Forums Horror Movie Talk
Reevaluating the Duds of 2011: Fright Night

Note: Contrary to my traditional practice of omitting spoilers, you may very well find a few revealing details in this piece. So, if you haven’t seen this picture, and aren’t out to have me ruin it for you, it may be a good time to head back to the home page and read something else

on the de of the road (see the “big” chase scene) for no special reason. Apparently pasng out now constitutes spending ridiculously excesve time on a hospital bed (whatever it takes to remove her from the tuation, right?).

The characters aren’t the only area completely mutilated by Noxon however. The need to include constant tribute sequences to Holland’s original completely destroys any coheve nature the film may potentially have carried. This may well be where studio big wigs intervened to further muddle the overall product, but it really doesn’t matter where the blame lies, the tactic just doesn’t work.

As if the script weren’t a big enough issue, we’ve got the visual element of the film. I almost don’t know where to start… For fifteen minutes one is led to believe we may be ted a shockingly well assembled remake. Then things get wild, and rather than give us something plentiful to feast on in regards to pure visuals, we get another lazy CGI riddled movie. But this one is special; this isn’t just bad digital work, it’s some of the worst you’ll find in a commercial release, period. The vampire transformation scenes look like the filmmakers threw in their old Van Helng DVD and said “How can we make our vampires look like this, but even cheeer?” Whatever the hell the answer was to that question, the digital effects crew new it, and new it far too well. The CG is so undeniably appalling that it becomes a challenge holding focus for the film’s second half. If you’re looking for an example of how not to “utilize” digital work one need look no further than this stinker.

Did I change my mind about the film upon reexamination? No, I didn’t, well not much at least. I can definitely get into the first 35-40 minutes of the movie. It functions at a fast pace, and pulls few punches. The mood is dark while seductive, and Jerry, when not digitally enhanced is one creepy bastard (respect to Colin Ferrell, who does a fine job, though I’m not particularly a fan of his work). The cinematography is great in the buildup to disaster, and Toni Collete is terrific in the few scenes we see her work. However, it’s imposble to get beyond the “special effects” work, as they aren’t special at all. I understand that practical effects can be a whole hell of a lot more demanding and challenging than digital work, but practical is still the way to go. The computer generated goofiness takes the air right out of this balloon, and really only serves to insult the audience; we’re not blind, we’re not ignorant, and we’re not going to continue buying into shoddy digital bullshit. Don’t believe me? Just check the films domestic earnings.Follow Matt Molgaard on Twitter
Matt_Molgaard Monday 1/02/2012 at 01:17 AM | 88854
Is there a better "break down" guy than you Matt? I agree with nearly everything you said. This film was a HUGE miss for me, HUGE miss! Shame!

Great read man, way to kick off 2012!!!

Were you surprised Indious won the 2011 movie of the year? Not to get off topic here, lol!
Horror Domain - Cursed Evil Overlord Monday 1/02/2012 at 01:41 AM | 88855
One thing I noticed when I watched the film is that in interviews with HorrorHound magazine, I believe Anton Yelchin and Imogen Poots lied about the film to get fans (like me) excited. Imogen said that she had to undergo heavy make-up for the infamous "stretched mouth" sequence, yet in the film (from what I remember), it's all CGI. Yelchin said that it was really fun and exciting to be set on fire, yet I have a feeling that was a stunt double behind the mask. I didn't think the film was that great in the first place, but having the cast lie about the film to ease my tenons toward it? Don't bother with that; just make a remake that I can at least tolerate and does the original justice. I also hated how they show all the cool stuff in the trailer, like Ferrell digging up the gas line to blow up the house.

The CGI blood was just a slap in the face.

And personally, I hated Indious :)
ObscureCinema101 Monday 1/02/2012 at 01:48 AM | 88858
LOL! Let the thread derail start, I blame myself really. Can I be banned?

Anyway James, read the same article in HorrorHound and was shocked when I saw the final product. They took the best (which was practical effects) away from Fright Night in the remake. I literally think if they would have went without CGI and tweaked the story it could have really been a good film. It sucks, it really does. There is no coming back from that. It hurt the genre for God sakes!

And Indious is a great movie! C'mon! It's no Shark Night 3D I'll give ya that! :P
Horror Domain - Cursed Evil Overlord Monday 1/02/2012 at 01:52 AM | 88859
not surprised in the slightest to see Indious grab the win; I figured it was probably going to come down to Indious or PA3.

3 more of these beasts coming tonight, with some interesting flicks covered.

And I never read that interview, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they DID shoot plenty of practical, only to end up going digital, that happens a lot more than people realize, and part of it lies in the challenges of making practical FX shine; practical work is gnificantly more challenging to execute well. Although even mediocre practical work is superior to digital, imo.
Matt_Molgaard Monday 1/02/2012 at 02:03 AM | 88861
I personally loved the movie. I thought it was a fresh look at a clasc without stepping on the toes of the original. By that same note I found Indious to be a pretty blatant and pathetic Poltergeist rip off.
Darkly_dreaming Monday 1/02/2012 at 03:56 AM | 88866
I personally loved the movie. I thought it was a fresh look at a clasc without stepping on the toes of the original. By that same note I found Indious to be a pretty blatant and pathetic Poltergeist rip off.

I don't even have words for you Brian! lol

I guess all I can say is, my article says what I feel should be said about the film.

Although I will include this: if you legitimately enjoyed that CGI, you can mail me some of that grass you're puffin on - I can PM u my info :)
Matt_Molgaard Monday 1/02/2012 at 04:03 AM | 88867