My thoughts on Fright Night...
Well, let me begin by being honest. I like the Vampire genre. Vampires are sexy (usually). Lovely friends introduced me to Anne Rice at school which led through Buffy, Angel, all kinds of awful fic and various films (Lost Boys, Thirst) until this latest Vampire popular culture explosion (Twilight, Trueblood etc).
I also like Colin Farrell, that is no secret, and I’m certainly not the only one I’m sure. Give me a ‘flawed’ man with an accent who is articulate and a bit good looking and I’ll give you me as a pile of goo.
I also like David Tennant. The man is The Doctor, or at least the first proper Doctor Who my generation had and he fits many of the categories I’ve listed above.
What I’m not a massive fan of is remakes. If a film was good the first time then leave it alone - there are plenty of awful films out there that need improving and remaking. So I know that Fright Night isn’t exactly supposed to be a remake but it is going to get compared.
Another thing I’m not a fan of is horror. I know, dumb right? I don’t like to be scared to the point of screaming or covering my eyes. IRL peeps will know that I do not like zombies either. I’m irrational about this type of thing and let it bleed through into my real life (to the point where a creak on the stairs will convince me hords of zombies are coming up the stairs).
So it was these mixed thoughts and feelings that accompanied me to see Fright Night.
Why did I worry? I really enjoyed the film on my second viewing. I saw the film in 3D first and found it way too dark to see most of the action. After switching to 2D it was much better. The script and story was far enough away from the original to please me and in places surprise me. The dialogue was especially well done in that American geek sarcastic put down type of way (that graces too few American teen comedies these days).
Anton Yelchin was great as Charley. I’d only seen him in Star Trek before this where he had a lot less to do and say. His vulnerable but a bit righteous tone was perfect to me. I also like his dynamic with Toni Collette who played his mother. In short, you could believe his Charley - there was no bravado but equally there were no hysterics either. He was very likable, which was crucial if one does not want all the viewers to be team Jerry so to speak.
I was less of a fan of Christopher Mintz-Plasse. Seriously, will someone give this boy something else to play apart from nerds/ disgruntled nerds? His performance was tired, and while his early ‘snarky’ scenes with Yelchin were good the later stuff was hammy. I sat there willing him to die in a grizzly way.
He was not, however, as hammy as David Tennant (sadly). I will admit he looked good, fangirls everywhere take note. However, no amount of eyeliner/ shirtlessness/ leather trousers could distract me from the ham and cheese fest that he was for 80%. The altercations with Ginger were silly and forced and smacked of trying too hard. The scene where he was best was whilst in and under Jerry’s house. I could find no sympathy for this character or the suffering he’d been through. Despite Tennant’s haunted look - it was just a ham and cheese toasty. Cinema goers less aware of Tennant will probably be less critical but I was hoping for a strong male (possibly father) figure to be on Charley’s side.
Luckily, Farrell was good. Now if you’re a vampire and not blessed with a cool name (Eric Northman, Lestat di Lioncourt) but are called Jerry you obviously have to get your cool from elsewhere. Farrell gets his in terms of body count (there were four deaths before the opening credits). His Jerry was menacing and methodical and above all predatory. Little lines like ‘Catch you later’ had the cinema chuckling. There were no huge chunks of exposition or posturing. The character was stripped down to the essentials. There was a purposefulness as well as the humour and the sinister twinkle in the eye. As one character remarks: ‘He’s not brooding or lovesick, he’s the shark from Jaws’. Farrell’s portrayal is refreshing for that ‘streamlined predator feel’ and indeed there is something of the Great White Shark about the CGI used on his Vampire face. There is no angst or tortured love which is a welcome antidote to some of the recent vampire fare. Equally there is no(ish) sex - but I suppose Trueblood has ruined me in that respect.
If we are talking sex, then Imogen Poots deserves a mention as Yelchin’s Charley’s love interest. How is it that nerds attract these attractive girls in film land? She was tolerable but no match for Toni Collette as the other leading lady. In fact the altercations between Jerry and Yelchin were the most compelling relationship in the whole piece (or perhaps I just think Farrell could have chemistry with anyone or anything?)
The film is not afraid to make fun of itself and plays with the vampire ‘rules’ expertly (thanks to the knowledgeable Marti Noxon perhaps?) Indeed, most of the film’s humour derives from assumptions of the human characters being unceremoniously squashed by Jerry. Obviously there are some parts where the humans get one over on the vamp and Toni Collette’s Jane should be applauded for her almost staking (audience members laughed out loud). Another nice little in-joke was Chris Sarandon (the original Jerry from the 1985 Fright Night) being a victim of 2011 Jerry.
In total it is a decent film. One of the better films I’ve seen this year. It treads the same line between comedy and horror as the original. But this is the Yelchin and Farrell show in which young Yelchin holds his own alongside Farrell. Toni Collette is solid and David Tennant does have some redeeming moments. The overall winner has to be the writing and witty dialogue (streets a head of the usual horror films). My hat is off to Marti Noxon (a former writer and producer on Buffy and Angel as well as Mad Men). A further winner, on a wider note, has to be the vampire genre itself. The film gets back to and serves as a reminder of what vampire films were before the broody-mush-fest films of recent years, but is still slick and streamlined enough for 2011 (see Jerry and Ed’s mobile phone discussion).
In case you are wondering, dear reader, I’ll tell you how my rational mind will cope: Pretty well I would say. The film is easily more witty and sarcastic than out and out scary. And well maybe I wouldn’t mind having Colin Farrell’s Jerry creeping up the stairs so much, provided he’s gorgeous and has well written dialogue before he rips my throat out. Lets be honest, given the choice between bloody carnage and sex this vampire would choose bloody carnage every time.
I’m seeing Jane Eyre next (one of my favourite novels of the age of sensibility), which promises to be an entirely different prospect one would hope…
http://youtu.be/JYX9oipePWY
I also like Colin Farrell, that is no secret, and I’m certainly not the only one I’m sure. Give me a ‘flawed’ man with an accent who is articulate and a bit good looking and I’ll give you me as a pile of goo.
I also like David Tennant. The man is The Doctor, or at least the first proper Doctor Who my generation had and he fits many of the categories I’ve listed above.
What I’m not a massive fan of is remakes. If a film was good the first time then leave it alone - there are plenty of awful films out there that need improving and remaking. So I know that Fright Night isn’t exactly supposed to be a remake but it is going to get compared.
Another thing I’m not a fan of is horror. I know, dumb right? I don’t like to be scared to the point of screaming or covering my eyes. IRL peeps will know that I do not like zombies either. I’m irrational about this type of thing and let it bleed through into my real life (to the point where a creak on the stairs will convince me hords of zombies are coming up the stairs).
So it was these mixed thoughts and feelings that accompanied me to see Fright Night.
Why did I worry? I really enjoyed the film on my second viewing. I saw the film in 3D first and found it way too dark to see most of the action. After switching to 2D it was much better. The script and story was far enough away from the original to please me and in places surprise me. The dialogue was especially well done in that American geek sarcastic put down type of way (that graces too few American teen comedies these days).
Anton Yelchin was great as Charley. I’d only seen him in Star Trek before this where he had a lot less to do and say. His vulnerable but a bit righteous tone was perfect to me. I also like his dynamic with Toni Collette who played his mother. In short, you could believe his Charley - there was no bravado but equally there were no hysterics either. He was very likable, which was crucial if one does not want all the viewers to be team Jerry so to speak.
I was less of a fan of Christopher Mintz-Plasse. Seriously, will someone give this boy something else to play apart from nerds/ disgruntled nerds? His performance was tired, and while his early ‘snarky’ scenes with Yelchin were good the later stuff was hammy. I sat there willing him to die in a grizzly way.
He was not, however, as hammy as David Tennant (sadly). I will admit he looked good, fangirls everywhere take note. However, no amount of eyeliner/ shirtlessness/ leather trousers could distract me from the ham and cheese fest that he was for 80%. The altercations with Ginger were silly and forced and smacked of trying too hard. The scene where he was best was whilst in and under Jerry’s house. I could find no sympathy for this character or the suffering he’d been through. Despite Tennant’s haunted look - it was just a ham and cheese toasty. Cinema goers less aware of Tennant will probably be less critical but I was hoping for a strong male (possibly father) figure to be on Charley’s side.
Luckily, Farrell was good. Now if you’re a vampire and not blessed with a cool name (Eric Northman, Lestat di Lioncourt) but are called Jerry you obviously have to get your cool from elsewhere. Farrell gets his in terms of body count (there were four deaths before the opening credits). His Jerry was menacing and methodical and above all predatory. Little lines like ‘Catch you later’ had the cinema chuckling. There were no huge chunks of exposition or posturing. The character was stripped down to the essentials. There was a purposefulness as well as the humour and the sinister twinkle in the eye. As one character remarks: ‘He’s not brooding or lovesick, he’s the shark from Jaws’. Farrell’s portrayal is refreshing for that ‘streamlined predator feel’ and indeed there is something of the Great White Shark about the CGI used on his Vampire face. There is no angst or tortured love which is a welcome antidote to some of the recent vampire fare. Equally there is no(ish) sex - but I suppose Trueblood has ruined me in that respect.
If we are talking sex, then Imogen Poots deserves a mention as Yelchin’s Charley’s love interest. How is it that nerds attract these attractive girls in film land? She was tolerable but no match for Toni Collette as the other leading lady. In fact the altercations between Jerry and Yelchin were the most compelling relationship in the whole piece (or perhaps I just think Farrell could have chemistry with anyone or anything?)
The film is not afraid to make fun of itself and plays with the vampire ‘rules’ expertly (thanks to the knowledgeable Marti Noxon perhaps?) Indeed, most of the film’s humour derives from assumptions of the human characters being unceremoniously squashed by Jerry. Obviously there are some parts where the humans get one over on the vamp and Toni Collette’s Jane should be applauded for her almost staking (audience members laughed out loud). Another nice little in-joke was Chris Sarandon (the original Jerry from the 1985 Fright Night) being a victim of 2011 Jerry.
In total it is a decent film. One of the better films I’ve seen this year. It treads the same line between comedy and horror as the original. But this is the Yelchin and Farrell show in which young Yelchin holds his own alongside Farrell. Toni Collette is solid and David Tennant does have some redeeming moments. The overall winner has to be the writing and witty dialogue (streets a head of the usual horror films). My hat is off to Marti Noxon (a former writer and producer on Buffy and Angel as well as Mad Men). A further winner, on a wider note, has to be the vampire genre itself. The film gets back to and serves as a reminder of what vampire films were before the broody-mush-fest films of recent years, but is still slick and streamlined enough for 2011 (see Jerry and Ed’s mobile phone discussion).
In case you are wondering, dear reader, I’ll tell you how my rational mind will cope: Pretty well I would say. The film is easily more witty and sarcastic than out and out scary. And well maybe I wouldn’t mind having Colin Farrell’s Jerry creeping up the stairs so much, provided he’s gorgeous and has well written dialogue before he rips my throat out. Lets be honest, given the choice between bloody carnage and sex this vampire would choose bloody carnage every time.
I’m seeing Jane Eyre next (one of my favourite novels of the age of sensibility), which promises to be an entirely different prospect one would hope…
http://youtu.be/JYX9oipePWY