Forums Horror Movie Reviews
FRIGHT NIGHT: The Remake Video Review From Horror101

Our opinion on the new Fright Night remake thats currently BOMBING at the box office.

Plot Synops: Senior Charlie Brewster (Anton Yelchin) finally has it all going on: he’s running with the popular crowd and dating the most coveted girl in his high school. In fact, he’s so cool he’s even disng his best friend. But trouble arrives when Jerry (Colin Farrell) moves in next door. He seems like a great guy at first, but there’s something not quite right—but everyone, including Charlie’s mom (Toni Collette), doesn’t notice.

After observing some very strange activity, Charlie comes to an unmistakable concluon: Jerry is a vampire preying on the neighborhood. Unable to convince anyone, Charlie has to find a way to get rid of the monster himself in this Craig Gillespie-helmed revamp of the comedy-horror clasc.

Great video review!! You had me cracking the fuck up at the end when you squashed the 3D glasses!!

I'm looking forward to hearing/seeing more video reviews from you guys here on the Bid!!

It didn't sound like you guys hated it THAT much. I saw it last night and i felt indifferent. It wasn't bad, it wasn't great, it was just ok - and overall a decent time at the movies.

I like 3D when the movie calls for it, but Fright Night definitely didn't need it.

We had to throw in the original last night to feel better about the whole deal.

I'm hoping to hit Don't Be Afraid of the Dark this week and make another video review.

We'll have to see how it goes

I hated this remake with an intense pason.

Initially I was looking forward to it. When I first saw the posters of David Tennant in his costume about 6 months ago I thought it was a brilliant change. I thought perhaps he was a has-been Buffy style actor or has Been Hugh Jackman Van Helng actor, the way the original Peter Vincent was a has-been Hammer Horror actor. I loved the idea of David Tennant as Peter Vincent. When Marti Noxon said that horror movie hosts don't exist anymore and that's why she changed Peter Vincent to a stage magician I felt she missed the point. Movie hosts were NEVER fashionable. There are more now than there were in 1985, in fact, the character was being fired when the original movie began. Then I read the remake script and I was disappointed. I ranted and raved but I hoped it was just a rough draft script. I hoped I was wrong about it. Then I saw a clip of David Tennant and I had hope again. But then I saw the ComicCon Q and A and the director revealed he couldn't recall the plot of the original and he felt this was a good thing. This filled me with dread. Then I saw the actual film and I was thoroughly disappointed.

David Tennant's attractive but that's not enough to save it from bad writing. Charley is selfish and self-absorbed. It's cynical and judgmental of teenagers of today, it's kind of insulting. Peter Vincent isn't very well developed and neither is Jerry Dandridge. He's turned into a two dimenonal psychopath with no real motivation other than to kill. Even Dracula had a plan! In fact he had very elaborate plans in the novel. These vampires in this remake can't even shapeshift into a wolf, bat or mist. They can't enthrall minds and they can't even show up on digital camera (which don't have mirrors by the way). How is stripping them of powers and giving them more limitations an improvement? And isn't it the slightest bit annoying that a character in the movie has to tell us how modern Jerry Dandridge is just because he has his minion say r instead of master? The dialogue in the movie is awful too. The F word is used more than Charley's name. I don't care if a film is loaded with foul language but it's so over used that it's annoying. If the word banana was used so much I'd be just as annoyed.

10 things that would improve this remake:

1. Tom Holland as the writer or another writer familiar with Dracula style vampires. Even the writer of Dracula 2000 or Van Helng would have been better than Marti Noxon.

2. Respect for the intelligence of the audience. i.e. keeping Peter Vincent as a has-been horror actor who perhaps now has a web series as to modernize his potion. 3. Kept the shapeshifting abilities because it's freaky and makes the vampires all the more powerful.

4. Leave the hint of humanity in that Jerry was looking for the look-a-like of a lost love. This gives a twinge of sympathy and also makes it all the more twisted and frightening when he does something evil because you're taken off guard.

5. Find a director who actually is fan of the original and remembers it fondly and knows Gothic atmosphere, who can make suburbs creepy, like Tim Burton or Del Toro.

6. Leave it set in the suburbs. Every country has suburbs. Most places don't have their own Vegas.

7. Make sure the hero is relatable and a decent human being. A self-absorbed tool who abandons friends for popularity just doesn't cut it. 8. A better budget. 15 million is pocket change today by Hollywood standards. 9. Knowledge of what is popular in the genre. The director and writer of this remake THINK things like Saw and Final destination are in and Gothic is old. Actually it's the oppote. Let Me in did very well. The last Saw movie did lower than expected. The Wolfman remake got an oscar while Final destination 5 is struggling. Dark Shadows, Harker, Dracula 3D and Haunted Manon are in production right now. Lady in Black with Hrarry Potter's Daniel Radcliffe is getting released through Hammer Horror in a few months. There are two Frankenstein films in production and Priest did well. Slasher films are out. Gothic horror is back with a vengence and the ones who made this remake are really out of touch to not know that. 10. An effort to NOT appeal to any particular demographic. Notice how Tim Burton's films are always successful even when people complain about how formulaic they've become. He never tires to appeal to a demographic. He makes films that appeal to his tastes and to Hell with what the studio thinks kids want today. Sleepy Hollow was going to be a generic, low-budget slasher film with no romance or atmospehre but then Tim Burton got a hold of it and added the supernatural, added the love story, and added the Hammer Horror-esque atmosphere and he made it work where it would have failed. If Hollywood would just stop trying to condescend to what it thinks is a mple minded audience we might start getting quality horror films again. Some people are already trying and it's working. This film is not.

Well said, Darkling.

Too many horrors are PG-13 these days just so anyone can buy tickets.

Horror movies should be for adult entertainment.

Appealing to a posble tween audience and the regular horror fans at the same time is devastating.

It doesn't work.

And its destroying our genre.

And if you bring up Twilight, I will hunt you down!!

VERY different.

Thats NOT horror.

Its tween porn with a horror theme.

The original Fright Night was going to be a solid R.

They knew it when they wrote it and they certainly knew it when they were making the effects for it.

On the other de of the coin there are excellent horror movies that are PG.

Jaws was PG for instance.

Poltergeist.

Recently Indious was PG-13.

I'm sure most will agree that Poltergeist and Jaws were staples of the genre at the time they were released.

I might get some flack about Indious but I love Lin Shaye and I thought (bedes a lly finale) it was a well done little chiller.

We had to throw in the original last night to feel better about the whole deal.

I'm hoping to hit Don't Be Afraid of the Dark this week and make another video review.

We'll have to see how it goes

Cool. Keep posting these reviews. You guys are funny.

i love horror movies, i watch Fright Night Movie trailer at youtube. great film by Craig Gillespie.