Fright Night (2011) review

Fright Night posters via 2011 and 1985.

As a child of the 80's I love and own the original Fright Night. It's a classic romp of horror and comedy that is rarely seen today. Plus it has the always awesome Chris Sarandon as the vampire next door and the always AMAZING Roddy McDowell as the snake-oil salesmen "Vampire Hunter".

When I first heard they were going to remake Fright Night I was initially upset. I don't have a hair trigger sense against remakes on a whole. I treat them as a first come first serve basis. Some movies BEG for remakes, like Ocean's 11 or Gone in 60 Seconds. The original versions of those movies are almost unwatchable yet retain a great premise - a premise that the new versions use to build a better movie.

With a movie like Fright Night, one has to ask why? The original is good enough. However, once I heard that Marti Noxon had written the script (one of the head writers and producers of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and Angel - two of the best series ever produced for television) I was sort of sold.

That being said, I didn't get around to watching the flick until the other night. And well...

Ladies and gentlemen, THIS is how you remake a movie.

You keep what works and do something different with everything else. Why remake it if you're going to do anything less?

That's even been my view when they remake a song. If you're not going to do something different with the material, why do it at all?

Quick premise update for those who are in the dark: Charlie is your average geeky guy next door. He's living next to a vampire. No one believes his theories. Everyone thinks he's crazy. In the original, Charlie turns for help to an old C-list movie star who is a supposed vampire hunter that hosts a horror movie marathon called Fright Night. In this remake, the vampire hunter is a Chris Angel-like magician. Hijinxs and chaos ensue when the vampire and Charlie collide. 

The new Fright Night does a ton of new and interesting things. Beyond taking the movie idea out of the 80's and updating the "monster next door in suburbia" story, they change and try many new things. Which btdubs, the whole monster in suburbia thing was VERY big in the 80's and early 90's. Too HUGE effect and for a reason. Most of us grow up in tract homes. And there is a paranoia, air of mystery, and sense of fear that can be found in these places just as much as peace, tranquility and boredom. It's almost palpable.

But I'm getting off track - who knew, right?

Right off the bat this newest version starts almost about 20 minutes earlier than the original and adds angst that wasn't in their before. In this movie, Charlie hasn't got the slightest idea what's going on. It takes his friend showing it to him before he even starts to care. The original made Charlie to be this hero from the beginning while the newest version introduces us to sort of a shallow dick that becomes a hero along the way. He's someone we have to root for. He BECOMES a hero by process of the story. They trade the mid-west for Vegas and explain why that makes sense for a vampire. 


In every way, shape, and form, this is a new movie. I could sit here and tell you how much more violent, suspenseful, and aggressive this movie is (while retaining a semblance of humor), but it escapes the point. Beyond all of my variously eloquent descriptions, it is a remake that defies existence in the way that is unlike it's original form. There are entirely new set pieces and takes on characters are vastly reformed and imagined. This is the shell of an idea totally reformatted and rebooted.

AGAIN, this is how you remake a movie, ladies and gents...or ANYTHING for that matter.
 

The underdog versus a larger force will always remain palatable by audiences.

The more I've thought about this movie and analyzed it the more I realize how much I loved it and indeed, may have liked it MORE than the original, which I honestly thought wouldn't be possible. This is one of those rare examples where I will own the remake and the film it's based on.

I only have two complaints. One is minor. It being that this flick relies too much on CGI-effects. The original was made in a time where practical effects were the only thing that existed, and they look better to this day compared to the obvious computer-generated effects of the remake. I'm sorry, but practical vampire movies have been made since film was silent, why do we need CGI in them?

My only other complaint is a biggy. And it's one that is plot-driven. So I am going to aspire NOT to ruin you. There is a moment when (and I won't give out details - you'll know it when you see it) Charlie has no doubts that of what he is dealing with. He sees it for all it's evil and ugliness. He sees it in the MORNING.

If you knew you were dealing with a vampire living next door and you had ALL DAY to do something about it, wouldn't you start shattering all the windows in the house and just burning the mother fucker down? Well, Charlie doesn't.

This is my only real problem with the movie. You'll know it when it happens. It's an emotionally investing point...I just know for me that it would be an action-driven point.

I can't quit this review without noting Colin Ferrell's amazing performance. He retains some of the charm and sexiness of Chris Sarandon's performance while increasing the ferocity and intensity almost a hundred fold.

Colin Ferrell has only recently been released from Hollywood jail, and all I can say about that is that he never deserved to be in it and he continues to be a phenomenal actor. Sure, he's made some bad movies, but he was good in all of them. Actor's get blamed for the performance of the film (wrongfully so) and sometimes get less work because of it, so it's good to see he's on the upswing (Horrible Bosses, Total Rekall).

Plus Anton Yelchin is truly coming into his own as an actor and a leading man.


8 / 10


And now, I proudly present the end credits to Fright Night...I got 99 Problems and a Bitch Ain't One.