Badmovies.org Forum

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxqtyTH5bzM

So this is the trailer for the newly made Fright Night 2011 starring Colin Farrell as Jerry, and the McLovin kid as Evil.  So...this begs the questions of
A.) Why remake it?
B.) Is nobody really all that interested?
C.) The original wasn't so great, why's this look a billion times worse?
D.) No Peter Vincent type character?

I was initially intrigued about it but after the trailer...I really wanna avoid it at all costs.

I'll have to disagree. The original is great, made its mark, has a devoted following thus the reason for a remake.

I might check out the remake when it hits Blu-ray depending on reviews. The remake is rated R (good sign) and the trailer is omitting creature f/x on purpose. If they didn't CGI the effects to death the audience should be in for a hopefully fun surprise. Plus there's Toni Collette which is reason enough for me to check it out eventually.

It's a bit puzzling. The original is a decent piece of '80s popcorn.

Well, the idea is a good one that can go a lot of places. A suburban teen discovers his neighbor is a vampire. Good basis.

I'm a bit disappointed they seem to have jettisoned the washed up horror movie host. Roddy McDowall is a big part of the original.

I do get a kick out of Anton Yelchin being the main character.

"He's a wampire!"
"What?"
"A wampire! A wampire!"

I agree-where's the horror movie host??? They coulda got someone like Christopher Lee! THAT would be a kick! Lee fighting vampires!

It might not be that bad. It looks like they've gone a different direction and replaced some fo the fun elements of the original with more modern horror type stuff. I think cutting out the Peter Vincent type character was maybe a decision they made to appeal to more modern( tweens and teens) audience who might have no idea what any of that stuff is about. Horror movie hosts aren't nearly as popular as they used to be, although they could have changed things up by using an Elvira style host. And at least Colin Ferrell doesn't sparkle.

This is only being remade because of the Twilight series doing so well, the world seems to have gone vampire mad, or at least they're having vampires rammed down their throats until they go mad. I love the original Fright Night (I'll always have to say that now), so I have no interest in this whatsoever. Watching this film will just make me mad and I'm 100% positive that it will in no way, better the 1985 film. Plus, I detest Colin Farrell as both an actor and a human being.

My vote. Why would anyone remake it?

(http://i2.listal.com/image/1184115/500full.jpg)
80's Jerry Dandrige: HA haha! A remake... what a joke.

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_lc8sqv4rBl4/TH8Ew_pUuQI/AAAAAAAAAFQ/9gCU8NWXqEU/s1600/petervincent.jpg)
80's Peter Vincent: Damn them! No Peter Vincent type character? You fail, Sir.

(http://www.seventh-angel.net/wp-content/uploads/6444.gif)
80's Evil: Ha haha! "McLovin"

And this is why I haven't gone to the theatre by choice in 4-5 years.
Hollywood doesn't want original ideas. They either want remakes, sequels, adaptations, remakes of adaptations, rip-offs or remakes of rip-offs. The exceptions, are safe and marketable films featuring characters solely designed to sell as much merchandise as possible once the film is released (or maybe get a TV spin-off). Or, films that can be turned into trilogies.
Creativity is a thing of the past. And really, I don't care. I'm fine with the many, many, MANY classics and masterpieces film history has given us, thus why I don't care about new films.

I quite love the original for what it is. I'm still just flabbergasted they made it.

I never saw the original so I am the perfect person to see the remake.  I have no bias or any preconceive feelings at all.  Plus, I give every film a fair shake before I enter it, with certian exceptions to the rule (Anything by Friedberg and Seltzer.  There I just hope this movie will not suck as bad I believe it will).

I'm what he sed. You hit the nail onna head,Kasey.
And I don't see any big budget horror film producers and directors doing anything different.
This is not new. Horror films have been remade for DECADES. And I imagine some fans of the genre thought as we. But-being I is what I is-I think the new ones are too pretty and polished. The Z movie cheapos had a unique BAD movie charm-these dont. And that-me freinds-is the difference between TWIGHIGHT ( I cant even spell the f**kin word!!!) and the WEREWOLF VS the VAMPIRE WOMAN.
If they wanted to make an entire differnt vampire movie-why call it FRIGHT NIGHT???? Call it something differnt. It's a cheap cash in.

(http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/ActorsS/16413-6855.gif)
80's Billy Cole: Say... Did they leave me out of the remake as well?

(http://www.videodetective.com/photos/014/000618_27.jpg)
80's Charley Brewster: NO, Mom. It was NOT a dream. Kyle Reese plays my part!

(http://pics.livejournal.com/helygen/pic/0010g7g2)
Oh and yes. Peter Vincent is in the REMAKE. (above David Tennant) I'm not sure what to think.

Oh. They do have Peter Vincent. Hmm. He looks like that magic guy on tv. Whats his name? someting Angel. f**k that. It ...ahhh.Im to depressed to even comment on this glossy s**t. Horror is not glossy American Idol actors. Roddy McDowall had history (IT!, PLANET OF THE APES series,The HAUNTING OF HELL HOUSE, CLASS OF 1984 ad nausem) who' is this mo mo???-who's this shmuck? BAH! Horse cock.

(http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/ActorsS/15330-6855.gif)
80's Jerry Dandrige: Oh great. A Criss Angel wanna B. Whats he going do? Pull cards out of his @$$?

Doctor fu*king Who is playing Peter Vincent?

(http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/ActorsM/11570-6855.gif)
80's Peter Vincent: (rolls eyes) The whole idea of this is making my head hurt. Magicians? Really?

Yes he is. And he's pretty much the only reason I'm planning to see this movie when it comes out. He was FANTASTIC  :wink: as The Doctor (anyone who says otherwise is gonna get a wallop in the kisser, ya hear?) and I desperately want to see his career take off now that he's trying to make the transition stateside, so for that reason alone I pray that Fright Night will end up being better than I fear it actually will. There's also the matter that I love the original Fright Night (not only does it have an AWESOME score and delightfully gooey FX work, not only is Roddy McDowell unforgettable as Peter Vincent, and not only is Stephen Geoffrey's the most manic, spastic performance this side of Dwight Frye, but this marks the one and only time that I have been sexually attracted to Amanda Bearse ever... go back and watch the movie, the scenes where her hair down, she's shiny with sweat, and going braless in that ridiculously sheer white gown in what is obviously a very cold room... tell me that's not a vision worthy of awe and wonder). So, yeah, I'll be here opening day... but I'm wary.

Regarding Peter Vincent who, yes, IS in the movie... yes, he has been changed to a Criss Angel-type magician character. Evidently, the thinking was that most of the teen movie-going audience nowadays wouldn't be able to relate to the horror host concept, since so few even know what it is these days (sad but true). I can't actually argue with that logic, and, in terms of what routes they could've went int, I don't think the magician angle is all that bad. Kind of creative, actually. Personally, if I HAD to change the character, I would've gone more in the direction of him being a washed-up has-been actor making the rounds at the horror convention circuit, signing autographed 8x10's for an ever-shrinking line of nerds. I think that would be truer to the original Peter Vincent character, and would also be more dramatically interested. Oh well. Supposedly, he's going to be a gothy, full-of-himself egotistical illustionist whose act has an occult bent and who bills himself as an authority on "real" magic, the supernatural, vampires, etc. Of course, just like with the Peter Vincent of the original Fright Night, the character is a sham. In reality, he's a wimp who knows nothing about "real" vampires. Yada yada yada, you get the deal.

In any case, if nothing else, I think the remake does bring up a good point: what the hell kind of a name for a vampire is "Jerry" anyway?!?

I do love the original movie.  I probably didn't make that clear in an earlier post.  I have a passing interest in this, but more in a "shocked/by-jove what have they done" kind of interest.  Originally I didn't see him in the trailer, but after it was mentioned, I re-watched the trailer and saw him.  I don't have a problem so much with changing that aspect of the character since "Creature Feature" shows have since gone bye-bye.  But overall, if I see this at all, it'll be if I order it On Demand. 

As for David Tennant.  He did portray a great Doctor.  I've been digging Matt Smith as well. 

"Why would anyone remake it?"

But I still plan on seeing it anyway, and that's after seeing the clips from it that are floating around on the world wide web.

I think one of the problems is that the original had a very much '80's vibe to it, which you can not recreate 30 years later.

I am also interested in seeing what they do with "Evil Ed" in the remake, as he is one the few screen characters I really have some empathy for.

This isn't the first remake of "Fright Night." I have a movie from a few years ago called "Never Cry Werewolf" that is a major rip-off of "Fright Night." Except the dude is a werewolf instead of a vampire. The Charlie character is a girl (Nina Dobrev, who's hot, that's the only reason I bought it). The Peter Vincent Character has been changed to a "Crocadile Hunter" type character played by Kevin Sorbo. It's crappy but I enjoyed it. The die-hard "Fright Night" fans will hate it. As far as the newest one goes, David Tennant is a very versitile actor, he's not just Doctor Who.

You should check out Night Visitor (1989) which is another blatant Fright Night rip off. Except the dude is a Satanist instead of a vampire. You'll also get a Charley, Evil Ed and Amy character. The Peter Vincent character has been changed to a burned out ex-cop type of character played by Elliott Gould.
They even recreated the twig-scratching-window fake scare from Fright Night  :bouncegiggle:

Worth a looksy.

Ok, so now that the movie is out... what does everyone say? 

I just watched it and have to say that, sadly, it is lacking in some areas.  It lacks the creepy impending doom of the original.  Charlie is much more pathetic in the original.  Also, Ed is horrible in this one.  I didn't mind that they changed Peter Vincent to something more modern, but this character had no depth in the remake.  We didn't know anything about him except he possibly might be an expert on this sort of thing, but they did not make you believe that he would be.  I mean, he has a website with a pentagram on it and he has a Las Vegas magic act...ok?

I am a bit too disappointed to compose my thoughts as to why I really did not like it.  I may have to see it again to get a better idea of why exactly this didn't work. 

I think it may have been the new screenplay, but I wouldn't know that without reading it first.  This could be the director or even editors fault.  Things seem left out or suddenly added in and the whole thing seems hurried to get to the conclusion.  If you love the original you will dislike this one as some of the elements that made the first one work are left out or handled poorly.  Inviting a vampire in to your house...

for me, this gets a downward thumb  :thumbdown:  make it two  :thumbdown: :thumbdown:

Not seen yet but I noticed that critics seem to like it. Most gave it good/very good reviews and it got a pretty high rating score at IMDb - which is funny because so far I have only read negative comments at forums.

They've probably been paid to give it a decent review so that more people will consider going to watch it. Either that, or they were born too young/late to appreciate everyone's love of the 1985 version.

I'll watch it on DVD.

I have heard some good thing about it. I'm not expecting the fun of the original but hopefully it won't be a complete waste of time.

I'm not desperate to see it, but I'll happily give it a viewing later.

Apparently Roger Ebert gave it 3 stars. I do notice that most flicks that get praise from critics are far removed from what I particularly like.

Circus Circus - why all the hate for Colin Farrell?  He does great charity work for children with Angelman Syndrome, like his own son, and is one of the single best screen actors working - "Intermission", "In Bruges" - I'm planning on seeing this simply because he's in it -

peter johnson

See the film, it doesn't bother me. He may do charity work (lots of actors do) and may have done some great roles here and there but he's also done some terrible ones like S.W.A.T., Miami Vice and Daredevil. Oh and then there's the arrogant interviews, the drugs and all the sexual harassment. I just don't like him, but I'm not out to change anyone else's opinion on the guy. He's only one of the many reasons why I don't wish to see this remake.

I did want to see what rating Ebert gave the original, and he gave it the same rating as the remake 3 stars.

Some place on this board, having seen both the original and remake, I did go into greater detail as to what I thought was wrong with the remake. Nothing really, but I don't think it comes up to the original, except in its use of the music in the film, where I think the remake does a better job. Thus, while I think the remake is an okay film, I also think it is another needless remake of an original film, which for my money was better.

I do wonder, how many of those who do like the remake, have seen the original, and maybe not seeing the original affects their opinion of the remake.

Does anyone remember the Amiga game for the original film?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNePgtHpa0I&feature=related

It used to scare the crap outta me!  :buggedout:

I hate bashing any movie... I mean this is badmovies.org after all.  It just seems that some movies are trying to take themselves too seriously and then fall on their face because of shortcomings.  This new Fright Night does not work... it is a rush job to get a product out.  

As far as Colin Farrell goes, just because he is good in some movies, does not mean that he is always the right choice.  This is the case with Fright Night.  Some one else besides him should have been chosen.  This is not Mr. Farrell's shining moment.  Sadly, I can say the same for most of the other actors in this as well, which leads me to believe it is probably their direction.  

When I looked up the Director, Craig Gillespie, I see his other directing efforts "Lars and the Real Girl" and "Mr Woodcock" as the only two major films. I have only seen "Lars and the Real Girl" so cannot comment on "Mr Woodcock", and I did like it. Not that it would make my top ten, but it was a funny movie, and I thought the characters were well portrayed. I also like "United States of Tara" which he has done a number of episodes of.  I am not sure what happened with "Fright Night".  Perhaps he felt out of his element dealing with a Horror film.  I don't know.  

I JUST watched the remake. Sad. It really made me angry. Not because it was a remake of a perfectly great movie, but because it was going well until the halfway mark. Then it turned into explosions and terrible special-effects-laden fistfights. Colin Farrell was decent, Anton Yelchin was fine, but everything else was disappointing.

I saw this over the weekend finally: I liked Colin Farrell and David Tennant was quite funny but what a terrible film IMHO.

Hollywood: stop ruining my fricking childhood!  :hatred: