Movies: 19845 | TV Series: 3309 | Added today: 0 | Storage: 74760 GB
|Starring:||Chris Sarandon, Colin Farrell, Anton Yelchin, Will Denton, Imogen Poots, Toni Collette, Lisa Loeb|
|Available Quality:||DivX, Hi Def, Hi Def|
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.
tabuno 16 May 2013
Twenty-Six years later, Colin Farrell (Jerry) reprises Chris Sarandon'svampire (Jerry Dandrige) in a grown up, less campy version that extendsa qualitative, substantive component that continues for half the movie.What is notable, is that for a good amount of the movie, the charactersare more believable and the traditional, two-dimensional and even thegoofy ones still have some depth to them. There is a nice balance andcontemporary feel in the first half that lends to a quality sequel.Unfortunately, the love interest in the sequel is so strong a characteras to raises doubts a'bout why she would even be interested in an"ordinary" but in the sequels instance a more even-handed, grown upnerd (though a later, belated scene seems to quickly explain herattraction). Roddy McDowell's character (Peter Vincent) now played byDavid Tennant of Dr. Who fame, has the most difficult job andrecharacterization of the movie, and does a good job of transforminghimself from his earlier incarnation of a dorky Time Lord intosomething more hard-lined with flashes of comedy. Additionally, ToniCollette as the mom doesn't get to have the same flourishing mother-sondynamics as the originally, when instead there is literally anexplosive scene from which the movie unfortunately descends half intothe movie into the more action, horror, physical scary movie that losesthe magic that has made the 1985 original into a semi-cult charmingvampire genre. The seduction of the vampire is almost completely leftout of the screenplay by both Jerry and the love interest (Amy). ColinFarrell does a commendable job and his acting is sharp, yet the screenplay seems to appear to let him down from what could have been aconsistently much more intensely balanced good and evil character ofwhich a more complex sympathy could have been obtained (that is onlysuggested by Farrell's character relatively early in the movie in oneor two scenes with Alton Yelchin (Charly).
slasherstudios 16 May 2013
Going into the remake of "Fright Night", I was a bit apprehensive. Theoriginal is my favorite vampire film of all time and I just felt thatdeep down they were going to find some way to mess up the remake. Thenthe trailers came in (everything looked solid, if a bit underwhelming),then the reviews came in (75% is just about perfect for a horror film),and then the reaction from fans came inÂThey didn't mess it up! Icouldn't wait to watch the remake. I sat down in my seat eager for themovie to start as I put on my 3D glasses and was ready for the wildvampire ride to begin.The film starts quite promising. We are given a skyline shot of housesin the suburb. The kind of suburb where everyone owns the same car, thesame house, and the same two kids. And then BAM, three killings beforethe opening credits can even hit the screen. I was ready! This is goingto be the remake to end all remakes! Sadly, it was not to be. The plotis generally the same as the original with a few small changes.Teenager Charley Brewster guesses that his new neighbor Jerry Dandrigeis a vampire responsible for a string of recent deaths. When no one heknows believes him, he enlists Peter Vincent, a self proclaimed vampirekiller and Las Vegas magician, to help him take down Jerry.What doesn't work about this movie? Well, aside from a few stylishtouchesÂ pretty much everything. Gone is the old, charming horror hostPeter Vincent and in is a Midori chugging whorish magician. Ugh. Goneis the beautiful shot and exciting club scene in which Jerry seducesCharley's girlfriend Amy (it's here, but the less said about the "new"version of this scene the better). Gone is Jerry's homo-eroticrelationship with his best "friend"/roommate. Hell, that characterisn't even IN this film. What's added? Awful CGI (Amy's vampire scenewith Charley is incredibly lame and doesn't look half as good as it didin the TWENTY FIVE year old original) and a final battle scene thatbelongs more to "Underworld" than it does to the "Fright Night" legacy.That being said, It's worth a rental at least. The movie wasn't so muchbad as it was incredibly disappointing. I felt there was so much morethey could have done with the premise. What a waste.
Krellamp 14 May 2013
If I have to rate this movie as a remake of the classic 1985 then itwould get a big fat ZERO. I've given a 6 star rating purely on theentertaining value of the movie as a vampire movie and NOT a remake.This movie does not even come close to being as good as the original.The characters in this movie simply don't resemble the characters fromthe 1985 version in any way whatsoever.The original version is a gazillion times better and did not require aremake in any shape or form. There are only a handful of remakes thatreally are successful. This is NOT one of them. Another terrible remakein my opinion was 'Psycho'.To see this movie the way it was originally intended, then watch the1985 version and simply see this one as another vampire movie that'ssimilar in storyline to the original.
preternaturalme 14 May 2013
Well to start out, I actually enjoyed this movie. It completelyentertained me and had quite a few funny bits, though it fell far shortof the original. I really did compare it to the original quite a lot,but despite that, this was a very run of the mill movie despite someamazing performances. You didn't care a lick about the characters -- Tohelp I have organized various complaints and points of approval into ahandy chartThe Bad:- All of the characters seemed flat(despite great performances from afew), no quirks, nothing to separate them from everything elseHollywood's spewed out in the past 20 years- Evil dies 5 minutes into the film- Charley found out Jerry was a vampire the SECOND he started looking- We don't see Evil(again) till very near the end of the film- Mintz-Plasse's performance was really crappy and dull until he turned- The club scene was terrible, rushed and clichÃ©s running amok...- Charley was a douche bag- The film was slow for the first hour or so then it was extremelyrushed through the end- We didn't get to know Evil or Vincent in this version and too muchtime was spent on Charley and Amy- The movie really needed to be longer, although quite a few scenesreally could've been cut to make room- Vincent needed no convincing that vampires were real because of atired, unconvincing, useless back story that might not have been toobad if they had expanded it more instead of just dropping it in like aside note.- Jerry was too up front about being a vampire and lost pretty much anysuspense left- The film was wrapped up way too easily- The cops completely ignored hard evidence(house fire anyone?) whichmade a lot of the film completely unrealistic- The 'popular guys' were overly stereotypical in this version, likelittle walking Hollywood clichÃ©s- Amy & Charley's mom were convinced of vampires too easily andcompletely lost all of the side problems Charley had with them- Amy's change was extremely pathetic here and had no suspense- The other vampiric powers(shape shifting, turning into mist) wereabsent. Most glaringly in a *certain* death - Jerry's house was cookie cutter inside and out, no Gothicarchitecture to be seen, which really lost a good bit of the atmosphere- The rescue of Jerry's victim, though exciting, took up too much timethat could've been used to expand on the characters. The Good:- Farrell's performance was stellar especially with what he had to workwith- Tennant's performance did not have me thinking 'where the hell's hissonic screwdriver' for even a second, but instead he reminded me ofRussel Brand(it seems like they were actually going for that for noapparent reason). And if his character would've connected to theaudience more it would've vastly improved the film for the ridiculouslyshort time he was on screen.- Neither Yelchin's nor Poot's performance was bad, despite my previouscomplaints about the woodenness of the writing and the overly largeamount of time spent on them but getting nowhere.- The car chase scene was very nice although car chases are extremelyoverdone- The bits between Vincent and Ginger were entertaining and added moredepth to the film(no idea where said depth came from though)- Chris Sarandon's cameo was fun- Charley's rescue of Jerry's victim was exciting despite my complaintsAnd that's about it. Watch it, don't watch it, it's entertaining butnot necessarily 'good'. Now if you'll excuse me I need to go watch theoriginal Fright Night a couple times to get the taste out of this oneout of my mouth
Franck 12 May 2013
Writing / Dialogues: 5 Difficult to imagine what the actual screenplay was like, sinceobviously so many bad decisions have been made while shooting and laterin the editing room, that what's left of it is a mess, which onlyresembles storytelling.Character study: 3 Not even worth commenting. Surprisingly, some actors were able tosomewhat lift what they've been given to work with, which probablyexplains why this movie hasn't been a total bore to some people.Acting: 6 See comments just above.Direction: 4 Totally lacks imagination and vision. Relational and geographicalinteractions between characters are contrived at best, the blockingsand angle are at the cheap TV-series level, the eye of the camera neverengages. For Pete's sake, we are in a fantasy movie, and 15 minutesinto it, we haven't had a single subjective shot? No tension has beenbuilt from the camera work? What the..? For the rare image here andthere that could stick in your mind, the credits probably go to thecinematographer, not the director.Visual style / art direction: 3 This movie has no visual style. It looks dull. The places, the props,the people, they all look dull, washed-out and uninteresting. Yawn.Cinematography: 6 Competent, sometimes vaguely interesting (dusk scenes). Never more thanthat.Editing: 3 Yawn. Never succeeds in achieving something even remotely interesting.It's barely competent. The editing decisions look like they could havebeen made by a computer, or a fresh businessman with an editinghandbook.Overall: 4 Unless you're in for Colin Farell's sex appeal, or your expectationsare low, you're in for a big disappointment and a yawn fest.Not worth your time unless you're seriously bored, and/or you havereally nothing else to do.
thesar-2 12 May 2013
Look, listen. I defend a lot of remakes, redo's and reimaging films.Most are actually bad, some are priceless. The best thing I could sayabout 2011's Fright Night is: At least it's better than the pointlessand horrid 1989 sequel. ButÂ not by much.PLEASE don't watch this movie if you're a fan of the 1985 original. Or,softer: for those Fright Night virgins, watch the first movie even ifthis might still work on a miniscule level. The only thing this moviehad in common with the first movie was: A> the title. B> TheCharacter's Names and C> There's a vampire living next door.Those three qualities take about 1/1000th of the script. Fill in theblank with new, too serious material. I mean, the original was CAMP,pure and simple. A lot of comedy, some horror and fun. This one takesit too deadly serious, plus they added too much of the annoying "CW"atmosphere. That kiddie, 90210, trend is really starting to get on mynerves. It's not working for people my age, and according to the boxoffice receipts, it's not working for the teen crowd either. So,Hollywood, please dump this idea of bringing back classic horror to the"CW" absent movie-goers.I haven't even got to the worse part of this movie: The reimagining ofthe great character, Peter Vincent, now played by a third-rate RussellBrand-Rip-off, David Tennant. He was absolutely awful. It would be inthe same category as hiring Pauley Shore as James Bond. Of course, thisis coming from some who loved the original Roddy McDowall version. But,besides that, for those who haven't even heard of the original, he wasstill incredibly lame.This also goes for the quickly-turned "Evil Ed" character. I do likeChristopher Mintz-Plasse, but he's certainly no Stephen Geoffreys fromthe 1985 film.This movie's a mess. It had a great scene of the family being evictedby the neighbor vampire and their journey to the Las Vegas strip, butother than that, it's a complete waste of film. It took the originalmovie's idea (new neighbor is a vampire and kid-Charley Brewster mustdefend his girl and kill the monster with aid of vampire killer, PeterVincent) to a new depth of boredom. There's only one Night that'sFrightful. Watch that one and skip this atrocity.
Weird_and_Proud1 10 May 2013
The inevitability of comparisons with Hollands 1985 original juxtaposedwith the current pandemic convulsion towards remakes put Fright Nightat an immediate disadvantage. However a polished script coupled with akiller soundtrack and eccentric cast makes this a remake worthwatching.Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin) is a dweeb riding his luck havingscored the high school babe after ditching his geeky childhood friend"Evil" Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) Â of course his face clearing uphelped. His stereotypical teenage Idaho is threatened, however, when Edinsists his roughish (supposed lotharios) new neighbour (Colin Farrell)is in fact a night-working, blood-sucking vampire. This teen paradiseis set asunder only after Ed goes missing and Charley goes snooping.Discovering sinister footage of a wheel-burrow pushing itself along, inthe twilight, on his friends computer Charley surrenders to the absurdtruth. His neighbour is a vampire.Here the action kicks off with a majestic start as Charley, hopelessly,seeks the help of famed Vegas illusionist and 'vampire slaying expert'Peter Vincent (David Tennant).This of course is before Jerry blows uphis house, via a natural gas leak (he doesn't need an invitation ifthere's no house).Fright Night soars and this is largely owed to Director Craig Gillespieand Script-writer Marti Noxon's loyalty to the franchises 80's origins.Noxonsscript in particular expertly balances the dark humour, bloody plot,and teen angst trademark of such 80's classics as Heathers, and TheLost Boys. David Tennant and Colin Farrell give much needed gravitationto an otherwise weak young cast. Tennants elaborate costumes andappropriately camp performance further retains the nostalgic atmospherearound which the film is built. It is Farrells subtle performance asCharming, vicious vampire Jerry, however, that shines through theduration of the film. A stand-out moment being Jerry lingering onCharleys doorstop, nose twitching in anticipation as he cranes his neckinside, enticing Charley to invite him intothe kitchen.Fright Night is a cleverly crafted teen-movie and ironically a breathof fresh air after the exerting outpour of formulaic and underwhelmingadditions to the genre so far this year.
greatsewing1 10 May 2013
While not nearly as bad as others say it is here, it is also not thebest but rather, a fast paced edge of your seat gritty film. The filmmakes mincemeat of its star power and goes for the jugular. Oh Yes wecan all quote the originals backwards in our sleep, but this clever anddiabolical treatment keeps up the humor and tension very enjoyably. Agreat little Saturday afternoon popcorn flick with a game Farrell andgood able body cast. I saw this in a good 3D theater. Although the 3Dadds a little juice here and there, Final Destination 5 shows what 3Dis all about. Here the stars are the director and editor who keep everywheel spinning gloriously and the high energy twists and turns keep itfresh even though we all know how it ends.
Cam Silver 10 May 2013
I saw the of the original and I went WOW This remake lacked a goodscreenplay and character development This movie worked in the 80sbecause it was it was a good take on the horror movie genre. Anton didnot do a very good job at bringing out his character, he looked veryout of place and did not fit. Remakes are very hard to do, the endingwas PLAIN AWFUL! It was a selfish ending! That did not flow with themovie I love in the original how a cliff hanger was there so that apart two could happen. The director lacked the horror spirit, thismovie did not grab me the way that it should of. Casting was very poor,some of the actors did not mesh well with others Overall a huge lack ofappeal
matthewchermside 09 May 2013
I was pleasantly surprised by this film.As a young boy I was terrified by the original back in 1985, which Istill love. This film takes the original story, makes some very subtlechanges, throws in a little shock and gore for the modern audience, andstill manages to add in a few chuckles too. Shame that the 'Evil' Edcharacter is criminally under-used though.I'm glad that this movie did not try to recreate pivotal scenes likethe nightclub seduction scene between Jerry and Amy - that would havebeen impossible, not least because of the original's creepy BradFriedel score and the ominous presence of Chris Sarandon - Farrelldoesn't really come close to the original Jerry to be honest, but he ismenacing in his own way.Farrell's Jerry is more muscle and menace than suave intelligentmalevolence. I liked the cameo for Chris Sarandon, that made me smile alot.This film was a good ride, but for a real fix of terror, check out theoriginal film. Even though it has aged a bit, the lighting, smokeeffects, brilliant musical score, the real sense of suburban terror inyour own backyard, and even the performances are far more affectingthan the remake. There is something lost from the original too bytaking away the original Charley Brewster's horror film obsession -William Ragsdale was excellent as the paranoid obsessive teenager.In summary, this is a surprisingly good remake of a really under-ratedclassic horror film that was truly ahead of its time.
p-stepien 09 May 2013
Teenager Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin), living in Las Vegas suburbs,has managed to advance from his lowly position as a dweeb thanks toentering a relationship with Amy (Imogen Poots). The social progressionhowever brings about a push to change his friends, thus excluding hisbest pal and ultra-nerd Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) from hiscontacts. Ed attempts to warn Charley that his next door neighbourJerry (Colin Farrell) is a blood-thirsty vampire and soon afterdisappears. Thus Charley's suspicions start to build and he soon findshimself seeking assistance of illusionist and self-proclaimedvampire-hunter Peter Vincent (David Tennant). Who turns out to be aegocentric prick...A rare case of a remake, which draws inspiration and references fromthe original, but aims to deliver a fresh new story and outlook.Although all the characters are the same knowing the original won'thelp you piece together the entire plot, at best leaving you to admirethe subtle and not-so-subtle changes to the story. Colin Farrell withhis magnetic presence makes for a great neighbourhood vampire -powerful, ruthless, sexually enamouring, but simultaneously controlledand seemingly 'ordinary'. Whereas Farrell is an improvement on theoriginal, David Tennant comes with a 'different' take on Peter Vincent,neither inferior or superior, just alternate and equally enjoyable.Summarily (apart from some miscued acting by Mintz-Plasse) the castfleshes out a new perspective, which makes "Fright Night" aself-sustaining horror, irrespective of the original with a markedlydifferent story fronted by a great cast.The is no Hitchcock type attempt to introduce doubt as to the identityof the neighbour. We know he's a vampire and the only question is howquickly others will recognise this obvious reality. UnfortunatelyJerry's happy-go-lucky attitude towards getting it his way, introducesan aching necessity to suspend belief in plot feasibility (well...naturally... if vampires really existed). The plot holes are prettymuch the biggest flaw, while the lack of uncertainty lowers thesuspense bar, thus having the story sold through its intriguingnarrative and some well drafted characters. As such the well struckmixture of comedy, action and some horror flair pretty much helps tocover up the problematic issues from the basic premise (which is infact much better worked than in the original as various idiosyncrasiesare reimagined with smarts, such as placing the story in the evanescentLas Vegas quarters).
RealTyche 08 May 2013
This review contains spoilers. Do not read on if you wish to avoidthem.As a long time, cheering fan of the original Fright Night, which I sawin 1985 with a girlfriend, I was hoping that this remake would captureat least the essence of the original and bring back memories of abetter time. It failed on both counts.I found this movie pretentious, and obnoxious in an apparent attempt todisregard everything that the original feature had going for it exceptthe character names. It struck me as a movie that looked at the sourcematerial and decided they could 'do it better', tossing out*everything* that made the original so memorable. Jerry Dandridge issupposed to be suave and debonair, always carrying a hint of malice.The new one is the sort of vampire that stands on the street corner andhisses, his motivations in this film make no sense whatsoever. Charley,whom in the original was a bit of a bumbling nerd with a heart of gold,is in the remake a clueless twit that isn't even the one to realizeDandridge is a vampire. And why on earth does Mom suddenly become anaction heroine? The one concession to this movie I do make is DavidTennant, whom has perfect comedic timing.Please don't bother with this one if you've seen and loved theoriginal. it's not worth the time to watch it.
james1844 06 May 2013
I was anxious to see this remake and while it had a decent look overall, I came away with several complaints and many problems with theoverall story board. There were moments when the action was excitingand even thrilling to watch. I just wish the producers had used thestoryboard from the original Fight Night and redeveloped it withtoday's possibilities of tools. One major complaint that really bothered me and seems to be a patternin today's films geared to the youth and young adults today is theheavy handed use of vulgar language. This film literally beat a deadhorse with the constant puke of four letter words. This, in no way,made the film a classic as was the original. This patter of insultingfoul words showed me that today they (Hollywood) take cheap shots withthe script. A very sad state of script writing that tells me we're introuble in Tinsel Town.Last note to share is that so few films are getting over the C ratingor maybe it's just me wanting more quality from the movie industry.
witster18 05 May 2013
It's refreshing in the sense that it did not completely copy or degradethe original work. Sure, many elements are the same, but the remake ofFright Night is not only a good remake; it's better than the original.Now, I realize that this is 6.6 here, and the original is 6.9, but Istill think this is a clear cut above the original. The fact that it ISa remake is probably the only thing keeping it from exceeding its'predecessor in terms of score.The two things that really set this remake apart for me were the artdirection, and the casting. Both were exceptional. I knew from themoment the film spelled out Fright Night that somebody cared about thisone.Anton Yelchin is perfect for the lead role. He has the perfect balanceof charm and nerdiness. He caught my eye with his strong performance in"Charlie Bartlett", and I don't think the casting director could havepicked anyone better for this role. The same goes for Toni Collete asthe single mother, and Colin Farrell as the vampire.David Tennant is also perfect for his role of Peter Vincent. They put alittle spin on the role that added a littlelight-hearted-ness(something also present in the first film). And Imogen Poots is the perfect hotty to play the girlfriend(a HUGEimprovement over Amanda Bearse in EVERY way). Amanda Bearse has neverbeen the best actress, and she always seemed to really annoy me onscreen. There's a reason she always plays the 'unlikable/annoyingneighbor or girlfriend.. Poots isn't just a hotty - she comes off asgenuine and likable here. This time around the audience actually caresabout the girlfriend. It's an added bonus that we can have scenes here that involve thegirlfriend, the mom, and the lead in harrowing situations together.That's something we didn't get in the original. There are othersignificant, welcome changes. One is the 'number' of vampires, and theother is the fate of Peter Vincent.There is one scene in particular where Farrell is trying to get invitedinto Charlie's house, and the interaction between the character's isfantastic. It's realistic. It's an improvement over the original. It'swell-written.There isn't much to gripe about here other than maybe the climax of thefilm isn't quite as thrilling and effective as the films first 75minutes. The only thing the original has on this is 'camp', and I really don'tsee how that makes it better. It just makes the original a product ofthe mid-80's, and a bit cheesy. There's nothing cheesy about thisremake. This one is worth adding to the collection. Stands with "Let MeIn" as one of the best of these 'remakes', and this is by far the bestof the 70's/80's horror remakes.73/100You'll like this if you liked:Disturbia, Fright Night(orig), Near Dark,and The Lost Boys.I think the nitpicker reviews are hilarious. One said, "all the kidsare absent/missing from school and the police don't notice"...laughable... the point was that the kids were disappearing at a fastclip... not to mention they're kids.. missing class... omg. The nitpickreviews on this title in particular are funnier than the movie.This film has style - especially considering it's shoe-string budget(atleast by today's standards). I figure after they paid Collette andFarrell - they probably had about the same amount invested as theoriginal.Recommended for all those except nitpickers and 10/10 cult-followers ofthe original. It wasn't very scary or funny, but it was pretty darnentertaining.
Wizard-8 01 May 2013
I really enjoyed the original 1985 "Fright Night", so when this remakewas first released I avoided it. As you probably know, most remakescan't hold a candle to the original movie, so I didn't want my pleasantmemories shattered. I finally broke down and saw it when my locallibrary put a Blu-ray of it on its shelves, so the opportunity to seeit for free got my curiosity up enough to make me break down and watchit.Is this remake as good as the original? Of course not. But as far asremakes go, it is definitely above average. The special effects arepretty good, it's never boring, and it does enough of its own thing tomake it stand up on its own in front of the original. There is one area of this remake that I wished they had worked on morebefore cameras started rolling, and that is with Tennant's character.His character has surprisingly less screen time than the originalmovie's Roddy McDowall character. Tennant's character is pretty thin,and I wished they had fleshed out his character more.Overall, this remake is okay. It passes the time acceptably enough.Though if you want a vampire movie with more "oomph", the originalversion is the one to pick.
quadlings 30 April 2013
You've seen the scary vampire! You've seen the sexy vampire! Nowpresented for your boredom Colin Farrell is the "Dateline:To Catch APredator" vampire!! (He comes off seriously creepy, but not in a goodway.) Loved the original, BUT they ruined it. They've done the usual 2000'svibe where everything has to be cool. You lose all the cheese of the80's and replaced it with douche baggery. My ratings for a movie are - Opening Night- a MUST SEE! - TheatreWatch- watch the following week(s) - Lazy Day Kill- When there'snothing better to do and you're killing time - Rental- Not worth seeingat the theatre, just rent it! - Saturday Preview- It may be worthwasting a lazy day at home overThis movie AT BEST is a Rental. Do not pay full price for this crap!And if you're going for McLovin you may also be rather disappointed inthe character. I recommend staying home and renting the original :-). And if you read ANYWHERE how scary it was... the person must be under 8years old. Telling you...save your money!!!
calicocombs 29 April 2013
Am I the only one who is noticing the "epic" overuse of saying "really"and "seriously" as though you've just heard the most f*****g shockingthing in the world? It's so overused in culture today that I throw up alittle every time I hear it and this movie had an abundance. Also, anyremake that has Jerry f'n Dandridge uttering the line "Do me a solid"should come with a free round of shock treatment so I can forget whatthe hell I just heard. Hey, thanks also for turning Peter Vincent, madefamous by Roddy McDowall, into a carbon copy of Russel Brand. JesusChrist people are getting dumber by the minute in Hollywood. Anotherpointless remake to capitalize on 3D technology, which will beforgotten in a few years time, along with this movie.
liam f 29 April 2013
In this remake of the 1985 cult classic, Anton Yelchin stars asCharley, a likable yet misguided young man who after witnessing hisfriend's murder becomes convinced that his new neighbour Jerry (CollinFarrell) is a vampire. His incessant pleas with his mother (ToniCollete) and his girlfriend (Imogen Poots) to believe him failcontinuously until Jerry turns his sights on them and they are forcedto confront him with the help of a foul mouthed vampire slayer (DavidTennant). It's wonderful to finally see again a good old fashionedvampire movie, where the vampires are portrayed as blood hungry killingmachines, rather than broody, gentle souls with skin that shimmers inthe light. Craig Gillespie (Lars and the Real Girl) really pulls it offin this gleefully gory and slick horror/comedy. David Tennant andCollin Farrell are both spectacular as the drunken supernaturalist andthe terrifying vampire respectively. But unfortunately the film didhave a few little problems, for one I found Anton Yelchin's performancereally quite lacking, and also there was quite a few elements of apredictable cheesy teen comedy in there. But all and all Fright Nightproved to be quite an entertaining film and a lot of fun to watch withfriends.7/10
Christian_Dimartino 29 April 2013
What a year Colin Farrell has had! I hadn't seen him in a while, and inone year he comes back with Horrible Bosses, where he stole maybe notthe whole show but he stole the moments he was in. Then after that hewas in Fright night, which he only did, apparently, because he wasbored.The film is a remake of an 80's B-movie with the same title. The filmrevolves around Charley(Anton Yelchin), a suburban teen who finds outthat his neighbor Jerry(Farrell) is a vampire, and enlists the help ofPeter Vincent(non other than the brilliant Dr. Who actor DavidTennant), a Chris Angel based character, to help him.I have never really liked Yelchin. I liked him as Charlie Bartlett, butbesides that I can't find a whole lot in him. But this is not hismovie. The film belongs to Farrell and Tennant, who really steal theshow here. Every moment with them is a lot of fun.Actually, almost every moment was a lot of fun. It feels like the filmreally stays on it's feet most of the way through. It just keepsthrowing things at you left and right, like Scream 4(the year's besthorror movie). Well, it's been a good year for horror(Scream 4,Insidious among the best, and Fright Night), and Romanticcomedy(Midnight in Paris, Crazy Stupid love), two genres that usuallyfail. Well, I'll see you in 2012.A-
Kristine 29 April 2013
Once again, Hollywood is running out ideas and it's Fright's Night'sturn for the remake. Fright Night is a huge cult classic that I'm surewas expected to flop, instead turned into a pleasant surprise. It's afun film that came out of the 80's and is a classic treasure; it's likeRear Window with vampires. I didn't see the film until a few years ago,not sure how I missed it, I guess The Lost Boys was my vampire film ofthe 80's. But I loved the film and its clever mix of horror and humor.Plus it has a great cast, fun effects and a cool story. To remake it,again, everyone gets upset at first but from the trailer the filmactually looked pretty good. I saw this opening day looking forward toseeing a reboot and while it's certainly flawed, this is actually apretty decent remake. Charley Brewster is a teenager who discovers he has a new neighbormoving in next door to him. Charley's geeky ex-friend, Ed, tells himthat many fellow students have gone missing. Charley disregards this,but talks him into coming to an old friend's house to check if he'salright.When Charley goes home after school, his mother introduces himto Jerry, who is the new neighbor. Charley meets up with Ed who informshim that his new neighbor is a vampire, Charley doesn't believe Ed andleaves. On his way home Ed is confronted by Jerry who convinces him tobecome a vampire and bites him. The next day Charley realizes that Edis missing and decides to go to his house to investigate. As Jerrybegins to attack more people throughout the neighborhood, Charley goesinto Jerry's house and finds out that he is keeping all of his victimsin secret rooms. Charley decides to go to Las Vegas magician PeterVincent, a supposed expert on vampires and hope to destroy Jerry beforehe gets to his mother and beautiful girlfriend. Colin Ferrel, what can I say? Who could have been a more perfectchoice? After his stint in rehab, I'm sure he more than enjoyed gettingback into playing the bad boy. His Jerry may not have the exact samecharm as Chris Sarandon, but you can tell he had a lot of fun andbrought a lot to the character. However I wasn't as excited on thechoice for Charlie, Anton Yelchin, who was actually kind of boring inmy opinion. You can tell he tries but I don't think he had the bestlines to work with. Now David Tennant who replaces Roddy McDowall wasactually a decent replacement almost like a Cris Angel character, buthonestly, even if I get hate for this comment, I think I would haveloved to see Russell Brand in this role if they were going for thatdirection.There are a few disappointments with the film like not having the samechemistry that the original Charlie and Peter had, it seems like theirrelationship is more rushed in the remake and not like they reallybelong together. Also, since the film does take itself seriously as ifwe are supposed to buy that this is happening in our real world, how isit that there is absolutely no police investigation when people aremissing? I mean, they say that people pass through Vegas and are neverheard from again, but an entire family is missing and nothing isquestioned? Also I was upset with the lack of Ed, I loved the plotchange with him, but we didn't have enough Ed which ChristopherMintz-Plasse plays pretty well. The script may need work however; Istill had fun watching the action and special effects. Though I don'tthink that the 3D was exactly needed for the film, they stuck to theoriginal look to the vampires which I'm glad they did. But please, nomore Twilight references, let's just try to forget those books ormovies ever existed. Before I end the comment since I'm running out ofroom here, doesn't the poster remind you of No Country for Old Men?Maybe it's just meÂ no, it's not me, they copied the poster. But Ienjoyed the film, I'm pretty sure those who loved the original will geta good kick out of the remake. Its fun, stylish, sexy and exactly thegood time horror movie we needed this year.7/10