Fright Night (15)

Film

Horror films

Fright Night, 3D

Time Out rating:

<strong>Rating: </strong><span class='lf-avgRating'>2</span>/5

User ratings:

<strong>Rating: </strong><span class='lf-avgRating'>2</span>/5
Rate this
 

Time Out says

Tue Aug 30 2011

Although written by ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ scribe Marti Noxon, this lifeless 3D remake of Tom Holland’s 1985 horror-comedy never matches the original’s creaky, camp charm. This time it’s suburban teenager Charlie Brewster (Anton Yelchin) who’s sceptical when his nerdy high school pal ‘Evil’ Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) insists that Charlie’s handsome new neighbour, Jerry Dandridge (Colin Farrell) is a vampire. And Peter Vincent, the allegedly clued-up adult, from whom Charlie and Ed seek advice about crosses, garlic and holy water, has metamorphosed from Roddy McDowall’s ageing ex-horror movie actor-cum-TV host into a flamboyant, leather-clad Las Vegas magician – bizarrely played by David Tennant as if he’s channelling Russell Brand’s twin brother. Farrell is sexy as hell, so it’s easy to see why Charlie’s mother (Toni Collette) and his hitherto chaste girlfriend (Imogen Poots) fall under his spell. But this is a boring revamp, with dull 3D effects, insipid teenage protagonists and only sporadically scary outbursts of neck-biting, crucifix-wielding and staking through the heart.
0

Reviews

Add +

Release details

Rated:

15

UK release:

Fri Sep 2, 2011

Duration:

106 mins

Users say

0
<strong>Rating: </strong><span class='lf-avgRating'>0</span>/5
LiveReviews|9
1 person listening
Thomas Noctor

An insult to the original, even though the cameo of the original vampire was an input. Just hated it, rubbish

entertainedfilmgoer

I enjoyed this - particularly all the performances. The 3D was pretty bad (but it always is with live action, isn't it?) - but some nice shocks and creepiness, and a lot of humour. A nice diversion and no need for anyone to get their knickers in a twist over it!

Roman

I agree with previous comments that 3D was unnecessary but again i didn't see a movie with good 3D effects. Despite that I really enjoy this movie, a lot of tension and good humour , well sarcastic in the moments and smart on edges. If you enjoy movies like Zombieland or Kick-ass definetly must-go production.

Roman

I agree with previous comments that 3D was unnecessary but again i didn't see a movie with good 3D effects. Despite that I really enjoy this movie, a lot of tension and good humour , well sarcastic in the moments and smart on edges. If you enjoy movies like Zombieland or Kick-ass definetly must-go production.

Marsellus

I didn't think the film was that great but then again it was nice to watch a vampire film that wasn't pretentiously stuck up its own arse (like Twilight). There were some funny moments from the supporting cast (McLovin, Dave Franco and D-Money from Modern Family) and the missus was all over Colin Farrell. Other than that, the film is fairly forgettable. One thing that annoyed me was that the film is only available to watch in 3D, forcing people (like me) who don't like 3D to stump up the extra cash for something they don't want. Also, the film had the crappest use of 3D I've ever seen. It wasn't even a post-conversion so there really is no excuse for the poor effects.

dragster

I never saw the '85 version so I can't make balanced view as to how crap or otherwise this offering is in comparison. What did surprise me was just how minimal the plot was, the simplest shortened reworking of the early films with the only twist being that the "Helsing" character is not pushing things on from the start. Some moderately detailed transformation scenes, including an unexpected one of a reasonable facsimile "Captain Jack" (Sparrow) type persona into something more recognisably Tennant-ish and I did wonder whether they might force him to say "quick, get a doctor". Agreed that the 3d was wasted. In the lower third of the films I've seen this year.

scrumpyjack

Wow Mandy! Thats WAY too much time and dedication to give to a film like this or the original! All that needs to be said is it isn't very good and (as it is filmed in 3D, not post converted) it contains the dullest 3D in history. Look, it's been a good few years now. Dark 3D = NO, Light 3D = YES, so as 90% of this is set in the dark, no 3D please. Clear?! also, if anyon's worried by the Tennant factor, he isn't actually bad here. Does anyone know when a scary horror is due, by the way? 5/10

mandy

I don't think I can put into words just how much I hate this movie. Initially I was looking forward to it. When I first saw the posters of David Tennant in his costume about 6 months ago I thought it was a brilliant change. I thought perhaps he was a has-been Buffy style actor or has Been Hugh Jackman Van Helsing actor, the way the original Peter Vincent was a has-been Hammer Horror actor. I loved the idea of David Tennant as Peter Vincent. When Marti Noxon said that horror movie hosts don't exist anymore and that's why she changed Peter Vincent to a stage magician I felt she missed the point. Movie hosts were NEVER fashionable. There are more now than there were in 1985, in fact, the character was being fired when the original movie began. Then I read the remake script and I was disappointed. I ranted and raved but I hoped it was just a rough draft script. I hoped I was wrong about it. Then I saw a clip of David Tennant and I had hope again. But then I saw the ComicCon Q and A and the director revealed he couldn't recall the plot of the original and he felt this was a good thing. This filled me with dread. Then I saw the actual film and I was thoroughly disappointed. David Tennant's attractive but that's not enough to save it from bad writing. Charley is selfish and self-absorbed. It's cynical and judgmental of teenagers of today, it's kind of insulting. Peter Vincent isn't very well developed and neither is Jerry Dandridge. He's turned into a two dimensional psychopath with no real motivation other than to kill. Even Dracula had a plan! In fact he had very elaborate plans in the novel. These vampires in this remake can't even shapeshift into a wolf, bat or mist. They can't enthrall minds and they can't even show up on digital camera (which don't have mirrors by the way). How is stripping them of powers and giving them more limitations an improvement? And isn't it the slightest bit annoying that a character in the movie has to tell us how modern Jerry Dandridge is just because he has his minion say sir instead of master? The dialogue in the movie is awful too. The F word is used more than Charley's name. I don't care if a film is loaded with foul language but it's so over used that it's annoying. If the word banana was used so much I'd be just as annoyed. 10 things that would improve this remake: 1. Tom Holland as the writer or another writer familiar with Dracula style vampires. Even the writer of Dracula 2000 or Van 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 because it's freaky and makes the vampires all the more powerful. 4. Leave the hint of humanity in that Jerry was looking for the look-a-like of a lost love. This gives a twinge of sympathy and also makes it all the more twisted and frightening when he does something evil because you're taken off guard. 5. Find a director who actually is fan of the original and remembers it fondly and knows Gothic atmosphere, who can make suburbs creepy, like Tim Burton or Del Toro. 6. Leave it set in the suburbs. Every country has suburbs. Most places don't have their own Vegas. 7. Make sure the hero is relatable and a decent human being. A self-absorbed tool who abandons friends for popularity just doesn't cut it. 8. A better budget. 15 million is pocket change today by Hollywood standards. 9. Knowledge of what is popular in the genre. The director and writer of this remake THINK things like Saw and Final destination are in and Gothic is old. Actually it's the opposite. Let Me in did very well. The last Saw movie did lower than expected. The Wolfman remake got an oscar while Final destination 5 is struggling. Dark Shadows, Harker, Dracula 3D and Haunted Mansion are in production right now. Lady in Black with Hrarry Potter's Daniel Radcliffe is getting released through Hammer Horror in a few months. There are two Frankenstein films in production and Priest did well. Slasher films are out. Gothic horror is back with a vengence and the ones who made this remake are really out of touch to not know that. 10. An effort to NOT appeal to any particular demographic. Notice how Tim Burton's films are always successful even when people complain about how formulaic they've become. He never tires to appeal to a demographic. He makes films that appeal to his tastes and to Hell with what the studio thinks kids want today. Sleepy Hollow was going to be a generic, low-budget slasher film with no romance or atmospehre but then Tim Burton got a hold of it and added the supernatural, added the love story, and added the Hammer Horror-esque atmosphere and he made it work where it would have failed. If Hollywood would just stop trying to condescend to what it thinks is a simple minded audience we might start getting quality horror films again. Some people are already trying and it's working. This film is not.

Ilya K

Nigel, I should expect that you will be receiving a visit from several very large blokes wearing Dreamworks and Disney jackets, encouraging you to "reevaluate" your review...seeing as many of your compatriots around the world seemed to have already received such a visit and immediately complied. I guess all it takes nowadays to reach the 18-24 crowd is drop as many F bombs in the movie as possible, and not give your lead actor much to do except make funny faces and twist his head around like he's having a seizure. We avoided it like the plague in the states...you guys would be wise to do the same. I've seen better movies on the Sci-Fi channel!