Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Thomas Patrick

GET UPDATES FROM Thomas Patrick

Fright Night - A Remake That Isn't Terrible

Posted: 02/09/11 01:00 BST

Remakes are becoming more and more popular each year. The trend in late 2000s was to take a 1980s horror film and throw a big budget at it. The thinking being that fans of the original are now old enough to get a nostalgia kick, whilst the new generation have proved to be very receptive to horror films at the cinema. The success of films such as Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th and Dawn of the Dead have lead to the green light being given to Fright Night, the memorable 1985 shock horror.

Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin) is a teenage boy, living in Las Vegas, Nevada with an improbably attractive girlfriend and geek-laden past. He is summoned to an old friends house by Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) and is told that his new neighbour Jerry (Colin Farrell) is actually a vampire. After discovering the truth he seeks out occult expert and magician Peter Vincent (David Tennant) for help combating the vampire infestation in his town.

It is important to note that at no point is Fright Night played for anything other than fun. Everything from the bait-and-switch dispelling of vampire-lore to Farrell's fantastic turn as uber-confident seductive vampire Jerry ("What kind of name is Jerry for a vampire?"). It isn't just Farrell who is good though, David Tennant once again shows the kind of charisma that made him one of the most successful Doctor Whos of all time as the preening, cock-sure Vincent.

The plot is standard horror fare with the exposition dealt with in the first half to allow the action and explosions in the second half. Sadly the pacing is not handled particularly well and you'll feel a little bored about two thirds of the way through with the constant stop-start nature of the action. Luckily the scenes in early part of the film are suitably creepy and the director was clearly aware that 3D works well with horror and has some nice touches like crucifixes being thrown at the screen.

There is a real sense that the film-makers are fans of the original, with obvious homages to Rear Window, Poltergeist and The Amityville Horror, unfortunately it rarely excels in anything other than the casting, which in the end leaves Fright Night as a by-the-numbers horror that teenagers will enjoy, but few will remember in a years time. Still, Tennant and Farrell are both excellent and worth price of admission alone.

Rating: * * *

 

Follow Thomas Patrick on Twitter: www.twitter.com/thatfilmguytcp

 
 
  • Comments
  • 1
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:07 AM on 09/02/2011
THANK YOU SO MUCH for this perfect line: "It is important to note that at no point is 'Fright Night' played for anything other than fun." So few people are willing to go into a movie these days to just have fun. "Fright Night" is not serious drama, nor is it a gross-out or freak-out horror film... it's there for fun. If you can go and see a Judd Apatow movie without arguing about camera angles and dramatic intent, then you should be doing the same for "Fright Night." Pay your money, go in, sit yer butt down in the seat, and just enjoy what you're watching! Most important, viewers should not sit there whining about "the first one was better" or in any way gauge what they're seeing with their tainted memories of the 1985 version; take that corpse out of the theater, you're only cluttering up the aisle and the smell is distracting.