Fright Night 3D (remake)
| release date | August 19 2011 |
| studio | DreamWorks/Disney |
| director | Craig Gillespie |
| writer | Marti Noxon |
| starring | Colin Farrell, Anton Yelchin, Toni Collette, David Tennant, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Imogen Poots, Dave Franco, Emily Montague, Chelsea Tavares, Sandra Vergara, Charlie B. Brown, Asim Ahmad, Cliff Gravel |
| rating | R |
| trailer 1 | Trailer #1 |
3 Comments
I really didn’t care much for the original, but felt this one looked a lot better. Turns out I was right. I greatly enjoyed this film, from the dark overtones to the light comedy. They even managed to make good use of the 3D. And believe me, I usually hate it. But every time a vampire burned up, I felt as though I could actually reach out and catch the ashes. Not to mention that when something flew at the audience, it looked real.
A good storyline with a fast pace, I was never bored and it provided us with a strong understanding of each character and their particular motives in the short time they had.
It was very well cast, with Farrell making an excellent vampire (and a hot one, especially with an open shirt), and Tennant playing an eccentric magician to the hilt. Even McLovin’, when put in a somewhat serious role, proved he could play the part. The rest were great too, but these three really stuck out.
Perhaps some of the dialouge could have been better. Through an entire scene, we mainly heard random cusswords, which does nothing to further the plot.
All in all, this is a great film to watch, and definitely something I’d enjoy watching again in the future.
As a HUGE fan of the original, I can say this about the remake… Loved it. Loved it loved it loved it. I feel bad for anyone who isn’t willing to give this movie a chance or goes into it with a terrible attitude, because when you give it a chance, it’s really enjoyable. The acting was great and Colin Ferrell was the perfect actor for such a classic role. Yelchin is a great young actor and McLovin’ was actually a great choice for Evil Ed. All in all, I think it was a great remake! PLUS! The 3D was actually great! And normally I think it’s absolutely pointless and irritating and hard to watch. Give the movie a chance! Great remake! Good vampire flick!
What Scream did for slasher films is what I think Fright Night will do for vampire films and that is make them cool, vicious, entertaining and ballsy again and not a pussy. Colin Farrell does a great job at playing the vampire neighbor Jerry Dandrige and he pretty much makes the movie in his best role to date. The rest of the cast were spot on and convincing with newcomers Anton Yelchin and Imogen Poot holding their own and Christopher Mintz-Plasse from Super Bad and Kick Ass cracks me up as always as the goofy best friend turned vampire hunter Ed but he seems to be playing the same role in every movie and is a very limited actor, the scene stealer will have to be David Tennant as Peter Vincent, he was a riot, on the other hand though Toni Collette who is always good didn’t really have much of a strong role but she made the most of it of what she was given. I thought the atmosphere was pretty good giving the sense of unease and dread throughout the movie and the gore was good enough but the effects especially during the transformation parts were lame and could of been much better and the 3D aspect of the film wasn’t the worst I’ve seen and infact it was decent but it was unnecessary for this film but it was fun in some parts. The mixture of horror and comedy elements are usually always unsuccessful in these movies and is hard to pull off and ends up making the movie uneven but I’m happy to say that Fright Night pulled it off even more so than the 1985 original which I saw when I was a kid because this movie knows what it is and knows it’s strengths and shows them in a balancing way as it will make you squirm on the edge of your seat one moment and laugh out loud the next and it knows how to show you a good time which is a success because that is the main reason why we go out to the movies in the first place. The ending was bad ass and effective and satisfying and I kind of want a sequel I mean hell the original got one why not but they need to work on the effects better because I don’t know if it was intentional for the comedy part of the film or not but I didn’t like it at all and this film deserved better than that. Overall it’s the best vampire film I’ve seen in a long while and I hope that’s the direction vampire movies are going and ditch the god awful Twilight series and wannabes for good because this film treated my inner horrorhound with respect and is one of the most fun times I had at the movies this year, I had a blast! Recommended!
Initially I was looking forward to it. When I first saw the posters of David Tennant in his costume about 6 months ago I thought it was a brilliant change. I thought perhaps he was a has-been Buffy style actor or has Been Hugh Jackman Van Helsing actor, the way the original Peter Vincent was a has-been Hammer Horror actor. I loved the idea of David Tennant as Peter Vincent.
When Marti Noxon said that horror movie hosts don’t exist anymore and that’s why she changed Peter Vincent to a stage magician I felt she missed the point. Movie hosts were NEVER fashionable. There are more now than there were in 1985, in fact, the character was being fired when the original movie began.
Then I read the remake script and I was disappointed. I ranted and raved but I hoped it was just a rough draft script. I hoped I was wrong about it. Then I saw a clip of David Tennant and I had hope again. But then I saw the ComicCon Q and A and the director revealed he couldn’t recall the plot of the original and he felt this was a good thing. This filled me with dread.
Then I saw the actual film and I was thoroughly disappointed.
David Tennant’s attractive but that’s not enough to save it from bad writing. Charley is selfish and self-absorbed. It’s cynical and judgmental of teenagers of today, it’s kind of insulting. Peter Vincent isn’t very well developed and neither is Jerry Dandridge. He’s turned into a two dimensional psychopath with no real motivation other than to kill. Even Dracula had a plan! In fact he had very elaborate plans in the novel.
These vampires in this remake can’t even shapeshift into a wolf, bat or mist. They can’t enthrall minds and they can’t even show up on digital camera (which don’t have mirrors by the way). How is stripping them of powers and giving them more limitations an improvement?
And isn’t it the slightest bit annoying that a character in the movie has to tell us how modern Jerry Dandridge is just because he has his minion say sir instead of master?
The dialogue in the movie is awful too. The F word is used more than Charley’s name. I don’t care if a film is loaded with foul language but it’s so over used that it’s annoying. If the word banana was used so much I’d be just as annoyed.
10 things that would improve this remake:
1. Tom Holland as the writer or another writer familiar with Dracula style vampires. Even the writer of Dracula 2000 or Van Helsing would have been better than Marti Noxon.
2. Respect for the intelligence of the audience. i.e. keeping Peter Vincent as a has-been horror actor who perhaps now has a web series as to modernize his position.
3. Kept the shapeshifting abilities because it’s freaky and makes the vampires all the more powerful.
4. Leave the hint of humanity in that Jerry was looking for the look-a-like of a lost love. This gives a twinge of sympathy and also makes it all the more twisted and frightening when he does something evil because you’re taken off guard.
5. Find a director who actually is fan of the original and remembers it fondly and knows Gothic atmosphere, who can make suburbs creepy, like Tim Burton or Del Toro.
6. Leave it set in the suburbs. Every country has suburbs. Most places don’t have their own Vegas.
7. Make sure the hero is relatable and a decent human being. A self-absorbed tool who abandons friends for popularity just doesn’t cut it.
8. A better budget. 15 million is pocket change today by Hollywood standards.
9. Knowledge of what is popular in the genre. The director and writer of this remake THINK things like Saw and Final destination are in and Gothic is old. Actually it’s the opposite. Let Me in did very well. The last Saw movie did lower than expected. The Wolfman remake got an oscar while Final destination 5 is struggling. Dark Shadows, Harker, Dracula 3D and Haunted Mansion are in production right now. Lady in Black with Hrarry Potter’s Daniel Radcliffe is getting released through Hammer Horror in a few months. There are two Frankenstein films in production and Priest did well. Slasher films are out. Gothic horror is back with a vengence and the ones who made this remake are really out of touch to not know that.
10. An effort to NOT appeal to any particular demographic. Notice how Tim Burton’s films are always successful even when people complain about how formulaic they’ve become. He never tires to appeal to a demographic. He makes films that appeal to his tastes and to Hell with what the studio thinks kids want today. Sleepy Hollow was going to be a generic, low-budget slasher film with no romance or atmospehre but then Tim Burton got a hold of it and added the supernatural, added the love story, and added the Hammer Horror-esque atmosphere and he made it work where it would have failed. If Hollywood would just stop trying to condescend to what it thinks is a simple minded audience we might start getting quality horror films again. Some people are already trying and it’s working. This film is not.
Writing this review is proving to be very difficult, mainly because trying to recall the movie is close to impossible. I remember having fun and enjoying the completely ridiculous dialogue and situations (the “suiting up” scene towards the end of the film was utterly enjoyable cheese). I remember rolling my eyes a few times during even more said ridiculous scenes. I think I may have jumped a few times here and there as well.
Overall, the movie is just another forgettable, fun monster movie that does exactly what it’s supposed to: entertain. It’s ridiculous and bloody; but what is more important is that it doesn’t really try to be anything more. Coming from someone who hasn’t seen the original (let the web-burns begin), I can say that this flick met all of my expectations.
For the most part, I enjoyed the film. Obviously not as good as the original but very few remakes are. This was definitely one of the better remakes, but it has some negatives. They didn’t really do much with the Evil Ed character, he could’ve been used much more in the film and they made him look like a fat Harry Potter. Not everybody likes Colin Farrel but I thought he did a good job with his role, was it one of the great vampire performances of all time? No, but he still delivered. I didn’t really dig the Vegas suburb, but I guess it was the only was to get Peter Vincent in. Unfortunately he didn’t have much to do. Some of the CGI effects sucked, but when they used the practical effects it came off much better, they should’ve just stayed with practical effects for the entire film. The film still kept me entertained to the very end, the characters weren’t the greatest, but they didn’t hurt the film or anything. The last 10 minutes were predictable but I guess that’s what happens when you’ve already seen the original. The comedy helped out the film, it kept the same tone as the original had. The film had a good story and maintained a good pace. The atmosphere for the most part was there, even though it would die off once they should downtown Vegas. Even though not as good as its original, it still delivered, and I’d recommend seeing the film. And make sure you skip the 3D and see it in 2D.
For a change, I agree with the reviewer. IT is NOT as good as the original, AND IS NOT WORTH SPENDING MONEY ON IN THE THEATER. At best, its a decent movie to watch on TV.
Had very low expectations for this movie but it ended up being a decent movie. The cgi is very tolerable until the last 15mins. the dialogue is pretty bad at times especially for the mom. there are a lot of loose ends that could have easily been avoided too but overall its not that bad.
Haven’t seen it yet, and probably won’t in theaters, but this is why I like reading reviews. Chris’s review slams the film big time, and this I understand because its a horror film being reviewed by a horror fan along with all the other users on this site, yet I read a review in USA Today, and they gave it 3 out of 4 stars, siting Farrell as very good as the vamp along with everyone else being good in their roles. This is what I like. Goes to show that we like what we like. Most horror fans might not like this film for all the reasons stated in Chris’s review, but yet some who may not be diehard horror fans might find it fairly entertaining and if they have seen the original, maybe think it better. I love watching movies and love reading reviews because you get a variety of opinions on films that you may or may not want to see, and get to read everyone’s individual ideas, whether they are thought provoking or just plain blunt. My opinion is that I really like the original movie and as with any remake am hesitant to watch it, but will because I will have to see how I compare it to the original, just like the remake of “Conan” that I am going to watch Monday night!
It was really bad. I thought they weren’t going to use alot of CGI and every “transformation” was just filled with it. Bad story line, bad acting, bad everything. I had some hope for this but was severely disappointed.
Sure it’s not as charming or heartfelt as the original, but it was still a fun and entertaining remake despite some gimmicky 3D, overused cgi, and a few lame dialogues/moments/scenes.
After a rather slow and awkward start, the movie picks up steam and endded up being enjoyable. Its biggest drawback was the moviemakers’ indecision whether they wanted to make it completely different than the original with just the same basic plot, or being merely an updated remake. By the middle of the movie, it seemed they finally decided on the latter, and from there on out the movie was fine. David Tennant stole the show as the foul-mouthed douchebag Criss Angel parody, and special cameo was hilarious. If you can get past comparing the original to this one, it’s really an OK movie.
Oh, and it was incredibly dark, so I recommend avoiding the 3D. Even in 2D it was obvious they didn’t make proper use of it.
A heartless movie unlike the original. The good things like David Tennant performance is completely overlooked because of the crap he was given to. A wannabe stylize film with no care for the main characters. Colin Farrel’s version of Jerry slowly becomes almost corny. But you could tell that Collin Farrel and Marti Nixon’s tell of Jerry were in different directions.
I see where BD reviewer had a problem with this movie. No where near as scary as the original, hated the c.g.i effects and Jerry the vampire was not the strong presence as the original lead. The humor in the movie is good and the story not being compared to the original was decent. Just wish it was a separate movie without the need for a remake or reboot.
To be honest, I found this movie a lot like the original, and a good modernization of it. The story itself: of both films, is honestly quite absurdist. A teenager finds out his neighbor is a vampire. How serious could a movie like this be? I felt like just like in the beginning of the original, it has an awkward, limpy, and maybe even dumb beginning, but the film finds its own place. I feel that the film quickly realizes just what kind of absurdist fun B-movie it is and just goes with it, offering a great amount of comedy and carnage, just like the original. I very much liked the cast of this version and loved the Chis Sarandon cameo. Honestly, I felt like this movie and the original are REALLY alike in many ways, just that this is a modernization that works. I might even prefer this over the original in some aspects too, as strange as that may sound. This movie was a lot of fun, and the 3D was decent. If you understand what kind of movie this is, then I def say go for it. Don’t go into it so seriously, just as you would have seeing the 1985 version.
whoa surprise by all the hate for this movie
i really liked it alot deserves a solid 7 just above average.
i thought this was a great remake i thought it did thinks a lil smarter than the original (not big fan of the original thought it was decent the acting in the original was too much goofy cartoony over acting pull me out alot) well any ways i really like this versions jerry he is like a douchy jock arrogant beast of a vampire (unlike the romanticized version of the 85 which im not into too much i like my vampires vicious haha) well what i really liked was in this version jerry kidnaps amy basically to mess with charlie you know but in the 85 he takes her because she resembles his lost love ehh haha… i think this had a right tone of goofy humor wasnt anything to serious it was to be had fun which i did what held it back is the cgi thats where the 85 did great the fun 80s prostethic cheeseness that we all miss haha.
I finally got to see the movie last night. I’ve been excited over the months near it’s release & have kept up with it until. Like a lot of remakes in this era and also seeing BD’s review before going to see the movie I didn’t have high expectations & it was as I expected. It felt very Average. Nothing good nor bad. I guess in a way, perhaps because of its humor here & there I also found it kinda fun to watch. Plot wise comparing it to the original it felt very “fast forward” to me. It felt like a quick movie. I loved the music though. It reminded me of the scenes from the old hammer horror Dracula films whenever he would feed on a victim. I don’t know if the director was aiming for that but thats how it made me feel which made it more enjoyable. Oh and by the way. Not worth it in 3D.
you are nuts BD fright night was fanatastic. It really was a complete reimagining of the material with strong performances, great special effects and killer direction.
Far from a perfect movie, but yet a fun summer horror movie. A decent remake that actually manages a bit of tension with some really standout performances. Don’t expect the original, just expect an entertaining movie.
BD has hardly any respect for remakes. This movie was amazing in my opinion. I LOVED IT!!!
Fright Night 2011 is a different, and more modern day approach to the subject manner. I adore the original film and it’s connection to the history of Vampire films throughout the years. I went in expecting to be disappointed by the remake. I was pleasantly surprised to really enjoy myself. The dialogue is not always the best with the female characters mostly. But Jerry the Vampire steals the show with intimidation and mental tactics. It hits all the same beats as the original film with a few surprises. When it comes to Vampire films in theaters, it is nice to see one that goes back to the roots of the Vamp mythology. Vampires are and should be considered Monsters… For once a Vampire film that gives us the point of view of the heroes again.. and not the beasts. Great film… go see it… in 2d…
2 thumbs way up. Go see this in theater as soon as possible.
Fright Night: A Movie With Real Teeth
I saw Fright Night under the assumption that I would probably hate it. It had all of the makings to be a horrible movie: It was a remake of one of my favorite campy horrors, it was coming out in the tail end of summer and it had Colin Farrell…need I say more. I must say that I was very wrong, very wrong indeed. I opted for the 2D version as I am not a huge fan of 3D and this blog is written on a budget. So if your looking for that I can tell you that I really didn’t see how the 3D really would have added much to this flick.
Plot: The plot is very true to the original apart from the scenery change to the ailing suburbs of Las Vegas. Former dweeb Charley has finally blossomed into the kid he always wanted to be. He’s got the girl, the friends and the reputation that he never thought he could have, all at the expense of losing his best friend in the process. Strange occurances start happening in his neighborhood with people going missing and people being “mugged” or “attacked” in public places. Meanwhile, Charley’s mother, played by the always fantastic Toni Collette, is a real estate agent who sells the house next door to charming and sexy Jerry (Farrell) and he moves in under the perfect neighbor assumption. Charley’s former best friend Ed, played by former Superbad nerd Christopher Mintz-Plasse, tries to warn Charley that his new neighbor is in fact a vampire. In typical movie fashion Charley does not believe him, and thus chaos ensues.
Acting: Overall the acting in this movie was good, especially for such a relatively young, unknown cast (despite big wigs Toni Colette and Colin Farell). The shining star of this movie is definitely Farrell who really steals the show as he intimidates everyone on screen as well as the rest of us in the audience. I feel like he was very accurate and just the right mix of shear creepiness and ultimate sexiness. The two leads, Charley and Amy do a pretty good job with jabs at comedy while evading the dastardly vampires, but ultimately are not completely believable as a loving couple. The supporting cast is pretty well put together with great performances from Collette as mom and comic relief playing Chris Angel-esque vampire slayer, Peter Vincent. The only performance I will criticize is that of Mint-Plasse, as he is once again type cast in the role of the nerd, and unfortunately I could not take him as anything but “that guy from Superbad”. Apart from that the other characters are pretty typical and they play them as such, but overall everyone does their job and is effective.
Sound: The score of this movie is actually intensely creepy, doing a nice job of spicing up typical horror movie scenes like sneaking into the enemies house blah blah blah. The soundtrack works well and is not forgettable, but not exactly the best either.
Visuals: I must say I loved all of the visuals of this movie. From the transformations of the vampires to the cgi work done (i.e. car chase scene) they all translate believably and are horrifying!
The Gist: Overall, Fright Night is simply a fun modern horror movie. With modern references to our vampire culture (Twilight) mixing with ancient folklore this translates to the modern age very well without being redundant. The campiness and humor here is GREAT, and leaves you laughing at the jokes and cringing at the blood and intense visuals all at the same time. The gore factor is definitely solid whilst being shown but not overdone, leaving you clutching your fists, but not covering your eyes. There are some scenes that are typical of that of a horror movie, but usually there was an accompanying twist that helped to save it.
I am going to give Fright Night an 7 1/2 out of 10! See this movie, but I recommend saving the 5 dollars and the embarrassment of those funny glasses, and going to the 2D showing. This was a great start to the season, and will be hard to be outdone!
Cheers,
Andrew
There are 3 reasons , and 3 reasons ONLY , to check out CRAIG GILLESPIE’S ” FRIGHT NIGHT 3D ” . Number one… DAVID TENNANT who takes over the PETER VINCENT Role, though titled differently , and as a CRISS ANGEL, type of Vegas performer . SECOND .. COLIN FARRELL is bloody fantastic as ‘ THE VAMPIRE NEXT DOOR ‘, played by Chris Sarandon in the original . THIRD SANDRA VERGARA .The Sultry sister of Sofia , say THAT five times fast !! ,is wonderful decoration while prancing about in lingere. That’s it. Everything else about Gillespies re-do , stinks . ANTON YELCHIN , as CHARLIE , is a flop , turning Charlie into a miserable , mean spirited callous prick , who screws his friend over without a second’s hesitation . CHRISTOPHER MINTZ PLASSE , whom I normally love , is a washout as ED , CHARLIE’S boy, but you still can’t fuck the guy over , c’mon .IMOGENE POOTS(28 WEEKS LATER )and poor TONI COLLETTE( ‘ UNITED STATES OF TERA ‘, ‘ THE SIXTH SENSE ‘)are completely wasted , even with GILLESPIE turning Charlie’s betrothed into a sexually adventurous sort. This film is yet another nail in the coffin of Classic Re-makes , R.I.P. !!!
ill wait for dvd.probably a fucking joke to the oringinal,which was great.fuck this.
Have to agree with BD here. weak weak weak! solid acting and start though.
I wasn’t expecting anything of a Fright Night remake.
This was the biggest surprise of the year in terms of quality.
Don’t believe the jaded reviews. Good popcorn flick. You even get a Chris Sarandon cameo. Saw the 2D version and can’t see why anyone would waste the extra cash on 3D. Yeah, it’s not the original, but if I wanted that, I would have stayed home and watched the DVD for the thousandth time.
Sadly, “…but not fast, slowly, oh so slowly!” was missing from the dialogue.
I highly disagree with BD for Fright Night. I found it very entertaining and a breathe of fresh air from shitty vampire flicks lately. Colin Farrel surprisingly puts out a great performance as Jerry. The CG gore was very well done and a couple minor oh my fucking God moments were in there. My only gripe is that the cast, besides Colin Farrel, is a little bland and the script sometimes is sloppy. It also seems scattered at times but All In All, Fright Night was worth my time and I don’t understand some of these reviews saying it sucked.
The BD review for this movie is spot on. It’s so terrible that I’m surprised it wasn’t done by Platinum Dunes, as this is easily this years Elm St remake. Where to begin with this turd of a movie. Firstly, it has a great cast but the actors are saddled with a useless script and are given stock characters to play. Toni Collette and David Tennant are the biggest casualties. They’re the most talented two out of the bunch but their characters are rendered completely useless, they may as well not even be in it. Tennant shows up at the half way point, acting all drunk and saying “fuck” a lot then decides to help Charlie out at the last minute. Too little, way too late. Colin Farrell tries hard but has none of the charm or pizazz that Chris Sarandon originally brought to the role. Why did they feel the need to give Dandridge a dumb backstory is beyond me. McLovin is his usual McLovin self and is in the film for a whole 10 minutes. Another good character completely wasted, but the most major fuck up is Anton Yelchin. His Charlie is an unlikeable douchebag so it’s impossible to root for him. What the screen writer did to Charlie and Evil Ed is downright stupid. There’s no connection between these two when they should be the best of buddies. The blood and gore isn’t anything special and it’s nothing you haven’t seen before, but here the majority if it is in CGI which looks awful. When will modern day film makers get it through their heads that CGI effects in horror films just do not work. If the original, which was made in 1985, can have outstanding practical effects that still hold up to this day then why can’t a film that is obviously twice as big in budget ? Like the Elm St redux, this is a prime example of movie making by a committee. There’s no soul or passion in it whatsoever. It’s boring, filled with absurd moments (why would Charlie and Co drive all the way out into the middle of nowhere to escape Dandridge, why can Colin Farrell enter a house that is still standing with no invitation when all he did was torch the insides ?) and just you want to reach out for the nearest copy of the awesome original. Even the sequel to that film runs rings around this abomination. Save your money and rent those films because Fright Night 2011 is DOA.
Very Fast quick time pass movie. Just don’t compare it with the original. Its not even a pale shadow of the original. But yes – Witty, original and a very nasty-hunk-vampire in Colin makes it a swell trip. Definitely watch it – this is a good example of a remake, which doesn’t carry the baggage of the original and makes a nice entertaining statement. I will tell you whats the tasty thing abt this movie. Its an KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN – you really don’t think abt it much when ur biting and devouring it – You just enjoy it period. Good Spunky Vampire Fun. The Vampire looks real bad too.
What most ‘fans’ of the original ‘Fright Night’ forget, is that the 80′s flick was not a great film itself, but rather a movie that delivered some great fun. This re-make manages to do just that, in an updated fashion. There is enough here true to the original and enough different from it to be considered, in my eyes, in league with the 2004 Dawn of the Dead. It has the right blend of horror and comedy and it is well shot, acted, directed.. ect. What more do you want? This is certainly a better offering than the majority of ‘horror’ films we’ve received at our mainstream cinemas this year. It’s just plain fun.
I just don’t think they should’a fucked with the original film. It was a classic horror flick. Just like they shouldn’t have fucked with A Nightmare On Elm Street, but they did anyways. I’m just tired of people remaking movies. It’s like Hollywood ran out of ideas or something so they have to remake any horror movie they can. Whateverrr.
I’m still gonna watch this movie though, because I’m a horror fan, and I can’t judge what I have never seen before. Besides, maybe it won’t be so bad? I liked the remake of Halloween. I didn’t like a lot of parts in it, but it was a decent film. The second one, not so much. Oh well, we’ll see where this movie goes. I’ll come back when I’ve actually seen it.
Are you all on crack?? Did you not even watch the movie??? They kept the finest points from the original and padded the movie to make it modernized!!! I loved the cameo and small innuendos to the original!! Colin Farrell did an amazing job as Dandridge as did Antonin Yelchin as Charlie!! I think like an remake you have to go in with an open mind!!!! Watch the movie before judging!!
I thought this was a very decent movie. Although it started a little weak, the primise was interesting and by the end I was really loving this.
Fright Night felt a lot like watching a Buffy the Vampire episode, and while this was great for me I can understand why some people didnt like it. Marti Noxon I felt wrote a great script.
Colin Farrell was well cast as the evil vampire, but Im not sure the main star Antoin Yelchin was the right person. Overall this was a fun film. Dont expect it to be scary its supposed to be funny and deliver a few shocks as it does.
David Tennent wasnt bad either and I dont particularly like him! This was much better than I expected and I only ended up seeing this because I missed the showing for Final Destination 5. Although something tells me this film is going to be far better than Final Destination 5.
I give this 7 out of 10- its fun!
I thought this was worth seeing in the theater, although not in 3D. The remake of Fright Night was played far more seriously than the original, so I can see why people might be disappointed. But, Colin Farrell made an *excellent* vampire sociopath and a certain cameo was much appreciated. I really wish David Tennant would have had more screen time, though.
Fright Night was a…strange experience for a goofy type horror. I haven’t seen the original movie, so I was expecting this to be some intense thriller like “Disturbia” or something similar. While disappointed in the lack of suspense, I enjoyed the random cheesy parts played by Colin Farrell and Christopher Mintz. They really helped the boringness of the film so I never once thought about falling asleep. If you think Fright Night is promising and will meet your expectations, you’ll be disappointed. My advice: wait till it comes out for rental. See it once and never again
I really dont understand how this was film made it to theaters. Total crap,
Better than I expected (still inferior to the original), but why why WHY so much CGI?! I probably would have ended up liking this movie more if they had used AT LEAST practical blood instead of CGI blood.
6.5/10
Don’t understand all the hate around this film. Yes it was different from the original b/c it has to be! It can’t be like the remake of Psycho where it’s the same from frame to frame. This movie was great. The cast is awesome, the gore is great, and everything about this movie was great. Loved it!
I definitely enjoyed this movie. It doesnt stray much from the original. I would like to have seen Christopher Mintz a bit more, his role was cut down a lot. Colin plays a decent vampire, but sometimes I feel he was trying too hard. Its a fun movie to watch and the cast is strong.
This Brewster is not cool, at all! Heartless, bland, not funny and certainly not frightening this “Fright Night” is doomed to be forgotten for the boring mediocrity that it is. It is more of a patchwork of scenes of the original that have to be played out (since this is a remake)no matter the bad logic. The new Evil Ed is a blasphemy on Stephen Geoffreys amazing character and the updated Peter Vincent is not exactly working within the context of the story. The special effects are terrible and it’s disappointing that in a time where they can do so much more there are no cool transformations, werewolves, zombies and huge bats. Thumps down!
All the stupid CGI gore effects killed it for me. Yet another classic destroyed by Hollywood. I really hope they don’t remake Return of the Living Dead or Re-Animator.
Just rented this last night and I actually enjoyed it. It was a good mixture of humor and horror. I do agree that the CG was mostly unnecessary and the movie could have been just as effective without it. I liked the story and the character though. Overall a fun experience.
Well, it doesn’t give you the feeling the original did but I don’t think anyone expected that. Not a big Colin Farrell fan, nor did I care much for all the digital blood. Still, the movie managed to stay above average keeping you wrapped up in this 80′s remake. Nice Cameo and way to fit in the infamous line ” Oh, you’re so COOL, Brewster!”
I have some fond memories of Tom Holland’s “Fright Night” from when I watched it just a few months back; and it’s upon those very memories that I built my expectations for the 2011 remake. Having seen the original – which is a classic in vampire cinema -, I came in expecting vampire mythology of both the classic and modern variety, plenty of gore, plenty of special effects, and plenty of style. Can I truly say that, with those expectations set out, I was disappointed? No, I suppose I can’t. This “Fright Night” is a fast-paced, energetic thrill-ride with enough trickery in both the visual effects and screenwriting fields to pass as a pretty good night at the movies.
Sure, it certainly isn’t perfect; and it can’t quite measure up to the original no matter how close it gets (and that’s pretty darn close, if you ask me). But as a remake, I’d say it’s pretty solid; after all, we live in a world where Hollywood shells out dozens of J-horror remakes (or at least there was a time when they did this perhaps more often). So the fact that this remake of “Fright Night” is actually a pretty entertaining one is, in its own, impressive. Under the direction of Craig Gillespie, it’s the kind of modern vampire tale that works, if only to certain extents.
Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin) is a teenager living in the suburbs of Las Vegas. He shares a home with his mother (Toni Collette); the father is apparently out of the picture. It would seem that life for Charley pretty much begins at school; where he can be with his new-found friends (the “cool” crowd) as well as his beautiful girlfriend Amy (Imogen Poots). He also has one other acquaintance; “Evil” Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), who is the kind of guy that you’d rather not know at all. Ed is what most would call a nerd; he has his fixations, and at present, his obsession is with vampires. He informs Charley that his new neighbor – a man named Jerry (Colin Farrell) – is indeed one of them.
Charley ignores Ed’s concerns and continues to show general hospitality towards the boy next-door. However, he keeps Ed’s “illogical” musings on the subject of vamps in mind whenever he sees Jerry; there’s an ancient part of vampire mythology that says the creatures cannot enter a home unless they are invited in, and when Jerry stops by to ask if Charley can lend him a few beers, our hero observes the fact that he never quite makes it to the level of entry.
But that’s not enough to prove anything of what Ed said. However, there is one night where Charley gets especially intrigued by Jerry and a beautiful girl that he has invited over; the situation just seems a bit odd. About as interested as he is disturbed, Charley sneaks into Jerry’s house to investigate; and discovers that his friend’s claims were right. Jerry is a blood-sucking creature of the night.
So we now come to the best part of the film; the formal introduction of a very important character, Peter Vincent (David Tenant). Vincent is the host of a television program in which she stars as a talented magician; although the real illusionist is the special effects team behind the show. Regardless, he appears to know a great deal about vampires; so Charley approaches him and asks for proper guidance on how to kill one. Vincent – a collector of rare artifacts commonly found in vampire lore – doesn’t quite believe Charley at first, but is soon forced to when matters get from bad to worse. Jerry gets violent; and so must the protagonists. And once both sides are equally equipped, the fright night begins.
The filmmakers must have done their homework; because this is the rare remake that really works. Like Zack Snyder’s “Dawn of the Dead”, the writers chose to take the same approach with their new screenplay for the re-imagining; and their efforts have ultimately paid off. Whether you particularly like this new “Fright Night” or not, it stays true to the spirit of the original (there are some clever homages to the earlier film) and I quite liked that. The cast couldn’t be more perfect – with Tennant stealing the show at any chance he gets – and there’s a pretty good balance of horror and humor. There are big laughs, big jumps; and it all amounts to a bloody good time. I admit, it isn’t for everyone; not even a lot of the people who truly love the Holland-directed original. But Gillespie kept me entertained through visuals and performances; for that, I am pretty darn grateful. “Fright Night”, the 2011 version, has earned my seal of approval.
One of this year’s biggest disappointments. Yes, I hated it even more than other 3D garbage like “Shark Night” or “One Way Trip”. I tried to enjoy it, I really did – but I couldn’t.
The characters (the principal strength of the original) are absolutely horrible here: Anton Yelchin plays Brewster as a completely unlikable douchebag, Mintz-Plasse annoyingly transformed Evil Ed into another unfunny McLovin incarnation, Colin Farrell is one of the dullest vampires I’ve seen in a long time, and worst of all, David Tennant, who decided to turn the great vampire killer Peter Vincent into an unbearable Russell Brand imitation.
There’s hardly any suspense or atmosphere, the pacing is tedious, the CGI looks terrible and the supposed-to-be-cool Indie-soundtrack totally doesn’t fit. In fact, all the songs from ‘hip’ artists like Foster The Kids or Lupe Fiasco appear as if they were just randomly thrown in.
A pathetic, worthless and frightfully bad rip-off.
http://www.horrormoviediary.net
A good and fun vampire film. I haven’t seen the 1985 version, but I got the chance to watch this version. I loved it. One of the better films of 2011. Colin Farrell is incredibly sexy as the vampire. Imogen Poots is great, as always. Christopher Mintz-Plasse was wonderful to watch, just like in Superbad. There are some very intense and creepy scenes and the atmosphere is really good. I recommend it and I would like to watch the original.
Not as bad as i was expecting, not enough “evil” though.
I tend to be sorta harsh with remakes of movies where I love the original. I donâe(TM)t think this was âeoebadâe but with a bit of tweeking it could have been pretty decent as an âeoeoriginalâe film. Not a remake. I urge all you out there who have not seen the original to please watch it first. It might be âeoeoldâe by your standards but it holds up REALLY well and its one of my all time favorite vampire films. 2/5 stars. Check out a more in depth review at my Horror Movie/Book review site @ ShiversOfHorror.com
YES! This movie is awsome, had alot of fun with this film!
This remake of the original 1985 Cult classic is really impressive and unique and one of the best remakes to come out over the last few years. I seriously enjoyed this movie and I saw it with my mom last August 2011 in 3D and it’s a great movie and I seriously like it. To say this I never watched the original 1985 classic but I enjoyed this remake. This movie had the same plot and the plot of this movie is just as good as the original 1985 cult classic. This is also one of the best Horror films to come out in 2011. I personally like it and this remake is scary and funny at the same time like the original Fright Night and this movie has more funnier moments and scarier moments than the original 1985 classic. What’s great about this remake is that the film has a lot of humor compared to the original Fright Night and everything in this movie seriously looks incredible and unique and I seriously had a good time watching this movie. What I personally like about this film is that the movie has lots of hilarious dialogues and the characters are even funnier in this movie than the original 1985 cult classic and it really fits well in the movie so far. Plus I also enjoyed the jokes in this movie. All the jokes are really hilarious and funny and I personally enjoyed it as well and it also fits well in the movie so far. What I also like about this remake is that the film also has loads of thrills and unique and suspenceful scares and the vampires in this movie are scary and hilarious sometimes as well and I really enjoyed it. Now the 3D in this movie is really good I like the way the 3D was used in this movie like the 3D in Final Destination 5 the 3D here is incredibly used in the film and it instantly makes the movie even better than before so I personally enjoyed it so far. What I also like about this remake is that the film has lots of inventive camera work and the camera work in this movie really makes the film even better than before and I seriously like it so far. What I also like about Fright Night is that the film is full of incredible gore effects and the gore is seriously achieved in this film all of the gore effects used in the movie are really icky and nasty at the same time and it also fits well in the movie so far. Now the acting is amazing in the movie all of the casts are really good with their performances in the film so far Anton Yelchin was really good with his performance as the main protagonist Charley Brewster. Toni Collete did a good job with her performance as Charley’s mother. Imogen Poots of 28 Weeks Later did a good job with her performance as Charley’s girlfriend Amy. Christopher Mintz-Plasse did a good job with his performance as Evil Ed. Colin Farrell did a good job with his performance as the main antagonist Jerry Dandrige the vampire and David Tennant of Harry Potter an the Goblet Of Fire did a good job with his performance as Peter Vincent Charley’s friend and partner all of the casts in this movie did a great job with their performances in the movie so far. Director Craig Gillespie did a good job with his directing of the remake of the 1985 cult classic so far and I’m hoping that he will make another good movie in the future so far. Overall this movie gets a 10/10. This is one of the best Horror films of 2011 and it goes to the list of Horror films that I watched and enjoyed.
Hostel Part III
1) Paranormal Activity 3
2) Contagion
3) The Thing
4) Final Destination 5
5) Fright Night remake
6) Bereavement
7) Wrong Turn 4 Bloody Beginnings
9) Apollo 18
I don’t like when a semi-decent horror film gets overhyped because then it just becomes downright irritable. Fright Night, once again, won’t mold the genre or fix in the cracks. It’s a passable remake/thriller/reboot, you get the idea. The original was better though.
Comment