Visitors Review

Pascal Zinken (2012-05-25 16:46)

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

Jimmy Munoz (2012-05-25 16:11)

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....

Robert W. (2012-05-25 11:22)

One of my favourite films of 2011...SURPRISE!!

I love going into a film with little to no expectations and coming outhooting and hollering because you just saw a movie that was amazing,fun, entertaining, brilliant...Fright Night for me was exactly that. Iactually saw it three times in theatre and I rarely ever see anythingmore than once in theatre...I loved it every single time. First of allif you have the opportunity to see this in 3D...this might be the onlyfilm I have ever seen where the 3D actually impressed me. It was funand in your face and really brilliantly shot. I am not giving this aperfect score lightly...you would know from my other reviews I don'thand this out easily...Fright Night for me was simply perfectlyentertaining. That doesn't make it a perfect film but I loved everysingle second of this and it will be a permanent favourite of mine. Thestory is fun, the one liners are hilarious, the characters are wild andcrazy, and from beginning to end I loved it.Years ago I called Anton Yelchin one to watch and now his career isbecoming something to really take notice of. He headlines this filmwith ease and humour and kick butt action and he is fantastic! I lovethis kid! He is a pro and he has some great roles ahead of him. I knowa lot of people don't like Colin Farrell, mostly because of hispersonal life, but I think he can be a very versatile actor and whilehe doesn't blow away this film, he does a great job in his role. He'sdark and twisted and a little campy and perfect. Him and Yelchin havegreat chemistry. Toni Collette adds a certain level of class to thecast in a role that isn't her usual indie subject matter. But she doesa good job as the 'cool' mom to Yelchin's character. Imogen Poots issort of the typical hot young teenie girlfriend to the main characterbut what I liked about her is that she actually had some substance andheld her own on the cast. And finally but certainly not least Dr. Whofans will squeal for David Tennant in his role as the consummateVampire expert Peter Vincent. I liked him a lot in the role but Icouldn't help but thinking it would have just been a littleentertaining if they had gotten someone bigger for the role...asurprise fun cameo...but I know Tennant definitely has his fans and hedoes a good job. Also worth checking out is Christopher Mintz-Plasse(McLovin') who is hilarious (although almost overused) as Ed/Evil Ed.Amazing special effects and terrific scenes make this a must see.Director Craig Gillespie comes from Television but I think he must be ahorror fan or even an expert at thriller because the everything aboutFright Night just works. The pace, the setting, the characters, justmade one of the entertaining and fun films of the year. That's theimportant thing...FUN. I know people will read this and scoff and sayhow much they hated Fright Night but those are the same people thatexpected more than what you should from a movie like this. This movieis one of the best popcorn flicks I have seen in months. Please seethis and have a great time!! 10/10

MovieProductions (2012-05-25 05:44)

"Fright Night" bites hard- especially in 3D

**1/2 out of (****) (FRESH)After growing up on the iconic 1985 Tom Holland classic, I hadskepticism, but also nervous excitement when I heard about a remakepaving the way. After seeing a few advertisements, that was it. I knewthis film was going to be horrendous and another example of being abastardization of the original. To my surprise, the film sits at a"certified fresh" 74% on Rotten Tomatoes and a not-too-shabby 63% onMetacritic. For a 3D horror remake, that's pretty damn good. Afterhearing the faint praise for the film, and certainly with too much timeon my hands, I decided to see the movie."Fright Night" revolves around Charley, a suburban kid who befriendsthe typical wanna-be popular crowd but also a nerdy vampire fanboy andis home to a hot girlfriend. However, after a recent disappearance of astudent and the loss of a best friend, things are looking fishy aroundhere. It doesn't help much matters that Jerry, the neighbor next door,is a vampire.After the recent slue of vampire movies, next to none have been great.The "Twilight" series is replete with clichés and sheer boredom, andcharacters made of cardboard. Although, do I need to tell you this? Theonly recent Hollywood vampire movies are "Let Me In" and "Daybreakers".While both were decent, I felt there was something missing. "FrightNight" has it. First off, the performers. At first, the characters seem pretentious,annoying, and unnerving. Not even within the first ten minutes, Iresented the acting. Top it off with the dialogue. However, as the filmprogresses, the characters do as well. Charley evolves as a person, butthat's really the main point. He's a caring, devoted kid that'll doanything it takes to make sure everyone around him is alive. Amy,Charley's girlfriend seems like the typical hot babe that's justlooking for some trouble. However, at the end, she proves to beactually caring about her boyfriend and even puts him first in diresituations. I give kudos for the filmmakers putting some life andbackbone into these characters. It's refreshing to see people we canrelate to put in the situation.And how could we not forget Colin Farrell? Farrell is excellent in hisrole being the savvy, spiffy guy-next-door. He's the leading antagonistyou just love to hate. How's the script? While the film is suspensefulfor the majority of the time, the film isn't afraid to let up a littleand inject some humor. Some of the one-liners are very witty and I candefinitely say they pulled the humor off pretty well. As far assuspense goes, this one has got it. You'd think with an R-rating,there'd be intestines flying everywhere, but I like how the filmhandled the blood/gore with this one. Incredibly more realistic andmore unnerving because it is. The 3D? It was a pain to pay the additional four dollar surcharge, butI have to say, this time around, it was pretty good. Back when Ireviewed "Final Destination 5", I praised how great the 3D was, but Iactually liked this 3D better. Not so in-your-face and there's a wholelot more depth. All in all, "Fright Night" might not be a staple in horror for years tocome, but for a film, it's made with the best intentions and the endresult shows. It pains me when people only refer to this as a "3Dhorror remake" (okay I know, guilty as charged but that's what I viewedit as before the seeing the film) because it's more than that. Thecharacters are multi-dimensional, the 3D adds layers, and the script isreally something. With the movies out in the cineplex, you honestly cando worse then this one. What's out there? A shabby, prolonging "Conan"and tired "Final Destination"? Hit up a matinée on this one. It's nottoo capable of a full price, but better than a rental.

tabuno (2012-05-24 12:48)

Starts Out Strong But Descends Into Ordinary

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).

ajwin05 (2012-05-24 09:54)

Super Cool Vampire flick

I am a big fan of horror movies and vampire movies in general. I haveseen the original Fright Night but have forgotten some of it. I alwaysliked vampires but years ago it was mostly Dracula, Blade, and Angel. Ithought Fright Night was a great movie. It was funny, sexy, and scary.I thought it had some great horror music. It had some of the best musicI've ever heard in a movie. The cast was great. I really liked theperformances by Colin Farrel, Anton Yelchin, Christopher Mintz-Plasse,Toni Collette,and David Tennant. Colin Farrel was funny but also scary.I liked the scene where he turned Ed into a vampire. I liked when thehero's girlfriend threw holy water in his face. I liked the scene alsowhere he killed some bullies and he had long claws. He was cool andhandsome in his human form but super scary when we saw his monsterface. Jerry the vampire is one of the best vampires. Right up therewith Dracula, Blade, Edward Cullen, Lestat, Angel, Stefan and DamonSalvatore, Bill Compton, and Eric Northman. Colin Farrel gave a greatperformance. This is one of his best films alongside Daredevil,Horrible Bosses, Crazy Heart, and Hart's War. I'm glad he stoppeddrinking and doing drugs. I liked Anton Yelchin as the hero Charlie. Ithought he was a jerk at first but he was nicer later in the film. Idid not like how he treated his best friend Ed. They were the best offriends and then Charlie rejects him just because he's dating thehottest girl in school. I liked the mom played by Collette and it wasbad when Jerry tried to kill her but I liked it when he burned theirhouse down. He said he didn't need an invitation in if there was nohouse. I liked when he was stabbed with the realtor's sign and I likedthe battle at the end with him Charlie and Peter Vincent. I only hadone problem with the film. I thought David Tennant was funny bu hischaracter Peter Vincent was better in the old one. He was an old manbrilliantly played by Roddy Mcdowall. In this one he was an idiotichorn-dog who acted like Criss Angel. He was better in the end when hehelped Charlie battle Jerry. I also liked Christopher Mintz Plasse. Hewas funny and it was cool when he became a vampire. I thought FrightNight was one of the best horror flicks in 2011. Everyone should seeit.

John Rivet (2012-05-23 14:40)

A solid remake that's as good as the 1985 film

I wasn't looking forward to the remake for Fright Night when I firstsaw the trailer, because to be honest it didn't look like it was goingto be that great of a movie. I decided to give it a watch thoughbecause I'm a huge fan of the 1985 movie of the same name. The plot forthe remake is quite sample, Jerry the vampire moves in next door toCharley Brewster, at first Charlie dosen't believe this, he think's hisfriend is making the whole thing up. But when Ed goes missing, Charleyhas no other choice but to believe that Jerry is indeed a vampire, andthis is where the fun begins. The film's opening was pretty intense, and it was a great opening tothe movie, yeah it was a little expected so it wasn't really that muchof a surprise when I saw the movie, I kinda guess at what was going tohappen, but still it was a solid opening. From there the movie slowsdown a little bit to develop the story, although to be honest itdosen't take very long to get the story going. This is the weak pointof the movie, I didn't like the first thirty minutes that much becauseit just felt a little to slow and some things just didn't make thatsense to begin with, but these are only minor problems that are soontaken care of. Withen the first thirty minutes into the movie, wealready see what Jerry can do and what his motives are, he want'sCharley dead, and he dosen't care how he's going to do it. What make'sFright Night so fun is that it dosen't take it's self to serious, yesit does have it's moments but its more funny then anything else, yesit's a little cheesy and campy, but that's what it makes it fun.I loved the cheesiness of the movie I embraced it, it's like the 1985film it was cheesy but it was still a fun little film, that you couldwatch with your friends and just enjoy it for what it is. Now thisisn't to say the remake isn't without its probelms because it does havesome, like I mentioned before I wish they would've developed the storya little more and not just brush things aside, it would've been nice ifthey would've explained why Jerry was going after Charley in the firstplace, yes I know he's going after Charley because he know's he's avampire but still the movie dosen't quite explain this enough and itkinda bugged me, but this is only a small problem that I quickly gotover. The main problem of the film is its CGI, yes the CGI did lookpretty good at times but most of the time it just felt tacky and lookedterrible to be honest, I don't know if that was done on purpose becauseof the cheesiness of the film, but still they're could've fixed some ofit up a bit to make it look a little better. I feel that the CGI wasrushed most of the time and could've been a lot better then what itwas, it was a little distracting at times, and for me this is the worstthing about the movie, but it still didn't stop me from enjoying it asmuch as I did.Now all of the actors did a pretty decent job in the film, but I haveto say Colin Farrell stole the show, he was perfect as Jerry. He did aterrfic job a lot better then what I was expecting him to do, I'd sayhe was as good as Chris Sarandon in the 1985 film. David Tennant alsodid a wonderful job, I have to say he was the second best of the bunchnext to Colin Farrell, Tennant was just so funny in the film no matterwhat scene he was in, it was hard to take him serious at times but thatwas the whole point I think. The rest of the cast all did a good jobwith what they had, they just didn't stick out to me like Tennant andFarrell did. Overall the movie is a solid a remake that's even asenjoyable as the 1985 film, I recommend you go see it as soon aspossible.

VWstarwars (2012-05-23 05:56)

Only okay.

Yeah, I gotta' give it a one because a 6.9 is way too high for thismovie and I want my vote to count. Really and honestly this movie isonly mediocre at best. It is no where near as good or interesting asthe original "Fright Night," which was one damn good and fun movie.This remake's lackluster performance at the bock office is just anotherexample of audiences really displaying what they want and don't want .. . Remakes being something that horror film fans are burned the "F"out on!!! Get this Hollywood, Please!!! The ORIGINAL "Fright Night" wasa hit, made more money, not in 3D and with 1985 ticket prices. Thisshould make your realize something as well, because it was ORIGINAL.All of the talk about how the 1985 film was a commentary on vampirehorror in the mid-80's, which was almost non-existent at that point,and your new version being a commentary on the current swamp of boring,rip-off vampire titles should also tell you that coming out withanother, cheap rip-off is a mistake! We've heard all the "We'reupdating for modern audiences" garbage until we want to vomit!!! Or"We're improving" because no, you are not making better movies when youdo this! CGI effects are not that great and do not save or make betterfilms. What we keep getting are vapid rehashes directed by someone whoreally wants to direct something else.All and all . . . wait for video here.

trashgang (2012-05-22 12:47)

good remake, even it's full of CGI

Tricky this is to see Colin Farrell as Jerry the vampire. On the otherhand it is also a bit dangerous to remake another horror classic. Jokesback then did work but are out of order nowadays. I must say that thewriters did ask Tom Holland (writer and director of Fright Night1985)to be involved. And that was good thinking, remember how theNightmare On Elm Street remake failed due their arrogance of notincluding old actors (Robert Englund)and director/writer (Wes Craven),you know what I mean. Still, Fright Night wasn't frightening at all, it was all a funnyhorror flick due the situations. Nice to see they did that again. Youjust can't take Fright Night serious even as it isn't a comedy. Thestory here is for most parts equal to the original one, they onlyupdated the situations. By now people know that I have some feartowards the use of CGI. There's a bit here but I didn't had anythingagainst it. The changing of the faces is exactly like the original onebut its' done CGI this time. It's never really scary although it willhave scene's that could be frightening for newcomers in the horrorgenre.The acting was something different. Colin was okay to see but still Ihad some doubts as him being in a horror flick. He has the face butsometimes his macho-thing stood in the way. Of course they made areference to Twilight and I must say that this flick is a bit made forteenagers. I know that in the original one it's all about youngstersbut here the overall look is really towards them. I would classify thisflick on the shelve next to Red Riding Hood or Jennifer's Body. Youknow, it has it's blood and scary parts but it never got ugly or gory.But at the end of the day, I liked it because it had funny moments anddelivered some enjoyable moments. Gore 3/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 4/5 Story 4/5 Comedy 2/5

born-r (2012-05-21 19:19)

A Remake that isn't as good as the original

Fright Night is a remake and reinterpretation of the classic 1985 film,Fright Night, about a teenager, addicted to TV horror series(particularly a show called "Fright Night", which has a vampire hunternamed Peter Vincent), who discovers that his new neighbor is a vampire,and after the neighbor noted that he knows these secret, he tries toprove this to everyone, together with his friend and girlfriend. Thebig difference between this version and the previous one, is that thisis move fells more for a horror one, and can not recreate theatmosphere of the first film. The roles are reinvented and adapted tomodern times, and to a different city (Las Vegas): Jerry Dandrige workswell, but I think as Jerry Dandrige (the vampire) is not at the samelevel as Chris Sarandon in the classic movie, that was a bettervillain. The actors now, are usually better (the vampire slayer PeterVincent, played by David Tennant is very good and funny in the role),but the film has another air, pulled into the action and horror genre(but ends up being a bit tedious) and have a end that gives theimpression that the movie ended too soon. Still, it's a goodentrainment as a movie, although lower than the original - My Score:6.7 / 10.0

DICK STEEL (2012-05-20 01:46)

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!

Tim McNeil (2012-05-19 11:15)

One good performance can't make this a good movie

It took me a while to see the original Fright Night (1985). I had oneof those mothers who tried to impose her own uneasiness with the horrorgenre on her children. Actually, she held crazy beliefs like that KISSstood for Knights in Satan's Service and Rush (the Canadian prog-rockband) meant Ruling Under Satan's House and is still afraid to watch themovie Jaws (1975). I'm pretty sure the first time I saw Fright Night'85 it was on cable television. I soon went out and and rented it – andits inferior sequel – and found a movie I really liked. It had theright amount of camp and humor, but it was the slow build to the horrorelement that made it, to me, a classic.Don't expect that from the new version. Fright Night '11 takes the samebasic premise, but has none of the fun with it. Marti Noxon – the Queenof Mean – transplants the Angelus character from the Buffy/AngelWhedonverse and hands the role to a more talented actor in ColinFarrell. Let me make this perfectly clear: if you are going to see thismovie, Colin Farrell is the reason to go. He does truly embody theinhuman menace of the shark from Jaws, but is somewhat hampered by thedirection and editing that occasionally sets him up as a vampiric PepéLe Pew. Though largely robbed of any kind of a backstory or motivationbeyond being a vampire – and what little we do get to learn about hiskind mostly goes to waste – Farrell does his best to make this moviework.The problem is that he isn't enough.Anton Yelchin, an actor who has yet to impress me in any role I've seenhim in, is the lackluster lead. We learn that he is the kind of man whowould betray his friends and hang out with assholes in order to score atasty girlfriend, but still nerdy enough to not be able to close thedeal. Seemingly, a mere ten minutes – it may have been a little more orless – Yelchin's Charley Brewster is already aware (in a way) thatvampires are real. That sucks all of the tension out of the ensuingscenes and helps get the leaden feeling of the movie going. Yelchindoes have a couple of good scenes, but he – or director Craig Gillespie– doesn't know what to do with them.Instead of giving an actor as good a role as they did with RoddyMcDowell in the original, David Tennant (as Peter Vincent) is requiredto start off with what looks like a Ben Stiller impersonation of JohnnyDepp in any of the Pirates movies. There is too much unpleasantself-loathing in this new Vincent to make him accessible. He is apompous coward – which could have worked – that never really is given achance for redemption; it is up Charley to do that, too.Imogen Poots (as Amy) and Emily Montague (as Ginger) make forattractive and mildly compelling potential victims of the vampire. Bothseem to have unreasonable faith in the Charley character, though thisis a problem with the screenplay and not the acting. Much lesseffective are the other potential victims that wander about the film.Most are disagreeable and unlikeable, and in the case of Dave Francoseem to be too old to fit into the film's high school age groupcharacters. Toni Collette (as Charley's mother, Jane) is largelywasted. She looks good and should be a calm, capable, strong woman thathas given Charley his moral compass and conviction. Instead, she isquickly turned into just another potential victim and is removed fromthe third act in an unsatisfying way (though, to be fair, it does workin the overall story). Chris Sarandon makes an appearance – my one lonelaugh of the night – as does Lisa Loeb (???).The film looks bland and uninspired, and that isn't due to the specialeffects. The FX work, almost without exception. It is the sets andlandscape that robs the movie of any sense of life. Watching acookie-cutter, Las Vegas McMansion in an oddly isolated subdivisionburn provokes no reaction from me, except that many built unwiselyduring the housing boom. There is no vibrancy to the movie, and that isa problem. I cannot comment about the 3D. There was a problem with the projectionduring the previews, and while it was resolved to the point of where itwasn't just blurry, most of the effects that were in 3D never reallypopped. Some are obviously meant to, and if they do it will add more tothe experience. Other than those flashy (and repetitive) sequences,there are only three or four shots that effectively make use of thetechnology (no, I am not counting the crossbow bolt shot seen in thepreviews). Gillespie does a great job with one particular shot in aswimming pool early on, then seems to degenerate into some level ofamateurism with his shot selection. This is his first feature, and inretrospect, it looked as though he wasn't ready.My suggestion is to watch the original Fright Night (1985) instead ofthe cynical, cold-hearted '11 Fright Night. The new one isn't horrible,but like a vampire, it has no life of its own. Colin Farrell is greatin what he is allowed to do (I never thought I'd ever write a sentencelike that), but the rest of the cast is subdued and improperly handled.This is a solid C effort, but I would have like to have seen a moreaccomplished director – and definitely no Noxon influence – for thismovie.

garethvk (2012-05-19 12:55)

Fright Night" just might be perfect for those looking for a dose of nostalgia and some highly suspenseful, fun entertainment.

Twenty-six years ago, "Fright Night" premiered in theaters and went onto become a fondly remembered title amongst horror fans. The moviecleverly combined horror and humor to create a fresh take on thevampire and teen horror genres which had started to grow stale. Whilethe movie spawned a largely forgettable direct to video sequel, theoriginal film has remained popular over the years. So, when I firstheard that they were planning on remaking the film I was skeptical as Ifelt it would be very difficult to match the original film.Boasting an impressive cast which includes Anton Yelchin, ColinFarrell, David Tennant, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, and Toni Collette,the remake does not try to reinvent the wheel, but instead takes theformula of the original and creates an entirely new entry into thesaga.For those unfamiliar with the series, Yelchin stars as CharlieBrewster, a young man who is trying to balance watching over his singlemother, and his growing relationship with a girl way out of his leaguenamed Amy (Imogen Poots). He is also wrestling with becoming part of acooler crowd at the cost of alienating his geeky former best friend,Ed, played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse. Colin Farrell plays the handsome and suave new next door neighbor whoeasily charms Charlie's mom, played by Toni Colette. Unbeknownst to hisneighbors, the charming and charismatic Jerry, played by Colin Ferrell,is actually a vampire who's come to their Las Vegas suburb to continuehis nighttime hunts. Ed has become suspicious of the recentdisappearances in their community and confides to Charlie that he's hadJerry under surveillance and knows that he is a vampire.Needless to say this does not sit well with Charlie, who distanceshimself further from Ed. But when Ed goes missing, Charlie decides todo some investigating of his own. Charlie turns to a local Vegasperformance artist named Peter Vincent (David Tennant), whosevampire-themed show portrays him as an expert in fighting the undead.While at first skeptical over Charlie's claims, a few devastatingconfrontations with Jerry and his minions forces Vincent to rethink hisrole. The two unlikely allies soon find themselves in a deadly raceagainst time to defeat Jerry and save their loved ones before it's toolate.The film cleverly combines horror and comedy and does a good job ofproviding some suspenseful moments in between the blood and gore,managing to squeeze in more than a few laughs along the way. While notoverly scary, the visual effects work is solid and aside from theconverted 3-D is a really enjoyable to watch. The film would've beenmuch better had it been shot in 3-D or simply left as a 2-D film as theconversion really didn't offer anything of value as is often the casein these lab converted efforts.The cast works very well with one another and Farrell cheekilyintroduces a few new wrinkles to the vampire lore. I really enjoyedDavid Tennant's performance and should they do a sequel I certainlyhope that they bring him back. Anton Yelchin gives a reliableperformance but I was surprised that Christopher Mintz-Plasse did nothave a bigger role but he does have some memorable moments in the film.What really impressed me was that the film did not attempt to do ashot-by-shot remake of the original but instead took the premise of theoriginal and offered a fresh take that easily could have been issued asthe third chapter in the series rather than a reboot. While there werenods to the original, outside of the premise it was very much its ownfilm.The film is not going to set any high marks for new standards in horrornor is the plot fresh and original. It simply knows what its targetaudience and source material are and sets a course right down themiddle without attempting to deviate too much one way or another."Fright Night" just might be perfect for those looking for a dose ofnostalgia and some highly suspenseful, fun entertainment.Three stars out of five

cyanideXvampire (2012-05-18 22:20)

Liked it more than the original

Maybe it's because I'm a Lost Boys fan-girl, but I really didn't carefor the original. Aside from Chris Sarandon, the acting was terrible,it didn't scare me or make me laugh (on purpose), and there were a fewplot holes that bothered me. But I'm not reviewing that movie! The newFright Night is actually a pretty thrilling movie. A few silly parts,but they didn't seem too forced or anything. I was kept entertained thewhole time. I wasn't expecting much from this movie, just hoping for aREAL vampire movie, and it gave me that and more! I liked that in thisversion they gave Vincent a motive and he had more of a distinctpersonality. David Tennant was great and pretty funny. The 'magician'thing seemed a little weird, but it worked and so I'm not complaining.Colin Farrell also did a great job as Jerry. He was suave, frightening,and charming. Can't say if I liked him or Chris Sarandon more, but hewas definitely more modern (obviously) in a good way.The other characters weren't amazing, but I didn't think they were badeither. I liked that Jerry's guard wasn't in this one too. Charlie andEd also have history in this one which I liked because I really didn'tknow what to make of them in the original. Amy was also fine, again notgreat but not bad.The only thing I would caution is the 3D. It was useless in this movieand only managed to give me a headache. So if you can't find a theaterthat's playing in 2D, wait for the DVD (Unless of course you enjoypaying more for a ticket).

Maleplatypus (2012-05-17 17:47)

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.

gradyharp (2012-05-17 07:24)

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

shatteredrifle (2012-05-15 16:54)

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.

blackmambamark (2012-05-15 01:29)

Damn good vampire fun.....

Can a horror remake actually be a good for a change? I mean, how manyclassic horror flicks does Hollywood have to crap on until they finallygive up? "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", "Amityville Horror", "Nightmare onElm St.", "Friday the 13th", "House of Wax".......all of these filmsare examples of why i sometimes HATE Hollywood.Finally......a horror remake that's WORTH seeing. I must admit, i hadsome pretty low expectations walking into this, and it did way morethan prove me wrong. Initially i thought they were going to make this astraight 'B' movie by incorporating tons of humor with their gore,which would have been fine with me, seeing that i love the genre'. Butthis movie was more fun than funny. Don't get me wrong, there are somesequences that are funny, but it had more of that 'drive-in' appeal toit's horror. And i loved every bit of it.It's story is pretty basic, and somewhat cliché'. I mean come on, avampire living next door. But the weird thing is, it didn't come off ascliché'. And i think the biggest contribution to that was the pace ofthe film. Once you get past the first 10 to 15 minutes of the film,which are kind of dull, the movie quickly begins to morph into a fastpaced gore fest. And now looking back on it......if it were not ratedR, then this movie would have been stupid, and it would've fit in withevery other crummy horror remake.But the aspect that i appreciated the most was the writing. For once,they didn't alter any rules to make their film different. They stuckwith what already works, and left it up to the actors to make thesevampire rules entertaining. And Collin Farrell did just that.Bottom Line.....Of all the horror movies that come out this year, thiswill probably be the one you will have the most fun at. It's funny,it's somewhat scary, but most of all, it's pretty damn entertaining.It's one of those movies i would've loved to of seen at the drive-in.If your tired of all this 'Twilight' crap, which they happen to mentionin the movie itself, then this is really a breathe of fresh air to allthe TRUE vampire fans.

Cam Silver (2012-05-14 00:13)

Lack of appeal

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

Chelsea White (2012-05-13 02:42)

Really fun and entertaining

I haven't had this much fun at the cinema in a long time. I understandthat people who loved the remake might feel this was a disappointment(whether it's because they went in ready to hate it or went inexpecting to love it, I don't know) But I just thought it was a lot offun. Probably more fun than funny (though some of the jokes did have meand the rest of the cinema laughing out loud). It was a good mix oflight hearted humour, thrilling suspense and bloody action.Don't go in expecting too much and you'll have a good time. Not allmovies have to be revolutionary and ground breaking. I went to themovies looking for entertainment, and in this movie, I definitely gotwhat I paid for!