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

**clanglee** · 01-Sep-2011

Well. . .I saw it last night. . . .but not the most. . . em . . .clear version? In any case. . . .I enjoyed it. It was in no way as good as the original. But I did enjoy the little mini homages to the original scattered throughout the remake. Some shots were almost excact duplicates of the original. I thought this one just started in to wizzbang fast. The original had a nice, Rear Window, thriller burn to it at the beginning. But this one kinda leapt right into "Hey! Vampires!" Oh and Evil was really kinda disappointing, but hey. . .some very big (gay porn) shoes to fill

. I thought Colin F. Did a pretty decent job. Similar charm, but a different level of menace. And homeboy as Peter Vincent was not as bad as I feared at all. I found myself liking the new take. They kept his base cowardess and underlying heroism. Charlie was pretty good. . . .

All in all. . I found it very enjoyable. And remake or not, it was nice to see Vampires not be pussies for a while.

**LouCipherr** · 02-Sep-2011

Originally Posted by clanglee

And remake or not, it was nice to see Vampires not be pussies for a while.

That aspect was the one I think they did very well. I cannot stand the over-romantic twist that vampires have taken on in the last decade or so.

Stephen King said this a while back, and I couldn't agree more:

“Here’s what vampires shouldn’t be: pallid detectives who drink Bloody Marys and only work at night; lovelorn southern gentlemen; anorexic teenage girls; boy-toys with big dewey eyes. What should they be? Killers, honey. Stone cold killers who never get enough of that tasty Type-A.”

F'ing A, man..

**slickwilly13** · 26-Jun-2012

I watched it last night. It was entertaining, but not as good as the original. I am glad it was not a shot for shot remake. And I agree, the original Evil Ed was better. The new Evil is pretty much McLovin in a Fright Night remake. He lacks the wild, crazy, and unpredictable nature that Stephen Geoffery's character possessed. He just wasn't an important character in the remake, IMO.

**AcesandEights** · 26-Jun-2012

Originally Posted by slickwilly13

I watched it last night. It was entertaining, but not as good as the original. I am glad it was not a shot for shot remake. And I agree, the original Evil Ed was better. The new Evil is pretty much McLovin in a Fright Night remake. He lacks the wild, crazy, and unpredictable nature that Stephen Geoffery's character possessed. He just wasn't an important character in the remake, IMO.

Yeah, I agree. The film isn't that bad, but it's certainly not that good, either.

As to Evil Ed, also agree.

**rightwing401** · 28-Jun-2012

I watched it half blitzed, and it was still pretty bad for me. My biggest problem was that I didn't really get any of the vibe from the new cast that I got with the old one. I think McLovin did the best he could, but you never really got a feel that he and Charlie were close childhood friends. As such, didn't really care about them having the showdown in Peter Vincent's penthouse.

New Peter Vincent also didn't do it for me. You could really get the feel of the old Peter's situation, a washed out actor doing a stupid 'test' on a vampire for money, only to see that the vampire is real and that he has to become the very thing that he's pretended to be his whole career. The new was already knew about the undead and came off as too much of a dick without any real moment of him discovering his inner strength against a living nightmare.

And Jerry. Oh my god, Jerry...

I think Colin Ferrel did the best that he could, but his version of Jerry just didn't come off as a highly intelligent and cunning 400+ killer. He does things that just don't make any sense given his situation. Luring a neighbor from across the way to have a midnight snack, killing two kids in a car in the middle of a neighborhood, blowing up his next door neighbor Charlie's house. Yeah, all those things certainly would draw any attention to him. He also came off as too cocky and arrogant. Old Jerry tried to mind his own business, even offering Charlie the chance to leave him alone and he would do the same. His desire to have Amy because she reminded him of a long lost love was nowhere near matched with the newer one~ "She makes me feel young again". And at least in the original, despite all of his supernatural strengths and abilities, even Jerry had weaknesses and fears. Case in point when Charlie demands that he touches a cross to prove to everyone that he isn't a vampire, and Jerry jumps back slightly into a wall-as opposed to newer one of him just grabbing a cross, blowing out the flame and going- "Seriously?"

**MinionZombie** · 28-Jun-2012

I watched it recently too, and here's what I made of it:

http://deadshed.blogspot.co.uk/2012/...-apes-and.html

Fright Night (2011):

What's it about?
Remake of the beloved 1980s horror comedy about nerdy teen Charley who discovers a vampire master named Jerry has moved in next door.

Who would I recognise in it?
Colin Farrell, David Tennant, Anton Yelchin, Imogen Poots, Toni Collette, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Dave Franco.

Great/Good/Alright/Shite?
The original wasn't perfect, and I only saw it for the first time fairly recently, so I missed any 'formative years' or 'original 80s release' charm, however it was good fun. Similarly, the remake isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination - the second act goes a bit listless, and the pacing is curious - however it remains a good slab of fun. Farrell and Tennant gleefully chew the scenery (the latter as theatrical magician Peter Vincent, updated from the original's horror film star and late night movie marathon host), and there are nice touches littered throughout (e.g. looking up how to pick a lock on the internet as you're doing it). Die hard fans of the original will no doubt feel this update's a bit redundant, and while it doesn't stray too far from the original's path, there are enough modernising tweaks to give it a pass in the end. Not brilliant, but not terrible either. Oh, and try not to enthusiastically tap your feet to "99 Problems" by Hugo during the end credits - I dare you. On the border between Good and Alright.

**LouCipherr** · 28-Jun-2012

I re-watched it the other day since it was on Showtime (IIRC), and it still did not impress me. It just felt... "empty" compared to the original, if that makes any sense.

The best part of the flick was Sarandon's cameo.

**AcesandEights** · 28-Jun-2012

Originally Posted by rightwing401

I watched it half blitzed, and it was still pretty bad for me. My biggest problem was that I didn't really get any of the vibe from the new cast that I got with the old one. I think McLovin did the best he could, but you never really got a feel that he and Charlie were close childhood friends. As such, didn't really care about them having the showdown in Peter Vincent's penthouse.

New Peter Vincent also didn't do it for me. You could really get the feel of the old Peter's situation, a washed out actor doing a stupid 'test' on a vampire for money, only to see that the vampire is real and that he has to become the very thing that he's pretended to be his whole career. The new was already knew about the undead and came off as too much of a dick without any real moment of him discovering his inner strength against a living nightmare.

And Jerry. Oh my god, Jerry...

I think Colin Ferrel did the best that he could, but his version of Jerry just didn't come off as a highly intelligent and cunning 400+ killer. He does things that just don't make any sense given his situation. Luring a neighbor from across the way to have a midnight snack, killing two kids in a car in the middle of a neighborhood, blowing up his next door neighbor Charlie's house. Yeah, all those things certainly would draw any attention to him. He also came off as too cocky and arrogant. Old Jerry tried to mind his own business, even offering Charlie the chance to leave him alone and he would do the same. His desire to have Amy because she reminded him of a long lost love was nowhere near matched with the newer one~ "She makes me feel young again". And at least in the original, despite all of his supernatural strengths and abilities, even Jerry had weaknesses and fears. Case in point when Charlie demands that he touches a cross to prove to everyone that he isn't a vampire, and Jerry jumps back slightly into a wall-as opposed to newer one of him just grabbing a cross, blowing out the flame and going- "Seriously?"

This has gotta be an almost perfect critique of the remake! It crystallizes probably all the major departures and how they kind of lost the charm of the original take. Especially with Peter Vincent and Jerry Dandridge. Great points, RW.

**MissJacksonCA** · 17-Jul-2012

What makes a great remake anyway? A different vision. Dawn of the Dead was a great remake that bore little resemblence to its namesake. And this movie was basically more of the same. I thought of it as a homedy... it was cute, inventive, and just good enough to make me want to see it again. It beats the Omen remake which was literally a remake. New people, same movie. And that blows. So the next time we're all bitchin about a movie sucking a to the orig. we need to remember... we don't want the same movie with different people... we do often want better than the first but hell... nothings better than the orig. that's what made the initial movie original and awesome times five. Its like the riddick expectation of sequels to hold upto the greatness of the first film... while its been done its rare and sometimes we expect too damn much...

**LouCipherr** · 17-Jul-2012

Actually, what some of us want is for them to not remake any movies at all, since 99% of the time, they suck ass.

**MissJacksonCA** · 17-Jul-2012

I love remakes... its a chance for someone to make a movie with a different swerve to it... it would be like if someone remade the orig. Dawn of the Dead... maybe we'd find out finally what happens to Fran and Peter... maybe the next film maker would take it that extra step further ...ahh its so grand thinking of what might happen in a remake ...at least for me

**AcesandEights** · 18-Jul-2012

Originally Posted by LouCipherr

Actually, what some of us want is for them to not remake any movies at all, since 99% of the time, they suck ass.

You have to have Faith, Lou.

But to answer your point, Miss Jackson, I don't mind remakes per se, but all too often they are cash-in, phoned in efforts. I found this one very pedestrian, but each to their own.