Fright Night (2011) Discussion/Review

[Spaceman Spiff]

Servo wrote:

---

Had a few laughs, the performances were all pretty solid for what it is, and it kept me entertained for 90 minutes.

What about the other half hour?

[DarKush]

Servo wrote:

---

Not bad. I liked the Chris Sarandon cameo. Evil Ed wasn't as good as in the original, and let's hope Mintz-Plasse's career doesn't go the same way as Stephen Geoffreys' did after the '85 film.
Tennant was very good as Peter Vincent, but I have to say I still prefer Roddy McDowall's portrayal.

All in all, not a bad effort. Had a few laughs, the performances were all pretty solid for what it is, and it kept me entertained for 90 minutes. Not as good as the original, but most definitely worth a watch.

Oh, and Jerry needed a ghoul.

B+

Hey, was Sarandon the guy that hit them in the car?

[Servo]

DarKush wrote:

---

Hey, was Sarandon the guy that hit them in the car?

Yes, that was him.

[DevilEyes]

Servo wrote:

---

None of those films even comes close to pioneering the "sexy vampire" in cinema. Modernising it maybe, to a certain extent, but definitely not pioneers.

The real pioneer work was done in the 60's and 70's by European directors, who were making highly stylised films which often featured full frontal nudity and sex scenes. Even Hammer here in the UK sexualised their gothic vampire films as much as the censors would allow them to for the late 50's and 60's, even if they did go a bit camp and ridiculous with some of it in the later years.

Didn't they start the sexy vampire trend in the 1931 Dracula (and the Broadway show that preceded it), where Bela Lugosi played him as a suave, charming Eastern European aristocrat?

[Servo]

DevilEyes wrote:

---

Didn't they start the sexy vampire trend in the 1931 Dracula (and the Broadway show that preceded it), where Bela Lugosi played him as a suave, charming Eastern European aristocrat?

To the same extent as most suave, debonair men were sexualised on film in those days, yes. Which was to say not much. The sexuality and seduction aspects of vampirism were downplayed and limited to implied scenes - a lot of films preferring to imply that a vampire's control over its victim was hypnotic, rather than seductive.

It wasn't until the late 50's and early 60's, with the introduction of more liberal views on censorship in some European countries, that cinematic vampires started to become more heavily sexualised.

[DarKush]

Servo wrote:

---

Yes, that was him.

Thanks. That was pretty cool. I was wondering if there were any cameos in the film.

[stj]

Servo wrote:

---

None of those films even comes close to pioneering the "sexy vampire" in cinema. Modernising it maybe, to a certain extent, but definitely not pioneers.

The real pioneer work was done in the 60's and 70's by European directors, who were making highly stylised films which often featured full frontal nudity and sex scenes. Even Hammer here in the UK sexualised their gothic vampire films as much as the censors would allow them to for the late 50's and 60's, even if they did go a bit camp and ridiculous with some of it in the later years.

In US cinema, as opposed to world cinema, it was the movies I mentioned. I think the US movie that followed in the European vein was The Hunger (complete with Catherine Deneuve to give it authenticity.) Which I don't think was very influential in the US.

The Fright Night remake kept most of the story elements developing the sexual appeal of the vampire with a vampire who was a raving monster. This was stunningly inept.

[Snaploud]

I thought it was a fun film that started terribly and picked up considerably when McLovin and (especially) Tennant came on screen.

marillion wrote:

---

The good news? David Tennant stole every scene he was in and was the best part of the movie...

QFT

Tennant was the star of this film. The male and female leads could have been replaced by anybody. The main vampire villain wasn't bad, though.

[Locutus of Bored]

I wasn't expecting much, but I was pleasantly surprised and enjoyed myself throughout the film. It's not fantastic or anything, but I'd give it a solid "B."

Tennant definitely stole the show, but Yelchin did a great job as well. There were some good suspenseful scenes, and Farrell channeled his best creepy douche, which shouldn't have been too hard.

All the callbacks to the original were nice, yet they changed it up enough to still keep it engaging. Chris Sarandon's appearance was cool and got a knowing laugh from at least a few of the audience members.

[Ethros]

This was only released in the UK on Friday, jusu come back from seeing it today.

Two words why I liked this movie-

Imogen

Poots


Christ almighty.....