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
Chelsea White (14 May 2013)
Really fun and entertaining
I haven't had this much fun at the cinema in a long time. I understandthat people who loved the remake might feel this was a disappointment(whether it's because they went in ready to hate it or went inexpecting to love it, I don't know) But I just thought it was a lot offun. Probably more fun than funny (though some of the jokes did have meand the rest of the cinema laughing out loud). It was a good mix oflight hearted humour, thrilling suspense and bloody action.Don't go in expecting too much and you'll have a good time. Not allmovies have to be revolutionary and ground breaking. I went to themovies looking for entertainment, and in this movie, I definitely gotwhat I paid for!
p-stepien (14 May 2013)
Its own movie
Teenager Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin), living in Las Vegas suburbs,has managed to advance from his lowly position as a dweeb thanks toentering a relationship with Amy (Imogen Poots). The social progressionhowever brings about a push to change his friends, thus excluding hisbest pal and ultra-nerd Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) from hiscontacts. Ed attempts to warn Charley that his next door neighbourJerry (Colin Farrell) is a blood-thirsty vampire and soon afterdisappears. Thus Charley's suspicions start to build and he soon findshimself seeking assistance of illusionist and self-proclaimedvampire-hunter Peter Vincent (David Tennant). Who turns out to be aegocentric prick...A rare case of a remake, which draws inspiration and references fromthe original, but aims to deliver a fresh new story and outlook.Although all the characters are the same knowing the original won'thelp you piece together the entire plot, at best leaving you to admirethe subtle and not-so-subtle changes to the story. Colin Farrell withhis magnetic presence makes for a great neighbourhood vampire -powerful, ruthless, sexually enamouring, but simultaneously controlledand seemingly 'ordinary'. Whereas Farrell is an improvement on theoriginal, David Tennant comes with a 'different' take on Peter Vincent,neither inferior or superior, just alternate and equally enjoyable.Summarily (apart from some miscued acting by Mintz-Plasse) the castfleshes out a new perspective, which makes "Fright Night" aself-sustaining horror, irrespective of the original with a markedlydifferent story fronted by a great cast.The is no Hitchcock type attempt to introduce doubt as to the identityof the neighbour. We know he's a vampire and the only question is howquickly others will recognise this obvious reality. UnfortunatelyJerry's happy-go-lucky attitude towards getting it his way, introducesan aching necessity to suspend belief in plot feasibility (well...naturally... if vampires really existed). The plot holes are prettymuch the biggest flaw, while the lack of uncertainty lowers thesuspense bar, thus having the story sold through its intriguingnarrative and some well drafted characters. As such the well struckmixture of comedy, action and some horror flair pretty much helps tocover up the problematic issues from the basic premise (which is infact much better worked than in the original as various idiosyncrasiesare reimagined with smarts, such as placing the story in the evanescentLas Vegas quarters).
Neil Doyle (11 May 2013)
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.
drewgilbert (11 May 2013)
Better than the original.
I wasn't expecting this film to be that great. Knowing it was in 3-D, Ithought I was going to sit through a special effects gallery. Withinten minutes, the film proved me wrong. Actually, it was so entertaininguntil I forgot it was a remake. New characters were added and theoriginals were more fleshed-out and appealing. Honestly, WilliamRagsdale's Charley wasn't very intriguing and always seemed worried andon-edge. Anton Yelchin's version is a laid back, kick ass kid who makesyou want to see more of him in a sequel. Colin Ferrell made a morememorable Jerry Dandridge. He appears as a rugged construction workerinstead of a charming pretty boy like Chris Sarandon. It was Evil Edwho stole the show as a vampire in the original. This time Evil playssecond fiddle while Jerry is the greater menace like a master vampireshould be. Don't worry about cheap scares with big booms. There'snothing but pure suspense all through out. The special effects wereawesome and the gore was used in moderation. Fright Night shows that aremake doesn't always mean a disaster.
Dramakingdt (08 May 2013)
Surprised! Great suspense! Great Humor! Great Cast!
Went into the cinema with no expectations as i thought.. "This is aremake, it's probably going to flop."But i was surprised! It didn't! If you're a fan of Colin Farrell,Anton.. or any of the cast members? You'll enjoy this movie, the castwere brilliant and really looked like they had fun making this movie. I really hope David Tennant doesn't get compared to Russel Brand as heis so much more than that!IN A NUTSHELL: Great 3D (Yeh!Im not joking!) Fun, suspenseful, funnyand just a good night out :) Will buy this on blu-ray when it comes outfor sure :)
Shiraz Akhtar (07 May 2013)
A trifle affair
I chose to watch this movie because it was in 3D despite having a fewapprehensions. All I can say that a vampire without a story doesn'treally mean anything. The other important question would be to ask whatthe hell was Toni Collette doing in this movie? She is too good anactor to be in a cheesy vampire flick. To be honest I am befuddled bythe rating and the good reviews that the movie is getting. It wasneither scary nor funny. Colin Farrell does look convincing as avampire, but the standout performance is surely by David Tennant whomade it possible for me to smile a few times. All in all the moviefails to deliver. I expected something a little better I guess. AntonYelchin is a good actor and a budding star who tries hard to salvage alittle out of the night. The night, however, was too predictable.
abq767 (04 May 2013)
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
bakor al-tayar (03 May 2013)
fast paced kill
The movie does not waste time to get to the heart of the action. Thereis a quick and well balanced introduction to the heart of the subjectmatter, and the audience is not left waiting to experience suspense.Collin Farrell does a great job at playing a charismatic, butdangerous, neighbor that pulls the family and audience straight in tothe action. The cast is well chosen, there's no doubt about it  acollection of teenagers that refuse to accept a nerd's truth aboutvampires, a magician in Vegas, and a few more. It has been a while since I last saw any horror film, and I smiled whenI felt fear come over me. The fear doesn't come alone though, there isa hefty dose of comedy and an impressive amount of action. The film isdefinitely fast paced and dynamic as the settings change continuouslyin a fluid manner, and there's a generous dose of vengeance fueled goryaction that would leave any audience with a feeling of satisfaction. Collin's a sexy guy, but when he's a monstruous mean character, youwant to see him suffer. No spoiler intended, but in the confrontations,he takes it as much as he dishes it, and the result is fun. Enjoy!
Brandon Gregory (01 May 2013)
Fright Night 3D! Wow, Im impressed
OK, so I just got back from seeing this at the show, and I can Honestlysay that this is equally as good as the original. The acting is topnotch, the efx were pretty neat, I likes how at the end they had Amylook the same as her "vamp look" the same as in the original(the biggoofy smile with the sharp teeth).The appearance of Chris Surrandon(the original Jerry) was awesome, iwas kind of sad that he got killed, but still.One person I want to give tremendous amounts of credit to is CollinFarrel(Jerry). He adapted the part so well, he was just one badassdude, he didn't try to play a nice guy or anything, he just wentstraight for the neck. And he had a neat and cool look to him.All in all, excellent movie, I recommend this movie to anybody.
markhaazen (30 April 2013)
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.
davidgee (30 April 2013)
Fewer laughs and less chills than 1985
Excellent 3D in this (especially when executed vampires explode intosparks which come right up to your nose!), but it's a pointless remakeof the 1985 version. Colin Farrell has screen presence but ChrisSarandon made a more charismatic and scarier vampire. Anton Yelchin isnothing special as teenage nerd Charley, and David Tennant's reworkingof the reluctant vampire-hunter has none of the engaging quality thatRoddy McDowall had. This re-vamped (oops!) Peter Vincent has a verypotty mouth and the grunge look of violinist Nigel Kennedy.The 1985 version had a pacier script, more suspense and (without the3D) better special effects. This comedy-horror has fewer laughs andless chills. I hope there isn't going to be a remake of THE LOST BOYS.
creativedreamstudio (30 April 2013)
Colin Farrell's portrayal of a blood thirsty, offensive serial killer is so convincing and frightening.
Colin Farrell Plays a super sexy-edgy and-ruthless vampire in thisremake of the cult classic Fright Night. His portrayal of a blood thirsty, offensive serial killer is soconvincing and frightening - this is undoubtedly the best performanceof a vampire I have ever seen. Undoubtedly the star performer of this film, Colin Farrell seriouslyleaves Twilight's Robert Pattinson and True Blood's Stephen Moyer fordead!Violent, bloody and fast paced this movie will have you on the edge ofyour seat.
Harleyflhrc (27 April 2013)
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!
alanrayford (27 April 2013)
Welcome to Fright Night...for real.
Fright Night (2011) is a rare horror remake that, much like the HillsHave Eyes (2006) and Piranha (2010), does way more than merely notsuck. There are parts of this remake which truly surpass the original.However, these are complemented by parts that definitely do not.The original, for the most part, felt like a PG-13 flick. This is amore visceral and streamlined tale cutting right to the hard truth--aboy fights for his life against a bloodthirsty monster. As such,gruesome and dark things occur. The opening scene, a rather muted andharrowing affair, truly sets the stage for what follows. This darkparable is further lifted by some fresh characterizations which help itbreak free from many of the ruts which pervade this genre.Jerry Dandridge (Collin Farrell) isn't a tortured soul. He isn't asympathetic being who only wishes to be left alone as he reluctantlydoes what he must to survive. No, unlike what is commonly seen incontemporary fiction, he is entirely bereft of humanity. He moves intoa neighborhood, feeds on its population and then leaves to start anewsomewhere else. There is no regret or sorrow over what he does. He is agleeful monster, through and through. Farrell is effortlessly able tocarry off this hodgepodge of insincere charm and supernatural menace.Charlie Brewster (Anton Yelchin) is basically a normal kid who startsoff as the worst kind of real world douchebagÂthe kind who alienateshis friends for popularity. Thankfully, this doesn't last long beforeBrewster finds himself faced with his neighbor. When he is, andDandridge literally comes knocking, Yelchin sells Brewster through hisreactions. His performance delivers a young man who doesn't endlesslyquote pop culture references. He doesn't get snarky. He's not a stonermonkey or horndog. We instead get a teen who narrowly manages to holdonto his sanity in the face of overwhelming darkness. Towards the end,while watching the sun come up over the mountains, he doesn't evenblink when the light hit's his eyes. That's because he's been hollowedout and is nearly catatonic. Given the situation, that's really thebest anyone could ever hope for, and Yelchin nailed it.There's also Charlie's mom, Jane (Toni Collette) and his girlfriend,Amy (Imogen Poots). Jane isn't the typical horror movie mom who goes towork at the beginning and gets home just in time to wonder what'shappened to her home. She's actually present in the narrative and inher son's life. She also happens to have a pretty good handle on thelay of the land. So when Charlie warns her about Dandridge, sheactually humors himÂeven though she doesn't understand what's going on.So instead of opposing her child, as most horror movie parentsunwittingly do, she had his back 100%. As for Amy, she wasn't some doeeyed submissive. She was quite confident and assertive in what shewanted from her boyfriendÂand her demands were in no way unreasonable.Like Jane, she backed Charles all the way. And, had it not been forAmy, when things started to get grisly, Charlie probably would've lostthe ability to function rationally.The overall flow and direction of the screenplay by Marti Nixon is astrength. The acting by Farrell, Yelchin, Collette and Poots broughtthe characters to life. Everything else, sadly, drags the productiondown.Evil Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) was unnecessary. He served no realfunction other than to pay homage to the original and paint CharlieBrewster as a dick. He was annoying, and his devotion to pop culturefelt forced. Matter of fact, Fright Night (2011) wouldn't have lostanything from his omission. Since Charlie lived next door to Jerry,it's hard to believe he wouldn't have known something was wrong almostimmediatelyÂif for no other reason than seeing Jerry chat up hisneighbor and her disappearing right afterwards. Here, Ed was simply tootypical of the genre and didn't bring enough to the table to warranthis inclusionÂnot through his characterization or portrayal.Peter Vincent (David Tennant) was another letdown, but not due toTennant's entertaining performance. This was due the script. Vincent'ssupposed to be an integral part of Fright Night. However, the characteris treated more like a tacked on sidekick to Brewster and not apartner/mentor. In a perfect world, there would've been a few moreminutes to accommodate a more detailed exploration of how Vincent'sstory mirrors Charlie's and how they're linked by this. Alas, this, aperfect world, is not.The biggest issue I take with Fright Night is the horrid CGI. Late inthe movie, a character pulls back her face to reveal fangs. Besidesthat, she looked normal and was highly off-putting. Then she transformsinto what can best be described as Mr. Potato Head on LSD. The samegoes for Dandridge. An imposing and monstrously powerful predator, he'sdefanged upon vamping out and looks like a pale Sloth. When it comes toeffectively rendering vampires, less has always been more sinceLugosi's heyday.Fright Night (2011) boasts a script and direction which has a genuineedge and packs a bite. Dandridge, the Brewster's and Amy feel far morelike genuine characters than cookie cutter caricatures. Ramin Djawadi'sscore, particularly the track "How to Kill a Vampire" is catchy andconveys the proper tone. This is counterbalanced by an unnecessarycharacter, a lack of insight on Peter Vincent and some seriouslyhideous CGI. This had the potential to be better than the 1985original. On the other hand, it could've been a lot worse. But, at theend of the day, it only breaks even. If you like the original, this isan alternate and well executed take that warrants watching. I'm rathersaddened Fright Night didn't do well enough to warrant a sequel. I'dlove to see what happens to Charlie now that the night has taken noticeof him.
maraven12 (25 April 2013)
Absolutely Pathetic Remake
IT was a pathetic attempt to include scenes and pieces from theoriginal fright night, but at the same time, incorporate a more uniquestoryline and character development. A 12 year old could have directedsomething with more flow. It jumps from the beginning with openingchars, then in 15 minutes, rushes to the actual idea that he is avampire. Colin Farrell must have hated making this movie b/c he did notdo nearly a good job as a vamp. Peter Vincent character is a retardedcomic relief that makes no sense to the film at all. Its a half-breedretard who tries to be funny and then some. I never seen a morepathetic film that tried to throw everything into one movie. It is aretarded , piece-mewled film that was not worth a movie ticket and wontbe worth the time to watch FREE on TV.
Mark Saltzer (25 April 2013)
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.
Brandon Blackwell (24 April 2013)
"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.
Mitesh Sahu (24 April 2013)
More Gory and Less Scary than the Original!
The 2011 movie has got more gore and cheap thrills than the 1985 movie.All that the former had was a couple of scenes that actually scared me,that too due to the sound effects involved. It was more of shock thanfear. Let us be very frank about one thing, a horror movie is meant toscare you deep inside. The 2011 movie is a remake and a very poor oneat that. It did not contain any of the spine-chilling elements thatwere in the original. I will just compare one scene and let the audience decide if thecomparison holds good. In the 1985 movie, there is a scene whenCharlie, as a voyeur is looking at a couple making love. Suddenly, hesees fangs appear in the guy's mouth and he starts sucking blood out ofthe girls neck. The next thing he knows is the girl is oscillating inequilibrium of pain and pleasure that is when Charlie sees a clawpulling down the blinds which leaves Charlie flabbergasted and filledwith nothing but horror. The scene is equally horrifying to theaudience watching it. There are many more such instances throughout the1985 movie that leaves the viewer with no choice but to be scared. Aseach minute passes one gets more and more fearful of what is going tohappen to the protagonist in due course of the movie. This creepyfeeling was missing in the new version. There is a major difference inthe way one feels when Chris Sarandon says "Welcome to Fright Night,For Real!!" and the way Colin Farrell says it at the climax. Now about the performances, Collin Farrell is a very good actor and hedoes a good job with the scope he has got, but there is no characterdevelopment at all, fair enough! The director may not have felt theneed to develop Jerry's character because it is a remake. Anton Yelchinwas again decent enough in portraying the scared teenager, CharlieBrewster. David Tennant, Imogen Poots and Toni Collet too manage topull off decent performances as Peter Vincent, Amy and Jane Brewster.Christopher Mintz-Plasse as Ed became redundant after the swimming poolscene; it seems that the director only needed him to make Charlie feelguilty about not helping a friend. There is however very little doubt,that the 1985 version of the moviewas scarier. The performances of Chris Sarandon and William Ragsdalehad set a benchmark which makes it difficult for the audience to forgetand forgive the makers of this modern and less decent effort at makinga classic teenage horror movie "Fright Night".
rougexk1 (22 April 2013)
Not As Good As The Original!!!
Please be aware this review contains spoilers!!Whilst being a huge fan of the original movie (Even though it was made2 years before I was born) I think this was an OK attempt at trying tobring this movie into the modern cinema.What it lacked so much of in my opinion was the suave and charmingdemeanour of the character of Jerry Dandridge. Colin Farrell seemed toplay it as just a 'beer guzzling' guy looking for a quick way to gethold of woman and girls and create some 'Tribe' or some nonsensestoryline to fit into and it just didn't work for me. What got me sopulled into the original was the fact that he just fed and disposed ofthe bodies afterwards (No tribe nonsense) the only time he turnedanyone was when Charlie p*ssed him off and he decided to take Ed andAmy and change them and the scene when he does actually bites her, hetakes his time and she quite willingly lets him bite and turn her. Ididn't get any of that from Farrell's version of Jerry, just arrogance.(At least from my perspective) I think Colin Farrell is a good actor,but feel the direction he was given was very...Blah, if you get mymeaning?The character of Amy was beyond annoying and the way they wrote her wassimply too different from the original. (I know it's a Reboot, but forgoodness sake at least make the characters a little like their originalcounterparts) Charlie was just an absolute douche bag in this versionand I actually disliked his character all the way to the end. Not SoEvil-Ed was the most pointless part for me because their was nocharacter development before he got munched practically straight away.Peter Vincent was funny and made me laugh, but he just happened to havewhat was needed to turn everyone back. How Lame!!!I did like the way they used Vegas and the whole sleep during the day,work all night concept as it fit a Vampire story quite well and seemedto be the only thing in the movie that actually made sense! IMHO I being a huge fan of the original had gone into the cinema withthe mentality of being disappointed and I seriously was, but as a standalone for this tween generation they'll probably love it,Unfortunately!!!(This is my opinion only)The Original is Better so I'll stick with that one instead!!
LadyBeth10 (22 April 2013)
Great, great movie!!!!
Let's face it, if you're a horror aficionado, there's been a severedrought. The remakes over the years have been total crap. And I was notvery hopeful about this one. But I was very wrong. I read some greatreviews, but still wasn't convinced, so I decided to see for myself.Wow. Smart, intelligent script by Marti Noxon. And I was so glad to seethat Tom Holland had a hand in it. Some people say it's a little slowin the beginning, but I can actually watch European movies so I don'tmind a slow set up. Craig Gillespie shows here that he has a lot incommon with Hitchcock. The car chase especially. The camera work hereis amazing and very innovative. The score is also reminiscent ofBernhard Herman, believe it or not. I'm definitely going to be watchingto see what Gillespie does next. And the acting is really top notch:Anton Yelchin, Imogen Poots, Toni Collette, and David Tennant all hitjust the right notes every step of the way. But now for my favorite:Colin Farrell! Holy Moly! This guy is freaking incredible! He's aleading actor in a character actor's body! I've never seen such achameleon! I've been checking out his other films, and I am absolutelyblow away! You know I'm a lifelong film lover. Even going toacting/film school and I've just never seen anything like this guy.Going to see Horrible Bosses tomorrow. I hear he has a combover and agut!! Oh well, if he can pull off a spot on Texas accent, sing countryand play the guitar in Crazy Heart, well I'm sure I will have to pickmy jaw off the floor...again. Really looking forward to the TotalRecall remake now. Anyway if you haven't seen this film, you trulydon't know what you're missing. I can't wait to see it again.
Review total: 20, showing from 1 to 20