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 8 of 25: [Prev][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [Next]
Index 242 reviews in total 

Build Up for a Let Down

Author: Vincent Black from United States
30 December 2014

I am not going to compare this movie to the original release, simply because the original film was there first before the remake. Everyone likes originality.

This movie fails all on its own. The vampire kills his local neighbors. Where was this vampire on day one of "vampire 101" class? Every decent vampire out there knows you hunt victims away from home and bring them to your lair. You don't incite the neighbors with dumpsters. Above all else you don't stare at people like you are some serial killer pedophile stalker. That is all he does in the film is stare at them.

About 90% of the movie is just suspense moments and I would file it under suspense, not comedy and not horror. Nothing very funny happens, nothing real scary occurs, and the action (if you call it that) is in the last 20 to 30 minutes of the film. Touchstone is Disney so it is vampire with lite-horror moments. Honestly if they toned it down they could of got the PG-13 rating they were shooting for in the first place.

The only redeeming character was the spoof on Chris Angel. He didn't have a highly original role or background just the only one I cared about. Maybe the actor was just that good he could pull it off, but the rest of the cast I wouldn't give a job working on a TV commercial or maybe their role was too thin. Christopher Mintz-Plasse and Dave Franco was in the movie all too brief, so I really can't tell you anything from a cameo performances.

I didn't care for Colin Farrell's acting at all. It seemed like any moment, he was just going to pull a tub out in the middle of the neighborhood and bath in blood. He may not have been so bold as to state he was a vampire but he gave off creeper vibes every time he talked to people. The only interesting scene was him blowing up the house in a very unique way.

The movie by itself is just your below average vampire picture.

Was the above review useful to you?

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?

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

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:

Viva Vampire Vegas

Author: Coventry from the Draconian Swamp of Unholy Souls
23 November 2014

I patiently waited for "Fright Night" to come on TV so I could watch it for free, because I didn't have any expectations or prejudices whatsoever towards this film. I very much enjoyed Tom Holland's 1985 original and reckon its modest cult-horror reputation, but not so much to proclaim that a remake is totally redundant and/or blasphemous. The remake is definitely also enjoyable, though only while it lasts and I sincerely doubt it'll ever be considered as a genre gem, and finds a good balance between light-headed comedy and nowadays 3D-horror with grotesque blood splattering and over-the-top CGI effects. The plot and story structure largely remained the same as in the original but there are a couple of ingenious small changes, like the clever Las Vegas suburb setting. The protagonist is still Charley Brewster, a teenager undergoing a transformation from nerd into cool kid, who slowly learns that his playboy-like new neighbor is a vampire. The neighborhood where Charley lives with his mother is ideal turf for vampires, since it's close to Las Vegas and thus a lot of residents work night shifts and sleep during the day. When Charley's former best friend Ed disappears as well, like several other residents, it's up to him to convince his skeptic mother and girlfriend that the hunky and muscled Jerry from next door is – in fact – a monstrous bloodsucker. He seeks help from the famous vampire hunter on TV, Peter Vincent, but he initially turns out to be a phony and cowardly showman. The first half of "Fright Night" is rather tame but then abruptly turns into an uncompromising splatter fest. As an old-fashioned horror fanatic, I still hate digital & CGI effects, but I think I've grown immune to them and they don't bother me that much anymore. Still, the lousy computer effects are mainly the reason why "Fright Night" isn't the least bit suspenseful or atmospheric. The acting performances are good, with Colin Farrell clearly enjoying his role as modern vampire and the Scottish actor David Tennant stealing the show as Peter Vincent. The younger cast members are good too (particularly Christopher Mintz- Plasse and Imogen Poots) and there's a lovely guest appearance from Chris Sarandon; the bloodsucker in the original "Fright Night".

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 8 of 25: [Prev][3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [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