|
|||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Frequently Bought Together
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
Editorial Reviews
Amazon.com
Arriving amid a flurry of dopey sequels and dudes with power tools, 1985's Fright Night came as a welcome blast of fetid air for the horror genre: an affectionate spoof of classic monster movies that also managed to deliver some genuine scares, as well as a pair of top-notch performances by Chris Sarandon and Roddy McDowall. The 2011 revamp (apologies for the pun) can't boast the same novelty factor, but it does a surprisingly good job at speaking for itself, just the same. Director Craig Gillespie's film follows the same basic blueprint as the original--high-school kid (Anton Yelchin) suspects that his next-door neighbor (Colin Farrell) may be a Creature of the Night, enlists celebrity (David Tennant) for help--but with a number of smart alterations, particularly the decision to move the setting to the desolate outskirts of Vegas, where unexplained disappearances and nocturnal lifestyles are par for the course. (Kudos to cinematographer Javier Aguirresarobe, who gives the nighttime scenes a musty, tangible vibe.) Writer Marti Noxon, a Buffy vet, keeps the dialogue light, while also delivering some sharp insights about the state of today's Twilight-savvy teen. (In perhaps the biggest switch from the original, the barely veiled gay subtext has been replaced with a cautionary tale about outgrowing your friends.) On the debit side, Gillespie and Co. can't always replicate their source material's atomic-clock timing, with a few promising scares undone by miscued comic relief. Still, a horror movie ultimately lives or dies by its villain, and Farrell delivers a beaut, as a hilariously type-A vampire who'd rather chug a beer than pose languorously. At a time when the undead are notable mainly for their romanticism and supernatural hair-care prowess, Fright Night does its best to bring the fangs back into the equation. --Andrew Wright
Product Description
Senior Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin) finally has it all. He's running with the cool kids and dating the hottest girl in high school (Imogen Poots). But all hell breaks loose when charming Jerry Dandrige (Colin Ferrell) moves in next door. Charlie thinks there's something odd about him, although no one - including his mom (Toni Collette) - seems to notice. But after too many of his classmates vanish under bizarre circumstances, Charley comes to an unmistakable conclusion: Jerry is a vampire preying on his neighborhood! Get set to sink your teeth into this thrilling, modern-day re-vamp of the wickedly entertaining horror classic. Featuring a star-studded cast and crawling with bonus, Fright Night will captivate you from the very first bite!
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
42 of 50 people found the following review helpful
Format:DVD
The Review:
Hollywood is recycling movies, cranking out remakes, reboots and prequels so fast that Fright Night is just one of TWO remakes released in the same week in August. But unlike the Conan reboot, Fright Night hits it out of the park. I confess to never having seen the original Fright Night, so I'm a tabula rasa so far as preconceptions of what Fright Night should be. I can't tell you how well the new Fright Night stands up to the original. What I can tell you is that this new Fright Night alternates perfectly between funny and thrilling. Starring Anton Yelchin, Colin Farrell, Imogen Poots, David Tennant and Toni Collette, Fright Night is long on talent and short on filler. It moves at a brisk pace until it turns on pacing afterburners (in a good way!) about halfway through.
Anton Yelchin plays Charley Brewster. He and his single mom, Jane, played by Toni Collette live in Las Vegas and in a nod to the real world the economy is weak resulting in dozens of foreclosed, empty houses. So when whole families disappear from the neighborhood, it's only natural to think that the former occupants fell on hard economic times and lost the family home. But Charley's best friend, Ed, knows better. Ed knows that all the missing kids at school and empty houses in town are the work of Vampires. Queue Jerry, played by Colin Farrell. He's Charley and Jane's new next door neighbor. Y'know, a guy who works nights and sleeps during the day. A lot of people work nights at Vegas casinos. Besides, a vampire named Jerry? That's like naming a vampire Bill, Erik or Pam
Well just like Erik Northman, Jerry is of the species homo vampiricus badassicus. He will not be throwing pebbles at your window and sharing chaste kisses with you in the woods. He will however, be flipping your car over and trying to disembowel you. Colin may be the scariest character named Jerry in all film history. At the start of the movie it's a quite, subtle menace, but it isn't long before Jerry cuts loose and the movie shifts gears from fun comedy to all out thrill ride. Fright Night, like 30 Days of Night reminds us that vampires need not be angst ridden and insecure. They EAT PEOPLE! And it's awesome.
I don't know whether Fright Night is a good remake, but it is a great movie. It is full of laughs but has fantastic thrills too. After seeing what vampires named Jerry are capable of, let's all of us hope what happens in Vegas truly stays in Vegas.
FTC Advisory: We purchased our own tickets.
Hollywood is recycling movies, cranking out remakes, reboots and prequels so fast that Fright Night is just one of TWO remakes released in the same week in August. But unlike the Conan reboot, Fright Night hits it out of the park. I confess to never having seen the original Fright Night, so I'm a tabula rasa so far as preconceptions of what Fright Night should be. I can't tell you how well the new Fright Night stands up to the original. What I can tell you is that this new Fright Night alternates perfectly between funny and thrilling. Starring Anton Yelchin, Colin Farrell, Imogen Poots, David Tennant and Toni Collette, Fright Night is long on talent and short on filler. It moves at a brisk pace until it turns on pacing afterburners (in a good way!) about halfway through.
Anton Yelchin plays Charley Brewster. He and his single mom, Jane, played by Toni Collette live in Las Vegas and in a nod to the real world the economy is weak resulting in dozens of foreclosed, empty houses. So when whole families disappear from the neighborhood, it's only natural to think that the former occupants fell on hard economic times and lost the family home. But Charley's best friend, Ed, knows better. Ed knows that all the missing kids at school and empty houses in town are the work of Vampires. Queue Jerry, played by Colin Farrell. He's Charley and Jane's new next door neighbor. Y'know, a guy who works nights and sleeps during the day. A lot of people work nights at Vegas casinos. Besides, a vampire named Jerry? That's like naming a vampire Bill, Erik or Pam
Well just like Erik Northman, Jerry is of the species homo vampiricus badassicus. He will not be throwing pebbles at your window and sharing chaste kisses with you in the woods. He will however, be flipping your car over and trying to disembowel you. Colin may be the scariest character named Jerry in all film history. At the start of the movie it's a quite, subtle menace, but it isn't long before Jerry cuts loose and the movie shifts gears from fun comedy to all out thrill ride. Fright Night, like 30 Days of Night reminds us that vampires need not be angst ridden and insecure. They EAT PEOPLE! And it's awesome.
I don't know whether Fright Night is a good remake, but it is a great movie. It is full of laughs but has fantastic thrills too. After seeing what vampires named Jerry are capable of, let's all of us hope what happens in Vegas truly stays in Vegas.
FTC Advisory: We purchased our own tickets.
83 of 105 people found the following review helpful
Format:DVD
Okay, I am a HUGE Fright Night fan. I even enjoyed Fright Night part II, despite it's weak spots(less threatening and interesting villains, semi-rehash plot line). The original Fright Night has all the things I love about that special time called the 80's in horror; boisterous special effects, tongue firmly in cheek, monsters, and really great make up effects and ever evolving visual effects. It was a love letter to Hammer vampires and a send up of the 80's slasher trend that dominated the era and knocked over the traditional monsters. I had heard about this remake several years ago and was aghast. Nobody wanted Hollyweird to stay away from Fright Night more than me. I was so shocked that the remake turned out to be not only good, but surprising, and totally fun.
Now I know some horror fans, fanboys in general really, automatically hate something when it's remade, and hate something when the remake changes or rearranges things from the original. Let me warn you purists nerds out there right now, this thing changes all the characters around with the exception of 'Evil' Ed Thompson. He's the same, and played quirkily by Christopher Mintz Plasse(Mc'Lovin). Jerry Dandridge is no longer a semi-tragic seducer, but a cold predator with motives only a supernatural predator could understand, but the movie is goodly enough to let us in anyway. Peter Vincent(the biggest change in character in the remake) is no longer an older, washed up, Hammer-esque horror movie star with a cheap late night horror show, but now a Chris Angel inspired Vegas magician whose show revolves around the occult and especially gothic vampire imagery. Charley Brewster is no longer the nerd next store, but rather a reformed nerd who is a status seeker, trying desperately to hide his old nerd ways to his new 'cool' friends, and super hot girlfriend Amy. Amy is still the most thankless role, but she gets a bit of fleshing out before the third act and truly comes off sympathetic.
Now, like the Halloween remakes, I'm sure most will be upset by the revamped Peter Vincent, but I quite enjoyed the concept and David Tennant's performance. He's crude, drunk, and hiding some secrets from Charlie that the film will reveal. They did a good job of connecting Vincent to the main vampire plot this time out. One of the weaker spots of the original film was the logic behind Charlie going to a known actor for help killing a vampire. It never made a whole lot of sense, but it was fun anyway. In this version there's some logic there and a brilliantly over the top set piece that takes place in Vincent's Apartment in Vegas.
In the original film Charlie Brewster was your basic straight man. He had to play the auidience and the stalwart hero to root for. The cool bit about this character in the original is that writer/director Tom Holland made him a horror hip nerd(long before Scream's Randy). In the remake we find that Charlie is ashamed of his nerd past and he is seeking cool status in high school. He's not very likeable at the out set. His old nerd best friend Evil Ed informs him that one of their old chums has gone missing and possibly murdered, and Charlie just wants to hear none of it and be left alone. You're not rooting for Charlie. That's until he makes his first selfless act for a stripper neighbor entangled in a Jerry Dandridge trap. Charlie has a full blow arch in this film. I really enjoyed them taking the vanilla out of the vanilla hero in this remake.
Oh, Jerry, my favorite vampire of the 80's this side of David Bowie and Kiefer Sutherland. In the original Chris Sarandon's performance is brilliant and as written the character is better than the one presented here. That's just a fact. Jerry in the original seems tragic, but willing to do what he has to do to survive and to keep his secret. This may seem like sacrilege to most fans but I was never a fan of the plot point in the original of Charlie's girlfriend Amy being the reincarnation of Jerry's long lost love. It's too contrived and convenient and really unnecessary to the story at the end of the film. Amy gets used basically as the bait for Charlie and Peter to come after Jerry into his trap. In this film Jerry is pure predator. Now one must understand why this was done. In my opinion this film was not competing with the original portrayal of Jerry, but rather all the recent tragic, weepy, romantic vampires that have come along from True Blood, Vampire Diaries and most especially Twilight. The writer of this film Marti Noxon(staff writer for Buffy the Vampire Slayer the series for years) was trying to create the ultimate anti-Twilight vampire in all his rated R glory. Colin Farrell is an excellent choice for this and his performance manages to be unshowy but rather subverssive. He has a great scene where he threatens Charlie in between the lines after Ed goes missing(which unlike the original film is in the first 15 minutes so that doesn't count as a spoiler). He's truly menacing and perfect for this role. Plus, as a bonus original film's Jerry(Chris Sarandon) shows up for a funny cameo that had me cheering when I recognized his face.
Anton Yelchin is a young actor I feel should be looked for. This is his second starring role after Charlie Bartlet and he manages to earn our sympathy and complete a delicate arch from douche bag to hero. He's quite good and look forward to him, and people who aren't generically good looking, in the youth crowd of actors getting more leads like this in bigger and better projects. He manages to give us the pathos, comedy, and shear fear that this role requires, and sometimes in the same scene. "See look, creepy vampire hand!", is one of his funniest lines and silliest and he manages it without looking or sounding stupid.
Imogen Poots his quite effective in the film too, despite her having the most underwritten role. She comes off not like a bimbo but as an average teenage girl, who just happens to be impossibly gorgeous. I would like to see her in meatier roles with more to do beyond being the hero's reason for going into the dragon's lair after being kidnapped.
Now onto Evil Ed, the most popular character from the first film. Now Stephen Geoffreys isn't a great actor, but he imbued that part with something totally original and unexpected of the genre at the time. I take nothing from his role in that film. He was great. Hell, the concept of a painfully nerdy kid becoming a new all powerful vampire is still a great quirky concept that no one has really done since or before. In this we get Mintz-Plasse playing basically a toned down version of McLovin. But it's more than that. He manages to play the hurt of losing his best friend to the status of high school realistically, and his ultimate revenge manages to be harrowing, funny, and silly all in great effect. Is he as memorable as Geoffreys in the original? No, not even close, but he pulls off the roles requirements and I'd imagine for people who haven't seen the original, or don't even know that this is a remake, his character will hold some surprises for them. The only thing I really want to complain about when it comes to this character and his role in the plot involves his demise by Jerry. I don't mind that it happens WAAAAAY earlier in this film, but rather how the drama plays out. In the original it's quite emotional how Jerry pulls Ed into his arms promising a world where no one will ever pick on him again, and quite scary how Jerry chases him in the alley. In this film, while Jerry' dialogue is similar, it just doesn't have the same impact and pathos. It's there but not quite as good.
Toni Collette shows up in the film as Charlie's mom. Her part has been beefed up from the previous film. I really liked her and her role as the stakes for Charlie gets raised. People accuse roles like this being thankless when big name and very talented actors like Colette take them, but I disagree. She performs a function and does it really well. Is the part small, and not very deep? Yup, but it feels layered and you care about her almost instantly because of Colette. Here's a good litmus test, if a lesser actress had played the 'thankless' role of Mrs. Brewster how would the film have turned out? This isn't Shakespeare but it should be take seriously regardless and the final film benefits from it in totality.
Now there is one thing that disappointed me about this remake; the vampires don't really have monster transformations. In the original film Steve Johnson's make up effects for the vampires various monsterous visages were quite impressive if totally over done by the decade's end. Jerry turns into a monsterous bat, Ed turns into a wolf, etc. In this film the vampires do get ugly when they get mad, but it's just a slight bat-like visage and some major gnarly claws. It was done by Howard Berger of KNB effects and the make ups are quite good, but they are enhanced with digial effects, very good digital effects by the way. When Jerry goes full blown monster for the closing moments of the film it is mostly CGI. Sorry, guys, but for some reason when Amy's jaw grows large and filled with jagged teeth in the original it was done well by make up effects, but the remake need to be aided by CGI. Why? Is it more effective? Not really. At the end of the day, digital or make up, I still know I'm looking at an effect. I just admire make up effects more than CGI. That's just me.
The basic plot points and reasons for this story are the same as the original but tweaked, rearranged and give different back stories. This is what I think remakes should do. Make a good films for the virgins of the franchise but also surprise, hopefully pleasantly, the old fans. This film does that in spades. Read more ›
Now I know some horror fans, fanboys in general really, automatically hate something when it's remade, and hate something when the remake changes or rearranges things from the original. Let me warn you purists nerds out there right now, this thing changes all the characters around with the exception of 'Evil' Ed Thompson. He's the same, and played quirkily by Christopher Mintz Plasse(Mc'Lovin). Jerry Dandridge is no longer a semi-tragic seducer, but a cold predator with motives only a supernatural predator could understand, but the movie is goodly enough to let us in anyway. Peter Vincent(the biggest change in character in the remake) is no longer an older, washed up, Hammer-esque horror movie star with a cheap late night horror show, but now a Chris Angel inspired Vegas magician whose show revolves around the occult and especially gothic vampire imagery. Charley Brewster is no longer the nerd next store, but rather a reformed nerd who is a status seeker, trying desperately to hide his old nerd ways to his new 'cool' friends, and super hot girlfriend Amy. Amy is still the most thankless role, but she gets a bit of fleshing out before the third act and truly comes off sympathetic.
Now, like the Halloween remakes, I'm sure most will be upset by the revamped Peter Vincent, but I quite enjoyed the concept and David Tennant's performance. He's crude, drunk, and hiding some secrets from Charlie that the film will reveal. They did a good job of connecting Vincent to the main vampire plot this time out. One of the weaker spots of the original film was the logic behind Charlie going to a known actor for help killing a vampire. It never made a whole lot of sense, but it was fun anyway. In this version there's some logic there and a brilliantly over the top set piece that takes place in Vincent's Apartment in Vegas.
In the original film Charlie Brewster was your basic straight man. He had to play the auidience and the stalwart hero to root for. The cool bit about this character in the original is that writer/director Tom Holland made him a horror hip nerd(long before Scream's Randy). In the remake we find that Charlie is ashamed of his nerd past and he is seeking cool status in high school. He's not very likeable at the out set. His old nerd best friend Evil Ed informs him that one of their old chums has gone missing and possibly murdered, and Charlie just wants to hear none of it and be left alone. You're not rooting for Charlie. That's until he makes his first selfless act for a stripper neighbor entangled in a Jerry Dandridge trap. Charlie has a full blow arch in this film. I really enjoyed them taking the vanilla out of the vanilla hero in this remake.
Oh, Jerry, my favorite vampire of the 80's this side of David Bowie and Kiefer Sutherland. In the original Chris Sarandon's performance is brilliant and as written the character is better than the one presented here. That's just a fact. Jerry in the original seems tragic, but willing to do what he has to do to survive and to keep his secret. This may seem like sacrilege to most fans but I was never a fan of the plot point in the original of Charlie's girlfriend Amy being the reincarnation of Jerry's long lost love. It's too contrived and convenient and really unnecessary to the story at the end of the film. Amy gets used basically as the bait for Charlie and Peter to come after Jerry into his trap. In this film Jerry is pure predator. Now one must understand why this was done. In my opinion this film was not competing with the original portrayal of Jerry, but rather all the recent tragic, weepy, romantic vampires that have come along from True Blood, Vampire Diaries and most especially Twilight. The writer of this film Marti Noxon(staff writer for Buffy the Vampire Slayer the series for years) was trying to create the ultimate anti-Twilight vampire in all his rated R glory. Colin Farrell is an excellent choice for this and his performance manages to be unshowy but rather subverssive. He has a great scene where he threatens Charlie in between the lines after Ed goes missing(which unlike the original film is in the first 15 minutes so that doesn't count as a spoiler). He's truly menacing and perfect for this role. Plus, as a bonus original film's Jerry(Chris Sarandon) shows up for a funny cameo that had me cheering when I recognized his face.
Anton Yelchin is a young actor I feel should be looked for. This is his second starring role after Charlie Bartlet and he manages to earn our sympathy and complete a delicate arch from douche bag to hero. He's quite good and look forward to him, and people who aren't generically good looking, in the youth crowd of actors getting more leads like this in bigger and better projects. He manages to give us the pathos, comedy, and shear fear that this role requires, and sometimes in the same scene. "See look, creepy vampire hand!", is one of his funniest lines and silliest and he manages it without looking or sounding stupid.
Imogen Poots his quite effective in the film too, despite her having the most underwritten role. She comes off not like a bimbo but as an average teenage girl, who just happens to be impossibly gorgeous. I would like to see her in meatier roles with more to do beyond being the hero's reason for going into the dragon's lair after being kidnapped.
Now onto Evil Ed, the most popular character from the first film. Now Stephen Geoffreys isn't a great actor, but he imbued that part with something totally original and unexpected of the genre at the time. I take nothing from his role in that film. He was great. Hell, the concept of a painfully nerdy kid becoming a new all powerful vampire is still a great quirky concept that no one has really done since or before. In this we get Mintz-Plasse playing basically a toned down version of McLovin. But it's more than that. He manages to play the hurt of losing his best friend to the status of high school realistically, and his ultimate revenge manages to be harrowing, funny, and silly all in great effect. Is he as memorable as Geoffreys in the original? No, not even close, but he pulls off the roles requirements and I'd imagine for people who haven't seen the original, or don't even know that this is a remake, his character will hold some surprises for them. The only thing I really want to complain about when it comes to this character and his role in the plot involves his demise by Jerry. I don't mind that it happens WAAAAAY earlier in this film, but rather how the drama plays out. In the original it's quite emotional how Jerry pulls Ed into his arms promising a world where no one will ever pick on him again, and quite scary how Jerry chases him in the alley. In this film, while Jerry' dialogue is similar, it just doesn't have the same impact and pathos. It's there but not quite as good.
Toni Collette shows up in the film as Charlie's mom. Her part has been beefed up from the previous film. I really liked her and her role as the stakes for Charlie gets raised. People accuse roles like this being thankless when big name and very talented actors like Colette take them, but I disagree. She performs a function and does it really well. Is the part small, and not very deep? Yup, but it feels layered and you care about her almost instantly because of Colette. Here's a good litmus test, if a lesser actress had played the 'thankless' role of Mrs. Brewster how would the film have turned out? This isn't Shakespeare but it should be take seriously regardless and the final film benefits from it in totality.
Now there is one thing that disappointed me about this remake; the vampires don't really have monster transformations. In the original film Steve Johnson's make up effects for the vampires various monsterous visages were quite impressive if totally over done by the decade's end. Jerry turns into a monsterous bat, Ed turns into a wolf, etc. In this film the vampires do get ugly when they get mad, but it's just a slight bat-like visage and some major gnarly claws. It was done by Howard Berger of KNB effects and the make ups are quite good, but they are enhanced with digial effects, very good digital effects by the way. When Jerry goes full blown monster for the closing moments of the film it is mostly CGI. Sorry, guys, but for some reason when Amy's jaw grows large and filled with jagged teeth in the original it was done well by make up effects, but the remake need to be aided by CGI. Why? Is it more effective? Not really. At the end of the day, digital or make up, I still know I'm looking at an effect. I just admire make up effects more than CGI. That's just me.
The basic plot points and reasons for this story are the same as the original but tweaked, rearranged and give different back stories. This is what I think remakes should do. Make a good films for the virgins of the franchise but also surprise, hopefully pleasantly, the old fans. This film does that in spades. Read more ›
15 of 18 people found the following review helpful
Format:DVD
While I don't share the same enthusiasm as others when it comes to this film that doesn't mean that I didn't like it at all. I appreciate the fact that they tried something new, but I couldn't help but feel like I could have been watching any other vampire movie besides Fright Night. I am an 80's baby, so I grew up a big fan of this movie, and if it were left up to me personally I don't think they should have even bothered with a remake. Remakes only show how unoriginal and uncreative Hollywood has become. With that said, let's discuss what I didn't find interesting, and that's the angle they took with this Peter Vincent. While I appreciate that they tried to make him a modern day version of Roddy McDowell let's keep it real. This guy was more like a rock star than a vampire hunter, real or fake, in my own opinion. You barely see this guy besides on television, and when Charlie finllay looks the guy up he does absolutely nothing besides run and hide until the end of this movie. The other Peter Vincent had a more active role in finding out about who Jerry Dandrige really was and helping Charlie defeat him even though he was afraid in the original film. I also have a slight problem with the "Evil Ed" they had this time around. Come on, how in the hell can they arrange it to where he finds out about Jerry before Charlie because he's been following Jerry around town with night vision goggles and camcorders. Is that the best they could come up with? That part was not believable to me that "Evil" would just know to follow Jerry because he is a vampire and then warn Charlie about it only to be bitten in practically the beginning of the movie. There was really no build up to that point it, Ed just knew about Jerry, and it just is what it is I guess. Frankly, and it's just my opinion, but I don't think that part was thought out too well. On top of that, I guess they totally decided to axe Jerry's daytime companion and watchdog that was Jonathan Stark in the original movie. I really hate to be the person that only dewells on the original because I dislike it when other people tend to harp on that fact. Plus, it only makes it harder to accept the new characters and storylines, but by this being one of my favorites it was very important to me that it was done right, and in my opinion it fell short in certain areas. In the original film Charlie's curiosity and spying is what got him in hot water with Jerry.
Now, let's discuss what I did find interesting, and that is I liked the brief Chris Sarandon cameo. I liked the fact that Charlie's mom played a bigger role in this film because you barely remember that she is a part of the story in the first film because her screen time and dialogue was very short. I also think that Colin Farrell made a worthy vampire because he was all about the killing. It's not secret that the man is extremely easy on the eyes, so the sexiness oozes from his pores without him even trying to be sexy, but I do think they tried to make him more terrifying than seductive which is rare for vampires these days. I sort of like the Amy better than Amanda Bearse this time around, but I couldn't help but think she didn't have a real role in this movie besides playing the hot piece of tail in this movie. The original Amy was more invoved in the meat of the story than this chick.
Overall, the movie did seem a bit rushed, but it was fun to watch. I think that if you don't the mistake of doing what I did, and that was constantly trying to see some type of resemblance to the first film then you will like it.
Now, let's discuss what I did find interesting, and that is I liked the brief Chris Sarandon cameo. I liked the fact that Charlie's mom played a bigger role in this film because you barely remember that she is a part of the story in the first film because her screen time and dialogue was very short. I also think that Colin Farrell made a worthy vampire because he was all about the killing. It's not secret that the man is extremely easy on the eyes, so the sexiness oozes from his pores without him even trying to be sexy, but I do think they tried to make him more terrifying than seductive which is rare for vampires these days. I sort of like the Amy better than Amanda Bearse this time around, but I couldn't help but think she didn't have a real role in this movie besides playing the hot piece of tail in this movie. The original Amy was more invoved in the meat of the story than this chick.
Overall, the movie did seem a bit rushed, but it was fun to watch. I think that if you don't the mistake of doing what I did, and that was constantly trying to see some type of resemblance to the first film then you will like it.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
Yet another modernized 'vampire-horror' remake of a cult classic
This remake of an '80s cult classic is a typical, modern-day teen
horror/slasher flick, to put it simply.
In other words, it's a POS. Read more
horror/slasher flick, to put it simply.
In other words, it's a POS. Read more
Published 21 hours ago by Aptonoth Trader
I dig it!
Okay, I really like the original "Fright Night", but this one had a different twist to it and didn't copy the original one 100%, which I find annoying with some remakes, but this... Read more
Published 1 day ago by Big M
Disturbia with vampires
I very much enjoyed Fright Night. A little campy and full of nasty blood and body parts. It was fun to watch and reminded me of Disturbia if it had vampires and gore. Read more
Published 1 day ago by koolz03
I don't like Colin Farrell, but he acted great and didn't make this...
The movie was totally amazing! It was freaky, got beautiful graphics and disgusting creatures, and the very cool story. Liked the acting and David Tennant played a very cool role. Read more
Published 7 days ago by SMD
fright night for real!
I've seen both versions of fright night,the Roddy Macdowel one from 1985 and the 2011 version.I must say,this viewer loved the 2011 version!Colin Farrell,David Tennant(dr. Read more
Published 13 days ago by jj
Colin Farrell is one badass vamp!
I hope there is a sequel just so I can see Colin Farrell reprise his role. He did such a great job of playing a vampire, I is actually kind of creepy how good he was at it. Read more
Published 14 days ago by movielover
Vampires in Vegas!
This is actually a pretty good Vampire movie. It's got everything you need. Blood/gore, comedy, and good actors. Read more
Published 15 days ago by Richard G. Whitcomb
A C+-rated movie from an A-rated Original Beginning
Okay, what should I say about this movie? First, let me try and not compare it severely to the original. If I did, it would receive an F. Read more
Published 15 days ago by awesomep
Strong Vampire Flick.
It was a stronger movie than the 1st of it's kind. It was a lot less campy. I really enjoyed it b/c I went in not expecting much.
Published 18 days ago by Robert A. Klein
This Vampire Movie Sucks...
Quick review - poor remake. expensive 3D Blu Ray at $31.99.
The 3D is not at all exciting or innovative, the basic movie is lame, and I'll probably never watch this... Read more
The 3D is not at all exciting or innovative, the basic movie is lame, and I'll probably never watch this... Read more
Published 28 days ago by RobzReviewz
Tags Customers Associate with This Product(What's this?)Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.
|
Customer Discussions
|
This product's forum
Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
|
Related forums
|
![[Start the discussion]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/discussion_boards/start-new-discussion-sec._V192250339_.gif){kind=small}
