technology, Jerry is found out through candid camera (in other words cast no reflection). Thus leads to the inevitable battle of wits between Charlie and Jerry. In the original this battle was longer and it involved more people and was far more believable, this was sadly lacking in the newer version.

Neither of these negative points make the movie bad, but just things I hoped to have seen but never did. If I was to point out another negative it would be the soundtrack, most fans will agree that the soundtrack to the original helped make the movie, in particular the song that I call Jerry's theme (original title: Come To Me) is used to great effect, as well as the music used in the nightclub scenes.

But I give this 9/10 because this movie holds its own in its own way. Colin Farrell's Jerry in my opinion is far more sadistic then then Chris Sarandon's Jerry, and he is able to use his likable charm to great effect in this role, that being said Sarandon's Jerry was more the likable in some ways, he is suave and also has charm, and his mannerisms are excellent. The character of Charlie is interesting when you compare Anton Yelchin and William Ragsdale. Both play the role well, were as Ragsdale's version is more the teenager who knows it all but nobody believes, Yelchin's version shows a more human element to the character especially when you see him after the hospital scene.

Any way, see it and make up your own mind, but its all good.

Was the above review useful to you?

entertaining remake

Author: davejderisi from United States
19 November 2014

I saw this movie twice in theaters. At the time it seemed like the best remake I've seen in a long time. since then tho many other remakes have come out and put this title to shame. It doesn't mean it's a bad movie, it just means that this remake foreshadowed the future of horror remakes. Or it has somewhat paved the path as far as new age remakes go at least. Colin Farrell plays a good Jerry Dandrige but he doesn't compare to Chris Sarandon in the original. Worth watching but its nothing to write home about. The original Fright Night was an up to date vampire flick of the 80's, so that is why the setting of the remake isn't supposed to take place in the 80's.. it's supposed to be up to date like the original.

Was the above review useful to you?

Nothing Spectacular,but it's Funny and sometimes Terrifying,

Author: Dillon Harris from Ireland
1 November 2014

Fright Night is a good movie with a well written storyline and a great cast that are able to jump from comedy to horror in different scenes.I normally don't like horror comedies because they usually try too hard to be both scary and funny and they end up failing at both,but this film managed to maintain both of them very well,there were scenes that had me laughing and also just as many scenes that had me in fear.I enjoyed Anton Yelchin's performance and he had great chemistry with Imoogen Poots as well,but my favourite performances are from Colin Farrell and David Tennant,they are the main reasons this worked out as a horror and comedy,because Farrell was genuinely,and quite surprisingly, terrifying as a vampire,he was dark and nothing like any character he had ever played previously,and David Tennant brought in most of the laughs,his character was hilarious even when he was suppose to be serious and was certainly given the best lines.Its nothing outstanding,but Fright Night works out pretty well as both a horror and comedy and I would recommend it to anyone looking for either of those if you have some time to kill.

A teenager discovers he is living next door to a vampire and calls on a Las Vegas musician for help.

Best Performance: David Tennant Worst Performance: Christopher Mintz-Plasse

If you have any recommendations on films/TV series I should watch or review,or any questions to ask me,just tweet me @DillonTheHarris

Was the above review useful to you?

Entertaining, even creepy with a great cast

Author: juneebuggy from Canada
24 September 2014

I've never seen the original 1985 Fright Night but enjoyed this for what it was. It reminded me of that Shia LaBeouf, Rear Window remake Disturbia because this also see's a suburban teenager spying on his charismatic new neighbour, realizing he's a vampire (killer) and then unable to convince anyone taking on the monster himself. We also have the hot girl-next-door and assorted teen angst. I wouldn't say this was a great movie but it was entertaining, even creepy at times and gave me a few laughs. I also really enjoyed the entire cast; Anton Yelchin as 'Charlie' does a great job, Toni Collette as the mother, David Tennant was excellent (and hilarious) as Peter Vincent and Colin Farrell, while a strange choice as a vampire was definitely charismatic and super sexy. He's no sparkling vampire here either, he's a straight up killer. The ending battle was well done. 9/10/14

Was the above review useful to you?

Most Fun I've Had With A Vampire Pic Since From Dusk Till Dawn

Author: Nancy_Grease from Canada
5 September 2014

Fright Night is a remake of the 1985 Tom Holland film of the same name produced by Steven Spielberg's Dreamworks Pictures and distributed by Walt Disney. Colin Farrell takes over the vampiric role made famous in horror circles by Chris Sarandon (who has a funny cameo in the 2011 version). Here, a young man fears his friends and neighbours are being murdered by a monster living next door and enlists the aid of a popular TV magician named Peter Vincent. The jokes are funny and the dialogue is quite clever. Chalk that up to screenwriter Marti Noxon who wrote and produced Buffy the Vampire Slayer and later worked on Angel. The cast is appealing, the characters fun and the scares and special effects work. Spielberg is said to have taken a hand at times to improve the look and feel of this thrilling, action packed horror movie which is probably the best of it's kind since From Dusk Till Dawn

Was the above review useful to you?

Disappointingly Sexist

Author: Ren C. from United States
13 July 2014

I really, really wanted to like this film. I like horror films, I like comedy horror films, I like both Yelchin and Tennant. I was really looking forward to seeing this. I did think some of it was funny, and I enjoyed David Tennant quite a bit. But it's pretty hard to like something that is kind of insulting you. There is some pretty weird, unnecessary disrespect for women going on here. Two quick examples to give you an idea of how the movie views women:

They felt the need to have the Mom explain (out of nowhere) that she was worth talking to because, direct quote, "I'm your mom, not some ridiculous woman--". ...yeah.

Then, even when the girlfriend gets to kick butt for two seconds, she is immediately referred to as a bimbo, for no discernible reason (other than she is attractive? I think?).

Since the sexism is not super overt, I think guys could probably enjoy this movie fine without really noticing it. So, congrats, because I really wanted to enjoy it too. But if you are a person with lady-bits who cares about being viewed as equal to people with man-bits, don't bother watching it. The fun/funny scenes are just not good enough to make up for the sexism. Sorry.

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?

Ho Hum

Author: moviemaster from sanfrancisco
20 July 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I suppose this could have been a good movie. It wasn't. the star, Yelchin does nothing for me. He bumbles along with expressions of "really" or "wow" more suited to silent films. The plot was OK. Farrell was good, better than he is sometimes. he makes a good evil-doer. The doe eyed girl was OK but not convincing. Tennant gave the best performance with humor but also adding tension when appropriate. Dr. Who was just right. The special effects were special and added a lot, but so often I was thinking, "how much longer is this movie?" It just didn't flow or I didn't care how many times they tried to chop off someone's neck.

Was the above review useful to you?

not living up to the start

Author: viktorhelenius from Sweden
8 October 2011

it started well, quite interesting...but then it turned out to be very boring and with a dragged storyline. i couldn't finish watching it. the problem was, i think, that they tried to make a bigger plot out of a movie with little plot. it wasn't all bad, Collin Farrell was doing a good job really, he's fun to watch. so if you like him, you might enjoy the first hour or so. now to the rating: suspense: 3, violence: 3, humor: 5, action: 5, acting: 7, direction: 6, storyline: 2, sex: 1, gore: 3 (girls getting bitten) i wouldn't say it's a movie for children or young people however there isn't much as in violence, gore, sex or anything so it wouldn't traumatize anybody. all in all, i think it would be a real good movie if it was cut a little.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:

The Ultimate Movie Review! - - @tss5078

Author: Tss5078 from United States
28 February 2014

I am not a fan of remakes, because rarely, if ever, do they do justice to the original film. That being said, I wasn't expecting anything out of the Fright Night remake, except for a cameo by Chris Sarandon. I was however pleasantly surprised, as the young cast was better than expected. For those who don't know the story, it is a classic vampire tale. Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin) is a normal teenager, whose life revolves around High School and his beautiful girlfriend. Everything is perfect until an old friend tells him that his new neighbor is a vampire. At first Charley doesn't believe him, but the more he watches, the more he realizes that something isn't right. Anton Yelchin opposes Colin Farrell, and while he might not have the name recognition, he easily outshines the veteran actor. Yelchin has a cult following among fans of teen movies, after strong performance in films like Charlie Bartlett and Middle of Nowhere. As with most teen idols, his popularity is not just about his looks, it comes from his smooth relaxed style of acting, that people can relate to. Yelchin's characters are always real and honest, the kind of guy audiences can easily relate to, and that's what makes him as good as he is. Yelchin has help in this film from an all-star cast that includes, Farrell, Toni Collete, Christopher Mintz-Plasse-Mclovin, Dave Franco, and of course the original vampire, Chris Sarandon. The combination of chemistry between new and veteran make for a truly powerful cast, that bring new life to this classic story.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 7 of 24: [Prev][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [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