Fright Night remake

Otis Driftwood

. . . . . . Colin fcuking Farrell.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Source

Its at the stage that I expect virtually every movie Ive ever liked to be raped in future but money grubbing parasites but it still pisses me off when I hear about it.

Duggy747

Won't be long now before we're seeing remakes of remakes of remakes :pac:

Handsome Bob

Ah I think it could be good craic, I'm warming to Farrell these days. Anton is good too and hey, at least it won't be a Platinum Dunes production. :P

niallon

Honestly, I didn't warm up to the original enough for this to bother me or for me to be interested in a remake. My only interest stems from Farrell's involvement, I like him as an actor recently and would be interested in seeing him in a horror film. That and I'm a flag waving patriotic nut!

Also, it's in capable hands with the man who brought us the great Lars and the Real Girl and Mr "come on you liked it, admit it" Woodcock. That being said, even greats screw up remakes - Spielberg with "War of the Worlds", Aja with "Mirrors" (after doing a cracking reboot of The Hills Have Eyes and all!), Zombie with "Halloween" (ok maybe not a great but damn Rejects was good!)

Paddy Samurai

I loved this film when i saw the original,don't know if its stood the test of time?.Would'nt mind seen it again.

allanb49

David Tennant is in it as Peter Vincent

JP Liz V1

allanb49 wrote: »

David Tennant is in it as Peter Vincent

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1438176/

http://www.killerfilm.com/film_reviews/read/fright-night-3d-fan-review%20-test-screening-68359

^ Test screening review

Raekwon

Fright Night wasn't even a good film to begin with so I'm not sure if it even warrants a remake.

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1438176/

Couple of nice looking women in the cast, I wonder which one will end up in Colin Farrell's bed?

Norma_Desmond

allanb49 wrote: »

David Tennant is in it as Peter Vincent

David Tennant is too young to play Peter Vincent... he's meant to be a washed up older man... that's what made him funny in the original.
I don't see it working!!

allanb49

have you seen what they have him wearing he looks like a mix between johnny depp and russell brand, think Tennant is playing a washed up magician,

Ah the first movie was pure cheese, the disco scene is a standout part :pac:

mikhail

Raekwon wrote: »

Fright Night wasn't even a good film to begin with so I'm not sure if it even warrants a remake.

I've never seen it, but I'd rather they remade bad films based on good ideas than forever return to the same few consistent hits. At least this way, something useful might come out of a remake.

dr gonzo

Duggy747 wrote: »

Won't be long now before we're seeing remakes of remakes of remakes :pac:

Like film versions of "Tainted Love"

Tbh though, agree with a poster above, i'd watch this now cause Colin "bleedin" Farrell is in it.

Bus77II

Paddy Samurai wrote: »

I loved this film when i saw the original,don't know if its stood the test of time?.Would'nt mind seen it again.

Me too. And it has stood the test of time imo.

Bus77II

Norma_Desmond wrote: »

David Tennant is too young to play Peter Vincent... he's meant to be a washed up older man... that's what made him funny in the original.
I don't see it working!!

Yeah, the main Vampire guy that Farrells playing was real straight 'by the book' professional and that's what made him mildly scary. Farrell just can't do that! It's silly.

'Evil' was the best in it though

sensibleken

Duggy747 wrote: »

Won't be long now before we're seeing remakes of remakes of remakes :pac:

we already have.

invasion of the body snatchers (1956)
invasion of the body snatchers (1978)
body snatchers (1993)
the invasion (2007)

coming soon 'of' staring colin farrell

allanb49

sensibleken wrote: »

we already have.

invasion of the body snatchers (1956)
invasion of the body snatchers (1978)
body snatchers (1993)
The Faculty (1998)
the invasion (2007)

coming soon 'of' staring colin farrell

fyp

JP Liz V1

A first batch of images have been released from the upcoming remake of teen vampire horror Fright Night.

Showing off most of the film’s principal cast (save David Tennant and Toni Collette), the biggest reveal is Colin Farrell as the vampire who moves in next door to Anton Yelchin’s teenager.

Then there’s Christopher Mintz-Plasse as Yelchin’s best friend, and Imogen Poots as his girlfriend.

While they’re nothing massively mind-blowing, the lighting alone makes Fright Night ‘11 look more Let Me In than Twilight.

Though considering the original’s a bit of a tongue-in-cheek ‘80s classic (not to mention the remake’s been scripted by Buffy writer Marti Noxon), we’re sure this should involve a few devilish laughs.

Source

Catcher7791

New images here:

http://movies.ie/movie_news/First_Look_FRIGHT_NIGHT_3D_Starring_Colin_Farrell_and_Anton_Yelchin

Raekwon

Looks like a terrible remake and be warned, the trailer is littered with spoilers, as usual :rolleyes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxqtyTH5bzM

As much as I wanted this to be great it just looks terrible. The original is one of my all time favourite films, I can watch it over and over again and never grow tired of it. This remake seems to have replaced everything that was great about the original with generic Hollywood glitz. That we only get one glimpse at Peter Vincent is worrying, he was such a great character in the original, the kinda of loveable failure that Roddy McDowall played so well. It also seems that who ever wrote the script mixed up Charlie and Evil Ed, Ed should be a whining dick who berates Charlie but instead it seems that he is the one who discovers the big secret, lets just hope that Mintz doesn't end up like the original Evil Ed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ISgM9sjza8

Norma_Desmond

Raekwon wrote: »

Looks like a terrible remake and be warned, the trailer is littered with spoilers, as usual :rolleyes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxqtyTH5bzM

Oh dear!!!! that's all I can say, I'm lost for words at how bad that looks!!!
Evil is meant to be funny, that didn't come across at all!!! So so bad....

Mickeroo

Here's a new tv-spot for this, shows more of David Tenant's character than the trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIYXDvp4IYE

I must re-watch the original as I can only remember the first half of it or so, this does not look great.

Galvasean

sensibleken wrote: »

we already have.

invasion of the body snatchers (1956)
invasion of the body snatchers (1978)
body snatchers (1993)
the invasion (2007)

There was also teh TV series Invasion in 2005

allanb49

I think it looks like it could be fun, won't win any awards, but i'd probably still enjoy it


Also the Faculty was another Invasion remake

faceman

Im going to be brazen and say, it looks crap. Fright Night in name only, imo.

Galvasean

I hate that little geek from Superbad. I'm sure he's a nice guy in real life and all, but I hate him! :mad:

Handsome Bob

Galvasean wrote: »

I hate that little geek from Superbad. I'm sure he's a nice guy in real life and all, but I hate him! :mad:

You leave McLovin alone! :mad:

Galvasean

LZ5by5 wrote: »

You leave McLovin alone! :mad:

Thats not his real name man! Thats not even hi character's real name man!! :mad:

edit: actually that's part of the reason why I really didn't care too much for Superbad. Why am I supposed to be rooting for these annoying krellboys again?

emer25

why would they remake a classic 80's horror............... with colin farrell
seriously why wreck a great film

chin_grin

Already a thread on it here. But yeah I agree the original is an absolute classic.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=65894910

faceman

The cost of making movies has sky rocketed. Anyone who remembers the furore over the world record breaking budget (at the time) for Waterworld (c. $200) will remember how people laughed at the ludicrousness of it. However nowadays big movie budgets are similar or well in excess.

With budgets like that the risk of making a loss it high. Therefore we see fewer films being made in the mainstream and less risky choices been produced by studios. Hence why we are awash with franchises and remakes.

Unfortunately, cinema will never be the same again.

faceman

The cost of making movies has sky rocketed. Anyone who remembers the furore over the world record breaking budget (at the time) for Waterworld (c. $200) will remember how people laughed at the ludicrousness of it. However nowadays big movie budgets are similar or well in excess.

With budgets like that the risk of making a loss it high. Therefore we see fewer films being made in the mainstream and less risky choices been produced by studios. Hence why we are awash with franchises and remakes.

Unfortunately, cinema will never be the same again.

allanb49

I saw FN last week, and am a big fan of the original, but i would rate the new one better, the old one has aged quite a bit,

The new one is fun and i'm not a fan of remakes, reboots etc

Mickeroo

It's actually got really good reviews, Farrell and Tennant are meant to be brilliant in it. I don't think remakes wreck the original films either, the original Fright Night will remain a good film whether this is better or worse than it.

emer25

Mickeroo wrote: »

It's actually got really good reviews, Farrell and Tennant are meant to be brilliant in it. I don't think remakes wreck the original films either, the original Fright Night will remain a good film whether this is better or worse than it.

i suspose you do have a very good point, even though im not keen ill still go and see it:D

Zombienosh

Saw this tonight, thought it was great. It's very rare of me to think that about any remake but this was solid.

Mellor

I haven't seen the original, but this caught my eye.
I line Farrell in a lot of his latest roels, and thing he is quite a god actor. I'm interested to see him play the "evil" role.
Can anybody give a brief outline, obviously no spoliers.
Should I bother trying to convince my GF (who isn't a horror fan) to go?

Star Lord

Saw this at Movie Fest, and it was shockingly enjoyable, with surprisingly well done 3D that's subtle, but every so often throws in something that could be considered a little OTT, but still looks great. The acting is also very good, I'm not a Colin Farrell fan, but he's definitely getting better, and plays the part extremely well.

uncleoswald

It's typical of any half-decent biggish budget Hollywood film these days. It starts off really well and you can tell this is where all the love was focused by the writers and director but the 2nd half is where the studio seems to have had their say. The action escalates far, far too quickly and it looses any tension it had built up. There is no time for the characters to treat Charlie like he is a weirdo for thinking there is a vampire living next door.

As soon as Charlie tells them he's a vampire they find out for themselves before they get a chance to say "yeah riiiiiight..." as Jerry goes on a rampage that seems totally at odds with how his character should be behaving.

Deleted User wrote: »

It also seems that who ever wrote the script mixed up Charlie and Evil Ed, Ed should be a whining dick who berates Charlie but instead it seems that he is the one who discovers the big secret

I thought that change worked quite well, McLovin was well cast and the scenes at the start with him and Charlie are the movies best.

Unfortunately after that it went nowhere, as did the story of Charlie's new douchebag friends. I thought they were going to combine Evil Ed and Jerry's right hand man but no, after getting bitten near the start he just disappeared till the end.

Edit: Also the 3D Title Card is great...

Just in from it now and I really enjoyed it. It's not exactly groundbreaking but for some throwaway entertainment its perfect Friday night fare. Even with my love of the original (one of my all time favorite films) I still found a lot to love with the remake. David Tenant and Colin Farrell were both excellent and obviously having a lot of fun.

The film isn't without its problems, the action begins way too early. There's no real build up to the reveal, the original had a great first half where Charlie trued to convince people that Jerry was a vampire yet here it takes 5 minutes. From there on out the film is quite action packed, never really slowing down which is both a good and bad thing. There's a lack of any real character development but then again as a film its never boring. And at the same time thinking back on it I really would have liked to see some more scenes with Peter and Charlie. The relationship between Charlie and Peter in the original is the highlight of the film.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMvvd5RxGIA

The scene where the original Jerry Dandrige, Chris Sarandon becomes the new Jerry's late night snack had me geeking out in the cinema. Really brought a smile to my face and instantly added another star to the films rating.

Mr E

Really enjoyable movie, but it had the most pointless use of 3D ever (and no 2D option in my local cinema).

Mr E

Mr E wrote: »

Really enjoyable movie, but it had the most pointless use of 3D ever (and no 2D option in my local cinema).

The cinema closest to me only has it in 2D which is a nice change as generally they only have the 3D versions but with so many 3D releases out atm they don't have the screens for them all. From what I saw in the film the 3D scenes were all unoriginal lets throw things at the audience and there was never any scene where a sense of depth would have added anything. Heading to Final Destination 5 in 3D later on tonight and hoping for some decent 3D and a script which is a little more polished that the woeful 4th part.

Handsome Bob

Have actually seen this in both 2D and 3D. In relation to the 3D, nothing spectacular, but I did like the effects it produced any time a vamp was dusted.

Good acting all round and the soundtrack was cool, very creepy and it added a lot to the film.

One minor gripe I'd have is the pacing of the film, it was very pedestrian at times going randomly to Point A to B to C.

Kylo Ren

I never saw the original and only saw the trailer for this one once when it first came out.

I really enjoyed it! The cast was great and Colin Farrell was excellent! The first half of the movie I enjoyed more than the second (Not to say the second half was bad or anything).

Keno 92

Keno 92 wrote: »

I never saw the original and only saw the trailer for this one once when it first came out.

I really enjoyed it! The cast was great and Colin Farrell was excellent! The first half of the movie I enjoyed more than the second (Not to say the second half was bad or anything).

Problem with the second half, especially the ending is that it's kinda bland. The original takes place in a gothic mansion and is a really great take on the old Hammer and Universal horror films. The finale of the remake which takes place on a mound of dirt feels like something that was intended for the Underworld series.

nyarlothothep

I thoroughly enjoyed this film, 4.5/5. I would dock 0.5 marks simply because I felt there wasn't enough development of the characters and the world they inhabited before the action started, but otherwise a great film, the 3D was well integrated, farell put in a superb performance as the fonze vampire, the performances all round were very good. In addition it slags off Twilight and brings the Vampire genre back to its gory/blood soaked pump action shotgun/crossbow roots. The second best film I have seen this year after Your Highness.

Corkfeen

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I thoroughly enjoyed this film, 4.5/5. I would dock 0.5 marks simply because I felt there wasn't enough development of the characters and the world they inhabited before the action started, but otherwise a great film, the 3D was well integrated, farell put in a superb performance as the fonze vampire, the performances all round were very good. In addition it slags off Twilight and brings the Vampire genre back to its gory/blood soaked pump action shotgun/crossbow roots. The second best film I have seen this year after Your Highness.

Your Highness is the best film you've seen all year. :eek: Anyway, sort of half tempted to go and see this but the second half is putting me off.

nyarlothothep

Corkfeen wrote: »

Your Highness is the best film you've seen all year. :eek: Anyway, sort of half tempted to go and see this but the second half is putting me off.

Its a masterpiece, people just don't realize it yet because this is the age of "darkness" and hipsters...but they will. Tbh I didn't see the film in terms of 1st or second acts, the action does ramp up considerably but its humourous, well planned out and over the top ridiculous, not just random action scenes.

JP Liz V1

Very enjoyable, Farrell did very well. Tennant as Peter Vincent reminded me of Jack Sparrow

norrie rugger

Deleted User wrote: »

The scene where the original Jerry Dandrige, Chris Sarandon becomes the new Jerry's late night snack had me geeking out in the cinema. Really brought a smile to my face and instantly added another star to the films rating.

I frikken loved this bit. Little nerdgasm during

candy-gal1

Went to see this last night, wasnt expecting much tbh but really wanted to see it as i love the original.
Have to say, 5/5 definitly for me, imho it beat the original (and i hate most remakes of horrors tbh) hands down.
Loved the darkness of it, originality, not too many cheesy scare moments or too much of the teen/school stuff, effects were amazing, lots of actual scary jumpy bits, and Colin farrell was hot in it too , as what vampires should be like. None of the wimpy Edward Cullenness lol
Would see it again.