Nordling Says FRIGHT NIGHT Doesn't Bite!
Seeing the new FRIGHT NIGHT and then seeing the original again a couple of days later at the Graveyard Shift was interesting, comparing and contrasting the two. If you want to know which film is better, I'll save you the suspense - the original's the better film. There's a tragic aspect to Chris Sarandon's performance, and of course there's Stephen Geoffreys as Evil Ed, who if the character hadn't turned into a vampire would have probably met his end in some weird autoerotic asphyxiation accident. There's a sexual vibe to the original that the new film just doesn't have - the 1980s, for better or worse, were just a different time than now. We're far more sanitized when it comes to sex these days. The original FRIGHT NIGHT pays much respect to the Hammer vampire films but we've come a long way since then - thanks to TWILIGHT, BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER, and TRUE BLOOD, in a way they've defanged the vampire a lot since the original was made.
That's not to say that the new one isn't worth watching - it is. It's quite fun to see Colin Farrell play the shark in JAWS (Marti Noxon's take on the character) as an absolute remorseless predator, a vampire who isn't complicated by the gooey things. He feeds, toys with his victims, and Farrell really seems to be having a lot of fun with the part. Same for David Tennant as Peter Vincent, in Roddy McDowall's role. McDowall played Vincent as a washed-up Vincent Price character - Tennant plays Vincent as a Criss Angel type of Vegas huckster, who because of past experiences turned a childhood obsession into a sell-out career. The performances across the board are good, and the film surprises in a lot of ways. FRIGHT NIGHT takes the basic plot template - young teen Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin) begins to suspect that his next door neighbor is a vampire and rallies to save his girlfriend Amy (Imogen Poots) before she is consumed by the forces of darkness. As I said before, it's a different world we live in now, and the problems of a teen in the 1980s aren't the same.
The new film is set in Las Vegas, and that's a fairly genius addition to the story. Many of the houses are already abandoned due to the Great Recession, and if a vampire were to set up shop Vegas would be the best of all possible worlds to do it in. Charley has come into his own as a teenager - he's got the hot girl, new friends, and if he can just get rid of this annoying Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) who won't leave him alone, he's all set. Ed and Charley were friends since childhood, but as happens to so many of us, they grew apart, and Charley is no longer interested in the things Ed is interested in. When a mutual childhood friend goes missing, Ed suspects Charley's new neighbor, Jerry Dandrige (Colin Ferrell), and Charley's mom (Toni Collette) has already taken a liking to him. But Charley will have none of it. It's only when Ed himself goes missing that Charley must deal with the truth - Jerry Dandrige is one of the undead, and if he can't get the help of Peter Vincent (David Tennant) everything Charley knows is in danger.
Yelchin plays Charley as a young man conflicted and unsure of his place in the world, and once events start unfolding he must take the initiative and try to stop what is happening. What's especially fun is how Marti Noxon as the screenwriter tries to skirt the rules of vampirism - one of my favorite scenes is how Dandrige, denied access to the Brewster house because he wasn't invited, gets around that particular vampire weakness. Farrell is both funny and scary as Dandrige, and he plays the part completely differently than Chris Sarandon played him. Sarandon's take on Dandrige was decidedly Hammer old school, but we're savvy to vampires now and Farrell's Dandrige lives in a world of glittery, mopey vampires and he plays that to his advantage.
I normally like Christopher Mintz-Plasse and he does the best with what he has, but this iteration of Ed simply isn't as interesting as the original. In this one, Ed's a hopeless geek and when it strains his relationship with Charley it's fairly predictable to see how it ends. The film doesn't flinch on the gore for the most part, but the film is strangely sexless - there was eroticism in the original and that's almost completely gone now. If you've seen the original you know why Dandrige wants Amy so badly but in this one she's just another victim.
I must devote some time in talking about the 3D. Simply put, the 3D of FRIGHT NIGHT is abysmally bad. 80% of the film takes place either at night or in darkened rooms, and frankly with the 3D you can't see anything. It's all blobs hitting other blobs. I took off my glasses quite a bit just to see what was going on much of the time. It's one of the worst 3D conversions I've seen, and if this wasn't a conversion, those cameras were utterly wasted. I hated the 3D and I urge you that if you're going to see it don't pony up the extra cash and just see it in good old-fashioned 2D.
FRIGHT NIGHT pays respect to the original in a lot of ways and although I still prefer the original there's enough new and interesting stuff here that I can recommend it. It pulls punches, but most every horror film made by a major studio does these days and there are performances to savor here and enjoy. FRIGHT NIGHT isn't anyone's idea of a horror classic but it's still got a lot to offer and it's better than it probably had to be.
Readers Talkbackcomments powered by Disqus
+ Expand All
Aug. 19, 2011, 7:43 a.m. CST
I still will see it knowing all this.
Aug. 19, 2011, 7:44 a.m. CST
by barnaby jones
The film however was just as bad
Aug. 19, 2011, 7:56 a.m. CST
But not sure whether to show him the original first. Hmmmm. It's True Grit all over again.
Aug. 19, 2011, 7:57 a.m. CST
by Col. Tigh-Fighter
Guess I must re-watch the original again
Aug. 19, 2011, 8:18 a.m. CST
...between original and remake and can disntguish between bad and good. Thank you Nordling, perhaps you can impart some of your wisdom on your fellow reviewers who have all obvisouly had their prostates inspected repeatedly by the studios and from the positive reviews they've written about the remake, it's clear that Harry and co each had throughly enjoyed the experience of their rectums being turned inside out
Aug. 19, 2011, 8:32 a.m. CST
Aug. 19, 2011, 8:42 a.m. CST
by Shut the Fuck up Donny
Really? Coulda fooled me.
Aug. 19, 2011, 8:45 a.m. CST
Since Nordling is the only negative review, the little mocking bird bitches are coming out to hail it as the only true opinion. Geez folks, get a damn grip. If you want to see the mutha trucker, see it, don't let one review turn you off of it. BTW, not only is Nordling in the minority here, he is in the minority throughout the overall critic community. Do we have to really get the cliched hailing of a negative review as the only true critical representation of a film being good or bad? Damn this place stinks of sheep's wool.
Aug. 19, 2011, 9:03 a.m. CST
All the classics are limited to two dimensions! It's NOT FAIR!!!!!
Aug. 19, 2011, 9:16 a.m. CST
If it were, the title would have been "Fright Night BITES!"
Aug. 19, 2011, 9:17 a.m. CST
Saying something "has bite" implies its mean and nasty. But saying something "bites" means it sucks. And God help me, both are vampire puns.
Aug. 19, 2011, 9:18 a.m. CST
But our mainstream movies are definitely a lot less risky. Probably because production budgets have ballooned so monstrously execs don't want to take any chances.
Aug. 19, 2011, 9:21 a.m. CST
by Tim Kelly
Not so alternate actually, I think Nordling is pretty dead on here: http://guy.com/2011/08/19/movie-review-fright-night-3d/
Aug. 19, 2011, 9:23 a.m. CST
Aug. 19, 2011, 9:29 a.m. CST
It's just not a good movie at all.
Aug. 19, 2011, 9:31 a.m. CST
This was filmed in 3D - they have not been advertising it as such. <p> I avoid every 3D movie I possibly can, unless I think it'll help the experience, which is rare since Avatar. Transformers was the only thing I've seen in 3D this year.
Aug. 19, 2011, 9:33 a.m. CST
by Tim Kelly
Is just awful. That, and the stupid script, ruin it. Still not convinced it needed to exist.
Aug. 19, 2011, 10:21 a.m. CST
You know, actually use the book as the launching pad instead of just taking some ideas from it? That movie was a pitiful version of a great story, one that certainly could have continued as a franchise for a few films. Of course, now in a post-True Blood/Twilight world, there's no real place for it. *sigh*
Aug. 19, 2011, 10:32 a.m. CST
I am 36 and when I watched all genres of films in the 80's they always had tits. It didn't matter if it was Revenge of the Nerds or 9 1/2 Weeks. The films today don't have tits, and that is partly to making most films PG-13 to rake in as many bucks as it can. I don't blame the studios for making money because they always hit us with the "unrated" dvd that usually is just the R rates cut with tits. I for one havent seen any of the remakes in the last 5 years of cinema except for "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" which was the best film of the year for the genre as far as I stand. But hitting a remake out of the park just doesn't seen to work, just compare box office numbers to the original and adjust for inflation. Once again I loved the original Fright Night as a kid and even if it doesn't hold up today ( Havent watched it since I was in my early teens ) I will keep the memories of my child hood intact and pass on this one. Cheers!
Aug. 19, 2011, 10:33 a.m. CST
by doom master
At least say something INTERESTING instead of just FIRST, otherwise people just ignore your post... DUH
Aug. 19, 2011, 10:34 a.m. CST
by doom master
Nice Companion Piece to this remake film - both are in desert settings both are modern. And Jack Crow kicks major ass...
Aug. 19, 2011, 10:35 a.m. CST
I was told a story by the author of the book about his set visit to the film and having James Woods tell him point blank, "I wish we were shooting your book instead of this."
Aug. 19, 2011, 12:16 p.m. CST
by Flames gotta Eat
FAIL. And I agree the most with Nordling on this site, his review is the most accurate folks. Go in with reasonable expectations if you're seeing it.
Aug. 19, 2011, 12:53 p.m. CST
Sorry, can't make it past the opening of this article. I've always thought the original in a 'so bad it's good' kind of way. Hope the new one is good, has the cast for it.
Aug. 19, 2011, 1:52 p.m. CST
I can see how you might say that about TWILIGHT or BUFFY, but TRUE BLOOD is in a completely different league. That series is dripping with sex, violence and some truly horrific vampire action. It out-hammers Hammer.
Aug. 19, 2011, 1:57 p.m. CST
I wish they'd stuck closer to the book. THAT was a cool read. None of the bullshit about a vampire plot to find away to stay out during the day (I can't remember if they stole that from BLADE or that movie was pre-BLADE). The original story really captures how utterly powerful and sadistic these creatures are. And Jack Crow is easily 100 times the bad-ass James Woods was in the film. He also had a tragic dimension which made the story actually emotional between the various blood-lettings.
Aug. 19, 2011, 2:16 p.m. CST
I have to agree with thenewcastleincident. True Blood is mostly sex and violence and in no way does it participate in "defanging" vampires. I think it gets unfairly grouped in with Twilight because of the subject matter, but the two are very different things. I'll even defend Buffy, which had some hard core moments. It was after all, a TV show that was limited in what it could do. It wasn't like HBO, where they can do whatever they want.
Aug. 19, 2011, 5:07 p.m. CST
by Orbots Commander
I caught an episode the other night, and I was smitten.
Aug. 19, 2011, 6:13 p.m. CST
That's Deborah Ann Moll. Totally agree, she's hot.
Aug. 20, 2011, 2 a.m. CST
Aug. 20, 2011, 2:08 a.m. CST
by Droogie Alex
Also wish they'd stuck more to the book; they had the tools to do it. The scenes in the book between Jack Crow and the Pope are amazing.
Aug. 20, 2011, 10:34 a.m. CST
What are you talkin about!
- Big SPOILERS for X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST and APOCALYPSE as new rumors suggest a familiar face will be playing the role of APOCALYPSE!! -- 268 total posts 133 posts
- Disney can now make new Indiana Jones Movies!!! But what about Paramount? -- 300 total posts 109 posts
- Jerry Bruckheimer has returned to Paramount and Brett Ratner's BEVERLY HILLS COP IV is now on the way (again)! -- 143 total posts 57 posts
- The Annual Official Fake BUTT-NUMB-A-THON 15 List!!! Plus other things like STANDBY news! -- 44 total posts 44 posts
- HERCULES ON THE RADIO!! Learn What Ain’t It Cool’s TV Critic Thinks Of INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS, OUT OF THE FURNACE, FROZEN, Tomorrow’s HOMELAND, The Latest WALKING DEAD And RETURNED, The First Big-Screen Wonder Woman and More!! Listen And Call In LIVE Saturday 10pm PT / Sunday 1am ET!! -- 39 total posts 39 posts
- SARAH CONNOR CHRONICLES Writers Developing New TERMINATOR TV Series!! -- 65 total posts 28 posts
- Fox To Dabble In Shared X-MEN / FF Movieverse!?!? -- 182 total posts 16 posts
LOW WINTER SUN
2013-2013 -- 20 total posts 13 posts
- The Friday Docback Rounds Up This Week's DOCTOR WHO News!! 50th Celebration, 'Time of the Doctor,' HornOrSilk Reviews 'The Assassination Games' Big Finish Audio, And More!! -- 36 total posts 12 posts
- Two More NYMPHOMANIAC Posters... -- 76 total posts 9 posts