Editorials
Why the Criminally Underrated ‘Fright Night’ is a Near-Perfect Horror Remake
I don’t envy any filmmaker remaking a beloved horror movie. Trying to strike a balance between introducing a new generation of film-goers to what was so great about the original while also appeasing an established fan base sounds like an impossible feat.
However, every once in a while that tight-rope act is conquered, and the movie-going masses are graced with films like Martin Scorsese’s Cape Fear (1991), Gore Verbinski’s The Ring (2002) and Zack Snyder’s Dawn of the Dead (2004). While I believe the aforementioned movies are all fantastic, there is one lesser-appreciated remake that is right up there with them when it comes to breathing new life into a property. That film is Craig Gillespie’s 2011 recreation of the 1985 cult classic, Fright Night.
And before someone sets the comments section ablaze, yes, Scorsese’s Cape Fear is objectively a better film than Fright Night (2011), but just roll with me, okay?
What makes this silly little ‘80s movie so special?
In the summer of 1985, Writer/Director/Not-Spider-Man Tom Holland (Child’s Play, Thinner, Psycho II) bequeathed audiences a horror/comedy/teenage/vampire film the likes of which had never been seen. Holland propped Fright Night up on a very simple premise: what if your next door neighbor was a vampire?
That simple notion generated a fun mix of Hitchcockian paranoia, Hardy Boy Mystery, and the works of Ray Bradbury while never taking itself too seriously. And despite its carefree attitude, the film was still able to be a sharp critique on society’s treatment of homosexual men in the wake of the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s (boy, this paragraph took a turn). Fright Night is a smart film. Probably smarter than it has any right to be. It’s also surprisingly funny. Most of the film’s humor is anchored by the fantastic cast, especially Chris Sarandon as Jerry the Vampire.
Yes, our villainous blood-sucker is named Jerry…
While the original Fright Night holds up pretty well, there are some facets that time has not been kind to (Jerry’s wardrobe, for example). Luckily, the remake updates the film like a fixer-upper home. The foundation for greatness is already there. The rest is just window dressing.
Craig Gillespie’s film certainly takes flight from the same launch pad. But what really makes his version shine is the manner in which we are reintroduced to the same gallery of characters with more contemporary edges. To me, this is what makes it such a compelling remake.
Our hero, Charley Brewster, is still an awkward teenager trying hard to be part of a clique, but instead of grappling with self-denied homosexual tendencies, the 2011 version of Charley (played by the late, great Anton Yelchin) is trying to escape from under the weight of his own uber-nerdom and grappling with isolating himself from people who truly love him.
While it may not be as morally pressing, the themes of isolation (self-imposed or not) and growing out of childish predilections must speak volumes to teenagers across the board despite their sexual orientation (given, this is coming from a straight, white dude who listened to metal and read comics during his teen years…and still does, so take that observation with a huge grain of salt).
Now, I don’t think this change is necessarily better, but it makes sense. Attitudes toward accepting people’s sexuality has thankfully come a long way since 1985, and retreading those themes in the context of the same film may seem blasé despite their importance (unless the filmmakers were going to double-down on these issues, which would be extremely interesting since LGBTQ horror is pretty rare in the industry).
As for good ol’ Jerry…
I have nothing against Chris Sarandon. He’s a handsome, talented, charming actor who is awesome in everything I’ve ever seen him in (Princess Bride, anyone?); but Colin Farrell is…well, he’s goddamn Colin Farrell. He’s dark, brooding (as vampires are want to be), and could realistically lure you, your mom, and your significant other into his home with that mischievous grin and/or seductive vampire powers.
The entire cast is fantastic and everyone seems on board with the craziness of having a vampire move in next door. Toni Collette (The Sixth Sense, Krampus) as Charley’s mother brings a strong female presence that was mostly devoid in the original film. Christopher Mintz-Plasse (Superbad, Kick-Ass) somehow makes the character of Evil Ed simultaneously more likeable, menacing, and annoying than his predecessor, Stephen Geoffreys (976-EVIL).
But the biggest standout is David Tennant (Doctor Who, Broadstreet) as self-proclaimed vampire hunter turned entertainer, Peter Vincent.
Full disclosure: I love David Tennant so much, you guys…
In Holland’s original film, Peter Vincent, played by the legendary Roddy McDowall (Planet of the Apes), is portrayed as a washed-up television horror film host who had slipped into his once famous vampire killer persona. Think Elvira, but if Cassandra Peterson wasn’t in on the joke.
While McDowall’s sage vampire hunter is a great callback to the Hammer Film-era Val Helsing, David Tennant’s version lovingly pokes fun at vampire tropes that would become popular after the original Fright Night. These tropes include, but are not limited to: vague fetish sexiness, heavy eye shadow, leather pants, runic tattoos, and industrial rock music, all of which were pretty laughable by 2011. But beyond aesthetic, the key difference between the iterations is that Tennant’s Vincent has a personal connection with our villain, which is a plot element that adds a certain depth that McDowall’s character lacked.
From the character tweaks to the shift in themes and location, all the small changes in Fright Night 2011 culminate to create a fresh take on a timeless story.
And if you miss the original while watching it, a really fun cameo from Chris Sarandon himself should be all you need to win you over.
Having grown up in a religious family, Christian movie night was something that happened a lot more often than I care to admit. However, back when I was a teenager, my parents showed up one night with an unusually cool-looking DVD of a movie that had been recommended to them by a church leader. Curious to see what new kind of evangelical propaganda my parents had rented this time, I proceeded to watch the film with them expecting a heavy-handed snoozefest.
To my surprise, I was a few minutes in when Denzel Washington proceeded to dismember a band of cannibal raiders when I realized that this was in fact a real movie. My mom was horrified by the flick’s extreme violence and dark subject matter, but I instantly became a fan of the Hughes Brothers’ faith-based 2010 thriller, The Book of Eli. And with the film’s atomic apocalypse having apparently taken place in 2024, I think this is the perfect time to dive into why this grim parable might also be entertaining for horror fans.
Originally penned by gaming journalist and The Walking Dead: The Game co-writer Gary Whitta, the spec script for The Book of Eli was already making waves back in 2007 when it appeared on the coveted Blacklist. It wasn’t long before Columbia and Warner Bros. snatched up the rights to the project, hiring From Hell directors Albert and Allen Hughes while also garnering attention from industry heavyweights like Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman.
After a series of revisions by Anthony Peckham meant to make the story more consumer-friendly, the picture was finally released in January of 2010, with the finished film following Denzel as a mysterious wanderer making his way across a post-apocalyptic America while protecting a sacred book. Along the way, he encounters a run-down settlement controlled by Bill Carnegie (Gary Oldman), a man desperate to get his hands on Eli’s book so he can motivate his underlings to expand his empire. Unwilling to let this power fall into the wrong hands, Eli embarks on a dangerous journey that will test the limits of his faith.
SO WHY IS IT WORTH WATCHING?
Judging by the film’s box-office success, mainstream audiences appear to have enjoyed the Hughes’ bleak vision of a future where everything went wrong, but critics were left divided by the flick’s trope-heavy narrative and unapologetic religious elements. And while I’ll be the first to admit that The Book of Eli isn’t particularly subtle or original, I appreciate the film’s earnest execution of familiar ideas.
For starters, I’d like to address the religious elephant in the room, as I understand the hesitation that some folks (myself included) might have about watching something that sounds like Christian propaganda. Faith does indeed play a huge part in the narrative here, but I’d argue that the film is more about the power of stories than a specific religion. The entire point of Oldman’s character is that he needs a unifying narrative that he can take advantage of in order to manipulate others, while Eli ultimately chooses to deliver his gift to a community of scholars. In fact, the movie even makes a point of placing the Bible in between equally culturally important books like the Torah and Quran, which I think is pretty poignant for a flick inspired by exploitation cinema.
Sure, the film has its fair share of logical inconsistencies (ranging from the extent of Eli’s Daredevil superpowers to his impossibly small Braille Bible), but I think the film more than makes up for these nitpicks with a genuine passion for classic post-apocalyptic cinema. Several critics accused the film of being a knockoff of superior productions, but I’d argue that both Whitta and the Hughes knowingly crafted a loving pastiche of genre influences like Mad Max and A Boy and His Dog.
Lastly, it’s no surprise that the cast here absolutely kicks ass. Denzel plays the title role of a stoic badass perfectly (going so far as to train with Bruce Lee’s protégée in order to perform his own stunts) while Oldman effortlessly assumes a surprisingly subdued yet incredibly intimidating persona. Even Mila Kunis is remarkably charming here, though I wish the script had taken the time to develop these secondary characters a little further. And hey, did I mention that Tom Waits is in this?
AND WHAT MAKES IT HORROR ADJACENT?
Denzel’s very first interaction with another human being in this movie results in a gory fight scene culminating in a face-off against a masked brute wielding a chainsaw (which he presumably uses to butcher travelers before eating them), so I think it’s safe to say that this dog-eat-dog vision of America will likely appeal to horror fans.
From diseased cannibals to hyper-violent motorcycle gangs roaming the wasteland, there’s plenty of disturbing R-rated material here – which is even more impressive when you remember that this story revolves around the bible. And while there are a few too many references to sexual assault for my taste, even if it does make sense in-universe, the flick does a great job of immersing you in this post-nuclear nightmare.
The excessively depressing color palette and obvious green screen effects may take some viewers out of the experience, but the beat-up and lived-in sets and costume design do their best to bring this dead world to life – which might just be the scariest part of the experience.
Ultimately, I believe your enjoyment of The Book of Eli will largely depend on how willing you are to overlook some ham-fisted biblical references in order to enjoy some brutal post-apocalyptic shenanigans. And while I can’t really blame folks who’d rather not deal with that, I think it would be a shame to miss out on a genuinely engaging thrill-ride because of one minor detail.
With that in mind, I’m incredibly curious to see what Whitta and the Hughes Brothers have planned for the upcoming prequel series starring John Boyega…
There’s no understating the importance of a balanced media diet, and since bloody and disgusting entertainment isn’t exclusive to the horror genre, we’ve come up with Horror Adjacent – a recurring column where we recommend non-horror movies that horror fans might enjoy.
Looking for New Episodes of “Chucky” on Peacock? Here’s What Changed
‘Mountain Man’ – Joe Manganiello Will Battle Zombies in Upcoming Horror Movie
‘The Blair Witch Project’ – Original Stars Release a Statement Asking Lionsgate for Residuals & Recognition
‘Trap’ – Official Trailer Previews a Wild New Horror Experience from M. Night Shyamalan
‘The Exorcism’ – Russell Crowe Stars in Horror Movie Formerly Titled ‘The Georgetown Project’
You must be logged in to post a comment.