The good news? David Tennant stole every scene he was in and was the best part of the movie... The bad news? The rest of the movie was mediocre at best. Christopher Mintz-Plasse was completely wasted in this role. They could have given it to almost anyone. His character just comes off as a bitter dick. There was no flash of McLovin or even the Red Mist from Kick Ass. Yelchin was ok, but just seemed too old for the part. Colin Ferrel has "creepy" down pat, but for a role that was supposed to have some charm to it, he fell flat. I did like how they connected the Peter Vincent character's past into the plot. Giving him some actual vampire exprience, rather than just playing the part was a good move.
Saw it today. I liked it. I didn't think it was better than the original, as some of the reviews I read claimed, but there were some improvements over the original. I thought the female lead was hotter, the FX were better, and I liked the ending better. However the original had a charm to it that the new one didn't have. I also liked the original Jerry. No disrespect to Colin Farrell, who did a good job. His take on the character was his own and he worked it out. I just liked the original guy better. I also liked the suspense of the original, the build up as Charlie tried to prove to everyone what Jerry really was and the vamp was always one step ahead. In the new one I guess they assumed the audience knew about the first film and just decided to cut to the chase more quickly. Farrell had the appropriate menace and a bad boy swagger. I thought he was a good choice for a vampire and perhaps should've shown up as one in a film way before this. However he's not as scary to me as the guy in the Bill Cosby sweaters, giving subtle little 'got you' or 'I'm going to get you' smiles at Charlie as he makes him look like a crazy kid again. His full on vamp makeup didn't work for me though. Not a lot was done with Evil Ed. I had expected him and Charlie to be closer in the film, but I wasn't too put off by the way the new film done it. I was hoping he got the cross to the face like in the original though. Tennant was almost unrecognizable at first. It took me a moment to get into his take on Vincent. It seemed like he was channeling Russell Brand. I thought the change in occupation for his character was pretty neat and I guess more contemporary. I'm mixed on Jerry being the one who murdered his parents. Seemed like he would've had more of a reaction when he saw him the first time. Granted we don't know exactly how all that went down. I didn't think it really needed to be Jerry as the murderer. It felt too small world, as if Jerry is the only vampire out there, killing and siring. I really liked the closing credits and that take on the Jay-Z song "99 Problems". It's unfortunate that this film tanked. I wish they had dropped it around Halloween. Maybe it would've gotten better box office.
you're wrong the movie was great and collin ferrel was great as jerry the vampire. david was awesome in his first movie. and the changes were dealable if you know what they were.
I thought this was great. I missed the showing of Conan and ended up in this on a whim. Fun flick. Not a huge fan of the original. It's OK, but I don't own it. I liked all of the actors in this and Imogen Poots is fucking gorgeous, to boot. Last thing I saw her in was 28 Weeks Later and I almost didn't recognize her. What was she, fifteen in that? That can't be right but Christ, she doesn't seem to age. Anyway, too bad it's not doing well. I definitely would have released it around Halloween. Gave it an A
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+
I was really surprised how good this was in 3D. one of the better pictures of the year in in 3d next to thor.
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?
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.
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.
I thought it was a fun film that started terribly and picked up considerably when McLovin and (especially) Tennant came on screen. 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.
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.
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.....