Dotsthavesp I wanted to but couldn't!

Borgarkeri A bit overrated, but still an amazing film

Calum Hutton It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

paul-heys-im As a huge fan of the originals, I have to say, I was pleasantly surprised by this remake. Most remakes are terrible, in fact, I don't know why Hollywood insists on making remakes because they are money losers. All these remakes barely break even, if they do at all, and the film industry is over-saturated by pointless and ineffective remakes. Nevertheless, this is one remake that is actually worth watching. It takes the simplistic premise of the original, and gives it a modern day spin. The actors are all solid, especially David's Peter Vincent, who I actually like more than the original P.V, and he was great (Roddy rocks) and the script is competent. The fx are OK, although I'd have preferred less CGI and more prosthetics like the original, but the cgi is serviceable. Good soundtrack, too. All the ingredients that make a good popcorn flick, are there. It's an hour and a half of mindless vampire fun. And in the age of the vampire=romance, it's good to see a vampire on screen who is a straight up monster. The guy who plays Chris the mofo from Kick Ass is also in this film, and does a great job of playing a nerdy outcast who tips off his friend, Charlie, that Jerry is a ruthless killing machine with fangs. Even if you don't like the original, I suggest you see this film, it's a great, fun ride for what it is. No pretentious nonsense, no vampire romance, no pretty boy vampires, just some good, horror movie fun. It doesn't surpass the original, but is a close second. Colin Farrel is great as Jerry. It's time Hwood did more worthwhile remakes of cult classics which were failures upon their release back in the 1980's. There is a multitude of cult hits that could be improved upon and brought to a new audience but it seems Hwood are only concerned with remaking the films that did well, and destroying their superior originals in the process. But not to get sidetracked, I was expecting another crappy remake, but this film gets it right, for once.

cls0680 A lot of people have slammed this for not being true to the first one, but I think that's the good part of it. Its like a good song cover, it takes the original and doesn't just copy cat it, it changes a few things, gives it a personal twist, without totally destroying the integrity of the original. There are a lot of connections that were made obvious, but not ridiculously obvious. The biggest difference between them is this one is more vampire, and less love. If you're expecting a love story, or seduction, watch the original. That is the biggest difference - Jerry uses Amy, Jerry doesn't love Amy.This was a fun, updated version, which - I thought - made more sense than the first. It had more back story, anyway, so you understood why Jerry chose that neighborhood, and not just "oh a vampire moved in randomly." Sarandon's Jerry was like a 1980's GQ mag highlighting sweater fashion. Sideways glances in half lighting and talk of love and pain constantly. I was always more afraid of his little friend, who seemed more devious. Collin Farrel is definitely more menacing and believable as a shrewd killer vampire. Sometimes he is uneasy and jittery, followed by a relaxed "cool" and it keeps it uncomfortable in a good way. And his "animal" responses are unexpected, natural, and appreciated. The rest of the cast was also excellent, I thought. The real star is easily David Tennant who is hilarious, and you have to love him. Christopher Mintz-Plasse twist on "Evil" was good and believable, I felt much more for him than I did in the first movies. I really never "got" Evil in the first movie, but this one makes him much more real and not just an obnoxious hyperactive sidekick. Imogen Poots' "Amy" was such an improvement on the first movie's Amy who was SO whiny and annoying.If you watch movies specifically for special effects, you can pass on this one. The effects are not good. Bad CGI. And some things, in retrospect don't make much sense - and I think those things are mainly the character's responses. I kept thinking "why is he not more upset about this?" or "why didn't someone notice this?" or "Really - no one is questioning this??" BUT, the movie itself is pretty good and if you overlook the bad effects and the unrealistic lack of concern sometimes, you'll probably like it and have fun watching it. You had to have some kind of ability to overlook stupidity to watch the first one anyway, right?

Seb Brady Okay let me start off by saying this movie is kick ass and way superior to the 1985 version. For one instead of the movie being cliché and have the family move into a bad neighborhood(Fright Night 1985), the family is moving into a bad neighborhood. Secondly, Collin Farrell as the Vampire in this movie was like the greatest thing to happen to this movie instead of the boring/Emotionless vampire in Fright Night 1985. Thirdly, this movie has really great acting throughout the film. There was not one actor who I hated in this film. Fourthly, this movie is so damn scary and suspenseful but is also really funny at times, unlike the 1985 version where I was not laughing, scared or even feeling a bit of suspense. All in all, this movie is the superior Fright Night film and I had a lot of fun with it. I would definitely recommend this and watch it over and over again!:)

Leofwine_draca The original FRIGHT NIGHT is a fun '80s popcorn flick, ably mixing comedy and horror like the best of '80s genre fare. This 2011 remake is so lame, so predictable, so forgettable in every respect that I wish I hadn't bothered watching it. The plot sticks EXTREMELY closely to the original film, so it's asking for comparisons. But the script for this one is dumb in the extreme: we're saddled with a scriptwriter who seems to think that swearing is funny and that dumb humour is the order of the day. Hell, we're stuck with Christopher Mintz-Plasse in it, for God's sake! Needless to say this is a failure in every respect, with every action scene, every scenario, every fight, well telegraphed in advance. I turned around at the outset and said "wait for the CGI explosions and people being thrown around" and sure enough all of these things happened as I predicted. About the best thing in it is the Chris Sarandon cameo, that lasts about 30 seconds.This has one of the worst casts I can think of. Colin Farrell's heart simply isn't in it, and he makes no effort to be imposing. Anton Yelchin is a charisma-free hero and the less I see of Toni Collette, playing his mother, the better. Imogen Poots is as lovely as ever but has little to do here other than look pretty, and the less said about David Tennant's cringe-worthy, Russell Brand wannabe the better. The FRIGHT NIGHT remake is only worth watching if you enjoy rubbishy CGI vampires over the remarkable prosthetics effects of the original.