Genres Movie
- Top 100
- Action (3036)
- Adventure (2135)
- Animation (1262)
- Anime (46)
- Biography (462)
- Comedy (6092)
- Crime (2491)
- Documentary (1467)
- Drama (7378)
- Family (1682)
- Fantasy (1307)
- Film-Noir (136)
- History (444)
- Horror (2459)
- Music (501)
- Musical (373)
- Mystery (1590)
- Other (31)
- Reality Show (460)
- Romance (2341)
- Sci-Fi (1778)
- Short (599)
- Sport (436)
- Thriller (3884)
- War (523)
- Western (457)
Most Popular
-
1The Avengers (2012)
-
2Dark Shadows (2012)
-
3The Hunger Games (2012)
-
4This Means War (2012)
-
5Battleship (2012)
-
621 Jump Street (2012)
-
7The Dictator (2012)
-
8Chronicle (2012)
-
9The Cabin in the Woods (2011)
-
10The Woman in Black (2012)
Fright Night Movie
Genres are ComedyHor Produced in 2011, USA, India
Actors |
|
| Chris Sarandon | |
| Colin Farrell | |
| Anton Yelchin | |
| Will Denton | |
| Imogen Poots | |
| Toni Collette | |
| Lisa Loeb | |
Director | IMDB Rating |
| Craig Gillespie |
6.6
out of 10 (26471 votes)
|
Year | 2011 |
Available Quality | DivX, Hi Def, Hi Def |
 |
1920x1080 | 7828 MiB |
|
|
 |
1280x720 | 4472 MiB |
|
|
 |
624x352 | 700 MiB |
|
Storyline
Plot Summary:
A remake of the 1985 original, teenager Charley Brewster (Yelchin) guesses that his new neighbor Jerry Dandrige (Farrell) is a vampire responsible for a string of recent deaths. When no one he knows believes him, he enlists Peter Vincent (Tennant), a self proclaimed vampire killer and Las Vegas magician, to help him take down Jerry.
More Movies of this Genre
Comedy, Fantasy
Action, Comedy, Romance
Action, Comedy
Comedy
Comedy
berrorg
22 May 2012
Compared to the original...
.. it is pretty different, in a good way. I said "good", not "better".If you're a fan of the original (I know I am), please do yourself afavor and FORGET that this is a remake. I think that it was a hugedistraction for me to be aware of the original one because it changes ALOT of key situations and the story arc, and I kept thinking "thiswon't make sense with what comes next", although it did make sensebecause at the end, THIS Fright Night is a totally different monsterthan the 80's one.Just go to the theaters thinking that this is loosely based on theoriginal and enjoy the ride... it is actually quiet fun this time too.Cheers!
Mike Stolyarov
21 May 2012
The 2011 remake of "Fright Night" is not a bad movie, but it is weaker than the original
On the outside, making a movie looks a lot like cooking in the sensethat it transforms the "raw ingredients": script, actors, music,cinematography, art, decorations, and costumes into a complete, readyfor consumption product.Just as with cooking, it all starts with the ingredients. How oftenhave we seen a movie with the bleeding with high fructose corn syrupscript, expired actors, rotten directing, tasteless music, or saturatedwith fat cinematography?Moreover, just as with cooking, decent ingredients alone are notsufficient for making a quality movie: what you do with theseingredients matters a lot and the 2011 remake of "Fright Night" is agood proof of that.Despite having the overall solid components: cohesive plot, convincingacting, suspenseful music, nice visual effects, "Fright Night" wasunsuccessful in blending all its fine quality ingredients into anoriginal, exciting, savory product. As a result, the movie turned outsomewhat bland, lifeless, and easily forgettable.In particular, the 2011 remake failed to properly mix and stir comedyand horror into a delicate combination that would be both scary andfunny at the same time - something that the original "Fright Night"made in 1985 had generally excelled in.It does not help that laughter and fear are known to be the opposites.Humor drives off fear, and fear paralyzes and blocks humor. That is whyit is usually a big challenge to combine a comedy and a horror in sucha way, that they would highlight and enhance each other (as it workedin the original "Fright Night"), rather than dilute and cancel eachother (as it happened in the 2011 remake). Another weakness of the remake lies in how it treats the sexualundertones inevitable in most of the vampire movies. While the original1985 movie generally focuses on a comical side of things and makes(mostly innocent) fun of a teenage hyper-sexuality, the remake is muchmore into a hardcore, uncontrolled lust that becomes a main, all-absorbing motivation for the adolescent movie characters. Overall, "Fright Night" is not a bad movie, but a typical example of aremake that lacks vision and is weaker than the original in almostevery area. While the remake has some funny scenes, some decent scares, and somesuspense, the original movie is funnier, scarier, and more suspenseful. While the remake has some decent acting, still Chris Sarandon is a morecomically ironical and charismatic "vampire Jerry Dandrige" than ColinFarrell, Roddy McDowall is a more colorful and versatile "PeterVincent" than David Tennant, and Stephen Geoffreys is a quirkier andfunnier "Evil Ed" than Christopher Mintz-Plasse. One would think that at least the modern, computer generated specialeffects of the remake should surpass the 25 year old "ancient" effectsof the original. However, as it turns out, while slightly outdated andslightly less realistic, the special effects in the 1985 "Fright Night"are still more creative, more diverse and more effective than thefreshly baked, but somewhat scarce and fast food-ish effects of the2011 remake.knowyourmovie.blogspot.com
Neil Doyle
21 May 2012
Poor remake lacks the "bite" of the original...CGI is at its worst...
FRIGHT NIGHT has two saving graces: Anton Yelchin, who plays CharlieBrewster with the right mix of humor and a good grip on his character,and David Tennant who plays the TV vampire destroyer with a good dealof cultivated arrogance and outlandish attitudes.Beyond these performances, the rest of the film is only mildlysuccessful in the casting. Colin Farrell is a disappointment in therole that Chris Sarandon played to perfection as the original "vampirenext door" type with a lot more sexual heat than Colin exhibits in anunderplayed style. And even back in 1985, the special effects were alot more horrifying than those employed here which represent CGI at itsworst.But most of all, the entire script has made drastic changes in thestory that "for better or worse" are strictly for the worse. Fans ofthe original film will hardly recognize what has been done to thestory, much less the characters.However, Toni Collette as Brewster's mother and Imogen Poots as hispretty girl friend are excellent, given what material they have to workwith, and Christopher Mintz-Plasse gets some comic relief from the EvilEd character that he becomes after "the bite." In this case, his EvilEd is much less effective than the one in the original film.So many of the key scenes are played in virtual darkness, making itimpossible to see what is actually going on at important moments in theaction sequences. This is way below standard for a horror film that issupposed to be scaring the audience realistically.Summing up: A waste of time and money. See the original and you'llunderstand why I lack enthusiasm for this remake which attempts to bestylish and cool and full of rough language.
melucy_rox
21 May 2012
what a load of bull plop
Now I am not going to pretend that this I am a film critic, though iwould just like to say that i feel i have just wasted my time and moneyon this BAD, terrible, awful movie. It is 2hours of clichés where ifelt the only exciting bit in the entire movies was the previews. The acting was okay, nothing extraordinary possibly with the exceptionof David Tennant who was the only intentionally funny character in theentire movie. The fact that it was YET ANOTHER 3D movie probably didn'thelp it at all, and the CGI was sub-par and its YET ANOTHERdisappointing 2011 movie.Save your time and hard earned money guys, if you would like to see itwait for the DVD.
ihatespike
15 May 2012
A genuinely decent remake
We've all been there before; a movie starts getting remade and thehairs on our neck stand up, and not just because it's a horror flick.But then comes the release and no matter our past experiences we giveit a go.Fright Night is one of those remakes that justifies our hope inHollywood's ability to revitalize a story, and frankly the only 3D filmI've seen so far that made good use of...well the 3D. As others havesaid it really doesn't start out as anything that would blow your mind,but as soon as the groundwork is set in terms of characters the plottakes off with a shot, which is not only refreshing in any movie atall, but a fluid pace is something I feel the original was sorelylacking. The characters are allowed to become well-rounded, and that ina horror film with an R rating is rare and commendable- you truly careabout what's happening and who it's happening to. Then of coursethere's the vampire, and for someone who often plays over the topvillains, Colin Ferrell rides the black wave of languid evil throughand through. The entire film he resembles a ravenous shark, and everytime the camera got close to him I felt my skin crawl. An intelligentmonster is so much scarier and more interesting than a goofy bad-guystereotype. Speaking of goofy though, this film does not abandon it'scomedic roots because there's plenty of humor slipped in at just theright times so as to not offset the darker tones. The use of gorewasn't under or overplayed in my opinion, but my only real complaint isthe handful of crudities in dialog that I felt were unnecessarily crassand out of place. That being said the rest is purely enjoyable; even ifyou've seen the original this one will still shock and scare you, the3D ups the price but I think it's worth experiencing at least once, andunlike a handful of remade horror films thrown our way recently, thisone proves you can improve on an old formula and make it new and freshagain.
Sam Wilson
15 May 2012
A Well Done Remake.
WARNING MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS!!!. The Fright Night original back in 1985is a classic vampire movie that took old traditions and cliché's fromolder vampire movies and then mixed it into one big film. I thought theoriginal was pretty good and enjoyed the goofiness, spooks andsuspenseful thrill ride horror theme that it offered. When i heardthere was a remake i wasn't to pleased but i still wanted to see itthough but i was still under age when it was in cinemas at that timeand i had to wait till it came out on DVD. I just watched it and ithought it was also pretty damn good. It followed the same storylineand characters but there both different. The story is simple a teenagernamed Charley who lives in a suburban neighbour hood gets a newneighbour named Jerry, right next door, who he later discovers that hisneighbour is a blood sucking vampire, Jerry also finds out that Charleyis aware of what he is and from then Jerry is on the hunt after hismother, girlfriend and HIM! (in the original he's only after Charley,his friend Evil Ed and his girlfriend Amy, also Peter Vincent near theend). Charley from the original and the remake are both different, Inthe original he loves horror movies and knows a lot about them and he'snot that popular in school (correct me if I'm wrong) but in the remakehe's just a cool kid who doesn't believe or know much about vampiresbut his friend Evil Ed in the remake does, whether in the original hewas just his goofy friend. I liked Charley and Ed in both the originaland the remake because there different but we all know when we see Edin the remake he will always be MClovin. Jerry in both the remake andoriginal were also good, both were just as intimidating, frighteningand well there both the main antagonist. I thought the relationshipbetween Charley and Amy was much stronger in the remake, true theoriginal was also a spoof to the vampire genre but c'mon in theoriginal i found her a little annoying and never cared about her (in myopinion). So yeah i though Amy was better in the remake. Peter Vincenti loved in both versions, the original classed him as a classic vampirehunter just like Van Helsing, in this he's just a jerk and hilariousbut likable and at the end of course he becomes a hero and helpsCharley. The mother i never cared for so skip that. The vampires ithought were better in the original and by that i mean the design, theylooks more monstrous and creepy, there were also a werewolf and a giantbat in it and thats just plain awesome. In the remake they tried torecapture the ugly monstrous face but it's nothing special, I'm justglad that they didn't just have fangs and black eyes through out theentire movie and some of the effects were abit goofy but thats the funof it. The setting was OK but i prefer the original setting much more.Now I'm going to talk about the final showdown between Charley andPeter against Jerry because i laughed at this a little but in theoriginal they killed him by breaking windows and broken pieces of thehouse to set the sunlight beams on Jerry causing him to melt andexplode. In the remake Charley has a suit on which has a wearresistance to fire, there stuck in a big beam of sunlight undergroundwith vampires surrounding them and Jerry waiting for them. Peter thensets fire to Charley's suit with basically turns him into the humantorch, he lunges at Jerry burning him alive and flying around thebasement, Charley then eventually stakes Jerry in the heart turning himinto ash. I laughed at this because it was just crazy, i never expectedit and it made me enjoy this movie more. So finally, i thought theoriginal and the remake were both equally good, they were different andit they both fit in with there timelines, the original 1985 fits inwith the 80's and 90's and the remake is good for the modern age. Soyeah give Fright Night the remake a watch it's a fun movie just likethe original and a well made vampire movie.
DarlingDracorex
14 May 2012
Pleasantly Surprised
As a big fan of David Tennant's work, I initially only saw this filmbecause he was in it. I honestly didn't think it would be that great ofa movie... I couldn't have been more wrong. Tennant was brilliant asPeter Vincent, as I knew he would be, but the rest of the cast wasstellar as well. I was particularly impressed by Colin Farrell'sperformance as Jerry - absolutely chilling! Also, as a side note, thefake American accents of Colin Farrell, Toni Collette, and Imogen Pootswere amazing.Now, I should point out that I haven't seen the original "FrightNight", however, I don't think people should be comparing the two. Theremake is set 26 years after the original - they're supposed to bedifferent! Overall, I have nothing but praise for "Fright Night". It has theperfect balance of horror and humor, and the visual effects areincredible. It may not be the best movie of all-time, but it isdefinitely a must-see. 9/10
cyanideXvampire
14 May 2012
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).
DICK STEEL
13 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!
garethvk
12 May 2012
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
mm-39
11 May 2012
A good remake
Fright Night is a remake of a 1980's horror movie! The 1980's movie wasall about fun and the remake follows the same theme. The scripts aretotally different, but both movies have similar characters. FrightNight follows a similar stupid theme like the 1980's Lost Boys withmacho vampires, over the top stunts, and vampire hunting. The moviewould not work without Colin Farrell, who perfectly plays the sleazy,smooth talking Vampire with an evil plan. The best over the top sceneis when Farrell is not invited into the protagonist house and can notcome in due to vampire rules. Farrell, because of the vampire rule,causes a gas line explosion to get the protagonist out of his home. Foranyone who watched "The Lost Boys" or "Supernatural" the vampireshunting in this film has a similar style with over the top gadgets, andstunts. Turn your brain off when watching Fright Night and enjoy theride. I give Fright Night a seven out of ten. I wonder why no one everuses chainsaws against vampires?
ajwin05
10 May 2012
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.
Brandon Blackwell
10 May 2012
"You can't run from evil if it lives next door"
A teenager suspects that his new neighbor is a vampire.I've never seen the original, so if your suspecting a review comparingthe two (which I never do) stick along. Fright Night seemed to be anaverage movie. I never seen anything about it but the trailer, whichmade it seem like a teenage-popcorn flick, which I really hate. So withthis, I sat down with NO expectations and had no idea what I wasgetting myself into. The beginning started off like a cheap slasher butsoon evolved into something much better, and it was awesome. If yournot into fun flicks, that don't serve purpose (most don't) then yourprobably going to be questioning your viewing. Otherwise, I suggest youtake a spin. The acting in this movie was good. It wasn't OUTSTANDINGor anything like that, but it felt real, if that makes sense. He madeit believable and THIS is how vampires are supposed to be. I'm thankfulthat the vampires didn't sparkle and fall in love with humans, theywanted blood; their main desire. Thank you, Craig Gilliespie. The mostnotable was Colin Ferrell, who did his part playing the vampire. Ienjoyed the directing. For the director's third movie, he did well. Themovie was actually, surprisingly, hilarious. I didn't expect this,because I came in expecting a vampire slasher, but I was taken bysurprise. The scenes know when and where to place a joke and asuspenseful scene, and the editing they placed was great. Last, but notleast, we have the occasional flaws. They weren't intentional, but wereannoying, in my opinion. They were added for extra comedic effect, butthey're easily passable. If your not to hard on movies, and don't lookfor deeper meaning, and love to be entertained; RECOMMENDED! This wassome of the most fun I've had with a movie, and I'm sure it will be foryou to. I have 99 problems, but this movie ain't one. 9/10.
Maleplatypus
09 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.
r-w-h-j
05 May 2012
Best American Vampire movie in years!
Okay so this movie isn't an Oscar movie. So what? Everybody should gosee this movie with no expectations. Even if you've seen the original.All of the movie buffs tossing this aside as another 'lame Hollywood'remake will be silenced after watching this.Charlie is a typical teen living in a suburb in Las Vegas near thedesert. The suburb also looks like one that I used to live near so itmade things feel more realistic. Charlie lives with his mom, no dad,and has a pretty girlfriend Amy. Next door a mysterious man named Jerry(played perfectly by Colin Farrell) moves in. Charlies mother takes aslight liking to him and Charlie sees him as just another guy. Hisfriends at school are the stereotypical jerks in every high schoolflick. But Charlie is nothing like them. His character is that guy thateveryone should love at school aside from him betraying his nerd exbest friend. Yeah there is slight drama to get people emotional. Ed(McLovin) is Charlies ex best friend and when he learns that one oftheir other ex best friends is missing with vampires (Jerry mainly)suspected, he blackmails Charlie into investigating it. Charlie goesalong and like every sane person doesn't believe a word Ed says aboutvampires being involved and basically tells Ed he needs to grow up andforget the past. Of course Ed is saddened by his words but stillinsists on vampires. As Ed skates home he is ambushed by a bully (oneof Charlies jerk friends) and he flees into various yards. He ends upin Jerrys Backyard not knowing where he is and assumes running into thehouse will keep him safe. He in fact runs into Jerrys house and isbitten. Charlie notices Eds disappearance and heeds common vampiresense to not invite Jerry in his house when Jerry asks for some beers.He notices that Jerry wont cross into the house since Charlie hasn'tinvited him to come get the beers. This scene is the first that Charliesuspects that Jerry is in fact a vampire. Charlie then sees that Jerryhas brought a female to his house and later hears a scream. When Jerryleaves, Charlie sneaks into his house and stumbles upon manyritualistic and vampiresque altars and decorations of which he takespictures of. Further exploration reveals a hidden hallway with multiplerooms. In one room is the female (whom apparently Charlie knows) lockedin a room. Charlie tries to unlock the door as Jerry, who arrived homeseconds earlier comes upstairs. As Jerry enters the hidden hallway,Charlie hides in one of the rooms and watches as Jerry unlocks the doorand drags the woman to the floor before violently biting into her neck.Charlie freezes in terror. Jerry then puts the woman back into the roomand goes downstairs. Charlie finally unlocks the door and finds thewoman laying there bleeding in a confused state. They make their wayout of the house in a tense scene. Jerry apparently watches as theyleave the house and the woman bursts into flames in the sunlight rightin Charlies arms putting him in slight shock. Later Charlie takes thepictures from Jerrys house to a famous 'vampire slayer' named PeterVincent for assistance. But to his dismay Peter Vincent is merely (atfirst) just a hoax stage performer who kicks Charlie(before leaving thephotos on a counter) out of the building. (this is just the half waymark of the film) Go see the entire movie and be in awe and have fun.Yes, this movie is a thrill ride. It is funny, scary, creepy, actionpacked, and just plain FUN. I suggest choosing this over FinalDestination 5. This movie has many twists too.This is pure campy Horror with good acting, visuals, and a smartscript. Oh and the soundtrack is modern and has potential to make thisanother cult film just like the original Fright Night.I dare say, this has many qualities that actually surpass the original1980s Fright Night. But just go see for yourself.
capone666
04 May 2012
The Vidiot Reviews...
Fright Night Having a vampire for a neighbour means that they're always dropping byto borrow a cup of AB+.Unfortunately, the only blood that the teen in this horror movie has tolend is inside of his veins.By the time Jerry (Colin Farrell) moves into Charley's (Anton Yelchin)suburb, Nevada locals have already began disappearing.It's not until his friends go missing that Charley suspects that Jerrymay be a vampire. Charley's suspicion is confirmed when Jerry turns hisgirlfriend (Imogen Poots).Declaring war on the bloodsucker, Charley seeks the assistance of a LasVegas magician (David Tennant) who dabbles in vampirism.Though a more carnal account than its 1985 inspiration, this re-makedoes adhere to its muse's mixture of comedy and carnage.And if you think that fighting with your neighbour over their eatinghabits is difficult, wait until you have to confront them about theirunkempt tree branches. (Yellow Light)
stormcatcher-2
04 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.
r-peters-956-939974
03 May 2012
"He's the f***ing shark from Jaws!"
It's true, Colin Farrell's portrayal of the original kind of vampirereally brought back what vampires used to be about. "He isn't brooding,or lovesick...!" Fright Night brought back the original idea thatvampires are seductive killing machines that shrivel and die in the suninstead of sparkling but are otherwise indestructible. Believe it ornot, this kind of vampire is a hundred times more sexy than EdwardCullen could ever be. This is because Jerry (Farrell) is dangerous butslick so that he never freaks out, he's always collected, even whenhe's sucking your girlfriend's blood. Jerry is your typical bloodsucking beast with a chill enough attitude to turn around wiping theblood from his lips and greet you with a fairly pleasant, "Hey."
Harleyflhrc
03 May 2012
Best Horror Remake I've seen in a LONG time
Like most of the reviewers posting on here, I was a big fan of theoriginal that came out my freshman year in college, and when I heardthat yet another 80's movie was being remade, I immediately thought ofthe new Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street, both of which fellFAR short of the originals. This one is MUCH better. It stays true tothe original, and the movie is paced fairly quickly. A great scene is acool cameo appearance by the original Jerry Dandridge, Chris Sarandon,although this time he is on the other side of the fangs. The setting inthe decimated real estate market of Las Vegas was an excellent thought,and makes the movie quite believable and more entertaining. The onlydisappointment, and it is a small one, is the new Amy is not nearly asscary as a Vampire as the original one was. This film has excellentmodern touches to bring it up to date. Well done!
jcallows
02 May 2012
surprisingly good!
I didn't expect much going into this film but it turned out to be verygood. It managed to recapture the scariness and humor of the originalbut with a snappier, updated look. The cast and script were great andthe pacing was just right.Although the setting was expanded and the script was updated for thisfilm, it kept the same basic story and main characters as the original.And, just as important, it kept the proper blend of humor and horrorthat the original had. I enjoyed the original and I enjoyed this remake just as much. It hasgive me the belief again that good remakes are still possible.This is obviously a well crafted film so it puzzles me why it has sucha low rating. It barely beat out that Karate Kid remake. This isappalling. This is a much better film than that.
Copyright MovieThone © 2002-2012 All Rights Reserved.
- Support
- | Privacy Policy
- | Terms of Use
- | FAQ
- | Help
- | PDA version