Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

Three production stills for the Fright Night remake shows off the new Evil Ed, Brewster and Dandrige

Ahoy, squirts! Quint here. There has been quite a lot of drama surrounding Cinematical in the online world over the last few days. The long and short of it is that the great movie writers that make up the identity of that site were pretty much told by the new Huffington Post run regime at AOL/Moviefone that they were welcome to stay and contribute if they were willing to not earn a wage.

So, not surprisingly, there was a mass exodus of their key personel, many of whom are personal friends of mine. I'm sure there are still some decent people left at the site, but I felt weird about linking back to them in this particular story. But fair is fair and they got the exclusive debut of these first Fright Night remake images, so click any of them to visit the original story.

I don't know why, but I'm not particularly nervous about this remake. I love the original, which I remember seeing on USA Up All Night as a young child and being terrified by vampire Chris Sarandon, but this remake doesn't offend me. Maybe it's because I really like their cast. Anton Yelchin is one of our best actors in this age range, Colin Farrell is way underappreciated by the geek masses and seems perfect for the Chris Sarandon sleazy seductive scary vampire. Throw in Chris Mintz-Plasse, Toni Collette and David Tennant and you have more than a solid cast.

If I have any reservation with this is that they're going PG-13 and that doesn't bode well for a remake of a nicely R-rated movie. That's not a deal breaker, though. Just a concern.

Now we have our first look at the flick with three images, one showing off the Colin Farrell vampire, one focused on the suspicious kids and the last seeing Mintz-Plasse as Evil Ed. None of them are mind-blowing, but they don't look cheap either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do you folks think?

-Quint
quint@aintitcool.com
Follow Me On Twitter

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • April 7, 2011, 9:25 p.m. CST

    Fir....

    by Mr Lucas

    oh never mind

  • April 7, 2011, 9:27 p.m. CST

    Colin Farrell is way underappreciated by the geek masses

    by Margot Tenenbaum

    because he's an awful actor with terrible taste in projects and he looked deeply silly in DAREDEVIL.

  • April 7, 2011, 9:30 p.m. CST

    Margot_tenenbaum

    by DrSherlockHouse

    Minority Report and In Bruges would like to respectfully disagree with you.

  • April 7, 2011, 9:32 p.m. CST

    That looks awful....like a Lifetime network vampire film

    by Bobo_Vision

  • April 7, 2011, 9:38 p.m. CST

    If you judge a whole movie based on three pictures....

    by Robert79797979

    You need to GTFO.

  • April 7, 2011, 9:38 p.m. CST

    WTF happened to Mintz-Plasse's face?

    by UTexLex

    He looks unrecognizable! Like an entirely different person!!

  • April 7, 2011, 9:40 p.m. CST

    Question

    by Raggles Wimpole

    So is McLovin gonna through a mirror and dodge Bullseye's tooth before Red Mist & Giuseppe train a dragon in the first year? All joking aisde, I like how Christopher Mintz-Plasse has tried to do different movies since his film debut rather than the same character over & over again *cough* Michael Cera *cough* (though I will give him credit for the awesomeness that is Scott Pilgrim).

  • April 7, 2011, 9:42 p.m. CST

    WOW im crying

    by pauduro

    Its a sad day <_> i loveeeeeeeeee Fright Night the death is one of the grates and the Vampire Killer i LOVEEEEE how he is like WTFFFF at the time he realises HE is a vampire Its a great vampire move and scary to bad they have to destroy another clasic. ooo and to margot_tenenbaum you say. "because he's an awful actor with terrible taste in projects and he looked deeply silly in DAREDEVIL." yea and IN EVERY OTHER THING HE IS IN, he just SUKS...ahahah so now playing a vampire is perfect for him.

  • I spent about 30 min bothering the guy..

  • April 7, 2011, 9:46 p.m. CST

    I don't have a hatred of remakes...

    by Fletch Gannon

    No film can take away the magic of the original; the Psycho remake, while horrible, didn't sully the image of the original work...if anything it enhanced it. That said I will watch this remake although I think they should have stuck with the washed up actor rather then the Chris Angel magician. In my opinion I still think it would have been cool to see Ian McCellan in the Peter Vincent role. Plus Jerry Dandridge going after Charlie's mom rather then his girlfriend? Seems lame to me. That's not what is damping my enthusiasm about this picture though, it's the watering down of the horror aspects...PG-13 anyone?

  • April 7, 2011, 9:48 p.m. CST

    Colin Farrell isn't underappreciated-- he's just lame

    by ChezKing

    He's an incredibly annoying actor. If anything he's over-rated. He was the absolute worst thing about the Daredevil movie. His performance in that movie was painful to watch. When I first read the reports about a Fright Night remake, I thought, alright, why not, could be fun. But with Farrell in it, its dropped to the bottom of my interest list. This guy will NEVER top Chris Sarandon. The only edge this production will have on the original movie is FX and action.

  • April 7, 2011, 9:58 p.m. CST

    I like Colin Farrell...

    by eustisclay

    ...and I thought he was the best thing in Daredevil(not that that's saying much). But like I had said on another post, I have less problem with remakes of horror films. Maybe because by the time I started watching movies, great films like Horror of Dracula were already remakes. I wasn't bothered when they made 76's King Kong because Japan had already stuck a crummy looking ape fighting Godzilla. It doesn't even bug me that they are redoing another Planet of the Apes. Maybe because horror fans mostly have an appreciation of the classics that they can support a remake without forgetting about from where it came. Though remakes are unneccessary nowadays since we can always watch the original, which wasn't always the case. Usually the arguement that remake supporters come up with is that Hollywood has always done remakes. Well, that was true, but before the mid 80's, when home video rentals took off, the chance to see the older films were a matter of chance. And before HBO in the mid 70's, the opportunity to see something uncut and commercial free didn't exist. And before 1950, no tv. Shoot, in 83, I would've supported a Chinatown remake since I never had the opportunity to see that, one of my favorite films now(please don't touch that, not even you, Coens). But what happened to remakes? At least Piranha was sleazy enough, but we used to have The Thing, The Fly, Cat People, Against All Odds, No Way Out, all great films from classics, that took advantage of the modern day R rating with adult themes, language, violence, sex and nudity. Now they take the great r rated films with gratuitous sex and violence and neuter them. Now if they want to make an original vampire film with a pg13(not counting Twilite) I'm cool with that. Shoot films like Dracula had risen from the Grave were rated G fer christsakes. And don't get me started on the scam of releasing two versions of films likke these with the pg13 and the SPECIAL EDITION UNRATED VERSION that consists of a couple of f words and maybe a little more blood. I would love to see remakes of films that were decent but could've been better like TheDunwich Horror(which was the first produced script of Curtis Hanson and how cool would it be if he remade that) and Fade to Black(which I do like, but it just misses being a really great film, partly due to Tim Thomerson's ridiculous police psychiatrist). I would even love to see a longer, bloodier version of the great Night Stalker, which was awesome even counting it was made for tv audiences of 1972 America. Come to think of it, I know they used to made more adult version of tv films for theatrical release overseas. Wonder if there exists another version. Never heard of it, but that would be great.

  • April 7, 2011, 9:59 p.m. CST

    I'll never get it

    by Raggles Wimpole

    If you don't want to see a remake, don't see it. If you hate a new version of an old song, don't listen to it. If Pepsi releases a drink that tastes like shit, don't drink it. They're not destroying the original, recalling every existing copy & erasing the film from people's minds. Sure, if a remake sucks it may cause those who've only seen the new to look at the old & think, "the (insert remake name) I just saw gargled monkey balls, so I'm not gonna bother with the original," but who the fuck cares? You can still re-watch the original as much as you want. If anything, a shitty remake will only make the superior original version that much better.

  • Oh wait, this is Hollywood. Everything is bandwagon jumping, idea-stealing, and remakes. What am I thinking? <p>Is it bad that these 3 photos look worse than Twilight? Give us a trailer!

  • April 7, 2011, 10:02 p.m. CST

    Oh and Colin Farrell = just another overactor.

    by jedimast3r

  • April 7, 2011, 10:13 p.m. CST

    Bloody awful. But then, what did anyone expect?

    by Hint_of_Smegma

    Evil Ed looks more like Gormless Ed. I'm sure Yelchin will put in a decent performance as Charlie despite being handicapped by Noxin's buttock clenchingly bad script, but Farrell looks like a joke in this. That's the new Dandridge huh?? Sarandon would have eaten him for breakfast and shat him out by lunch.

  • April 7, 2011, 10:17 p.m. CST

    Farrell's performance depends on how much he cares about the project.

    by Royston Lodge

    There are movies where you can tell he really WANTS to be on that set and do a good job. There are other movies where he clearly doesn't give a shit and he just phones it in. We'll see which this ends up as.

  • April 7, 2011, 10:19 p.m. CST

    Colin Farrell haters...

    by whoofman

    Rent Tigerland and shut up.

  • April 7, 2011, 10:25 p.m. CST

    FARRELL IS GOOD ELSEWHERE

    by Mullah Omar

    ...but he lacks the dominating, smug gravitas of Chris Sarandon. And by lacks, I mean he has maybe 2%. This remake never had much hope of being any better or more memorable than the original. In a different movie, Yelchin, Tennant, and Farrell would be a great core cast. Not so much in something called FRIGHT NIGHT that will be compared against the original film.

  • April 7, 2011, 10:37 p.m. CST

    PG-13 Eh?

    by TheViper1979

    I'm out.

  • April 7, 2011, 11:48 p.m. CST

    A fright night remake??

    by Toruk_Makto

    Are you serious? What's wrong with these people. Don't these ass-hats know movies like that worked because of elements you simply can't duplicate. To quote Whoopy Goldbergs character in the color purple, until you clowns understand why those movies prevail: "Everything you even think about gonna fail"

  • April 8, 2011, 12:15 a.m. CST

    I LOVED THE ORIGINAL, AND I LIKE THE LOOK OF THIS ONE.

    by uberman

    It's different, but the photos show that this could be a good looking, atmospheric modern update. Looking forward to this one.

  • April 8, 2011, 12:44 a.m. CST

    As long as they stick to the ridiculously awesome oversize fangs...

    by MagicJesus

    that force you to say..."shlowly, evur sho shlowly"...then I'm down.

  • April 8, 2011, 1:20 a.m. CST

    Tennant needs something big post Doctor Who soon!

    by Kenny8

    Otherwise he'll be not "Doctor Who", but just "Who?"

  • April 8, 2011, 1:56 a.m. CST

    They need to keep "Come to Me" in the movie somewhere.

    by Mike_D

    dammit.

  • April 8, 2011, 2:16 a.m. CST

    Ah fuck, is that true about Cinematical?

    by D.Vader

    That site has some GREAT fucking commentary on films, the kind of intelligent discussion you won't find here at AICN. Goddamnit AOL/Huffington post/Moviefone. Goddamn you all.

  • April 8, 2011, 5:10 a.m. CST

    OH FFS!!!

    by mastes360

    I could of sworn i read the director saying this would be very bloody and R rated. I'm getting freaking sick of all this watered down PG13 shit in Hollywood.

  • April 8, 2011, 5:20 a.m. CST

    Farrell will elevate the material

    by Shpadoinkle

    Just as he always does when he cares about a project (as someone above put it so well). He doesn't have the smarmy, theatrical Count look that Sarandon does but on his day he'd act rings around Chris. It's a good thing he's playing a shark-like killer. McLovin looks like he suddenly became an adult. Imogen Poots is like a magnet for my cock, although I doubt she'll do much. Yelchin will be fine. This will hopefully be totally different to Fright Night, in which case the changes will make it worthy enough.

  • April 8, 2011, 8:19 a.m. CST

    Fright Night doesnt scare me Arthur does

    by filmguy55

    Fright Night is one of my favorite horror films. I always tell the new generation of horror fans to find this movie. The actor that cant be replaced is Roddy McDowell his performance was borderline camp/brillance. But I can see this film being remade that doesn't scare me. What scares me is wtf are they remaking Arthur for it is the perfect comedy. Everything about this film was perfection. The screenplay was golden. You can watch this films a hundred times and find new things in it and laugh harder every time. Some films should not be remade. I don't mind Russell Brand and love Helen Mirren but won't go near the theater playing the remake.

  • April 8, 2011, 8:27 a.m. CST

    Two things about PG-13

    by v3d

    One. It's called Show Business. The object of which is to make a profit. A PG-13 will make more money at the box office than an R rating. Not always, but in general it's true. And secondly, for those of us that want to see a harder version of a film, you do see it once the film comes to dvd/bluray. It's not like the pre video days when what you saw in the theater was all there was. Now you have a movie see a video release within 3-4 months later and many times with the material left out to get it the lesser PG-13 rating.

  • April 8, 2011, 9:59 a.m. CST

    Maybe but...

    by Joe Barrett

    I think its just a bad shot. He looked ok in february at doug loves movies. http://yfrog.com/hske8llj

  • April 8, 2011, 10:27 a.m. CST

    Surprisingly good cast for a horror remake.

    by Elgyn6655321

    This remake doesn't bother me so much. The only real misstep, I think, is making the Peter Vincent character a Criss Angel-like phony magician. Why would Brewster go to a magician to help him fight a vampire? But they don't have horror 'creature feature' shows on TV anymore so I guess they had to change the Peter Vincent character to something other than a TV host. How about this: the Peter Vincent character could've been a phony "ghost hunter" who has a TV show. Hell, there's like a hundred TV shows like that now. That would've been more believable than making him a magician. Oh and I loved Amanda Bearse in the original. It's a shame she went on to be most well-known as the annoying neighbor on "Married With children".

  • And it's true. Those stills are great! When I saw the first one, I was like "Who's the kid that looks like CMP? Oh... wait, it IS CMP! Nice!" I really wish they hadn't pussied out and gone with a PG-13, but... whatever. Here's the thing: if we can get a PG-13 movie that actually deserves the rating, as Temple of Doom and Gremlins probably did, and as Monster Squad DEFINITELY did, then great. But this shit needs to stop.

  • April 8, 2011, 11:03 a.m. CST

    this movie will suck worse than a $2 hooker

    by VonThunderballs

    there's nothing redeeming about this movie at all. you can't remake a classic. why not just make a whole new movie and say you were inspired by the original. excuse me while i fap to the naked, big tittied hottie in the original.

  • April 8, 2011, 12:12 p.m. CST

    xen11

    by heks

    I think the idea of having Charlie go to SMG because of her time on Buffy (as the Peter Vincent role) is pure gold. At least it could be if done right. That would have been hilarious and given us a real alternate version of the movie. I'm sure non-Buffy fans wouldn't be all that happy, but I'd pay to see that. I'm not crazy about the direction they're taking with Peter Vincent in this one. I'm a big fan of the original, so if I'm going to see a remake, I want something that's gonna play with the original storyline but take the various elements in some really noticeably different directions.

  • April 8, 2011, 12:16 p.m. CST

    Fuck PG-13!!

    by Huey_Freemans_afro

    I completely disagree with the alleged profitability of PG-13 vs R. Especially once you already have a R-rated franchise. It's a vampire movie, for Christ's Sake!

  • April 8, 2011, 12:18 p.m. CST

    Save a PG-13 vampire movie for the Twi-hards.

    by Huey_Freemans_afro

    I actually was optimistic about this remake. Now I'm pissed.

  • April 8, 2011, 7:50 p.m. CST

    Judging from that photo.....Chris Mintz-Plasse has gone full retard

    by Bobo_Vision

  • April 8, 2011, 9:46 p.m. CST

    your a fag, but yes, the rating does not bode well

    by Smack_Teddy

  • April 8, 2011, 9:53 p.m. CST

    Love the origional too even though i caught it later in my teens

    by Smack_Teddy

    the opening scenes just with the Charlie watching movies late Night... heaven, in a sense... up there with memories of Legend, Blade Runner, hell even Salems Lot, for gorgeous late night viewing, that wasnt Seven Samurai or Pulp Fiction for example..or more batshit horror, like Braindead. It set a kind of tone and mood from American Horror i long to see recaptured in cinema or home video...found a little of that Magic recently when giving Dark Shadows pilot 90s series another go So David Tennant plays the Peter Vincent character then?

Top Talkbacks