No, I already reviewed the original many times, I'm talking about the remake! Yes, it came out in 2011.
So the plots are pretty similar. Basically, a vampire moves in next door to a fairly average teen and the teen gradually becomes aware that the new guy is a vampire. Unlike the original, Peter Vincent is played in this one by some nobody who seems to be a total douche. I realize Roddy McDowall can't reprise his role in this movie, due to him being dead and all, but honestly, couldn't they have found someone better than a Criss Angel wannabe (or whoever that magician is)? Also, instead of the classy, cultured vampire, they've got the likes of Colin Farrell, who is like the opposite of the cultured, european-esque Chris Sarandon (who at least made a cameo appearance in this movie) who was the vampire in the 1985 version. However, this movie didn't try to be the original.
It played to its strengths. Colin Farrell was a cheesy, bloody, low-class rock star of a vampire. The peter vincent of this movie was a trashy, drunken mess of a vampire killer. Amy, charlie's girlfriend, was actually pretty damn hot this time around. lol The only character I truly liked was Peter Vincent's live-in girlfriend / assistant. She had some serious attitude. lol However, the movie worked pretty well. There was lots of action, it totally departed from the first movie fairly early on, and the last half hour was pretty much one big long climax. Not in a sexual sense, but in the story sense. I won't say i was on the edge of my seat, but it definitely kept my interest despite the bad acting.
Now the bad points. The acting wasn't very good. i didn't really get the feel of colin farrell being a centuries old vampire. He acts more like a horny 13 year old than anything else. None of the other actors made up for the lack of a strong villain. I didn't empathize with any of them. Even Charlie Brewster, instead of the geeky horror movie fan he was in the 1985 version, is basically an asshole in this movie. Also, his hot girlfriend wants to have sex with him and Charlie is the one who's shy about it this time. Bit of a role reversal there. Confusing and doesn't help the plot any. "Evil" Eddie was more pitiful than anything else, and not even pitiful in the good pitiful way, like in the first movie, where you empathize with his character and feel bad when things go wrong for him. In this movie, i was kind of glad when bad things happened to him, because he was also kind of an asshole. So. Everyone in this movie was pretty much an asshole. lol Toni Collette was actually pretty decent as charlie's mom, but her presence was insufficiently engrossing to save the overall lack of acting.
The CGI effects were pretty lame. I was more scared by the prosthetic makeup of the actors in the 1985 film than i was by the computer generated images here. I don't think hollywood understands the importance of the actual acting involved in these movies. CGI doesn't scare anyone. It's a cheap and easy way to generate beasties, and that's it. It doesn't generate fear. Actors do that. If you absolutely need to use CGI effects, use them in the dark and replace them as quickly as possible with real actors in prosthetic makeup. I'm pretty sure Christopher Lee or Bela Lugosi with a pair of plastic fangs and some decent acting skills were hellaciously more frightening than some computer generated image. That's why those movies are classics, and the 2011 version of Fright Night went almost directly to video.
The plot was a good point. It departed from its predecessor in many ways, but i think it played to the strengths of the actors to make you vaguely disgusted by them and want them to die horribly. Of course, i pretty much felt that way about the whole cast, and they didn't all die, so I felt unsatisfied at the end of the movie. lol Another drawback, no nudity! It almost looked like a disney film version of the original Fright Night when it first started and it didn't seem to shed that image as the film strolled along. There were some pretty hot babes in there and it would have been pretty nice to see some of them naked... Oh well.
In other news, the new season of Dexter has started and I don't like it already. Watching it right now. Deb was supposed to have caught Dexter last season and I was all like FINALLY! The secret is out! Only it's not, and now things are all messed up and Laguerta (the poltically-minded police captain), who is NEVER at a crime scene, manages to show up at the one crime scene dexter messes up and finds EVIDENCE? What a pile of shit. I'm not buying it already and it's only the first episode. However, Deb ... Scratch that. She just found out. I'm good. Moving onto Homeland.
Holy Shit, I just saw claire danes bent over the garden on Homeland and I wanted to do her right there. Uh... yea. Sorry, I don't get out much. Homeland seems about right as far as the plot goes. After Carrie's mental breakdown last season we needed something to get her back on track and she seems to be playing it perfectly, the whole "i'm a batshit crazy ex cia agent" thing. She's a pretty decent actress, totally believable as far as I am concerned. And kind of hot, in a "i'm a batshit crazy excia agent" sort of way. lol Nothing too dramatic in the season opener but makes me look forward to the rest of the season. I know once these actresses have "made it" into the juicy roles, they no longer need to do nude scenes, but would it be too much to ask? :-D
Okay, that's it for now, people. Fright Night is currently playing on Showtime. See you guys tomorrow with another movie review!
No comments:
Post a Comment