Fright Night remake: And the new Peter Vincent is...

[Neil]

+ve review here - http://www.aintitcool.com/node/50875

[LouCipherr]

I see what you guys are saying about sequels not being needed, but why complain? Well, here's why I complain about it. It's not really sequels that bother me, it's remakes, and here's the issue: lets take the Nightmare on Elm Street remake as an example. Matter of fact lets take that and the Halloween remake too. The issue is this: they do these remakes to "introduce the films to a younger generation" - at least that's the claim most of these bozos make, but that's not true - what they REALLY want to do is expose them to the idea of the original, but not the original film itself. So, RZ's Halloween comes out, or the ANOES remake come out, and they do 70 million at the box office (well, I know RZ's H1 did, dunno about ANOES, but that's not really the point). So, now that the kiddies have all rushed out to see this "remake" that's supposed to "itroduce the film to younger generation" - have they actually done that? Hell no. They introduced kids to the "characters" from the original movie, but sure as hell not the original movies/stories themselves. RZ so convoluted and destroyed the timeline and story of the original H1, there's no WAY you could watch his and get the original story out of it. Same with ANOES - they destoryed everything in these remakes that made the originals what they are. So, the question becomes not why do we complain about these remakes, but why do these remakes get done in the first place? It CERTAINLY is not to introduce the original films to a younger audience - if that was the case, then they would show the kids the original movie, period, end of story. Once you boil off all the crap of their excuses as to why they do remakes, it becomes crystal clear it's about one thing: making a much money as they can riding the backs of the original films because they know certain characters and movies can pull in the $ just based on the characters or the names of the movies themselves. There is ZERO "artistic integrity" in remaking a film. None. The REAL question is, why aren't MORE people complaining about being force-fed this stuff? Sure, you can say "then don't go see it" - but it's not me that's the problem, it's the teenagers that go to see bullshit like RZ's Halloween and this remake of ANOES and think "OH WOW! That movie kicked ass!' and they have no fucking idea that the originals out-rank these remakes at a clip of about 100 to 1 IMO - you may not agree with these two examples, but everyone has a remake that they can put into that catagory. Now bass, you and I have discussed this before, and you have listed many movies that I agree were indeed good remakes and were better than the originals, but at the ratio of good-to-bad of originals vs. remakes is so far tilted in the "SUCK" direction, it's just flat-out annoying and as you said before, sometimes it taints opinions before a movie is even released, which makes it difficult to even give it a chance. Then again, this is just my opinion, I could (and probably am) wrong. (should we move this to a new topic? I wanna talk about it, but I don't want to douche up and derail the Fright Night thread....?)

[rongravy]

I'm torn. I wince at the thought of it even being made, but wanna see McLovin' doing Evil Ed proud(from what I've heard.) As far as the introducing old faves to new kids, most kids would think the original was ubergay due to not being the up to "today's snuff". In the end, I guess who cares? If I like it, I like it. If not, it'll be filed along with 99% of the rest of today's remakes in my head, which is not at all. New Freddy, Jason, and Myers were suck at its nonfinest, btw. Someone needs to punch guys like Rob Zombie right in da nutz.

[blind2d]

*Watches 'House of a Thousand Corpses'* Nah, Zombie's okay. He just needs to do original stuff. No remakes.

[bassman]

You have a point with whether or not they're "introducing" new kids to the originals Lou, but I don't think introducing newcomers to the originals is really the problem. Whether or not these newcomers go back to check out the original isn't what I meant when I asked why should you complain. I meant why should WE, as established fans of the originals, complain as if the original is tarnished due to the lackluster remakes. Some people feel the remakes can in fact tarnish the originals but I personally don't agree with that at all. The original is there, unaltered, and holding it's original glory. If these kids aren't seeing or hearing of the original films before seeing the remakes anyway, what harm can it do? If anything, the remakes give the originals MORE of a chance of spreading to new audiences. If the original films aren't on the kid's radars to begin with, they won't see them with or without a remake. As you say, in most cases these kids won't go out searching for the original after seeing the remake but at least it may interest a select few to search out for the source material. I was meaning that you or I shouldn't really complain too much about the remakes because we already know that nine times out of ten the original will remain king. The best we can do is to just keep supporting the originals and hope that in some small way these remakes will influence these kids to go back and see where it started. For example....the original Dawn is basically never on television. Do you think more audiences were introduced to it before or after the remake was released? I admit it probably wasn't a very large number of people, but it certainly had to be more than what it was getting before, right? And just for kicks - You and I both know where we stand on the Halloween remake, but how exactly is the basic story all that different? If you ask me the remake very much includes the original story but just tosses in a few extra tidbits. I'm not talking minor things like where the mask came from, their family background, etc, but the basics of Mike Myers stalking the teenagers in Haddenfield and murdering them one-by-one.

[AcesandEights]

In the end, I guess who cares? If I like it, I like it. If not, it'll be filed along with 99% of the rest of today's remakes... Pretty much where I'm at. Some remakes make me cringe, most don't, and overall I don't mind. People can lament a lack of originality in Hollywood all they want, however it's not as though no new original projects are being done, but with the explosion of media entertainment and the emphasis on leisure time nowadays there is a gaping maw of time-wasting that the industry is called on to fill in the average do-nothing's life, and do so profitably.

[LouCipherr]

I meant why should WE, as established fans of the originals, complain as if the original is tarnished due to the lackluster remakes. I think because it's sad to me that some people will watch a remake and think that it's so awesome, when they don't realize the original is where it's at - but I get your point. I kinda misread what you were saying and meant. *in my besst Maxwell Smart imitation* "Sorry 'bout that, chief!" I think it's just the "intentions" behind the remakes that really pisses me off. They are doing it for the quick cash grab. Kinda sad. I just wish we'd return to the days of original ideas. Now, like Aces said, there ARE original ideas coming out, but they're far and few between, and they get lost in the shuffle of advertising for the big budget remakes. It's just a bummer for me, personally. I know I lament a bit too much about the remakes, but it just strikes an exposed nerve with me every time. I was meaning that you or I shouldn't really complain too much about the remakes because we already know that nine times out of ten the original will remain king. The best we can do is to just keep supporting the originals and hope that in some small way these remakes will influence these kids to go back and see where it started. Amen, brother. I agree. Just for kicks - You and I both know where we stand on the Halloween remake, but how exactly is the basic story all that different? If you ask me the remake very much includes the original story but just tosses in a few extra tidbits. I'm not talking minor things like where the mask came from, their family background, etc, but the basics of Mike Myers stalking the teenagers in Haddenfield and murdering them one-by-one. A 'few extra tidbits'? The original story of Michael Meyers was completely altered in the remake. In the original flick, he was from a middle class family in a middle class neighborhood and you didn't expect him to flip out and become a killer. The remake was the complete opposite - he was in a white-trash abusive house and you saw it coming miles away. The original there was ZERO mention of Laurie being the "sister" - that came in Halloween 2, but in RZ's version, the whole movie rested upon this point - it's the whole reason "he came home." In the original, Michael just "came home" to his home town and started killing babysitters (motivation unknown until Halloween 2), but again, in the remake, his intention is to hunt down his sister.. and how does he even know Laurie was his sister? Last time he saw her she was an infant for god's sake! He never saw her as an adult, but he sure picked her out of a crowd of teens, didn't he? While the 'killilng' and 'mask' and the 'character' are the same, the timeline of RZ's version is completely skewed from the original film and follows a completely different path, all the while sharing some similar elements. It's another one of those "sell the movie based on a character we know will rake in the cash" - I could go on and on about this - people surviving in the remake that didn't in the original, everyone was partying at the Meyers house in RZ's version - that isn't what happened in the original. It's that kind of lack of respect of the original that also grinds my gears. It is not true to the original film unless you just count characters and michael and his mask - the motivations and how he got there are worlds apart. And it's annoying... but I digress... I guess I'll just have to start smacking people and saying "HEY! You! Yes, YOU! Turn that shit off and watch the original, pronto, pal, or we're gonna have words..."

[rongravy]

Looks like the Fright Night remake and Conan didn't do all that great at the box office. Woops...

[AcesandEights]

I don't know guys, I still keep seeing good things written about it, so I may just give it a shot. It certainly doesn't look like a necessarily bad example of Summer film fare to me.

[tkane18]

Looks like the Fright Night remake and Conan didn't do all that great at the box office. Woops... Do you think Fright Night would have done better had it been released in late September or early October? I have a problem with these films coming out in August. For example: Land of the Dead and RZ's Halloween. I mean it's a movie called Halloween and you release it in August? Which marketing school do the studios hire from?

[AcesandEights]

I don't know about Land or the new Halloween, because they didn't do it to make the cut for a same year Halloween DVD Blu-ray release, but I wonder if that might be the thinking behind the new Fright Night? Considering the director was making noise about the release being in a combo pack with the original and it's sequel (not that I thuink that will be the only way the release the film). So, with that in mind, maybe they are going for an opening in August when expectations are low, release the DVD and blu-ray around Halloween (seems rushed, though) and then do another release packaged with the originals a year later.

[rongravy]

Ok, so today I saw this in 3D since now it is only a dollar more per ticket. Here goes... You really have to put aside the fact that the original is just too good. The camp in it was part of the fun and didn't get in the way. The remake doesn't have any of that. I thought it was pretty straight forward. It drags in the beginning a bit, and throws in some not so well shoutouts to the original. Evil Ed didn't have all that much face time either, which was kind of disappointing. I wanted to see if McLovin could hold up, but didn't get much in that department. What I saw of him didn't impress me much. Once it picks up, it veers in a different direction, as part of the time he's runnin' in the company of his mom. Also Jerry was kind of a beer guzzling perv. I know he ate an apple in the original, but he drank enough beers in this one to wash down the couple of apples he scarfed down. Kind of weird how, even in the original, they stuck to many of the old school rules, but he could eat like us. Anyhoo... the cameo by the original Jerry Dandridge, however brief, was cool. The audience was abuzz when he showed up. The new Peter Vincent was ok, though Roddy was the man. I guess to review this, I'd have to give you two versions: the one where I'm tearing it apart in regards to how it paled in comparison, and one for if you'd never experienced the original. My kid, who hasn't seen it, loved it. I thought once the action kicked in, it was decent, though nothing to shit your pants over. I didn't see anything that'd burn the barn in Colin Farrell's portrayel(I think he was there pretty much for the chick swoon factor), nor McLovin's phoned in acting. They definitely veered off the course of the first one, but came back around near the end. As far as being in 3D, ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. No biggie. Like I said, it pales in comparison to the original. That is a given. Was it cringeworthy? Not so much after they started running from him. The transformation was cool, but the bites were weak. Left wanting more than what I got. Tried hard to forget the original, but it's hard. I told my kids to see the original sometime, and compare. I think it still holds up/its own.

[LouCipherr]

I saw it this weekend too, despite the insane weather (losing power for 2 days was the only way I was going to go see this, but alas, I did). I'll just comment on what ron had to say: You really have to put aside the fact that the original is just too good. The camp in it was part of the fun and didn't get in the way. The remake doesn't have any of that. I thought it was pretty straight forward. It drags in the beginning a bit, and throws in some not so well shoutouts to the original. Evil Ed didn't have all that much face time either, which was kind of disappointing. I wanted to see if McLovin could hold up, but didn't get much in that department. What I saw of him didn't impress me much. Once it picks up, it veers in a different direction, as part of the time he's runnin' in the company of his mom. I couldn't agree more. This version doesn't even come close to comparing to the original. Boy, I didn't see that coming.. Also Jerry was kind of a beer guzzling perv. I know he ate an apple in the original, but he drank enough beers in this one to wash down the couple of apples he scarfed down. Kind of weird how, even in the original, they stuck to many of the old school rules, but he could eat like us. Sarandon is Jerry, period. I never thought about the eating of the apples and "eating like us" - for some reason, that didn't even strike me in the original, but now that ron's brought it up - how weird is that shit?! Anyhoo... the cameo by the original Jerry Dandridge, however brief, was cool. The audience was abuzz when he showed up. The best part of the movie, and didn't last long enough. The new Peter Vincent was ok, though Roddy was the man. I wouldn't even go that far. Fuck that Criss Angel wannabe angle. That wasn't what Vincent was about. Oh yeah, I forgot, we're trying to introduce the kids TODAY to the movie. I guess to review this, I'd have to give you two versions: the one where I'm tearing it apart in regards to how it paled in comparison, and one for if you'd never experienced the original. I think they'd be close to the same review. If you haven't seen the original, this would qualify as "ok" in my book, but not "good" or "great" - If you've seen the original, this one is just a rehash that lost most of the "magic" that made the first one so damn good. There were some ok parts, but that's as much praise as it'll get from me. Like I said, it pales in comparison to the original. That's all that needs to be said. I tried. I really did. I almost dread seeing this "The Thing" prequel... lord give me strength, we're gonna need it.

[DjfunkmasterG]

OK I watched this today and I thought while it was vastly different they definitely overdid the cheese factor. I think it will make younger fans go find the original which I admit is better, but I still somewhat enjoy it.

[LouCipherr]

OK I watched this today and I thought while it was vastly different they definitely overdid the cheese factor. I think it will make younger fans go find the original which I admit is better, but I still somewhat enjoy it. Oh Dj, just admit it was as bad as I said it was. It has some "interesting" parts to it, but overall it was no more than a "meh" film. It certainly no where near the magic of the original. ...and I can't believe how many pages this thread has gone on and only Ron, Dj and myself have seen it? Really? C'mon, some of you guys out there had to see this too - chime it, tell us what you liked/hated.