Movies: 18454 | TV Series: 3282 | Added today: 0 | Storage: 65882 GB
- Forgot password?
- | Register
- | Support
- | FAQ
- | Help
Download, Watch online Fright Night Movie.
| Genres: | ComedyHor |
| Starring: | Chris Sarandon, Colin Farrell, Anton Yelchin, Will Denton, Imogen Poots, Toni Collette, Lisa Loeb |
| Director(s): | Craig Gillespie |
| Available Quality: | DivX, Hi Def, Hi Def |
| Country: | USA, India |
| Year: | 2011 |
| IMDB Rating: | 6.6 |
A remake of the 1985 original, teenager Charley Brewster (Yelchin) guesses that his new neighbor Jerry Dandrige (Farrell) is a vampire responsible for a string of recent deaths. When no one he knows believes him, he enlists Peter Vincent (Tennant), a self proclaimed vampire killer and Las Vegas magician, to help him take down Jerry.
 |
Fright Night (Hi Def) | Resolution: 1920x1080 px | Total Size: 7828 Mb |
|
|
 |
Fright Night (Hi Def) | Resolution: 1280x720 px | Total Size: 4472 Mb |
|
|
 |
Fright Night (DivX) | Resolution: 624x352 px | Total Size: 700 Mb |
|
Movie Photos: We have taken some photos of "Fright Night". They represent actual movie quality.
Visitor Reviews: (20)
cafm 15 May 2012
Comparisons be damned ...
When Tom Holland helmed Fright Night in 1985, critics and public alikewere pretty unanimous that the film was, to quote NYTimes writer, JanetMaslin, "flat and uneven." You wouldn't think so, reading all thoseglowing IMDb reviews of the original film as users take time out tocompare the 2011 remake with Holland's offering. You'd think that theway the original Fright Night is being discussed that it was the bestfilm ever made, and now some suggest that the remake is the worst filmever made. Both claims are equally obscene. As usual, the truth liessomewhere between the two extremes. Holland's Fright Night is by no means a "classic" of the genre as someoverenthusiastic reviewers have suggested. Indeed it's little more thana silly romp with occasional in-jokes about the appeal of B-gradecinema, the decline of the studio system, and the changing tastes ofhorror fans in the age of slasher franchises. On occasion the narrativecomes almost to a halt as the film draws attention to its occasionallyartful make up effects. Unfortunately some of these receive way toomuch screen time and some of the especially drawn out sequences couldhave done with more disciplined editing (consider Dandridge's housemateBilly Cole's impressive though overlong disintegration, or Evil Ed'sprotracted metamorphosis from wolf to human ... are we there yet?).Also consider the film's campy screenplay, with such immortal lines as,"Mmmm, dinner is in the oven!" Where the film really works is with itscast. It was a boon for first timer Tom Holland to secure two strongmale leads: the jittery charm of Roddy McDowell and the magneticgracefulness of Chris Sarandon - it's hard to imagine what sort of filmit would have been without them. This all sounds like I'm bagging the film, but truth is I'm a big fanand I've lost count how many times i've watched it. But putting somedistance between my enjoyment of the film and an impartial assessmentof it, its clear that Fright Night (1985) is little more than a guiltypleasure made all the more pleasurable for fans like me who experienceall sorts of nostalgic pangs as we watch it again (and again) and notethat it's a pretty decent representation of a particular style ofmovie-making popular during the 1980s, as well as being a stylishlygood looking film. It is perhaps also an excellent example, along withFreddy's Revenge: A Nightmare on Elm Street 2, of a particular type ofhomoerotic subtext that appeared frequently in horror films in the 80s:two stylishly handsome men sharing a house filled with tastefulantiques who hide a dark and tantalising secret that interests the boynext door more than the sexual advances of his girlfriend. Hello! Thelong and short of it is that there's a lot to like about the originalFright Night, but it's no classic of the cinema. Just a jolly goodtime.As for the 2011 remake, it is neither an especially good movie, but noris it particularly poor. If anything, the same phrase that Maslin usedto describe the original Fright Night could very easily be applied tothe remake. It is "flat and uneven," and yet it has some solid momentsand nasty surprises, and like the original, it is a fatuous B-graderomp that has managed to assemble enough talent to give it the illusionof being a better film than it actually is. Perhaps because it is themore proficient of the recent rash of remakes - staying respectful toits source material while deviating in some culturally relevant and attimes innovative ways - that future generations may award it thedubious honour of being the best of a bad batch.
moviewizguy 14 May 2012
You can't run from evil when it lives next door.
Senior Charlie Brewster finally has it all: He's running with thepopular crowd and dating the hottest girl in high school. In fact, he'sso cool he's even dissing his best friend Ed. But trouble arrives whenan intriguing stranger Jerry moves in next door. He seems like a greatguy at first, but there's something not quite right, and everyone,including Charlie's mom, doesn't notice. After witnessing some veryunusual activity, Charlie comes to an unmistakable conclusion: Jerry isa vampire preying on his neighborhood. Unable to convince anyone thathe's telling the truth, Charlie has to find a way to get rid of themonster himself. -- (C) DreamWorksAlthough the original FRIGHT NIGHT was downright cheesy (from theeffects to the performances), its balance of humor and scares made itentertaining. This remake takes the basic storyline and modernizes it,like how DISTURBIA modernized REAR WINDOW. Apart from the fact that thestory is still the same, the plot changes quite a bit. In fact, thefirst half of the film has more in common with DISTURBIA than theoriginal film itself, and the second half veers off in a completelydifferent direction from the original, although there are somerecognizable similarities. There are also some clever updates thatimproves upon the original film, like how the setting is now in Vegas,where people work and party all night and sleep all day, which is aperfect location for a vampire to hunt if you ask me.With all the changes, the remake does retain the original's wackinesswithout taking itself too seriously. There's a sense of self-awarenessthat is common upon many horror films these days that try to be cooland hip, but it works here. As much as it works as a comedy, there aresome scary scenes as well due to director Craig Gillespie building upthe suspense. There's one jaw dropping sequence in particular that isvery well orchestrated. Without spoiling anything, I will say that it'sall in one impressive long take. Unfortunately, the film does favor theuse of CGI over the original's practical effects, which should beexpected in a modern horror film. Some of it looked rather cartooneyand cheesy.Most of the characters are changed as well, even from their screentime. Amy's character, played wonderfully by Imogen Poots, has a moresubstantial role here. Where in the original Amy was pretty useless andgirly, this updated Amy is more in the line of modern heroines, whichis another way to say that she kicked ass. Toni Collette has some timeto shine as well playing Charley's mother, Jane. Where she pretty muchdisappears halfway in the original, Jane is actually brought into someof the exciting action here. Evil Ed, played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse, is also changed dramatically (and for the better) and gone ishis cheesy line, "You're so cool, Brewster!" However, I will say thathe is the weakest link in the film, mainly because I couldn't take himseriously (which is due to the fact that I still remember him asMcLovin).The film's main character is played well by Anton Yelchin, but the morecolorful supporting actors really outshine him here, especially DavidTennant, who plays Peter Vincent. Going by the pattern, his characterfrom the original is also changed to a British drunk who works as aVegas star in which Tennant plays really well. And lastly, the film'svillain, Jerry, is played wonderfully by Colin Farrell, who reallynever loses his cool. Although much younger, he definitely brings thesame charisma into the role as Chris Sarandon did in the original.Overall, FRIGHT NIGHT (2011) is very enjoyable, funny, scary, and isdefinitely one of the better remakes that have come around. Its use ofold-school vampire lore is surprisingly refreshing considering that theTWILIGHT SAGA is the standard of what vampires are these days, and thecast is terrific. As for the 3D, I'd say skip it and watch it in 2D ifyou can because the majority of the film does take place at night, soit was hard for me to see what was going on.
oneguyrambling 14 May 2012
A modern day update of the classic 85 flick. Doesn't embarrass itself.
There was nothing much wrong with the original Fright Night from 1985.I reviewed it earlier this year and gave it what I think is a solidrecommendation.But a generation has passed since that was released, and movieaudiences experience precious little rush at discovering a film aquarter century old that their parents like. So here we are. A funlittle remake of Fright Night with an update to more present dayconventions  meaning more swearing, more frank discussions of sex,more skin and more relevant music. None of these are bad things by theway.Right this guy is Charlie Brewster. Charlie is the son of a single mum(Toni Collette) living in a small housing estate on the outskirts ofLas Vegas, a settlement with an itinerant population boasting manyshift workers and night owls.Charlie was until very recently one of the class geeks, though somehowhe has ascended up the popularity ladder and is now one of the coolkids. This apparently entitles him to a hot girlfriend named Amy(Imogen Poots) and unsolicited comments from neighbouring hot chicks intight pants along the lines of "Gee Charlie you're getting big" whilesaid hottie takes out the garbage.I now invite, suggest, demand that you look again at the picture ofCharlie taken from his performance in this very film. If that allsounds logical and above board the next bit shouldn't test your powersof imagination one iota.Charlie's childhood friend  and unfortunately still a nerd  Ed(Christopher Mintz-Plasse, 4 years on from McLovin and STILL resignedto nerdy sidekick roles) is not distracted by the writing on thederrieres of hotties nor the stirrings in his own fashionable slacks,therefore he sees what others do not. Ed points out the fact thatseveral kids in class have simply and inexplicably stopped showing up,then backs up this anomaly with a theory: it must be the work of avampire.Ed not only theorises the proximity of an undead bloodsucker but healso identifies his accused, Charlie's brand new next door neighbournamed Jerry, who conveniently pops by shortly afterward to introducehimself and to make drooling puddles of both Charlie's Mum andgirlfriend. Jerry is buff, hot, mysterious and nice initially.For those who saw the entertaining low key original not much haschanged, Charlie and co quickly learn the truth  it's fair to say thatJerry isn't too fixated on maintaining anonymity  and the remainder ofthe film has them dealing with the new development.This time though instead of a creaky old has been horror show hostCharlie seeks out the advice of the only man who could possibly providea plan of attack, a renowned Vegas magician and supposed guru regardingall things vampire named Peter Vincent, who is initially reticent tobecome involved but is gradually drawn into proceedings. The characterof Vincent starts out a little one note but he becomes increasinglyamusing and reminiscent of Russell Brand at times.The Fright Night remake wisely doesn't take things too seriously likeremakes of Nightmare on Elm Street and Halloween have done in recentyears. It neatly tiptoes the line between shlocky horror and sillycomedy, ably assisted by the performance from Colin Farrell that leavesthe film no option but to stay at least a little silly. (It is a'vampire next door' comedy set in Vegas after all.) Things only get alittle out of hand in the closing scenes where it all gets a littleS.W.A.T. Paintball Commando for a few moments, with the predictableresults that would ensue given such a description, but the CGI assistedgore thankfully never oversteps the mark and Peter Vincent and Jerrykeep the film on the right side of the fun ledger.Final Rating  7 / 10. Fright Night 2011 is a fun way to spend anevening, and like 2010's remake of 'Let the Right One in' called 'Letme in', it benefits from more or less remaining faithful to the sourcematerial and by not being too clever for its own good.(I still think the least plausible thing in the film is the nerdy kidwith the hot girlfriend receiving random compliments from similarly hotstrangers.)
ARTaylor 13 May 2012
Among the Great Remakes
Fright Night is based off the 1985 film of the same name. Personally, Ididn't particularly care about the original. It was okay but I didn'tthink it was anything special. The mix of horror and comedy has givenit a dedicated following over the years. I've never seen the sequel,but everything I've heard says it's pretty bad. Now, remakes andreboots are all the rage, especially if they are a movie from the 80s.Many of these remakes have been merely okay at best, and most arepointless. So how does this remake stand up? Incredibly well, in fact.In the great pantheon of film remakes, Fright Night stands alongsidegreats like The Thing, The Blob '88, Invasion of the Body Snatchers '78for one simple reason: the story remains true to the original whilemaking enough differences to be their own movie. The story is basicallythe same, so there's no real surprises for fans of the original. But itisn't just a shot-for-shot remake like Psycho or what seems like arehash like The Karate Kid. It may have the same run time but thepacing is different, events are rearranged, and people do the samething for different reasons.It's these subtle differences that really make the movie stand out. Forone, the movie is been updated with contemporary themes. Instead oflarge Gothic mansions set in some anonymous suburb, this is set inregular homes near Las Vegas. There's a lot played with the lastdecade's housing boom and subsequent crash. Real life problems such asforeclosures and abandoned houses put a modern twist on classic vampirelore. This makes this version much more relatable to modern audiences.And, much like Invasion '78, a simple change of location provides muchthematic differences from the original. The (in)famous Vegas nightlifeand spectacle shows play a big role in the film and compliment vampirelore in a modern way perfectly.The cast is good all around. No one falls short. Anton Yelchin handlesbeing the center of the movie well. But the two standouts are DavidTennan as Peter Vincent and Colin Farrell as Jerry Dandrige. Tennanfollows Roddy McDowall in an equally impressive role. He's clearlybringing some of Russell Brand into his version and makes a fun andinteresting role that is his own. Though it's Ferrell who steals themovie as the villain. He's incredibly creepy but almost charming.There's an intelligence that comes through his performance in a BelaLugosi's Dracula kind of way. This is an intelligent villain who isn'tintimidated by the heroes.The tone of the film maintains what made the original so memorable.It's true to the spirit of the original by maintaining the clever mixof fun comedy and suspenseful scares. As stated, Jerry is like theshark from Jaws and when he's on the hunt you never really know howit's going to end. And when he finally does get going the actiondoesn't stop. Then the movie will pull out some joke that lightens themood. Like at one point, Jerry attacks someone then immediately talksto onlookers like he's going out for beers with them later. It's littlethings like this that make the movie entertaining throughout.There's only one black spot on the movie, and that deals with "Evil"Ed. First, Christopher Mintz-Plasse plays the same exact character he'splayed in Superbad and Kick-Ass. That same goofy, bumbling characterwho's trying to be more than he really is. I'm beginning to wonder ifhe can play any other kind of character. Luckily, he only has a fewscenes in the movie. Second, Ed is pretty much wasted in the movie.There's a backstory between Ed and Charley that ends up not having muchto do with the story, and their relationship isn't finished well. Edseemed more like an afterthought, as though they didn't know how toadapt the character properly and he seems forced into this story.On another note, I saw the movie in 3D and it's wasted. The openingtitles look good and there's an interesting long shot set in the car,but that's about it. And unfortunately, there's a lot of gimmicky stuffthat pop out at the screen. Things like hands, balls, spikes, etcpopping out at the audience was silly back in the 50s and remains thatway to this day. Stuff like that draws attention to itself and takesthe audience out of the movie-watching experience.Fright Night is one of those remakes that easily equals, and quitepossibly surpasses, the original. It wisely uses the original as merelya frame to craft its own story. Fans of the original should appreciatethe modern twist, and it should be entertaining enough to draw in newfans. This is the kind of remake that movie fans wait for. Let's justhope that the sequel, if and when, is better than the original sequel.
rougexk1 10 May 2012
Not As Good As The Original!!!
Please be aware this review contains spoilers!!Whilst being a huge fan of the original movie (Even though it was made2 years before I was born) I think this was an OK attempt at trying tobring this movie into the modern cinema.What it lacked so much of in my opinion was the suave and charmingdemeanour of the character of Jerry Dandridge. Colin Farrell seemed toplay it as just a 'beer guzzling' guy looking for a quick way to gethold of woman and girls and create some 'Tribe' or some nonsensestoryline to fit into and it just didn't work for me. What got me sopulled into the original was the fact that he just fed and disposed ofthe bodies afterwards (No tribe nonsense) the only time he turnedanyone was when Charlie p*ssed him off and he decided to take Ed andAmy and change them and the scene when he does actually bites her, hetakes his time and she quite willingly lets him bite and turn her. Ididn't get any of that from Farrell's version of Jerry, just arrogance.(At least from my perspective) I think Colin Farrell is a good actor,but feel the direction he was given was very...Blah, if you get mymeaning?The character of Amy was beyond annoying and the way they wrote her wassimply too different from the original. (I know it's a Reboot, but forgoodness sake at least make the characters a little like their originalcounterparts) Charlie was just an absolute douche bag in this versionand I actually disliked his character all the way to the end. Not SoEvil-Ed was the most pointless part for me because their was nocharacter development before he got munched practically straight away.Peter Vincent was funny and made me laugh, but he just happened to havewhat was needed to turn everyone back. How Lame!!!I did like the way they used Vegas and the whole sleep during the day,work all night concept as it fit a Vampire story quite well and seemedto be the only thing in the movie that actually made sense! IMHO I being a huge fan of the original had gone into the cinema withthe mentality of being disappointed and I seriously was, but as a standalone for this tween generation they'll probably love it,Unfortunately!!!(This is my opinion only)The Original is Better so I'll stick with that one instead!!
Chaz_233 10 May 2012
A nice surprise
I didn't quite know what to expect from this one but it turned out tobe entertaining and enjoyable.Charley used to be a nerd but now that he has a hot girlfriend he'strying to join the popular crowd leaving his nerdy friends behind. Buthis friends are starting to disappear. The one left, Ed, tries toconvince him a vampire is responsible for their disappearance- thevampire who turns out to be Charley's new neighbor Jerry. He dismissesthis at first but then Ed disappears as well. Now Charley on his owndecides to investigate further.As it turns out, Jerry is indeed a vampire and knows that Charely issnooping around. Charley rescues some girl Jerry has kidnapped andbitten but she is instantly cremated as she is exposed to the sun. Tocomplicate things further, Charley's mom has the hots for Jerry.Charley is forced to seek the guidance of Peter Vincent an EnglishVegas entertainer who presents himself as an expert on vampires anddark forces, but turns out to be a fraud.As expected Jerry will set his sights on the hot girlfriend and Charleywill have to battle him.I don't recall much of the original, but this version is fairlyenjoyable. All the women are beautiful and have a normal attitude, asopposed to the obnoxious super females in movies these days. The sceneof the girl going up in flames is very well done. Some of the CGIeffects later in the movie aren't that convincing. The obligatoryBritish character is an annoying caricature. Had this movie gone for anR rating it could have been a winner. As it is, it's mellow, goodnatured, and light fun.
DemiRonin 10 May 2012
Fright Night is a respectable horror remake, a fun movie that accomplishes as a time killer
In a time when Hollywood studios are looking for an easy buck byremaking every single popular movie they can get there hands on, itmakes perfect sense to bring back the 1985 vampire classic FrightNight; the story of a horny teenage boy living next to a vampire. AntonYelchin plays Charley, a popular high schooler living in a suburb ofLas Vegas who happens to be dating Amy (Imogen Poots), the hottest girlin school. When Ed, Charley's nerdy childhood friend (ChristopherMintz-Plasse) warns him that kids have gone missing and that a vampiremy be the cause, Charley shrugs it off. However once Charley learns thehorrible truth he is tasked with the same nightmare Ed was unable tosolve, convincing others that "Jerry the vampire" is murdering people.In order to protect his family and girlfriend from Jerry, played byColin Farrell, Charley enlists the help of Vegas show runner PeterVincent, played by the popular David Tennant of the TV series DoctorWho. Peter Vincent is a drunk ego maniac who is an expert on everythingvampire. Unfortunately Peter is also a bit of a chicken when it comesto actually facing the undead bloodsuckers.Fright Night [2011] stays fairly true to the original with thebasically the same characters and plot line of the original. At thesame time it's a well done modernization of the tale, making some ofthe elements of the previous iteration a bit more realistic. There isplenty of homage to the original but something new is the amount ofcomedy director Craig Gillespie's injects. There's plenty of laughs andreferences to the plague that is Twilight which makes watching a movieabout a neighborhood vampire that much more fun. Another tweak betweenthe versions is a more action based focus than the original. There areexplosions, shotguns, and car chases making the film a bit moreadventurous. Fright Night's acting is mediocre except for the performance by DavidTennnant, who brings most of the humor. Colin Farrell plays a decentvampire, who's charm allows him to disarm his would be accusers.However Farrell's body size works against him in that it takes awayfrom the fear that you'd expect of a vampire . Colin Farrell has neverreally had an intimidating and threatening film presence and wearingclothing out of a Ralph Lauren commercial doesn't help. In contrastChris Sarandon, the original Jerry, was a stalking six foot tree, whomade all other actors sharing the screen shrink. Toni Collette's talentis pretty much wasted in this film. Her relationship to Yelchin neverreaches believability as the two act more like chummy roommates ratherthan mother and son. If I had to choose one Fright Night to rewatch the 80s version wouldwin every time. Not only because the practical effects are simplyamazing but also the fact that the classic took full advantage of its Rrating which the 2011 version doesn't. There's something sexy about the1985 version that the 2011 adaptation leaves behind. Sure, there arehot and skinny women walking around in lingerie and plenty of swearwords but there's not the same sense of danger and seduction that wasinfused in the original. As for the 3D, and speaking as someone who hates 3D, I begrudginglyrecommend seeing Fright Night in 3D. The blood splattering and theglass flying at you makes the film feel like a carnival ride, whichadds to Fright Night's fun. The original Fright Night is not a filmthat has aged particularly well, and neither will Craig Gillespie'sversion. However that doesn't mean teenagers and horror fanaticsshouldn't take advantage of what is a decent vampire ride. 6 out of 10 This film is not for: Film viewers expecting anything profound
ihatespike 09 May 2012
A genuinely decent remake
We've all been there before; a movie starts getting remade and thehairs on our neck stand up, and not just because it's a horror flick.But then comes the release and no matter our past experiences we giveit a go.Fright Night is one of those remakes that justifies our hope inHollywood's ability to revitalize a story, and frankly the only 3D filmI've seen so far that made good use of...well the 3D. As others havesaid it really doesn't start out as anything that would blow your mind,but as soon as the groundwork is set in terms of characters the plottakes off with a shot, which is not only refreshing in any movie atall, but a fluid pace is something I feel the original was sorelylacking. The characters are allowed to become well-rounded, and that ina horror film with an R rating is rare and commendable- you truly careabout what's happening and who it's happening to. Then of coursethere's the vampire, and for someone who often plays over the topvillains, Colin Ferrell rides the black wave of languid evil throughand through. The entire film he resembles a ravenous shark, and everytime the camera got close to him I felt my skin crawl. An intelligentmonster is so much scarier and more interesting than a goofy bad-guystereotype. Speaking of goofy though, this film does not abandon it'scomedic roots because there's plenty of humor slipped in at just theright times so as to not offset the darker tones. The use of gorewasn't under or overplayed in my opinion, but my only real complaint isthe handful of crudities in dialog that I felt were unnecessarily crassand out of place. That being said the rest is purely enjoyable; even ifyou've seen the original this one will still shock and scare you, the3D ups the price but I think it's worth experiencing at least once, andunlike a handful of remade horror films thrown our way recently, thisone proves you can improve on an old formula and make it new and freshagain.
the_wolf_imdb 08 May 2012
Pointless, soulless, dumb, not thrilling, not scary
I have not seen the original, only the remake so I cannot judge thequality of original nor quality of the remake. The movie itself feelslike "afternoon teen movie for MTV generation" - lots of "dudes", lotsof shots of Las Vegas, total lack of logic or sense, no thrills at all,no horror at all.The Underworld series was stupid but at least it had some depth, coolcostumes and some cool fights. This movie feels like cheap rip off ofthe Disturbia combined with the most stupid vampire move you can everimagine. Plus some action at the end so we do not leave the cinema tooearly.I'm somewhat horrified that anyone could actually like it. The twofirst Blade movies were really good and the John Carpenters Vampireswas really great. So Americans actually can make really good vampiremovies - but this one is definitely not the case. What the hell, evenSalem's Lot was better, more clever and more scary! In Blade there werecool vampires, there was depth, mystery, war between clans and betweenvampires and humans.In here we have lousy neighborhood, one not particularly brightparanoid teenager, two not particularly bright blondes, one confusednerd, several "dudes" and one vampire which is not normal vampire, heis "almost unkillable killing machine" but actually behaves likeanother "dude". There is nothing important going on, everything thathappens is more or less somewhat escalated neighbor conflict completelyignored by anyone else in the vicinity.What a lousy movie. This is one of the worst vampire movies I have everseen and definitely the most dumb one. Total disappointment.
capone666 08 May 2012
The Vidiot Reviews...
Fright Night Having a vampire for a neighbour means that they're always dropping byto borrow a cup of AB+.Unfortunately, the only blood that the teen in this horror movie has tolend is inside of his veins.By the time Jerry (Colin Farrell) moves into Charley's (Anton Yelchin)suburb, Nevada locals have already began disappearing.It's not until his friends go missing that Charley suspects that Jerrymay be a vampire. Charley's suspicion is confirmed when Jerry turns hisgirlfriend (Imogen Poots).Declaring war on the bloodsucker, Charley seeks the assistance of a LasVegas magician (David Tennant) who dabbles in vampirism.Though a more carnal account than its 1985 inspiration, this re-makedoes adhere to its muse's mixture of comedy and carnage.And if you think that fighting with your neighbour over their eatinghabits is difficult, wait until you have to confront them about theirunkempt tree branches. (Yellow Light)
Jimmy Munoz 07 May 2012
Right ahead to the Razzies....
What kind of remake was this piece of garbage???...how the producersspend a lot of money on this one film???? lack of ideas...lack ofacting...lack of humor...the screenplay fails in every point that youcan imagine...Jerry the vampire has no charisma...sorry Colin Farrel isnot against you..I means...how could you to considered this screenplaya good movie? ...the others characters just simply flats...hollows...ED(fails) AMY (vomits)PETER VINCENT !!! I PREFEER CALL IT a terrible copyof Chris Angel, even Angel is a clown....so, you can imagineVincent...the original movie was the masterpiece of a cinema that icalled "honest cinema"...resume: "...and the razzies go to..." all thecategories that you named ...FRIGHT NIGHT 2011 IS THE WORST MOVIE OFTHE YEAR AND THE DECADE....
Elena Katrina 07 May 2012
Quite enjoyable.
I went to see this last night with little to no expectation what soever and left pleasantly surprised especially as I've been told bysomeone else who has reviewed this film here on IMDb that there are 3reasons I will not like this film. I disagree with each point and don'tthink it's up to anyone to tell anyone else what they will and won'tlike unless you know that person.A horror though it is not, well not what I think of as a horror. Ifound myself laughing quite a lot. There are many points at which youare most certainly supposed to be laughing but I even laughed at the"scary" parts, was I supposed to? I don't know, I don't much care, Iwas enjoying the film! I did think that the 3D was going to be stupidand pointless, much like it is in most things but there were a fewpoints where it worked really well by throwing things out at you(something that a lot of 3D action films really fail to do - make youmove out of the way whilst in your seat). The only problem with 3D isthat the film is too dark. Yet again I was faced with only outlines ofpeople rather than being able to see their faces and expressions insome shots, why hire an actor if you're not going to let me see himproperly because I have to look through black 3D glasses to watch thefilm. (Though this is more of a generic rant than specific to thisfilm).I thought the actors were great in it and David Tennant was superb andhow nice of him to come along and present it to us too! Loves it whenhis character de-characterised himself (Is that even a word?) andwhipped off his wig etc. I was in hysterics then. I'd have liked tohave seen a little bit more of Toni Collette as she is a fantasticactress and sadly her part was fairly boring in this.I will admit that I haven't seen the original but I will make a pointof seeing it now in order to compare the two. I imagine there will havebeen a lot of changes, there always are, but hopefully it will havebeen for the better. I'm not sure I'd have paid to go and see itthough, as much as I enjoyed it at the time. I might get it on DVDthough, it would be especially great for Halloween!
MBloodT 02 May 2012
Return Of The Vampires
The original Fright Night was already a cult classic which makes thisremake unnecessary. But since all vampires these days are less scaryand like what Evil Ed said "Love Sick", it can be necessary for somereason. Bringing back the true vampire camp. Although it's not as scaryas the original but Colin Farrel's performance improves the vampirevillain. This Fright Night is endlessly watchable and fun. This maysound strange but I think this version is better than the original.The original have the disturbing schlocky masks but this versionactually has the vampire danger and thrills. The credit goes to ColinFarrel. He gives a lot of vigor and terror to the evil vampire. DavidTennant has his own Peter Vincent. His charisma and delight shinesthrough all of his scenes. Just like Roddy McDowall, David Tennantnearly steals the show. But Farrel really owns this show.It's a welcome back, actually. It's not a cash in remake. It's thereturning of the vampire horror to our cinemas. Our vampire moviesthese days are just tired and relies to nothing but the senselessviolence. And some of them are in love with a bland girl and sparkle insunlight. But the biggest thing that is missing in most modern vampiremovies is how scary these monsters are. They are not only bloodsuckers.They can be terrifying for somehow.The filmmaking is obviously good but some of the CGI tones the scaresdown a little bit but it works though. The score sounds nothing likethe score of the original but it's true to its vampire genre. The movieis shot in 3D but most of the film is dark and 3D usually dims theaspect of a film but if you are in for some blood and sparks coming outof the screen then try it. Not quite recommending though.Overall, Fright Night is enjoyable. Maybe the biggest mistake they madeis the jump scares since Fright Night isn't really fond to that trend.Well, this is definitely better than all the unnecessary horror remakeswe usually get every year. Colin Farrel made a lot of things better.Vampires are evil again. It has plenty of joys and thrills. FrightNight is recommendable by bringing back the true elements of the genre.
sundaefries 01 May 2012
Finally, just, finally.
Finally, a vampire movie with teeth. In these days of nonstop vampireclichés, I'm quite glad to see a decent vampire movie like this (yes,it's not that good and not that bad either). With all these vampirefatigue, Fright Night managed to shine out of the rest.The movie is a remake of the 1985 'Fright Night' written and directedby Tom Holland (Child's Play), seeing only glimpse of the first movie,I can say that they somehow changed a lot. It starts off with Evil Ed(Christopher Mintz Plasse) as he convince his ex-best friend CharlieBewster (Anton Yelchin) that his neighbor Jerry Dandridge (ColinFarrell) is a blood sucking (duh) vampire, and kudos to Christopher ashe gave his own flame for Evil Ed, he's good at acting and thedevelopment of his character helped a lot.Charlie Brewster, our somehow irritating whiny hero, didn't believehim, like yeah, Jerry can walk with the sun up, so why would you accusehim of being a vamp? Then after Evil Ed's disappearance, Charlie grewinterest about Ed's theory. So, he goes out to investigate andconcluded that Jerry is really a vampire.Of course, this remake is nothing on the original, but it has itmoments. Farrell's portrayal of oozing-with-sex-appeal vampire Jerry isreally good, you can see how he's romantic but bad ass at the sametime? Did I say romantic? Yeah, don't flame me. I actually felt he'sseducing me with his almost whispering voice. The build up is actuallynice, though sloppy at times (blame the script), you'll forgive thefilm because of the latter act. The movie is very enjoyable, popcornflick and should be taken tongue in cheek only, or should I say, fangin neck only?And here are my complaints about the film: Not enough Evil Ed, he'sintroduced as a weighty character at the start, and you actually havesympathy for him, but then he's bitten and he's gone for almost thewhole film. Though you know, he'll be back at the climax, being kickass and stuff, you're still kind of rooting for his character, it'll bevery nice to see some shots of him in the middle of the film. They alsowasted a lot of characters here, Toni Collete's character was such awaste, they can use her for the final fight. I would love to see avampire ass kicking mom, like what she did with Jerry, but of course,moms are vulnerable and they should be kept in a safe place like ahospital room, full of crosses. Mark, the douche bag can be a greatplot device, they can use him to lure our heroes or give him some morescenes where he chase and actually bite someone, he's really aninteresting character, wasted at the final act.Oh, the horror, the poor attempt at 3D! Seriously? I watched it on 2Dbut still you can see how they try to insert 3D-esque moments at somescene. A flying T-shirt at our face, really? How lame was that? And theCGI, so weak, I got distaste for bad CGI, well most of us do. And theshot of Jerry's face as he gets burned and staked was really reallybad. And hilarious.Okay, Chris Sarandon's cameo was sweet, but it was handled badly. It'slike 'get out of the way, old man, I'm the new Jerry for girls tofantasize on'. Sick. There's a lot of weak acting in here, The samefacial expressions of Imogen Poots pisses me. And that girl who playedGinger? Laughable. Good thing, David Tennant's here to provide crazyantics and laughs.In conclusion, Fright Night is a flawed remake, like most of theremakes today. But still the film took it's own stand and is good onit's own way. I felt bad at how this tanked at box office but I'm surethis will be a cult film, like the original one.Fright Night is a film anyone would love, if they want to see violent,creepy and cursing vampires. One more thing, how awesome is the endcredits? Blood and macabre everywhere matched with a satisfying andawesome song. And thank you, Fright Night for dissing Twilight.
zetes 01 May 2012
Shockingly good!
A remake of the 1985 cult classic. Personally, I think the originalfilm is just okay. This is a rare remake that really improves on itssource material (in fact, I'd say a somewhat mediocre film like FrightNight '85 is about the perfect choice for a remake). Sure, it's not aperfect film, but it's well done. Anton Yelchin (who did fine in bothStar Trek and Terminator Salvation playing Chekov and John Connorrespectively) stars as a teenager who discovers his new neighbor (ColinFarrell, perfectly smooth) is a vampire. There's very little set-up inthis version. It gets into the story right away, with Farrell, nowexposed, immediately going after Yelchin. The film handles both thesuspense and humor quite well. The cast is uniformly excellent. ImogenPoots (28 Weeks Later) is quite a beauty as Yelchin's girlfriend. ToniCollette plays Yelchin's mother. David Tennant has a scene-stealingrole as a stage magician who's also an expert on vampires. ChristopherMintz-Plasse plays the nerdy buddy who gets turned by Farrell early on.My biggest complaint with the film is that Mintz-Plasse (McLovin fromSuperbad) is kind of wasted. He was a great choice for the role, and isa big improvement over the annoying Stephen Geoffreys from the originalfilm. His relationship with Yelchin is set up quite well (they werebest friends up until a year or so ago, when Yelchin started datingPoots and became popular), but there's no pay-off. Instead,Mintz-Plasse is kept off-screen for most of the movie and onlyre-enters for some goofy comic relief, which is entirely unnecessarysince we have Tennant. I would also complain about some of the specialeffects. The CGI is fairly poor. But it's not a big part of the film.
gradyharp 30 April 2012
Silly
Confession: this viewer has not seen the original 1985 version ofFRIGHT NIGHT and is not a fan of the interminable line of vampiremovies that flood the screens year after year. So why watch FRIGHTNIGHT 2011? Seeing the names of fine actors such as Colin Farrell, ToniColette, +/- Anton Yelchin suggested this might not be a bad movie ifthose actors committed to it. And perhaps it is partly due to the factthat lack of exposure to this genre creates the problem of deciding whysome people find these films funny while other find them frightening.So, preface over. Given the virginal approach to this vampire film,this viewer finds it silly, poorly written, self indulgent - and anunexplainable waste to talent. Tom Holland is recycled by Marti Nixon and the updated Las Vegas suburbcommunity form is handed to director Craig Gillespie. The 'plot'centers on the presence of one Jerry (Colin Farrell, subtle acting atfirst and then falls apart) as the resident vampire next door toCentury 1 Realtor Jane Brewster (Toni Collette) and her nerdy sonCharley (Anton Yelchin). Charley's equally nerdy friend Ed (ChristopherMintz-Plasse) is convinced that Jerry is a vampire and carries crossesand stakes etc in preparation for meeting him (an early taste treat forJerry, Ed becomes a ridiculously distorted mad man). The two lads aremocked by fellow classmates Mark (Dave Franco, brother of James Franco)and Ben (Reid Ewing) and teased by the very beautiful Amy (ImogenPoots). Kids go missing and soon Charley becomes a believer and formthere on out it is a detective game to rout out Jerry. Charley, onceconvinced that Jerry is indeed a vampire, seeks guidance from thealcoholic scare-showman Peter Vincent (David Tennant) who has secretsof his own. Of course it is evident that it will turn out just fine,but getting there (to the end) is a tedious bore. The musical score isby Ramin Djawadi and the cinematography (thankfully mostly in the afterhours dark vampires so need) is by Javier Aguirresarobe.Perhaps this is funny to some and perhaps it is frightening to others:after all there is a faithful cult of addicts who run to the theaterswhenever one of these vampire flicks is released. It is an acquiretaste....Grady Harp
Sharicespieces 29 April 2012
If you thought the previews looked cool, like I did...
then be prepared to think it's not cool anymore. Everything happenswithin the first 10 minutes; McLovin' gets killed and we're shown thatColin Farrell is in fact a vampire. After this, my friend and Iliterally turned to each other and said, "What?". Obviously I knew hewas a vampire from the previews, but why did they give it up so fast?The story isn't centered on him, it's centered on the kid, Charley,trying to beat him. So shouldn't we have some sort of suspense orsurprise in that area? Like finding out he's a vampire when Charleydoes? Also, the dialogue is so awkward. I heard pity laughs in thetheater. The way Charley's "cool" friends talked was so forced andout-of-date. It's over-the-top cliché teen speak that's never actuallybeen used by teens. And his conversations with McLovin' were dull andawkward and didn't have any sort of real-ness or even movie-ness inthem. It was stale banter.In terms of story, it would have been 50% better had they stuck to theconventions. It was just so incoherent and un-relatable (we AREsupposed to be able to relate to it even though it's about vampires)They (the writers) should have kept McLovin' alive, and had himconvince Charley that Jerry (Colin Farrell) is a vampire. And Jerryshould have at least tried to hide it, instead of gallivanting aroundkilling people the second he moved into the neighborhood. It would havebeen more fun to see their attempts to uncover Jerry and beat him athis own game. Rather than having no room for the audiences' imaginationand guesswork. It wasn't an adventure at all. McLovin's character wasone of the most entertaining in the movie. It would have been more funto see him and Charley's dynamic (although a cliché one; enthusiasticbeliever vs in-denial non-believer) grow. Because that was the onlychance the story had for there to be an interesting dynamic. Charley vsJerry was very clear-cut and out in the open, except for the maybe 10minutes of screen time where he has to hide it from his mother andgirlfriend. Overall, it wasn't as cool as it seemed in the previews.The tone nor mood really matched up. Plus there's a ridiculous "vampireslayer" (not in the 'so corny that it's funny' way, more in the 'sodumb that it's dumb way') who decides at last minute to help Charley. Ithink that part was written for Russell Brand or something. It wasawful.The movie had potential though. Being set in a desert suburb of LasVegas made it kind of cozy and undertoned the isolation of theneighborhood. However, the story just fell apart and there wereawkwardly placed scenes with his mother at the end of the movie thatdidn't "wrap things up" the way it was meant to, and instead made usthink something was about to happen to his mother. It didn't play onexpectations like it could have. In fact, its lack thereof lead it tofalsely create expectations that were never met.Oh well.
kosmasp 29 April 2012
Don't be afraid of the Remake
Many of the moviegoers have grown tired of Remakes, just recycling oldmovies instead of coming up with something new, that actually is goodtoo. But this movie shows us, that Remakes don't have to be awful. Italso shows us, that a remake does not have to copy the original movie1:1! While I still would recommend you to watch the original FrightNight first (I haven't seen the sequel it spawned), I can also tell youthat a few things have been changed around here, so that watching thiscan be fun too.And while Chris Sarandon seemed to own his role in the Original, ColinFarell does a great job with the character in this too. He is obviouslyenjoying this and why shouldn't he? This is how a fun, light HollywoodRemake can look like ...
shatteredrifle 29 April 2012
Fright Night: Does It Pack Enough Bite for Everyone?
Fright Night revolves around Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin), a highschool student adjusting to life as a popular kid as he deals with hisrelationships with his girlfriend Amy (Imogen Poots) and former bestfriend Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse). One day, he discovers that hisnext door neighbor Jerry (Colin Farrell) is a vampire, and things justspiral out of control from there.Yes, this is a teen movie. However, before you shun this, there's onemore word you should remember: vampires. Truthfully, without vampires,this would have been another production that we could have rightfullyignored. Fortunately, because of their inclusion, the film becomesaccessible to young audiences but at the same time still gives enoughincentive for other viewers. We are treated to an interesting blend ofcharacter self-discovery, romance, creature mayhem and liters of blood.Physically speaking, vampires have many interpretations. For FrightNight, how the vampire looks like is captured effectively; not toomonstrous, not too sexy, and definitely not sparkling. Effects arepretty decent. The film was able to visualize how tasty a human beingcan be (Not that we should try being cannibals anytime soon, but I'mjust saying). Through the screen, you can feel the crunch of every bitethat goes through the human flesh.The film's take on vampires is traditional. It does not deviate thatmuch from popular culture. For example, if you've been exposed to othermaterial before, you would find the ways on how to kill a vampire veryfamiliar. Although this does not make the film more unique, thesimplicity is actually fun. For once, you don't have to worry about avampire feature you may have missed out. That being said, the origin ofJerry was not explained that well. It was simply narrated. I understandthat the focus of the story is how this boring neighborhood deals withsuch a being, but having a little more background would have beenbetter.Anton Yelchin has had many key supporting roles before such as KyleReese in Terminator Salvation (2009) and as Chekov in Star Trek (2009).This time around, he is put in the spotlight and he shows that there isstar quality behind his name. British actress Imogen Poots (Centurion)is a relatively new face in American cinema, and after her performancein this film, it seems she has a brighter future ahead of her (and willhave a lot more internet searches once guys get to watch this). Fans ofDoctor Who will be delighted to see David Tennant (Harry Potter and theGoblet of Fire) play Peter Vincent, the celebrity vampire "expert" whomsomehow reminds me of every Russell Brand character out there. Tennantshows his versatility as an actor and serves as the comic relief forthe film. Colin Farrell (Alexander, The Recruit) proves that eventhough he is not the top go-to-guy for big budget Hollywood films, hecan still play a villain right. Jerry the Vampire is the hunkyneighbor, suspiciously calm fruit eater and 100 percent psycho killer.If there's one thing that Fright Night could have improved on, it wouldhave to be the number of suspense moments. I understand it is notsupposed to be as scary as Paranormal Activity or a movie involvingapparitions and ghosts, but it should at least have had a lot of sceneswhere the audience is left white and suddenly gripping the handle barsof the movie house chair. It is, after all, named Fright Night. What weget instead is heavy action  something that may sit well with some butleave others finding it too generic.Fright Night is a valiant effort to fuse the problems of teenageanxiety and vampires trying to make you their next snack. The film isnot for everyone, but is recommended specifically for those who justcan't get enough of these creatures of the night (or teen movies, forthat matter), people who miss all of the crazy things that they didback when they were young, or anyone looking for entertainment with asupernatural twist. I have to admit that there are lot of uselessvampire, werewolf and zombie movies coming out nowadays. Thankfully,this is not one of them. Please give this one a shot if your scheduleallows it.
mr_Goodbomb 28 April 2012
A crude landscape of plot errors with various fun parts
I really wanted to enjoy this. I enjoyed the original, I liked thecast, I love David Tennant, and it seemed like it might have beentreated with respect (it, the remake, showing respect for theoriginal). That wasn't so much the case. I understand modernizing. Butthis was a bit much. The biggest issue, however, was plot devices thatmade zero sense. This is where the spoilers come in:- Evil Eddie has been tracking the new neighbor and decides he's avampire very early on. We get very little explanation as to why hethought this, until later we see he's been watching him since the dayhe moved in. WHY? Why would you be watching a man the day he moves intoa new home, hiding behind things and videotaping him because youbelieve he's a vampire? There's such little explanation for this, it'sdifficult to digest. - The character is said to feed to victims likesnacks, keeping them locked up in little crudely-constructed rooms inhis house. Just before this explanation, we see him kill two kids inthe street at dusk. Not bite, not drag inside, kill. Blood everywhere,leaves the car in the middle of the road, straight up murders them. -The key element here is the relationship between the protagonist andhis girlfriend. For this, the Ed character is essentially little morethan a motivator, no longer a key element, and the new ending dictatesthat Ed does not live until the last shot. In fact, he's prettyuseless. Anyway, the girlfriend resists the vampire's allure verylittle. While she cries when bitten, she is an unsympathetic,unburdened vampire once turned. Why would should care is beyondreasoning.Overall, the performances were fantastic, but the script seemed the itwas thrown together in order to make a script for a half-hearted remakeby someone who had only paid some attention while watching the originalonce, and knew enough about vampire myths to get by.Predictably, it's in 3D (Hollywood's attempt at keeping independentfilm out of the box office, by making every summer blockbuster attemptin 3D). This is great in some regards because the camera movements areslower, more deliberate, and less fast-paced for the sake of beingfast-paced. Performances are worried with more, and the shooting styleis less thrown together. The down side is, most of the effects aredigital (I'd venture to say almost all), so that the 3D elements onthem can be controlled better. Great for people who love 3D, not greatfor people who have taste and enjoy actual, legitimate film (sorry 3Dlovers, I mean no offense, it's mostly sarcasm).All in all, if you like the actors, see it for them. If you like theoriginal, you'll probably see it anyway, but don't expect much respectto be paid. If you like genuinely unnerving, fun horror films, lookelsewhere.