Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General' started by Spacetraveler, Dec 31, 2009.
Is that McLovin? Is he supposed to be "Evil?" Evil is in gay porn now
Was. He stopped doing that years ago and has actually made appearances in some low budget horror features since then.
Colin seems to be pretty good as a creepy asshole vampire
That clip was posted on the previous page.
Second trailer, featuring footage of the new Peter Vincent: http://twitchfilm.com/news/2011/06/...something-in-the-new-fright-night-trailer.php
Liked that way more than the first... still...
Let me preface this by saying that I had no intention of watching this because I didn't want to accept from the previews and plot synopsis that this remake was gonna shit all over the original (although how could it not)...however, a friend of mine got free tickets to an advance screening tonight. Let me tell you just how much shit was shat...
All of the characters are completely mixed around as to what their part is in the film. Evil Ed is the paranoid one about vampires at the beginning and Charlie is too cool to believe him (of which Ed becomes a vampire a few minutes in and then doesn't resurface until two thirds in...and sucks). Amy is all about sex and Charlie denies her even before worrying about Jerry (which doesn't even occur until about 20 minutes in). Instead of Charlie playing the crazed outcast that no one believes, he is immediately justified in his "delusions" as soon as he tells Amy and his mom because Jerry completely outs himself to them all at once. Peter Vincent, as we all knew from the getgo, is a total hack. There is absolutely NO CHARM whatsoever from his character or Jerry's vampiric come-ons. Dandrige has no homoerotic sidekick play, and in fact is simply a one-note kidnapping psychotic who lives on his own. There is NO seduction, I repeat...NO seduction between him and Amy, none of the allusion to a previous love or any temptation for her to follow him in any sense. They even attempt at doing the club dance scene, but leave the sexual awakening/seduction part out of it (only a dab of blood on the lips, give me a fucking break). There is a jab at Twilight at one point, but they are really still only trying to attract that crowd, but may still even push them away with no "sparkling" or enough brooding. The best fucking part? Chris Sarandon does a cameo. However, it would have been so cool if he made some sort of smartass remark like "I've known more charming vampires" or something of the sort...instead, Farrel just kills him within seconds. And needless to say, any trace of homage to Hammer/AIP horror or any gothic influence for that matter is completely absent.
Barely a week ago, I was lucky enough to see the original again on the big screen in a newly struck 35mm print and with Tom Holland in attendance. That was the only thing keeping me from burning down the theater while watching this shit remake.
God, I miss Roddy McDowell.
I heard that this film is absolutely terrible. Not even worth any curiosity. Surprised they are even doing any advanced screenings.
wow all i have seen is positive reviews for it saying fright night finally brings back the menacing vampires and horror reviews saying fright night best vampire film in the last 15 years
Just came from a free advance screening, I'm not going to risk spoiling anything but will say that it did entertain in a 'so bad, it's interesting' sort of way. I guess a good analogy would be to The Hitcher remake, all the substance and menace has been sucked out and replaced by a glossy, fast paced, effects laden action oriented film without any notion of subtlety or suspense.
Huge plot holes, terrible pacing and some very bad dialogue makes for a film that is a Fright Night remake in name only. I actually decided early on that the only way to derive any enjoyment from this film would be to avoid comparing it to the original in my mind.
There is no gothic ambiance, Colin Farrell seems absolutely wooden and the cgi is pretty horrendous in spots. It seemed overlong and dispensed with the many elements I loved most about the original. The Tommy Lee/Criss Angel vampire slayer is no match for the great Roddy Mcdowall either.
This one was obviously geared towards the attention deficit disorder younger generation as it ambles along at breakneck speed featuring none of the tension of the original, despite this the young couple sitting next to us bailed after about forty five minutes.
I did not hate it to the point of walking out, but don't ever want to see it again and why oh why did they have to throw in a Twillight reference? Way cheesy.
I enjoyed the remake. Seeing it in 3D is totally pointless (most shots don't seem optimized for 3D). The remake retains some of the cheesiness of the original but does so in a playful manner. There's even a cameo from the first move. The remake does a good job of being faithful to the original but also brings a few twists (such as slightly switching characters from the first). Dull your rage over it being a pointless remake and you'll have a good time.
More action and some bad CGI I agree but despite my dislike of Colin Farrell he pulled it off. The Twilight reference is fleeting and tongue in cheek (not catering to PG13 crowd).
77% tomatometer: Fresh. "Critics" seem to dig it
I want to see it but I'n not holding my breath that it will be good
It was entertaining enough. I'm not a die-hard fan of the original (I like it well enough but it's not a favorite) so I didn't mind any changes made to the story. There were some good ideas in the movie but they never really developed them. I agree there's not much suspense or tension built up. Colin Farrell is just weird from the get-go and Charley comes around to the idea of vampires too easily. The Criss Angel version of Peter Vincent is so obnoxious you want him to die. "McLovin" and Toni Collette are wasted. Still, there's one great segment in the middle of the movie where Charley sneaks into Colin Farrell's house. It's a shame the rest of the movie couldn't deliver the way that section did.
But at no point did I think of walking out. Not the worst remake I've seen but it will be quickly forgotten. Maybe a direct-to-DVD sequel with a completely different cast in a few years.
I only saw it in 3-D since it wasn't showing in 2-D at a time I could make it. Agree with earlier posts, seeing it in 3-D is pretty much pointless. There are some good shots here and there but for most of the movie I couldn't tell a difference. Save a few bucks and don't bother.
The film itself was fine. There was nothing too memorable for me but at the same time I didn't dislike it, either. I went in with low expectations and no real thought of comparing it to the original which I love so maybe that helped. I thought Farrell did an okay job as did the most of the main actors but Evil Ed? A little too annoying for me.
Maybe tonight is a good time to pop in the orginal and Part 2.
I'm still disappointed that there's no blu for the original.
I agree- or at the very least a special edition dvd
Just got back from watching this in 3D. Not a lot to recommend it.
It wasn't great, but it was better than expected. The original is still the best (of course), but I did enjoy it more than Fright Night Part II.
Saw this yesterday afternoon, It was an above average remake. I though David Tennant was great and stole the show. I also thought they miscast the part of Evil it, It should of went to Dave Franco instead of McLovin. Pretty good overall though.