|
Post by spooner5020 on Jul 11, 2017 23:01:41 GMT
This is another movie I never got the hate behind. Yes I know it's a remake. I saw the original first back in 2008 maybe. It's a great movie don't get me wrong,but it was in need of a remake. The original does not hold up well today really at all.
When I heard about the remake I remembered being pretty excited. The cast was pretty spot on. I did think it was a bit odd to see Christopher Mintz plasse to be attached since he's known for comedies,but when I heard he was gonna be Evil Ed I thought it was spot on. Until I saw what they did with him which I'll get into later. Anton Yelchin (RIP) was also a great choice for Charley considering how much he kinda looks like the original Charley. Imogen Poots was an interesting choice because Amy wasn't really supposed to be this hot girl. She was just average in the original. David Tennant as Peter Vincent I thought was a great choice. Considering it would be a great start for him after Doctor Who to become bigger. Colin Ferrell as Jerry. Ok Colin does not get enough credit as an actor. Yes he's been in some shit,but even when it's shit he gives it his all and I respect him for that.
The goods: This isn't just your typical remake where everybody is just phoning it in. Everyone put their all into this. The movie is pretty tense and has some really good scares. David Tennant was a hoot in this and I did not feel like I was watching just a vulgar version of the Doctor which I was kinda worried about. Although because of his he did play it I just kinda wished they got Johnny Depp. The movie made vampires scary again. Considering this came out when Twilight was still popular.
The bad: So Evil ed was not as crazy as he was in the original. In fact Chris seems to be playing him very straight like. They also seemed to switch Charley's and Ed's character around. While Ed was the one who didn't believe Jerry was a vampire and Charley did,it's the other way around. No idea why they did that,but ok. They made Charley out to be a jerk just to impress Amy. Amy even says to Charley he didn't have to act cool just to impress her. She always wanted him. Jerry seems not to be much of a vampire than just a serial killer who bites people and blows up their houses. There were plenty of times when he could have shape shifted to get to his victims faster,but that's just me. I didn't get the whole Peter Vincent being a vegas Magician whose shows deal with vampires. I don't know why they didn't make him into a ghost hunter type host.
All in all this movie does not deserve the hate it gets. I can understand people may have a really close connection to the original movie,but I'd ask people to watch it again and then watch the remake and see if they still think the original is as good as they remember. This movie deserved a sequel with Peter Vincent as the lead. 10/10
|
|
|
Post by naterdawg on Jul 12, 2017 23:06:48 GMT
No classic is "in need of a remake." Come on. That line blew your entire review right there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2017 23:30:04 GMT
No classic is "in need of a remake." Come on. That line blew your entire review right there. I agree that no classic "needs" to be remade, I'd say it's also true that remakes aren't necessarily bad things. A remake can be a good and worthwhile movie regardless of the original - The Thing, Ocean's Eleven, The Fly, True Grit, Scarface, A Fistfull of Dollars, all are at least as good as the original movies, if not better. Fright Night certainly could be remade, and remade into something really good. I'm not sure the movie we got is that, though. It had some good aspects, but overall it didn't quite work for me.
|
|
|
Post by naterdawg on Jul 13, 2017 0:10:53 GMT
No classic is "in need of a remake." Come on. That line blew your entire review right there. I agree that no classic "needs" to be remade, I'd say it's also true that remakes aren't necessarily bad things. A remake can be a good and worthwhile movie regardless of the original - The Thing, Ocean's Eleven, The Fly, True Grit, Scarface, A Fistfull of Dollars, all are at least as good as the original movies, if not better. Fright Night certainly could be remade, and remade into something really good. I'm not sure the movie we got is that, though. It had some good aspects, but overall it didn't quite work for me. Many of those remakes you mention went back to the written (novel, short story, whatever) source material, like The Thing (you forgot Invasion of the Body Snatchers, by the way). A movie like Scarface, that was first filmed in the 30s, will reflect the more permissive times where violence and sex can be shown, not to mention drug abuse. Which one is the classic? I can assure you it isn't the Al Pacino version. Fright Night was an original story by Tom Holland, who directed the first film. So the only way to interpret it is as the writer/creator/original director envisioned. A remake of something like that isn't going to bring anything new to the table, not one morsel. Why do you think it failed? And I mean BOMBED?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2017 0:50:40 GMT
I agree that no classic "needs" to be remade, I'd say it's also true that remakes aren't necessarily bad things. A remake can be a good and worthwhile movie regardless of the original - The Thing, Ocean's Eleven, The Fly, True Grit, Scarface, A Fistfull of Dollars, all are at least as good as the original movies, if not better. Fright Night certainly could be remade, and remade into something really good. I'm not sure the movie we got is that, though. It had some good aspects, but overall it didn't quite work for me. Many of those remakes you mention went back to the written (novel, short story, whatever) source material, like The Thing (you forgot Invasion of the Body Snatchers, by the way). Some do, sure. And that's one way to do a different spin in a remake. Good call on Snatchers, by the way. That's a good example of how remakes can be good and bad - the 79s remake, great, the others, not so much. Indeed, which is another way a remake can be worth doing. I think you'd be in a minority on that one. I couldn't say, I've never seen it myself. Um, that's not the case. Any work of art can be interpreted in any way by anybody; the creator may have a certain intention in mind in creating the work, but that doesn't mean that his interpretation is the only possible one, or even the best one. To use your example, Invasion of the Body Snatchers is widely seen as a reflecting communism and the "red menace". But conversely, many think it's a reflection of America's acceptance of McCarthyism. And yet the actor Kevin McCarthy is on record as saying those making the film had no intention to have a political message at all, and that the original author of the book, Jack Finney, didn't intend any political message either - they all just thought it was a neat story about aliens. But the fact that Finney didn't intend a political subtext doesn't make that the only possible way to interpret the book, or even the best way to do so. But it did. For instance it reworked Tennant's character into a different one. I think it failed because it wasn't a very good movie, it didn't have any real star power, and it wasn't very well promoted. Plus, let's face it, the original movie doesn't exactly have a huge fan base. There probably isn't much of a market for a Fright Night movie even if it was excellent. Though it did get favourable reviews, so at least some people liked it.
|
|
|
Post by naterdawg on Jul 13, 2017 0:59:44 GMT
Your point about the original 50s Invasion of the Body Snatchers is interesting. Don Seigel was not the creator of the work, Jack Finney was--so Finney's is the ultimate interpretation. Just like Tom Holland's vision is the correct and only real vision for Fright Night, since he created it. Any creative spin put on the property by someone else is altering the creator's vision. That's the bottom line. You can have someone paint another Mona Lisa with a lifelike smile and perhaps brighter eyes, but it's still a copy and not worth anything. And you say that the film bombed because it had no star power? Last I checked, Colin Ferrell is a bigger star than Roddy McDowall (at that point in his career) and Chris Sarandon. Roddy was mired in horror films and TV guest shots, and Chris Sarandon's star had fallen considerably before Fright Night. As for Fright Night not having an audience, I assume you're a Millennial. It's a cult classic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2017 10:23:32 GMT
Your point about the original 50s Invasion of the Body Snatchers is interesting. Don Seigel was not the creator of the work, Jack Finney was--so Finney's is the ultimate interpretation. No. There is no such thing as "the ultimate interpretation" of a work of art. Nor is one take on source material necessarily any more valid than any other take on it. He may be a bigger star than Roddy McDowall, but he's not an actual star. And I said that was one of the reasons, not "the reason". You assume wrongly. You're right about it being a "cult classic". Bear in mind that "cult" means a movie that is very very popular, with a small group of fans. Like it or not, Fright Night is not and never has been a major movie.
|
|
|
Post by naterdawg on Jul 13, 2017 14:10:20 GMT
The creator CREATED the art. So of course his is the ultimate interpretation. Anything else is bastardizing the work. You can say, "well, they did a nice spin on the material," but the bottom line is, you can't change the original too drastically without it becoming something "else," and usually that something isn't good. You can have different interpretations of Superman, but Lois Lane is always a female reporter, and Superman always comes from Krypton, which doesn't sway from the creator's vision. With the remake of Fright Night, using your own words, Tennant was a completely different character. Even Evil Ed was different. That's why it didn't work. Another case in point, the latest remake of Stephen King's Carrie, with Julianne Moore trying her darndest to do something different from Piper Laurie as Margaret White. Just couldn't be done, because the ORIGINAL IS BETTER.
As for a cult classic, may I remind you that Star Trek is a cult classic, as is Dark Shadows, as is Rocky Horror Picture Show, ad nauseum. Your presumption that it means appealing to only a small audience just doesn't work.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Jul 13, 2017 16:09:33 GMT
The creator CREATED the art. So of course his is the ultimate interpretation. Anything else is bastardizing the work. You can say, "well, they did a nice spin on the material," but the bottom line is, you can't change the original too drastically without it becoming something "else," and usually that something isn't good. You can have different interpretations of Superman, but Lois Lane is always a female reporter, and Superman always comes from Krypton, which doesn't sway from the creator's vision. With the remake of Fright Night, using your own words, Tennant was a completely different character. Even Evil Ed was different. That's why it didn't work. Another case in point, the latest remake of Stephen King's Carrie, with Julianne Moore trying her darndest to do something different from Piper Laurie as Margaret White. Just couldn't be done, because the ORIGINAL IS BETTER. As for a cult classic, may I remind you that Star Trek is a cult classic, as is Dark Shadows, as is Rocky Horror Picture Show, ad nauseum. Your presumption that it means appealing to only a small audience just doesn't work. This is fundamentally untrue.
|
|
|
Post by naterdawg on Jul 13, 2017 17:20:40 GMT
Why is it untrue?
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Jul 13, 2017 17:54:51 GMT
Because I can name several TV shows or movies that fly in the face of your "logic". BSG '04 was superior in every way to the original series. The Crazies '10 is way better than that piece of crap George Romero made back in the 70s. Mad Max Fury Road is considered one of the best in the series. while it's a tossup between that and The Road Warrior, the new movie is definitely better than the original Mad Max. Here's 14 more for you. The "original equals better" argument is tired and frankly wrong. It's a case-by-case basis.
|
|
|
Post by naterdawg on Jul 13, 2017 19:23:59 GMT
Is Fury Road a remake? When the originals ARE originals, everything else is a copy. Wake up.
|
|
|
Post by taylorfirst1 on Jul 13, 2017 21:16:17 GMT
I'll say this much for Fright Night (2011), it's better than a lot of other remakes I could name.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2017 23:01:06 GMT
The creator CREATED the art. So of course his is the ultimate interpretation. You are wrong. Because there is no such thing as an "ultimate interpretation" of an artistic work. Art is subjective.
|
|
|
Post by naterdawg on Jul 14, 2017 0:11:23 GMT
Art, to the creator, is the expression of whatever he or she is feeling or deciding to create at that point in time. That will NEVER change. You can take that art and tweak it, reinterpret it, but the original will ALWAYS belong to the creator, and the creator's viewpoint will always remain the ultimate expression of that art. It doesn't matter how YOU interpret it. All that matters is the creator's viewpoint, first and foremost. If you wrote a poem, wouldn't it be your own work, from your own viewpoint and experience and expression? Then how can anyone else take your poem and "make it better" by re-interpreting it a different way? It might be interesting to read, but it can't change the original work of art. Instead, it becomes something else: a copy that has been made into something other than the original.
Tom Holland wrote Fright Night. For anyone to say that they can do better than him with the same material is merely a bastardizing of that material. It's not "making it better." That's because Holland is the creator, it's HIS work. You don't rewrite Poe's The Raven because you don't like ravens and want to change the bird to a dove, and then claim it's merely an interpretation. Come on.
You claim art is subjective. Yes, that's true. You interpret paintings a certain way, for example. But you don't take that painting and repaint it in your own interpretation. Just like you don't take a film--which is also a work of art--make a NEW film and claim it's an interpretation, and a BETTER one, at that. It isn't. It's something different altogether. Certainly if you did that without the owner's permission, you'd be facing a copyright infringement charge. Why? Because the creator OWNS the work of art.
In the case of Carpenter's version of The Thing, he went back to the source material and stuck to it more closely than the first version. It's still not the ultimate interpretation of the material, because that belongs to the author alone. The same for Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Exorcist and anything else that started out as a piece of work from a single creator. Actually, in the case of The Exorcist, the film is very close to the source, since William Peter Blatty adapted his own book for the screen.
Honestly, I don't know why you have such a difficult time grasping that. Must I keep on schooling you? Apparently, since I know you'll respond with more twaddle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2017 10:29:21 GMT
Art, to the creator, is the expression of whatever he or she is feeling or deciding to create at that point in time. Yes indeed. And that may be what the art means... to the creator. But that doesn't mean that this is what it means to other people. Once again : art is subjective. In fact many artists will refuse to tell people their interpretation of an artistic work they have created precisely to avoid having anybody take that as the "real" meaning. Once again : you are simply factually wrong. Simply repeating the same point over and over again doesn't mean you are somehow suddenly right. If I wrote a poem - and I have - then it would have a particular meaning to me. But if somebody else read that poem and took a different meaning from it, then their interpretation is just as valid as mine is. Indeed, their interpretation is more valid to them. Yes you can. For instance Andy Warhol rather famously took this And turned it into this : To say that the second one must be an inferior bastardisation because it is a different take on the original photograph is to entirely miss the point of having art at all. But you can do that and many do. A great many people regard the movie of Jaws as being superior to the book of Jaws. A great many people regard the movie The Thing to be superior to the original movie - and many regard that movie as being inferior to the original story it's based on. All of these views are equally valid - if you admit that art is subjective then there's really no way to avoid that conclusion. Dude, I "grasp" it perfectly well. But you are rather obviously factually wrong on this point.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Jul 14, 2017 15:57:16 GMT
Art, to the creator, is the expression of whatever he or she is feeling or deciding to create at that point in time. That will NEVER change. You can take that art and tweak it, reinterpret it, but the original will ALWAYS belong to the creator, and the creator's viewpoint will always remain the ultimate expression of that art. It doesn't matter how YOU interpret it. All that matters is the creator's viewpoint, first and foremost. If you wrote a poem, wouldn't it be your own work, from your own viewpoint and experience and expression? Then how can anyone else take your poem and "make it better" by re-interpreting it a different way? It might be interesting to read, but it can't change the original work of art. Instead, it becomes something else: a copy that has been made into something other than the original. Tom Holland wrote Fright Night. For anyone to say that they can do better than him with the same material is merely a bastardizing of that material. It's not "making it better." That's because Holland is the creator, it's HIS work. You don't rewrite Poe's The Raven because you don't like ravens and want to change the bird to a dove, and then claim it's merely an interpretation. Come on. You claim art is subjective. Yes, that's true. You interpret paintings a certain way, for example. But you don't take that painting and repaint it in your own interpretation. Just like you don't take a film--which is also a work of art--make a NEW film and claim it's an interpretation, and a BETTER one, at that. It isn't. It's something different altogether. Certainly if you did that without the owner's permission, you'd be facing a copyright infringement charge. Why? Because the creator OWNS the work of art. In the case of Carpenter's version of The Thing, he went back to the source material and stuck to it more closely than the first version. It's still not the ultimate interpretation of the material, because that belongs to the author alone. The same for Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Exorcist and anything else that started out as a piece of work from a single creator. Actually, in the case of The Exorcist, the film is very close to the source, since William Peter Blatty adapted his own book for the screen. Honestly, I don't know why you have such a difficult time grasping that. Must I keep on schooling you? Apparently, since I know you'll respond with more twaddle. Putting aside the fact that you're actually wrong, do you know how to have a conversation without having a temper tantrum each and every time? You get very threatened whenever someone disagrees with you; especially when you're actually wrong. You are a giant man-child.
|
|
Lynx
Sophomore
@lynx0139
Posts: 345
Likes: 195
|
Post by Lynx on Jul 14, 2017 18:27:23 GMT
There is absolutely no one today that could replace Roddy McDowall.....period !!!!
|
|
|
Post by poelzig on Jul 14, 2017 19:11:11 GMT
Art, to the creator, is the expression of whatever he or she is feeling or deciding to create at that point in time. That will NEVER change. You can take that art and tweak it, reinterpret it, but the original will ALWAYS belong to the creator, and the creator's viewpoint will always remain the ultimate expression of that art. It doesn't matter how YOU interpret it. All that matters is the creator's viewpoint, first and foremost. If you wrote a poem, wouldn't it be your own work, from your own viewpoint and experience and expression? Then how can anyone else take your poem and "make it better" by re-interpreting it a different way? It might be interesting to read, but it can't change the original work of art. Instead, it becomes something else: a copy that has been made into something other than the original. Tom Holland wrote Fright Night. For anyone to say that they can do better than him with the same material is merely a bastardizing of that material. It's not "making it better." That's because Holland is the creator, it's HIS work. You don't rewrite Poe's The Raven because you don't like ravens and want to change the bird to a dove, and then claim it's merely an interpretation. Come on. You claim art is subjective. Yes, that's true. You interpret paintings a certain way, for example. But you don't take that painting and repaint it in your own interpretation. Just like you don't take a film--which is also a work of art--make a NEW film and claim it's an interpretation, and a BETTER one, at that. It isn't. It's something different altogether. Certainly if you did that without the owner's permission, you'd be facing a copyright infringement charge. Why? Because the creator OWNS the work of art. In the case of Carpenter's version of The Thing, he went back to the source material and stuck to it more closely than the first version. It's still not the ultimate interpretation of the material, because that belongs to the author alone. The same for Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Exorcist and anything else that started out as a piece of work from a single creator. Actually, in the case of The Exorcist, the film is very close to the source, since William Peter Blatty adapted his own book for the screen. Honestly, I don't know why you have such a difficult time grasping that. Must I keep on schooling you? Apparently, since I know you'll respond with more twaddle. Putting aside the fact that you're actually wrong, do you know how to have a conversation without having a temper tantrum each and every time? You get very threatened whenever someone disagrees with you; especially when you're actually wrong. You are a giant man-child. Irony. As far as the Fright Night remake goes, it was not good even without comparing it to the original. Perhaps if you're a Dr who fan it's more entertaining somehow.
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Jul 14, 2017 23:46:50 GMT
This new version of Fright Night is hit and miss for me. It doesn't have the same charm, atmosphere or wicked sense of humor that the original possessed. I think Colin Farrell is the best thing about it. I don't really like the clinical sameness of the desert suburban setting, or how it was Evil that was the one attempting to get others to believe him. He was already weird to begin with and it didn't work so well. Charlie in the original was deemed more normal than Evil, and his paranoia was what sold his character in getting others to believe him who thought he had flipped his lid. The desert setting was explained pretty clearly. "No one lives in vegas they just pass through". It probably explained why no one came running out to see if the family was ok when the house blew up.
|
|