|Page 10 of 24:||               |
|Index||232 reviews in total|
The original for me has no nostalgic value, as I only saw it a few months ago. But I absolutely adored it. This remake does exactly what I want from a remake. It keeps the core components, but makes enough changes to make it a different movie. The little changes make all the difference, and although I preferred everything in the original, this is a different film that I will check out again. Yelchin plays the lead role of a young man that eventually finds out his neighbour is a vampire. Farrell is the charming, sexy, and sinister vampire named Jerry. The tension heightens, but never as much as the original. I loved Farrell's portrayal, where he was truly threatening without ever really trying. However, he was also inexplicably aggressive. I'd imagine vampires would try and keep their heads down, but here Farrell doesn't exactly try and hide his vampiristic tendencies. He'll kill people in the street, or blow up a house. Tennant is a scene stealer as Peter Vincent, a clever update from his predecessor, but with some needless backstory. Tennant is the archetypal fake hero, that claims to be a slayer of the occult. But when his chance to prove his heroism comes to fruition, will he rise to the challenge? The humour and horror are well mixed together, with some scenes being particularly shocking, which is a great compliment for such a worn genre. It is also a very exciting action films at time. The car chase scene, shot in one continuous take is exhilarating and has a nice cameo too. Sometimes it has too much CGI, and more plot holes than I feel comfortable with. Nevertheless, this is a great entertaining film, with a sinister but not to serious vibe.
Initially I had some restrictions against watching this movie, as I was
rather fond of the original, plus Hollywood remakes of older movies
tend not be worthwhile watching.
However, this 2011 remake of "Fright Night" was actually surprisingly nice. It held true to the original movie, but still went one step beyond, instead of just being an updated frame-by-frame remodeling. This version was everything the old movie was and then some.
The cast in the movie was actually quite good. One of the initial reservations I had against the movie was Colin Farrell (playing Jerry the vampire), but hand on heart, then he was actually amazing in this role. It was like he was tailor-made for this particular role and he did a great job. Now, I am not saying that Anton Yelchin (playing Charlie) was bad, far from it, but I enjoyed William Ragsdale (playing Charlie in the 1985 version) better. In this 2011 version they totally set up a whole new Peter Vincent (played by David Tennant), though I preferred Roddy McDowall who played Vincent in the 1985 version. There was just something more fun and charming over him. However, the way that the 2011 Peter Vincent was portrayed was good, especially with his background story.
There was one really, really cool scene in the movie. And without saying too much, then I will say that fans of the 1985 version will get a kick out of seeing Chris Sarandon making a return to the movie.
The effects in the movie were great, and the vampires did look nice too.
"Fright Night" (2011) is a movie that can be thoroughly enjoyed by movie watchers both familiar with the old "Fright Night" movies and new-comers to the series as well. Lots of action, good effects and a great story. And it is also nice if you are tired of watching vampires with sparkling skin and sickening large hair styles.
I was thoroughly entertained and I think for a remake, then they actually took the 1985 version and gave it a very nice boost in the right direction. So thumbs up for this remake. Finally a Hollywood remake that was worth watching.
I have not seen the original from the 1980ies and vampire stuff is not totally for me, but the names Colin Farrell and Anton Yelchin did invite me to spend this 1 hour 40 minutes among zombie-like vampires and stuff related to their extermination. I was right about the two above mentioned actors, they are really great, but the plot, directing and another actors (well, Tony Collette had too small part to play, she is usually brilliant) were just above average. There was some kind of tension, but some illogical events and peculiar turns gave the movie shallow undertones. I assume it must be okay for those fond of vampire sagas but when the credits appeared I just shrugged my shoulders - without a desire to see the first movie and to compare.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Belated Day 15 Of My 31 Days Of Horror.
This remake of the 1985 classic basically has the same plot as the original. A Boy played by Anton Yelchin notices his neighbor Jerry played by Colin Farrel is a vampire.
I am sorry that I cannot produce a lot of long reviews but the films I am reviewing just do not have a lot to talk about. This film has a good retelling of the original and cutthroat performances.
Rated R For Bloody Horror Violence, And Language Including Sexual References.
48 uses of the F-word.
This was a very enjoyable film, but unfortunately for us we watched it on the t.v. and because it was filmed in 3D it didn't help us to watch it because a lot of it was in the dark. We loved both British actors in their parts. Colin Farrel who is Irish and David Tennent who was Doctor Who for a while. Would totally recommend the film to anybody who likes these kind of films. We knew it was a remake but we hadn't seen the original so we had nothing to compare it to. We have seen lots of other vampire films such as Salem Lot, The Lost Boys which I have just bought on DVD,all of the Twilight films and have the books too. This film compares favorably with all the other vampire films we have seen.
This film (obviously a remake) for me was well executed and visually well done. I know a lot of people hate remakes (and yes some of them should have never been made), but I actually liked this one. It had very good effects and the cast was great I thought, with a cool cameo from the original 'Jerry' Chris Sarandon. I thought Colin Farrell actually played the part of 'Jerry' well too. The blood and kill scenes were well done (yes some of them were CGI but it worked) and the story kind of kept to the original too (apart from the 'Peter Vincent' back story, which was obviously updated to fit the 'Vegas setting). So overall I give this an 8 out of 10.
I know I've seen the original film, but I don't remember anything about
it. But just from this film, I'd have to say it's more horror than
humor. It's an OK movie, nothing great, but entertaining enough for 100
Colin Farrell, plays Jerry, the vampire that moves next door to Charley and his mom. Charley's high school friends spy on Jerry, but disappear before they can reveal what they found. But Charley finds some video tape exposing Jerry for what he is. It doesn't take Jerry long before he knows he's been had and he starts "smoking" out Charley. Then it's a chase between Charley and his girlfriend and this vampire showman they find, Peter Vincent.
So, there's some OK special effects. Jerry's face turns into a monster, then there's the ending back at Jerry's house.
FINAL VERDICT: OK, fun film.
Chris Sarandon doesn't have to worry about this contender. His status
as vampire supreme has not been usurped.
This film is proof that having fancy computer graphics in a horror film are no substitute for the visceral 'just like being there' feel of inventive special effects that were utilized back in the Eighties. The movies that come to mind from that era are 'Nightmare on Elm Street', 'The Thing', and, of course, the original 'Fright Night'. The special effects work was amazing in those films with no computer trickery.
David Tennant does his best, but Roddy McDowall made a much better Peter Vincent. Actually, Tennant isn't in much of the film compared to McDowall, so it's hard to maintain any sort of empathy for his character.
If there's anything good that this movie has done, is that it invokes the good memories of the original, causing one to shut off the remake and start watching the real thing.
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.
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.
|Page 10 of 24:||               |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||External reviews||Parents Guide|
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|