|Page 8 of 24:||               |
|Index||235 reviews in total|
*** 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.
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.
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".
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.
1st: Colin Farrel was sexy and awesome... he really suits in a vampire character.. I wonder y EDWARD is voted DA sexiest but Colin was too hot in his role.. next the girl who played Anton Yelchin's gf was also cute nd sexy.. and I didn't watch the older version but this is a cool popcorn flick to watch wid UAR friends. u'll definitely luv it guys... Dnt believe in the oldie's reviews who saw DA previous version of it and say the older one was better... :D 1.twilight has no kinda mother sentiment.. but dis one has it.. 2.Colin was great in all aspects than Robert... 3.Bella had no expressions.. Amy in dis showed a lot variation... my friends loved it. u'll love it too.
I love Colin Farrell and David Tennant, and that's why I decided to
watch this movie despite the low rating. However, it's a waste of the
talents of the 2 actors.
Fright Night tells the classic story of vampires as it is, without much plot nor new ideas, making it boring and predictable. The main character is a good boy gone bad, but not so bad that the story becomes interesting. The only things to look forward to in this movie are probably Sandra Vergara (the younger sister of Sofia Vergara), the acting by the British actors, and the detailed CGI --which are actually not that much either.
Tom Holland's Fright Night (1985) is one of the few vampire film's the
non-Twilight fans enjoy. Not only did have good make-up effects for its
time, but it also had likable characters and a contemporary plot that
audiences had never thought about before. And because of its success,
three years later spawned Fright Night Part 2 (1988), which like many
sequels had a diminishing return but still had a strong following. Jump
to 25 years later and we have the remake that I can't say everyone
wanted to see, but for the people who were tired of the Twilight
series, definitely had something different to watch here. Especially
for those who never saw the original to begin with.
The plot is the same as the original, a teenage boy, Charlie Brewster, figures out that his next door neighbor is a vampire and soon finds out the vampire is out to get him, his friends and family. Remember though, for any of you readers who saw the original, this is a remake so not every scene will be done the same. For example, instead of Charlie discovering the vampire on his own, a classmate friend of his tells him. This is just one of several differences between this film and the original. But that's the only difference - the scenes, and Marti Noxon did a fine job at writing the screenplay. After all it's not her first time writing a story about vampires. Noxon also wrote the story for Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1996). Besides, everything else is kept relatively the same from characters, to effects and gore.
Playing Charlie Brewster is Anton Yelchin, an actor who has been filling the shoes of several famous characters now like Kyle Reese from the Terminator series, Chekov from the Star Trek series and now this. Yelchin is convincing as a teenager because he has the baby face to prove it, plus his voice isn't that deep. Playing the charismatic Peter Vincent (the famous vampire slayer) is David Tennant, who also gives a performance that is much enjoyable for his sarcastic attitude. Surprisingly, even Chris Sarandon, the original vampire from Tom Holland's classic, has a brief cameo. Watch out for him, his screen time isn't long.
But if there's one character that tops them all, it's Colin Farrell's performance as Jerry, the vampire next door. The best parts are when Farrell makes his character act like a human being. The movements, mannerisms and smooth voice make him one slippery little devil. In fact, one could say that Farrell had a lot of fun with this role because of how much he smiled in every frame. Some of the scenes that he plays in are actually quite comical, even though the movie's basis is the horror genre. But there will be times where you can't help but laugh because of how awkwardly hilarious the situation may seem.
However, if there was one thing that didn't help Farrell look more like a vampire was the CGI special effects. When the vampire face of Jerry takes over it doesn't look as real as it should be. I don't know, perhaps I wasn't expecting a whole facial reconstruction when he decided to transform. He honestly didn't even look like a vampire to me, which just made him look fake. The gore and blood was there but that was also mixed too. There were some scenes where it mixed well with real objects and then there were other scenes where it look like it was added in last minute. That should have been skimmed over a little more I think. The music was great though. Ramin Djawadi's score had a main theme and contained a lot of strings and organ sounds which are key in creating horror music. Well done.
The remake to the 1985 vampire flick is a fair match to its original. The music is appropriate, and actors perform well, especially Colin Farrell. The special effects may look unfinished though.
wish I had seen the original Fright Night from 1985. Usually you don't
watch a remake until you see the original but with Fright Night it was
different for me. This remake of Fright Night is one of the few films
that I liked that is aimed towards my (teenage) age group.
With the same idea as the original, a teenager finds that his neighbor is a vampire. With many ideas involving teen themes, this turns into survival story in the Las Vegas area.
Unlike most remakes which usually have bad casts, this film is just the opposite. Known actor Anton Yelchin is the lead with rising stars Christopher Mintz-Plasse and David Franco in supporting roles. Established star Colin Farrell plays the villain who is a vampire let loose into a cast full of teens. The vampires in this movie are of an old style and not like the modern vampires of recent movies and I appreciated and liked this.
The Las Vegas setting provides cool hip scenes as well as some desert scenes which is kind of different for the horror genre. The movie also has an ending that puts everything into perspective and closes the film very nicely. All of this makes this film really stand out.
Fright Night is solid and a hit. I think it is one of the top remakes ever.
vampire movies, zombie movies and horror movies are kinda popular in recent years. don't get me wrong when u need your fix its not hard to find something to tickle your fancy cause there are some decent ones out there. however at the same time many movies of this genre appear similar and predictable almost to the point where it seems the writer and producer has simply just wrote an average script with average ideas, added some monsters, looked for a scary set and added a creepy soundtrack. the original fright night was a horror movie from the 80's( i think) and was totally different to the other horrors we used to watch. our grandad used to make us watch the old black and white ones but this was modern and in colour..lol. the film was memorable because of the story, cast and it was eerie and spooky. very watchable so when i heard about the remake was curious and hoping they wouldn't mess this one up even though that would of been tough as the story so good. kudos they didn't.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
The only things shared between Fright Night 2011 and Fright Night 1985
are a few plot elements and the names; otherwise, they're two
completely different movies, coming from two completely different
First, the title: in Fright Night 1985 it referred to the horror movies local TV stations would air at 11 or 12 on Friday or Saturday nights and some TV stations still do. In Fright Night 2011, it refers to nothing except Fright Night 1985.
Then there's Charley - in the original, he's introduced as a blank that fills out as the plot unfolds. In 2011, he's immediately portrayed as a smart-assed High School Kid, defining the tradition this movie comes from, Teenagers as Idiot Jerks movies, i.e., Hostel.
And then there's Amy. In the 1985 version, she begins as a kind of girl friend/sidekick. In the Nightclub scene she blossoms into a sexy seductee. In 2011, she's just kind of there, no particular energy.
Amanda Bearse's Amy, particularly as she is taken by Chris Sarandon's Dandrige, highlights the difference between the two movies. 2011 has nothing of the smoldering sensuality of her seduction or her simpering misery once it was accomplished.
Another big difference, Roddy Mcdowall's Peter Vincent is absent, partially replaced by a Las Vegas magician who appears half-way through and bears no resemblance to his namesake.
Likewise, Chris Sarandon's Dandrige is a tour de force performance; Collin Farrell's character may have the same name but bears no similarity.
More than anything else, however is the focus and pace of both movies. The original has a tight focus, the camera rarely strays more ten feet away from the characters. 2011 rarely gets within five feet of them. The original orchestrates its pacing to full dramatic effect while 2011 just kind of rolls the camera without trying to establish any particular pace. This is, again, an example of the two traditions.
There's a great deal more that could be said and many of the reviews document chapter and verse but, for me, the big point is that 1985 and 2011 are just plain different movies reflecting different sensibilities and cannot be judged in reference to each other.
Since I hate 2011's tradition, Idiot Teenagers, I can't honestly rate it. My choice, Fright Night 1985. That's where the generation gap comes in, I spent the 70's and 80's developing a fondness for these little, well-crafted movies whether studio or independently produced and there were a lot of them. Then sensibilities changed and another generation gap appeared.
|Page 8 of 24:||               |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|