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

[krakenslayer]

DAVID TENNANT!! :eek:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment_and_arts/10272352.stm

[bassman]

Did you see who the new Evil Ed is? McLovin (http://www.joblo.com/chris-mintz-plasse-to-star-as-evil-ed-in-new-fright-night).

[LouCipherr]

A disaster waiting to make it to screen.

[DjfunkmasterG]

We all know horror remakes suck... well except DAWN of the DEAD. :D[COLOR="Silver"]

[bassman]

The original wasn't exactly the Lawrence of Arabia of horror films. Even the comedy fell flat. I saw it once many moons ago and have absolutely no interest in seeing it again.

[AcesandEights]

The original wasn't exactly the Lawrence of Arabia of horror films. Even the comedy fell flat. I saw it once many moons ago and have absolutely no interest in seeing it again.

Really? I loved that movie, but I did happen to see it for the first time when I was younger and more impressionable, so there's a nostalgia factor for me, as well. I re-watched it just two or three weeks ago and introduced a few people to it. I still really enjoy it, to be honest.

[fartpants]

i loved David Tennant in Dr Who so maybe this wont be sooo bad...

[LouCipherr]

Really? I loved that movie, but I did happen to see it for the first time when I was younger and more impressionable, so there's a nostalgia factor for me, as well. I re-watched it just two or three weeks ago and introduced a few people to it. I still really enjoy it, to be honest.

I have to agree. I saw this when I was young too, and I've always had an affinity for the flick for whatever reason. It's not spectacular, but it made an impression on me that sticks with me to this day and I still enjoy watching it.

I think Chris Sarandon made an excellent vampire, too. :D

[clanglee]

This David Tennant guy looks a little too young to be a washed up horror actor. . . . Who is playing charlie? I LOVED the original. One of my favorite movies from my childhood. Not too excited about a remake. . . .don't see the need. . .but well. . .you never know.

[LouCipherr]

Not too excited about a remake. . . .don't see the need. . .but well. . .you never know.

Unfortunately, yes, we do know.. it's going to suck like the rest of the remakes. I got my hopes up for Halloween and was let down. I got my hopes up for Nightmare on Elm Street - let down. I could list 20 more, but I think we all know how that would go.... it's going to go the same route as all the rest of these goddamn 'remakes' :rolleyes:

[AcesandEights]

This David Tennant guy looks a little too young to be a washed up horror actor. . . .

But maybe in the remake he is...

A washed up 'Sci Fi originals film' actor!

It doesn't sound so far fetched all of a sudden, eh?

[clanglee]

But maybe in the remake he is...

A washed up 'Sci Fi originals film' actor!

It doesn't sound so far fetched all of a sudden, eh?

Damn you and your logic Aces!! It is like a giant block of granite. . . . .solid and unmovable. . .and sitting right on top of my prize begonias.

[slickwilly13]

First look at Peter Vincent. Let the hating begin.


http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/21520

[AcesandEights]

First look at Peter Vincent. Let the hating begin.



Actually, I can kind of appreciate them wanting to go a somewhat different way with it. I mean, who could out McDowall, the Rodster!?

Still not sure how I feel about it, but we'll see...:shifty:

[LouCipherr]

First look at Peter Vincent. Let the hating begin.


http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/21520


He looks like Depp in the Pirates flicks.... :rolleyes:

[AcesandEights]

He looks like Depp in the Pirates flicks.... :rolleyes:

Hey, they could have had him dressed in that old Holmesian tweed number with flower poured in his hair.

Still, I think the nervous nelly oldster/faded actor approach could still be well done and I'm not sure why exactly they went this route. Just trying to differentiate and make the character more believable/accessible to modern viewers, I guess :(

[LouCipherr]

Hey, they could have had him dressed in that old Holmesian tweed number with flower poured in his hair.

Still, I think the nervous nelly oldster/faded actor approach could still be well done and I'm not sure why exactly they went this route. Just trying to differentiate and make the character more believable/accessible to modern viewers, I guess :(

Personally, that's what I'd like to see, although I get what you're saying. :D

[MikePizzoff]

First look at Peter Vincent. Let the hating begin.


http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/21520

:stunned: ...wtf??? :confused:

[rongravy]

Somebody on that link said he looked like Russell Brand. Please tell me this is not true. I want an old fuddy duddy.

[AcesandEights]

Somebody on that link said he looked like Russell Brand. Please tell me this is not true. I want an old fuddy duddy.

Ummm, it's not true. Did that make you feel better?

Sorry to tell you, but the picture I saw made him look like that Chris Angel 'Mind Freak' twat.

[Doc]

Well, one good thing that can come out of this is a special edition for the original! They usually do that when a film is being remade.

[rongravy]

Ummm, it's not true. Did that make you feel better?

Sorry to tell you, but the picture I saw made him look like that Chris Angel 'Mind Freak' twat.
Ehhh, I'll still see it, but it might be a hard sell. I thought McLovin was an interesting choice. This guy I don't know about...

[EvilNed]

I love the original, and I'm very sceptical about this one. More so now after seeing some pictures. Something tells me it just won't compare in any way.

[DjfunkmasterG]

I like what another poster suggested in the B-D Comments section... get Christopher Lloyd to play Peter Vincent.

[LouCipherr]

I like what another poster suggested in the B-D Comments section... get Christopher Lloyd to play Peter Vincent.

That would be a good idea right there! Better than what they're doing now. :(

[JDFP]

Wow, "Fright Night" is now about Chris Angel. Now they just need to give Lady Gaga a cameo and it will be good to go for a contemporary re-make for the dumb-asses of the world.

Zero interest in seeing it. I LOVE the original. Yet again another example of Hollywood taking something grand and turning it into crap to make a couple extra bucks. It's sad to say, but the re-make of "Prom Night" looked more interesting than this.

j.p.

[AcesandEights]

I like what another poster suggested in the B-D Comments section... get Christopher Lloyd to play Peter Vincent.

Oh, gawddamn, that's the best idea of heard about anything all week!

[slickwilly13]

Maybe the remake will be PG-13. :shifty:

[Ghostdude]

The more I hear about this remake the worst it sounds.

[MoonSylver]

Just trying to differentiate and make the character more believable/accessible to modern viewers, I guess :(

This. I'm sure that the figure the stereotype of the Hammer-like actor a la Christopher Lee or Peter Cushing won't click w/ "Teh kidz 2day"...which is all the more reason why they can suck my nutsack. ;)

[AcesandEights]

Welcome toooo Frrrright Night!
http://www.postmodernbarney.com/images06/frightnightcaps/fnjerry2.jpg
For real.

[Neil]

Tennant in costume...

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Doctor-Who-Does-Horror-First-Official-Pic-Of-David-Tennant-In-Fright-Night-24637.html

[Rancid Carcass]

Tennant in costume...

Errr...why is he dressed up as Russell Brand?!! :shifty:

[Neil]

Errr...why is he dressed up as Russell Brand?!! :shifty:
Does look a bit odd doesn't it!

[MoonSylver]

Oh because now he's a "Chris Angel-style" magician rather than a horror host. :rolleyes:

Everything I've heard about this movie reaffirms that it is the Titanic of Fail. :mad:

:fin:you Fright Night Remake. :fin: you hard.

[Neil]

cW44o8FGqBU

[AcesandEights]

Auggh...can't watch with volume till I get home. I forgot who they had cast as Brewster. Some parts don't look too familiar, while others are very, nicely reminiscent.

I'm sort of interested in seeing this film...

[DjfunkmasterG]

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/fright-night-trailer-colin-farrell-is-the-worst-vampire-neighbor-ever-24695.html

[ZombieKeeper]

This doesn't look bad at all. I'll wait for it on home video though.

[bassman]

Reviews are suggesting it's a pretty good flick. Especially if you're into gore. They're saying it's not your typical teeny horror film we usually see these days, but a hard R.

Rottentomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fright_night-2011/) has it at 75%. Not too bad, I suppose.

[AcesandEights]

...Just as I was getting an itch to see this I get this good news! Hmmm, may not be a waste of time after all :)

[blind2d]

No way am I seeing it. Especially not when we still have the original. I mean, it's like... why? Why not make a new concept about vampires and turn it into a movie... *thinks about Twilight* Errr... *thinks about Daybreakers, 30 Days of Night, and Let the Right One In* Ahhh...
Yeah. This movie is not needed. I refuse to watch it.
PS: Pinkamina Diane Pie on Tumblr.

[LouCipherr]

No way am I seeing it. Especially not when we still have the original. I mean, it's like... why? Why not make a new concept about vampires and turn it into a movie... *thinks about Twilight* Errr... *thinks about Daybreakers, 30 Days of Night, and Let the Right One In* Ahhh...
Yeah. This movie is not needed. I refuse to watch it.


That's pretty much what I feel about ALL remakes - why bother? The original is still around, so how about we go with an original idea for once instead of following the trend of (mostly) crappy remakes? If you want to intoduce the younger generation to these movies, here's a novel concept: MAKE THEM WATCH THE ORIGINAL.

Some people will say "oh, but the original is so dated" - well, so is the Wizard of Oz, but you don't see them remaking that, do you? (at least I sure as shit hope they're not doing that - although at this point it wouldn't surprise me!)

-sigh- Hollywood has long since lost it's way.

[bassman]

Some people will say "oh, but the original is so dated" - well, so is the Wizard of Oz, but you don't see them remaking that, do you? (at least I sure as shit hope they're not doing that - although at this point it wouldn't surprise me!)

Sam Raimi is working on a sequel/prequelish kind of thing. Does that count? :p


I see what you guys are saying about sequels not being needed, but why complain? As you say....the original is still there. The way movies are so cheaply or freely available for viewing on home platforms these days, its not like you're wasting money on it, anyway. Just wait for it to arrive on netflix, give it a shot, switch to something else or pop in the original if you don't like it. No skin off your back.

I always have a chuckle that the creators of the original films usually care less about their films being remade than the fans do...

[blind2d]

The issue is also with Hollywood wasting all this money making these movies... But hey, I guess it helps the economy, right?
I don't know... Like so many things, it's a double-edged sword.

[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. :D

(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'? :lol:

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! :lol: He never saw her as an adult, but he sure picked her out of a crowd of teens, didn't he? :p

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..." :lol:

[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? :annoyed:

[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.. :rolleyes:


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?! :lol:


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. :rolleyes:


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. :lol: 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. :D

[clanglee]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

http://deadshed.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/triple-bill-mini-musings-vamps-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]

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. :lol: :D

[AcesandEights]

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]

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]

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

[MissJacksonCA]

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]

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

You have to have Faith, Lou.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DJo28tiYl78/TkhfhIkcgrI/AAAAAAAASnk/Y_d6qh36igY/s1600/jerrytop.png
:p

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.

[LouCipherr]

You have to have Faith, Lou.

Faith? as in....

http://img.gactv.com/GAC/2008/07/10/faithhill1_e.jpg

OK! I'm game! :lol:


Look, even just seeing that picture of Chris Sarandon/Jerry gives me the goddamn creeps. Can't say that about Colin Farrell, however...

[Mike70]

the remake was flat, boring and uninspired. colin farrell is about as spooky and intimidating as an ill tempered church mouse.

[MissJacksonCA]

I'm eating my words as they've made the Inbetweeners into an American remake and it blows so bad...

[LouCipherr]

colin farrell is about as spooky and intimidating as an ill tempered church mouse.

:lol:

[Mike70]

:lol:

you know who would have been great in that role? Bale. like sarandon he has that same ability to impart that feeling of "this guy is being really nice and charming but there is something incredibly menacing and creepy about him."

[LouCipherr]

you know who would have been great in that role? Bale. like sarandon he has that same ability to impart that feeling of "this guy is being really nice and charming but there is something incredibly menacing and creepy about him."

Y'know, I think you might be right Mike. I doubt it'd touch Sarandon's version of Jerry, but it would've been better than what we got in the remake. ;)

[Purge]

Watched some of the remake the other night. I want that time back. Colin was lame as Dandrich, and the rest of the cast was even worse.