Fright Night, the 1985 Tom Holland movie, is a film that creates new ideas and modernizes old ones while still looking back at them with a warm, celebratory, if not cheeky, wink and smile. It knows that those old Hammer and Universal films were a little corny, and as is Fright Night itself, but not to the point of being too self-aware or heartless. It’s like The Lost Boys in that it takes a simple original idea from some horror comic from the 50s or such, but gives it a modern touch, adding little twists and turns and fun nods to some of its original source material. While not wholly original, it’s a movie that takes old ideas and does something fresh with them. It’s a film that looks back as well as forward, and that’s as good as it gets.
Fright Night, the 2011 remake by Craig Gillespie, is pretty much all  of that, if only because it’s just another version of the same movie.
It takes the old ideas from the original and then does something new with them, which would’ve been fine…but in the end, you have to ask yourself, did they need to do that? Did they need to tell the same story again? Well, the obvious answer, like most remakes, is of course no. I’ve got to give this film credit, it does actually try to be original, at least in some regards of tweaking and such, and while it does make some improvements, overall, this version doesn’t really bring anything truly exciting to the table as a substitute to the original. If anything, it’s really disappointing how little they actually do with it. In this case, it would’ve actually been better if they’d stuck closely to the original source material word-for-word than what they ultimately came out with.
Anyways, I’m getting a little ahead of myself. I mean, for what it is, Fright Night (2011) isn’t a bad movie. The first half hour, I have to say, had me totally hooked. There was suspense, thrills, even some scares, with some sharp humour for extra measure. It all just comes out so nicely and so sharply, it practically writes itself. However, It’s at that half hour mark when things start going down-hill. I can pretty much narrow it down to the exact moment when I started wishing I could just keep to Fright Night circa-1985.
In the original Fright Night, the majority of the film revolves around our main protagonist, Charley Brewster (he’s so cool), trying to get his friends and the authorities to believe his claims that his neighbour, Jerry Dandridge, is a vampire. This is where things start to change between the two versions.
In the 2011 version, Dandridge tries to make his way into the Brewster household, but of course, as vampire lore goes, a bloodsucker can’t come into your house unless you invite them in, which Charley manages to hold off. Of course, the most sensible thing to do as a vampire in this case is, rather than wait out his eventual midnight snack, go on and blow up their house.
Well…of course.
What ensues is a good 10-minute long chase in the Las Vegas desert along an empty road, ranging from a great, action packed long-shot to the obligatory cameo in truly cheeky, albeit pointless and somewhat distracting fashion. At this point, it’s INCREDIBLY apparent that Jerry Dandridge is in fact a bloodsucking ghoul (pet-named Jerry the Vampire).
Now, there’s nothing wrong with this. In fact, it’s quite refreshing. Now, of course, given you were Jerry, the most sensible thing to do would’ve been to just play it cool and to wait it out. Your prey, in your case, a particularly plump looking white teenager, is on his toes around you, so strike when he least expects…but you know what? That’s been done already. That’s been done to death. We’ve already seen the meticulous schemer, the head honcho who’s got it all planned out. We want some variety. Give us a villain who plays the wild card. In this regard, Jerry Dandridge from this modern re-telling is actually quite interesting. He’s suave and he can play it cool, but when he wants something, he’ll get it, even if that means he’ll have to blow up a house and kill a good two dozen people. Though, I admit, having just read that last sentence, subtlety’s not so bad a virtue, Jerry.
Now, this is one of those turns in these remakes that shows that the filmmakers aren’t afraid of letting their balls blow in the wind, but if you’re gonna take such a sharp left turn in the fork in the road, you should be prepared with some form of spectacle that equals that of the original, perhaps even exceeds it. In other words, you better know what the fuck you’re getting yourself into. In this case, they didn’t.
Actually, this is the main reason why this version pales in comparison to the original. It starts off with a lot of promise, but just as soon as it reaches its peak, it just drops the ball. Just like premature ejaculation. And while it does manage to bring itself back up throughout the remainder of the film, it never quite reaches the highs that it had originally promised. By the end, it’s all flash. It’s definitely gorier and more action-oriented than the original 85 film, but it’s never quite as exciting or as satisfying. When critics say that these popcorn flicks are like roller coasters, they’re not kidding, at least in Fright Night 2011’s case. It starts off slow and easy, but you’re still anticipating that moment when you’re finally shot down from the stratosphere. You take a twist and a turn and just when your heart’s literally beating against your chest, the ride suitably takes time to slow down for a second, but really, you’re just waiting for when the ride’ll shoot you back up again, and it does, over and over again, and finally it brings you back down to a halt. The end was alright, but you kind of wish you could go back just to have that adrenaline pump through you again. You’re not gonna be remembering that part when you had that time to breathe, you’re gonna be remembering the part when life had you by the ass and wouldn’t let go. That’s what the remake’s like, except it’s one of those rides that constantly starts up and immediately screams to a halt before it really goes anywhere truly exciting. Just like premature ejaculation. 
It has all of its source material’s fangs, but none of its bite. The original had such passion and such interest in its influences, it practically oozed from the screen. Little touches here and there are what brought it to life. Without those, this Fright Night is still good, but it doesn’t have that same…feel…that sense of individuality that the original had. This one kind of follows the more generic standards of modern horror films. You’re following this white kid with his supermodel girlfriend as well as his geeky chum(p) as they try to stop a mass-murdering psychopath from getting to them. Also, there’s a body count. A ridiculous body count. Now, the original Tom Holland version had some of these elements, definitely the white kid with the supermodel girlfriend and the geek, and while it was ridiculous in that 80s kind of way, there was some…life to it (Ironic, I know). It had life to it because it didn’t follow those run-of-the-mill conventions of typical horror movies. Hell, it didn’t even have much of a body count. In fact, it’s only by the end that things get really crazy in that department, and while I did praise Farrell’s version of Dandridge for bringing in something fresh to the Fright Night name, I do like the original Dandridge played by Chris Sarandon a little more because his character helps pace the film more effectively. It starts off a little slow while still maintaining some suspense, and it gradually builds to one fantastic fucking climax. The tone is consistent and the suspense builds at a satisfying pace. The remake just went topsy-fucking-turvy. Action-Drama-Comedy-Drama-Action-Action-Drama and finally Comedy…oh wait, the ending wasn’t supposed to be funny, was it?…oh…bummer.
That’s not to say that this film doesn’t have anything going for it. As I said, we got quite a surprise with Colin Farrell as Jerry Dandridge. Now, I don’t usually like Farrell (hell, I always thought he was a blood-sucking parasite. The only difference here was that they added fangs), but I have to say, anytime he comes onscreen, he lights up the whole audience. You can tell he’s just having so much fun with this role. He’s so bad, he bites an apple. And I’m not just saying he bites the apple, he fucking BITES that apple like it was his bitch with a wink and a smile. Alright, so I was taking a little bit of a shit on the remake just above, especially in comparing the two Jerry’s, but I can’t help but giggle in glee whenever Farrell shows up on screen. I’ll give him this, he brings some much needed life to the film, even in its quietest moments…okay, I swear I’m not geeking out right now. I’m serious, I’m not fan-girling over him or anyth-OH MY GOD, I JUST REMEMBERED HIS MUSCLES! MY OVARIES! 
Another well-casted character in this here picture show is David Tennant, who plays Peter Vincent (Ricky Bobby, anyone?). Now, I’ll admit, I was pretty annoyed with the direction they were taking this character. The original saw him as a Vincent Price-Peter Cushing (get it? GET IT?!) kind of actor who starred in films similar to the Hammer Horror Films, which both of the actors had previously starred in. He was that kind of actor who liked doing what he did because it made him famous, not because he actually enjoyed it. He understood why people liked him and used that to his advantage. Now, the basic idea of that has gone over to Tennant’s Peter Vincent, but the character himself has almost entirely changed. Here, he’s a faux magician kind of guy who puts out these shows that typically involve witch craft or vampires or whatever. I would’ve at least liked to have seen him keep his horror movie roots. Perhaps he could’ve been a special effects guy on old 80s horror movies who had all this knowledge of vampires and the occult and the like through his experience on films. When I actually watched the movie, his take wasn’t actually all that bad. I mean…I still liked my idea better, but still. His character wasn’t entirely original or anything. We’ve all seen that typical celebrity who’s a real bitch behind the cameras; it’s nothing new to films, but again, like Farrell, there’s just such life to his performance. It’s not David Tennant being David Tennant, it’s David Tennant being Peter Vincent, the drunk wizard. That’s what acting’s all about, it’s about being someone you’re not, and being able to inhabit that body as if it were your own flesh and blood, and Tennant pulls that off quite well. Actually, no, I take it back. It’s not David Tennant being Peter Vincent, it’s David Tennant being Russell Brand. Yeah, really. Watch the movie and you’ll know what I mean. 
I would’ve recommended that they actually just get Brand to play the role, but as I said, it would’ve just been Russell Brand being Russell Brand. Also, I just remembered Arthur…and I puked a little in my mouth…so that’s a no-go.
The rest of the cast ranges from just okay to just good, nothing great. You’ve of course got Charley Brewster, our main protagonist yet again, played by Anton Yelchin. Here, he’s portrayed as this kid who’s trying to grow out of his old goofy dorkiness and make something of himself with the popular kids, especially to impress his girlfriend Amy, played by Imogen Poots (heh, poots). However, in doing so, he abandons his former best friend, “Evil” Ed played by Christopher Mintz-Plasse (who’s pretty much playing McLovin’…again). There’s that pressure to impress the people around him, and he can, but he’s still as dorky as he once was on the inside, and a guilt for abandoning his once-close pal “Evil” lingers deep inside him. 
Actually, there are quite a number of arcs that are quite interesting and more deeply relatable than one might expect from a horror movie of this standard. Teenage-hood is a time in your life when you’re trying to figure out who you are and where you want to go in life. Charley, who’s grown into a plump, tender, strapping lad takes advantage of his youth and looks and tries to get a fresh start. However, when you move on to one life, you have to leave your old one behind, and that’s where “Evil” comes in. He hasn’t really grown out of that old shell of his yet, if ever (wait, hang on…I think I’m talking about Christopher Mintz-Plasse…), and unfortunately, part of high school is moving forward in your life. It’s a harsh truth, but that’s just what happens. You gain people, you lose people, and sometimes, you’re kind of just stuck with yourself. These are some points in the remake that actually improve upon the original. There’s just something more emotionally grounded going on, and it gets you more invested in these characters…BUT (there’s always a but), unfortunately…you remember how I compared the movie to roller coaster rides? yeah…this is one of those instances, which was easily one of the most disappointing aspects of this film.
Oh, and one last note on the actors, there’s Imogen Poots as Charley’s girlfriend Amy, and she’s okay and everything, I mean, she’s not bad…but if there’s one thing I had to say about her, it was her accent. Okay, so I’m aware she’s British, and it’s totally the norm nowadays to cast British people as American characters in films, I totally get the idea, but…Jesus, the only reason they ever started doing that in the first place was because they could actually do American accents. I mean, Poots has her moments when she sounds believable, but then she has this weird twang. You can still hear that British accent of hers, and it’s so. Fucking. Distracting. Sometimes it doesn’t even sound British. Sometimes it’s like Dutch or even German at times. I’m just baffled that she even made it past tests fer Chrissakes. Was she honestly the only choice they had? I get it, they needed someone hot to play Amy, I get the logic. It’s stupid, but I get it, and Imogen Poots, I’d buy that for a dollar, and she’s not even that bad an actress, but I swear, I couldn’t even focus half the time she was on screen. My mouth was agape whenever she spoke. I was just waiting for her to make a flub at anytime. It was only when she left the film for a good bit that I remembered I was watching Fright Night and not…I don’t even know what, not Fright Night.
But okay, I’m getting carried away here. The question everyone wants know is does this movie hold up?
As a remake, no. It’s not bad, but for the majority of the time you’re just watching it, all you feel like doing is just watching the original. If you’re gonna make a remake, I firmly believe that you should keep the overall idea of the original but try to be something else. Don’t even try making it as a remake. Make it like a stand-alone film. Look at the material given to you and don’t even think about the original, just think about how you’d make this movie. All these remakes and adaptations, they’re not about telling a new story, they’re about pleasing the fans. Studios want to make money, so they do stuff that pleases the fans so they can have their former pigs-er, I mean audience. There are definite hints at some changes, mainly good ones, but for some reason, there’s something holding it back, something from letting it go all the way. It could’ve been a remake at the ranks of such classics as The Thing or The Fly. 
It could’ve easily been a classic in its own right that could’ve stood next to its source material with pride, but it never quite got that far.
For what it is though, as a film that wasn’t a remake, it’s actually not bad, as I said earlier. Actually, it’s pretty good. It’s a fun movie for the most-part, and while it still has the same short-comings as it did if compared to the original, it still holds up well. I mean, it’s not perfect, it’s pretty flawed, and definitely anti-climactic in many regards, but for what it is, it’s a fun little movie I wouldn’t mind renting on a rainy day. In fact, if it wasn’t a remake, I’d say it was one of the most original films in years, even going so far as to call it a flawed classic…but it’s a fucking remake, so I won’t.