Mitesh Sahu

24 May 2012

More Gory and Less Scary than the Original!

The 2011 movie has got more gore and cheap thrills than the 1985 movie.All that the former had was a couple of scenes that actually scared me,that too due to the sound effects involved. It was more of shock thanfear. Let us be very frank about one thing, a horror movie is meant toscare you deep inside. The 2011 movie is a remake and a very poor oneat that. It did not contain any of the spine-chilling elements thatwere in the original. I will just compare one scene and let the audience decide if thecomparison holds good. In the 1985 movie, there is a scene whenCharlie, as a voyeur is looking at a couple making love. Suddenly, hesees fangs appear in the guy's mouth and he starts sucking blood out ofthe girls neck. The next thing he knows is the girl is oscillating inequilibrium of pain and pleasure that is when Charlie sees a clawpulling down the blinds which leaves Charlie flabbergasted and filledwith nothing but horror. The scene is equally horrifying to theaudience watching it. There are many more such instances throughout the1985 movie that leaves the viewer with no choice but to be scared. Aseach minute passes one gets more and more fearful of what is going tohappen to the protagonist in due course of the movie. This creepyfeeling was missing in the new version. There is a major difference inthe way one feels when Chris Sarandon says "Welcome to Fright Night,For Real!!" and the way Colin Farrell says it at the climax. Now about the performances, Collin Farrell is a very good actor and hedoes a good job with the scope he has got, but there is no characterdevelopment at all, fair enough! The director may not have felt theneed to develop Jerry's character because it is a remake. Anton Yelchinwas again decent enough in portraying the scared teenager, CharlieBrewster. David Tennant, Imogen Poots and Toni Collet too manage topull off decent performances as Peter Vincent, Amy and Jane Brewster.Christopher Mintz-Plasse as Ed became redundant after the swimming poolscene; it seems that the director only needed him to make Charlie feelguilty about not helping a friend. There is however very little doubt,that the 1985 version of the moviewas scarier. The performances of Chris Sarandon and William Ragsdalehad set a benchmark which makes it difficult for the audience to forgetand forgive the makers of this modern and less decent effort at makinga classic teenage horror movie "Fright Night".

Elena Katrina

24 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!

eytand94

23 May 2012

Welcome To Fright Night....For Real!!!

Tom Holland's 1985 vampire romp "Fright Night" was a fun, campy littlehorror flick that had some good laughs, good scares, and some prettyawesome effects. Soon enough, the movie developed its cult fan base. Inthe end, I find the original "Fright Night" to be one of the mostunderrated horror films of the 80's.Frankly, I was actually quite excited for this remake, knowing that ithad a great cast and Marti Noxon(who commonly wrote for "Buffy theVampire Slayer") was at the helm of the script. I personally don't mindremakes. Some people take them way too seriously. Of course, there aresome that fail, but a lot of them work really well. The 2011 edition of"Fright Night" works! Set in a beautiful suburban area of Las Vegas, the movie introduces usto Charley Brewster, a nerdy but charismatic teenager who we find outhas given up his relationship with his friend "Evil" Ed to be with thecooler kids, including his hot new girlfriend Amy. Then he meets JerryDandrige, a buff, sweet new neighbor that Charley's mom and Amy take aliking to. When Ed tries to warn Charley of Jerry's hidden, andgruesome, intentions, things take a turn for the worse. More peoplewind up missing, and it becomes evident to Charley that Jerry is avampire. Nobody believes him before it's too late, and it's up to himand Hard Rock celebrity Peter Vincent to kill this sucker(pun intended)once and for all.While it pays so much respect to the original movie, "Fright Night"also adds a few new elements that elevate it above other remakes. Thereare some scenes that are lifted right from the original, even two ofthe original's most classic lines, but the movie breaks several horrormovie rules and invents new ones, like whether or not a vampire cancome into another person's house.The CGI effects in this remake are surprisingly quite good. I didn'tsee the film in 3D(which I heard doesn't do much for the movie), but inits 2D format, the geysers of blood shoot out magnificently withoutgoing over the top, and the makeup is true to the original vampire lookin the 1985 film."Fright Night" boasts a fantastic cast of well-known actors. AntonYelchin, as always, does a great job and fits the role of Charleyperfectly. Toni Collette stands out as Charley's mother, and ImogenPoots is terrific as Amy. Unlike other horror blonds, the script allowsAmy to be smart, and at times brave enough to try to take down Jerryherself. Also, Ms. Poots is an awesome screamer. Christopher Mintz-Plasse is great for the role of "Evil" Ed, and he was born to play thatrole in this remake. He gets some pretty funny lines and an enjoyableamount of screen time. David Tennant, known for starring in the recentTV revival of "Doctor Who," takes over from Roddy McDowall as PeterVincent, and makes for a funny vision of the character.And then there's Colin Farrell as Jerry. Don't get me wrong. The castis wonderful. But Farrell eats his role up and nearly steals the show.Sometimes, he doesn't have to do anything, and he still creeps you out.One particular scene in which he has a conversation with Charley setsthe character up to be quite fearful. This is not a "Twilight" vampirethat Farrell creates. This is a "rip your throat out with no regrets"monster that is impossible not to be freaked out by. Basically, ColinFarrell bathes in his role like the character bathes in human blood.Marti Noxon's script is clever, funny, and smart, and by the looks ofother recent horror outings, it's a script that's better than it shouldbe.I'll just say that "Fright Night" is not particularly scary. But it'sall about the entertainment here. The movie doesn't need to be scary.It's a horror-comedy that allows some good shocks with some greatlaughs. The original was always on the border of becoming too funny,but it stayed on its feet and kept the horror going. The remake doesjust that. It's carefully made and done with love for its sourcematerial. But otherwise, you can tell that director CraigGillespie("Lars and the Real Girl"), his cast, and his screenwriter hada ball making this movie. The nostalgia factor is high here, bringingus a combination of both 80's and 90's horror. If you loved "The LostBoys" and the original 1985 flick, you will surprisingly love 2011's"Fright Night." I welcome it with open arms, and I'm glad I got to seeit. Welcome to Fright Night...FOR REAL! P.S. For those of you who saw the original, you get an unbelievablecameo.

nostalgic1961

23 May 2012

Yet another rehash.

No 1 could ever play Peter Vincent the way Roddy McDowell could, as forCharlie needing to be convinced that his neighbor was a vampire it wasthe other way around, Charlie was the 1 who was at his whit's endconvincing Ed, Amy, and his mother that the suave next door neighborwas a blood sucking vampire. As for how well the rest of the cast canpull off their parts, I don't really care I do not watch movies that inmy opinion were perfect the first time around. Star Trek had the entirebridge crew attending Star Fleet Academy at the same time, and inclassic Trek it was mentioned more than once that the only 1 of thecrew Kirk knew from his academy days was McCoy. Was that Star Trek orStar Wars it is clear that many who have seen, or even merely heardabout it cannot make that distinction. When will the lame untalentedscreen writers in Hollywood go back to school and acquire somecreativity, I guess when it comes to entertainment LaLa land has becomemundane.

brefane

22 May 2012

Vampires and this movie both suck

Dull, pointless, and charmless remake of a good-natured, mildly amusingfilm from the '80s. The 2011 Fright Night aims low and misses. The 3-D,featuring spattered blood, shattered glass and sparks, is moredistracting than necessary. Jerry, the vampire-next-door, is not anoriginal or distinctive adversary despite Farrell's appeal. Jerry doeslittle to hide his unnatural existence, doesn't put his supernaturalpowers to any real use, and there is only a sketchy explanation of howthis creature lives and dies. Plot points never amount to anything, theediting is often confusing, and the actions and reactions of thecharacters aren't convincing. Why doesn't the nerd attack his formertormentors with his vampiric powers? Why doesn't the family call thepolice when the vampire begins tearing up their yard? Virtually everycharacter was shown using a wireless device in the first 15 minutes ofthe film. And why drive pointlessly into the desert to escape, and thencall 911 at a place where you can't get service!? You may also wonderwhy a vampire would move into a neighborhood with houses one right nextto the other. Long, noisy, fiery battles with creatures coming out ofthe earth are apparently ignored by neighbors who live within a stone'sthrow; the police and firefighters never show. The leads are dreary andflat, and since nearly everyone is clueless there's nothing at stake.

stormcatcher-2

22 May 2012

I think that vampire may be wearing dentures

I'll side with probably most of the rest of the older folks here thatsaw the original film back in the eighties, and say that I liked itbetter. I hate most remakes and revamps (or in this case, a re-vamp...sorry, Jerry), but in this case, I can actually understand whyHollywood decided to cash in, given how wildly popular all thingsvampire are right now. (Never thought I'd see the day when vampirescould become both ubiquitous...and monotonous.)***POTENTIAL SPOILERS POSSIBLE, READ FURTHER AT YOUR OWN RISK***Charlie Brewster and Evil Ed don't seem quite as likable or sympatheticthis time around, although once Charlie realizes that his girlfriendand mother are in real danger from Jerry, he tries harder to step upand be protective. David Tennant is pretty over-the-top as Peter Vincent. He's still a funcharacter, but there never seems to be much of a concrete reason whyhe'd help someone like Charlie - and while the movie does give him anexcuse, it's a little too coincidental. And the sarcastic banterbetween him and his live-in...girlfriend? Wife?...is downrightannoying.Colin Ferrell has sex appeal as Jerry, in a sleazy sort of way...andalthough he's definitely menacing, he also came across to me asdesperate. Plus, I found it a little hard to believe that someone couldblow up someone else's house, and you never saw a single fire engine orcop car show up, even after twenty minutes or so. Geez, it's thedesert, but it's not the North Pole.I miss the cheesy-yet-creepy atmosphere of the original JerryDandridge's house. That place LOOKED haunted. In this movie, Colin'splace could have been sponsored by IKEA.The few twists that Marti Noxon does add to the movie manage to add afew "Whoa, wasn't expecting that" moments. The scene where Charlie musttry to rescue a female neighbor that Jerry is holding prisoner to feedoff of is decently tense, as is the final showdown between Jerry,Peter, and Charlie under Jerry's house.Some of the CGI is good, but most of it is overdone. I find itinteresting that in many movies nowadays, the effects are morestartling if they use props, instead. Pretty pixels don't make forconvincing scares, people. (I think the remake of "The Thing" provesthat.)If you liked the original movie and got a kick out of "Buffy theVampire Slayer", this one's worth a rental - but I don't know if I'drecommend it for a purchase. There are way too many other vampiremovies out there that are way better.

quadlings

22 May 2012

This movie AT BEST is a Rental

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!!!

Batur Güney

21 May 2012

excellent remake so sad that it went down in such a spectacular fashion

I finally got to see the remake of Fright Night. As a fan of theoriginal who has seen it countless times since the 80s, I canwholeheartedly state that this new version is one of the best remakes Ihave ever seen.The original story was brought wonderfully up to date. It was so clearthat everything was deeply thought out. The original had a slightbalance toward comedy. Here that balance is shifted a bit more towardsthe horror side so the film has a perfect mix of both elements in myopinion. It made me seriously tense and left me creeped out and thiscoming from someone who knows the flow of the main story by heart!Colin Farrell was in one word spectacular. Here is a vampire thatreally scares you underneath those extreme good looks, capable ofturning out to be a ruthless monster in the blink of an eye. Theviolence by the way was pretty strong. I was positively surprised bythe amount of gore for such a big budget studio production. And the 3D.I loved the 3D of the film. So subtle but at the same time as in yourface as it gets when the scene necessitates it.Which brings me to the unbelievable box office failure of thiswonderful film Stateside. How did this happen? I will tell you. Anunfortunate release at the tail end of the summer when in fact the filmpractically screams for a fall Halloween release date, coupled with twoother 3D pictures (Conan the Barbarian and Spy Kids 4) at the same weeknot to mention another regular 2D release (One Day). They all died aquick death, with American audiences rejecting all four of them andflocking to a Southern anti-racist drama and an ape movie in hugenumbers. I did not see the other 3 films as of today but I have to saythat the flopping of Fright Night 2011 is one of the most unjustfailures in the whole history of movies. The current 3D fatigue ofAnmerican public was the main benefactor in this case. How else can youexplain that all three of these 3D releases flopped in such aspectacular fashion during the same week? They clearly did not botherto make any distinction among the good and bad films that week and wentwith a to- hell-with-them-all attitude. Sorry but this I can notunderstand. Another thing I cannot understand is why this film was alsopractically ripped to pieces by professional critics and internetcommentators unanimously. What's wrong with you guys? Is none of youable to spot a decently made gem of a film among all the familyentertainment trash anymore? This film certainly did not deserve thefate it endured. I am soo sad about it all..And one side note: Cinemablend.com meticulously analyzes and rates each3D release regularly which greatly helps me when picking up what towatch in 3D. But in the case of Fright Night 2011, even that trustedsite seems to have erred. At the time of the film's release in the US,the relevant article headed "Fright Night: To 3D or Not to 3D"specifically stated that the film was a terrible choice to be filmed in3D since the many night scenes did not fare well in 3D mode because ofthe dimming of the projection light by the 3D glasses and that as aresult it was impossible to see what was going on during most of thefilm's night scenes. Wroooooong! In the showing I attended at my localcinema, the film was very clear and there was absolutely nothing wrongwith the dimness settings of the picture. The action was very clear tofollow and at no point did I experience any difficulties regarding the3D aspect of the film. So I am itching to ask: Could there possibly besomething wrong with the projection settings of the films shown in theUS theaters in general? American moviegoers seem to be really upsetabout these 3D projection issues for quite some time now and the wholething now started to result in such box office anomalies as what wasexperienced by this unfortunate movie. Someone better do somethingStateside about this whole issue or the future of 3D really is introuble as regards the American market in my opinion since the notionof "3D" itself seems to have turned into box office poison as of late.Ooops!

thekyles99

21 May 2012

Finally a remake done properly!!!

After hearing that Farrell was going to be cast in a remake of the '85classic Fright Night which starred Chris Sarandon in the title role(Sarandon has a small cameo role in this) I was sceptical however idecided after viewing the trailer that it was the worth the admissionprice. Now, not being a huge fan of remakes at all, I don't mindhowever if they are done half decent and the director makes it his ownvision not totally the original director's vision! This ended up beingall right in fact at times i was thinking it was actually quite welldone! Farrell ditches his Irish accent here to play new neighbour Jerrya secretive neighbour whose major secret is about to be exposed by twomeddling teenagers who just cant seem to mind their own business. Jerryhas a different women enter his home every night, however, for somestrange unknown reason...they never seem to leave? It's a goodcomedy/thriller!!!

DICK STEEL

21 May 2012

A Nutshell Review Fright Night

It's probably an understatement that Hollywood is fast running out ofideas with its glut of costumed heroes making the leap from comic booksto the silver screen, and slew of remakes and reboots that arehappening in assembly line fashion. When I first heard that FrightNight, one of the very few horror films that I had dared to watch andenjoy tremendously, was going to be given a makeover, my initialreaction was there goes another childhood memory which will getbutchered badly. But my fears were quite unfounded, as this updateactually turned out to be rather enjoyable.There were specific moments in the original film that had stuck in mymind, such as how the vampire mocks the protagonist who had stuck acrucifix in his face, and being rebuked that it doesn't work if onedoesn't have faith. Moments that were as classic as this one gotincorporated into the film in a slightly different scenario, which madeit a pleasant easter egg each time fans get to spot something thesurvived the remake.Directed by Craig Gillespie whose pedigree is as varied as Lars and theReal Girl and Mr Woodcock, Fright Night started off quite wobbly whenit tried to establish its characters, jumping directly into the fraywith Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin) being too cool for his geeky bestfriend Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse in a stereotypical role) whosuspects that Charley's new neighbor Jerry (Colin Farrell) is actuallya vampire responsible for the many mysterious disappearances and deathsof their satellite town. Added into the female quotient for any vampirefilm, because sinking one's fangs into a long female neck is alwaysdeemed as sexy, are Toni Collette as Charley's mom who develops a crushon Jerry, as well as Imogen Poots who plays Charley's hot girlfriendAmy.It's the excellent visual effects that made this version of FrightNight work, while balancing a fairly engaging story with a light doseof comedy that made this a walk down memory lane of many past horrorcomedies that entertained without being too campy or silly. You canjust about tell the deliberate attempts at 3D as well which centeredmostly around blood splattering on screen, and for those donning the 3Dglasses, blood splattering toward you by the bucketloads. And let's notforget its technical strengths as well, where a scene that will jumpout and scream for your attention revolves literally around a carinterior in one continuous, lengthy shot that serves as the highlightof the film for its intensity.David Tennant may add some unintentional comedic flair to his vampireslayer Peter Vincent character, but it is clearly the nemesis played byColin Farrell which took the cake and stole everyone's thunder for hiscool as cat portrayal of the undead. While the film became sort of aninstructional manual on how to get rid of one in the final act, relyingupon a number of artifacts both common and uncommon, Farrell plays thevampire with that perfect twinkle in the eye, with the screenplay byMarti Noxon kept close to classic vampire lore, such as the need to getinvited to a home before a vampire can enter, steering clear of therecent Twilight nonsensical re-inventiveness of bloodsuckers who cansurvive in daylight, broods a lot and would rather start a family thanto maintain an advantageous swinging single status. And that myfriends, is what makes vampire films appealing, not metrosexual prettyboys with emotional issues.At its core the story's about a guy who has to once again turn towardand recognize his inner geekdom despite desperate and fairly successfulattempts to have steered away from it, but ultimately has to lookinward for strength to accomplish what would be impossible without awealth of knowledge. Revenge of the nerd this is, and an entertaining,funny romp this updated Fright Night had turned out to be. Recommended!

kloxalot

19 May 2012

are you serious

This movie is for kids from the ages of 12 to 16. The blood in thismovie might as well be from a simple cartoon. It looked like somecandied gel. It was a typical high school freshman scary movie. Istopped watching it when the " vampire " ripped the gas line out of theground to blow up the house. Whoever enjoyed this movie...and thoughtit was a scary one...needs to google " top ten scary movies of alltime. " i wasted 2 hours of my life. My favorite part of this movie iswhen I threw it like a Frisbee and it sailed off to the unknown. It wasjust a horrible attempt to lure in kids who are obsessed with thisvampire trend. I give it a three out of ten only because the mother wasa milf. Enough said.

Maleplatypus

19 May 2012

Quite an entertaining show

Now, despite the fact that I'm not into vampire movies and stuff (beingtoo exploited lately) since I've grown up, this is an entertainingmovie. There are many flaws (or "holes") in the plot (it's like a Swisscheese, actually) but nevertheless it's altogether funny and worthwatching. Casting and directing are good, performances also, not tomention SFX. And it's not too long (round 100 minutes; classic). Idon't remember watching the "original" Fright Night (although I did,many years ago), so it obviously wasn't worth it. This one also won'tbe remembered, but for now it is OK. Don't expect too much and you'llbe rewarded with an not more than an average vampire light comedy thatgoes well with some good company and snacks.

Tony Heck

18 May 2012

A movie that when compared to the original is no where near as good. If you havent seen original you may like this. I say C-

"There's a lot of bad people out there, Charlie. Everyone's gotta lookafter their own business." Charile (Yelchin) has a new neighbor namedJerry (Farrell) who Charlie thinks is a vampire. Trying to convince hismom and girlfriend isn't as easy as he thinks, and it could wind upbiting him if they don't realize it soon. This is a tough movie for meto review. I saw the original for the first time a few days ago and wasreally looking forward to this one. Comparing the two...this onesucked. Bad. The original, while very cheesy was still more interestingand much more tense then this one. Without trying to give anythingaway, the "mystery" of is Jerry a vampire is drug out in the first one.This one shows Jerry biting someone in the first scene he is in. The Edcharacter in the original was very over the top and watching it Ithough how great the choice of "McLovin" to play him was. He wasentirely wasted in this movie and would have been better if both he andthe Peter Vincent character were just left out. All that said if youhaven't seen the original you may like this one. But for me this isanother remake that didn't need to be made. Overall, a movie that whencompared to the original is not as good at all. I give it a C- *Also try - Fright Night (original) & Let Me In

17 May 2012

Fright-ful Night

What an abomination for a film! Could have been made at film school.Utterly horrible on every level. I almost fell asleep twice. No scares,lame comedy, horrible acting (even by Colin, who is a favorite ofmine....congrats Colin on a payday, hope you got up front money).Compare this travesty to LOST BOYS, an all-time classic with genuinescary moments, great music, and the Frog brothers for wry, cynicalhumor based on "truth, justice, and the American way", and you have avampire movie. This should have been dumped on the IFC channelimmediately, but it probably will make it next year as they are "alwayson, but a little off". This movie is a little off, as a matter of factit is so off it may not even make IFC, as I'm now thinking. Save yourmoney and rent LOST BOYS for $1 at the Red Box, if you don't alreadyown it!

justin-298

16 May 2012

Mr. Frights Spoiler Free Review of Fright Night 2011

By now everyone has vented their frustrations about remake hell thatall movies, especially horror movies, are going through. It's no secretthat most people seem to hate the idea that FRIGHT NIGHT even gotremade at all. I'm a genuine big fan of the original as Mr. Frights wasactually inspired by my boyhood love for the character of PETERVINCENT. I on the other hand, am always willing to give something thebenefit of the doubt before decrying how terrible it might be.I was very much looking forward to this movie. It has some of myfavorite actors in it. It looked like fun in the trailers and the ComicCon teaser video. It is horror. And I have a strong fondness for theoriginal film and it's sequel. I loved Roddy McDowall and I love DavidTennant from Dr. Who. When I got passes I was pretty excited. I triedto get a bunch of friends to go, but no one was interested. THAT RIGHTTHERE BLOWS!! If you can't get people interested in seeing a film forFREE, what kind of chance does it have at being a success if it's anygood, and what kind of chance will horror films from here out have ifthey keep posting crappy box office stats? I say complain if you want,but if you're a horror fan, if you're a fan of the original FrightNight film or any of the other stuff I just mentioned, then your assshould be in a theater seat watching this movie! So, are you curiousyet? Do you want to know how bad the movie was? Well, you pre-screeningcritics will be disappointed to know it was FREAKING AWESOME!!! I don'tthink there was a time in my life where a remake took me so by surpriseand body slammed all my expectations producing such an amazing film.And you can quote me on that and on everything I say from here on inthis review.I went in thinking that it might be fun but that's about it and leftabsolutely raving mad about the movie. The people who made this puttogether a genuinely terrifying leap from the original film to a brandnew story that happened to have some characters named the same, in thesame sort of situations, but completely different from the original. Inthat way, I can't honestly say it was a remake. There is no shot forshot anything, the characters are all different in a big way, there aremore characters to consider, the things that go down are not the samefrom the 80's movie, and the differences don't stop there. Oh and don'tbe worried because every change that was made WORKED!! The story goesthat CHARLEY BREWSTER lives in Vegas and that infamous vampire neighbormoves in next door and so Charley boy has to figure out how to killhim. That's the basics. He still has his girl Amy, his buddy 'Evil Ed'and a host of other characters as well as the great PETER VINCENT whois a Las Vegas magician act the likes of Criss Angel.There are evensome surprises to be had as the movie progresses that I really want toleave alone because if your reaction is anything like my reaction thenyou'll appreciate it more having me not spoil it for you.Colin Farrell is brilliant as Jerry the vampire. As I had hoped, DavidTennant is brilliant as Peter Vincent, but does his own thing with it,not at all trying to take over anything from Roddy. Anton Yelchin, fromStar Trek (he played Checkov), was really good too as was the rest ofthe cast.The creators behind this new film (Craig Gillespie; Marti Noxon; & ofcourse Tom Holland) took a lot of risks and put a lot more horror intothis film. While still delivering on some well placed laughs, the movieis way more intense than the original. There's not as much hokey to itwhich serves it well to set it apart from Fright Night of the 80's. Ihave to say that at parts, this movie actually scared me and it's beenforever since I've seen a horror film that could do that! This movie isa refreshing departure from remake hell even though it is based onanother film and has the same sort of characters. I was reallyimpressed with this production and it was even more impressive in 3Dwhich I advise everyone to check it out that way. I mean horror moviesare why 3D was created man!!! Don't miss out on that. Seriously. Thekills alone, the deaths of the vamps alone is worth the 3D.I want to rave on more about how awesome and brilliant and amazing thisnew movie is, but I can't give anything away. All I can do is tell youguys how wonderful this thing turned out to be and plead with you allto give it a chance and go see it! If there was EVER a horror film thatdeserved support and big box office numbers in recent years, it's thisone. Mr. Frights would not steer you wrong, trust in me horror peeps,if you miss this in theaters you'll be spanking your own hams for itfor a long long time. I'm already overly, excitedly, anticipating theDVD release.Hell, if I had the time I'd go see it three more times.- Mr. Frights http://about.me/mrfrights

greatsewing1

16 May 2012

Hardedge hardcore Fright Night with some juicy 3D

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.

Pascal Zinken

16 May 2012

Good popcorn fun

Remakes of classics usually end up being pants. Every once in a whilethough some comes through holding up to their original counter part -or at least enough to be worthy of cinema time.Fright Night is one of these. It's a typical vampire story where oneperson detects the unbelievable truth and then needs to repair thedamage before it gets really out of hand. It has a very nice pace anddoesn't wait long with making sure everyone knows who is who and wherethings are going - it's as predictable as the average soap opera but itplays out fun.Adding to that the fact that it doesn't take itself serious and you canadd good bits of laughter to the otherwise gruesome effect of havingpeople close to you being hassled by a vampire and you not being ableto do much about it. It rolls on and never looses track and all in allits highly enjoyable.7 out of 10 bite marks on the neck

sundaefries

15 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.

oldman007

13 May 2012

Great fun!

This film lacked script work and editing. The Editing was terrible,actually. The acting is decent, but great acting from ChristopherMintz-Plasse as Ed.I think a lot of people were worrying about the lack of editing andscript. But this movie is just so much fun to watch and there wasn't asecond I was bored. Every moment has you guessing and laughing andchilling. It was totally unpredictable and you never knew what wouldcome next.Again, yes, it lacked good script work and good editing work, but, inall seriousness, it's one of the best fun times i've ever had in MovieHistory in a theater and i'm not over exaggerating! It looks reallygood in 3D as well! especially the intro! :D Sit back, in a dark room(with maybe your 3d glasses), with your popcorn, girlfriend, friendsand coca cola and enjoy some great fun! I give Fright Night an 8/10!

rebecca-ry

12 May 2012

Not The Best Film In The World

I haven't seen the original 'Fright Night' so I cannot compare it toanything. What I can say is that it's adequate, that's all.The acting is pretty good to be fair, Colin Farrell's villain role isplayed very well. Anton Yelchin and Imogen Poots' roles were also good.Christopher Mintz-Plasse was good but I was annoyed that he was playing- yet again - McLovin from 'Superbad', he just can't seem to escapethat role and it would be nice to see what else he is capable of.However, I feel David Tennant stole the show with his performance andit would have been better if he had been in the film more often as heprovided 90% of the comedy here. The comedic aspect of this film is what makes it good, I'm not sayingit needed more laughs but there are moments where you are neitherfrightened or laughing. These dull bits are what weakens the film as awhole. It can be genuinely frightening in parts, making you jump quitea lot with great effects most of the time but in others it can be quitecartoon-like. Overall, I would not recommend this film as a film you HAVE to watchbut I would also not advise anyone to specifically avoid it. It'saverage and it's ashame it is that because the performances and thestoryline work, there was just something missing.