Free Fright Night
Genres: ComedyHor
Starring: Chris Sarandon, Colin Farrell, Anton Yelchin, Will Denton, Imogen Poots, Toni Collette, Lisa Loeb
Available Quality: DivX, Hi Def, Hi Def
Director(s): Craig Gillespie
Country: USA, India
Year: 2011
IMDB Rating: 6.6
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.
 |
Fright Night (Hi Def) | Resolution: 1920x1080 px | Total Size: 7828 Mb |
|
|
 |
Fright Night (Hi Def) | Resolution: 1280x720 px | Total Size: 4472 Mb |
|
|
 |
Fright Night (DivX) | Resolution: 624x352 px | Total Size: 700 Mb |
|
Movie Photos:
We have taken some photos of "Fright Night". They represent actual movie quality.
Visitors Review
markhaazen (16 May 2012)
At last a decent remake! (And yes i love the classic of 80's)
So the truth is I loved the original back in the 80's and thought oh nonot another remake! However sitting down watching it after only about5-10 minutes started to thoroughly enjoy it.FrightNight is a remake, with a difference. (It comes in 3D as well ifu wish). Based on the original Fright Night, but with a fewdifferences, for once the vampire is not in love with his lunch....nowthere is a turn up for the books! Las Vegas neighbour hood people startto disappear as Colin Farrell (Jerry) moves in next door. Hes broody inhis character because hes a Vampire! (Some reviewers really need to seebigger picture and step away from Twilight and the originalFrightNight, as there are some differences). Brewster has to step inand save the day, armed with stakes and crossbow he enlists the help ofVincent,(David Tennent)who is a Las Vegas magician. The film gets 5stars as its a little different from the original, however stillmaintains its story line without the kissy kissy bits! Both Farrell andTennent steal the show, putting in a good performance, even theoriginal vampire from FrightNight (Chris Sarradon) has a small role toplay in the film, no hints for spotting him. (spoiler alert..hes theguy who rear ends their car!)There are lots of similarities between theoriginal, for example, in one the vampire trashes Brewsters car, inthis one, he trashes the motorbike...well, lobs it anyhow! The banterbetween Vincent (Tennent) and Brewster is funny, there are enough teethshots, gore shots to keep any vampire fan happy. I would recommend thisfilm in a heart beat, it contains everything a horror fan would enjoy.
Maleplatypus (15 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.
tabuno (15 May 2012)
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).
Jackson Booth-Millard (14 May 2012)
Fright Night
The original 1985 version of this film is fantastic for being a newspin on the vampire scary movie, and adding some funny moments into itas well, I was surprised to see that it would be getting a remake, butI tried it. Basically it follows pretty much the same storyline as theoriginal, Charley Brewster (Star Trek's Anton Yelchin) suspects his newneighbour Jerry Danridge (Colin Farrell) is a vampire, especially witha string of mysterious murders that have happened in the area. With thehelp of his 'Evil' Ed Thompson (Superbad's Christopher Mintz-Plasse) hedoes indeed confirm this, and with his friend under the villain'sinfluence Charley is doing everything he can to protect himself fromdanger, using garlic, crucifixes and holy water. Jerry's threat isbecoming more obvious, so Charley goes to get help from the man on TVhe has seen supposedly defeating dark creatures of the night, Vegasmagician and supposed vampire expert Peter Vincent (David Tennant), ofcourse he does not believe his story. Charley's mother Jane (ToniCollette) and girlfriend Amy Peterson (Imogen Poots) do not believe himeither, but there is a night when Jerry really lets out his terror,attempting to kill them and trapping them in the car, and they barelyescape. Eventually Peter is convinced that the dark creatures indeedexist, after helping kill the vampire turned Evil Ed, and he agrees tohelp the situation he can, especially as Amy has been kidnapped.Charley and Peter go into the house of the vampire, and are surroundedby the many turned female vampires, but they use the sunlight outsideto their advantage, and in the end, a stake through the heart defeatsJerry and turns all turned victims, including Amy, back to normal. Alsostarring Dave Franco as Mark and original star Chris Sarandon as JayDee. Yelchin is a bit dull most of the time, Farrell does an alrightjob being the sinister vampire living next door, but isn't as darklycharismatic as Sarandon was, and Tennant is likable as thepotty-mouthed vampire hunter, but he can't compare to the lovable RoddyMcDowall. There are some noticeable changes to this version, forexample the building up to a battle isn't there, the vampire turnsbrutal much earlier, and it is trying to be more scary and gory thanaccompany the scary elements with laughs, the original is much moreenjoyable, but I guess this in an alright horror comedy remake. Worthwatching, at least once, in my opinion!
mr_Goodbomb (14 May 2012)
A crude landscape of plot errors with various fun parts
I really wanted to enjoy this. I enjoyed the original, I liked thecast, I love David Tennant, and it seemed like it might have beentreated with respect (it, the remake, showing respect for theoriginal). That wasn't so much the case. I understand modernizing. Butthis was a bit much. The biggest issue, however, was plot devices thatmade zero sense. This is where the spoilers come in:- Evil Eddie has been tracking the new neighbor and decides he's avampire very early on. We get very little explanation as to why hethought this, until later we see he's been watching him since the dayhe moved in. WHY? Why would you be watching a man the day he moves intoa new home, hiding behind things and videotaping him because youbelieve he's a vampire? There's such little explanation for this, it'sdifficult to digest. - The character is said to feed to victims likesnacks, keeping them locked up in little crudely-constructed rooms inhis house. Just before this explanation, we see him kill two kids inthe street at dusk. Not bite, not drag inside, kill. Blood everywhere,leaves the car in the middle of the road, straight up murders them. -The key element here is the relationship between the protagonist andhis girlfriend. For this, the Ed character is essentially little morethan a motivator, no longer a key element, and the new ending dictatesthat Ed does not live until the last shot. In fact, he's prettyuseless. Anyway, the girlfriend resists the vampire's allure verylittle. While she cries when bitten, she is an unsympathetic,unburdened vampire once turned. Why would should care is beyondreasoning.Overall, the performances were fantastic, but the script seemed the itwas thrown together in order to make a script for a half-hearted remakeby someone who had only paid some attention while watching the originalonce, and knew enough about vampire myths to get by.Predictably, it's in 3D (Hollywood's attempt at keeping independentfilm out of the box office, by making every summer blockbuster attemptin 3D). This is great in some regards because the camera movements areslower, more deliberate, and less fast-paced for the sake of beingfast-paced. Performances are worried with more, and the shooting styleis less thrown together. The down side is, most of the effects aredigital (I'd venture to say almost all), so that the 3D elements onthem can be controlled better. Great for people who love 3D, not greatfor people who have taste and enjoy actual, legitimate film (sorry 3Dlovers, I mean no offense, it's mostly sarcasm).All in all, if you like the actors, see it for them. If you like theoriginal, you'll probably see it anyway, but don't expect much respectto be paid. If you like genuinely unnerving, fun horror films, lookelsewhere.
estebangonzalez10 (13 May 2012)
Jerry the Vampire
¨Hey, guy. You've been watching me. I've been watching you.¨Fright Night is a remake of the 1985 cult classic film of the same namewhich was written and directed by Tom Holland (known for several 80'sand 90's horror flicks including Child's Play and the TV series Talesfrom the Crypt). Some people don't like the fact that these classicmovies are being remade, but if done well it can work because a newgeneration that would've probably never seen the original can now befamiliar with it. Director Craig Gillespie does a great job at adaptingthe story and bringing it to the big screen once again. He makes a fewtouches here and there, but the main idea is still there and there iseven a cameo from Chris Sarandon (the actor that played the vampire inthe first movie). Some of the most memorable lines from the originalmovie are also included here. Gillespie takes an entirely differentapproach than he did with his first film, Lars and the Real Girl, buthe makes a decent horror/comedy film which stays true to the originalso I think fans of that movie won't be disappointed with this. FrightNight is much better than most horror films we've seen lately, althoughthere isn't as much scares as there are funny moments. The film islifted by some strong performances from Colin Farrell, Toni Collette,David Tennant, Anton Yelchin, and Imogen Poots. The other positivething about Fright Night is that Buffy the Vampire Slayer writer, MartiNoxon, was involved in the adaptation of the screenplay which is prettyslick and funny.Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin) is probably having the best year ofhis life. He seems to have been accepted with the cool group of hisHigh School and is dating one of the hottest girls in school, Amy(Imogen Poots). Charley is having a great time with his new friends andtries to ignore his old geek buddy Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) asmuch as he can, but Ed is worried about some mysterious disappearancesin the Las Vegas neighborhood and tells Charley that his new neighbor,Jerry (Colin Farrell) is a vampire. Ed has been spying on Jerry and hasdiscovered his secret, but Charley doesn't believe him at first untilhe sees things on his own. Charley warns his mother, Jane (ToniCollette), not to trust Jerry and under any circumstance invite himinto the house, but Jane thinks he is just being a jealous son andignores him at first. Jerry realizes that Charley is on to him andthreatens him and his girlfriend. Charley decides it's time to faceJerry and end his 400 year life. In order to do so he enlists the helpof Peter Vincent (David Tennant), a Vegas performer who claims to be aVampire slayer, but of course this is all just a gimmick. Vincentbelieves Charley is crazy at first, but he soon will find out the truthabout Jerry, and discover some things about his own past. Beside the fact that Colin Farrell delivers a perfect performance asJerry the vampire, the other thing that Fright Night has going for itis that it has a clever and funny script. There are few scares; themovie knows it works best as a comedy in the same way that Zombielandhad success making fun of its zombies. This time the jokes are aboutvampires and of course all the legends about the crucifixes, the stakesto the heart, and the need to ask for permission to enter a housearen't ignored here. This last element taken from the very successfulvampire Swedish film Let the Right One In (which in my humble opinionis the best vampire film ever). It also manages to make fun of Twilightwhenever given the chance claiming that vampires aren't sentimental andeven makes references to that movie. Colin Farrell is the star of thefilm, but the rest of the actors also did a great job. Anton Yelchin isa good actor and he nails his role with his charming innocence. ToniCollette looks great playing her mother, and Imogen Poots is much morethan the typical dumb blonde. Christopher Mintz-Plasse and DavidTennant are responsible for most of the laughs of the film and thefunny moments. The movie is well made, it's clever, entertaining, Ijust wish it would've been scarier. The effects are pretty well doneand there's also plenty of blood for gore fans. Despite everything themovie has going for it, I don't think I would've enjoyed it as much ifit weren't for Colin Farrell. He lifts this movie and makes it worthseeing. Fright Night isn't a great movie, but it's worth a watch.http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/
tormaen (13 May 2012)
Just realize...it's a remake. Not a replica.
OK, I am a HUGE fan of the original cult-classic. The parody of horror,while still taking it seriously was a breath-of-fresh-air. However, theremake is just that: a remake. I did the best i could to go into itwith an open mind. It is modernized to relate to a new generation ofwatchers, yet unfortunately it retains practically none of theoriginal. Vincent is not a TV star, he is a magician. I don't know why,but that was one of my biggest problems with it. it seems the twobiggest similarities were the neighbor vampire and a chase scenethrough a club, similar to the original. Hell, evil eddie never evenbecame a werewolf! Yet this movie is not dead. It has many hilariouspoints and has a few fresh new twists to present you with. It is notun-enjoyable, and in a new age of shitty, lovey-dovey vampires, thisdefinitely is nice to see blood being drained in the most torturous ofscenes.
preternaturalme (13 May 2012)
Not a bad remake.....
Well to start out, I actually enjoyed this movie. It completelyentertained me and had quite a few funny bits, though it fell far shortof the original. I really did compare it to the original quite a lot,but despite that, this was a very run of the mill movie despite someamazing performances. You didn't care a lick about the characters -- Tohelp I have organized various complaints and points of approval into ahandy chartThe Bad:- All of the characters seemed flat(despite great performances from afew), no quirks, nothing to separate them from everything elseHollywood's spewed out in the past 20 years- Evil dies 5 minutes into the film- Charley found out Jerry was a vampire the SECOND he started looking- We don't see Evil(again) till very near the end of the film- Mintz-Plasse's performance was really crappy and dull until he turned- The club scene was terrible, rushed and clichés running amok...- Charley was a douche bag- The film was slow for the first hour or so then it was extremelyrushed through the end- We didn't get to know Evil or Vincent in this version and too muchtime was spent on Charley and Amy- The movie really needed to be longer, although quite a few scenesreally could've been cut to make room- Vincent needed no convincing that vampires were real because of atired, unconvincing, useless back story that might not have been toobad if they had expanded it more instead of just dropping it in like aside note.- Jerry was too up front about being a vampire and lost pretty much anysuspense left- The film was wrapped up way too easily- The cops completely ignored hard evidence(house fire anyone?) whichmade a lot of the film completely unrealistic- The 'popular guys' were overly stereotypical in this version, likelittle walking Hollywood clichés- Amy & Charley's mom were convinced of vampires too easily andcompletely lost all of the side problems Charley had with them- Amy's change was extremely pathetic here and had no suspense- The other vampiric powers(shape shifting, turning into mist) wereabsent. Most glaringly in a *certain* death - Jerry's house was cookie cutter inside and out, no Gothicarchitecture to be seen, which really lost a good bit of the atmosphere- The rescue of Jerry's victim, though exciting, took up too much timethat could've been used to expand on the characters. The Good:- Farrell's performance was stellar especially with what he had to workwith- Tennant's performance did not have me thinking 'where the hell's hissonic screwdriver' for even a second, but instead he reminded me ofRussel Brand(it seems like they were actually going for that for noapparent reason). And if his character would've connected to theaudience more it would've vastly improved the film for the ridiculouslyshort time he was on screen.- Neither Yelchin's nor Poot's performance was bad, despite my previouscomplaints about the woodenness of the writing and the overly largeamount of time spent on them but getting nowhere.- The car chase scene was very nice although car chases are extremelyoverdone- The bits between Vincent and Ginger were entertaining and added moredepth to the film(no idea where said depth came from though)- Chris Sarandon's cameo was fun- Charley's rescue of Jerry's victim was exciting despite my complaintsAnd that's about it. Watch it, don't watch it, it's entertaining butnot necessarily 'good'. Now if you'll excuse me I need to go watch theoriginal Fright Night a couple times to get the taste out of this oneout of my mouth
nevthur (12 May 2012)
lifeless disposable remake of a beloved cult classic
Somewhat mildly entertaining, but compared to other recent horror filmslike Incidious, this movie is about as scary as an episode of WizardsOf Waverly Place.Most remakes suck, that's just reality, and this fails to disprove it.The original, which was by no means a Lost Boys, was, for the time, aseamless blend of horror, comedy, superb (but now outdated) specialeffects, and a new wave soundtrack to fit the time and place the filmwas made. It was as creepy and campy as the 60's and 70's Hammer Horrorfilms which it pays homage as well as making fun of.But, beyond that, the original had a solid story line, with multiplecharacters with multiple motives. Gone is the creepy "Evil" Ed who, despite being a horror fan, refusesto believe Charlie that his next door neighbor is a vampire. In hisplace is another one-note performance by a character who serves more aswallpaper and who is a sad joke when he turns vampireGone is the charming and subtle Jerry Dangridge and instead we have asingle-note boring one dimensional Collin Ferral who spends the entirefilm walking with heavy footsteps and hissing like a cat. Gone is Danridge's zombie day-time protector who added an even greaterdimension of story layers replaced by, well, nothing.Gone is the charming Peter Vincent a cowardly tired old B-movie starwho faces his fears to become a hero, replaced by yet anotherone-dimensional ex-Dr. Who.And perhaps most important of the omissions of this boring life-lessremake is that of the big creepy decrepit American-Gothic old mansionin the heart of suburbia (like a tiny virus, and a metaphor for thevampire, which goes on to be so many other metaphors I can't list themall here).The original is dated, no freaking duh! Because it captured the essenceof the time (date) and place it was created. The remake fails to evenbe dated because the sets and atmosphere are so lifeless this filmcould have been made anywhere between 1990 and now.The original is a "cult film" and so, by definition, it only has asmall cult of fanatics, so, if you don't get why the original is sobeloved then you're in majority of people who just don't get it.20 years from now this sad remake will be sitting in the Walmart $5.00bin, cast aside by all those but Collin Farrel fans.P.S. the computer animated blood splashes are horrible, they look likemid 90's effects. Also, where's the remake of Brad Fiedel's "Come ToMe" which was in the original as well as it's sequel? They must havebeen crazy not to put an update of that in the film. It's up there withBela Lugosi's Dead and Cry Little Sister. Oh, and one finally littleupdate: Imagine Poots IS actually very hot and a wonderful actress aswas Amanda Bearse at the time.
ailrox111 (12 May 2012)
A totally worthwhile trip to the cinema
I'm going to be honest here, I haven't seen the original Fright Night.For this reason, I am actually very unbiased and I am able to judge themovie as a standalone. So I will begin. I won't sum up the storylinebecause, honestly, every other review in history has done it. Justscroll down if you want to see the storyline.The storyline was, I admit, a little dodgy in places. Charley's friendjust comes up to him one day and informs him his neighbour is avampire, then goes all vamp on the same night? What? But as long as youforgive that, you're in for a great movie experience.In my humble opinion, the casting was GENIUS. Colin Farrell made theabsolute perfect scary vampire. I haven't actually seen him in anythingbefore, but I might just look into checking out his other movies ifhe's that good an actor. I don't know about you, but his eyebrows areterrifying! (That was a joke.) And, of course, the iconic Doctor Who asPeter Vincent. David Tennant was, honestly, my favourite actor in themovie. They could have developed his back-story a lot more, but really,they did a good job of the developing they managed to get in there.Seeing the good ol' Doctor throwing four- letter words all over theplace was especially entertaining. He was just that hilarious characterthat the movie needed.The CG was pretty dodgy at some points. A lot of the blood spattereffects were horrendous. There's no excusing that. I didn't mind,though, and it doesn't matter too much. It could have been done better,yeah, but let's not get fussy.In all, it was a great movie and I really enjoyed it. If you haven'tseen the original Fright Night, you will most likely really like it. Ifyou have seen the original, push all thoughts of it aside so you canjust enjoy it for what it is.
brefane (10 May 2012)
Vampires and this movie both suck
Dull, pointless, and charmless remake of a good-natured, mildly amusingfilm from the '80s. The 2011 Fright Night aims low and misses. The 3-D,featuring spattered blood, shattered glass and sparks, is moredistracting than necessary. Jerry, the vampire-next-door, is not anoriginal or distinctive adversary despite Farrell's appeal. Jerry doeslittle to hide his unnatural existence, doesn't put his supernaturalpowers to any real use, and there is only a sketchy explanation of howthis creature lives and dies. Plot points never amount to anything, theediting is often confusing, and the actions and reactions of thecharacters aren't convincing. Why doesn't the nerd attack his formertormentors with his vampiric powers? Why doesn't the family call thepolice when the vampire begins tearing up their yard? Virtually everycharacter was shown using a wireless device in the first 15 minutes ofthe film. And why drive pointlessly into the desert to escape, and thencall 911 at a place where you can't get service!? You may also wonderwhy a vampire would move into a neighborhood with houses one right nextto the other. Long, noisy, fiery battles with creatures coming out ofthe earth are apparently ignored by neighbors who live within a stone'sthrow; the police and firefighters never show. The leads are dreary andflat, and since nearly everyone is clueless there's nothing at stake.
george.schmidt (10 May 2012)
Better than anticipated remake; Farrell having a field day
FRIGHT NIGHT (2011) *** Colin Farrell, Anton Yelchin, Toni Collette,Christopher Mintz-Plasse, David Tennant, Imogen Poots. Better thananticipated remake of the '80s cult classic horror/comedy about ateenager (Yelchin) discovering that his new neighbor is a vampire (!)(Farrell having a field day) endangering his sweet mom (Collette) andhis sexy girlfriend (beguiling Poots). With nods to the original(including a nifty cameo by Chris Sarandon the first flick's vamp)director Craig Gillespie and scribe Marti Noxon make a fine team of theold Reese's Peanut Butter way of filmmaking: you put laughter in mygore! And kudos to former "DR. WHO" Tennant as Peter Vincent, this timedecked out as a Russell Brandian Vegas act and superaturalist enlistedby Yelchin. While the 3-D is spotty at best the over all production isfirst rate and the scares and laughs are liberally sprinkled for thepopcorn purists.
abq767 (09 May 2012)
Go read a good book
I saw this tonight at a free preview. I got what I paid for 1. Ifyou're over 30, you probably won't like this 2. If you've never seenthe other Fright Night, you won't like this 3. If you don't likegratuitous cursing, you won't like this 4. If you like a plot that isnot 100% predictable, you won't like this. The 3D effects were "ok" butnot great.The movie is made for the teenage crowd, but there are some minorattractions for non-teenagers. There were a few funny lines that gottheater-wide chuckles, but they were far and few.The only saving grace was the CGI effects. For that I give it a 3/10
asha-albert (09 May 2012)
A surprisingly good remake of a cult classic
I saw the original Fright Night when i was a kid, and that movie is theonly reason I went to see this one. I kept my expectations low....afterall, this is a "re-boot", but I was pleasantly surprised.The reboot does have its WTF moments, but these can be safely ignoredto focus on the good performances, the good updated storyline, as wellas the more plausible explanations for "how come no-one knows this is avampire". The one thing that really sucked was the 3D - completelyunnecessary and a strain on the eyes. A lot of the movie is shot in thedark, and the 3D makes some scenes look grey and dingy.The story is more or less the same. Charlie Brewster (AntonYelchin)lives with his mom in Vegas, has just snagged a hot girlfriendat school, and has broken up with his best friend Ed. And oh yes, theyhave a new neighbor Jerry Dandridge (Colin Farell) who's putting themoves on Charlie's mom. Frankly I don't blame her for becoming a gooeypuddle, Jerry is THAT HOT. But local girls keep disappearing, and afterEd disappears too, Charlie comes to the reluctant conclusion that Jerryis a vampire, and is behind the disappearances. The rest of the movieis devoted to how Charlie overcomes Jerry, with the help of aself-proclaimed vampire expert.While a lot of us may feel short-changed by the reboot, since it doesnot have the campy cheesy atmosphere of the original, I beg to differ.The original was campy, and unintentionally humorous, because the SFXwere at that level. The SFX in this movie are of a much higher level ofsophistication, and make this a full-on horror movie, with not muchscope for laughter.Where performances are concerned, Toni Collette is a complete waste ofspace in the role of "generic mom". Anton Yelchin reprises his StarTrek role as "goofy yet talented person", but that is the essence ofCharlie Brewster. Colin Farrell is perfect in the role of the vampireJerry Dandridge, bringing to it a savage, feral quality that wasmissing in the original Chris Sarandon. In fact the face CGI is wastedon Farrell - his vampire is more menacing when wearing his human face.Christopher Mintz-Plasse seems to have been short-changed. The role ofEd has been shortened considerably, and is dead even before we canunderstand his character.In short, a fun movie (if a horror movie can be termed "fun") from thefamily massacre in the beginning, to the ingenious killing in the end.
r-w-h-j (07 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.
Mark Saltzer (07 May 2012)
Excellent Remake, Top Shelf
This movie stands on its own two feet as a suspenseful, action packed,comical and blood soaked Vampire movie of the highest regard. Being ahuge fan of the original, at the tender age of 15 at the time, I wasworried that they may destroy the legacy that Fright Night '85 gaveus... although when you really think about it, Fright Night 2 did thatalready.Fright Night '11 has excellent moments, sublime casting and trulymagical performances from all of its talented cast members. The castingteam should give themselves a great big pat on the back for their work,because this movie could have easily gone pear shaped if they had havebeen effected with the CBF virus, as seen in other casting companies oflate.One of the things I love about Fright Night '11 is the fact that itloosely bases itself on the premise of the '85 version, ie. Living NextDoor To A Vampire, but makes the story, scenes and character depictionsit's very own. I love the new version of Peter Vincent, he made me wanta Midori and Lemonade so bad while I was watching his scenes. ColinFriel also gave a tremendous performance and was an awesome andflawless vampire, I really tried to score him down (Don't know why,maybe I just loved Sarandon's performance), but every second of everyscene that he was in, he shone like the true star that he is.One thing that I did miss from this modern version, something thatshone like a diamond in the sunlight in the original, was thesoundtrack. The Tom Holland version had an awesome soundtrack includingBrad Fiedel's haunting "Come To Me" which kind of became JerryDandridge's anthem. I even bought the original motion picturesoundtrack on cassette back in 1986 and loved it, can't say I willbuying the soundtrack for this version on iTunes anytime soon, but Iguess the kids today aren't all that interested in quality musicanymore, thanks Ke$ha and GaGa.Wrapping up, I would thoroughly recommend Fright Night '11 to any loverof good horror, action, adventure, sitcom movies, it's "Double Snaps"from me.
Reel_starz (06 May 2012)
In Fright Night, finally a vampire with real bite
Vampires have acquired a rather unenviable reputation in recent yearsas the laughing-stock of the monster world. Once viewed as mysterious,exotic and fearsome, they have now been reduced to lovelorn, broodingsex objects in the fantasies of tween girls, thanks to such pop cultureentries as the Twilight franchise, The Vampire Diaries and True Blood.In short, they have become wimps. There's nothing wrong with allowingthe creatures a little humanity or portraying vampires that feel andare motivated by more than an insatiable bloodlust, but when they startbecoming vegan and not only walking in sunlight, thus violating one ofthe most basic fundamentals of vampire lore, but sparkling, one can beforgiven for bemoaning the current state of a genre that has existedand thrived for thousands of years.Before you accuse me of using this review as an excuse to rant andrave, it has a point. I never imagined that I'd ever voice thissentiment, but thank God for Hollywood remakes. By all rights, FrightNight should've been a disaster on the scale of The Wicker Man waitingto happen, and the decision to bring a new version of the 1985 cultclassic to the big screen seems questionable at best. Did I mentionthat it's also in 3D? And yet, by some (un)holy miracle, it worked.Propelled by an inexplicably appealing cast, Fright Night manages to beboth enjoyably campy and legitimately good, never taking itself tooseriously while also deftly avoiding the trap of self-parody. Afterall, if the film-makers see no genuine merit in their own creation, whyshould anyone else? Perhaps it's not surprising that it took a reachinto the past to remind us that vampires can  and, many would argue,should  be creepy, even terrifying. In Fright Night, our main vamp,Jerry, played in the original by Chris Sarandon and in the remake, by aperfectly cast Colin Farrell, skimps on the soul-searching melodramaand instead serves up a dish of primal, unapologetic nastiness; despitethe vanilla name, he's pure evil. With his gently seductive voice and,let's face it, deliciously good looks, Farrell exudes a calm, quietcharisma, his mere presence rendering both the audience and the othercharacters helpless and mesmerized, but he never lets us forget thesinister instincts that motivate Jerry's every action. Jerry is cocky,assured of his own invincibility, and it's that confidence, the way hisvoice never rises above a steady purr (?), the sly, knowing smile thatalways seems to be on his face or flitting just below the surface, thatmakes him such a riveting, menacing villain.As Charlie Brewster, the insecure and semi-neurotic but undeniablylikable teen hero of the story, Anton Yelchin makes a good foil toColin Farrell's swaggering vampire, and David Tennant steals scenes asthe heavily eye-lined, leather pants-wearing Vincent Price, oftenadding some much-appreciated, dry humor to the darker, more insanemoments. Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Imogen Poots and Toni Collette roundout the supporting cast, not to mention a cameo that will surely pleasefans of the original Fright Night. Collette is the only weak link,though that's, at least partly, due to a thankless, minimally developedrole. What makes the cast effective as a whole is their collectivedecision to play everything straight, where others might've beentempted to go over-the-top or cornball thanks to the material, which isreally the stuff of B-grade horror films.To be clear, I don't necessarily mean that as an insult. Fright Nightis corny and knows it, as evidenced by the cheesy special effects, theblatantly made-for-3D camera shots and dialogue exchanges like, "Ithought you needed an invitation" "Don't need an invitation if there'sno house". In fact, at its core, Fright Night is basically anold-fashioned monster movie, and on that level, it's a pure, fun blast.Less successful is the film-maker's attempts to make the affair moremeaningful by adding on vague metaphors about being different andsuburban ennui. Still, the half-hearted allegory subtracts little fromthe film's overall entertainment value, and while it may not be anartistic masterpiece, it doesn't aspire to that level either. Thanks toa delightful cast and a general willingness to embrace its fun andfreaky nature, Fright Night is way better than it has any right to be,a breath of fresh air after years of stories filled with nothing butbland, mopey vampires.I do have one small confession to make: as of the writing of thisreview, I have yet to see the original movie upon which this one isbased. Fear not, though. If the quality of a remake is measured by itsability to kindle within a viewer the crazed desire to get hold of thesource material ASAP, then consider this film a bloody, brilliantsuccess.
Batur Güney (06 May 2012)
excellent remake; so sad that it went down in such a spectacular fashion
I finally got to see the remake of Fright Night. As a fan of theoriginal who has seen it countless times since the 80s, I canwholeheartedly state that this new version is one of the best remakes Ihave ever seen.The original story was brought wonderfully up to date. It was so clearthat everything was deeply thought out. The original had a slightbalance toward comedy. Here that balance is shifted a bit more towardsthe horror side so the film has a perfect mix of both elements in myopinion. It made me seriously tense and left me creeped out and thiscoming from someone who knows the flow of the main story by heart!Colin Farrell was in one word spectacular. Here is a vampire thatreally scares you underneath those extreme good looks, capable ofturning out to be a ruthless monster in the blink of an eye. Theviolence by the way was pretty strong. I was positively surprised bythe amount of gore for such a big budget studio production. And the 3D.I loved the 3D of the film. So subtle but at the same time as in yourface as it gets when the scene necessitates it.Which brings me to the unbelievable box office failure of thiswonderful film Stateside. How did this happen? I will tell you. Anunfortunate release at the tail end of the summer when in fact the filmpractically screams for a fall Halloween release date, coupled with twoother 3D pictures (Conan the Barbarian and Spy Kids 4) at the same weeknot to mention another regular 2D release (One Day). They all died aquick death, with American audiences rejecting all four of them andflocking to a Southern anti-racist drama and an ape movie in hugenumbers. I did not see the other 3 films as of today but I have to saythat the flopping of Fright Night 2011 is one of the most unjustfailures in the whole history of movies. The current 3D fatigue ofAnmerican public was the main benefactor in this case. How else can youexplain that all three of these 3D releases flopped in such aspectacular fashion during the same week? They clearly did not botherto make any distinction among the good and bad films that week and wentwith a to- hell-with-them-all attitude. Sorry but this I can notunderstand. Another thing I cannot understand is why this film was alsopractically ripped to pieces by professional critics and internetcommentators unanimously. What's wrong with you guys? Is none of youable to spot a decently made gem of a film among all the familyentertainment trash anymore? This film certainly did not deserve thefate it endured. I am soo sad about it all..And one side note: Cinemablend.com meticulously analyzes and rates each3D release regularly which greatly helps me when picking up what towatch in 3D. But in the case of Fright Night 2011, even that trustedsite seems to have erred. At the time of the film's release in the US,the relevant article headed "Fright Night: To 3D or Not to 3D"specifically stated that the film was a terrible choice to be filmed in3D since the many night scenes did not fare well in 3D mode because ofthe dimming of the projection light by the 3D glasses and that as aresult it was impossible to see what was going on during most of thefilm's night scenes. Wroooooong! In the showing I attended at my localcinema, the film was very clear and there was absolutely nothing wrongwith the dimness settings of the picture. The action was very clear tofollow and at no point did I experience any difficulties regarding the3D aspect of the film. So I am itching to ask: Could there possibly besomething wrong with the projection settings of the films shown in theUS theaters in general? American moviegoers seem to be really upsetabout these 3D projection issues for quite some time now and the wholething now started to result in such box office anomalies as what wasexperienced by this unfortunate movie. Someone better do somethingStateside about this whole issue or the future of 3D really is introuble as regards the American market in my opinion since the notionof "3D" itself seems to have turned into box office poison as of late.Ooops!
Vinegaroon3 (06 May 2012)
Better than I expected....but not great
I was mildly entertained by this movie. I saw it because a friendreally wanted to go to the movies, and not much else was playing.This was just mildly amusing shallow entertainment. Not particularlyfrightening, nor original, but "OK".It is hard not the compare this "Fright Night" to the original, as thestory is essentially identical. I do not have a deep enoughunderstanding of the subtleties of film to understand why this is so,but the more recent "Fright Night" definitely lacked the charm of theoriginal. One thing for sure, Chris Sarandon was certainly a far bettervampire than Colin Farrell. I never really "felt" Farrell in thatrole...there was just something too pedestrian about him to beconvincing.I will say this...if you have not seen the 1985 original, skip the 2011version entirely and do so. I consider the original a horror movieclassic.The 2011 "Fright Night" was just "OK", nothing more.
liam f (05 May 2012)
A gleefully gory and highly entertaining remake
In this remake of the 1985 cult classic, Anton Yelchin stars asCharley, a likable yet misguided young man who after witnessing hisfriend's murder becomes convinced that his new neighbour Jerry (CollinFarrell) is a vampire. His incessant pleas with his mother (ToniCollete) and his girlfriend (Imogen Poots) to believe him failcontinuously until Jerry turns his sights on them and they are forcedto confront him with the help of a foul mouthed vampire slayer (DavidTennant). It's wonderful to finally see again a good old fashionedvampire movie, where the vampires are portrayed as blood hungry killingmachines, rather than broody, gentle souls with skin that shimmers inthe light. Craig Gillespie (Lars and the Real Girl) really pulls it offin this gleefully gory and slick horror/comedy. David Tennant andCollin Farrell are both spectacular as the drunken supernaturalist andthe terrifying vampire respectively. But unfortunately the film didhave a few little problems, for one I found Anton Yelchin's performancereally quite lacking, and also there was quite a few elements of apredictable cheesy teen comedy in there. But all and all Fright Nightproved to be quite an entertaining film and a lot of fun to watch withfriends.7/10
Review total: 20, showing from 1 to 20