Buy Fright Night Movie. Watch online or Download
Genres: ComedyHor
Starring: Chris Sarandon, Colin Farrell, Anton Yelchin, Will Denton, Imogen Poots, Toni Collette, Lisa Loeb
Director(s): Craig Gillespie
Available Quality: Hi Def
Country: USA, India
Year: 2011
Available Quality: DivX, Hi Def, Hi Def
IMDB Rating: 6.6 out of 10 (26471 votes)
A remake of the 1985 original, teenager Charley Brewster (Yelchin) guesses that his new neighbor Jerry Dandrige (Farrell) is a vampire responsible for a string of recent deaths. When no one he knows believes him, he enlists Peter Vincent (Tennant), a self proclaimed vampire killer and Las Vegas magician, to help him take down Jerry.
 |
Fright Night (Hi Def) | Resolution: 1920x1080 px | Total Size: 7828 Mb |
|
|
 |
Fright Night (Hi Def) | Resolution: 1280x720 px | Total Size: 4472 Mb |
|
|
 |
Fright Night (DivX) | Resolution: 624x352 px | Total Size: 700 Mb |
|
Movie Photos:
We have taken some photos of "Fright Night". They represent actual movie quality.
Visitors Review
rougexk1 (25 May 2012)
Not As Good As The Original!!!
Please be aware this review contains spoilers!!Whilst being a huge fan of the original movie (Even though it was made2 years before I was born) I think this was an OK attempt at trying tobring this movie into the modern cinema.What it lacked so much of in my opinion was the suave and charmingdemeanour of the character of Jerry Dandridge. Colin Farrell seemed toplay it as just a 'beer guzzling' guy looking for a quick way to gethold of woman and girls and create some 'Tribe' or some nonsensestoryline to fit into and it just didn't work for me. What got me sopulled into the original was the fact that he just fed and disposed ofthe bodies afterwards (No tribe nonsense) the only time he turnedanyone was when Charlie p*ssed him off and he decided to take Ed andAmy and change them and the scene when he does actually bites her, hetakes his time and she quite willingly lets him bite and turn her. Ididn't get any of that from Farrell's version of Jerry, just arrogance.(At least from my perspective) I think Colin Farrell is a good actor,but feel the direction he was given was very...Blah, if you get mymeaning?The character of Amy was beyond annoying and the way they wrote her wassimply too different from the original. (I know it's a Reboot, but forgoodness sake at least make the characters a little like their originalcounterparts) Charlie was just an absolute douche bag in this versionand I actually disliked his character all the way to the end. Not SoEvil-Ed was the most pointless part for me because their was nocharacter development before he got munched practically straight away.Peter Vincent was funny and made me laugh, but he just happened to havewhat was needed to turn everyone back. How Lame!!!I did like the way they used Vegas and the whole sleep during the day,work all night concept as it fit a Vampire story quite well and seemedto be the only thing in the movie that actually made sense! IMHO I being a huge fan of the original had gone into the cinema withthe mentality of being disappointed and I seriously was, but as a standalone for this tween generation they'll probably love it,Unfortunately!!!(This is my opinion only)The Original is Better so I'll stick with that one instead!!
khan2705 (24 May 2012)
i am already forgetting about it but it was very fun movie, better than many silly teen movies.
Senior Charlie Brewster (Anton Yelchin) finally has it all-he's runningwith the popular crowd and dating the hottest girl in high school. Infact, he's so cool he's even dissing his best friend Ed (ChristopherMintz-Plasse). But trouble arrives when an intriguing stranger Jerry(Colin Farrell) moves in next door. He seems like a great guy at first,but there's something not quite right-and everyone, including Charlie'smom (Toni Collette), doesn't notice. After witnessing some very unusualactivity, Charlie comes to an unmistakable conclusion: Jerry is avampire preying on his neighborhood. Unable to convince anyone thathe's telling the truth, Charlie has to find a way to get rid of themonster himself in this revamp of the comedy-horror classic. Starring, Colin Farrell, Anton Yelchin, David Tennant, ChristopherMintz-Plasse, Toni Collette , Imogen Poots , Dave Franco , Reid Ewing ,Will Denton , Sandra Vergara , Emily Montague , Chris Sarandon.Directed by Craig Gillespie, who directed Lars and real girls.OK so i haven't see the original movie as its a remake so i won'tcomment on that. i must say i am hearing it is nothing like theoriginal, its a new movie on its own nothing like that one.i hardly remember watching an actual Vampire movie lately exceptTwilight and Let Me In so it was a good change. but i am watching TheVampire Diaries so yes, i like Vampires.i may not give a good review for this movie since i wasn't fullyconcentrating on this movie but i do remember it. yes this is a modernvampire horror comedy and apparently in 3D. what? 3D was of 0% use inthis movie i mean why? waste of money.Movie about Jerry who is a vampire and hunts people and kill them whileliving among them. Charley is a teenager and Jerry moves to theirneighborhood. he is informed by his friend Ed that many people aregoing missing here and says it is being done by a Vampire whichobviously Charley doesn't believe on. the movie goes on and thusCharley, his mom and girlfriend are being chased by him.nice direction for such kind of a movie, this movie had a somehow dark,lonely and atmospheric feel to it. which i loved. nice cinematographyand okay effects and make up and everything else. Screenplay was okay.plot was something i really liked. and the other best technical thingabout this movie was its Score, it was too good.Colin Farrell steals the show as Jerry the vampire, he did a fantasticjob portraying him. i am so sure he had a great time doing it. he hasthis sexy persona that helps a lot. a perfect vampire look. AntonYelchin did a nice job, being the main teen lead in the movie. DavidTennant who as usual swore a lot in this movie was nice and so wereother supporting actors, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Toni Collette andImogen Poots. nice performances but it is Colin Farrell who stands outamong them.very good amount of blood and mild to high gore. a bit scary andhaunting but above all very fun, hip and enjoyable. you will have agood time.
Austino-1997 (24 May 2012)
Fright Night
First of all, I haven't seen the original fright night. I never reallyknew anything about it until I heard about this movie. At first, when Iheard the premise, it didn't seem original under any circumstances. Andfinally I saw the trailer and instantly couldn't wait to see it. FrightNight is a sleek, modern, edge-of-your-seat thriller with a few comicalpoints. The storyline starts quickly and doesn't let up until theintense finale. The movie relays more on the characters and whatthey're going through than on blood and gore. The casting is also verywell chosen. Anton Yelchin plays his part well but in my opinion thespotlight is on Colin Farrel who I think is possibly the coolestvampire in any movie so far. He plays the part extremely well. Iwouldn't have minded a little bit more of Christopher Mintz-Plasse.Overall, the movie is a sleek, somewhat original, teen vampire flickthat lives up to its potential.
Maleplatypus (23 May 2012)
Quite an entertaining show
Now, despite the fact that I'm not into vampire movies and stuff (beingtoo exploited lately) since I've grown up, this is an entertainingmovie. There are many flaws (or "holes") in the plot (it's like a Swisscheese, actually) but nevertheless it's altogether funny and worthwatching. Casting and directing are good, performances also, not tomention SFX. And it's not too long (round 100 minutes; classic). Idon't remember watching the "original" Fright Night (although I did,many years ago), so it obviously wasn't worth it. This one also won'tbe remembered, but for now it is OK. Don't expect too much and you'llbe rewarded with an not more than an average vampire light comedy thatgoes well with some good company and snacks.
DarlingDracorex (23 May 2012)
Pleasantly Surprised
As a big fan of David Tennant's work, I initially only saw this filmbecause he was in it. I honestly didn't think it would be that great ofa movie... I couldn't have been more wrong. Tennant was brilliant asPeter Vincent, as I knew he would be, but the rest of the cast wasstellar as well. I was particularly impressed by Colin Farrell'sperformance as Jerry - absolutely chilling! Also, as a side note, thefake American accents of Colin Farrell, Toni Collette, and Imogen Pootswere amazing.Now, I should point out that I haven't seen the original "FrightNight", however, I don't think people should be comparing the two. Theremake is set 26 years after the original - they're supposed to bedifferent! Overall, I have nothing but praise for "Fright Night". It has theperfect balance of horror and humor, and the visual effects areincredible. It may not be the best movie of all-time, but it isdefinitely a must-see. 8/10
markhaazen (22 May 2012)
At last a decent remake! (And yes i love the classic of 80's)
So the truth is I loved the original back in the 80's and thought oh nonot another remnake! However sitting down watching it after only about5-10 minutes started to thoroughly enjoy it.FrightNight is a remake, with a difference. (It comes in 3D as well ifu wish). Based on the original Fright Night, but with a fewdifferences, for once the vampire is not in love with his lunch....nowthere is a turn up for the books! Las Vegas neighbour hood people startto disappear as Colin Farrell (Jerry) moves in next door. Hes broody inhis character because hes a Vampire! (Some reviewers really need to seebigger picture and step away from Twilight and the originalFrightNight, as there are some differences). Brewster has to step inand save the day, armed with stakes and crossbow he enlists the help ofVincent,(David Tennent)who is a Las Vegas magician. The film gets 5stars as its a little different from the original, however stillmaintains its story line without the kissy kissy bits! Both Farrell andTennent steal the show, putting in a good performance, even theoriginal vampire from FrightNight (Chris Sarradon) has a small role toplay in the film, no hints for spotting him. (spoiler alert..hes theguy who rear ends their car!)There are lots of similarities between theoriginal, for example, in one the vampire trashes Brewsters car, inthis one, he trashes the motorbike...well, lobs it anyhow! The banterbetween Vincent (Tennent) and Brewster is funny, there are enough teethshots, gore shots to keep any vampire fan happy. I would recommend thisfilm in a heart beat, it contains everything a horror fan would enjoy.
upstreamtuna (22 May 2012)
A fresh breath for vampire movies
I haven't seen the original. But, I haven't seen a good vampire moviesince "Let the Right One In" in 2008. With all the "Twilight" crapsteaming up the Hollywood industry, it felt SO good to breathe a breathof fresh air while watching a vampire movie.The plot sticks to basic: A vampire moves in next door to a teenageboy, and when certain suspicions arise, said teenager learns that hisnext door neighbor is a vampire.The characters are SO great. You have Charley, the nerd turned jockplayed by Anton Yelchin. Jerry, the harmlessly named vamp, played byCollin Ferrell. Evil Ed, the geeky friend of Charlie that has beentracking Jerry for weeks, played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse. Jane,Charlie's mother, played by Toni Collette. Amy, Charlie's populargirlfriend, played by Imogen Poots. And last but certainly not least,Peter Vincent, the wannabe vampire hunter who's parent's were killed byvampires, played by David Tennant (who easily steals the show withevery scene he's in).This movie is horrific and creepy at times, and super funny at others.The main cast is great and the story is good. I just wish they wouldhave given a little more time for the suspense to build up aroundJerry. It felt like it jumped fast from the start to where the storyreally starts to pick up speed, and then this movie is over just asfast as it began. That is my only gripe.Other than that, it is good. Better than Shark Night 3D, and Conan. Ifyou go to the theater anytime soon, see this one. 4/5
J Ritty (21 May 2012)
I don't get all the super positive reviews on here
while the film is entertaining for most parts (and yes tedious andclichéd in others...many others) it fails on many, many levels. Theplot has more holes than a slice of swiss cheese and everything isawfully convenient in this this movie. Ferrell was entertaining as avampire, Toni Collette was wasted and I liked David Tennant but hatedhis character. I thought of Russell Brand like a lot of people did whenI fist saw him.Spoiler alert Three things I really had a problem with...1. The fact that all these kids/people are missing and the cops don'tseem to care. This was the worst of the plot holes to me.2. I was really entertained up until the part where Ferrell rips thegas line out of the ground and blows up the house...the actions ofeveryone during that scene and in the car chase afterwards was awkwardand silly to me and again the police don't notice the gas line dug outof the ground or investigate their house EXPLODING!? etc etc...3. The pre credits sequence. Ending a movie well can really help amediocre film out. If they can send you out smiling in a sense you'llbe like "that was OK" instead of "that was crap"...they lost me rightat the end during the scene in the loft. Also, the closing remake songwas awful in my opinion.Those are my main grips and honourable mention goes to, as someone elsehere put it: the constant "douche baggery" of our main character - thatreally stuck in my crawl...but he did kick ass at the end...End of SpoilersSo while it was entertaining, it was NOT a well made movie. too manyreason to list. If this were siskel & ebert, I'd be doing "thumbsdown". I wouldn't even recommend a rental, this is straight cable fare.
BA_Harrison (21 May 2012)
Surprisingly enjoyable.
It's hard to take when Hollywood begins to remake all of the films thatyou first enjoyed as a teenager: not only does it make you feel veryold ("They can't do that!!! It's only been **pause to count** 25 yearssince it came out"), but more often than not, they make a real mess ofit.When I initially clapped eyes on stills of David Tennant looking like atotal douche as Peter Vincent in this update of Fright Night, Iprepared myself for the worstÂ'Here we go again', I thought to myself,'another botch job in the works.' To my surprise, however, this onesucceeds where most have failed; a few minor niggles regarding certainplot details aside (is picking a lock really that easy?), they'vemanaged to take a well-loved 80s classic, bring it slam-bangup-to-date, make some neat tweaks to the story-line, while stillmaintaining everything that made the original such a blast.Fright Night (2011) is funny, scary, sexy, and cool, packed withdazzling special effects, and Tennant is actually very good, hischaracter deliberately intended as an arrogant prick. The rest of theactors are also excellent, comparing favourably with the original's topnotch cast: Anton Yelchin is suitably affable as Charley Brewster;Christopher Mintz-Plasse oozes nerd (although his Ed isn't quite aspathetic as Stephen Geoffrey's); Imogen Poots is incredibly sexy asAmy; and Colin Farrell makes for a very convincing Jerry, perfectlynailing both charming and chilling. Chris Sarandon, the original FrightNight's vamp, even turns up for a cameo.In a perfect world, I'd like this film to have had an updated versionof the 80s soundtrack, performed by new bandsÂfor me, the rock/popmusic was an integral part of what made Fright Night so special; I'dalso like to have seen the vampire as a bat, as in the original film,and for the effects to be a little less reliant on CGI. But when somany remakes aren't even worth investing the time, let alone hardearned cash, I'll just have to be satisfied that this one is as good asit is.
jcallows (20 May 2012)
surprisingly good!
I didn't expect much going into this film but it turned out to be verygood. It managed to recapture the scariness and humor of the originalbut with a snappier, updated look. The cast and script were great andthe pacing was just right.Although the setting was expanded and the script was updated for thisfilm, it kept the same basic story and main characters as the original.And, just as important, it kept the proper blend of humor and horrorthat the original had. I enjoyed the original and I enjoyed this remake just as much. It hasgive me the belief again that good remakes are still possible.This is obviously a well crafted film so it puzzles me why it has sucha low rating. It barely beat out that Karate Kid remake. This isappalling. This is a much better film than that.
viktorhelenius (20 May 2012)
not living up to the start
it started well, quite interesting...but then it turned out to be veryboring and with a dragged storyline. i couldn't finish watching it. theproblem was, i think, that they tried to make a bigger plot out of amovie with little plot. it wasn't all bad, Collin Farrell was doing agood job really, he's fun to watch. so if you like him, you might enjoythe first hour or so. now to the rating: suspense: 3, violence: 3,humor: 5, action: 5, acting: 7, direction: 6, storyline: 2, sex: 1,gore: 3 (girls getting bitten) i wouldn't say it's a movie for childrenor young people however there isn't much as in violence, gore, sex oranything so it wouldn't traumatize anybody. all in all, i think itwould be a real good movie if it was cut a little.
texanvkg (19 May 2012)
Much Better Than Expected
The original has always been a favorite, and after getting burned onmultiple re-imaginings over the last few years, I went into this filmwith some trepidation, not expecting much, and hoping that it was atleast respectful to the source material.What a pleasant surprise! Excellent performances by Yeltin and Farreland the wonderful, zany Tennant anchor and well-made vampire flick thatcaptures the heart and humor of the original. I thoroughly enjoyed themovie, have no complaints, and was very happy to see Chris Sarandonappear in a cameo as the victim out on the highway.For those that love the original, this film does the first on justiceand I recommend you set aside your fears and enjoy this film. For thosethat have not seen the original - watch this and have fun!
Jimmy Munoz (19 May 2012)
Right ahead to the Razzies....
What kind of remake was this piece of garbage???...how the producersspend a lot of money on this one film???? lack of ideas...lack ofacting...lack of humor...the screenplay fails in every point that youcan imagine...Jerry the vampire has no charisma...sorry Colin Farrel isnot against you..I means...how could you to considered this screenplaya good movie? ...the others characters just simply flats...hollows...ED(fails) AMY (vomits)PETER VINCENT !!! I PREFEER CALL IT a terrible copyof Chris Angel, even Angel is a clown....so, you can imagineVincent...the original movie was the masterpiece of a cinema that icalled "honest cinema"...resume: "...and the razzies go to..." all thecategories that you named ...FRIGHT NIGHT 2011 IS THE WORST MOVIE OFTHE YEAR AND THE DECADE....
JTheGoblinKing (18 May 2012)
I loathe this movie
I loathe this movie. I can't even put into words how much I hated thismovie so instead I will list ways I feel this film could have beenimproved. Pay attention because my view of this movie is revealed inthe list.Ten things that would have improved this remake:1. Tom Holland as the writer or another writer familiar with Draculastyle vampires. Even the writer of Dracula of 2000 or Van Helsing wouldhave been better than Marti Noxon. 2. Respect for the intelligence of the audience. i.e. keeping PeterVincent as a has-been horror actor who perhaps now has a web series asto modernize his position.3. Kept the shapeshifting abilities to become wolf, mist, bat, fly andenthrall minds because it's freaky and makes the vampires all the morepowerful. There was no reason to strip them of most of their powers andadd extra limitations to them.4. Leave the hint of humanity in that Jerry was looking for thelook-a-like of a lost love. This gives a twinge of sympathy and alsomakes it all the more twisted and frightening when he does somethingevil because you're taken off guard. 5. Find a director who actually was a fan of the original and remembersit fondly and knows how to do Gothic atmosphere, who can make suburbscreepy, like Tim Burton or Del Toro. 6. Leave it set in the suburbs. Every country and state has suburbs.Most places don't have their own Vegas. 7. Make sure the hero is relatable and a decent human being. Aself-absorbed tool who abandons friends for popularity just doesn't cutit.8. A better budget. Fifteen million is pocket change today by Hollywoodstandards.9. Knowledge of what is popular in the genre. The director and writerof this remake THINK things like Saw and Final destination are in andGothic is old. Actually it's the opposite.The last Saw movie didpoorly. Let me in did fairly well for what it was. And the Wolfmanremake got an Oscar while Final destination five is struggling. TwoFrankenstein films are in development, Dark Shadows is in production asis Harker, and Dracula 3D. Priest did well and Woman in Black is aboutto hit theaters. Slasher films are out. Gothic horror is back with avengeance and the ones who made this remake are really out of touch tonot know that.10. An effort to NOT appeal to any particular demographic. Notice howTim Burton's films are always successful even when people complainabout how formulaic they've become. He never tires to appeal to ademographic. He makes films that appeal to his own tastes and to Hellwith what the studio thinks kids want today. Sleepy Hollow was going tobe a generic, low budget slasher film with no romance or atmospehre butthen Tim Burton got a hold of it and added the supernatural, added thelove story, and added the Hammer Horror-esque atmosphere and he made itwork where it would have failed. If Hollywood would just stop trying tocondescend to what it thinks is a simple minded audience we might startgetting quality horror films again. Some people are already trying andit's working. This film is not.
Sharicespieces (17 May 2012)
If you thought the previews looked cool, like I did...
then be prepared to think it's not cool anymore. Everything happenswithin the first 10 minutes; McLovin' gets killed and we're shown thatColin Farrell is in fact a vampire. After this, my friend and Iliterally turned to each other and said, "What?". Obviously I knew hewas a vampire from the previews, but why did they give it up so fast?The story isn't centered on him, it's centered on the kid, Charley,trying to beat him. So shouldn't we have some sort of suspense orsurprise in that area? Like finding out he's a vampire when Charleydoes? Also, the dialogue is so awkward. I heard pity laughs in thetheater. The way Charley's "cool" friends talked was so forced andout-of-date. It's over-the-top cliché teen speak that's never actuallybeen used by teens. And his conversations with McLovin' were dull andawkward and didn't have any sort of real-ness or even movie-ness inthem. It was stale banter.In terms of story, it would have been 50% better had they stuck to theconventions. It was just so incoherent and un-relatable (we AREsupposed to be able to relate to it even though it's about vampires)They (the writers) should have kept McLovin' alive, and had himconvince Charley that Jerry (Colin Farrell) is a vampire. And Jerryshould have at least tried to hide it, instead of gallivanting aroundkilling people the second he moved into the neighborhood. It would havebeen more fun to see their attempts to uncover Jerry and beat him athis own game. Rather than having no room for the audiences' imaginationand guesswork. It wasn't an adventure at all. McLovin's character wasone of the most entertaining in the movie. It would have been more funto see him and Charley's dynamic (although a cliché one; enthusiasticbeliever vs in-denial non-believer) grow. Because that was the onlychance the story had for there to be an interesting dynamic. Charley vsJerry was very clear-cut and out in the open, except for the maybe 10minutes of screen time where he has to hide it from his mother andgirlfriend. Overall, it wasn't as cool as it seemed in the previews.The tone nor mood really matched up. Plus there's a ridiculous "vampireslayer" (not in the 'so corny that it's funny' way, more in the 'sodumb that it's dumb way') who decides at last minute to help Charley. Ithink that part was written for Russell Brand or something. It wasawful.The movie had potential though. Being set in a desert suburb of LasVegas made it kind of cozy and undertoned the isolation of theneighborhood. However, the story just fell apart and there wereawkwardly placed scenes with his mother at the end of the movie thatdidn't "wrap things up" the way it was meant to, and instead made usthink something was about to happen to his mother. It didn't play onexpectations like it could have. In fact, its lack thereof lead it tofalsely create expectations that were never met.Oh well.
asha-albert (17 May 2012)
A surprisingly good remake of a cult classic
I saw the original Fright Night when i was a kid, and that movie is theonly reason I went to see this one. I kept my expectations low....afterall, this is a "re-boot", but I was pleasantly surprised.The reboot does have its WTF moments, but these can be safely ignoredto focus on the good performances, the good updated storyline, as wellas the more plausible explanations for "how come no-one knows this is avampire". The one thing that really sucked was the 3D - completelyunnecessary and a strain on the eyes. A lot of the movie is shot in thedark, and the 3D makes some scenes look grey and dingy.The story is more or less the same. Charlie Brewster (AntonYelchin)lives with his mom in Vegas, has just snagged a hot girlfriendat school, and has broken up with his best friend Ed. And oh yes, theyhave a new neighbor Jerry Dandridge (Colin Farell) who's putting themoves on Charlie's mom. Frankly I don't blame her for becoming a gooeypuddle, Jerry is THAT HOT. But local girls keep disappearing, and afterEd disappears too, Charlie comes to the reluctant conclusion that Jerryis a vampire, and is behind the disappearances. The rest of the movieis devoted to how Charlie overcomes Jerry, with the help of aself-proclaimed vampire expert.While a lot of us may feel short-changed by the reboot, since it doesnot have the campy cheesy atmosphere of the original, I beg to differ.The original was campy, and unintentionally humorous, because the SFXwere at that level. The SFX in this movie are of a much higher level ofsophistication, and make this a full-on horror movie, with not muchscope for laughter.Where performances are concerned, Toni Collette is a complete waste ofspace in the role of "generic mom". Anton Yelchin reprises his StarTrek role as "goofy yet talented person", but that is the essence ofCharlie Brewster. Colin Farrell is perfect in the role of the vampireJerry Dandridge, bringing to it a savage, feral quality that wasmissing in the original Chris Sarandon. In fact the face CGI is wastedon Farrell - his vampire is more menacing when wearing his human face.Christopher Mintz-Plasse seems to have been short-changed. The role ofEd has been shortened considerably, and is dead even before we canunderstand his character.In short, a fun movie (if a horror movie can be termed "fun") from thefamily massacre in the beginning, to the ingenious killing in the end.
Mitesh Sahu (17 May 2012)
More Gory and Less Scary than the Original!
The 2011 movie has got more gore and cheap thrills than the 1985 movie.All that the former had was a couple of scenes that actually scared me,that too due to the sound effects involved. It was more of shock thanfear. Let us be very frank about one thing, a horror movie is meant toscare you deep inside. The 2011 movie is a remake and a very poor oneat that. It did not contain any of the spine-chilling elements thatwere in the original. I will just compare one scene and let the audience decide if thecomparison holds good. In the 1985 movie, there is a scene whenCharlie, as a voyeur is looking at a couple making love. Suddenly, hesees fangs appear in the guy's mouth and he starts sucking blood out ofthe girls neck. The next thing he knows is the girl is oscillating inequilibrium of pain and pleasure that is when Charlie sees a clawpulling down the blinds which leaves Charlie flabbergasted and filledwith nothing but horror. The scene is equally horrifying to theaudience watching it. There are many more such instances throughout the1985 movie that leaves the viewer with no choice but to be scared. Aseach minute passes one gets more and more fearful of what is going tohappen to the protagonist in due course of the movie. This creepyfeeling was missing in the new version. There is a major difference inthe way one feels when Chris Sarandon says "Welcome to Fright Night,For Real!!" and the way Colin Farrell says it at the climax. Now about the performances, Collin Farrell is a very good actor and hedoes a good job with the scope he has got, but there is no characterdevelopment at all, fair enough! The director may not have felt theneed to develop Jerry's character because it is a remake. Anton Yelchinwas again decent enough in portraying the scared teenager, CharlieBrewster. David Tennant, Imogen Poots and Toni Collet too manage topull off decent performances as Peter Vincent, Amy and Jane Brewster.Christopher Mintz-Plasse as Ed became redundant after the swimming poolscene; it seems that the director only needed him to make Charlie feelguilty about not helping a friend. There is however very little doubt,that the 1985 version of the moviewas scarier. The performances of Chris Sarandon and William Ragsdalehad set a benchmark which makes it difficult for the audience to forgetand forgive the makers of this modern and less decent effort at makinga classic teenage horror movie "Fright Night".
Claudio Carvalho (16 May 2012)
Awful Remake of the 1985 New-Classic
The Tom Holland's 1985 "Fright Night" is one of the most charming filmsof the cinema history. The story is funny and the humor is witty, withthe handsome Chris Sarandon performing one of his best roles andWilliam Ragsdale, Amanda Bearse and specially Roddy McDowall hilarious.In summary, the 1985 original film may be considered a new classic,worshiped by a legion of fans.This teen remake is simply awful, with explosions, car chase and acynical and charmless Colin Farrell in the role of Jerry Danridge.People who have positively voted in this garbage have certainly notwatched the original film. My vote is one (awful).Title (Brazil): "A Hora do Espanto" ("The Fright Hour")
Batur Güney (16 May 2012)
excellent remake; so sad that it went down in such a spectacular fashion
I finally got to see the remake of Fright Night. As a fan of theoriginal who has seen it countless times since the 80s, I canwholeheartedly state that this new version is one of the best remakes Ihave ever seen.The original story was brought wonderfully up to date. It was so clearthat everything was deeply thought out. The original had a slightbalance toward comedy. Here that balance is shifted a bit more towardsthe horror side so the film has a perfect mix of both elements in myopinion. It made me seriously tense and left me creeped out and thiscoming from someone who knows the flow of the main story by heart!Colin Farrell was in one word spectacular. Here is a vampire thatreally scares you underneath those extreme good looks, capable ofturning out to be a ruthless monster in the blink of an eye. Theviolence by the way was pretty strong. I was positively surprised bythe amount of gore for such a big budget studio production. And the 3D.I loved the 3D of the film. So subtle but at the same time as in yourface as it gets when the scene necessitates it.Which brings me to the unbelievable box office failure of thiswonderful film Stateside. How did this happen? I will tell you. Anunfortunate release at the tail end of the summer when in fact the filmpractically screams for a fall Halloween release date, coupled with twoother 3D pictures (Conan the Barbarian and Spy Kids 4) at the same weeknot to mention another regular 2D release (One Day). They all died aquick death, with American audiences rejecting all four of them andflocking to a Southern anti-racist drama and an ape movie in hugenumbers. I did not see the other 3 films as of today but I have to saythat the flopping of Fright Night 2011 is one of the most unjustfailures in the whole history of movies. The current 3D fatigue ofAnmerican public was the main benefactor in this case. How else can youexplain that all three of these 3D releases flopped in such aspectacular fashion during the same week? They clearly did not botherto make any distinction among the good and bad films that week and wentwith a to- hell-with-them-all attitude. Sorry but this I can notunderstand. Another thing I cannot understand is why this film was alsopractically ripped to pieces by professional critics and internetcommentators unanimously. What's wrong with you guys? Is none of youable to spot a decently made gem of a film among all the familyentertainment trash anymore? This film certainly did not deserve thefate it endured. I am soo sad about it all..And one side note: Cinemablend.com meticulously analyzes and rates each3D release regularly which greatly helps me when picking up what towatch in 3D. But in the case of Fright Night 2011, even that trustedsite seems to have erred. At the time of the film's release in the US,the relevant article headed "Fright Night: To 3D or Not to 3D"specifically stated that the film was a terrible choice to be filmed in3D since the many night scenes did not fare well in 3D mode because ofthe dimming of the projection light by the 3D glasses and that as aresult it was impossible to see what was going on during most of thefilm's night scenes. Wroooooong! In the showing I attended at my localcinema, the film was very clear and there was absolutely nothing wrongwith the dimness settings of the picture. The action was very clear tofollow and at no point did I experience any difficulties regarding the3D aspect of the film. So I am itching to ask: Could there possibly besomething wrong with the projection settings of the films shown in theUS theaters in general? American moviegoers seem to be really upsetabout these 3D projection issues for quite some time now and the wholething now started to result in such box office anomalies as what wasexperienced by this unfortunate movie. Someone better do somethingStateside about this whole issue or the future of 3D really is introuble as regards the American market in my opinion since the notionof "3D" itself seems to have turned into box office poison as of late.Ooops!
markhaazen (15 May 2012)
At last a decent remake! (And yes i love the classic of 80's)
So the truth is I loved the original back in the 80's and thought oh nonot another remake! However sitting down watching it after only about5-10 minutes started to thoroughly enjoy it.FrightNight is a remake, with a difference. (It comes in 3D as well ifu wish). Based on the original Fright Night, but with a fewdifferences, for once the vampire is not in love with his lunch....nowthere is a turn up for the books! Las Vegas neighbour hood people startto disappear as Colin Farrell (Jerry) moves in next door. Hes broody inhis character because hes a Vampire! (Some reviewers really need to seebigger picture and step away from Twilight and the originalFrightNight, as there are some differences). Brewster has to step inand save the day, armed with stakes and crossbow he enlists the help ofVincent,(David Tennent)who is a Las Vegas magician. The film gets 5stars as its a little different from the original, however stillmaintains its story line without the kissy kissy bits! Both Farrell andTennent steal the show, putting in a good performance, even theoriginal vampire from FrightNight (Chris Sarradon) has a small role toplay in the film, no hints for spotting him. (spoiler alert..hes theguy who rear ends their car!)There are lots of similarities between theoriginal, for example, in one the vampire trashes Brewsters car, inthis one, he trashes the motorbike...well, lobs it anyhow! The banterbetween Vincent (Tennent) and Brewster is funny, there are enough teethshots, gore shots to keep any vampire fan happy. I would recommend thisfilm in a heart beat, it contains everything a horror fan would enjoy.
Review total: 20, showing from 1 to 20