Fright Night (2011) Online

Can a horror remake actually be a good for a change? I mean, how many classic horror flicks does Hollywood have to crap on until they finally give up? "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", "Amityville Horror", "Nightmare on Elm St.", "Friday the 13th", "House of Wax".......all of these films are examples of why i sometimes HATE Hollywood.

Finally......a horror remake that's WORTH seeing. I must admit, i had some pretty low expectations walking into this, and it did way more than prove me wrong. Initially i thought they were going to make this a straight 'B' movie by incorporating tons of humor with their gore, which would have been fine with me, seeing that i love the genre'. But this movie was more fun than funny. Don't get me wrong, there are some sequences that are funny, but it had more of that 'drive-in' appeal to it's horror. And i loved every bit of it.

It's story is pretty basic, and somewhat cliché'. I mean come on, a vampire living next door. But the weird thing is, it didn't come off as cliché'. And i think the biggest contribution to that was the pace of the film. Once you get past the first 10 to 15 minutes of the film, which are kind of dull, the movie quickly begins to morph into a fast paced gore fest. And now looking back on it......if it were not rated R, then this movie would have been stupid, and it would've fit in with every other crummy horror remake.

But the aspect that i appreciated the most was the writing. For once, they didn't alter any rules to make their film different. They stuck with what already works, and left it up to the actors to make these vampire rules entertaining. And Collin Farrell did just that.

Bottom Line.....Of all the horror movies that come out this year, this will probably be the one you will have the most fun at. It's funny, it's somewhat scary, but most of all, it's pretty damn entertaining. It's one of those movies i would've loved to of seen at the drive-in. If your tired of all this 'Twilight' crap, which they happen to mention in the movie itself, then this is really a breathe of fresh air to all the TRUE vampire fans.

It has occurred to me that when people refer to a new "reimagining" of a beloved film, they use the term "unnecessary remake." I've been guilty of that myself. I really tend to think, however, that technically any remake is unnecessary. No one "needs" to be told what is basically the same story (in most cases) twice. I've also heard the argument that bad films are the ones that should be remade, not good ones. I can understand that to an extent, but do people really want to sit through a new version of something they hated the first time? No remake is going to make everyone happy; it's just not possible. Unless of course, you haven't SEEN the original.

So, just how should a remake be judged? As a stand-alone film, or how it compares to a previous one we love so much? And I do love writer-director Tom Holland's 1985 vampire flick FRIGHT NIGHT. It is just the right mix of comedy, terror, suspense, terrific performances, and an affection for old-fashioned scares. Many others have fond memories of it as well, so I relate to the "why"s and the "oh don't screw it up"s, and the "leave it alone"s. After all, beloved films are dumped on all the time by would-be filmmakers out to make a quick buck for the safe Hollywood studios.

Most of the central story is intact: Anton Yelchin leads the cast as Charley Brewster, a used-to-be high-school misfit who comes to the realization, thanks to childhood buddy Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) that his new neighbor Jerry (Colin Farrell) is a vampire. It isn't long before he's convinced his single mother (Toni Collette) and his girlfriend (Imogen Poots) of this discovery...at which point all sorts of bloody hell breaks loose.

Screenwriter Marti Noxon has infused a basic story (whose plot points and situations weren't always very believable) with some new smarts, including adding more depth to the central characters. And the setting has changed to a cookie-cutter suburb of Las Vegas, where people sleep during the day, work at night, and are much more transient. Another interesting change is the character of Peter Vincent. In the original, Roddy McDowall played a hammy horror host and actor: Peter Vincent, the Great Vampire Killer. Here, David Tennant assumes the role, but Vincent has become an elaborate Vegas magician who performs vampire-killing antics on the stage. In both versions, they are recruited by our hero to help slay the bloodsucker. It's an ultra- modern twist, but within the location context, works beautifully.

During the first hour or so of 2011's new incarnation, I was shocked to think 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 a dark, desert car chase, the film threatens to go off the rails in a sequence that's a bit hokey, over the top, and unfortunately timed. And there are a few iffy CGI instances as well. Luckily, things get back on track with a climax that's executed with a uniquely creepy wit, and a few good shocks and surprises. Director Craig Gillespie (LARS AND THE REAL GIRL, "United States of Tara") earns respect for pulling off (for him) an unfamiliar genre; he also pays homage to a few memorable scenes in the original without trying to copy or disrespect them.

Most of the performances are engaging and authentic (aside from Mintz-Plasse in his later moments), with Tennant's wry turn a real treat, and the ever-wonderful Collette's naturally grounding presence adding a needed weight of normalcy. It is Farrell, however, who is the real deal; he absolutely nails this role (no, he won't make you forget the original's suave Chris Sarandon, but in fairness, Jerry is written much differently in this update). Farrell combines sexiness and utter menace to the fullest: this vamp means business! Some of the best work of his admittedly spotty career is on display, including the film's most brilliant moment, where Jerry's fidgety impatience with being invited into the Brewster home is both hilarious and nerve-wracking.

FRIGHT NIGHT is a solid film in its own right; if there's not enough love from the original's fans to spread out to its remake, that's unfortunate.

The original Fright Night was already a cult classic which makes this remake unnecessary. But since all vampires these days are less scary and like what Evil Ed said "Love Sick", it can be necessary for some reason. Bringing back the true vampire camp. Although it's not as scary as the original but Colin Farrel's performance improves the vampire villain. This Fright Night is endlessly watchable and fun. This may sound strange but I think this version is better than the original.

The original have the disturbing schlocky masks but this version actually has the vampire danger and thrills. The credit goes to Colin Farrel. He gives a lot of vigor and terror to the evil vampire. David Tennant has his own Peter Vincent. His charisma and delight shines through all of his scenes. Just like Roddy McDowall, David Tennant nearly steals the show. But Farrel really owns this show.

It's a welcome back, actually. It's not a cash in remake. It's the returning of the vampire horror to our cinemas. Our vampire movies these days are just tired and relies to nothing but the senseless violence. And some of them are in love with a bland girl and sparkle in sunlight. But the biggest thing that is missing in most modern vampire movies is how scary these monsters are. They are not only bloodsuckers. They can be terrifying for somehow.

The filmmaking is obviously good but some of the CGI tones the scares down a little bit but it works though. The score sounds nothing like the score of the original but it's true to its vampire genre. The movie is shot in 3D but most of the film is dark and 3D usually dims the aspect of a film but if you are in for some blood and sparks coming out of the screen then try it. Not quite recommending though.

Overall, Fright Night is enjoyable. Maybe the biggest mistake they made is the jump scares since Fright Night isn't really fond to that trend. Well, this is definitely better than all the unnecessary horror remakes we usually get every year. Colin Farrel made a lot of things better. Vampires are evil again. It has plenty of joys and thrills. Fright Night is recommendable by bringing back the true elements of the genre.

then be prepared to think it's not cool anymore. Everything happens within the first 10 minutes; McLovin' gets killed and we're shown that Colin Farrell is in fact a vampire. After this, my friend and I literally turned to each other and said, "What?". Obviously I knew he was 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 or surprise in that area? Like finding out he's a vampire when Charley does? Also, the dialogue is so awkward. I heard pity laughs in the theater. The way Charley's "cool" friends talked was so forced and out-of-date. It's over-the-top cliché teen speak that's never actually been used by teens. And his conversations with McLovin' were dull and awkward and didn't have any sort of real-ness or even movie-ness in them. It was stale banter.

In terms of story, it would have been 50% better had they stuck to the conventions. It was just so incoherent and un-relatable (we ARE supposed to be able to relate to it even though it's about vampires) They (the writers) should have kept McLovin' alive, and had him convince Charley that Jerry (Colin Farrell) is a vampire. And Jerry should have at least tried to hide it, instead of gallivanting around killing people the second he moved into the neighborhood. It would have been more fun to see their attempts to uncover Jerry and beat him at his own game. Rather than having no room for the audiences' imagination and guesswork. It wasn't an adventure at all. McLovin's character was one of the most entertaining in the movie. It would have been more fun to see him and Charley's dynamic (although a cliché one; enthusiastic believer vs in-denial non-believer) grow. Because that was the only chance the story had for there to be an interesting dynamic. Charley vs Jerry was very clear-cut and out in the open, except for the maybe 10 minutes of screen time where he has to hide it from his mother and girlfriend. Overall, it wasn't as cool as it seemed in the previews. The tone nor mood really matched up. Plus there's a ridiculous "vampire slayer" (not in the 'so corny that it's funny' way, more in the 'so dumb that it's dumb way') who decides at last minute to help Charley. I think that part was written for Russell Brand or something. It was awful.

The movie had potential though. Being set in a desert suburb of Las Vegas made it kind of cozy and undertoned the isolation of the neighborhood. However, the story just fell apart and there were awkwardly placed scenes with his mother at the end of the movie that didn't "wrap things up" the way it was meant to, and instead made us think something was about to happen to his mother. It didn't play on expectations like it could have. In fact, its lack thereof lead it to falsely create expectations that were never met.

Oh well.

Remaining in the same vein as many recent horror outings, "Fright Night" is more of an eerie action comedy than a straight-out scare fest. Good. That's my favorite type, especially considering scares in and of themselves hardly garner a pull anymore. Also, with a title like "Fright Night," we have an understanding with the filmmakers that we're getting one of those throwback horror flicks. You know, the ones that gave the horror genre that fun movie-going reputation it had in the 80′s before tasteless gore and tiresome predictability defiled the genre? This film succeeds on that promise, quickly turning itself into the quintessential "fun" horror flick perfect for Friday night.

Styled after Alfred Hitchcock's "Rear Window" (which inspired its own modern retelling, "Disturbia") with a suave vampire living next-door instead of a mysterious stranger, this plot is very similar to its original. Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin; "Star Trek") is a ex-nerd who has joined 'the cool crowd,' dropping his oldest friend "Evil" Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse; "Kick-Ass") for a hot cheerleader girlfriend (Imogen Poots; "28 Weeks Later"). Things are looking oh-so-grand for the little flake (I mean, come on, any guy who hurtfully tells his friend "the day my life got better was the day I stopped hanging with you" is well a douche), he gets a new next-door neighbor that his mom (Toni Collette; "The Sixth Sense") takes a liking to: Jerry Dandrige (Colin Farrell; "Horrible Bosses"). Now Jerry seems like a cool guy, but as we all know, you don't cast Colin Farrell to be your average next-door neighbor. Ed's attempts to convince Charley that Jerry is actually a vampire fail, but when Ed himself goes missing and Jerry shows proof of what he is, Charley goes to the only person who might have the answer: Peter Vincent (David Tennant; "Doctor Who"), the Las Vegas magician who boasts of supernatural knowledge on how to kill vampires.

The choice to modernize the original 1985 "Fright Night" doesn't like that bright an idea considering the current rule that all horror remakes suck, but somehow this became a unique effort due to diligent actors, a reliable director, and successful laugh and scare gags. It is, without exaggeration, the first great entry in the long line of atrocious horror remakes. It takes what we liked about the original and comes up some clever changes that update the story 26 years to the present.

From an ingenious kill method at the end to wickedly suspenseful chase scenes, "Fright Night" boasts some surprisingly memorable scenes – some of which are incredibly suspenseful considering we think we should know what to expect from a vampire thriller. The opening is a startling 3D shot through dark thunderclouds that ends in an impeccably-executed family massacre. With Craig Gillespie's (the outstanding director of "Lars and the Real Girl") imaginative direction and Ramin Djawadi's (scorer of "Iron Man" and "Mr. Brooks") jarringly effective and wholly memorable musical score, the film hits all the beats it strives for with manic zeal.

The all-star cast deliver a gratifying romp of suspense and chuckles, but the movie belongs to its villain and its anti-hero, Colin Farrell and David Tennant. The rest give solid performances (especially Mintz-Plasse), but they pale compared to the main act.

Colin Farrell, when given the opportunity, revels in the grittiness of villainy whenever he can. For Jerry Dandrige, Farrell is at an all-time evil high and unchains his dark side. Part Hannibal Lector in his charming menace and part Buffalo Bill in his vicious brutality, Farrell carves himself a sweetly unpredictable part filled with great moments (from his menacing way of asking for a six-pack of beer to his ultimate way of overstepping house invitation rules to a great moment where his decision to do absolutely nothing produces far worse results).

The fascinating part about Jerry is he isn't like regular vampires. He seems more inspired by the worst of modern serial killers than mythical killing machines, with his secret torture rooms and closet full of dozens of uniforms signifying authority (from firemen to the post office to the police). He's modern without being "Twilight." He's a ominous hulking mass. Those characteristics mixed together with his bizarre personality create a rather unique Hollywood vampire. Due to this, I wish the "transformation" to full-on vampire face was never included, as it is poor CGI and takes away from Farrell's menace.

David Tennant, who I will admit I adore as the 10th Doctor Who, is a cinematic gem. His acting style has always been that of a Shakespearean extremist, and I can't think of a better role that has such obvious wicked glee in allowing him to let loose. There is something strangely mesmerizing in Tennant's scenes as the vulgar magician-turned-vampire-killer, especially in his first big scene where his vehemence and wide-eyed enthusiasm is outstandingly exaggerated. Also, seeing him acting with a giant shotgun is way more fun than I expected it to be. He's about as entertaining – if not more so – than the performance given by Roddy McDowall.

In the end, what really matters about this movie? Is the movie suspenseful and thrilling? Yes, especially when Jerry really is allowed to let loose his menacing charm and kill with the same love of general violence of a "Reservoir Dogs" character. Is the movie funny when it tries to be? Absolutely. The pop culture references – especially in a crack on "Twilight" and comparing Jerry to the shark from "Jaws" – work particularly well. This is a huge amount of fun. So if you walk into this expecting the right kind of movie, "Fright Night" is that perfect Friday night scare.

Twenty-six years ago, "Fright Night" premiered in theaters and went on to become a fondly remembered title amongst horror fans. The movie cleverly combined horror and humor to create a fresh take on the vampire and teen horror genres which had started to grow stale. While the movie spawned a largely forgettable direct to video sequel, the original film has remained popular over the years. So, when I first heard that they were planning on remaking the film I was skeptical as I felt it would be very difficult to match the original film.

Boasting an impressive cast which includes Anton Yelchin, Colin Farrell, David Tennant, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, and Toni Collette, the remake does not try to reinvent the wheel, but instead takes the formula of the original and creates an entirely new entry into the saga.

For those unfamiliar with the series, Yelchin stars as Charlie Brewster, a young man who is trying to balance watching over his single mother, and his growing relationship with a girl way out of his league named Amy (Imogen Poots). He is also wrestling with becoming part of a cooler crowd at the cost of alienating his geeky former best friend, Ed, played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse.

Colin Farrell plays the handsome and suave new next door neighbor who easily charms Charlie's mom, played by Toni Colette. Unbeknownst to his neighbors, the charming and charismatic Jerry, played by Colin Ferrell, is actually a vampire who's come to their Las Vegas suburb to continue his nighttime hunts. Ed has become suspicious of the recent disappearances in their community and confides to Charlie that he's had Jerry under surveillance and knows that he is a vampire.

Needless to say this does not sit well with Charlie, who distances himself further from Ed. But when Ed goes missing, Charlie decides to do some investigating of his own. Charlie turns to a local Vegas performance artist named Peter Vincent (David Tennant), whose vampire-themed show portrays him as an expert in fighting the undead. While at first skeptical over Charlie's claims, a few devastating confrontations with Jerry and his minions forces Vincent to rethink his role. The two unlikely allies soon find themselves in a deadly race against time to defeat Jerry and save their loved ones before it's too late.

The film cleverly combines horror and comedy and does a good job of providing some suspenseful moments in between the blood and gore, managing to squeeze in more than a few laughs along the way. While not overly scary, the visual effects work is solid and aside from the converted 3-D is a really enjoyable to watch. The film would've been much better had it been shot in 3-D or simply left as a 2-D film as the conversion really didn't offer anything of value as is often the case in these lab converted efforts.

The cast works very well with one another and Farrell cheekily introduces a few new wrinkles to the vampire lore. I really enjoyed David Tennant's performance and should they do a sequel I certainly hope that they bring him back. Anton Yelchin gives a reliable performance but I was surprised that Christopher Mintz-Plasse did not have a bigger role but he does have some memorable moments in the film. What really impressed me was that the film did not attempt to do a shot-by-shot remake of the original but instead took the premise of the original and offered a fresh take that easily could have been issued as the third chapter in the series rather than a reboot. While there were nods to the original, outside of the premise it was very much its own film.

The film is not going to set any high marks for new standards in horror nor is the plot fresh and original. It simply knows what its target audience and source material are and sets a course right down the middle without attempting to deviate too much one way or another. "Fright Night" just might be perfect for those looking for a dose of nostalgia and some highly suspenseful, fun entertainment.

Three stars out of five

Somewhat mildly entertaining, but compared to other recent horror films like Incidious, this movie is about as scary as an episode of Wizards Of 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, a seamless blend of horror, comedy, superb (but now outdated) special effects, and a new wave soundtrack to fit the time and place the film was made. It was as creepy and campy as the 60's and 70's Hammer Horror films which it pays homage as well as making fun of.

But, beyond that, the original had a solid story line, with multiple characters with multiple motives.

Gone is the creepy "Evil" Ed who, despite being a horror fan, refuses to believe Charlie that his next door neighbor is a vampire. In his place is another one-note performance by a character who serves more as wallpaper and who is a sad joke when he turns vampire

Gone is the charming and subtle Jerry Dangridge and instead we have a single-note boring one dimensional Collin Ferral who spends the entire film walking with heavy footsteps and hissing like a cat.

Gone is Danridge's zombie day-time protector who added an even greater dimension of story layers replaced by, well, nothing.

Gone is the charming Peter Vincent a cowardly tired old B-movie star who faces his fears to become a hero, replaced by yet another one-dimensional ex-Dr. Who.

And perhaps most important of the omissions of this boring life-less remake is that of the big creepy decrepit American-Gothic old mansion in the heart of suburbia (like a tiny virus, and a metaphor for the vampire, which goes on to be so many other metaphors I can't list them all here).

The original is dated, no freaking duh! Because it captured the essence of the time (date) and place it was created. The remake fails to even be dated because the sets and atmosphere are so lifeless this film could have been made anywhere between 1990 and now.

The original is a "cult film" and so, by definition, it only has a small cult of fanatics, so, if you don't get why the original is so beloved 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 $5.00 bin, cast aside by all those but Collin Farrel fans.

P.S. the computer animated blood splashes are horrible, they look like mid 90's effects. Also, where's the remake of Brad Fiedel's "Come To Me" which was in the original as well as it's sequel? They must have been crazy not to put an update of that in the film. It's up there with Bela Lugosi's Dead and Cry Little Sister. Oh, and one finally little update: Imagine Poots IS actually very hot and a wonderful actress as was Amanda Bearse at the time.

I was able to see this movie tonight at a preview screening at Disney Studios and I was pleasantly surprised. The actors all did a great job in their respective parts, I think Colin Farrell was a perfect choice to play the bad guy, and he is bad, He hardly even tries to hide it in the movie. I really enjoyed Imogen Poots, in the first movie I've noticed her, she played a wonderful range of emotions and gave our hero something worthwhile to fight for. However, for my money, David Tennant stole the show in a role that I wish was larger, but didn't need to be to serve the purpose of the film. He did a wonderful job not playing The Doctor so many of us have come to know and love him for, and yet he was just as enjoyable as a magician with a drinking problem. I would say the only weak spot in the cast was Christopher Mintz-Plasse, and it's not eve his fault. He just did such a unique job playing "Mclovin'" that even when his head is half off and he's trying to bite his friend, all I see is Mclovin'. I don't see this as an issue that Christopher can solve, but I am glad studios are giving him a chance to do so.

They use of 3-D was also well done. This film has nothing on Transformers 3 in that area, but it still managed to use it, without over-using it.

The script at times could have used as little toning, or maybe just some improv on the set to make it more realistic.

All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie and would recommend it to anyone that enjoyed Hot Fuzz, Shaun of The Dead, or Zombieland...Excellent balance of humor and horror which added up to a great popcorn film.

8.5/10

Tom Holland's 1985 vampire romp "Fright Night" was a fun, campy little horror flick that had some good laughs, good scares, and some pretty awesome effects. Soon enough, the movie developed its cult fan base. In the end, I find the original "Fright Night" to be one of the most underrated horror films of the 80's.

Frankly, I was actually quite excited for this remake, knowing that it had a great cast and Marti Noxon(who commonly wrote for "Buffy the Vampire Slayer") was at the helm of the script. I personally don't mind remakes. Some people take them way too seriously. Of course, there are some that fail, but a lot of them work really well. The 2011 edition of "Fright Night" works!

Set in a beautiful suburban area of Las Vegas, the movie introduces us to Charley Brewster, a nerdy but charismatic teenager who we find out has given up his relationship with his friend "Evil" Ed to be with the cooler kids, including his hot new girlfriend Amy. Then he meets Jerry Dandrige, a buff, sweet new neighbor that Charley's mom and Amy take a liking to. When Ed tries to warn Charley of Jerry's hidden, and gruesome, intentions, things take a turn for the worse. More people wind up missing, and it becomes evident to Charley that Jerry is a vampire. Nobody believes him before it's too late, and it's up to him and Hard Rock celebrity Peter Vincent to kill this sucker(pun intended) once and for all.

While it pays so much respect to the original movie, "Fright Night" also adds a few new elements that elevate it above other remakes. There are some scenes that are lifted right from the original, even two of the original's most classic lines, but the movie breaks several horror movie rules and invents new ones, like whether or not a vampire can come into another person's house.

The CGI effects in this remake are surprisingly quite good. I didn't see the film in 3D(which I heard doesn't do much for the movie), but in its 2D format, the geysers of blood shoot out magnificently without going over the top, and the makeup is true to the original vampire look in the 1985 film.

"Fright Night" boasts a fantastic cast of well-known actors. Anton Yelchin, as always, does a great job and fits the role of Charley perfectly. Toni Collette stands out as Charley's mother, and Imogen Poots is terrific as Amy. Unlike other horror blonds, the script allows Amy to be smart, and at times brave enough to try to take down Jerry herself. Also, Ms. Poots is an awesome screamer. Christopher Mintz- Plasse is great for the role of "Evil" Ed, and he was born to play that role in this remake. He gets some pretty funny lines and an enjoyable amount of screen time. David Tennant, known for starring in the recent TV revival of "Doctor Who," takes over from Roddy McDowall as Peter Vincent, and makes for a funny vision of the character.

And then there's Colin Farrell as Jerry. Don't get me wrong. The cast is wonderful. But Farrell eats his role up and nearly steals the show. Sometimes, he doesn't have to do anything, and he still creeps you out. One particular scene in which he has a conversation with Charley sets the character up to be quite fearful. This is not a "Twilight" vampire that Farrell creates. This is a "rip your throat out with no regrets" monster that is impossible not to be freaked out by. Basically, Colin Farrell bathes in his role like the character bathes in human blood.

Marti Noxon's script is clever, funny, and smart, and by the looks of other recent horror outings, it's a script that's better than it should be.

I'll just say that "Fright Night" is not particularly scary. But it's all about the entertainment here. The movie doesn't need to be scary. It's a horror-comedy that allows some good shocks with some great laughs. The original was always on the border of becoming too funny, but it stayed on its feet and kept the horror going. The remake does just that. It's carefully made and done with love for its source material. But otherwise, you can tell that director Craig Gillespie("Lars and the Real Girl"), his cast, and his screenwriter had a ball making this movie. The nostalgia factor is high here, bringing us a combination of both 80's and 90's horror. If you loved "The Lost Boys" and the original 1985 flick, you will surprisingly love 2011's "Fright Night." I welcome it with open arms, and I'm glad I got to see it. Welcome to Fright Night...FOR REAL!

P.S. For those of you who saw the original, you get an unbelievable cameo.

Dull, pointless, and charmless remake of a good-natured, mildly amusing film from the '80s. The 2011 Fright Night aims low and misses. The 3-D, featuring spattered blood, shattered glass and sparks, is more distracting than necessary. Jerry, the vampire-next-door, is not an original or distinctive adversary despite Farrell's appeal. Jerry does little to hide his unnatural existence, doesn't put his supernatural powers to any real use, and there is only a sketchy explanation of how this creature lives and dies. Plot points never amount to anything, the editing is often confusing, and the actions and reactions of the characters aren't convincing. Why doesn't the nerd attack his former tormentors with his vampiric powers? Why doesn't the family call the police when the vampire begins tearing up their yard? Virtually every character was shown using a wireless device in the first 15 minutes of the film. And why drive pointlessly into the desert to escape, and then call 911 at a place where you can't get service!? You may also wonder why a vampire would move into a neighborhood with houses one right next to the other. Long, noisy, fiery battles with creatures coming out of the earth are apparently ignored by neighbors who live within a stone's throw; the police and firefighters never show. The leads are dreary and flat, and since nearly everyone is clueless there's nothing at stake.

Once again, Hollywood is running out ideas and it's Fright's Night's turn for the remake. Fright Night is a huge cult classic that I'm sure was expected to flop, instead turned into a pleasant surprise. It's a fun film that came out of the 80's and is a classic treasure; it's like Rear Window with vampires. I didn't see the film until a few years ago, not sure how I missed it, I guess The Lost Boys was my vampire film of the 80's. But I loved the film and its clever mix of horror and humor. Plus it has a great cast, fun effects and a cool story. To remake it, again, everyone gets upset at first but from the trailer the film actually looked pretty good. I saw this opening day looking forward to seeing a reboot and while it's certainly flawed, this is actually a pretty decent remake.

Charley Brewster is a teenager who discovers he has a new neighbor moving in next door to him. Charley's geeky ex-friend, Ed, tells him that many fellow students have gone missing. Charley disregards this, but talks him into coming to an old friend's house to check if he's alright.When Charley goes home after school, his mother introduces him to Jerry, who is the new neighbor. Charley meets up with Ed who informs him that his new neighbor is a vampire, Charley doesn't believe Ed and leaves. On his way home Ed is confronted by Jerry who convinces him to become a vampire and bites him. The next day Charley realizes that Ed is missing and decides to go to his house to investigate. As Jerry begins to attack more people throughout the neighborhood, Charley goes into Jerry's house and finds out that he is keeping all of his victims in secret rooms. Charley decides to go to Las Vegas magician Peter Vincent, a supposed expert on vampires and hope to destroy Jerry before he gets to his mother and beautiful girlfriend.

Colin Ferrel, what can I say? Who could have been a more perfect choice? After his stint in rehab, I'm sure he more than enjoyed getting back into playing the bad boy. His Jerry may not have the exact same charm as Chris Sarandon, but you can tell he had a lot of fun and brought a lot to the character. However I wasn't as excited on the choice for Charlie, Anton Yelchin, who was actually kind of boring in my opinion. You can tell he tries but I don't think he had the best lines to work with. Now David Tennant who replaces Roddy McDowall was actually a decent replacement almost like a Cris Angel character, but honestly, even if I get hate for this comment, I think I would have loved to see Russell Brand in this role if they were going for that direction.

There are a few disappointments with the film like not having the same chemistry that the original Charlie and Peter had, it seems like their relationship is more rushed in the remake and not like they really belong together. Also, since the film does take itself seriously as if we are supposed to buy that this is happening in our real world, how is it that there is absolutely no police investigation when people are missing? I mean, they say that people pass through Vegas and are never heard from again, but an entire family is missing and nothing is questioned? Also I was upset with the lack of Ed, I loved the plot change with him, but we didn't have enough Ed which Christopher Mintz-Plasse plays pretty well. The script may need work however; I still had fun watching the action and special effects. Though I don't think that the 3D was exactly needed for the film, they stuck to the original look to the vampires which I'm glad they did. But please, no more Twilight references, let's just try to forget those books or movies ever existed. Before I end the comment since I'm running out of room here, doesn't the poster remind you of No Country for Old Men? Maybe it's just me… no, it's not me, they copied the poster. But I enjoyed the film, I'm pretty sure those who loved the original will get a good kick out of the remake. Its fun, stylish, sexy and exactly the good time horror movie we needed this year.

7/10

Fast-forwarding to 2011, both slasher cycles have ended and vampires have risen from their graves into pop culture saturation. Tom Holland probably never envisioned a world where his nostalgia would be so relevant. Eighties worship, as unwarranted as it is, is huge right now, so making a new Fright Night as inevitable as it is unwarranted. The original movie was fueled by Holland's personal interest in updating his beloved genre and forced to be creative by its tight budget. Today, it's an enjoyable if underwhelming effort that's just good enough to not need to be remade.

So, is there any reason to watch the new Fright Night? For the majority of viewers, the answer is a terse "no." The seasoned movie-goer may find it another example of how to downgrade a superior film by placing it through the meat grinder of pedestrian production. The new film regurgitates the original's plot, adding unnecessary secondary characters while keeping the perfunctory subplots of the original. The flavorful parts of the original like Charlie's silent preliminary observations of Jerry have been streamlined into arriving at the action sooner. The movie feels cobbled together, the result of its poor editing, into a visual summary of its inspiration.

What results from this process is the kind of stale movie the original would have been had Holland not spiced up the screenplay. Writer Marti Noxon attempts to add some humor by including putrid pop cultural jabs at Twilight that have no place in the narrative. Seeing as this is a Dreamworks release, I guess should have expected them. And if that weren't lame enough, Noxon actually manages to completely destroy the original's subtext. Charlie begins the story as a geek-turned-average guy who must be emasculated by his too-hot-for-me girlfriend Amy. The rest of the film is his heteronormative redemption by putting Amy into her distressed place and kicking butt. Even Jerry has been updated as brusque Blade-like baddie. At least casting Colin Farrell gives the role, ironically like the first film, some unintentional charm. Farrell can poke fun at his playboy lifestyle nicely, if he only had a better screenplay… The original Fright Night's plot may have been followed though its humor wasn't. Unless you are homophobic, you aren't going to laugh very much. So, we have a redundant copy of an original that wasn't even that pleasant itself. Farrell gets a chuckle now and then, but only those people who refuse to watch older films will enjoy this one.

Not Recommended.

while the film is entertaining for most parts (and yes tedious and clichéd in others...many others) it fails on many, many levels. The plot has more holes than a slice of swiss cheese and everything is awfully convenient in this this movie. Ferrell was entertaining as a vampire, Toni Collette was wasted and I liked David Tennant but hated his character. I thought of Russell Brand like a lot of people did when I 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't seem to care. This was the worst of the plot holes to me.

2. I was really entertained up until the part where Ferrell rips the gas line out of the ground and blows up the house...the actions of everyone during that scene and in the car chase afterwards was awkward and silly to me and again the police don't notice the gas line dug out of the ground or investigate their house EXPLODING!? etc etc...

3. The pre credits sequence. Ending a movie well can really help a mediocre film out. If they can send you out smiling in a sense you'll be like "that was OK" instead of "that was crap"...they lost me right at the end during the scene in the loft. Also, the closing remake song was awful in my opinion.

Those are my main grips and honourable mention goes to, as someone else here put it: the constant "douche baggery" of our main character - that really stuck in my crawl...but he did kick ass at the end...

End of Spoilers

So while it was entertaining, it was NOT a well made movie. too many reason to list. If this were siskel & ebert, I'd be doing "thumbs down". I wouldn't even recommend a rental, this is straight cable fare.

I had the grave misfortune of attending an early preview screening for this piece of garbage. The audience I saw it with was less than enthused as well. I credit them with having some actual taste. I must disclose that I am a fan of the original film. In fact in the pantheon of great vampire movies I feel that "Fright Night," stands tall as one of the best ever. It's a very clever idea for a vampire film and the original characters are a lot of fun. The original film is in many ways a love letter to horror films and horror fans. The main character in the original is a horror fan, his friends are horror fans and he idolizes Peter Vincent who is the host of a late night horror movie show. The film was post modern and gave the audience credit for having some kind of prior knowledge. Now we are confronted with this brain dead remake. It is hard to know where to begin in explaining how awful this new film is.

We can start with the sad fact that the very essence of the original characters, their arcs and their dynamics have been changed almost completely. The main character, Charlie, is now a self-absorbed and selfish jerk. Charlie treats his much more intelligent friend Ed like human waste. Charlie has a hot girlfriend and is hanging out with a much more popular crowd. Ed's intellect and peculiarities set him apart so of course Charlie has to drop him as a friend. When a movie starts off and your protagonist is a fake and hateful cretin it is a serious problem.

Then there is the character of Evil Ed himself who is unfortunately played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse. Mintz-Plasse has now given the exact same tiresome performance in God knows how many movies. In the original film Ed was a tragic character. In this one he is at best an annoyance.

The main problem with the new characterizations lies in the re-imagining of Peter Vincent. He is now a Las Vegas magician who prances around like Russell Brand and almost seems like a complete afterthought in the film. Vincent's arc in the original movie was touching and central to the narrative's success. In this new incarnation he hardly drives the film at all. Like every other poor decision made by the filmmakers, the casting of David Tennant is merely a stunt to draw the geek crowd in. He might as well not even be in the picture.

Colin Farrell is not a disaster as Jerry Dandridge, but he is hardly a success either. Chris Sarandon's portrayal was sly and full of little touches that really sold the implicit threat of Dandridge. Farrell is a very obvious actor and he gives a very obvious performance in this movie. His character is really more of a serial killer/sexual predator than a true master vampire. As the movie progresses he goes steadily over the top and seems less and less threatening for doing so. By the time he is chasing Charlie, Charlie's mom and Charlie's girlfriend on a motorcycle he might as well be The Terminator. His supernatural abilities rarely if ever come into play.

The film has zero atmosphere and barely comes to anything approaching excitement. Product placement is rampant and so frequent that it becomes hilarious. The fun, new-wave Gothic feel of the original film has been replaced by a slick treatment more befitting a luxury car commercial. There is no edge to this movie. The computer effects are terrible and poorly rendered. The editing is desperate and the gotcha moments are lame in the extreme. I was so bored watching it I resorted to checking my watch every few minutes to see when the ordeal would be over. If you are thinking about viewing this abomination I would suggest streaming the original on Netflix or watching it for free on Hulu. Your time would be better spent and you will not have wasted thirty dollars or more on crappy, post-production 3D.

I loathe this movie. I can't even put into words how much I hated this movie so instead I will list ways I feel this film could have been improved. Pay attention because my view of this movie is revealed in the list.

Ten things that would have improved this remake:

1. Tom Holland as the writer or another writer familiar with Dracula style vampires. Even the writer of Dracula of 2000 or Van Helsing 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 position.

3. Kept the shapeshifting abilities to become wolf, mist, bat, fly and enthrall minds because it's freaky and makes the vampires all the more powerful. There was no reason to strip them of most of their powers and add extra limitations to them.

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 was a fan of the original and remembers it fondly and knows how to do Gothic atmosphere, who can make suburbs creepy, like Tim Burton or Del Toro.

6. Leave it set in the suburbs. Every country and state 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. Fifteen 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 opposite.The last Saw movie did poorly. Let me in did fairly well for what it was. And the Wolfman remake got an Oscar while Final destination five is struggling. Two Frankenstein films are in development, Dark Shadows is in production as is Harker, and Dracula 3D. Priest did well and Woman in Black is about to hit theaters. Slasher films are out. Gothic horror is back with a vengeance 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 own 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 simple minded audience we might start getting quality horror films again. Some people are already trying and it's working. This film is not.

Like most of the reviewers posting on here, I was a big fan of the original that came out my freshman year in college, and when I heard that yet another 80's movie was being remade, I immediately thought of the new Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street, both of which fell FAR short of the originals. This one is MUCH better. It stays true to the original, and the movie is paced fairly quickly. A great scene is a cool cameo appearance by the original Jerry Dandridge, Chris Sarandon, although this time he is on the other side of the fangs. The setting in the decimated real estate market of Las Vegas was an excellent thought, and makes the movie quite believable and more entertaining. The only disappointment, and it is a small one, is the new Amy is not nearly as scary as a Vampire as the original one was. This film has excellent modern touches to bring it up to date. Well done!

It took me a while to see the original Fright Night (1985). I had one of those mothers who tried to impose her own uneasiness with the horror genre on her children. Actually, she held crazy beliefs like that KISS stood for Knights in Satan's Service and Rush (the Canadian prog-rock band) meant Ruling Under Satan's House and is still afraid to watch the movie Jaws (1975). I'm pretty sure the first time I saw Fright Night '85 it was on cable television. I soon went out and and rented it – and its inferior sequel – and found a movie I really liked. It had the right amount of camp and humor, but it was the slow build to the horror element that made it, to me, a classic.

Don't expect that from the new version. Fright Night '11 takes the same basic premise, but has none of the fun with it. Marti Noxon – the Queen of Mean – transplants the Angelus character from the Buffy/Angel Whedonverse and hands the role to a more talented actor in Colin Farrell. Let me make this perfectly clear: if you are going to see this movie, Colin Farrell is the reason to go. He does truly embody the inhuman menace of the shark from Jaws, but is somewhat hampered by the direction and editing that occasionally sets him up as a vampiric Pepé Le Pew. Though largely robbed of any kind of a backstory or motivation beyond being a vampire – and what little we do get to learn about his kind mostly goes to waste – Farrell does his best to make this movie work.

The problem is that he isn't enough.

Anton Yelchin, an actor who has yet to impress me in any role I've seen him in, is the lackluster lead. We learn that he is the kind of man who would betray his friends and hang out with assholes in order to score a tasty girlfriend, but still nerdy enough to not be able to close the deal. Seemingly, a mere ten minutes – it may have been a little more or less – Yelchin's Charley Brewster is already aware (in a way) that vampires are real. That sucks all of the tension out of the ensuing scenes and helps get the leaden feeling of the movie going. Yelchin does have a couple of good scenes, but he – or director Craig Gillespie – doesn't know what to do with them.

Instead of giving an actor as good a role as they did with Roddy McDowell in the original, David Tennant (as Peter Vincent) is required to start off with what looks like a Ben Stiller impersonation of Johnny Depp in any of the Pirates movies. There is too much unpleasant self-loathing in this new Vincent to make him accessible. He is a pompous coward – which could have worked – that never really is given a chance for redemption; it is up Charley to do that, too.

Imogen Poots (as Amy) and Emily Montague (as Ginger) make for attractive and mildly compelling potential victims of the vampire. Both seem to have unreasonable faith in the Charley character, though this is a problem with the screenplay and not the acting. Much less effective are the other potential victims that wander about the film. Most are disagreeable and unlikeable, and in the case of Dave Franco seem to be too old to fit into the film's high school age group characters. Toni Collette (as Charley's mother, Jane) is largely wasted. She looks good and should be a calm, capable, strong woman that has given Charley his moral compass and conviction. Instead, she is quickly turned into just another potential victim and is removed from the third act in an unsatisfying way (though, to be fair, it does work in the overall story). Chris Sarandon makes an appearance – my one lone laugh of the night – as does Lisa Loeb (???).

The film looks bland and uninspired, and that isn't due to the special effects. The FX work, almost without exception. It is the sets and landscape that robs the movie of any sense of life. Watching a cookie-cutter, Las Vegas McMansion in an oddly isolated subdivision burn provokes no reaction from me, except that many built unwisely during the housing boom. There is no vibrancy to the movie, and that is a problem.

I cannot comment about the 3D. There was a problem with the projection during the previews, and while it was resolved to the point of where it wasn't just blurry, most of the effects that were in 3D never really popped. Some are obviously meant to, and if they do it will add more to the experience. Other than those flashy (and repetitive) sequences, there are only three or four shots that effectively make use of the technology (no, I am not counting the crossbow bolt shot seen in the previews). Gillespie does a great job with one particular shot in a swimming pool early on, then seems to degenerate into some level of amateurism with his shot selection. This is his first feature, and in retrospect, it looked as though he wasn't ready.

My suggestion is to watch the original Fright Night (1985) instead of the cynical, cold-hearted '11 Fright Night. The new one isn't horrible, but like a vampire, it has no life of its own. Colin Farrell is great in what he is allowed to do (I never thought I'd ever write a sentence like that), but the rest of the cast is subdued and improperly handled. This is a solid C effort, but I would have like to have seen a more accomplished director – and definitely no Noxon influence – for this movie.

IT was a pathetic attempt to include scenes and pieces from the original fright night, but at the same time, incorporate a more unique storyline and character development. A 12 year old could have directed something with more flow. It jumps from the beginning with opening chars, then in 15 minutes, rushes to the actual idea that he is a vampire. Colin Farrell must have hated making this movie b/c he did not do nearly a good job as a vamp. Peter Vincent character is a retarded comic relief that makes no sense to the film at all. Its a half-breed retard who tries to be funny and then some. I never seen a more pathetic film that tried to throw everything into one movie. It is a retarded , piece-mewled film that was not worth a movie ticket and wont be worth the time to watch FREE on TV.

Look, listen. I defend a lot of remakes, redo's and reimaging films. Most are actually bad, some are priceless. The best thing I could say about 2011's Fright Night is: At least it's better than the pointless and horrid 1989 sequel. But…not by much.

PLEASE don't watch this movie if you're a fan of the 1985 original. Or, softer: for those Fright Night virgins, watch the first movie even if this might still work on a miniscule level. The only thing this movie had in common with the first movie was: A> the title. B> The Character's Names and C> There's a vampire living next door.

Those three qualities take about 1/1000th of the script. Fill in the blank with new, too serious material. I mean, the original was CAMP, pure and simple. A lot of comedy, some horror and fun. This one takes it too deadly serious, plus they added too much of the annoying "CW" atmosphere. That kiddie, 90210, trend is really starting to get on my nerves. It's not working for people my age, and according to the box office receipts, it's not working for the teen crowd either. So, Hollywood, please dump this idea of bringing back classic horror to the "CW" absent movie-goers.

I haven't even got to the worse part of this movie: The reimagining of the great character, Peter Vincent, now played by a third-rate Russell Brand-Rip-off, David Tennant. He was absolutely awful. It would be in the same category as hiring Pauley Shore as James Bond. Of course, this is coming from some who loved the original Roddy McDowall version. But, besides that, for those who haven't even heard of the original, he was still incredibly lame.

This also goes for the quickly-turned "Evil Ed" character. I do like Christopher Mintz-Plasse, but he's certainly no Stephen Geoffreys from the 1985 film.

This movie's a mess. It had a great scene of the family being evicted by the neighbor vampire and their journey to the Las Vegas strip, but other than that, it's a complete waste of film. It took the original movie's idea (new neighbor is a vampire and kid-Charley Brewster must defend his girl and kill the monster with aid of vampire killer, Peter Vincent) to a new depth of boredom. There's only one Night that's Frightful. Watch that one and skip this atrocity.

Normally I am con 80's remake trend 100%, but Fright Night has Tom Holland on board the original writer and director of the first film unlike the sequel which had no input from Holland. That factor, the strong trailers, previews, and the positive reviews changed my tune on seeing the film.

Thus I threw down 23$ for me and my date and checked it out.

-What my first thought is that it takes some VERY unexpected turns from the original as well as from most vampire films made about a "dracula-type," so you will be in for a lot of surprises when seeing the film.

-The other thing is that Jerry (not named Dandrigde in the film, just Jerry) is quite different from our Danrige. He is about the least ambitious head vampire I've come across and seems purely bent on survival much less showing off ambiance in his surroundings. If Dandrige was white collar this Ferrel incarceration is blue collar to the bone. He's just a beer-guzzling, chick-nailin', wide-screen TV watching schmoe. And his house illustrates this with it's sparse set designs and unfinished interiors. Dandridge was a snob showing off his Reagan-ite values and high-end living: a collector of fine art and haughty furniture. Jerry Ferrel is just trying to get by. -No Evil Ed,just Ed man or Edward Lee as the teacher calls him during role call.Well boo to that, but it works for the most part. Ed is more of Charley's past life friend, since Charlie is a 'cool guy' now getting hot babes and hanging with the upper-crust of high school society. Ed represents Charley's geek past and *early spoilers* is the first investigator into the Jerry's tomfoolery. Ed wants to tell Charley, but Charely blows him off and doesn't return his calls. Odd, Charley doesn't own a cell phone, since Ed has to call Charley's house... So what does Ed do to get Charley to change his rejection tune? Threaten to send a video to the entire senior class that shows Charley LARPING with Ed and some other dweeb. *Major Spoiler* Ed does not last as long as the original in human form and could have used some development IMHO.

-Supporting characters are, I suppose, there to, uhhh, support, and are pretty much caricatures: the geeks, the socialites, the modern mom, the stripper, the pretty girl, and even Peter Vincent (demystified, jaded entertainer). They all revolve around Charley and Jerry, who are the more complex and colorful characters.

STRENGTHS:

-Easily, Jerry Ferrel's screen presence - I'm glad he is now playing an antagonist and can show his chops cuz he seems like a shady guy in private. I've already talked about how he is written and he executes it well while taunting and killin' innocent folk. He pulls off what a villain character portrayel is supposed to do - you want him to die!! And when I say die, I mean in excruciating pain for his arrogance and overall evil-dome in oppressing society with being deceitful and his abominable acts.

-Directing - this is really one suspenseful film and the scene architecture for this type of attempt is marvelous. I am glad they just didn't rely on technology in creature/gore effects and went for much more difficult aspect in shooting: creating tension. Eerily similar to Holland's work in Psycho II.

-Plotting. What can I say? The film keeps you guessing. If you know the original by heart, you're in for a lot of surprises. The story takes a lot of unexpected turns, and end up thinking 'how will they get out of this?' or 'how is this going to get back on track to the original's outline?' -Jump scenes. There's some great, don't-see-it-coming, dare I say 'frights' some of them involving the three-D quite well. I don't think the film wastes the three-D potential like many others and doesn't really distract from the film except for maybe one exception.

Weaknesses: -The bullying of non-evil Ed, it seemed very stereotypical and somewhat forced. Necessary? Not really. Ed could have used more screen time early on as well. Getting beat up for being on the wrong street? More like grade school than high school, especially in a newly developed suburban area.

-Certain instances of effects didn't work. Like at one point Jerry is lifting a van on his back like Supes and it doesn't look like it has weight at all or that he was connected to it - there were also some other effects involving cars that looked like unfinished CGI. But over-all the CGI isn't over-indulgent. Some of the fang-work was kinda obvious though.

-Peter Vincent's wife. Ugh, so much slapschticky dialog exchanged between the two. It's not bad acting. It's just lame comedy, but I am snob when it comes to this, however I thought it was hackey. Basically the two-some do 'can't get it up' exchanges and other such dated banter. Comic relief fodder that came up snake eyes.

-The relationship between Peter and Charley. I really didn't buy the comradery, so when their side-by-side fighting the vampire and getting' all jokey, you really don't feel the pay-off. I suppose this has to do with Vincent's not so great character-arc. I thought his transformation of going from skeptic to believer was sloppily handled, which is the aspect that puts the first one head-and-shoulders above this reboot.

So the reboot is, overall, a roller-coaster thrill-ride, not a charming film where you re-visit over and over because you love the characters (aka the original Fright Night), but it is an effective bumpy ride.

By now everyone has vented their frustrations about remake hell that all movies, especially horror movies, are going through. It's no secret that most people seem to hate the idea that FRIGHT NIGHT even got remade at all. I'm a genuine big fan of the original as Mr. Frights was actually inspired by my boyhood love for the character of PETER VINCENT. I on the other hand, am always willing to give something the benefit of the doubt before decrying how terrible it might be.

I was very much looking forward to this movie. It has some of my favorite actors in it. It looked like fun in the trailers and the Comic Con teaser video. It is horror. And I have a strong fondness for the original film and it's sequel. I loved Roddy McDowall and I love David Tennant from Dr. Who. When I got passes I was pretty excited. I tried to get a bunch of friends to go, but no one was interested. THAT RIGHT THERE BLOWS!! If you can't get people interested in seeing a film for FREE, what kind of chance does it have at being a success if it's any good, and what kind of chance will horror films from here out have if they keep posting crappy box office stats? I say complain if you want, but if you're a horror fan, if you're a fan of the original Fright Night film or any of the other stuff I just mentioned, then your ass should be in a theater seat watching this movie! So, are you curious yet? Do you want to know how bad the movie was? Well, you pre-screening critics will be disappointed to know it was FREAKING AWESOME!!! I don't think there was a time in my life where a remake took me so by surprise and body slammed all my expectations producing such an amazing film. And you can quote me on that and on everything I say from here on in this review.

I went in thinking that it might be fun but that's about it and left absolutely raving mad about the movie. The people who made this put together a genuinely terrifying leap from the original film to a brand new story that happened to have some characters named the same, in the same sort of situations, but completely different from the original. In that way, I can't honestly say it was a remake. There is no shot for shot anything, the characters are all different in a big way, there are more characters to consider, the things that go down are not the same from the 80's movie, and the differences don't stop there. Oh and don't be worried because every change that was made WORKED!! The story goes that CHARLEY BREWSTER lives in Vegas and that infamous vampire neighbor moves in next door and so Charley boy has to figure out how to kill him. That's the basics. He still has his girl Amy, his buddy 'Evil Ed' and a host of other characters as well as the great PETER VINCENT who is a Las Vegas magician act the likes of Criss Angel.There are even some surprises to be had as the movie progresses that I really want to leave alone because if your reaction is anything like my reaction then you'll appreciate it more having me not spoil it for you.

Colin Farrell is brilliant as Jerry the vampire. As I had hoped, David Tennant is brilliant as Peter Vincent, but does his own thing with it, not at all trying to take over anything from Roddy. Anton Yelchin, from Star Trek (he played Checkov), was really good too as was the rest of the cast.

The creators behind this new film (Craig Gillespie; Marti Noxon; & of course Tom Holland) took a lot of risks and put a lot more horror into this film. While still delivering on some well placed laughs, the movie is way more intense than the original. There's not as much hokey to it which serves it well to set it apart from Fright Night of the 80's. I have to say that at parts, this movie actually scared me and it's been forever since I've seen a horror film that could do that! This movie is a refreshing departure from remake hell even though it is based on another film and has the same sort of characters. I was really impressed with this production and it was even more impressive in 3D which I advise everyone to check it out that way. I mean horror movies are why 3D was created man!!! Don't miss out on that. Seriously. The kills alone, the deaths of the vamps alone is worth the 3D.

I want to rave on more about how awesome and brilliant and amazing this new movie is, but I can't give anything away. All I can do is tell you guys how wonderful this thing turned out to be and plead with you all to give it a chance and go see it! If there was EVER a horror film that deserved support and big box office numbers in recent years, it's this one. Mr. Frights would not steer you wrong, trust in me horror peeps, if you miss this in theaters you'll be spanking your own hams for it for a long long time. I'm already overly, excitedly, anticipating the DVD release.Hell, if I had the time I'd go see it three more times.

• Mr. Frights http://about.me/mrfrights

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 shocking thing in the world? It's so overused in culture today that I throw up a little every time I hear it and this movie had an abundance. Also, any remake 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 what the hell I just heard. Hey, thanks also for turning Peter Vincent, made famous by Roddy McDowall, into a carbon copy of Russel Brand. Jesus Christ people are getting dumber by the minute in Hollywood. Another pointless remake to capitalize on 3D technology, which will be forgotten in a few years time, along with this movie.

Tom Holland's original is so much fun because its heart (no pun intended) is in the right place. It's a campy, funny, and scary tribute to the movies and stories that inspired it. Each of the main characters feels real, with his or her own identity. The film takes its time exploring and developing each character, and by the end we care what happens to them.

Of course, having McDowall and Sarandon in the original was extremely important to give the film the right tone. Colin Farrell is perfectly cast in the new ones, yet he literally sleep walks through film because not much is expected from him but to snarl and mock both his prey and the audience, and he'd better make sure to stand in the right place, so that the 3-D effect can be properly showcased. It's really a terrible waste because he does have a dangerous presence, and he certainly fits the image of a player. His best scenes have him challenging and taunting his victims because he knows how much more powerful he is.

Sadly, everyone else in the film is a caricature, from Charly's best friend to the Vegas Vampire Killer, with his own set of demons. In fact, there is much that is NOT explained, and we are just supposed to eat it up. Great actors are wasted, some decent special props and special effects are definitely underutilized, and as everyone knows by now, there is just something special about the vampire lore, with its ritualistic killings, its ties to immortality and sexuality, and what amazing adversaries they can be. As I said before, Farrell is probably better than Sarandon in the lead role, but there is not much for him to chew.

A final note on the use of 3-D. It wasn't really necessary since there was so much more than could have been accomplished with a tighter, better developed script and director who would have thought a little more of his audience. This film is the equivalent of those disposable plastic fans that annoy both the person who wears them and those of us who have to look at them.

Pretty dull entertainment.

The Tom Holland's 1985 "Fright Night" is one of the most charming films of the cinema history. The story is funny and the humor is witty, with the handsome Chris Sarandon performing one of his best roles and William Ragsdale, Amanda Bearse and specially Roddy McDowall hilarious. In summary, the 1985 original film may be considered a new classic, worshiped by a legion of fans.

This teen remake is simply awful, with explosions, car chase and a cynical and charmless Colin Farrell in the role of Jerry Danridge. People who have positively voted in this garbage have certainly not watched the original film. My vote is one (awful).

Title (Brazil): "A Hora do Espanto" ("The Fright Hour")

Some of you may recall a dark little gem of a movie from 1985 called Fright Night. Nearly as funny as it was scary, Fright Night took the basic scenario from Rear Window and turned it into a vampire tale. What if, the story proposed, you discovered that your new neighbor was one of the undead? Would anybody believe you? And what would you do when the vampire came after you? The result was one of the finest horror films of the 80s, and one of the best vampire films ever.

Fast forward to 2011 and the inevitable remake. Let's be clear, I don't inherently dislike remakes. I believe it is possible to take a good story and re-interpret it in a new and creative way. Occasionally, the remake is even better than the original.

This is not one of those occasions.

Directed by Craig Gillespie (who helmed the outstanding sleeper hit of 2007, Lars and the Real Girl), the 2011 Fright Night retains the basic plot from the original but changes things in all the wrong places. We still have a teenage boy who learns that his next door neighbor is a vampire, but everything else is a radical departure from the 1985 film. The original movie created a creepy, American Gothic sort of atmosphere and populated it with main characters that were easy to identify with. The filmmakers were obviously familiar with the old Hammer vampire classics and played off of the audience's undoubted familiarity with them as well. The humor was omnipresent but subtle and developed naturally from the dialogue and character interaction. And when it was time to be scary, it was scary indeed.

The new film doesn't bother trying to be very Gothic, American or otherwise. Set in Las Vegas, of all places, the movie has a grungy feel to it which is probably intentional, even though it undercuts the film's mood more than once. Informed not by Hammer horror but by Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Twilight, the remake tries to appeal to fans of those stories while still trying to duplicate what succeeded so well in the original. It doesn't work, anymore than baking a cherry pie with coconuts would. Blech.

More's the pity because the cast is absolutely outstanding: Anton Yelchin, David Tennant, Colin Farrell, Imogen Poots. Every one of them plays their part well, and for the most part they even seem to be enjoying themselves (especially Tennant, a renowned Shakespearean actor who here plays a very un-Shakespearean character). The thespian talent on hand should guarantee a good film, even with a bad script and questionable direction. But the cast's best efforts just aren't enough to overcome the weaknesses of the story itself.

The final product isn't particularly scary, and the humor, though incessant, is generally too vulgar and unimaginative to ever really be funny. Even the special effects, heavily reliant on CGI, are inferior to those of the original. There's no reason why Fright Night 2011 had to be a bad movie, especially not with the incredible cast. Ironically, in their desire to resurrect a genre classic, the filmmakers took Fright Night and drained it of everything that gave it life.