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 10 of 23: [Prev][5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [Next]
Index 226 reviews in total 

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Took me by surprise.

Author: angedemo16 from United States
27 June 2012

I had low expectations for this movie from the previews. Sure, Collin Farell being the "evil vampire" was an intriguing idea, but I had been getting sick of the Vampire phase that seems never-ending.

Boy was I surprised. I had never seen the original Fright Night.

It wasn't all attempts to add stupid humor in with horror. It made me jump, and there were some funny moments, but it was more horror; which I enjoyed and did not expect.

The acting was pretty good (another surprise for me, then again I had been expecting some cheesy vampire movie) and the make-up fx were beautifully done.

My only real complaint would be the CG effects. Sure, some of it was pretty good, but the overall was disappointing. Not nearly as bad a sparkly vampires, but that's a different story.

Overall, I do suggest this movie. It's a good watch with a decent story. Especially if you're not trying to compare it to the original.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Okay, but it could have been better.

Author: codebreaker2001
24 June 2012

Now, I will admit, I grew up on the original "Fright Night" (1985) and it's sequel, "Fright Night, Part 2" (1988). So, I was a little hesitant to watch the remake in theater (be it the full price or even at the second run theater near where I live). So, I caught this on one of the movie channels and I will admit: It's okay, but not great.

Judging as a film by itself, it was somewhat decent as a vampire movie, up until they resorted to using a fully CGed Jerry at the end of the film. However, the characters could have been better developed and the story made even more solid if the script had been fleshed out a bit more.

But as a remake, across the board, it was somewhat of a let down. The characters are heavily modified and their development throughout the film fell flat. A good example is Peter Vincent. In the original film, he was just an actor who accidentally got dragged into the situation through Charlie and his friends, who eventually grew a spine and actually became the thing he portrayed within the movies-within-the-movie through his own will: a fearless vampire killer. In the remake, though we get a bit of back story behind Peter Vincent (who I thought was portrayed very well by David Tennant, given with what he had to work with) in the remake, he didn't grow a backbone like his 1985 counterpart and was mainly in an alcoholic fueled pursuit of revenge. Another thing that fell flat in comparison to the original was the friendship between Ed and Charley. You never get a real sense that they were ever really friends, even with the video footage of how "things used to be."

There are a couple of perks in the remake that the original didn't have. For example, the threat to Charley's mom (which was only an idle threat through a phone call to Charley in the original) was brought up to the forefront, giving him even more reason to fight to protect the people he loves. The fact they brought Charley's mom into the fold of things (where as in the first film, she was not directly involved short of unknowingly inviting a vampire into her house and was "away at work" during the events of the original) helped back up Charley's reason to fight even more than in the original.

Long story short, it's okay, but it could have been better if they had worked more on the script.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

It was a decent fantasy action film, not very horrory

Author: siderite from Romania
9 June 2012

Surprise, surprise: the original was better! But that doesn't mean the 2011 version was bad. Gone was the humour in it and the preparation of the story. It all comes suddenly, frighteningly and gory. But not really scary. You know what is going to happen a long time before it does, the monsters are not really monstrous and the whole thing seems a little artificial.

I was expecting a horror comedy, but it wasn't a comedy at all and was mildly frightening. The actors played well and the effects were decent. The only issue with it: the script. Could have been better in the character development. As such, you get the lucky geek with a gorgeous girlfriend who is forced to accept his geekiness when fighting a real life vampire.

Bottom line: A suburb kid and a scrawny Brit kill Colin Farrell. How likely is that? :-)

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

"Not A Bad Remake, But Not As Good As The Original!"

Author: gwnightscream from United States
11 April 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Colin Farrell, Anton Yelchin, Imogen Poots, Toni Collete and David Tennant star in this 2011 horror remake of the 1985 film. Teen, Charlie Brewster (Yelchin) lives with his mother (Collete) and has a girlfriend, Amy (Poots). They meet new next-door neighbor, Jerry Dandridge (Farrell) who is kind and handsome. After some of his friends go missing, Charlie discovers that Jerry is a vampire who soon sets his sights on Amy. Charlie tries to protect her and seeks help from magician/vampire killer, Peter Vincent (Tennant). When Amy gets bit by Jerry, Charlie and Peter endure a night from hell trying to save her. Colin is good as Jerry, but Chris Sarandon defined the role and makes a cameo. This isn't a bad remake, but it's not as good as the original. I still recommend it.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

At last a decent remake! (And yes i love the classic of 80's)

Author: markhaazen from Netherlands
25 March 2012

So the truth is I loved the original back in the 80's and thought oh no not another remake! However sitting down watching it after only about 5-10 minutes started to thoroughly enjoy it.

FrightNight is a remake, with a difference. (It comes in 3D as well if u wish). Based on the original Fright Night, but with a few differences, for once the vampire is not in love with his there is a turn up for the books! Las Vegas neighbour hood people start to disappear as Colin Farrell (Jerry) moves in next door. Hes broody in his character because hes a Vampire! (Some reviewers really need to see bigger picture and step away from Twilight and the original FrightNight, as there are some differences). Brewster has to step in and save the day, armed with stakes and crossbow he enlists the help of Vincent,(David Tennent)who is a Las Vegas magician. The film gets 5 stars as its a little different from the original, however still maintains its story line without the kissy kissy bits! Both Farrell and Tennent steal the show, putting in a good performance, even the original vampire from FrightNight (Chris Sarradon) has a small role to play in the film, no hints for spotting him. (spoiler alert..hes the guy who rear ends their car!)There are lots of similarities between the original, for example, in one the vampire trashes Brewsters car, in this one, he trashes the motorbike...well, lobs it anyhow! The banter between Vincent (Tennent) and Brewster is funny, there are enough teeth shots, gore shots to keep any vampire fan happy. I would recommend this film in a heart beat, it contains everything a horror fan would enjoy.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

A Remake that isn't as good as the original

Author: born-r from São Paulo, Brazil
24 March 2012

Fright Night is a remake and reinterpretation of the classic 1985 film, Fright Night, about a teenager, addicted to TV horror series (particularly a show called "Fright Night", which has a vampire hunter named Peter Vincent), who discovers that his new neighbor is a vampire, and after the neighbor noted that he knows these secret, he tries to prove this to everyone, together with his friend and girlfriend. The big difference between this version and the previous one, is that this is move fells more for a horror one, and can not recreate the atmosphere of the first film. The roles are reinvented and adapted to modern times, and to a different city (Las Vegas): Jerry Dandrige works well, but I think as Jerry Dandrige (the vampire) is not at the same level as Chris Sarandon in the classic movie, that was a better villain. The actors now, are usually better (the vampire slayer Peter Vincent, played by David Tennant is very good and funny in the role), but the film has another air, pulled into the action and horror genre (but ends up being a bit tedious) and have a end that gives the impression that the movie ended too soon. Still, it's a good entrainment as a movie, although lower than the original - My Score: 6.7 / 10.0

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

A nice surprise

Author: TdSmth5 from US
9 March 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I didn't quite know what to expect from this one but it turned out to be entertaining and enjoyable.

Charley used to be a nerd but now that he has a hot girlfriend he's trying to join the popular crowd leaving his nerdy friends behind. But his friends are starting to disappear. The one left, Ed, tries to convince him a vampire is responsible for their disappearance- the vampire who turns out to be Charley's new neighbor Jerry. He dismisses this at first but then Ed disappears as well. Now Charley on his own decides to investigate further.

As it turns out, Jerry is indeed a vampire and knows that Charely is snooping around. Charley rescues some girl Jerry has kidnapped and bitten but she is instantly cremated as she is exposed to the sun. To complicate things further, Charley's mom has the hots for Jerry.

Charley is forced to seek the guidance of Peter Vincent an English Vegas entertainer who presents himself as an expert on vampires and dark forces, but turns out to be a fraud.

As expected Jerry will set his sights on the hot girlfriend and Charley will have to battle him.

I don't recall much of the original, but this version is fairly enjoyable. All the women are beautiful and have a normal attitude, as opposed to the obnoxious super females in movies these days. The scene of the girl going up in flames is very well done. Some of the CGI effects later in the movie aren't that convincing. The obligatory British character is an annoying caricature. Had this movie gone for an R rating it could have been a winner. As it is, it's mellow, good natured, and light fun.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

"You can't run from evil if it lives next door"

Author: Brandon Blackwell from Earth
18 February 2012

A teenager suspects that his new neighbor is a vampire.

I've never seen the original, so if your suspecting a review comparing the two (which I never do) stick along. Fright Night seemed to be an average movie. I never seen anything about it but the trailer, which made it seem like a teenage-popcorn flick, which I really hate. So with this, I sat down with NO expectations and had no idea what I was getting myself into. The beginning started off like a cheap slasher but soon evolved into something much better, and it was awesome. If your not into fun flicks, that don't serve purpose (most don't) then your probably going to be questioning your viewing. Otherwise, I suggest you take a spin. The acting in this movie was good. It wasn't OUTSTANDING or anything like that, but it felt real, if that makes sense. He made it believable and THIS is how vampires are supposed to be. I'm thankful that the vampires didn't sparkle and fall in love with humans, they wanted blood; their main desire. Thank you, Craig Gilliespie. The most notable was Colin Ferrell, who did his part playing the vampire. I enjoyed the directing. For the director's third movie, he did well. The movie was actually, surprisingly, hilarious. I didn't expect this, because I came in expecting a vampire slasher, but I was taken by surprise. The scenes know when and where to place a joke and a suspenseful scene, and the editing they placed was great. Last, but not least, we have the occasional flaws. They weren't intentional, but were annoying, in my opinion. They were added for extra comedic effect, but they're easily passable. If your not to hard on movies, and don't look for deeper meaning, and love to be entertained; RECOMMENDED! This was some of the most fun I've had with a movie, and I'm sure it will be for you to. I have 99 problems, but this movie ain't one. 8/10.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

surprisingly good!

Author: jcallows from United States
17 February 2012

I didn't expect much going into this film but it turned out to be very good. It managed to recapture the scariness and humor of the original but with a snappier, updated look. The cast and script were great and the pacing was just right.

Although the setting was expanded and the script was updated for this film, it kept the same basic story and main characters as the original. And, just as important, it kept the proper blend of humor and horror that the original had.

I enjoyed the original and I enjoyed this remake just as much. It has give me the belief again that good remakes are still possible.

This is obviously a well crafted film so it puzzles me why it has such a low rating. It barely beat out that Karate Kid remake. This is appalling. This is a much better film than that.

Was the above review useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Better than expected for a rerun.

Author: westsideschl from United States
5 January 2012

Formula part: Yes, another vampire movie vying with zombies, aliens, and werewolves as cash cows for studios with props and/or CGI of any quality - doesn't matter because audience tastes run in the Pizza anything, Taco anything, Burger anything, Sub anything acceptance mode. More teen lovers fighting the evil one and his minions. A few years ago some CGI company came up with the CGI effect of burning some evil thing by turning them into glowing ashes and has been used by studios many times since. Evil thingies with piranha teeth has been a hot prop the past few years but is also getting a bit old.

Creative part: There were enough twists to the story in terms of who our lead vamp was; who was bitten; the search for the teen vamp hunter's helper and the tools acquired to accomplish the fait accompli. OK, the burning ashes CGI, although overused, worked in this case. And OK, in this case the piranha green screen teeth were rather tasty. They even have a person that specializes in only that effect.

Basics: Decent acting, directing, editing, setting and props.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 10 of 23: [Prev][5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [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