Fright Night (2011) User Reviews (297)

Damn good vampire fun.....

[blackmambamark · 7/10 · 21 August 2011]

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.

like the original, not without flaws but with a stupendous cast and sense of fun

[Quinoa1984 · 7/10 · 6 July 2016]

At the time it came out, a remake of Fright Night seemed like one of those unnecessary movies - what was so wrong with the Tom Holland original, which gave us a subtle/over-the-top performance from Chris Sarandon and some cheeky humor from Roddy McDowell as a vampire named Jerry and the would-be 'celebrity' vampire hunter? Did it need an update? But upon the sudden and to put it mildly tragic death of Anton Yelchin, I thought it was certainly time to watch it. And among a cast that features really major talents like Colin Farrell, David Tennant and Toni Collette, Yelchin holds his own. More than that, he is necessary for the movie to work: he has to be believable as a young guy who starts off somewhat unsympathetic (trying to be 'cool' by ditching his nerdy friend for an attractive girl), and over the course of the story has to man up and not do what his dad did, which was ditch the family behind.

Yelchin plays the 'straight man' to a point where we can find him believable as being both completely scared and yet ballsy enough to go for what he has to go through to save and protect the ones he cares about - his mother and then, when she's taken by this 'Jerry' fella, Amy - and it's interesting to see this *after* Green Room, where he played a somewhat similar character though in a different setting (actually substitute Nazis for vampires and you got a somewhat similar premise, with Yelchin as the vulnerable but strong-willed and tough protagonist). If you've ever liked this actors work, this is a must-see of his.

Looking at 2011 Fright Night on its own terms, outside of viewing it as some kind of after the fact thing for Yelchin, it's... good. Better than expected, really, as far as these kind of remakes can go (in other hands it could be easily disposable trash like Sorority Row or something). With Yelchin there as the main core for the audience to put their 'what would I do if' perspective on, Farrell and, in the second half of the film, Tennant get to have the time of their lives in these roles. Farrell is so evil he even eats an apple to show off how much of a nasty fella he is! Though it may not possibly require, shall one say, 'range', it takes real screen presence and a sense of menace, and I think Farrell makes this a memorable vampire as far as a) sex appeal (I mean, women and some men wouldn't kick him out of bed), and b) when he gets nasty and violent, the threat feels real. For Tennant, it's not a complicated character either - a fraud of a "vampire hunter" who is mostly for Las Vegas show - but he also gets to have fun in the role and can deliver exposition that is not in the least boring or distracting. And Toni Collette is... Toni Collette, good in all of her scenes. Even McLovin' and Dave Franco give some good supporting turns, turning cliché parts into something with personality.

At any rate these characters are put into a setting that is rather novel: having it in/around Las Vegas makes it so that it's believable that people would be out and about largely at night, being the primary time vampires get their food. I liked seeing that and that it was used to good effect. Where the movie loses me most is in certain parts of the execution of the action. I don't know if it's because I'm tired of wasteful or lackluster CGI, but any time Farrell or any of the other vampires "Fully turn" (which doesn't seem to have a lot of logic, it only seems to occur when they're extra mad) it looks really bad and fake, and a particular over the top car chase, which is attempted in part in one "long" take ala Spielberg's War of the Worlds (no coincidence I think it's a Dreamworks production, the setting and lack of/absentee father seem like Spielberg notes). Practical effects could have taken more time or been more intensive, but the results would last longer and not take one out of the movie like here.

If one can look at the substance of Fright Night it does work - the screenplay comes from Buffy the Vampire Slayer creative Marti Noxon, and the sense of whip-smart timing in the dialog and come-backs about how people look at vampires is especially funny, even from Peter Vincent most of all - and is a fitting tribute to the original. That film had a little more deadpan wit due to McDowell as Peter Vincent, though it too had some dated things as well (maybe in a cool way) like 80's synth music. Will this hold up so well? I don't know. But for what it is, it's entertaining and successful for being bloody (it looks as if the blood is not all CGI which is good) and knowing of the genre (it's self-conscious of vampire lore and movies, but it doesn't wear you out on it like the other 2011 post-modern horror, Scre4m)

Not a Bad Remake

[view_and_review · 6/10 · 6 March 2022]

1985 is a popular year for remakes. Some of the movies remade from that year in one form or another are "Weird Science," "Teen Wolf," "Mad Max," "Day of the Dead," and "Fright Night." It's rare that a remake is as good, or better than the original. "Fright Night" was respectable, but not as good.

The movie takes place in a tiny suburb outside of Las Vegas. Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin) and his mom Jane (Toni Collette) live next door to Jerry (Colin Farrell), the vampire. Charley and his mom are wholly unaware of this. Charley is far too consumed with his new life of popularity now that he has the hot girl, Amy (Imogen Poots), as a girlfriend. He is made aware of his neighbors night time activities by his nerdy ex-best friend, Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), vampire tracker extraordinaire. When Ed went missing Charley decided to act.

Because I saw the original and it was such a classic, this version only reminds me how much better the original was. The original was funnier and quirkier while "Fright Night" 2011 goes for a more serious approach. They threw Christopher Mintz-Plasse in there, gave him a few funny lines, and dubbed this a comedy. It was hardly a comedy. So now, instead of a rather plain, yet funny girlfriend, Amy (who was played by Amanda Bearse in 1985--well known as Al Bundy's neighbor Marcy Darcy in "Married with Children"), we get a hot-and-she-knows-it Amy who looks like a clout chaser and didn't have a single funny line.

The Peter Vincent (David Tennant) this time also wasn't as appealing. Peter Vincent was the Vegas showman who Charley went to for help against Jerry. In '85 Peter Vincent was hosting a fledgling late night vampire TV show. He was played by Roddy McDowall, an older man with this funny look of fear on his face nearly all the time. 2011 Peter Vincent is a younger British man who drinks, swears, and is surrounded by scantily clad women. He was comedic, but he wasn't funny.

So, as I mentioned, the 2011 version is not as bad as a lot of remakes out there, but the original is still better.

Free on Tubi.

Fright Night

[skybrick736 · 6/10 · 24 January 2015]

Fright Night is a remake from an underrated 1985 horror gym that doesn't get near the praise it should. However, I watched the remake open minded and was pleased with a lot of new elements to the movie. There are a few nice plot twists and I really liked the main leads especially Colin Farrell and Imogen Poots. I liked that it was a bit more modern and that the setting took place in Las Vegas. It set up nicely the fact that Peter Vincent's magic show was one of the famous Vegas highlights. The movie has a few flaws though one being a poor job on character development for the three friends, which I thought they could have extended a few scenes on in the beginning. Also, it was a huge bummer seeing the fake computer generated vampire effects. That was a huge turnoff that made me say "UGH!" out loud a few times. The Fright Night remake (6/10) is not total rubbish but it's really nothing to seek out.

Fright Night" just might be perfect for those looking for a dose of nostalgia and some highly suspenseful, fun entertainment.

[garethvk · 19 August 2011]

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

Fright Night's back!

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 7/10 · 24 August 2011]

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

Well security is a little lax since everybody got their throat torn out.

[hitchcockthelegend · 7/10 · 1 July 2012]

Fright Night is directed by Craig Gillespie and written by Tom Holland. It stars Anton Yelchin, Colin Farrell, David Tennant, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Imogen Poots and Toni Collette. Music is by Ramin Djawadi and cinematography by Javier Aguirresarobe. Film is a remake of the 1985 film of the same name, also written by Tom Holland, it sees Yelchin as Charley Brewster, a teenager living in a suburb of Las Vegas who finds the new handsome neighbour, Jerry Dandridge (Farrell) is actually a blood sucking vampire. With nobody believing him and the vampire homing in on his mother and girlfriend, Charley turns to enigmatic playboy magician Peter Vincent (Tennant) for help.

Ah remakes, a word that often spells trouble in film fan circles, especially when populated by the horror faithful. So no surprise, then, that Fright Night has been met with much division whilst hardly making waves at the box office (it made a small profit when various costs were taken off the gross). Yet it did receive some favourable reviews in critic's offices, where like myself they feel that this more than lives up to the original, which was fun and scary but hardly what you call a horror comedy masterpiece. I often have my rose tinted spectacles on for the likes of the 85 Fright Night, but whether we choose to accept it or not, they were real fun films back then, but that was because they were viewed through younger eyes. Now when viewing in the haze of nostalgia, it's not hard to see why some modern film makers feel a remake is possible and can work; Fright Night is one such case.

This is no masterpiece either, it drags for the first third and the CG malarkey really doesn't offer anything particularly worthy to the film's substance. In fact the transformation sequences are quite frankly weak. You don't have to be a nostalgist to lament the absence of a Bottin or Baker. But for all its little missteps, it still rounds out as great fun and scores high in the last third with the well blended mix of comedy, suspense and terror. The dialogue, too, is very enjoyable, with many lines bringing the chuckles. The casting is very good, particularly with the core three characters of Charley, Jerry and Peter. It's great to see Farrell having such fun, free of emotional character restraints, he just lets rip with a sexy and vengeful performance. Yelchin is just so likable, a rising blockbuster star after turns in Star Trek and Terminator Salvation (he would sadly be killed in a freak accident in 2016), here he crafts top work as Charley shifts from geeky teen into babe magnet bravado. While Tennant slots in and steals the movie with a glorious excess of profanity, sexuality and witticisms that befit the nature of the piece.

Next up Farrell went serious and threatened to run the wrath of sci-fi fans with his star turn in the Total Recall remake. Here he comes out of this horror remake, like the film in general, with good credit. So those 80s teens like me should shake off the dust and strap themselves in to a seat for this particular ride. It may not surpass the original, but it is every bit its modern equal, and that is something that newcomers to the Fright Night world should hopefully rejoice in. 7/10

Fun vampire movie with a great cast!

[kamfg · 7/10 · 14 September 2021]

Everything one could want in a comedy-horror movie. Perfect amount of comedy and action and fast paced with a solid soundtrack. If you like this movie, watch Odd Thomas that also stars the late Anton Yelchin in another comedy/horror movie.

An Excellent Remake

[Curt-Rowlett · 9/10 · 17 August 2018]

Yes, I am a fan of the original 1985 version of Fright Night, so much so that I consider it as one of the best in the genre of vampire movies.

I am not a fan of the majority of reboots/remakes of films, particularly when I feel that the original was great. So I had little hope that this version would be any good.

I'm happy to report that I was mistaken. This new version of the story is done quite well, and adds in some new elements to the plot that I found refreshing. Actor Colin Farrell is sufficiently creepy in the role of Jerry, the vampire. And I liked the fact that the Peter Vincent character was morphed into a cheesy Las Vegas act and that he gets forced into becoming an actual - though largely reluctant - vampire hunter. Nice work, Nine stars!

Not a bad remake

[cricketbat · 7/10 · 20 July 2018]

Fright Night isn't a bad remake. This movie has some moments of real suspense, but it also gets a little ridiculous at times. Colin Farrell does a great job as a predatory vampire. The forced 3D moments were distracting, though. Those visual effects looked really corny in 2D. However, I'd still recommend this as a fun vampire movie for anyone who doesn't like the sparkly ones.

If you thought the previews looked cool, like I did...

[Sharicespieces · 5/10 · 20 August 2011]

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.

Welcome to Fright Night 2011

[lakini71 · 8/10 · 20 August 2011]

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.

Is solid and a hit

[alexcomputerkid · 7/10 · 12 August 2013]

wish I had seen the original Fright Night from 1985. Usually you don't watch a remake until you see the original but with Fright Night it was different for me. This remake of Fright Night is one of the few films that I liked that is aimed towards my (teenage) age group.

With the same idea as the original, a teenager finds that his neighbor is a vampire. With many ideas involving teen themes, this turns into survival story in the Las Vegas area.

Unlike most remakes which usually have bad casts, this film is just the opposite. Known actor Anton Yelchin is the lead with rising stars Christopher Mintz-Plasse and David Franco in supporting roles. Established star Colin Farrell plays the villain who is a vampire let loose into a cast full of teens. The vampires in this movie are of an old style and not like the modern vampires of recent movies and I appreciated and liked this.

The Las Vegas setting provides cool hip scenes as well as some desert scenes which is kind of different for the horror genre. The movie also has an ending that puts everything into perspective and closes the film very nicely. All of this makes this film really stand out.

Fright Night is solid and a hit. I think it is one of the top remakes ever.

lifeless disposable remake of a beloved cult classic

[nevthur · 2/10 · 19 August 2011]

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 don't get all the super positive reviews on here

[jritty · 24 August 2011]

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.

Solid enough vampire yarn

[bowmanblue · 7/10 · 22 February 2015]

I can't actually remember the original nineteen eighties Fright Night. I did watch it somewhere around 1989 and promptly forgot it. I don't know what that means - either I didn't think much of it or my memory's shot to bits.

The original is still heralded as a classic by many horror fans, but, as I couldn't remember it, I went into this remake with little to no expectations. And, from what I saw, it copied the original pretty well. It didn't do a shot-by-shot remake, but kept the overall feel of the first movie (based on what I've read about its predecessor), i.e. a blend of comedy, horror and gore.

Maybe this remake would have sunk without a trace, but it's lent a hand by a pretty decent cast. A good start is A-lister Colin Farrell as the enjoyably evil vampire, then you have ex Dr Who David Tennant, Toni Collette, Imogen Poots, Anton Yelchin and the always amusing Christopher Mintz-Plasse.

Charming Colin Farrell moves in next door to Anton Yelchin and it's not long before he's 'outed' as a vampire. Soon people start getting their throats torn out and a decent amount of bloodshed is to follow.

Fright Night is nothing too revolutionary, but vampires have been so in fashion of late that it's hard to find a completely original movie in the genre. It's a popcorn flick. It you fancy something frothy and lightweight then you might enjoy this (alternatively, the ladies may just fancy Colin Farrell - I'm sure they'll be happy with what they get).

Fright Night (2011) gets a respectable 7/10. If you're tired of seeing vampires that sparkle in sunlight, try this one. It's old school throat-tearing.

Watchable, but the Fangs are Blunt Compared to the Sharper Original

[By-TorX-1 · 6/10 · 3 May 2017]

Fright Night 2011 is not a bad film, but it is not a great film, and it is a pale imitation of the original 1985 cult classic. When producing a remake, an obvious pressure is to make changes and appeal to a current crowd, and there lies the problem with Fright Night 2011 - there is no mystery. The charm of the original is Charley's gradual suspicion of what should not be - that his next-door neighbour is a vampire - and the obvious disbelief his fears elicit in all he tells. In the remake there is no real build up, we see a vampire attack from the outset and it is Ed who reveals the vampire, in one clumsy lets-get-on-with-it info-dump, and so Charley merely becomes a slayer. Colin Farrell is an actor who is not devoid of charisma, but he doesn't nail Chris Sarandon's urbane and hypnotic charm (and even more so when he becomes a CGI vamp), while David Tennant's Peter Vincent is less Roddy McDowell (but who could match the peerless Mr. McDowell?) and more of a fusion of Russell Brand and Captain Jack Sparrow. Furthermore, the 2011 version of Vincent fails due to a weird quirk revealed later in the film. This is so because when Charley first comes to the great magician he is greeted with mockery and rejection, so far, so as with the original, but then we later learn that Vincent's mother was the victim of a vampire, so why would he be so quick to disbelieve and dismiss Charley? He knows, all too tragically, that vampires exist, so why not at least question the lad before giving him the elbow? This is, of course, for dramatic purposes, but it sets off an unravelling of the plot when Peter's story is revealed and then pondered upon as Vincent's scepticism makes no sense, and so only further draws an unfavourable comparison with the charm of the original.

Absolutely Pathetic Remake

[maraven12 · 6/10 · 20 August 2011]

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.

Not Bad but Fangs Aren't As Sharp As the Original.

[anaconda-40658 · 7/10 · 3 September 2015]

Fright Night (2011): Dir: Craig Gillespie / Cast: Anton Yelchin, Colin Farrell, David Tennant, Imogen Poots, Christopher Mintz-Plasse: Remake of the awesome 1985 original that effectively exploited the vampire clichés. This version isn't as effective yet it gives it a worthy attempt. Anton Yelchin plays Charlie Brewster, a high school student who discovers that classmates are going missing. When his friend Evil Ed suddenly disappears after suspecting that Brewster's new neighbor is a vampire, he decides to investigate himself and discovers gruesome results. Unlike the original film, the characters of Charlie and Ed seem at different positions here in terms of being convinced of foul play. Yelchin will obviously have to face off with his vampire neighbor Jerry Dandridge but his investigation provides a few suspenseful moments. Colin Farrell plays Dandridge who lures young women into his house where the screams can be heard through Charlie's window. His tactic to lure Charlie out of his house is a nice new touch that results in a road chase. David Tennant plays a younger version of Peter Vincent but he brings comic touches to the theatre horror performer in a British Eric Idle kind of way. He is a louse and a celebrity of selfish means until Charlie seeks his help. Imogen Poots plays Charlie's girlfriend Amy who is struggling to gain commitment from him until she is targeted by Jerry. Christopher Mintz-Plasse plays Evil Ed quite opposite to Stephen Geoffrey's version. The ending is over the top but this is a well made remake to a film that made this particular night frightening to begin with. Score: 7 / 10

Return Of The Vampires

[TourettesPersonal · 8/10 · 10 September 2011]

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.

Fun movie, good re-imagination

[cls0680 · 7/10 · 4 November 2015]

A lot of people have slammed this for not being true to the first one, but I think that's the good part of it. Its like a good song cover, it takes the original and doesn't just copy cat it, it changes a few things, gives it a personal twist, without totally destroying the integrity of the original. There are a lot of connections that were made obvious, but not ridiculously obvious. The biggest difference between them is this one is more vampire, and less love. If you're expecting a love story, or seduction, watch the original. That is the biggest difference - Jerry uses Amy, Jerry doesn't love Amy.

This was a fun, updated version, which - I thought - made more sense than the first. It had more back story, anyway, so you understood why Jerry chose that neighborhood, and not just "oh a vampire moved in randomly." Sarandon's Jerry was like a 1980's GQ mag highlighting sweater fashion. Sideways glances in half lighting and talk of love and pain constantly. I was always more afraid of his little friend, who seemed more devious. Collin Farrel is definitely more menacing and believable as a shrewd killer vampire. Sometimes he is uneasy and jittery, followed by a relaxed "cool" and it keeps it uncomfortable in a good way. And his "animal" responses are unexpected, natural, and appreciated.

The rest of the cast was also excellent, I thought. The real star is easily David Tennant who is hilarious, and you have to love him. Christopher Mintz-Plasse twist on "Evil" was good and believable, I felt much more for him than I did in the first movies. I really never "got" Evil in the first movie, but this one makes him much more real and not just an obnoxious hyperactive sidekick. Imogen Poots' "Amy" was such an improvement on the first movie's Amy who was SO whiny and annoying.

If you watch movies specifically for special effects, you can pass on this one. The effects are not good. Bad CGI. And some things, in retrospect don't make much sense - and I think those things are mainly the character's responses. I kept thinking "why is he not more upset about this?" or "why didn't someone notice this?" or "Really - no one is questioning this??"

BUT, the movie itself is pretty good and if you overlook the bad effects and the unrealistic lack of concern sometimes, you'll probably like it and have fun watching it. You had to have some kind of ability to overlook stupidity to watch the first one anyway, right?

Really dumb teenage horror crap

[krycek19 · 1/10 · 20 January 2012]

Geek has gorgeous blonde girlfriend. (the only thing that kept me interested) Geek won't sleep with her because Colin Farrel is a vampire who has killed his even dorkier friend. And nobody cares because it's just stupid.

Farrel is the nicest vampire I have ever met and for an R-rated movie there is almost no blood and no swearing.

I think this is meant to be a comedy but I didn't laugh once. I was just bored.

Really, really, really stupid moronic crap-snooze-fest. Don't watch this even if someone pays you to watch it.

Solid and enjoyable remake

[kannibalcorpsegrinder · 9/10 · 18 April 2017]

After a mysterious stranger moves into his neighborhood, a teen and his friends accidentally stumble upon his terrifying secret about being a vampire and recruits a famous vampire hunter to try to stop the trail of carnage left behind and his friends become the next target.

This was a surprisingly decent enough affair that wasn't really all that bad with some good points to it. Among the better parts here is the absolutely fun storyline throughout here that does compare favorably against the original since the ruse is discovered early on. This has a lot of rather fun antics that really push this along, from their initial meeting that clues him, the strange way he continually creeps around the neighborhood to pop up at exactly the wrong time or the few behavioral ticks that give him away which all go wrapped together alongside the previously-discovered videotapes that all help to give this one the work needed to fully reveal the ruse. Beyond this, the scenes stalking around the house where he has to free the captive inside and her eventual fate not only gives this one yet another charge for the ruse yet also features quite a really suspenseful sequence to help build that section more beyond the friendly scenes. There's a lot to come off of that in its action in here, from the house destruction and eventual high-speed chase along the highway that has a lot to like about it during their various chases and encounters with him to the battle in the office that includes some nice stalking scenes through the endless rows of artifacts stored away or battling the creatures in the panic room. As well, this here has the final assault on the underground hideout with all the turned victims providing enough of a battle to allow for some big action moments before the one-on-one confrontation, which is rather entertaining in its own right as there's some rather fun fighting here with their contraptions and some decent enough gore scenes to make it interesting. Along with the vampire makeup and gore, this is a pretty good effort with a lot to like although there are a few problematic elements here. The film's biggest flaw is the fact that the ruse is found out far too early and far too easily, since there's little investigation required to find out his true identity and it's all out in the open with such little push- back or need to look further into who he is which makes for some questionable storyline points. Along with this effort, the film also manages to stumble somewhat in it's CGI which is rather cheesy and clumsy throughout here as there are some exceptionally weak shots in here. The fact that so many of them are due to the wounds inflicted upon him which is quite obvious due to his spastic movements and disorienting behavior during the attacks, and along with the transformation scenes and use of blood and gore all just make for a rather flawed experience. These do knock it down somewhat but not enough to lower it overall.

Rated R: Graphic Language and Graphic Violence.

Fright Night exhibits no significant improvement over the original, but it makes for some sweet campy fun

[Screen_Blitz · 7/10 · 6 August 2017]

For the past few decades, Hollywood has engaged in a long-running trend of remaking classic horror films from the 70s and 80s. More than not, these update have lead to lumbering disappointments in capturing the spirits of their original source materials. Fortunately, this remake of the 1985 horror flick 'Fright Night' is one of the few exceptions that does its duty. Directed by Craig Gillespie, this stylish vampire horror film carries roughly the same story and characters, executing these elements with proficiency while paying respect to its original source material. What are filmgoers in for? Not a film that will necessarily provoke nightmares in your sleep, but will provide a campy, gory fun with a solid dose of humor in the mix. And to add a little spicing, it is done in 3-D which will allow viewers to experience the action flying at them before their very eyes. Although Gillespie never boasts any improvements over the original film, his greatest success lies within his appealing execution of the man-versus-bloodsucker tale. Set in the suburbs of Las Vegas, this film follows 17-year old Charley Brewster (played by Anton Yelchin), a popular high school student dating a hot blondie named Amy (played by Imogen Poots) and hanging with his pals Mark (played by Dave Franco) and Ben (played by Reid Ewing). With his social standings rising, his popularity has put his former best friend Ed (played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse) in the shadows. When a handsome young man Jerry Dandridge (played by Colin Ferrell) movies in next door, Charley soon finds his and his mother's life in danger upon discovering that he is not the man next door, but a blood-sucking vampire out for human blood. And the only one who can help him is no one other than a vampire television show host Peter Vincent (played by David Tennant) who has the expertise on the world of vampires.

Not once does this film try to be anything groundbreaking or particularly anything masterful. It is a teen-oriented vampire flick that knows what it is and embraces the soul that made the 1985 original at hit. And the good news is it knows how to have fun while not only splashing the screen with R-rated blood and gore, exhibiting intellect in the rules of surviving against a vampire. With the obvious rules being sunlight leads vampires into a fiery grave and the other way to kill them is by driving a stake through their heart, the story expands upon another notable rule involving the vicious monsters requiring an invitation to enter the house. If the house you enter is abandoned, the vampire exempt from the necessity of an invitation. This accounts to a scary, yet clever scene when Jerry enters the house that has been abandoned on foreclosure. As for the story, the director does a pleasant job on building up the tension that leads to an pulse- pounding climax. In the process, the film stays mostly engaging by not blanketing the atmosphere with endless dread but poking fun at the genre with character sprouting humor with witty dialogue. This aspect is greatly accomplished by the cast including Colin Ferrell, substituting Chris Sarandon who offers an unexpected cameo in one scene, as Jerry Dandridge who boasts a tasty performance as the infamous blood-sucker. Demonstrating a sense of wit and dark comedic appeal, Ferrell proves himself suitably fit in the antagonistic role. Then there is Anton Yelchin who shares some sweet chemistry with his co-stars including Imogen Poots as his girlfriend and most notably Toni Collette as his naive mother who makes for some humorous interaction with him, particularly in the scenes when he is imploring her about the sinister persona Jerry hides behind the mask. If there is anyone in the cast, however, that stands along Ferrell on stealing the show, it is David Tennant who boasts an energetic Russell Brand-like comedic presence with his wise-cracking humor and profane, yet explosively hilarious one-liners. Just wait for him to get a hold of some booze.

Fright Night is a stylish, witty, and fun vampire flick that invites viewers, particularly horror fans, in for some sweet campy fun. By almost no means does this film shed improvement over the original film from the 1980s. Nonetheless, Craig Gillespie's rendition of the vampire tale strikes with one hell of a bit.

Fright Night 2011

[doctorsmoothlove · 4/10 · 11 September 2011]

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.