I sat down to write this review and kept getting stuck on certain aspects of what I wanted to write. Not necessarily because I didn't know how I felt about the movie or how I would relate it to the original film upon which it is based. Rather, the problem was going to come in my mind because I know quite a few in my horror movie fan brethren are not going to be happy with me on certain things I say. With that disclaimer up front I feel now like I can move forward with my discussion of the film- for better or worse.
The original Fright Night from 1985 is renowned by many as being a part of the canon of horror films. There are those that love the film and think it is a modern classic in many ways. I have never been one of those people. That does not mean I dislike the film, but I never quite got the love that the film got. Chris Sarandon is wonderful as Jerry Dandrige, the ageless vampire causing havoc in suburbia and William Ragsdale, Stephen Geoffreys, Amanda Bearse match him step for step. Also, it needs to be said just how great Roddy McDowall is in his role. I have never been able to shake the feeling though that the film is pretty slow. At a one hour and forty-six minute running time it feels like it is over two hours long and the stakes never feel raised enough until the final twenty minutes or so which makes the ending sequence feel a little rushed. All that should not be mistaken as me hating the film though. I do enjoy the movie for the performances of the actors and-while slow, they are clearly having a good time throughout and commit to everything they do during the film. While some people in the horror community rolled their eyes at the announcement of a remake of the film, I got excited for it. My hope was that they would up the pace of the film and build off the established story people know. As it turns out- I enjoyed much of what they did, but there were other things they did that sort of counterbalanced all the enjoyment I felt.
The remake of the film follows the story of the original for a large portion of the first act of the film with some different beats along the way. Charley Brewster comes home from school and his mom introduces him to their new neighbor Jerry. Shortly after meeting Jerry, Charley rushes out to meet up with his friend "Evil" Ed to investigate the disappearance of a friend. Ed is convinced that Jerry is a vampire and he is killing everyone in the neighborhood. Charley does not believe him and ridicules his friend and eventually leaves him behind. On the way home Ed runs into Jerry and the same thing happens as happens in the original. Charley becomes increasingly worried about what is happening and begins to believe everything Ed was telling him. In his haste to figure out how to dispatch of Jerry he consults with Peter Vincent for tips.
In the original, Peter Vincent was the host of a late night horror movie show that showed lesser known horror films. In the 1980's those types of shows were all over the place. I still remember seeing promos on the local NBC affiliate for the show Saturday Night Dead hosted by Stella, and of course we had Elvira. Today those types of shows are not found on television anymore so they needed to find a different avenue to introduce Vincent. In this film he is a Vegas magician in the vein of Criss Angel who performs many acts based on vampire fighting. Vincent mocks Charley and sends him on his way. From there it becomes a giant cat and mouse game between Charley and Jerry as he tries to protect the people he loves and prevent Jerry from consuming them.
Colin Farrell steps into the role of Jerry here and much of the film hinges on his performance. It is a good thing as well because Farrell is clearly having fun here playing this part and he works on every level in the role. I hesitate to say he is better than Chris Sarandon in the original, but he plays the character quite differently even while hitting some of the same beats. In Fright Night the vampires are not totally used as visual eye candy for women and they certainly do not sparkle. The vampires in these films- especially in Farrell's case- are vicious killers that women still have vividly impure thoughts about. Farrell relishes being able to play this role and immerses himself into the horrific nature of Jerry. He is a feeding machine in this. From the get go you can see he has the ability to seduce anyone and anything in his way. He also has a sense of being smart enough to keep himself in hiding but also not fearing that people know who, and what, he is. More importantly though, Farrell plays the character almost as if he is a tweaking drug addict. He is twitchy in the role and gives off the vibe that he is resisting hard his want to just rip people's throats apart in the twilight of the evening. When Charley leaves the house to go meet with Ed there is a knowing glint in Jerry's eye about what the kid is doing. When Charley tries to rescue a neighbor from the house, Jerry watches slyly from the shadows and lets the kid escape because he knows what will ultimately happen. The familiar scene of Jerry inviting his date into the house and then glancing up at Charley's bedroom window is played subtlety different. In the original, Sarandon played the look as a scowl. Here, Farrell looks up at the window with a menacing smirk almost as if he is daring Charley to come stop him.
The best scene that illustrates the way Farrell plays the character though is one where he comes over to borrow a six pack of beer before the date. He first tries to get Charley to invite him into the house, because vampires obviously cannot enter a home unless invited. When Charley declines a knowing glare washes over Jerry's face. He knows now that Charley- while somewhat skeptical still- is almost firmly convinced about what Jerry is. When Charley's nerves cause him to drop, and break, a bottle Jerry immediately bounces on the opportunity to offer help. Charley declines again and Jerry flinches at being rejected again. Charley walks to the door frame with the six pack and holds them in a spot where Jerry cannot touch them yet. Jerry wants too, and you can see Farrell play that up, but knows he is unable to grab the beer. When Charley finally does hand him the beer Jerry then launches into a speech telling Charley that it is an impossible job to protect his mom and girlfriend and then talks in veiled terms about how he feels towards both of them sexually. He is trying to goad Charley into a fight, maybe not immediately, but somewhere down the road. It is a brilliantly played scene and the tension level in the scene is as high as it gets int the film.
The problem though is that while Farrell ups the ante on his performance, the rest of the characters either do not match their original counterpart or the script really sketches them out poorly. The biggest example of that is Charley's character. Here he is a teenage boy who is trying to fit in with a cool group of friends at school and does so at the expense of his relationship with Ed. Charley is a bit of a jerk to Ed throughout the first 20 minutes and it really positions the viewer against him for much of the movie. I get that they were trying to give him an arc but they started from a really bad place and Brewster never gets to where he needs to be to come full circle.
From there you are left with Christopher Mintz-Plasse playing Evil Ed which does not work well but he really is in only about ten minutes of the film. The other guy is David Tennant playing Peter Vincent and he works well for much the same reason that Farrell does. Mainly in that the script is not calling for him to be Peter Vincent from the original. Obviously the dressing of the character is different (and Tennant is not McDowall) but he has some good material to work with and he plays Vincent as a guy who is far more reluctant throughout to get involved. Even at the end when he does get involved he is not really interested in being there. Vincent in the original has much more of an arc towards the end where he becomes a hero in addition to Charley. Here, he is a guy who is aware that he is a fake and only pursues the actions he does because he feels he has to in order to gain some measure of revenge.
Technically speaking this film is odd looking. It is really dark and I didn't see it in 3D. In that format I can't imagine it looking good at all. Also, the scenes look a little too glossy and almost fake looking. That does not help the film in anyway. I also could have done without the over reliance on CGI blood splatters but logistically I understand why filmmaker do it. Also, it needs to be mentioned that while the cameo in the movie is cute, it feels sort of unnecessary.
In the end I enjoyed this film quite a bit and actually texted a friend to write, "This film is better than it has any right to be." I think the lessons for directors and writers of remakes in the future are clear though. When the characters are asked to be different from their counterparts in the original the film works out well. When they are asked to basically copy the same actions it does not work nearly as well. I like this film as much as - if not slightly more- than I did the original mainly based on the performances but some of the technical aspects are too hard to overlook. There are some cute asides to the original (The "You're so cool Brewster" line is here but in a different context) but they feel almost superfluous at times. Even though I may like this film more than the original that does not mean that I would significantly grade it higher than the original one. If they are both "C" films to me- one would be a 76 and one a 75. If nothing else, this has been a good summer for Colin Farrell and reminds you why people were so high on him for so long. Catch the film for that reason alone, and if you bristle at spending the full price, you still owe it a matinee showing while it is in theaters.
