Fright Night - Il vampiro della porta accanto

All that needs to be said about the remake of Fright Night is that it ends with a terrible cover of Jay-Z's already bad "99 Problems" blasting over the ending credits. This is a completely random song choice that belongs in another movie and is tonally out of nowhere, a feeling that permeates most of the picture's long 105-minute running time. The movie starts off like a typical teen horror movie, only slightly worse. The dialogue in the high school scenes is horribly inauthentic, feeling like an R-rated CW drama of "The Vampire Diaries" variety complete with the usual clichés of bullying jocks, super stereotyped nerds, and the aforementioned "hip" teen dialogue. When the second act kicks in, the movie heads in the direction of the comedy-horror hybrid it should have been going for all along. The only problem with this is that there is no real sense of tension as the blood is all CG and anyone who has seen the original knows what's coming long in advance. The Las Vegas setting sounds cool in theory, but it's never used in a way that adds to the proceedings. Despite having the very cool idea of having the remake set in Vegas, screenwriter Marti Noxon and director Craig Gillipse decide to keep almost all the basic story beats from the original movie instead of using the new setting to their advantage. The one change that is made that actually does work is the new interpretation of Peter Vincent, hilariously played by David Tennant. Tennant is the pulse that keep the film alive. His energy and dead-on comedic delivery almost give the remake a purpose to exist beyond making a buck off a cult classic. Other performances are okay, but Anton Yelchin is too old to being playing a high school kid and Imogeen Poots is given the girlfriend role that hasn't changed since the 80s. One thing that has changed since the 80s: there used to be original horror movies. 3/10

1985 is a popular year for remakes. Some of the movies remade from that year in one form or another are "Weird Science," "Teen Wolf," "Mad Max," "Day of the Dead," and "Fright Night." It's rare that a remake is as good, or better than the original. "Fright Night" was respectable, but not as good.

The movie takes place in a tiny suburb outside of Las Vegas. Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin) and his mom Jane (Toni Collette) live next door to Jerry (Colin Farrell), the vampire. Charley and his mom are wholly unaware of this. Charley is far too consumed with his new life of popularity now that he has the hot girl, Amy (Imogen Poots), as a girlfriend. He is made aware of his neighbors night time activities by his nerdy ex-best friend, Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), vampire tracker extraordinaire. When Ed went missing Charley decided to act.

Because I saw the original and it was such a classic, this version only reminds me how much better the original was. The original was funnier and quirkier while "Fright Night" 2011 goes for a more serious approach. They threw Christopher Mintz-Plasse in there, gave him a few funny lines, and dubbed this a comedy. It was hardly a comedy. So now, instead of a rather plain, yet funny girlfriend, Amy (who was played by Amanda Bearse in 1985--well known as Al Bundy's neighbor Marcy Darcy in "Married with Children"), we get a hot-and-she-knows-it Amy who looks like a clout chaser and didn't have a single funny line.

The Peter Vincent (David Tennant) this time also wasn't as appealing. Peter Vincent was the Vegas showman who Charley went to for help against Jerry. In '85 Peter Vincent was hosting a fledgling late night vampire TV show. He was played by Roddy McDowall, an older man with this funny look of fear on his face nearly all the time. 2011 Peter Vincent is a younger British man who drinks, swears, and is surrounded by scantily clad women. He was comedic, but he wasn't funny.

So, as I mentioned, the 2011 version is not as bad as a lot of remakes out there, but the original is still better.

Free on Tubi.

The original Fright Night was already a cult classic which makes this remake unnecessary. But since all vampires these days are less scary and like what Evil Ed said "Love Sick", it can be necessary for some reason. Bringing back the true vampire camp. Although it's not as scary as the original but Colin Farrel's performance improves the vampire villain. This Fright Night is endlessly watchable and fun. This may sound strange but I think this version is better than the original.

The original have the disturbing schlocky masks but this version actually has the vampire danger and thrills. The credit goes to Colin Farrel. He gives a lot of vigor and terror to the evil vampire. David Tennant has his own Peter Vincent. His charisma and delight shines through all of his scenes. Just like Roddy McDowall, David Tennant nearly steals the show. But Farrel really owns this show.

It's a welcome back, actually. It's not a cash in remake. It's the returning of the vampire horror to our cinemas. Our vampire movies these days are just tired and relies to nothing but the senseless violence. And some of them are in love with a bland girl and sparkle in sunlight. But the biggest thing that is missing in most modern vampire movies is how scary these monsters are. They are not only bloodsuckers. They can be terrifying for somehow.

The filmmaking is obviously good but some of the CGI tones the scares down a little bit but it works though. The score sounds nothing like the score of the original but it's true to its vampire genre. The movie is shot in 3D but most of the film is dark and 3D usually dims the aspect of a film but if you are in for some blood and sparks coming out of the screen then try it. Not quite recommending though.

Overall, Fright Night is enjoyable. Maybe the biggest mistake they made is the jump scares since Fright Night isn't really fond to that trend. Well, this is definitely better than all the unnecessary horror remakes we usually get every year. Colin Farrel made a lot of things better. Vampires are evil again. It has plenty of joys and thrills. Fright Night is recommendable by bringing back the true elements of the genre.

Can a horror remake actually be a good for a change? I mean, how many classic horror flicks does Hollywood have to crap on until they finally give up? "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", "Amityville Horror", "Nightmare on Elm St.", "Friday the 13th", "House of Wax".......all of these films are examples of why i sometimes HATE Hollywood.

Finally......a horror remake that's WORTH seeing. I must admit, i had some pretty low expectations walking into this, and it did way more than prove me wrong. Initially i thought they were going to make this a straight 'B' movie by incorporating tons of humor with their gore, which would have been fine with me, seeing that i love the genre'. But this movie was more fun than funny. Don't get me wrong, there are some sequences that are funny, but it had more of that 'drive-in' appeal to it's horror. And i loved every bit of it.

It's story is pretty basic, and somewhat cliché'. I mean come on, a vampire living next door. But the weird thing is, it didn't come off as cliché'. And i think the biggest contribution to that was the pace of the film. Once you get past the first 10 to 15 minutes of the film, which are kind of dull, the movie quickly begins to morph into a fast paced gore fest. And now looking back on it......if it were not rated R, then this movie would have been stupid, and it would've fit in with every other crummy horror remake.

But the aspect that i appreciated the most was the writing. For once, they didn't alter any rules to make their film different. They stuck with what already works, and left it up to the actors to make these vampire rules entertaining. And Collin Farrell did just that.

Bottom Line.....Of all the horror movies that come out this year, this will probably be the one you will have the most fun at. It's funny, it's somewhat scary, but most of all, it's pretty damn entertaining. It's one of those movies i would've loved to of seen at the drive-in. If your tired of all this 'Twilight' crap, which they happen to mention in the movie itself, then this is really a breathe of fresh air to all the TRUE vampire fans.

It has occurred to me that when people refer to a new "reimagining" of a beloved film, they use the term "unnecessary remake." I've been guilty of that myself. I really tend to think, however, that technically any remake is unnecessary. No one "needs" to be told what is basically the same story (in most cases) twice. I've also heard the argument that bad films are the ones that should be remade, not good ones. I can understand that to an extent, but do people really want to sit through a new version of something they hated the first time? No remake is going to make everyone happy; it's just not possible. Unless of course, you haven't SEEN the original.

So, just how should a remake be judged? As a stand-alone film, or how it compares to a previous one we love so much? And I do love writer-director Tom Holland's 1985 vampire flick FRIGHT NIGHT. It is just the right mix of comedy, terror, suspense, terrific performances, and an affection for old-fashioned scares. Many others have fond memories of it as well, so I relate to the "why"s and the "oh don't screw it up"s, and the "leave it alone"s. After all, beloved films are dumped on all the time by would-be filmmakers out to make a quick buck for the safe Hollywood studios.

Most of the central story is intact: Anton Yelchin leads the cast as Charley Brewster, a used-to-be high-school misfit who comes to the realization, thanks to childhood buddy Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) that his new neighbor Jerry (Colin Farrell) is a vampire. It isn't long before he's convinced his single mother (Toni Collette) and his girlfriend (Imogen Poots) of this discovery...at which point all sorts of bloody hell breaks loose.

Screenwriter Marti Noxon has infused a basic story (whose plot points and situations weren't always very believable) with some new smarts, including adding more depth to the central characters. And the setting has changed to a cookie-cutter suburb of Las Vegas, where people sleep during the day, work at night, and are much more transient. Another interesting change is the character of Peter Vincent. In the original, Roddy McDowall played a hammy horror host and actor: Peter Vincent, the Great Vampire Killer. Here, David Tennant assumes the role, but Vincent has become an elaborate Vegas magician who performs vampire-killing antics on the stage. In both versions, they are recruited by our hero to help slay the bloodsucker. It's an ultra- modern twist, but within the location context, works beautifully.

During the first hour or so of 2011's new incarnation, I was shocked to think that I may end up liking this remake even more than the original. But after some hair-raising moments in the first half, culminating in a dark, desert car chase, the film threatens to go off the rails in a sequence that's a bit hokey, over the top, and unfortunately timed. And there are a few iffy CGI instances as well. Luckily, things get back on track with a climax that's executed with a uniquely creepy wit, and a few good shocks and surprises. Director Craig Gillespie (LARS AND THE REAL GIRL, "United States of Tara") earns respect for pulling off (for him) an unfamiliar genre; he also pays homage to a few memorable scenes in the original without trying to copy or disrespect them.

Most of the performances are engaging and authentic (aside from Mintz-Plasse in his later moments), with Tennant's wry turn a real treat, and the ever-wonderful Collette's naturally grounding presence adding a needed weight of normalcy. It is Farrell, however, who is the real deal; he absolutely nails this role (no, he won't make you forget the original's suave Chris Sarandon, but in fairness, Jerry is written much differently in this update). Farrell combines sexiness and utter menace to the fullest: this vamp means business! Some of the best work of his admittedly spotty career is on display, including the film's most brilliant moment, where Jerry's fidgety impatience with being invited into the Brewster home is both hilarious and nerve-wracking.

FRIGHT NIGHT is a solid film in its own right; if there's not enough love from the original's fans to spread out to its remake, that's unfortunate.