Fright Night (2011)

Probably the worst idea for a movie blog is to write about something that was released from half up to one year before the current date. So it's neither fresh, nor old enough to wake an interest to somebody. But considering my "care" for popularity since I've started this blog I decided to break again this "marketing" rule with an entry about "Fright Night" - the remake.

Shortly put the story is something like: in a quiet suburb, near the house of a high school kid, Charlie, who lives with his divorced mother a new neighbor arrives: Jerry .. the vampire. And the tensions start to grow, first when Charlie finds out about the supernatural qualities of the new tenant, and obviously more when Jerry finds out that his image of a normal guy is not that normal for his young neighbor. What's further than this (and even up to this point) varies depending on the movie version. The only thing I'm saying more about the subject, before starting to spoil too much, is that the main storyline and characters are kept consistent between the two versions.

The original is a light vampire comedy from '85 that for me is close to a B series movie. The effects would look ridiculous today, the casting is completely forgettable (maybe excepting Chris Sarandon as the fanged lead), the story is way too simple, etc. And obviously you get a so '80s atmosphere characteristic for pretty much all the horrors more or less light from the period. Which is not bad actually (especially if you are nostalgic). But, compared for instance with the first "Nightmare on Elm Street" from '84 the aging speed of "Fright Night" is way faster. All these made me look with a great lack of confidence at the idea of remaking that. But ...

Surprise. First of all, unlike other attempts of resurrecting more solid series (one mentioned above, another "Friday the 13th", or even "Halloween" which actually could have been decent if it wasn't that violent), "Fright Night" comes first with a much more elaborate story compared to the original (doesn't save it completely but it's more than decent). As an idea, I effectively had the sensation for a few times that the movie is too close to end, and I didn't know what will fill up the time left. The story extensions and the comic part that's decreased in intensity - but still present exactly where it should - results instead of a light vampire comedy more in something like a light vampire thriller. And I say that the result is better. Because it also comes with a much more deep character construction than the original, which makes the story more credible to say it so (in the sense that you don't have anymore the movie makes a laugh about itself at every scene). That's actually leading me to the second aspect to take into account ...

The cast. I said above that I won't give any spoilers related to the subject, but I can say that all the action is built on the interaction between six characters. Jerry, Charlie, Charlie's girlfriend, Charlie's mum, Evil Ed - Charlie's buddy and Peter Vincent - a "vampire hunter" running an ocult TV show. Well, there's also another neighbor of Charlie's in the 2011 version or a "vampire sidekick" in the '85 one as secondary character - so overall around 7 actors in each movie. That's all. As I said, there isn't much memorable about them in the original ... it's like you would try to remember the cast from the first "Friday the 13th". Except Jason .. who wears a mask and doesn't speak, I don't think you have much chance to store for long in your memory another character. In "Fright Night" is the same. Like mentioned above, Chris Sarandon (who was clearly more popular in the '80s than today) as a vampire is probably the only one to notice. The things are different in 2011. Colin Farrell as Jerry, for who until "In Bruges" I had a total lack of respect as an actor, confirms me again that I was wrong, Anton Yelchin as Charlie whom you wouldn't give much chance as action hero manages to get on par with the roles in "Terminator Salvation" and "Star Trek", and David Tennant (Doctor Who in a couple of seasons) is a memorable Peter Vincent. And completely subjective speaking, around a year ago I was writing about something called "Centurion" and I guess I was saying that one of the few good thing in that movie is that you can stare for around five minutes to the eyes of Imogen Poots. Well, here you get more than five minutes, and she actually gets a consistent role.

When I ended up Sunday night to write this week's entry, I told myself that I'll do it quick and get back to other stuff I have to work on, but I guess I wrote a lot. The idea is that the movie deserves it :) and if what I said above makes it look radically different from the original, well .. there is a part that's, sort of speaking .. "preserved". The so 80's air is transformed into a .. so '90s air. I don't actually know if it's exactly like this or is just a personal feeling. What I can say in what concerns me is that I had the same nostalgic feeling that I'm not getting very often, which I had also on the last "Scream", or to give a different example (not very far if we're thinking on the love story + mad neighbor) - "Disturbia". More exactly I felt that I'm watching something close in quality as "teen oriented movie" (even if it's rated R) to what I could more often see in cinemas during summer time while I was in high school and I had less stuff to worry about on a daily basis ;)

Rating: 4 out of 5



Forgot to say .. One of the few things to remember in "Fright Night" '85 is Brad Fiedel's score. I was expecting to get disappointed by this, until I heard the Ramin Djawadi's new version, and I guess that sounds even better than the original synth ...