Fright Night

[Fangenstein]

I for one am looking forward to seeing what they do to this cheesy 80's Vampire flick.
Colin Farrell as the next door neighbour neck muncher Jerry Dandridge should be a laugh while David Tennant is perfectly cast as quirky stakester Peter Vincent.

[FreddysFingers]

I'm also interested to see how this turns out because it's not done by Platinum Dunes and the cast seems to be pretty good aside from maybe Colin Farrell.

[Dr. Briggs]

I don't see it myself. For one thing, it isn't Platinum Dunes (which, to me, is a good thing by itself), but Dreamworks which has a slim track record for horror (aren't their only horror films Disturbia and Uninvited?). The director is set to be the fellow who made Mr. Woodcock? The writer was a prolific writer for Buffy? I mean, it's comedy and it's horror but hardly the kind of comedy and horror I'd like to see a Fright Night remake being. XP

As for the cast; after seeing Colin Farrell, I'm surprised to say I think he could pull it off. I only really know him as Bullseye from Daredevil and the victim from Phone Booth, which are both far, far, far from how I'd ever imagine Jerry. He looks damned accurate just being "Colin Farrell" though; if he keeps the look he currently has on his IMDb photo and acts the part with the same "manly-suave" air Sarandon did, I think he could be solid. Mintz-Plasse, I think, could be a great Evil Ed, not faithful to the original, but skeezy, creepy and sympathetic in his own way. Toni Collete looks like a good Mrs. Brewster.

After that is where it gets kind of iffy to me. Haven't seen enough from Anton Yelchin or Imogen Poots to really judge, but by their demeanors alone, they just seem like they would play the whole thing a bit too "trendy". Too naturally confident whereas both Charlie and Amy gave off the impression of being socially awkward in their own ways in the original. David Tennant I can honestly see being the biggest problem.

[Fangenstein]

I think David Tennant has enough quirkyness going on to do a good job as Peter Vincent... I can really see him filling that role.

[FreddysFingers]

I can see Tennant as Vincent and I sort of see Yelchin as Charlie. Though I agree with Briggs that the director and writer seem really off-key in this sort of thing, Joe Johnston made one hell of a Universal remake but then again... Universal tries to take care of their babies. I'm skeptical, but I need a trailer to decide.

[Dr. Briggs]

I think David Tennant has enough quirkyness going on to do a good job as Peter Vincent... I can really see him filling that role.

I don't think it's the right kind of quirkiness. Tennant's too young to pull off the kind of "sarcastic then confused then scared" that McDowell did in my opinion. He can do all three in general if Dr. Who is any indicator, but I doubt if he could do it with the same deapan-turns-chicken-turns-determined tone that would honor the original.

[Creamy Goodness]

I'm intrigued. I'm happy it's rated-R and I'm excited about the cast, but the film looks nothing like the original which puts me a bit on edge. I actually never saw the original until last year and I actually enjoyed it quite a bit. So I'm a bit skeptical, but willing to give it a shot.

[FreddysFingers]

I saw the trailer for it and I think it feels way too flashy and filled with explosions and car chases to make younger audiences more engaged, which is something that the original didn't need. To me, the original felt like a ballad, whereas this remake feels like a little over-the-top to the point where it ceases to be cheesy fun and becomes unintentionally funny. That's what I got out of the trailer.

[Dr. Briggs]

I saw the trailer for it and I think it feels way too flashy and filled with explosions and car chases to make younger audiences more engaged, which is something that the original didn't need. To me, the original felt like a ballad, whereas this remake feels like a little over-the-top to the point where it ceases to be cheesy fun and becomes unintentionally funny. That's what I got out of the trailer.

That's pretty much what I feel about it myself. It doesn't look like an absolute disaster or anything, but compared to the original, it just seems like a pale imitation come to capitalize on the vampire craze and throw in some general-audience-friendly action.

[FreddysFingers]

It may not look like a disaster but I ain't holding my breath. It may wow me… but in the end of it all, the original felt more appropriate for that time. The remake of Fright Night is only appropriate because it's the craze. Back in the 80's, the general public wasn't exposed to vampires that much.

[Raegan]

fright night is a classic, they should leave it the fuck alone :wanker:

[FreddysFingers]

Nothing is sacred nowadays.

[Raegan]

Nothing is sacred nowadays.

the day they try to re-make Jaws people will die

[FreddysFingers]

I'm waiting for the remake of Scream or Saw. :candymann:

[Raegan]

I'm waiting for the remake of Scream or Saw. :candymann:

they are still too busy ruining classics :riiip:

[DragonBlues]

I love the original! It's definitely considered a classic in my family. So, needless to say, I'm a bit worried. I mean... can anything compare to Prince Humperdink playing an evil vampire? I mean REALLY?!

[FreddysFingers]

I just don't like the way they are making it flashy. The original didn't have to be flashy but it had to be edgy. This remake is not edgy or original.

[DragonBlues]

Too true... :reddisgust: