web
counter
 

Fright Night Review: That'll Do

By Daniel Carlson | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (23)



Fright_Night_review.JPG

It’s pretty perfect that the closing credits to Fright Night are set to Hugo’s version of Jay-Z’s “99 Problems.” Hugo, a half-Thai banjo-playing singer-songwriter from England, is admittedly as far as you can get from Jay-Z’s Brooklyn-spawned hip-hop, but he brings something to the song that wasn’t there the first time. It’s not about being better: It’s about doing something good with the tune, making a new recipe from the same basic ingredients. I say it’s perfectly used because Fright Night is a remake of a 1985 film, and the best remakes are like cover songs. They’re not out to displace the original, or even make you forget about it. They’re out to tell a very similar story and find the same kind of resonance around a theme achieved by the first film. In that way, Fright Night’s a success. Most of the characters are the same, but the beats have moved around, and the story’s received enough tweaking that it feels like its own entity. But the film also scores on its own merits. Director Craig Gillespie — whose erratic c.v. includes Lars and the Real Girl and Mr. Woodcock — does a fine job with some strong action and suspense sequences, and the script from Marti Noxon, though slow to start, eventually finds its footing. I don’t want to oversell the finished product, nor simply say it’s a good film simply for being confidently different from its predecessor. But it does have its moments, and it finds a decent balance between mayhem and humor without overstaying its welcome. It’s got a good beat and you can dance to it, even if it’s less than inspired.

What’s curious, though, is how long the film takes to actually get going. It’s not that the action doesn’t start right away; if anything, the viewer’s dropped right in the middle of the story and gently tugged along. Yet most of the first act feels like it never got a second pass. Charley (Anton Yelchin) is a high school senior in Las Vegas, and when we meet him he feels like a very typical movie version of a high school senior: hip without trying to be, effortlessly at ease with a few basic traits that could be called a personality, and a hell of a lot cooler than anyone you actually knew in 12th grade. Yet the next few beats have his mother, Jane (Toni Collette), and his girlfriend, Amy (Imogen Poots), chiding him for being nervous all the time. At one point he’s even chided for “doing” his “nervous thing.” Now, it’s bad enough that the script decided to tell and not show, since it’s one one-thousandth as effective to call a character nervous as it is to show him actually being nervous. But on top of that, it’s inaccurate, as nothing Charley does remotely betrays him as neurotic or awkward, nor will anything he does throughout the movie. (Granted, he gets a little trembly around vampires, but that’s hardly unique.) Gillespie, Noxon, and everyone else didn’t even bother to get the broad details of their protagonist right, nevermind the cheap way they tried to set him up with nonexistent emotional crises. This is not a good sign, and it’s representative of the kind of slapdash, made-for-TV vibe that haunts much of the film. Yes, it has some good scenes and sequences, but they lose some of their effectiveness when you realize that the filmmakers care even less than you do about some of the characters on screen.

The story gets going when “Evil” Ed Thompson (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), Charley’s former friend who remained a geek while Charley moved on, tells Charley that Charley’s new neighbor, Jerry (Colin Farrell), is a vampire. Ed’s got a whole theory about why kids have been disappearing from school, and he’s mapped out the locations of strange disappearances and tracked the locus to Charley’s neighbor. We aren’t given a whole lot of time for that to percolate: Ed makes the claim, Charley doesn’t believe him, Ed goes missing, and we’re off. It’s eventually up to Charley to investigate and stop Jerry, largely because the film settles into well-worn rhythms and it’s tough to fight. Granted, Noxon and Gillespie miss some great opportunities to actually play with the story and ramp up the tension by exploring some interesting plot possibilities — what if Jerry seems weird but turns out to have a reasonable excuse for his behavior? What if Charley just goes crazy from paranoia? Etc. — but when they get to the meat of the story, they still manage to have fun.

Charley learns soon enough that Jerry’s an actual vampire because Jerry, apparently not one for patience or mind games, comes out and tells him. The film becomes a series of chase sequences involving Charley, Amy, and Jane trying to survive Jerry’s onslaughts. For help, Charley eventually turns to Peter Vincent (David Tennant), a magician at a local casino who models himself after Criss Angel and whose act revolves around vampire and the occult. Just typing these sentences is robbing the film’s few solid moments of their energy, so I’m reluctant to even paint a basic picture of the plot, but you can probably see where this is going even if you haven’t seen the 1985 version.

Yet scattered throughout a pretty predictable film are some undeniably enjoyable moments. Charley is dumb enough to try sneaking into Jerry’s house early on, only to have Jerry return much sooner than expected, leading to a tense escape sequence that’s a lot longer and quieter than you’d expect from modern horror. And once she gets past the surprisingly ungainly opening act, Noxon’s able to open up a bit and work in some good one-liners while also keeping her characters bouncing from one fight to the next. There’s even a nod to Noxon’s work as a writer/producer on “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” when Peter refers to Charley’s dwindling coterie as his “little Scooby gang,” though the joke also makes you realize that Noxon’s years working on a highly entertaining horror-comedy TV series seem to have deserted her for much of this movie. Yet the escalating fights and the final conflict, though oddly light on effective scares, are still fun to watch, like a pleasant middle-of-the-road action movie that asks nothing more than your attention and the brief suspension of disbelief.

Farrell’s the best part of the whole thing: He stalks the frame, takes himself just seriously enough to be creepy, and is the perfect blend of psychotic and charming. His physicality and energy are perfect for the role. Everyone else hits their marks and does what’s asked of them, no more or less, though Tennant has fun in a limited capacity. (He seems to have been encouraged to play the role as a Russell Brand imitation for the first 20 minutes on screen.) I admit I found it hard to focus on the performances sometimes because the screening I attended was in 3-D. The film was made this way on purpose, too, not converted after the fact, which makes its ugliness and muddy visuals even more irritating. Gillespie worked with cinematographer Javier Aguirresarobe (The Others, The Road, a couple of Twilight movies) and seems to have wanted a palette of gray-green and dirty black, yet the emotional composition is absolutely ruined by the horrible 3-D. Was no one paying attention? Did Gillespie and crew not remember that 3-D means losing major light in the projection process, or did they just not care? The device does nothing at all to the film except make it hard to watch. Scenes at dusk that try to take advantage of desert sunsets feel digital and tacky, like cheap memorabilia that uses lenticular printing that changes as you turn it in your hand. At best, it makes the film feel tired; at worst, it wrecks it entirely.

Fright Night isn’t out to reinvent horror — it’s barely out to reinvent its source material — yet despite its flaws and casual approach, it’s hard to hate. It occupies a rare middle ground, too good to dismiss out of hand but too weak to really celebrate. It achieves its modest goals and then fades out, as polished and forgettable as a pop song. Even covers have a shelf life.

Daniel Carlson is the managing editor of Pajiba and a member of the Houston Film Critics Society and the Online Film Critics Society. He’s also a TV blogger for the Houston Press. He tweets more often than he should, and he blogs at Slowly Going Bald.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



The Help Presents: The Most Powerful Villain in All of Movie History | Conan the Barbarian Review: If a Bag of Hammers and a Box of Hair Got Married and Had a Baby









Comments

*dances the Poot*

Posted by: , at August 19, 2011 1:02 AM

I thought Farrell was a perfect blend of Creepy and Douchey. And I loved Tennant's performance. Weird hearing the Doctor saying Fuck though.

Posted by: Travis at August 19, 2011 1:41 AM

I just realized that the vampire movie I saw and loved as a kid was Fright Night. Hell yes.

Posted by: Lucas at August 19, 2011 3:30 AM

The script problems sound like typical Marti Noxon. Half baked plotting and poor character development.
A good example of this? Season six of "Buffy".

Posted by: Darwinian Paradox at August 19, 2011 4:42 AM

You review of Colin Farrell's performance is tempting me to see this film. However, the last time I went to see a film purely for the sake of Colin Farrell, I was sixteen and the film was 'The Recruit'. So perhaps I'll err on the side of caution and wait for it on Netflix.

Posted by: KKO at August 19, 2011 5:38 AM

I am sick to death of 3D that they put ZERO effort into. But..I did love the original (saw it in the theater, yes, I'm that old). Had the pre teen hots for Chris Sarandon for YEARS.

Posted by: jp at August 19, 2011 8:53 AM

Ugh, it was *made* in 3D, no less? That is SO VERY disappointing. I was SO looking forward to this, and I don't even know how I missed any and all mentions that it was going to be in 3D.

Posted by: Anna von Beav at August 19, 2011 9:01 AM

Glad that this film is tolerable, since they had my twelve bucks the minute I saw the Tennant clip from ComicCon.

From now on, every time I feel a bit blue, I'm just going to repeat, "Imogen Poots" to myself.

Posted by: Kala at August 19, 2011 9:55 AM

This is all very well and good, but how do Tennant's leather pants look in 3-D? That's all I really want to know.

Posted by: BWeaves at August 19, 2011 10:00 AM

I saw it in 2D and there were a couple of things you could tell where there to fly out at the 3D audience, but it didn't take away from the 2D viewing experience.
As Dan said, it's a dark movie, and I can only imagine how much darker it is in 3D. Definitely see this one in 2D!
Also for jp, the Chris Sarandon lover, you'll enjoy the film!

Posted by: Travis at August 19, 2011 10:32 AM

I watched the original over and over. I loved every part of it. I will see the remake but with reservations. I am willing to think of it as a seperate film but will always fondly remember the first one.

Posted by: Jeff at August 19, 2011 12:43 PM

When a review comes right out and says a movie looks shitty and the script is bad, there is no way I'm dropping money on it if I can help it. I loved the first Fright Night but I'm going to wait and enjoy it in 2D at home.

Posted by: ChickaBoom! at August 19, 2011 12:44 PM

Hey ","...

Teachers and critics ALL dance "The Poot"!

Are we not...?

Posted by: Green Lantern at August 19, 2011 1:01 PM

Was curious to see this, but never mind now that I know that Marti Noxon wrote it. She's one of the worst screenwriters. I can't believe she consistently gets work.

Posted by: Ash at August 19, 2011 1:14 PM

Just from seeing the TV commercials, Colin Farrell seriously nails the "menacing but sexy". However, that's probably not enough to get me to see it in the theater.

Posted by: MM at August 19, 2011 2:42 PM

Not my genre, but the cast has me sold. I will eventually see this with my horror-loving roommate. in 2D. 3D is for suckers.

Posted by: Sara Tonin at August 19, 2011 2:58 PM

I have been amazed to read almost completely positive reviews of this. Now Pajiba too? I have to actually see it, I guess.

I loved Fright Night as a child.

Posted by: John. G. at August 19, 2011 9:23 PM

lots of pissy comments...just got home from seeing this and I loved every minute. We even saw 3D and had no problems.. it wasn't too dark or cheap looking. I found this to be just an all-around enjoyable flick. Not really worthy of a lot of hate.

Posted by: annie711pm at August 20, 2011 11:05 PM

Okay, I'm sorry but it was just awful. The script was a complete mess! (Oh marti, what happened to you???) Colin Farrel's idea of being a sexy scary vampire seems to be swaggering around all the time while sticking his head and neck forward and bobbing his head sideways. His facial expression doesn't actually change much throughout the movie! I thought I lost it when he actually bears his fangs and hisses at a beam of sunlight! And most amazing was how there's literally only about two moments of actual tension in the entire film!

Dear god we are SO watching the original right now! Predating Scream by about 10 years with the whole meta-thing, combining humor and horror as few movies could... And Chris Sarandon is perfect, as a Jerry Dandridge that actually has charm and panache, and a twinkle in his eye. And here's to the late, great Roddy MacDowell who just about stole the whole movie.

Oh and worse about the remake? Painfully boring!

Posted by: Arco at August 21, 2011 2:03 AM

Two words:

TEN. SHIRTLESS.

Posted by: Jayne at August 21, 2011 10:03 PM

I enjoyed this movie. Colin Farrel was going to eat me, and I wasn't sure what definition he was going to use.
Also, David Tennant in leather pants was hilarious. ;)

Posted by: Bob Frapples at August 22, 2011 11:31 AM

This was the most fun I've had at the movie theater in a long time. Colin was having so much fun with the role. I'm not sure I would have enjoyed it as much if it weren't for him, but regardless, go see this.

Posted by: Mel C. at August 26, 2011 1:59 PM

I thought this was a great remake. I loved how they made it into a new story but with the same basics of the original. I loved the original Fright Night, and thought it was one of the best horror movies in those times. I haven’t seen it in awhile, so before I went and saw the new one I rented it through Blockbuster. I have Blockbuster free for 3 months right now with my provider/employer DISH Network, so it’s easy for me to get a movie that I really want to see. I can get movies in the mail, and if I really want to see a movie I can bring it to the store to exchange it. What’s really cool about Blockbuster is that you get new releases 28 days before Netflix. Check out this link for the promotion through DISH http://bit.ly/iH7nwg. It is definitely one of the best remakes that has been done.

Posted by: rose at August 28, 2011 4:21 PM