Fright Night (2011) - Comedy, Horror

Hohum Score

14

Watchable

When a nice new neighbor moves in next door, Charley discovers that he is an ancient vampire who preys on the community. Can he save his neighborhood from the creature with the help of the famous "vampire killer", Peter Vincent?

IMDB: 6.3
Director: Craig Gillespie
Stars: Anton Yelchin, Colin Farrell
Length: 106 Minutes
PG Rating: R
Reviews: 47 out of 257 found boring (18.28%)

One-line Reviews (235)

There is a lot of unexpected humor along the way esp the way they fight the vampires.

Peter Vincent (David Tennant) was another letdown, but not due to Tennant's entertaining performance.

In his place is another one-note performance by a character who serves more as wallpaper and who is a sad joke when he turns vampireGone is the charming and subtle Jerry Dangridge and instead we have a single-note boring one dimensional Collin Ferral who spends the entire film walking with heavy footsteps and hissing like a cat.

The film is definitely fast paced and dynamic as the settings change continuously in a fluid manner, and there's a generous dose of vengeance fueled gory action that would leave any audience with a feeling of satisfaction.

This movie stands on its own two feet as a suspenseful, action packed, comical and blood soaked Vampire movie of the highest regard.

It is also a very exciting action films at time.

Really fun and entertaining .

The story takes a lot of unexpected turns, and end up thinking 'how will they get out of this?

Nevertheless, this is one remake that is actually worth watching.

While the remake has some funny scenes, some decent scares, and some suspense, the original movie is funnier, scarier, and more suspenseful.

All in all, the message I got from the people around me, and what I certainly felt, is that the movie was very well received and I personally definitely enjoyed it.

Finally a Hollywood remake that was worth watching.

Now, despite the fact that I'm not into vampire movies and stuff (being too exploited lately) since I've grown up, this is an entertaining movie.

Then of course there's the vampire, and for someone who often plays over the top villains, Colin Ferrell rides the black wave of languid evil through and through.

The movie's exciting.

fast paced kill .

There are even some surprises to be had as the movie progresses that I really want to leave alone because if your reaction is anything like my reaction then you'll appreciate it more having me not spoil it for you.

Fright Night tells the classic story of vampires as it is, without much plot nor new ideas, making it boring and predictable.

It took the original movie's idea (new neighbor is a vampire and kid-Charley Brewster must defend his girl and kill the monster with aid of vampire killer, Peter Vincent) to a new depth of boredom.

Most of the film is essentially a gore filled killing spree unleashed upon a mundane cast that is more eye candy then developed characters.

The leads are dreary and flat, and since nearly everyone is clueless there's nothing at stake.

"Fright Night" just might be perfect for those looking for a dose of nostalgia and some highly suspenseful, fun entertainment.

He did a wonderful job not playing The Doctor so many of us have come to know and love him for, and yet he was just as enjoyable as a magician with a drinking problem.

All things considered, I enjoyed it for what it was.

You know, the ones that gave the horror genre that fun movie-going reputation it had in the 80′s before tasteless gore and tiresome predictability defiled the genre?

The film itself is a lot like the original certainly in its setting, there are a few notable different moments in certain points of the movie but in saying that i particularly enjoyed the climax and the spin on the final battle made it more exciting for me anyway.

Most glaringly in a *certain* death Jerry's house was cookie cutter inside and out, no Gothic architecture to be seen, which really lost a good bit of the atmosphereThe rescue of Jerry's victim, though exciting, took up too much time that could've been used to expand on the characters.

This remake is boring, cliché and looks like something is missing.

Surprisingly, it was anything but predictable!

While not nearly as bad as others say it is here, it is also not the best but rather, a fast paced edge of your seat gritty film.

This is great in some regards because the camera movements are slower, more deliberate, and less fast-paced for the sake of being fast-paced.

This aspect is greatly accomplished by the cast including Colin Ferrell, substituting Chris Sarandon who offers an unexpected cameo in one scene, as Jerry Dandridge who boasts a tasty performance as the infamous blood-sucker.

Pretty dull entertainment.

The new Fright Night is actually a pretty thrilling movie.

), the sly, knowing smile that always seems to be on his face or flitting just below the surface, that makes him such a riveting, menacing villain.

But my fears were quite unfounded, as this update actually turned out to be rather enjoyable.

Plot points never amount to anything, the editing is often confusing, and the actions and reactions of the characters aren't convincing.

It is more of an action film than the original but it's still a lot of fun and just as entertaining in it's own right.

A remake that was worth watching, for a change...

I wouldn't say this was a great movie but it was entertaining, even creepy at times and gave me a few laughs.

Overall, FRIGHT NIGHT (2011) is very enjoyable, funny, scary, and is definitely one of the better remakes that have come around.

-Directing - this is really one suspenseful film and the scene architecture for this type of attempt is marvelous.

The original's camp element is reduced by the transformation of our hero, Charley Brewster, from bookish Everyman to aspiring BMOC, the unabashed nerdification of "Evil" Ed, the switching of Brewster's mother from mousy hausfrau to full-bore MILF, and--the largest mistake of all--the revamping (sorry) of Peter Vincent from quirky late-night creature-feature host to jaded Las Vegas impresario.

The previous hour of the movie, which was a joy to watch, suddenly feels like a waste of time as vampires dash all over the show blowing things up.

Is the movie suspenseful and thrilling?

Imogen Poots (as Amy) and Emily Montague (as Ginger) make for attractive and mildly compelling potential victims of the vampire.

-What my first thought is that it takes some VERY unexpected turns from the original as well as from most vampire films made about a "dracula-type," so you will be in for a lot of surprises when seeing the film.

Today, it's an enjoyable if underwhelming effort that's just good enough to not need to be remade.

Like i said, it has its flaws, but it is quite enjoyable.

Save your money on the 3D.

The remake is definitely also enjoyable, though only while it lasts and I sincerely doubt it'll ever be considered as a genre gem, and finds a good balance between light-headed comedy and nowadays 3D-horror with grotesque blood splattering and over-the-top CGI effects.

They stuck with what already works, and left it up to the actors to make these vampire rules entertaining.

Overall the movie is a solid a remake that's even as enjoyable as the 1985 film, I recommend you go see it as soon as possible.

Fans of the original should appreciate the modern twist, and it should be entertaining enough to draw in new fans.

Movie starts off slow, and decidedly dark (in that sense of "i can't see what the heck is going on up there on screen!

The plot is intriguing and the execution of the plot is what makes this remake of the 80s film so good.

Worth watching, at least once, in my opinion!

This is the kind of vampire movie that I like - funny and exciting and a good cast.

It's little things like this that make the movie entertaining throughout.

Many of these remakes have been merely okay at best, and most are pointless.

Whereas Farrell is an improvement on the original, David Tennant comes with a 'different' take on Peter Vincent, neither inferior or superior, just alternate and equally enjoyable.

And perhaps most important of the omissions of this boring life-less remake is that of the big creepy decrepit American-Gothic old mansion in the heart of suburbia (like a tiny virus, and a metaphor for the vampire, which goes on to be so many other metaphors I can't list them all here).

And his "animal" responses are unexpected, natural, and appreciated.

However I wasn't as excited on the choice for Charlie, Anton Yelchin, who was actually kind of boring in my opinion.

I thought the original was pretty good and enjoyed the goofiness, spooks and suspenseful thrill ride horror theme that it offered.

While the ending does take place in Jerrys home and mainly in the basement, Jerrys home is nowhere near as grand or interesting as in the original, it's just a normal, boring suburban house which hides a rather extended basement under it, which in itself is rather underwhelming.

I'd have liked to have seen a little bit more of Toni Collette as she is a fantastic actress and sadly her part was fairly boring in this.

One of the highlights has Charley trying to save a woman from the vampires house and while I won't ruin what happens, the way it plays out is quite intense.

The actors now, are usually better (the vampire slayer Peter Vincent, played by David Tennant is very good and funny in the role), but the film has another air, pulled into the action and horror genre (but ends up being a bit tedious) and have a end that gives the impression that the movie ended too soon.

I was just bored.

McLovin's character was one of the most entertaining in the movie.

Anyhow, Charlie has suffered the slings and arrows of being a nerd for far too long in high school.

I'm not sure I'd have paid to go and see it though, as much as I enjoyed it at the time.

Charley was a douche bagThe film was slow for the first hour or so then it was extremely rushed through the endWe didn't get to know Evil or Vincent in this version and too much time was spent on Charley and AmyThe movie really needed to be longer, although quite a few scenes really could've been cut to make roomVincent needed no convincing that vampires were real because of a tired, unconvincing, useless back story that might not have been too bad if they had expanded it more instead of just dropping it in like a side note.

Revenge of the nerd this is, and an entertaining, funny romp this updated Fright Night had turned out to be.

This film is probably one of the ugliest looking major releases in decades with a grainy unfocused look that might appear to be atmospheric to some, but I found it jarring and unwatchable.

Once you get past the first 10 to 15 minutes of the film, which are kind of dull, the movie quickly begins to morph into a fast paced gore fest.

) Fun, suspenseful, funny and just a good night out :) Will buy this on blu-ray when it comes out for sure :)

Fright Night" just might be perfect for those looking for a dose of nostalgia and some highly suspenseful, fun entertainment.

It was totally unpredictable and you never knew what would come next.

While the film is suspenseful for the majority of the time, the film isn't afraid to let up a little and inject some humor.

And some of them are in love with a bland girl and sparkle in sunlight.

I found this movie pretentious, and obnoxious in an apparent attempt to disregard everything that the original feature had going for it except the character names.

But trouble arrives when an intriguing stranger Jerry moves in next door.

The "Twilight" series is replete with clichés and sheer boredom, and characters made of cardboard.

The screenplay is entertaining, fun, and engaging.

While still delivering on some well placed laughs, the movie is way more intense than the original.

-- (C) DreamWorksAlthough the original FRIGHT NIGHT was downright cheesy (from the effects to the performances), its balance of humor and scares made it entertaining.

I was so bored watching it I resorted to checking my watch every few minutes to see when the ordeal would be over.

The film looks bland and uninspired, and that isn't due to the special effects.

A very entertaining performance.

I hated him in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (he played Barty Crouch Jr.), but in this film he was entertaining as hell!

entertaining remake .

It was a good mix of light hearted humour, thrilling suspense and bloody action.

The man, who even took a turn as a country music artist opposite Academy Award winner Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart, is a gifted and compelling actor.

Farrell steals the show as the perfect intense vampire.

He gets some pretty funny lines and an enjoyable amount of screen time.

The setting in the decimated real estate market of Las Vegas was an excellent thought, and makes the movie quite believable and more entertaining.

Get set to sink your teeth into this thrilling re-vamp of the terrifying horror classic.

This 2011 remake is so lame, so predictable, so forgettable in every respect that I wish I hadn't bothered watching it.

Actually, it was so entertaining until I forgot it was a remake.

As a result, the movie turned out somewhat bland, lifeless, and easily forgettable.

While the original 1985 movie generally focuses on a comical side of things and makes (mostly innocent) fun of a teenage hyper-sexuality, the remake is much more into a hardcore, uncontrolled lust that becomes a main, all- absorbing motivation for the adolescent movie characters.

Surprisingly enjoyable.

The movie is well made, it's clever, entertaining, I just wish it would've been scarier.

There were moments when the action was exciting and even thrilling to watch.

And his conversations with McLovin' were dull and awkward and didn't have any sort of real-ness or even movie-ness in them.

As well, this here has the final assault on the underground hideout with all the turned victims providing enough of a battle to allow for some big action moments before the one-on-one confrontation, which is rather entertaining in its own right as there's some rather fun fighting here with their contraptions and some decent enough gore scenes to make it interesting.

The film cleverly combines horror and comedy and does a good job of providing some suspenseful moments in between the blood and gore, managing to squeeze in more than a few laughs along the way.

The first half started slow.

While not overly scary, the visual effects work is solid and aside from the converted 3-D is a really enjoyable to watch.

save your money!!!

FRIGHT NIGHT 2011 IS THE WORST MOVIE OF THE YEAR AND THE DECADE....

The places, the props, the people, they all look dull, washed-out and uninteresting.

The best thing I could say about 2011's Fright Night is: At least it's better than the pointless and horrid 1989 sequel.

The first part of the film is predictable and boring, but an exciting and graphic ending helps to relieve the boredom as an unlikely cast takes charge of a variety of vampire killing methods and attempts to hunt down the vampire menace.

It's funny, it's somewhat scary, but most of all, it's pretty damn entertaining.

Overall, Fright Night is enjoyable.

I love going into a film with little to no expectations and coming out hooting and hollering because you just saw a movie that was amazing, fun, entertaining, brilliant...

In the end, "Fright Night" is a wholly unnecessary yet admittedly entertaining remake.

The fight/action scenes aren't too overly graphic, and they are thrilling and fun to watch.

There are many flaws (or "holes") in the plot (it's like a Swiss cheese, actually) but nevertheless it's altogether funny and worth watching.

Also, the dialogue is shoddy in places, the vampires look a little off when they aren't in human form, the overall scheme is predictable, and in the end it may be too gory for non-slasher fans.

A silly and entertaining vampire movie .

but then it turned out to be very boring and with a dragged storyline.

It's the excellent visual effects that made this version of Fright Night work, while balancing a fairly engaging story with a light dose of comedy that made this a walk down memory lane of many past horror comedies that entertained without being too campy or silly.

It is 2hours of clichés where i felt the only exciting bit in the entire movies was the previews.

The cast are all engaging (including a welcome cameo halfway through).

The plot holes are pretty much the biggest flaw, while the lack of uncertainty lowers the suspense bar, thus having the story sold through its intriguing narrative and some well drafted characters.

Dull, uninspired, bland movie with some redeeming touches .

Despite not finding the right tone, "Fright Night" was enjoyable and should appeal to its target audience.

Save your money and rent LOST BOYS for $1 at the Red Box, if you don't already own it!

Fright Night for me was simply perfectly entertaining.

Intriguing use of a post-Doctor Who David Tennant...

Relational and geographical interactions between characters are contrived at best, the blockings and angle are at the cheap TV-series level, the eye of the camera never engages.

They basically showed it in all the trailers and there was no point to it, nothing happened!

But all and all Fright Night proved to be quite an entertaining film and a lot of fun to watch with friends.

Could they have picked more boring and lifeless actors?

Quite an entertaining show .

The scenes know when and where to place a joke and a suspenseful scene, and the editing they placed was great.

Another pointless remake to capitalize on 3D technology, which will be forgotten in a few years time, along with this movie.

Notice how Tim Burton's films are always successful even when people complain about how formulaic they've become.

In all, it was a great movie and I really enjoyed it.

With the story – a teenage kid hires the help of kookie vampire hunter after discovering his neighbour is a bloodsucker – pretty much intact, the major improvements to this revamp (sorry) comes in the form of CGI violence and additional action, only some of which actually succeeds in entertaining.

The cast is great, the direction fast paced and the script witty and reverent at the same time.

It's over-the-top cliché teen speak that's never actually been used by teens.

From an ingenious kill method at the end to wickedly suspenseful chase scenes, "Fright Night" boasts some surprisingly memorable scenes – some of which are incredibly suspenseful considering we think we should know what to expect from a vampire thriller.

End of SpoilersSo while it was entertaining, it was NOT a well made movie.

Yawn.

In any case, 2011's "Fright Night" is an entertaining horror flick.

Fright Night has some rough patches, but the film is entertaining through-and-through, largely thanks to Colin Farrell's predatory performance.

- I enjoyed it - The scene when Colin is in the doorway and he is telling Charlie that it's up to him to look out for his girl & his mom - Colin plays that scene just about perfect - a warning & menacing at the same time:)!!!!

Solid and enjoyable remake .

The FRIGHT NIGHT remake is only worth watching if you enjoy rubbishy CGI vampires over the remarkable prosthetics effects of the original.

The first part of the movie is actually a bit boring.

I understand it is not supposed to be as scary as Paranormal Activity or a movie involving apparitions and ghosts, but it should at least have had a lot of scenes where the audience is left white and suddenly gripping the handle bars of the movie house chair.

However, there are two weaknesses, Anton Yelchin who was likable enough but bland and Christopher Mintz-Plasse who was really quite awful.

Their are so many things wrong with this film, I refuse to carry on writing this review, so in a nutshell- RE-WATCH the original, unless spending money on trite, overblown, BORING dribble like this is your thing.

Fright Night is a cleverly crafted teen-movie and ironically a breath of fresh air after the exerting outpour of formulaic and underwhelming additions to the genre so far this year.

Then after that he was in Fright night, which he only did, apparently, because he was bored.

Thoroughly satisfying and entertaining.

A gleefully gory and highly entertaining remake .

It's true to the spirit of the original by maintaining the clever mix of fun comedy and suspenseful scares.

This splendid remake of the 1985 comedy chiller about a high school senior who suspects that his next door neighbor may be a vampire is funny, fast-paced, and suspenseful.

Given the virginal approach to this vampire film, this viewer finds it silly, poorly written, self indulgent - and an unexplainable waste to talent.

Quite enjoyable.

Horror comedies are always entertaining.

But at the end of the day, I liked it because it had funny moments and delivered some enjoyable moments.

), but it's a pointless remake of the 1985 version.

Playing the charismatic Peter Vincent (the famous vampire slayer) is David Tennant, who also gives a performance that is much enjoyable for his sarcastic attitude.

Despite having the overall solid components: cohesive plot, convincing acting, suspenseful music, nice visual effects, "Fright Night" was unsuccessful in blending all its fine quality ingredients into an original, exciting, savory product.

Most of the performances are engaging and authentic (aside from Mintz-Plasse in his later moments), with Tennant's wry turn a real treat, and the ever-wonderful Collette's naturally grounding presence adding a needed weight of normalcy.

"Fright Night" was an entertaining movie with a few laughs and a few thrills.

The night, however, was too predictable.

it try to be like original but it come off bland and many character some who are interesting, go nowhere their development fall flat i mean.

Before viewing this film I went back and watched the original and found it to be a pleasant and entertaining throwback to the 50s, which really stood out considering horror films from this era were mostly slashers.

Mintz-Plasse has now given the exact same tiresome performance in God knows how many movies.

It had the right amount of camp and humor, but it was the slow build to the horror element that made it, to me, a classic.

Other than those flashy (and repetitive) sequences, there are only three or four shots that effectively make use of the technology (no, I am not counting the crossbow bolt shot seen in the previews).

It's story is pretty basic, and somewhat cliché'.

This remake surprisingly blends in some psychological themes, many supernatural elements, intense action, gruesome blood, excellent comedy and some scary horror tactics.

Of course it is evident that it will turn out just fine, but getting there (to the end) is a tedious bore.

I watched "Fright Night" in 2D, so I imagine these scenes would just be a confusing black blur in 3D.

For those who saw the entertaining low key original not much has changed, Charlie and co quickly learn the truth – it's fair to say that Jerry isn't too fixated on maintaining anonymity – and the remainder of the film has them dealing with the new development.

Seeing the good ol' Doctor throwing four- letter words all over the place was especially entertaining.

The film is action packed and full of witty dark humor.

Now presented for your boredom Colin Farrell is the "Dateline:To Catch A Predator" vampire!!

It's an OK movie, nothing great, but entertaining enough for 100 minutes.

The rating to this movie I am giving an 8/10, because this film deserve it and it was really enjoyable horror flick!

At first, the characters seem pretentious, annoying, and unnerving.

Marketed as a horror thriller, but actually rather a cacophony of gothically presented genres that feel mundane and outdated.

It wasn't very scary or funny, but it was pretty darn entertaining.

That said, Fright Night has its funny creepy moments and is different enough from the original to be entertaining in its own right.

Yelchin will obviously have to face off with his vampire neighbor Jerry Dandridge but his investigation provides a few suspenseful moments.

Dull, pointless, and charmless remake of a good-natured, mildly amusing film from the '80s.

It very quickly became more an action-comedy than a horror flick, but it did manage to get in a few unexpected and even frightening moments.

All these remakes barely break even, if they do at all, and the film industry is over-saturated by pointless and ineffective remakes.

Craig Gillespie has an eye for detail and the set pieces are slick and exciting.

He really does a nice job of balancing the terror of the story with the humor necessary to make this one enjoyable and different.

Where she pretty much disappears halfway in the original, Jane is actually brought into some of the exciting action here.

while the film is entertaining for most parts (and yes tedious and clichéd in others...

But unfortunately the film did have a few little problems, for one I found Anton Yelchin's performance really quite lacking, and also there was quite a few elements of a predictable cheesy teen comedy in there.

Even McLovin' and Dave Franco give some good supporting turns, turning cliché parts into something with personality.

The Fright Night original back in 1985 is a classic vampire movie that took old traditions and cliché's from older vampire movies and then mixed it into one big film.

I don't recall much of the original, but this version is fairly enjoyable.

The fascinating part about Jerry is he isn't like regular vampires.

The flaw is the dialogue and character developments are kinda dull.

Peter Vincent is still a coward pulled into a realm he doesn't want to believe in, Mom is still clueless, The loner friend is still a prat, and the damsel is still pretty; but all else is new and exciting.

Editing: 3 Yawn.

Really enjoyed it!

Summing up: A waste of time and money.

However a polished script coupled with a killer soundtrack and eccentric cast makes this a remake worth watching.

) in comparison was about as thrilling as a bag of Cheetos.

John's movie itself was a remake, and a perfect example of taking the plot of the original in an entirely new and unexpected direction.

Enjoyable revision .

Part Hannibal Lector in his charming menace and part Buffalo Bill in his vicious brutality, Farrell carves himself a sweetly unpredictable part filled with great moments (from his menacing way of asking for a six-pack of beer to his ultimate way of overstepping house invitation rules to a great moment where his decision to do absolutely nothing produces far worse results).

Overall: 4 Unless you're in for Colin Farell's sex appeal, or your expectations are low, you're in for a big disappointment and a yawn fest.

The central story remains compelling: Teenager Charlie Brewster ( played by Anton Yelchin ) takes notice of strange disappearances in his suburban Las Vegas community corresponding with the arrival of his new neighbor, Jerry ( Colin Farrell ).

When the fullest extent of a filmmaker's storytelling ability has to do solely with the technical execution of an fx shot or a slick, television-commercial-like moment or two (while the "story" being told comes across as disjointed, at best), you end up with something like this.

The dialogue, too, is very enjoyable, with many lines bringing the chuckles.

These dull bits are what weakens the film as a whole.

It looks dull.

Pointless, soulless, dumb, not thrilling, not scary .

The effects seemed a little SyFy channel to me and at key moments when the scares could have really sold me on this film they seemed contrived.

It's not actually scary due to the semi-goofiness, but it's very amusing and thrilling.

Even the end credits, which run against Hugo's rendition of '99 Problems,' are entertaining!

Entertaining, even creepy with a great cast .

however at the same time many movies of this genre appear similar and predictable almost to the point where it seems the writer and producer has simply just wrote an average script with average ideas, added some monsters, looked for a scary set and added a creepy soundtrack.

Its strengths were a great story, an excellent (and hideous) vampire, Roddy McDowall as Peter Vincent and an entertaining air.

Violent, bloody and fast paced this movie will have you on the edge of your seat.

Fun & very enjoyable - terrific cast .

Colin Farrel comes across as just the perfect side of both charming and thrilling.

This remake works: It has some talented actors who don't flop much, many intense moments, comedic dialog and some excellent scenes of action.

The pace, the setting, the characters, just made one of the entertaining and fun films of the year.

Ho Hum .