Movies: 18255 | TV Series: 3282 | Added today: 0 | Storage: 65637 GB
- Register |
- Forgot password? |
- Support |
- FAQ |
- Help
Buy Fright Night Movie. Watch online or Download
| Genres: | Comedy | |
| Horror | ||
| Actors: | Chris Sarandon | |
| Colin Farrell | ||
| Anton Yelchin | ||
| Will Denton | ||
| Imogen Poots | ||
| Toni Collette | ||
| Lisa Loeb | ||
| Director(s): | Craig Gillespie | |
| IMDB Rating: | 6.6 out of 10 (26471 votes) | |
| Year: | 2011 | |
| Country: | USA, India | |
Download Information
 |
Fright Night (HD 1080) | Resolution: 1920x1080 px | Total Size: 7828 Mb | ||
 |
Fright Night (HD 720) | Resolution: 1280x720 px | Total Size: 4472 Mb | ||
 |
Fright Night (DivX) | Resolution: 624x352 px | Total Size: 700 Mb |
Storyline
Plot Summary:
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.
Movie Photos
We have taken some photos of "Fright Night".
They represent actual movie quality.
More Movies of this Genre
Comedy
The Simpsons - Season Twenty Three
Comedy, Animation
How I Met Your Mother - Season Seven
Comedy, Romance
Comedy, Adventure, Romance
Comedy, Horror
Visitors Review
I've seen 99 flops and Fright Night wasn't one
The other day I decided to go and watch "Fright Night" late after work.Unfortunately for me it was a 2for1 night and it was sold out and I endup watching the Three Musketeers in 3D. It was not as bad as I expectedbut two days later I went back to the cinema and got to watch the movieI initially wanted.Half way through I was resting my face on my fist and my eyes wererolling up and backwards trying not to fall asleep because the movielooked like something between Scream and Ikwydls and kind of sucked butthen (SPOILER FOLLOWS) Mclovin becomes a vampire and David Tennant getsinvolved in the act. Most of the second half of the movie was quitegood with some impressive moments and good action.What made my day and had me smiling and humming when getting out of thetheater was the song during the credits. I know it's not what you aregoing to watch a movie for but I can say that listening to Hugo'sversion of 99 Problems and watching some of the movie's moments editedin a way that fitted the song, was a good boost for me to go ahead andgive it a 7,5/10. 1 whole point added to my vote only thanks to thatsong. Not bad Hugo. By the way, I can't say I like Jay-Z's 99 problemsbut I like Jay-Z in general because he looks like Michael Batiste.So back to the movie to sum it up a bit. I got quickly bored because Imisjudged it but then Craig Gillespie delivered. Second half was agreat show and Mclovin (I don't even wanna know his real name) deservesan Oscar for having managed to make himself famous against all odds. Imean, he's very hideous but you can only love him for his roles atSuperbad, Kick Ass and now Fright Night.Go and watch Fright Night. You'll probably not get scared but you'llget a good time and maybe a good laugh too. Download the song I keeptalking about too. Don't pay for it, copying something is not stealing.See the original post of this review here:http://pointlesscritics.blogspot.com/2011/10/ive-seen-99-flops-and-fright-night.html
Silly
Confession: this viewer has not seen the original 1985 version ofFRIGHT NIGHT and is not a fan of the interminable line of vampiremovies that flood the screens year after year. So why watch FRIGHTNIGHT 2011? Seeing the names of fine actors such as Colin Farrell, ToniColette, +/- Anton Yelchin suggested this might not be a bad movie ifthose actors committed to it. And perhaps it is partly due to the factthat lack of exposure to this genre creates the problem of deciding whysome people find these films funny while other find them frightening.So, preface over. Given the virginal approach to this vampire film,this viewer finds it silly, poorly written, self indulgent - and anunexplainable waste to talent. Tom Holland is recycled by Marti Nixon and the updated Las Vegas suburbcommunity form is handed to director Craig Gillespie. The 'plot'centers on the presence of one Jerry (Colin Farrell, subtle acting atfirst and then falls apart) as the resident vampire next door toCentury 1 Realtor Jane Brewster (Toni Collette) and her nerdy sonCharley (Anton Yelchin). Charley's equally nerdy friend Ed (ChristopherMintz-Plasse) is convinced that Jerry is a vampire and carries crossesand stakes etc in preparation for meeting him (an early taste treat forJerry, Ed becomes a ridiculously distorted mad man). The two lads aremocked by fellow classmates Mark (Dave Franco, brother of James Franco)and Ben (Reid Ewing) and teased by the very beautiful Amy (ImogenPoots). Kids go missing and soon Charley becomes a believer and formthere on out it is a detective game to rout out Jerry. Charley, onceconvinced that Jerry is indeed a vampire, seeks guidance from thealcoholic scare-showman Peter Vincent (David Tennant) who has secretsof his own. Of course it is evident that it will turn out just fine,but getting there (to the end) is a tedious bore. The musical score isby Ramin Djawadi and the cinematography (thankfully mostly in the afterhours dark vampires so need) is by Javier Aguirresarobe.Perhaps this is funny to some and perhaps it is frightening to others:after all there is a faithful cult of addicts who run to the theaterswhenever one of these vampire flicks is released. It is an acquiretaste....Grady Harp
refreshing remake...
It's refreshing in the sense that it did not completely copy or degradethe original work. Sure, many elements are the same, but the remake ofFright Night is not only a good remake; it's better than the original.Now, I realize that this is 6.6 here, and the original is 6.9, but Istill think this is a clear cut above the original. The fact that it ISa remake is probably the only thing keeping it from exceeding its'predecessor in terms of score.The two things that really set this remake apart for me were the artdirection, and the casting. Both were exceptional. I knew from themoment the film spelled out Fright Night that somebody cared about thisone.Anton Yelchin is perfect for the lead role. He has the perfect balanceof charm and nerdiness. He caught my eye with his strong performance in"Charlie Bartlett", and I don't think the casting director could havepicked anyone better for this role. The same goes for Toni Collete asthe single mother, and Colin Farrell as the vampire.David Tennant is also perfect for his role of Peter Vincent. They put alittle spin on the role that added a littlelight-hearted-ness(something also present in the first film). And Imogen Poots is the perfect hotty to play the girlfriend(a HUGEimprovement over Amanda Bearse in EVERY way). Amanda Bearse has neverbeen the best actress, and she always seemed to really annoy me onscreen. There's a reason she always plays the 'unlikable/annoyingneighbor or girlfriend.. Poots isn't just a hotty - she comes off asgenuine and likable here. This time around the audience actually caresabout the girlfriend. It's an added bonus that we can have scenes here that involve thegirlfriend, the mom, and the lead in harrowing situations together.That's something we didn't get in the original. There are othersignificant, welcome changes. One is the 'number' of vampires, and theother is the fate of Peter Vincent.There is one scene in particular where Farrell is trying to get invitedinto Charlie's house, and the interaction between the character's isfantastic. It's realistic. It's an improvement over the original. It'swell-written.There isn't much to gripe about here other than maybe the climax of thefilm isn't quite as thrilling and effective as the films first 75minutes. The only thing the original has on this is 'camp', and I really don'tsee how that makes it better. It just makes the original a product ofthe mid-80's, and a bit cheesy. There's nothing cheesy about thisremake. This one is worth adding to the collection. Stands with "Let MeIn" as one of the best of these 'remakes', and this is by far the bestof the 70's/80's horror remakes.73/100You'll like this if you liked:Disturbia, Fright Night(orig), Near Dark,and The Lost Boys.I think the nitpicker reviews are hilarious. One said, "all the kidsare absent/missing from school and the police don't notice"...laughable... the point was that the kids were disappearing at a fastclip... not to mention they're kids.. missing class... omg. The nitpickreviews on this title in particular are funnier than the movie.This film has style - especially considering it's shoe-string budget(atleast by today's standards). I figure after they paid Collette andFarrell - they probably had about the same amount invested as theoriginal.Recommended for all those except nitpickers and 10/10 cult-followers ofthe original. It wasn't very scary or funny, but it was pretty darnentertaining.
Welcome to Fright Night 2011
It has occurred to me that when people refer to a new "reimagining" ofa beloved film, they use the term "unnecessary remake." I've beenguilty of that myself. I really tend to think, however, thattechnically any remake is unnecessary. No one "needs" to be told whatis basically the same story (in most cases) twice. I've also heard theargument that bad films are the ones that should be remade, not goodones. I can understand that to an extent, but do people really want tosit through a new version of something they hated the first time? Noremake is going to make everyone happy; it's just not possible. Unlessof course, you haven't SEEN the original.So, just how should a remake be judged? As a stand-alone film, or howit compares to a previous one we love so much? And I do lovewriter-director Tom Holland's 1985 vampire flick FRIGHT NIGHT. It isjust the right mix of comedy, terror, suspense, terrific performances,and an affection for old-fashioned scares. Many others have fondmemories of it as well, so I relate to the "why"s and the "oh don'tscrew it up"s, and the "leave it alone"s. After all, beloved films aredumped on all the time by would-be filmmakers out to make a quick buckfor the safe Hollywood studios.Most of the central story is intact: Anton Yelchin leads the cast asCharley Brewster, a used-to-be high-school misfit who comes to therealization, thanks to childhood buddy Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse)that his new neighbor Jerry (Colin Farrell) is a vampire. It isn't longbefore he's convinced his single mother (Toni Collette) and hisgirlfriend (Imogen Poots) of this discovery...at which point all sortsof bloody hell breaks loose.Screenwriter Marti Noxon has infused a basic story (whose plot pointsand situations weren't always very believable) with some new smarts,including adding more depth to the central characters. And the settinghas changed to a cookie-cutter suburb of Las Vegas, where people sleepduring the day, work at night, and are much more transient. Anotherinteresting change is the character of Peter Vincent. In the original,Roddy McDowall played a hammy horror host and actor: Peter Vincent, theGreat Vampire Killer. Here, David Tennant assumes the role, but Vincenthas become an elaborate Vegas magician who performs vampire-killingantics on the stage. In both versions, they are recruited by our heroto help slay the bloodsucker. It's an ultra- modern twist, but withinthe location context, works beautifully.During the first hour or so of 2011's new incarnation, I was shocked tothink that I may end up liking this remake even more than the original.But after some hair-raising moments in the first half, culminating in adark, desert car chase, the film threatens to go off the rails in asequence that's a bit hokey, over the top, and unfortunately timed. Andthere are a few iffy CGI instances as well. Luckily, things get back ontrack with a climax that's executed with a uniquely creepy wit, and afew good shocks and surprises. Director Craig Gillespie (LARS AND THEREAL GIRL, "United States of Tara") earns respect for pulling off (forhim) an unfamiliar genre; he also pays homage to a few memorable scenesin the original without trying to copy or disrespect them.Most of the performances are engaging and authentic (aside fromMintz-Plasse in his later moments), with Tennant's wry turn a realtreat, and the ever-wonderful Collette's naturally grounding presenceadding a needed weight of normalcy. It is Farrell, however, who is thereal deal; he absolutely nails this role (no, he won't make you forgetthe original's suave Chris Sarandon, but in fairness, Jerry is writtenmuch differently in this update). Farrell combines sexiness and uttermenace to the fullest: this vamp means business! Some of the best workof his admittedly spotty career is on display, including the film'smost brilliant moment, where Jerry's fidgety impatience with beinginvited into the Brewster home is both hilarious and nerve-wracking.FRIGHT NIGHT is a solid film in its own right; if there's not enoughlove from the original's fans to spread out to its remake, that'sunfortunate.
First time a movie is better than the original one ??
I saw this film on a Friday fright night and it was freaky !!!Seriously, i was thinking i was watching just like the previous ones, acomedy with bit of horror. From the start to the end, the entire moviehas been revisited... it's too bad it's a box-office flop, it's trulywhat a vampires movie should be... A bad vampire that looks really bad(thanks to Colin Farrell genius, he's amazing in his hunk vampirerole)... Anton Yelchin is good, well not as good as the young dude inthe 1985 movie, but one thing i hated is Evil Ed, here's played byChristopher Mint-Please (that overcast dude from Superbad andKick-Ass)... well not a bad actor but he's not good here, quitefrankly, when he dies, it's the best part of it... he's there for thefirst 20 minutes and then a 5 minutes here to be a victim ! But all inall, a fun 110 minutes horror flick with a nice cameo by ChrisSarandon. Don't miss it !!
Comparisons be damned ...
When Tom Holland helmed Fright Night in 1985, critics and public alikewere pretty unanimous that the film was, to quote NYTimes writer, JanetMaslin, "flat and uneven." You wouldn't think so, reading all thoseglowing IMDb reviews of the original film as users take time out tocompare the 2011 remake with Holland's offering. You'd think that theway the original Fright Night is being discussed that it was the bestfilm ever made, and now some suggest that the remake is the worst filmever made. Both claims are equally obscene. As usual, the truth liessomewhere between the two extremes. Holland's Fright Night is by no means a "classic" of the genre as someoverenthusiastic reviewers have suggested. Indeed it's little more thana silly romp with occasional in-jokes about the appeal of B-gradecinema, the decline of the studio system, and the changing tastes ofhorror fans in the age of slasher franchises. On occasion the narrativecomes almost to a halt as the film draws attention to its occasionallyartful make up effects. Unfortunately some of these receive way toomuch screen time and some of the especially drawn out sequences couldhave done with more disciplined editing (consider Dandridge's housemateBilly Cole's impressive though overlong disintegration, or Evil Ed'sprotracted metamorphosis from wolf to human ... are we there yet?).Also consider the film's campy screenplay, with such immortal lines as,"Mmmm, dinner is in the oven!" Where the film really works is with itscast. It was a boon for first timer Tom Holland to secure two strongmale leads: the jittery charm of Roddy McDowell and the magneticgracefulness of Chris Sarandon - it's hard to imagine what sort of filmit would have been without them. This all sounds like I'm bagging the film, but truth is I'm a big fanand I've lost count how many times i've watched it. But putting somedistance between my enjoyment of the film and an impartial assessmentof it, its clear that Fright Night (1985) is little more than a guiltypleasure made all the more pleasurable for fans like me who experienceall sorts of nostalgic pangs as we watch it again (and again) and notethat it's a pretty decent representation of a particular style ofmovie-making popular during the 1980s, as well as being a stylishlygood looking film. It is perhaps also an excellent example, along withFreddy's Revenge: A Nightmare on Elm Street 2, of a particular type ofhomoerotic subtext that appeared frequently in horror films in the 80s:two stylishly handsome men sharing a house filled with tastefulantiques who hide a dark and tantalising secret that interests the boynext door more than the sexual advances of his girlfriend. Hello! Thelong and short of it is that there's a lot to like about the originalFright Night, but it's no classic of the cinema. Just a jolly goodtime.As for the 2011 remake, it is neither an especially good movie, but noris it particularly poor. If anything, the same phrase that Maslin usedto describe the original Fright Night could very easily be applied tothe remake. It is "flat and uneven," and yet it has some solid momentsand nasty surprises, and like the original, it is a fatuous B-graderomp that has managed to assemble enough talent to give it the illusionof being a better film than it actually is. Perhaps because it is themore proficient of the recent rash of remakes - staying respectful toits source material while deviating in some culturally relevant and attimes innovative ways - that future generations may award it thedubious honour of being the best of a bad batch.
"Really?" "Seriously?" Drivel teen-talk of today
Am I the only one who is noticing the "epic" overuse of saying "really"and "seriously" as though you've just heard the most f*****g shockingthing in the world? It's so overused in culture today that I throw up alittle every time I hear it and this movie had an abundance. Also, anyremake that has Jerry f'n Dandridge uttering the line "Do me a solid"should come with a free round of shock treatment so I can forget whatthe hell I just heard. Hey, thanks also for turning Peter Vincent, madefamous by Roddy McDowall, into a carbon copy of Russel Brand. JesusChrist people are getting dumber by the minute in Hollywood. Anotherpointless remake to capitalize on 3D technology, which will beforgotten in a few years time, along with this movie.
Surprisingly enjoyable.
It's hard to take when Hollywood begins to remake all of the films thatyou first enjoyed as a teenager: not only does it make you feel veryold ("They can't do that!!! It's only been **pause to count** 25 yearssince it came out"), but more often than not, they make a real mess ofit.When I initially clapped eyes on stills of David Tennant looking like atotal douche as Peter Vincent in this update of Fright Night, Iprepared myself for the worstÂ'Here we go again', I thought to myself,'another botch job in the works.' To my surprise, however, this onesucceeds where most have failed; a few minor niggles regarding certainplot details aside (is picking a lock really that easy?), they'vemanaged to take a well-loved 80s classic, bring it slam-bangup-to-date, make some neat tweaks to the story-line, while stillmaintaining everything that made the original such a blast.Fright Night (2011) is funny, scary, sexy, and cool, packed withdazzling special effects, and Tennant is actually very good, hischaracter deliberately intended as an arrogant prick. The rest of theactors are also excellent, comparing favourably with the original's topnotch cast: Anton Yelchin is suitably affable as Charley Brewster;Christopher Mintz-Plasse oozes nerd (although his Ed isn't quite aspathetic as Stephen Geoffrey's); Imogen Poots is incredibly sexy asAmy; and Colin Farrell makes for a very convincing Jerry, perfectlynailing both charming and chilling. Chris Sarandon, the original FrightNight's vamp, even turns up for a cameo.In a perfect world, I'd like this film to have had an updated versionof the 80s soundtrack, performed by new bandsÂfor me, the rock/popmusic was an integral part of what made Fright Night so special; I'dalso like to have seen the vampire as a bat, as in the original film,and for the effects to be a little less reliant on CGI. But when somany remakes aren't even worth investing the time, let alone hardearned cash, I'll just have to be satisfied that this one is as good asit is.
The 3D probably wasn't necessary and neither was remaking the 80's cult classic but it's still a good time at the movies!
'FRIGHT NIGHT': Four Stars (Out of Five)Another popular 80's horror film remake, this one cashing in on thepopular vampire craze. I was a fan of the 1985 original (and own it onDVD) and not having any problems with remakes I welcome new variationson movies I enjoy. I was pretty pleased with this one. It is more of anaction film than the original but it's still a lot of fun and just asentertaining in it's own right. It was directed by Craig Gillespie, whoalso directed one of my all time favorite films 'LARS AND THE REALGIRL' (but he also did the disappointing stinker 'MR. WOODCOCK'). Itwas written by Marti Noxon, an experienced television writer andproducer who also worked on similar themed shows like 'BUFFY THEVAMPIRE SLAYER' and 'ANGEL'. The film stars Anton Yelchin and ColinFarrell in the vampire role originated by Chris Sarandon (who has acameo in the film). It is a different styled film than the original butI think that can be a good thing too and it definitely works here. Nerd Charley Brewster (Yelchin) is living his dream life; he's datinghis dream girl, Amy (Imogen Poots), and is finally accepted by hisother classmates at school. His old best friend, fellow nerd Ed(Christopher Mintz-Plasse), feels neglected and when he tries to warnCharley that he thinks his new neighbor Jerry (Farrell) is a vampireCharley ignores him. Then Ed turns up missing and Charley begins tofreak out as it becomes more and more apparent that Jerry is in fact areal bloodsucking vampire. He soon realizes that he, Amy and his singlemom Jane (Toni Collette; who's already worked with Gillespie on hershow 'UNITED STATES OF TARA', which he's guest directed multiple times)are in grave danger. He tries to enlist the help of noted vampireexpert and famous magician/TV personality Peter Vincent (David Tennanttaking over the role that Roddy McDowall made famous; markingMcDowall's second film franchise to be revived in as many weeks,following 'PLANET OF THE APES' two weeks ago). Vincent appears to bejust a hack though, then things get really crazy.The film is action packed and full of witty dark humor. Gillespie'sdirecting is right on target and the screenplay is smart. Theperformances are all more than efficient with Farrell making a trulythreatening vampire villain (it almost has a little bit of a 'T2' feelto it at times with Farrell appearing like an invincible T-1000machine). Yelchin once again proves he's a talented up and comingactor, Collette is once again good in the mom role, Poots is hot,Tennant is hilarious and Mintz-Plasse is Mintz-Plasse. The look of thefilm is fittingly dark and gloomy. It's a little puzzling that thestudio backing the film, Disney, decided to shoot it in 3D and then notmarket it that way (feeling it might hurt the box office and markingthe first time a studio has downplayed 3D). It has been a littledisappointing financially so far but due to it's low budget willundoubtedly make it's money back (and then some). The 3D probablywasn't necessary and neither was remaking the 80's cult classic butit's still a good time at the movies. Great relentless action, bloodand gore; It's a lot of fun!Watch our review show 'MOVIE TALK' at:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rzBIHq5e3E
A solid remake that's as good as the 1985 film
I wasn't looking forward to the remake for Fright Night when I firstsaw the trailer, because to be honest it didn't look like it was goingto be that great of a movie. I decided to give it a watch thoughbecause I'm a huge fan of the 1985 movie of the same name. The plot forthe remake is quite sample, Jerry the vampire moves in next door toCharley Brewster, at first Charlie dosen't believe this, he think's hisfriend is making the whole thing up. But when Ed goes missing, Charleyhas no other choice but to believe that Jerry is indeed a vampire, andthis is where the fun begins. The film's opening was pretty intense, and it was a great opening tothe movie, yeah it was a little expected so it wasn't really that muchof a surprise when I saw the movie, I kinda guess at what was going tohappen, but still it was a solid opening. From there the movie slowsdown a little bit to develop the story, although to be honest itdosen't take very long to get the story going. This is the weak pointof the movie, I didn't like the first thirty minutes that much becauseit just felt a little to slow and some things just didn't make thatsense to begin with, but these are only minor problems that are soontaken care of. Withen the first thirty minutes into the movie, wealready see what Jerry can do and what his motives are, he want'sCharley dead, and he dosen't care how he's going to do it. What make'sFright Night so fun is that it dosen't take it's self to serious, yesit does have it's moments but its more funny then anything else, yesit's a little cheesy and campy, but that's what it makes it fun.I loved the cheesiness of the movie I embraced it, it's like the 1985film it was cheesy but it was still a fun little film, that you couldwatch with your friends and just enjoy it for what it is. Now thisisn't to say the remake isn't without its probelms because it does havesome, like I mentioned before I wish they would've developed the storya little more and not just brush things aside, it would've been nice ifthey would've explained why Jerry was going after Charley in the firstplace, yes I know he's going after Charley because he know's he's avampire but still the movie dosen't quite explain this enough and itkinda bugged me, but this is only a small problem that I quickly gotover. The main problem of the film is its CGI, yes the CGI did lookpretty good at times but most of the time it just felt tacky and lookedterrible to be honest, I don't know if that was done on purpose becauseof the cheesiness of the film, but still they're could've fixed some ofit up a bit to make it look a little better. I feel that the CGI wasrushed most of the time and could've been a lot better then what itwas, it was a little distracting at times, and for me this is the worstthing about the movie, but it still didn't stop me from enjoying it asmuch as I did.Now all of the actors did a pretty decent job in the film, but I haveto say Colin Farrell stole the show, he was perfect as Jerry. He did aterrfic job a lot better then what I was expecting him to do, I'd sayhe was as good as Chris Sarandon in the 1985 film. David Tennant alsodid a wonderful job, I have to say he was the second best of the bunchnext to Colin Farrell, Tennant was just so funny in the film no matterwhat scene he was in, it was hard to take him serious at times but thatwas the whole point I think. The rest of the cast all did a good jobwith what they had, they just didn't stick out to me like Tennant andFarrell did. Overall the movie is a solid a remake that's even asenjoyable as the 1985 film, I recommend you go see it as soon aspossible.
A very good film.
Nothing like the original but still a very good movie. The 3d is thebest I've seen so far no blurry moments and the acting is good.Although the original is one of my all time favorite films i mean comeon Tom Holland is a genius, an fright night part 2 one of my favoritesequels, (TLW)did a great job directing this film an if you have notseen these films you should go out and get them right now even thoufright night part 2 is hard to come by. Back to the remake even thouits not like the original it brings its own fun. The camera angles arevery well placed giving you everything you need for a scare and a goodtime, an the script was well written. The eighties are over as sad asthat is to say for a horror fan but this along with some others, makesgoing to the movies still fun.
This is how remakes should be done
With so many bad horror movies, and especially so many bad vampiremovies, I can't deny I was a bit skeptical about this one. But, I hadseen the original as a kid (I haven't seen it a again in at least adecade) so I was curious, and since it had such a great cast I saw it.To my surprise it was great! Let me start out by saying I don't think I ever enjoyed Colin Farrellso much in any other movie as I did here! He's the perfect choice for avampire, its really almost as is he was born for this role, he stealsevery scene in this movie. Everybody else is great as well, AntonYelchin is as great as he is any role, David Tennant (who I've neverseen before) was fantastic too, he's got a bit of a 'Russell Brand'character going on (without ever copying him) and it works really well.Anton's mom and girlfriend are also phenomenal and completelybelievable. I would say the weakest performance is from ChristopherMintz-Plasse, not because he's bad, he gets the job done, its just thatI can't see him different enough from McLovin.The story stays true the original, but it gives us enough 'modernre-telling' and character development to still feel like its own movie.The vampire designs are awesome, still true to the originals, just waybetter. Enough stuff in there for the horror fans, but it also has thecomic relief that made the first one a classic.The 3D is better than in quite some films, but I wouldn't recommendseeing it 3D. Why? The movie itself is mostly dark in colors (most ofthe film is in nighttime) and the 3D glasses make it even darker.I really enjoyed this film and would gladly watch it again andrecommend to anyone. 8.5/10
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
RE: Sir Cellophane Beak's Review
Perhaps as I am in America, I saw a different cut of the film, but noneof what he mentioned was in the one I saw.At times the cinematography is a bit strange, and it takes a lot ofsuspension of disbelief, but it's a great time if you can handle it.One specific moment feels a bit like a 3D roller-coaster ride, and the3D is the kind that comes out of the screen a bit, rather than the kindthat adds depth, but it's never too distracting.Christopher Mintz-Plasse, David Tennent, and Colin Farrell are the bestactors and are always spot-on, however Toni Collette seems a littlestrained in her role. Thankfully, she isn't in the movie much.The story is changed a bit from the original, but I don't feel likeyou'll mind any of the changes.
what a load of bull plop
Now I am not going to pretend that this I am a film critic, though iwould just like to say that i feel i have just wasted my time and moneyon this BAD, terrible, awful movie. It is 2hours of clichés where ifelt the only exciting bit in the entire movies was the previews. The acting was okay, nothing extraordinary possibly with the exceptionof David Tennant who was the only intentionally funny character in theentire movie. The fact that it was YET ANOTHER 3D movie probably didn'thelp it at all, and the CGI was sub-par and its YET ANOTHERdisappointing 2011 movie.Save your time and hard earned money guys, if you would like to see itwait for the DVD.
Great fun!
This film lacked script work and editing. The Editing was terrible,actually. The acting is decent, but great acting from ChristopherMintz-Plasse as Ed.I think a lot of people were worrying about the lack of editing andscript. But this movie is just so much fun to watch and there wasn't asecond I was bored. Every moment has you guessing and laughing andchilling. It was totally unpredictable and you never knew what wouldcome next.Again, yes, it lacked good script work and good editing work, but, inall seriousness, it's one of the best fun times i've ever had in MovieHistory in a theater and i'm not over exaggerating! It looks reallygood in 3D as well! especially the intro! :D Sit back, in a dark room(with maybe your 3d glasses), with your popcorn, girlfriend, friendsand coca cola and enjoy some great fun! I give Fright Night an 8/10!
I don't get all the super positive reviews on here
while the film is entertaining for most parts (and yes tedious andclichéd in others...many others) it fails on many, many levels. Theplot has more holes than a slice of swiss cheese and everything isawfully convenient in this this movie. Ferrell was entertaining as avampire, Toni Collette was wasted and I liked David Tennant but hatedhis character. I thought of Russell Brand like a lot of people did whenI fist saw him.Spoiler alert Three things I really had a problem with...1. The fact that all these kids/people are missing and the cops don'tseem to care. This was the worst of the plot holes to me.2. I was really entertained up until the part where Ferrell rips thegas line out of the ground and blows up the house...the actions ofeveryone during that scene and in the car chase afterwards was awkwardand silly to me and again the police don't notice the gas line dug outof the ground or investigate their house EXPLODING!? etc etc...3. The pre credits sequence. Ending a movie well can really help amediocre film out. If they can send you out smiling in a sense you'llbe like "that was OK" instead of "that was crap"...they lost me rightat the end during the scene in the loft. Also, the closing remake songwas awful in my opinion.Those are my main grips and honourable mention goes to, as someone elsehere put it: the constant "douche baggery" of our main character - thatreally stuck in my crawl...but he did kick ass at the end...End of SpoilersSo while it was entertaining, it was NOT a well made movie. too manyreason to list. If this were siskel & ebert, I'd be doing "thumbsdown". I wouldn't even recommend a rental, this is straight cable fare.
Uhm Still Yet More Attempts at "Scary" CGIs
This is again one of those movies where i think a little tweaking ofthe plot,a little more thought put into character development,a littlemore responsive acting by the actors could have made this moviebetter.My imagination went wild hearing the concept of the story.Ibegan to fantasize a lonely hero with the ability to transport himselfanywhere puts to use his gift to rescue the world.I know it soundscliché but when you throw in the fact that the guy could suspect thathis new neighbor is a vampire opens a Pandora's box of excitingpossibilities Sadly the writers couldn't do much justice to a potentialstory.I didn't understand whether the film tried too hard or was a halfhearted effort.The most obvious flaw was the mediocre acting.( There'slaughing in my head).It made Hayden Christenson look like aShakespearean theaspian.Also the storyline seemed like being taken outfrom a daytime action from cartoon network.No character development,nostress on the story and the concept,and no concern whatsoever ofaudience's expectations makes this one a mediocre movie.It could havebeen but was simply not impressive
If you thought the previews looked cool, like I did...
then be prepared to think it's not cool anymore. Everything happenswithin the first 10 minutes; McLovin' gets killed and we're shown thatColin Farrell is in fact a vampire. After this, my friend and Iliterally turned to each other and said, "What?". Obviously I knew hewas a vampire from the previews, but why did they give it up so fast?The story isn't centered on him, it's centered on the kid, Charley,trying to beat him. So shouldn't we have some sort of suspense orsurprise in that area? Like finding out he's a vampire when Charleydoes? Also, the dialogue is so awkward. I heard pity laughs in thetheater. The way Charley's "cool" friends talked was so forced andout-of-date. It's over-the-top cliché teen speak that's never actuallybeen used by teens. And his conversations with McLovin' were dull andawkward and didn't have any sort of real-ness or even movie-ness inthem. It was stale banter.In terms of story, it would have been 50% better had they stuck to theconventions. It was just so incoherent and un-relatable (we AREsupposed to be able to relate to it even though it's about vampires)They (the writers) should have kept McLovin' alive, and had himconvince Charley that Jerry (Colin Farrell) is a vampire. And Jerryshould have at least tried to hide it, instead of gallivanting aroundkilling people the second he moved into the neighborhood. It would havebeen more fun to see their attempts to uncover Jerry and beat him athis own game. Rather than having no room for the audiences' imaginationand guesswork. It wasn't an adventure at all. McLovin's character wasone of the most entertaining in the movie. It would have been more funto see him and Charley's dynamic (although a cliché one; enthusiasticbeliever vs in-denial non-believer) grow. Because that was the onlychance the story had for there to be an interesting dynamic. Charley vsJerry was very clear-cut and out in the open, except for the maybe 10minutes of screen time where he has to hide it from his mother andgirlfriend. Overall, it wasn't as cool as it seemed in the previews.The tone nor mood really matched up. Plus there's a ridiculous "vampireslayer" (not in the 'so corny that it's funny' way, more in the 'sodumb that it's dumb way') who decides at last minute to help Charley. Ithink that part was written for Russell Brand or something. It wasawful.The movie had potential though. Being set in a desert suburb of LasVegas made it kind of cozy and undertoned the isolation of theneighborhood. However, the story just fell apart and there wereawkwardly placed scenes with his mother at the end of the movie thatdidn't "wrap things up" the way it was meant to, and instead made usthink something was about to happen to his mother. It didn't play onexpectations like it could have. In fact, its lack thereof lead it tofalsely create expectations that were never met.Oh well.
A Nutshell Review: Fright Night
It's probably an understatement that Hollywood is fast running out ofideas with its glut of costumed heroes making the leap from comic booksto the silver screen, and slew of remakes and reboots that arehappening in assembly line fashion. When I first heard that FrightNight, one of the very few horror films that I had dared to watch andenjoy tremendously, was going to be given a makeover, my initialreaction was there goes another childhood memory which will getbutchered badly. But my fears were quite unfounded, as this updateactually turned out to be rather enjoyable.There were specific moments in the original film that had stuck in mymind, such as how the vampire mocks the protagonist who had stuck acrucifix in his face, and being rebuked that it doesn't work if onedoesn't have faith. Moments that were as classic as this one gotincorporated into the film in a slightly different scenario, which madeit a pleasant easter egg each time fans get to spot something thesurvived the remake.Directed by Craig Gillespie whose pedigree is as varied as Lars and theReal Girl and Mr Woodcock, Fright Night started off quite wobbly whenit tried to establish its characters, jumping directly into the fraywith Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin) being too cool for his geeky bestfriend Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse in a stereotypical role) whosuspects that Charley's new neighbor Jerry (Colin Farrell) is actuallya vampire responsible for the many mysterious disappearances and deathsof their satellite town. Added into the female quotient for any vampirefilm, because sinking one's fangs into a long female neck is alwaysdeemed as sexy, are Toni Collette as Charley's mom who develops a crushon Jerry, as well as Imogen Poots who plays Charley's hot girlfriendAmy.It's the excellent visual effects that made this version of FrightNight work, while balancing a fairly engaging story with a light doseof comedy that made this a walk down memory lane of many past horrorcomedies that entertained without being too campy or silly. You canjust about tell the deliberate attempts at 3D as well which centeredmostly around blood splattering on screen, and for those donning the 3Dglasses, blood splattering toward you by the bucketloads. And let's notforget its technical strengths as well, where a scene that will jumpout and scream for your attention revolves literally around a carinterior in one continuous, lengthy shot that serves as the highlightof the film for its intensity.David Tennant may add some unintentional comedic flair to his vampireslayer Peter Vincent character, but it is clearly the nemesis played byColin Farrell which took the cake and stole everyone's thunder for hiscool as cat portrayal of the undead. While the film became sort of aninstructional manual on how to get rid of one in the final act, relyingupon a number of artifacts both common and uncommon, Farrell plays thevampire with that perfect twinkle in the eye, with the screenplay byMarti Noxon kept close to classic vampire lore, such as the need to getinvited to a home before a vampire can enter, steering clear of therecent Twilight nonsensical re-inventiveness of bloodsuckers who cansurvive in daylight, broods a lot and would rather start a family thanto maintain an advantageous swinging single status. And that myfriends, is what makes vampire films appealing, not metrosexual prettyboys with emotional issues.At its core the story's about a guy who has to once again turn towardand recognize his inner geekdom despite desperate and fairly successfulattempts to have steered away from it, but ultimately has to lookinward for strength to accomplish what would be impossible without awealth of knowledge. Revenge of the nerd this is, and an entertaining,funny romp this updated Fright Night had turned out to be. Recommended!