|
Post by stefancrosscoe on Mar 2, 2017 15:39:47 GMT
"Welcome to Fright Night! For Real."Charley Brewster (William Ragsdale) is a huge horror fan and the only thing he likes more than spending some quality time with his cute girlfriend Amy (Amanda Bearse), is to catch up with a brand new episode of the late night TV show Fright Night, starring his big idol, Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall). But there are far more scary things going on just outside his own bedroom window than on TV, such as the strange behaviours of his new, next door neighbour. And with the recent news that the local police seems to have gotten their hands full by the shocking uncovering of several mutilated bodies, Charley immediately begins his own little investigation, one which will lead him to a gruesome discovery.Not just one of the finest vampire films of the 80s, but surely among the best horror movies ever made. Fright Night is a lot of fun and packs some incredible special effects (of its time), that still pisses on most the CGI crap we have today. The music (very 80s but also very good) and of course an impressive cast were every character comes out as a well written and original one, with their own unique style and personality. I also think its a nice touch how the filmmakers show their love and appreciation for films such as Rear Window (1954) or the 50s and 60s horror icons such as Peter Cushing, Vincent Price and Christopher Lee. Even though the film feels "smaller" in tone or settings than a lot of other horror films of that time, I do like how it stays mostly in doors, or at nightclubs, apartments and by having it being dominated with many night scenes, which I guess was a nice way of covering up for where most of the special effect budget went. Bill Ragsdale, Stephen Geoffreys and Chris Sarandon are all on top of their game and a young Amanda Bearse does not stand back either, and who later on would take on the role as Marcy, the naggy, feminist leader and fierce nemesis of Al Bundy in the classic sitcom Married With Children. But it is Roddy McDowall who steals the show here as Peter Vincent, a role which might just be one his best and memorable, in a long and great film career.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Mar 2, 2017 20:08:47 GMT
I like the "smaller" tone. It adds to the horror. It really is just this kid against a vampire.
|
|
johanwow
Sophomore
@johanwow
Posts: 155
Likes: 57
|
Post by johanwow on Mar 2, 2017 22:07:29 GMT
Nice review stefancrosscoeI'm not at all a vampire fan but this movie was very fun. I can't see how anyone could hate it. Yeah the guy playing Evil was rather annoying first but when he became a vampire that was a blessing
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Mar 3, 2017 0:08:16 GMT
I love Fright Night, the sequel was good but left a few things unresolved. Never seen the remake and don't plan to.
|
|
Reynard
Sophomore
@reynard
Posts: 627
Likes: 291
|
Post by Reynard on Mar 3, 2017 1:05:05 GMT
Fright Night remake wasn't that bad and it was different enough from the original. Not that I'd recommend it. I just don't get the hate.
I think the original has great beginning but loses its way a bit later on and suffers from a weak climax. I like the Hitchcockian mystery/thriller angle more than the vampire scenes. Roddy McDowall is really, really great in this. Not a big favorite but I have this on Blu. I remember liking Fright Night Part II a bit better.
|
|
|
Post by naterdawg on Mar 3, 2017 2:19:42 GMT
There was no need for a remake when the original is so gosh-darned perfect. And how could you EVER replace Evil Ed with McLovin'? As for Roddy McDowall, it goes without saying. The remake basically sucked and died a well-deserved death.
|
|
|
Post by HorrorMetal on Mar 3, 2017 4:37:41 GMT
Love it, love it, love it. Such a fun movie. So 80's. They sure don't make me like that anymore. It's easily my favorite vampire movie of all time.
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Mar 3, 2017 6:38:21 GMT
6/10 Its good. I just got the DVD of the remake for a buck but have yet to see it.
|
|
|
Post by PreachCaleb on Mar 3, 2017 14:00:49 GMT
I'd say the problem with the remake isn't that it's bad. It's not really bad. But it is bland.
|
|
Flynn
Sophomore
@flynn
Posts: 515
Likes: 270
|
Post by Flynn on Mar 3, 2017 18:26:18 GMT
I'd say the problem with the remake isn't that it's bad. It's not really bad. But it is bland. I agree. Most remakes today are just bland. They aren't necessarily bad, just not interesting. Part of it is our society today. We live in a time where we shout safety from the rooftops. We are afraid to take risks. And almost everything around us is manicured to produce an optimally desired effect. We live in a sterile world. So it's no wonder that both music and film are bland. We fear a lack of control. Today we can't even have blood naturally pooling onto a floor. It has to be drawn in with a computer so that it only goes exactly where it is pre-approved. As a result, we rarely have those moments of wonderful coincidence, or an iconic moment created because things weren't working out the way originally planned. There's also rarely a good reason to make a film today except to update the acting and fashions. I'm not against remakes, but I am against cosmetic remakes. If you're going to remake something, know what you want to do differently going into the project, not once you are there and are reacting against what was done before. Sorry, I think I went off on a rant there.
|
|
|
Post by fangirl1975 on Mar 3, 2017 19:08:34 GMT
Fright Night(1985) is a fun '80s movie. I especially enjoyed it because I'm a fan of the old Hammer Films horrors.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2017 5:30:31 GMT
Fright Night 1985 is my favorite vampire movie and one of my favorite horror films. I think the film loses some momentum at the end when they decide to go more Hollywood with the effects but that is a minor criticism. The rest of the film is a wonderful treat. Chris Sarandon, to me, gives the best vampire performance ever. Rest of the cast is great and a unique score. If you can get a copy of the Twilight Time 30th anniversary blu ray, do it.
|
|
johanwow
Sophomore
@johanwow
Posts: 155
Likes: 57
|
Post by johanwow on Mar 4, 2017 9:43:11 GMT
I'd say the problem with the remake isn't that it's bad. It's not really bad. But it is bland. I agree. Most remakes today are just bland. They aren't necessarily bad, just not interesting. Part of it is our society today. We live in a time where we shout safety from the rooftops. We are afraid to take risks. And almost everything around us is manicured to produce an optimally desired effect. We live in a sterile world. So it's no wonder that both music and film are bland. We fear a lack of control. Today we can't even have blood naturally pooling onto a floor. It has to be drawn in with a computer so that it only goes exactly where it is pre-approved. As a result, we rarely have those moments of wonderful coincidence, or an iconic moment created because things weren't working out the way originally planned. There's also rarely a good reason to make a film today except to update the acting and fashions. I'm not against remakes, but I am against cosmetic remakes. If you're going to remake something, know what you want to do differently going into the project, not once you are there and are reacting against what was done before. Sorry, I think I went off on a rant there. Yeah updating for the fasion that reminds me on the unnecessary remakes of Carrie especially the last one with Moretz that even didn't show skin making that opening shower scene lose its power pretty much.
|
|
|
Post by Lebowskidoo 🦞 on Oct 12, 2017 13:45:32 GMT
I just adore this movie, always have. Evil Ed is a horror icon. It's both fun and scary. I had a friend who somehow missed it completely in the 80's, showed him it, and he called it "cheesy!" We haven't spoken since. Of course it helps that he lives in another country now. I love that poster, with the girlfriend as a vampire over the house.
I was not wanting a remake, but it wasn't bad. The sequel to the remake, that sucked though.
|
|
|
Post by stefancrosscoe on Oct 12, 2017 14:13:59 GMT
That film poster is classic, and one I think either inspired or was heavily ripped-off by many other films, especially horror ones. It has the "watch me" grab the attention factor going on full speed, which sadly very few of todays horror or even movie posters seems to be able of coming up with anymonre, they just look cheap and generic. I have still not seen the sequel (of the original) but I hope that Arrow or Scream Factory might consider releasing it one day, as the DVD version that is out of production was brutally overpriced, even for a used copy, but I have not checked of that lately, but I remember some of the used copies went for something like 60 or 80 dollars, which is just to expensiv for a film I have never seen, but always wanted to. I know it is on Youtube (or it s used to be) but I really want a good quality sound and picture DVD or Blu-ray relase so I can have it stanindg beside the first one in my horror collection. Sorry about the "loss" of your friend but I agree, I would probably done the same thing. Anyway, it is nice to see the love for this great 80s gem, and I ended up re-buying the movie on DVD for a second time around earlier today. I love the atmosphere and the way the film seems to pay a big respect to the older horror classics along with Brad Fiedel's seductive and haunting score which I really want in my music collection. That whole scene where Charlie begins to realize what goes on at his new next-door neighbor, along with the great theme by Fiedel, now that is some great movie making. In fact the whole soundtrack is great, one killer tune after another. Amanda Bearse was such a hottie in this film but I guess with the success of Married With Children she decided to go with that rather than appearing in the sequel.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Oct 12, 2017 19:13:38 GMT
I love this movie. The soundtrack is incredible. The villain is suave and charismatic yet also frightening. Everyone else works. One of my fave vampire flicks.
|
|
|
Post by Lebowskidoo 🦞 on Oct 12, 2017 22:45:21 GMT
stefancrosscoeI haven't seen Fright Night Part II since the 80's, but I might just cave and watch it again on YouTube, the DVD is still either too expensive or too rare to locate. Fright Night 2: New Blood (2013) was adequate as a time filler but could have been so much more.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Spencer on Oct 13, 2017 4:02:33 GMT
Fright Night is one of the best horror movies of the 80s. Scary yet at the same time tongue-in-cheek. Excellent special effects. Chris Sarandon does a fine job as the charismatic and debonair bloodsucker, and Stephen Geoffreys steals a few scenes as the eccentric Evil Ed.
|
|
|
Post by stefancrosscoe on Oct 13, 2017 15:43:17 GMT
stefancrosscoe I haven't seen Fright Night Part II since the 80's, but I might just cave and watch it again on YouTube, the DVD is still either too expensive or too rare to locate. Fright Night 2: New Blood (2013) was adequate as a time filler but could have been so much more. Holy overpriced Batman! it says on Amazon.com that a new copy goes for about 140 dollars, that is crazy! However, there seems to be a spanish DVD version for a far more reasonable price, and maybe I just might check into that instead, as there is no way I am gonna pay that kind of ridiculous amout of money on just one movie, no matter how much I want it. Yeah, I was the most luckiest guy in the world (that sounds pathetic, I know) for about 2-3 seconds when I stumbled upon Fright Night 2 a few years back, only to figure out that it was a sequel of the remake.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Oct 13, 2017 18:48:15 GMT
The 'Fright Night 2' sequel-to-the-remake isn't even that. It's really more of just another remake. The only similarity to other Fright Night 2, is that it's main antagonist is a female vamp. Other than that it's basically a rip off of the first in a different setting. It honestly could have been called something completely unrelated and it would have made no difference. It's rather lame.
The remake is passable. Chris Sarandon is great in the original, but Colin Farrel makes a lot of sense in that role. And it was probably better to reinvent Peter Vincent than to give him the same sort of background. I felt like the update they gave him ctually worked. They couldnt compare to the original horror star turned host kind of guy, so they gave him a more modern approach, and they got a good actor for their take on it.
What doesn't work for it is pretty much what has been said already. It's dull. It's bland. It doesn't set itself apart from whatever other teen horror movie came out around the same time. It has its moments. It had a good cast. There's at least on great shot that I can recall. Other than that it's just mostly forgettable.
The original, of course, is revered for a reason. It's just a great deal of fun. It balanced the joyful teenage movie, with the old fashioned horror stuff, the 'rear windowish' paranoia plot thread, and comedy/horror nearly perfectly. Almost elegantly.
It's greatly entertaining. That and Night of the Creeps would make a great double feature.
|
|