Fright Night 3D Post-Release

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 

 

-David Tennant plays Peter Vincent mostly as a foppish drunk. Alright. Was expecting more.

 

I think the world needs to come to the realization that David Tennant is a giant, old school ham and not the "real" actor they think he is based on his DOCTOR WHO performance. 

Still, I thought he fit in well here. I liked this movie a lot. Will go down as one of my favorites for the summer. It stands comfortably next to the original in my mind.

The character's written that way, so it'd be weird for Tennant not to play it.

I'll have to see it in 2D, due to Spy Kids getting our only 3D theater, but I'll be there for sure. I liked the original, but it's not a movie I know by heart or anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

I think the world needs to come to the realization that David Tennant is a giant, old school ham and not the "real" actor they think he is based on his DOCTOR WHO performance. 

 

People think he's a real actor based on Doctor Who?  He's only got three modes on that show: hamster-hyper, wrist-slittin' sad, or mean stare of DOOM.

The embargo lifted today. I can say now that I think it's poop. I like the transition into action, I thought Christopher Mintz-Plasse was fun, as was David Tenant, but there's nothing under the surface, and the only set piece that works is in the middle of the film. The biggest screw up is the Tenant reveal, which amounts to nothing. And I hate what they did to the Amy character considering no other person turned acts like that. And it's rape. The set up is excellent, there's a good movie to be made of a Vegas Vampire, but this isn't it.

the biggest problem is that there's nothing going on with the main character in relation to the vampire, and for the most part the character's a dick. You like Evil Ed more than you like Charlie, and by having his girlfriend say "I like you because you're a geek" it robs him of having any compassion. That's huge. Jerry doesn't have much of a character either. So you're watching two character you can only care about because you like the actors do battle, while the side characters are way more interesting, and are left with little to do but give exposition. Blech, Sucky.

You're not going to like our tag-team review then.

http://www.chud.com/64519/tag-team-review-fright-night/

Want to see a fun horror movie that's done with some panache? Go see FINAL DESTINATION 5. 

Not terrible, but pretty middle-of-the-road weak. Farrell's fun, as are Mintz Plasse and Tennant, but their characters are really poorly handled in comparison to their original counterparts. I particularly loved how Tennant just popped up in the climax without any set-up or warning. The assault on Vincent's hotel room was also dealt with lazily, as Farrell's character didn't know they were going there and Evil Ed was seemingly out of the picture. The highway scene is pretty great, but the final house battle is a mess of chaotic camera work, dingy cinematography and 1997 CGI. It does steal nicely from Blade, though.

 On the plus side, it wanders down some different territory than the original film. Unfortunately, though, it only really works in fits and starts, with plenty of dead spots in between. The script is a mess. This flick reminded me a lot of Jennifer's Body, in that it's pretty much scare-free and few of the jokes hit their mark.

This also has the honour of being the worst-looking 3D movie I've ever had the displeasure of sitting through. Pure visual sludge.

It's a rental. At best.  

I'm glad you guys liked it, but there's some basic levels it fails for me, and I don't understand how you guys like Yelchin in it. But screenwriting 101 suggests that the main character should probably be the person who initiates his interest in thwarting evil. In that way Evil Ed should be the protagonist, as he's infinitely more empathetic, but then if Brewster is guilted into figuring this shit out, then his confrontation with Ed later on should be meaningful. It isn't. Brewster is a character who doesn't so much change as is presented with a life or death situation and doesn't so much rise to the occasion as survive it. Jerry Dandridge is - as a character- equally shallow. Why does he live next to them, etc. etc. I think Farrell is more fun to watch because he enjoys being a vampire, but then why does he send Evil Ed to Peter Vincent's. But then if Jerry's building an army, why now?

I came in this thread ready to eat some crow about my bitching about this remake, but now I'm torn. Damon's problems are almost exactly what I expect out of this. At least now I'm going to watch it and make up my mind instead of ignoring it as I planned.

But I have to say it. No matter how well the script pulls it off, I'll never accept or like Brewster being a dick. Never.

rewatching the Tennant era Who this week and Tennant is a ham - but that's kind of why I like him.

I don't think it's weird to be more empathetic towards the well-adjusted character that is starting to deal with universal growing-up concerns, rather than the ultra-geeky dickheaded obsessed friend, who only happens to have a point because it's a vampire movie, and that's kinda the joke. Yelchin's character has achieved some sort of teenaged success, as he appears well-adjusted and has a healthy relationship with a girl, seemingly decent friends, and a strong relationship with his mother. Jerry is a big blatant threat to all of this, but he so easily represents the kind of weird emotions you have to deal with even as a well-adjusted teenager. It's a look at how fragile and delicate adolescent confidence can be, as you've become your own human being but still face the mysteries of true adulthood, and the fact that for many years your girlfriends are always going to want to fuck an older guy on some level or another. Suggesting there's nothing under the surface is being willfully oblivious.

That said, I completely understand the film isn't perfect, and I don't have the perspective of a history with the first film. I did want more from the Ed/Charley confrontation during the climax, to the point I wish they'd reversed Jerry and Ed's roles entirely towards the end. I liked the things they said to each other as they fought, but Ed just felt short-changed as the mini-boss. But I do kind of like the harsh idea that yeah, ultimately you've got to grow up and that all of your friends might not come with you.

It doesn't pull it all together enough to be a classic, but there's so much more here to enjoy than in that stretched youtube clip that's parading itself as a film worth paying +$10 to see.

No one told me Lisa Loeb was in this.

Why was this information withheld?

There seems to be a sentiment in the geek community that this movie sucks because it's a remake despite it's mostly good word, yet the same people are willing to give CONAN a chance this weekend despite the fact that it is getting terrible reviews. Like Conan isn't a remake or shitting on a more sacrosanct text. It's moments like these when I really don't understand nerds and am glad that I pulled a Charley Brewster in High School and ditched my nerd friends to play rock music and get girls.

CONAN's not a remake, Sebastian! It's all-new Conan madness! P'shaw!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renn Brown your girlfriends are always going to want to fuck an older guy on some level or another.

But she doesn't want to fuck him. It's made explicit that she wants nothing to do with Jerry at the dance club and then he rapes her. Just as it's made explicit that she doesn't care that he's geeky, and likes him that way. I'm not saying those elements aren't there, but they aren't developed or intentionally played upon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damon Houx 

But screenwriting 101 suggests that the main character should probably be the person who initiates his interest in thwarting evil. In that way Evil Ed should be the protagonist, as he's infinitely more empathetic, but then if Brewster is guilted into figuring this shit out, then his confrontation with Ed later on should be meaningful. It isn't.

I don't agree that Charley needed to initiate his own interest in Jerry (I actually liked that he didn't), but I do agree that the later pay off with Evil Ed is weak. I found it particularly disappointing because I was quite impressed with CMP in the earlier portions of the film (after being among those who scoffed when he was first cast in the film), but his second coming was rendered with about as much dramatic weight as David Arquette turning into a vamp in BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER.  Less maybe.

He is investigating Jerry though, seeking out Peter Vincent, and he does initiate the final confrontation. Exciting or unexciting as the climax may be (and I personally didn't find it as exciting I would've liked), it is nothing if not a typical DRACULA-esque journey into the belly of the beast finale. Charley is no Reggie Bannister, but he isn't Sally from TEXAS CHAINSAW either. He does a bit more than simply not die.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damon Houx 

 

But she doesn't want to fuck him. It's made explicit that she wants nothing to do with Jerry at the dance club and then he rapes her. Just as it's made explicit that she doesn't care that he's geeky, and likes him that way. I'm not saying those elements aren't there, but they aren't developed or intentionally played upon.

He's a scary vampire by that point. And while she's blatantly acknowledging his attractiveness to Charley's mother (mentions that he's a stud or whatever at least twice),  it doesn't matter at all what her actual interest level is-- it matter what Charley sees, feels and experiences. He fights to keep her from being exposed to him, fails, and the big studly man takes his girl away from him, seduces her with his lifestyle, turns her against him, and he plays hero to get her back. The subtext is absolutely there, clear, and logical. Maybe it rings truer to this particular guy who is not long past his teenage insecurities and has lost a few too many women when they grew interested in other groups of people (or I at least had that perspective on the situation), but it's there, playing out as a cut-and-dry hero story.

But from a storytelling point of view, that should be reflected in how we as the audience experience it. It's not subtext if we're told the girl doesn't want it to happen. It may be Charlie's motivation, but This feels like notes getting in the way of the story. "Poots needs to be sympathetic, so she can't enjoy it." But then that whole sequence bugs me, because it is a rape, but then she goes buckwild the second he does it, but then no one else has that reaction after they are bit, but then, maybe that does say something about her character as Evil Ed's pretty much himself after turning vamp. So I'd chalk it up to bad writing.

The only two we see and that matter are Poots and Plasse, and they react relatively the same way-- they become heightened versions of themselves with their Yelchin-relevant aggressions amped way up. Ed felt rejected and ignored and thus warped into a guy who wanted to kill Charley for ignoring and rejecting him. Charley didn't dive in when Poots offered it up, so she turns and gets warped into a monster who wants to mock and emasculate Yelchin with the guy who would (in his way) fuck her. It lays out much more clearly, and the writing lines up much better than you are characterizing. It's like chopping the onion up rather than peeling it apart, and then saying it doesn't fit together anymore.

The thing is-- the movie isn't so profound or perfectly engineered that I'm going to go to the mile defending it, but it's good, and the vitriolic reviews mostly seem to come from really weird places. This is not a rotten flick. It stands heads above most of the crap this summer for sure.

Apologies for such haphazard interchanging of character and actor names.

I would argue that Evil Ed doesn't seem to change that much, while Poots goes 180. I feel like - as I've said - her character established a greater frustration with Charlie that would be totally be valid, but she's a caring girlfriend who bends over backwards until the turn, which seems to be script motivated more than character motivated. Had there been more devolpment of what it meant to turn, had their been a moment - say - of Evil Ed hugging Jerry post-transformation, maybe. Ultimately, I would grade this film at the level of Transformers 3 or Thor.

It was okay. I'm a fan of Farrell's, so he was the highlight of the film for me. I very much appreciated that his Jerry wasn't the least bit romantic and was far more detached from his humanity than Sarandon's*; he was also a totally different kind of sexy. I don't have too much more to say about the picture, or too much time to say it right now, but let's just say that when the script started moving towards establishing a half-assed mythology about what "breed" of vampire Jerry was and then hit us with the groan-worthy, cliched reveal of Peter Vincent's backstory, I kind of checked out.

Edit: Also, not that this is a statement on the quality of the film, but the midnight crowd was positively anemic. There was a total of like 20 warm bodies in the theater, including my friends and I. Sort of  surprised me a bit.

*His cameo bummed me out, it was disappointing. I appreciated his character's winky little name (revealed in the credits) though, "Jay Dee". Cute.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny 

let's just say that when the script started moving towards establishing a half-assed mythology about what "breed" of vampire Jerry was and then hit us with the groan-worthy, cliched reveal of Peter Vincent's backstory, I kind of checked out.

Yeah, that's where I started to feel a bit of the BUFFY influence from Noxon. I understand the logic behind it, but it was both unnecessary and came off rather cheesy. I wish the script had kept the level of confidence it had in the first half all the way until the end. It felt like Noxon (or whoever possibly ordered such changes) became overly concerned with validating and clarifying everything. In a Screenwriting 101 sense I get why Peter Vincent needed to have a connection to vampires, but I thought it made the whole gimmick of the character less interesting. I think Charley should've have gone to talk with a Stephenie Meyer-esque novelist who Charley assumes knows tons of shit about vampires, but doesn't -- yet, like Roddy McDowall in the original, gets caught up in the story nonetheless.

Liked the cast, but the script was so weak and uninvolving.  I feel that Charley was actively unlikeable and passive for the whole first half.  Evil Ed doing all the Act One exposition legwork was a huge mistake.  Also, making Peter Vincent already believing in vampires was lazy and cheapened his character.   

I will say that the sudden gruesome disintegration of the neighbor gal was a good, well-executed jolt, the only one in the entire film.  

Lot of weird touches in the film:  random Lisa Loeb cameo, end credits set to a rockabilly version of "99 Problems", the hell? 

I will, however, follow Imogen Poots' career with great interest.  She's diabolically hot.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ratty 
I will, however, follow Imogen Poots' career with great interest.  She's diabolically hot.  

See 'Centurion.'  Scottish accent +10 to hotness points.

This "movie" is crashing and burning at the box office. Justice is served.

Yes we get it, you hate remakes.

It what way is "justice served"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua Miller 

It what way is "justice served"?

Didn't you hear about the time Fright Night 3D raped that kid and killed all those people? Fucking lawyer got him off, just like OJ.

That'll teach Hollywood to make a decent horror comedy!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fafhrd 

See 'Centurion.'  Scottish accent +10 to hotness points.

Yep!  Seen it and 28 Weeks Later.   She definitely needs to be in more movies.   Make that, "every" movie.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

That'll teach Hollywood to make a decent and completely unoriginal and unnecessary horror comedy!

Fixed.

Also, THE SMURFS outperformed this movie. Talk about rubbing garlic in the wound, eh? Haha!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Headless Fett 

Fixed.

 

Also, THE SMURFS outperformed this movie. Talk about rubbing garlic in the wound, eh? Haha!

It's difficult for me to defend the film just as its own thing, never mind it being a remake, but if anything, I think people are once again missing out on seeing Colin Farrell do his thing and that sucks. The man is really, really good, he just has the misfortune of often being much better than the films he's in.

Did you even see the movie Headless Fett?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

Did you even see the movie Headless Fett?

Why? The original Fright Night is on NetFlix in HD but sure I'll go to the theater and spend money on a crappy remake.

The trailers for this told me to stay away and it looks like I'm not the only one.

Then you're just here trolling. Go over to AICN, they welcome that bullshit.

When unneeded dreck like this gets more PR than TUCKER & DALE vs EVIL  (a great horror comedy) then of course I'll speak up. You only call it "trolling" because no matter how spin it this is just a poorly made remake made by people who could care less about the source material.

Are there people who really feel the original film is anything more than a middling 80's drive-in movie with campy performances and decent to sub-par FX?

I know a lot of people on CHUD treat many 80's genre films with much more reverence than they deserve, but c'mon already.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacob Singer 

Are there people who really feel the original film is anything more than a middling 80's drive-in movie with campy performances and decent to sub-par FX?

 

 

Yeah, sure, I'm one of them. From a proper screenwriting perspective, it's a really messy film, the original Fright Night. However, it's charming, has fun performances, a wonderful Brad Fiedel score (plus soundtrack), and exactly enough subtextual juice to keep the brain busy amidst all of the high-order goofiness.*

*None of that has anything to do with what Fett is saying by the way, despite the fact that I probably won't be revisiting Fright Night '11 anytime in the near future.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JacknifeJohnny 

 

Yeah, sure, I'm one of them. From a proper screenwriting perspective, it's a really messy film, the original Fright Night; but it's charming, has fun performances, a wonderful Brad Fiedel score (plus soundtrack), and has enough subtextual juice to keep the brain busy amidst all of the high-order goofiness.

Plus, more likeable characters and better pacing.  

 I saw it last night and I had a blast. The scene of Charlie trying to rescue his neighbor was a very suspenseful. That Jerry knew they were there the whole time made it better. I liked that Evil Ed had already done the leg work in proving that Jerry was a vampire. The movie was able to cut to the chase of confronting Jerry.

  The cameo was great. It isn't so much of passing the torch, as ripping it from someone's hand and beating them senseless with it.  Its a damn shame that Fright Night 2011 isn't going to be a hit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacob Singer 

Are there people who really feel the original film is anything more than a middling 80's drive-in movie with campy performances and decent to sub-par FX?

 

I know a lot of people on CHUD treat many 80's genre films with much more reverence than they deserve, but c'mon already.

The sexual subtext of the film rises it above most modern horror films. There's a lot going on, because Holland's steady (and Hitchcock-derived) sensibilities.

Fair enough, I suppose, but I never felt the sexuality of the first one could really be relegated to subtext. Right off, kid watches a vampire bite the neck of a topless beauty. Hardly subtle.

Don't forget when Jerry puts his hand up Amy's skirt!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacob Singer 

Fair enough, I suppose, but I never felt the sexuality of the first one could really be relegated to subtext. Right off, kid watches a vampire bite the neck of a topless beauty. Hardly subtle.

Watch it past that point. One of the strongest subtextual elements of the film comes from "gay panic". It's all over Brewster's reaction to Dandridge, and the latter's seduction of Evil Ed. Dandridge is attacking Charley's masculinity from every conceivable angle. I want to move in on your mother and replace your father. You want to get laid but I'm knocking them back like bowling pins. I want to fuck your girlfriend. I'm gay and fucking my live-in help. I totally turned your best friend out.

It also doesn't hurt that at least three of the principal actors are gay or (in the case of McDowall) were heavily rumored to be gay.

But again, did you really feel any of those elements were "subtext"? How many teen movies of any stripe have featured a threatening surrogate father relationship? Gay panic? Insecurity?

I quite enjoy the original, but it honestly seems it's being credited with subtlety that just isn't there.