Latest remake: Fright Night

Here's my mini review, reposted from the other Fright Night thread:

I saw Fright Night this afternoon (in glorious 2D). I liked it, but I didn't love it.

Decent pacing and good performances throughout. Anton Yelchin (Charley Brewster) pretty much plays it straight, Colin Farrell (Jerry) is sleazy but doesn't quite pull off menacing (he might have been if the CGI hadn't gotten in the way), David Tennant (Peter Vincent) steals nearly every scene he's in (though in scenes featuring Tennant and Yelchin, Yelchin easily holds his own), and Christopher Mintz-Plasse (Ed) who in my opinion is somewhat miscast (I can't elaborate with it being a spoiler). Imogen Poots (Amy) is capable in a thankless role that could just as easily have been played by just about any reasonably attractive young actess, and Toni Collette (Jane Brewster, Charley's mother) is spot on in an equally thankless role. As for the plot, the film definitely draws from the original without being a direct copy.

CGI effects range from quite good (vampire death and blood effects) to barely passable (vampire face changes; I would much rather have seen practical makeups here). There are a couple of nods to the original 1985 film, but they're nicely handled and don't draw attention to themselves.

The main thing that's missing from this film is the tongue-in-cheek charm of the original film. The 1985 Fright Night is pretty dated by today's standards, but still holds up pretty well; I don't think this version will be as fondly remembered 26 years from now.

And now the big question: Would I recommend it? Let me put it this way--I think fans of modern horror film franchises like Saw and Final Destination might like it (though, by comparison, this film is light on gore), but fans of classic horror and the original film might find it lacking. If you really want to see this in a theater, do so; if you're on the fence, wait for cable.
 
I thought Fright Night is how you do a quality remake: Good acting, likeable leads, updated story, updated special effects and a more sinister bad guy. I can understand if you're suffering from lackluster remake burn out, but I thought this one is worth the ticket price. If you've got a second generation of horror fans in the house, you could share your love of the original by introducing them to the modern one.
 
I REALLY want to see this movie, it looks awesome! Plus, Collin Farrel looks hot, though it sux that he's playing a bad guy. However, come on, David Tennant too, oh yeah!!! lol...
 
Just caught this remake on Blu-ray. I liked it, very clever update while keeping true to the original minus the camp. I thought the cast did a good job and Farrel was effective as Jerry. Some of the scenes toward the end in the house were too dark for me to see well but that could just be my eyes. Still, I had fun with it.
 
Last edited:
I thought this was a significant upgrade over the original. The vampire was strong and scary, and the director remembered that it is a HORROR flick.
 
I thought this was a significant upgrade over the original. The vampire was strong and scary, and the director remembered that it is a HORROR flick.

Is that why they took a 20 minute break from the plot so David Tennant could embarass himself with his newest comedy routine?

I really really wanted to like this remake as I loved the original and the casting seemed perfect on paper, but in alot of ways it fell so short of being good.
 
Caught it yesterday night on TV, unfortunately not from the beginning, but somewhat at the end of the first act when David visited Peter Vincent (what an awesome hommage, btw, It just occured to me who the name refers to ;) ) I did not remember that Peter Vincent was played by David Tennant, so I was a bit surprised there. The movie was IMO quite slow paced and the build ups were simply not what I´d expect from a remake in the 2010´s . I loved Tennant and Yelchin in their roles, but must admit that I do prefer the original with its charme over this one, which felt a bit ... drained ... blood empty ...

And the ending? Did that feel tacked on? Why do we need to see everyone being happy and go on with their lives? I must say that I expected something like a surprise ending, i.e. amy turning back into a vampire or at least have a strange glow in her eyes, or Peter changing or the mom being greeted by a strange neighbour or eyes watching our heroes out of a corner, or a strange artifact in Peters collection suddenly coming to life ... you know, the works that we usually get in a decent horror movie, and have been getting very often since Polanskis "The fearless Vampire killers". But just happiness? I feel cheated.
Regarding the director remembering that its a horror movie. No, the original was IIRC planned as a comedy with horror elements, and this one here IMO did not really know what it wanted to be.
So, a bit disappointed, but still mildly entertained.

EDIT: what topic deserves a real necropost if not the discussion of a vampire movie? :p
 
Back
Top