Tockinit not horrible nor great

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

Roy Hart If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.

Screen_Blitz 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.

Jeffrey Burton Edit: While I still believe all the things I said below this movie has grown on me due to the late Anton Yelchin, Imogen Poots and Toni Collette's performances. My outrage has died at this being another movie who's memory has been defiled by the 'let's do a remake and make worse than the original' crowd. The relationships have enough charm to have made this something a 'comfort food movie' for me. Here's to the memory of Anton. Wish he had lived longer. It seems like this movie was written by somebody whose top priority was to defy expectations. The result is a forced and unnatural movie that features the same title and character names of the original 'Fright Night' with none of it's wit, scares, charm or taut plot structure. The first 'Fright Night' was akin to a chess match. This one is more like roller derby. They really should have just called it some other title and invested more into the new plot and character development. That being said, on it's own, it's still a slightly above average Horror/Vampire flick.The late Anton Yelchin (sad face) is good as Charley and there is a talented cast of Colin Farrel, Toni Collette and Imogen Poots (new crush). I guess anybody who has played Dr. Who is supposed to be a genius but I thought this David Tennant dude, was a dud. Roddy McDowell lent so much more class and zeal to the role. I thought Farrel would have been great but where Chris Sarandon provided an air of mystery, depth and seeming enjoyment in being a vampire, Farrell just comes across as some guy who needs to suck blood to stay alive.The attempt to make the story more contemporary, like making the two love interests more sexually savvy, seemed to be jaded and uncomfortable. Also the 'Evil' character isn't given any of the great stuff the kid did in the original and just comes across sad. They even set up the possibility of a redemptive moment for two former friends who have grown apart and then don't deliver. The role of the Vampire's 'familiar', which added more humor and another foe to deal with is cut. They also totally sh!tcanned the Vampire and Amy 'love' plot line that drove the entire 3rd act. The dance club seduction scene that worked so well is reduced to what appears to be lewd make out session in the middle of crowded club. No romance, no mystery and nothing to drive the plot.The vampire 'does and don't' just seemed jumbled and unintelligible unlike the original where there were rules and the breaking or revealing of new rules.All the great special effects makeup of Steve Johnson in the original is now computer aided graphics and pretty lifeless at that. The penultimate shot of Farrel at the end is embarrassing.It's not all bad, hence the 5.5 of 10 rating but I can't think of a single scene or sequence in this movie that is superior or even equal to the original.Hollywood needs to stop with the remake crap and buy some new scripts.

cls0680 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?

Seb Brady Okay let me start off by saying this movie is kick ass and way superior to the 1985 version. For one instead of the movie being cliché and have the family move into a bad neighborhood(Fright Night 1985), the family is moving into a bad neighborhood. Secondly, Collin Farrell as the Vampire in this movie was like the greatest thing to happen to this movie instead of the boring/Emotionless vampire in Fright Night 1985. Thirdly, this movie has really great acting throughout the film. There was not one actor who I hated in this film. Fourthly, this movie is so damn scary and suspenseful but is also really funny at times, unlike the 1985 version where I was not laughing, scared or even feeling a bit of suspense. All in all, this movie is the superior Fright Night film and I had a lot of fun with it. I would definitely recommend this and watch it over and over again!:)