Just gotten out of seeing the remake. While I don't think it holds a candle to the original overall, I will say  it was better than I thought it would be. Of the recent films in 3D, it was the better of the lot.


I loved the teaser opener, but the whole thing with the film announcing right away who Charlie's new neighbor really is bugged the crap out of me. The first act dragged and it upset me even more that the update changed Amy from a Plain Jane into a sex goddess, whose goals, it seems are simply to break Charlie's cherries (!!) At least she gets some iron mace action later on.
Don't get me started on 'Evil' Ed Lee.

I almost gave up on this, until Charlie attempts to rescue a neighbor which has suspense and a rather nice, unexpected (but by the rulebook) jump scare. In this day and age, one good jump is like wearing a blue ribbon. I was also waiting for another character to arrive.

It was worth the wait.

David Tennant stole Fright Night away from Colin Farrell. Farrell's good (not as great as Chris Sarandon, who has a cameo) but Tennant...every scene Tennant is in as Peter Vincent, the film shines.

As for the 3D, I found that the filmmakers made great use out of it. Floating ashes, blood spills, that iron mace, a battle axe and a pebble. Great stuff. Two scenes are wrecked by 3D by being too dark (actors faces look blurred-such as the Sarandon cameo.)

I did have one question regarding one of the endings reveals.

++++SPOILERS R US++++

In one scene, he sets a house of fire to gain entrance and/or to force people out. Given his side project in his own house, why not dig under the other house and cave in the foundation? It suggests he may have already done so.

But it's just one of those hocus pocus moments we aren't supposed to dwell on.

Thoughts?

Damn...I was looking forward to this and had heard so much positive word of mouth, but I left very unhappy, and the longer I think about it, the taste is getting worse in my mouth.

I also saw this in 3D - I was actually planning on just seeing the regular version, but I read the times wrong, so 3D it was.  I actually enjoy 3D movies, and feel the 3D effects here were pretty good, but far from essential to the film.

Let's start with my usual rant - Why the fuck do casting directors think it's acceptable to cast actors in their early to mid 20's to play High School students?  I honestly don't get it, never will, and will always be pissed when it's so blatantly obvious.  The 4 main High School students here are 22-26 years old in reality, playing 17-18 year olds.  Stupid...fucking stupid!

I saw the original Fright Night in the theater back in 1985 and have seen it numerous times since.  I'm not going to say it was a great movie, but it was good, different, and just has that certain something that is memorable in a positive way.

This remake didn't have that special anything.  They really blew it in terms of switching up the story and locale, although there were countless opportunities that were squandered.

The violence was definitely R rated, but much of the CGI blood splatter didn't look great.  The tone was PG 13 rated, however, and that is a big mistake.  No nudity, even though there were countless opportunities for it.  There's a few F bombs and the like but they could have/should have cut this down to a PG 13, most likely (and you're not going to hear me say that very often) and they probably would have fared much better at the Box Office, where this is bombing, big time.

The revamped story just didn't work for me at all.  Having Ed figure things out before much has happened was a mistake.  Not having Gerry engage Charlie's Mom, was a mistake.  The scene with Gerry blowing up Charlie's house was a monumental mistake.  Not taking advantage of Peter Vincent's cool abode to its fullest potential was a huge mistake.

Colin Farrel didn't pull off the role like Chris Sarandon did, and I'm a little surprised by that..  I'm going to blame a weak script, as none of the characters really came off as anything memorable.  I see Darren enjoyed David Tennant's performance, but IMO, he was actually the worst and weakest piece to this puzzle.  I didn't find him funny, engaging, or remotely believable.

And I think the believability thing is what I found the most off putting.  So many scenes were just ridiculous.  Blowing up the house and no police/fire fighters show up? No questions asked?  The whole deal at Peter's penthouse abode was cringe worthy, in its unrealistic setup.  Like a delivery guy can just waltz up to this place...c'mon.  Zero security, no one even figures out that the place has been destroyed and there's dead bodies all over the place?  Why wouldn't he call for help?  Where are his body guards?

And I think what really brought this down into a movie I dislike compared to one I just didn't really like so much, had to be the finale. Really weak.  Really stupid.  Really unbelievable.  Really cheesy effects.  Just poorly plotted and thought out.

Very upset the more I think about it.  Could have/should have rocked.  There was talent here, there was a nice sized budget, and Disney and Dreamworks were onboard. How could you screw up?

Just watch the movie and you'll see exactly how they screwed it up.

Yeah, from the previews i saw, this remake had "wait for the dvd" tattooed on its a$$.  In the clips I saw it's McLovin who first suspects that Jerry is a vampire and tries to convince the highly doubtful Charlie Brewster.  I immediately thought that was an odd switch.  There's even a snarky Twlilight reference thrown in, as if we need one more of those.

The first one had its problems, but it was still great entertainment and didn't try to be anything other than that.  From the two reviews above, this sounds like yet one more unnecessary remake to add to the neverending list.  And man did this thing flop at the B.O.

On further reflection, I think the film isn't doing well for these reasons:

1- The growing dis-intrest in horror remakes (watch out, Del Toro! Your prod' film this wkd could be on the chop block!)

2- The fact that Fright Night '11 was filmed in 3D but there are far fewer screenings in 2D. Thus, you pay a little extra. Again, I think overall the 3D was effective, but there is a bit of rebellion against that too.

3- Better movies are out there. And when the #1 film is 'The Help' a drama with a predomininantly female cast AND it's a period piece I think that's sending a message to Hollywood. Maybe it's not the kind of film I would rush out to go see, but somebody sure did. People are still seeing Planet Of The Apes as well.

The critics are a bit more kind to the remake for the most part. But the more I ponder -and Jeff brung up some plot holes which reminded me of an awkward scene after Charlie gets ejected from the downstairs (?) club. Presto! He's back at Vincent's penthouse. I just felt like I missed something.

But I'm zeroing in on the first half hour of the film, the casting of "McLovin." and Poots. I'm starting to think it's killing the movie.

Fright will make its money back though, unless the budget is fudged.

The more I think about this, the more I HATE it!  No memorable scenes.  No memorable characters.  Nothing to set it apart, except for poor plotting and writing.

It's taken in only $9 Million, and crumbling like a 2 week old stale loaf of French bread.  I don't see it making it's $30 Million budget back.  It hasn't been released internationally yet, but is it even going to be?  And will there be any interest for it?

Huge flop and disappointment!

Quoted Text It hasn't been released internationally yet, but is it even going to be?

I suspect that it will, given the makeup of the cast. (Specifically Colin Farrell and David Tennant)

I was prepared to not like this movie.
Remakes of movies I have a soft spot for rarely yields a good film.
I thought the remake of The Thing was a pretty paltry affair.
That film looks like a blockbuster next to this steaming turd.

This movie is so wrong headed in so many ways, it's truly baffling.
I'm stunned that a woman wrote this anvil of a script.
Marti Noxon used to hail from Camp Whedon. So, I had some hopes for some wit.
Now, she's on TV as a consulting producer for "Glee" and "American Horror Story".
I'm not impressed with her post Whedon resume.

Colin Farrell is very fang in cheek, but mostly watchable.
David Tennant as a misogynistic Peter Vincent is downright repugnant.
Evil Ed is a textbook nerd with all the appeal of a dry bologna sandwich.

Chris Sarandon injects more charm into his cameo than any of the primaries.
Too bad they couldn't get William Ragsdale to play his new "ghoul".
Charlie dumped Amy and became Jerry Dandridge's live in footstool!

There's a minivan chase that has some of the worst 3-D I've seen in a dog's age.
And it's dragged out like a fart in a car during a blizzard.
The camera keeps rotating inside the vehicle, like a Quaalude driven carousel.

And to top it off, they slap a PG-13 climax onto an R rated action/horror flick!
Give the hero a magic device that saves all the vamp's victims. Ugh. Really?
In the original, it was a classic race against time to save the girl before dawn.

Disney hired the director of "Lars and the Real Girl" for this picture.
I suppose they thought it would be cool after the indie director hiring for Spiderman.

Let's hope that one comes out a tad better than this dreck.

E.D.

Tried to watch it.  Failed.  To be honest, we were completely aghast.  Despite Farrell's strong work, the thing is a disaster.  Bizarrely structured and completely devoid of tension, mystery, or comedy.  Looked like garbage.  Yelchin sucked and Mintz-Plasse is no Stephen Geoffreys.  I'm glad this flopped.  It deserved to.