FRIGHT NIGHT REMAKE OPINIONS

I'll hate myself afterwards, but I'll end up seeing this, mostly because I'm a huge fan of the first two(true story: I ran into Ernie Sabella at Disney World one time and I got so excited all I could tell him was that I remembered him from Saved by the Bell and Fright Night part 2).

I'll preface my comment by saying that I'm a huge fan of the original.  Even so, I'm actually looking forward to the remake.  I think the idea of making Dandridge a Chris Angel - Superdouche magician type has tons of possibilities.  And as mentioned, it's got a pretty fine pedigree: Farrell could be a blast in the role; Marti Noxon penned the script.  These are all positives in my mind.  As far as McLovin is concerned, I'm not overly worried.  The original Evil Ed is so different and unique that McLovin cannot help but take it in another direction. 

If nothing else, it should convince the studio to issue a blu-ray edition of the original *fingers crossed*

Uh... pretty sure Dandrige isn't the Chris Angel "superdouche." That's for the Peter Vincent character.

D'oh.  You're right.  Doesn't change my opinion, but you're right.

You know, if you're going to release a promo image trying to sell Farrell as Dandridge, at least release a picture of him looking suave and sexy, not some medium two-shot of the guy baring his fangs like a little pecker.

Also, from what I understand, all the gay is out, one of the many reasons I can't be all that bothered with this (I say that as a fan of Yelchin, Farrell, Collette, and Mintz-Plasse).

Maybe it's because I didn't see the first one untill about a year ago, but I don't see where all the love is coming from.   It wasn't that great, I'd watch The Lost Boys 50 times in a row before Fright Night.  So with that said, I'm actually excited to see this.  I think Farrel as a creepy vampire wil be good.

The still of Mintz-Plasse actually makes me feel marginally better about his casting. From the looks of it he's certainly not playing Evil Ed as another McLovin. That said, I can't BELIEVE they didn't cast Samm Levine in that role. He's old, but he could totally play teen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

That said, I can't BELIEVE they didn't cast Samm Levine in that role.

Wow, that's actually inspired casting.  I'll check it out on video just to see where they take the Evil Ed character, but changing the horror-host role into a stage magician and the removal of the gay subtext dropped my interest pretty low.

The changing of the horror host role makes perfect sense. People don't even know what those are anymore...

Yeah, I like the original and all, but it's not some untouchable masterwork. I like the casting on this and if the trailers are good I'm there. The biggest headscratcher here for me is that they've taken a 1 million dollar b-movie starring nobodies and made it into a 60 million dollar A movie loaded with stars. I don't know if the math is going to work out for them on that one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evi 

The changing of the horror host role makes perfect sense. People don't even know what those are anymore...

This is true, though that kind of robs the concept of one of its chief novelties: That Charlie Brewster is kind of a delusional idiot who thinks a horror show host is his best ally against an undead murderer who nibbles on hookers. Ultimately, circumstances more than expertise is what wins the day.

As for NickP, I would think an attentive viewer, not distracted by Fright Night's dated nature and b-movie trappings would find its appeal obvious. The core concept, the voyeuristic cub detective and the monster next door, is an appealing twist on the Rear Window concept, and if you're of a certain generation, meshing that with a horror show host who befriends the audience indentification character (that audience including geeky fucking horror fans who grew up on the same shit as Charlie), then you've basically hit the ground running. Weird and charismatic performances (Sarandon, McDowall, and Geoffreys), good old fashioned cool scenes, and that aforementioned subtext are why people love the film.

Personally, I have no problem admitting that here are some objectively bad things about it, but for the most part there's a sincerity to Holland's script and direction, and general verisimilitude of the production that hold it all together. Of course, you do think The Fighter is right up there with Raging Bull, so there's that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evi 

The changing of the horror host role makes perfect sense. People don't even know what those are anymore...

Exactly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

Yeah, I like the original and all, but it's not some untouchable masterwork. I like the casting on this and if the trailers are good I'm there. The biggest headscratcher here for me is that they've taken a 1 million dollar b-movie starring nobodies and made it into a 60 million dollar A movie loaded with stars. I don't know if the math is going to work out for them on that one.

Mostly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny 

As for NickP, I would think an attentive viewer, not distracted by Fright Night's dated nature and b-movie trappings would find its appeal obvious. The core concept, the voyeuristic cub detective and the monster next door, is an appealing twist on the Rear Window concept, and if you're of a certain generation, meshing that with a horror show host who befriends the audience indentification character (that audience including geeky fucking horror fans who grew up on the same shit as Charlie), then you've basically hit the ground running. Weird and charismatic performances (Sarandon, McDowall, and Geoffreys), good old fashioned cool scenes, and that aforementioned subtext are why people love the film.

 

Personally, I have no problem admitting that here are some objectively bad things about it, but for the most part there's a sincerity to Holland's script and direction, and general verisimilitude of the production that hold it all together.

Yeah I kinda agree here. It aint brilliant, but it's a little special.

As far as the stills? All I got is "it looks more promising than MTV's TEEN WOLF revamp".
 

McLovin's Evil Ed looks pretty skeezy, which is the first word I'd describe Evil Ed as a character. This is a good thing considering that's the only casting news that made me wince when I read it.

Having not seen the orginal all I can say is the cast on this remake looks pretty good.

   While there are better vampire movies than Fright Night, its still a very good movie. On one hand I don't see the point of a remake. I am looking forward to this because of the cast. Farrell is going to make a great Jerry Danridge. There is no doubt in my mind he can pull off being a suave bastard. David Tennant was great on Doctor Who. He should bring  crazy energy to the role. I'm fine with making Peter Vincent a Chris Angel clone. TV horror movie hosts are a thing of the past. I don't know if anyone under 30 remembers Elvira, USA's Up All Night, Joe Bob Biggs, and TNT's Monster Vision. Those where fun shows. I'm open minded about Vince as Evil Ed. You can't blame for wanting to try something different.

  If the movie is a hit, there is a sequel to remake as well. I thought Fright Night 2 was  good. Eva Green could play Danridge's sister.

Last time I went to the theater they were trying to give tickets away to the screening of this and nobody was interested.

This better have good marketing.

Revisited the original yesterday. It holds up IMO. The practical FX and Edlund's optical stuff still looks decent. Amanda Bearse comes off as a weird casting choice, but that may just be hindsight. "Comedy-Horror version of REAR WINDOW" as a concept works, and has been milked a few times since (PLUG! NEVER CRY WEREWOLF, etc), but I'll check out the remake cautiously.

The pics in EW have me worried. In the new one Jerry burns down Charlie's house since he can't enter without an invitation. In the original Jerry charmed Charlie's mother into an invite. What made Jerry a great character was that he was just as suave as he was evil.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaz 

The pics in EW have me worried. In the new one Jerry burns down Charlie's house since he can't enter without an invitation. In the original Jerry charmed Charlie's mother into an invite. What made Jerry a great character was that he was just as suave as he was evil.

Yeah, no kidding. The subtext between Sarandon and Ragsdale was fantastic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evi 

The changing of the horror host role makes perfect sense. People don't even know what those are anymore...

Oh, I'm not saying it doesn't make sense, I'm just saying I prefer the horror-host-turned-hunter to the magician-turned-hunter.  I'll agree, horror hosts are (sadly) a thing of the past.  I'm 30 and most people my age don't remember them.

Back in my day we would we watch B movies on USA's Up All Night, so we could gawk at Rhoda Shear, and we liked it! Oh God we love it.