Fright Night Part 2 (1988)

Title: Fright Night Part 2 (1988)

Director: Tommy Lee Wallace

Cast: Roddy McDowall, William Ragsdale, Traci Lind, Julie Carmen, Jon Gries, Brian Thompson

The very last minutes of Fright Night (1985) consist of the close up of a dark, lightless window. Now the window is dark because Charlie and Peter Vincent killed the vampire that used to live there, so the house is now empty; or is it? Suddenly we hear Evil Ed’s signature laughter echoing through the darkness and two red eyes light up the dark room and boom, the credits roll, the movie is over and you’re left wanting more! Ending the film this way was a smart move from Tom Holland, the director behind the ultra successful 80’s vampire flick. In this way, Holland left the window open (so to speak!) for future films. Unfortunately, Tom Holland never returned because he went on to direct Child’s Play (1988) and since he took Chris Sarandon to star on that one, well, that’s why Jerry Dandridge never returned for a Fright Night sequel either. But fans of Fright Night clamored for a sequel! I wanted to see more of Evil Ed! I wanted to see Charlie and Peter killing more vampires! So what happened? Well, Fright Night Part 2 ended up getting made eventually, but there was no Evil Ed anywhere in sight! The character that left us wanting more was not on the sequel! Why not? The answer to that question is that actor Stephen Geoffrey’s declined to star on Fright Night Part 2 because he decided to be a part of 976-EVIL (1988) instead; can’t say I blame him. Making 976-EVIL offered him the opportunity to work alongside legendary horror icon Robert Englund, a.k.a Freddy Krueger himself!  

So anyhow, for whatever the reason, this second film wasn’t produced by Columbia Pictures; instead Live Entertainment stepped in as the producers of this flick. Now this was a company that was run by Jose Menendez, a man who was famously shot gunned to death by his own two sons! So that answers the question as to why there’s was no Fright Night part 3! And believe it or not, there was going to be a Fright Night part 3, unfortunately, the murders happened and so Fright Night Part 2 ended up being the last film that Menendez and Live Entertainment ever produced! So this sequel has a tragic tale behind it, it was the last nail on Live Entertainments coffin. But putting aside this tragic tale, did Fright Night Part 2 end up being a worthy sequel to the original? What I mean is, the first film is such a nearly perfect spooky movie, with so many awesome moments. Such memorable characters, such a cool villain, such great atmosphere, could this sequel equal or surpass the originals awesomeness? Well, I’d say that no, it didn’t surpass, but it isn’t a bad sequel either.  It is a lesser film in some ways, but at least it didn’t disappoint. So what went wrong and what went right with this one?

Well, for me one of the things that went absolutely right for me with this one is the fact that it picks up right where the first one left off. We pick up with Charlie trying to cope with the events of the first film by going to the shrink; who by the way manages to convince Charlie that everything that happened in the first film was the product of mass hallucination. Basically, according to his shrink Peter and Charlie  battling the forces of evil was all a figment of Charlie’s over active imagination. He’d seen too many horror movies! So anyhow, Charlie is basically burying everything that happened to him somewhere in his subconscious, he wants to pretend that none of it ever happened. Unfortunately, reality has other plans for Charlie. Jerry Dandridge was a 1,000 year old vampire and he had a sister! And she’s here to exact her revenge! And Charlie and Peter are on her list! But her revenge is systematic, she has a plan. Can Charlie and Peter conquer their fears and face the forces of evil ones again?

So yeah, that’s the premise for the sequel in a nutshell. The big problem for me with this sequel is that it basically repeats the first movie step by step. Sure it has a couple of new elements here and there, like for example Charlie is now a college student and he has a new girlfriend, but I think that’s about as far as the new elements go. Now here’s were this movie turns into a Xerox copy of the first: Charlie is still trying to make out with his girlfriend, and for some reason, same as in the first film, the girl doesn’t want to go “all the way”. I’m like, what’s going on with Charlie? Why don’t girls want to make out with him on both films? Then, we have the same situation of Charlie trying to convince Peter Vincent that vampires are roaming the neighborhood once again. A vampire even repeats  “welcome to Fright Night”; one of the most recognized lines from the first film! But fear not my dear reader! Thankfully, along with these familiar elements we also get groovy new stuff like Julie Carmen playing Regine; the vampire with a vengeance. She’s beautiful, she’s sexy and she’s Jerry Dandridge’s sister! Awesome casting choice right there, whenever she’s on screen she eats it up. Ditto for the rest of the vampire crew that tags along with her, I especially enjoyed Jon Gries performance as a werewolf/vampire/biker dude. This is the second time that Gries has played a werewolf, he also played one in The Monster Squad (1987). By the way, the make-up effects work is excellent on this one, the vampires look especially vicious and their demises are pretty creative which is always a highlight on any vampire movie.

In conclusion, I’d say that Fright Night Part 2 can be repetitive at times, but quite inventive at others. If you love the first Fright Night as much as I do, you will definitely feel like you’re visiting old friends, Peter and Charlie continue having that father son/good friends type of relationship which is the core of these movies. Now, if you still thirst for more Evil Ed, than you should do what I did: go on the internet and buy the Fright Night comic book series that was printed way back in the 90’s by a comic book company called Now Comics. Yeah, that’s right, Fright Night had its own comic book series and it lasted for something like thirty issues.  The first few issues are actually really good. The first two issues are an adaptation of the first film, and from the third issue on its Charlie and Peter’s adventures battling the forces of evil “wherever they may be!” You’ll be treated to Charlie and Peter battling everything from vampires and aliens to whatever the heck writers and artists could come up with for each issue. The series felt at times like a homage to the old EC Comics like Tales from the Crypt, with a different horror story in every issue. But one of the story arcs was all about “The Return of Evil Ed” and focused on how Evil Ed had survived the events of the first film and opened up a night club and ended up being a DJ! Eventually, Evil Ed finds a way to stumble into Charlie and Peter! It was a pretty cool series, I own it and cherish it, if any of you guys out there love Fright Night as much as I do, then do yourselves a favor and get this entire series. They even went and did a comic book adaptation of Fright Night Part 2! It was a cool way to see these characters live on long after the credits for Fright Night Part 2 rolled.

Rating: 3 out of 5   

The Reaping (2007)

Title: The Reaping (2007)

Director: Stephen Hopkins

Cast: Hilary Swank, Idris Alba, Stephen Rea, Anna Sophia Robb, William Ragsdale, David Morissey

Review:

So this is another film I’d completely ignored thinking it was going to be total boloney. Turns out it wasn’t; turns out The Reaping was actually quite the experience to watch! This is the kind of film in which bible prophecies start to turn true and characters that are unbelievers begin to question their beliefs. Is there a God? Is there a Satan? Or is it just a bunch of boloney and everyone is going nuts?

 Story revolves around Katherine Winters (Hilary Swank) a woman whose main purpose in life is going around the world proving how certain “miracles” are actually hoaxes, and how people’s religious beliefs can make them see things that have a perfectly plausible scientific explanation to them. She says that the only real miracle is that people still believe. One fine day Katherine meets Doug, a representative of the people of the small Bible belt town of ‘Haven’. He tells Katherine that a child in the town has been murdered and that the one responsible for this death is an evil Satan worshipping child who lives out in the swamps. You see, this is a town of god fearing religious folk and they all think the little girl is a heathen, a Satan worshipper who’s bringing forth all the death and destruction. Also, a nearby lake has turned into blood! Could it be the work of the little girl? Are the ten biblical plagues of the book of Exodus coming true? Katherine and her unbelieving ass head on down to the town of Haven to investigate.

Water turning into blood, not a good sing!

 This movie started off on the right foot for me because the opening sequence was shot in my country, Puerto Rico. They shot in the exact same place that Rob Marshall shot a small sequence for Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011), the fort of San Cristobal, which is a Spanish fort that the Spaniards built more than 500 years ago when the Spaniards came to colonize our island. Only thing is that in The Reaping, they made it look as if it was Chile. So anyways, this is where we first meet Katherine Winters: the unbeliever. She is there trying to prove that a certain “miracle” really isn’t one. This is a very a-typical kind of character that we often times find in films dealing with the supernatural; the proverbial unbeliever. And as in many, dare I say all films of this nature; the unbeliever will be taught a lesson! Unbelievers always end up realizing they were ‘so wrong’, which is something I don’t agree with of course cause unbelievers usually stay that way through out all their lives because they never see or hear anything that will make them believe in the supernatural. To me, the only place the supernatural becomes real is in films; and I enjoy films that deal with the supernatural precisely for this reason.

 In The Reaping, the supernatural events that come to life have to do with the ten biblical plagues of the book of Exodus. For those of you not in the know, the ten biblical plagues of Exodus where these ten supernatural events that God made happen so that the Pharaoh would let the  Hebrews go free (they were slaves to the Egyptians) so that they could go and worship their God in the dessert. But Pharaoh was such a staunch unbeliever that to him his gods were more powerful then the god of the Hebrews. To him, the God of the Hebrews was an unknown deity, for all intents and purposes, the God of the Hebrews did not exist. So he was all haughty, and he was like “I don’t know who this God of yours is and I’m not letting your people go!” So God decided to teach this Pharaoh a lesson in humility and sends the Egyptians these ten plagues. The ten plagues consisted of:

1-     Water turning into blood

2-     Frogs

3-     Swarms of Mosquitoes

4-     Lice

5-     Death of Livestock

6-      Boils on the skin

7-     Hail and Thunder

8-     Swarms of Locusts

9-     Total Darkness

10- Death of the Firstborns

 Of course, the cool thing about this movie is watching these ten biblical plagues come to life. My personal favorite was the swarm of locusts! If you don’t like bugs you’ll probably have a hard time watching those scenes! To me they were very well achieved. By the way, the filmmakers behind this film are firm believers in “blowing the audience away in the end”, because the ending is all kinds of spectacular. Lots of visual effects were involved in the making of this film, director Stephen Hopkins has always been a very kinetic type of filmmaker. I remember I always enjoyed his films because he played with angles and colors a lot. Examples of this are films like Predator 2 (1990) and A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Child (1989), both films that are very strong on style and visuals. On The Reaping, the filmmakers used many computer effects to tell their story and enhance mood. For example, in this film, shadows move, the skies look stormy and unnatural, colors change. Director Stephen Hopkins used computer effects to alter mood and feel very effectively on this one. Something I enjoyed about this film is that the effects didn’t make the film; they are not the stars of the show. The film is not shallow in that sense. Rather, the effects help the story move forward, which I thought was awesome. Stick all the way to the end for an awesome visual effects show!

Finally, I ended up enjoying this movie a hell of a lot more than I expected. Aside from the fact that it’s a movie meant to enhance your belief in God and all that (not something I’m all about) it also addresses the issues of evil religious leaders which is a favorite theme of mine in movies. Far too many evil religious leaders have been responsible for the death of their followers, and I think it is an evil that needs to be mentioned and discussed, as a way to warn people against the dangers of following some power hungry mad man. This movie conveyed all these themes effectively, while at the same time managing to make God and all his supernatural powers real. And it’s even an effective horror film. So it’s a movie that can please both the believer and the unbeliever, which is a plus in this kind of film for me. I hate preachy movies, and this is not one of them.

 This film was released during holy week of 2007, I guess to capitalize on all the god fearing Christians going to the movies on that week, searching for a film that would bring their beliefs to life. And they found it with The Reaping, the movie made a profit. I only wish we could have seen the sequel, the ending leaves everything open for another film. The cast is amazing, Hilary Swank is looking all sorts of beautiful on this one! We get an awesome supporting cast, Stephen Rea plays a priest who knows all about the plagues, Anna Sophia Robb plays the mysterious little girl quite effectively. We even get William Ragsdale (Charlie from Fright Night) playing the sheriff of the town! Though I didn’t recognize him at all, the guy has changed so much since his Fright Night days! So we got a solid cast to round things out. The film went through a tough time during it's production because right smack int he middle of filming, hurricane Katrina hit, which stopped the production for a week. Filmmakers considered filming in another state, but decided the residents of Louisiana would need the income the film would generate, so they stayed. The Reaping is a great slice of supernatural cinema, recommend it if you enjoy this kind of film.

Rating: 4 out of 5 

Hilary Swank next to the director of the picture, Stephen Hopkins

Fright Night (1985) vs. Fright Night (2011)

Title: Fright Night (2011) and Fright Night (2011)

Directors: Craig Gillespie and Tom Holland (respectively)

Cast: Collin Farrell, Anton Yelchin, David Tennant, Imogen Poots, Toni Collette, Christopher Mintz Plasse, Chris Sarandon, William Ragsdale, Amanda Bearse, Roddy McDowall, Stephen Geoffreys

Review:

The original Fright Night was one of the first films (along with Nightmare on Elm Street: Dream Warriors) to get me hooked on horror films. When I was a kid, horror films scared me like crazy, but it was Fright Night that taught me how fun horror films could be. Fright Night mixed a love for old school horror films with modern day make up effects. It had awesome characters all through out; Charley is the bookworm, the mild mannered regular Joe who suddenly finds himself dealing with the fact that his next door neighbor is a vampire, and nobody believes him. He befriends Peter Vincent, an aging horror film actor who pays the rent by doing ‘Fright Night’ a television program that showcases old horror films, Peter is the host of the show. Following Charlie in this adventure are Evil Ed, Charlie’s best friend who also happens to be a horror film connoisseur and Amy, Charlie’s nerdy unbelieving girlfriend. The whole cast was made up of the perfect actors for their respective roles. William Ragsdale was perfect as the nerdy Charlie, so naïve, so innocent yet brave enough to do what he’s got to do. Roddy McDowall was perfect as Peter Vincent, an actor who seems like a coward at first but then discovers he wants to become what he always played in the movies – a real life vampire killer! Stephen Geoffrey’s plays one of the most memorable vampires in cinematic history, the drooling, rambling Evil Ed! But the most memorable of all roles on this film was the role of Jerry Dandridge, played with gleeful delight by the great Chris Sarandon. That’s one thing that the original Fright Night had, great characters played by great actors, and an involving story.

Let’s not forget one of the most outstanding things about the original Fright Night: the show stopping make up effects! The vampires looked really demonic on this one, very animal like. Huge fangs, yellow eyes, long finger nails! And we even get a scene in which a vampire transforms into a werewolf! An awesome sequence if there ever was any. This is one of those movies that no matter how much time has passed, the make up effects are still awesome to watch. I still love this movie to death, I re-watch it every now and again, and not just to the ‘good parts’, I love the whole thing. I love how it pays respects to the horror movies of old. For example, Peter Vincent plays a character not that different from Vincent Price or Peter Cushing. Peter’s always remembering the golden days when he participated in making classic horror films. So it’s a film that understands and respects where it’s coming from, it pays homage to all those vampire movies that came before it. At one point Charlie is watching a horror film on television, it turns out he’s watching Hammer films Scars of Dracula (1970)! At another he is watching Children Shouldn’t Play with Dead Things (1973)!

The dynamics between the characters always pulled me in as well. I especially enjoy the friendship that Peter and Charlie develop; Peter becomes something of a father figure to Charlie since Charlie has no father. I liked how they became truly good friends, a friendship that crosses over to the sequel Fright Night Part II (1988); and a worthy sequel that one was, not as great as the original, but still pretty damn respectable as far as sequels go. So when a remake to Fright Night was announced, I had incredibly mixed feelings about it. On the one hand I was curious as to what it would end up being like, with all the modern special effects available nowadays. But at the same time a question kept creeping into my mind: would they get it right? Or would this be another one of those ‘remakes’ that doesn’t pay respects to the original?

Well, I’m happy to announce to you guys that Fright Night (2011) was not the disappointment I expected it to be. The promotional material for this film made it look very tame in comparison to the gruesomeness of the original. Is it just me or did the poster for this remake say “blah” every step of the way? Something that I love about the original film is that awesome poster with the clouds forming into the face of a vampire. To this date, the poster for the original is still one of my favorite horror film posters EVER. The new poster is so freaking bland, it says nothing to me. It certainly doesn’t tell me that Im going to be watching a vampire film. So already, my doubts were raised. And this was just the poster! Would the film be just as bland? Then came the previews, which didn’t inspire a lot of confidence either. No make up effects show up on the trailer for the film, so immediately I’m thinking they toned down the look of the vampires and the gore, because you know, this is the day and age of the watered down action and horror film. So immediately after seeing the previews, my wings of hope where shot down. In my opinion, as far as I could tell, this new Fright Night was going to suck. Still, my curiosity got the best of me and so I ended up at my local theater to see it. I just couldn’t help myself. Plus, to my surprise, the film was actually getting good reviews all around, so I was like “things cant be all that bad”.

Anton Yelchin, the new Charlie Brewster

As expected, a few changes have taken place from old to new. First up was the big surprise that Charlie is no longer a nerdy book worm, but a dude who has crossed over from being a nerdy dude to becoming one of the “cool guys”, Charlie is now part of the “in crowd”, complete with hot girlfriend and all. Evil Ed and Charlie are no longer best friends. In fact, Charlie is ditching Evil Ed because Evil is still a major geekazoid and Charlie doesn’t want to be associated with none of that. I’m not sure I liked that change, one thing I liked about the original was that Charlie was a geek, hell, I thought this would fit in with the current norm of making the geek the star of the film, but whatever, filmmakers wanted to make Charlie a cool kid with a hot girlfriend this time around. The other change? Peter Vincent isn’t a horror show host anymore, now he does a Vegas style magic show a la David Copperfield. He’s no longer the lovable old man/father figure, now he is young, rich (no longer struggling to pay the rent like in the original) a drunkard and a womanizer, great. He is a mix between Chris Angel and Russell Brand. Actually, they originally wanted Russell Brand to play Peter Vincent, but when he backed out David Tennant stepped in. So as you can see, they really twisted the characters around for this new film.

The new Peter Vincent, no longer the sweet old man

Anymore twists? Well yeah, for example Evil Ed is still pretty much a nerd, only he is more of a nerd. In the original, Evil Ed was a horror film buff, he looked like he heard heavy metal and watched a lot of horror films, but he didn’t look like a nerd. On this new one he looks like a major geek, largely due to the fact that they chose Christopher Mintz-Plasse (of McLovin’ fame) to play the character. Now this was a bad casting choice if you ask me. Such an important character in the original, with so many awesome sequences, and on the remake they give the role to McLovin’? What? That never made sense to me! On top of all this, they completely exorcised the sequence in which Evil Ed turns into a werewolf! That sequence was one of the showstoppers in the original! On the remake they replaced this sequence with a battle between Charlie and Evil Ed. Yeah the sequence gets gory on this remake, they even chop off a couple of limbs and a head, but still, I would not have left out the werewolf transformation which was such a cool scene in the original. But whatever, the sequence we get on the remake isn’t bad at all, I’m glad that at least the scene they replaced it with is actually a bit gruesome. Bottom line though: Mintz Plasse as Evil Ed was a bad choice. But here’s the deal my friends: McLovin’ playing Evil Ed was the only real bad choice on this film as far as I’m concerned, everything else clicked.

Christopher Mintz Plasse as Evil Ed, Big Mistake! 

They did tone down the demonic looking faces of the vampires for this remake; yet I’m glad to say that they still managed to squeeze in some cool vampire make up effects and transformations. I can’t imagine why they would leave all these cool looking vampires out of the previews for the film since to me these are some of the biggest selling points for this film. I mean that’s what people want to see, freaking vampires! Show the people a glimpse of the vamps and their demonic visages and this will surely guarantee more seats in the movie theater. But no, apparently gruesomeness isn’t allowed in movie trailers these days. And the studio paid the price for it too, the bland looking trailer equaled low ticket sales. I remember the original exploited its gory aspects to the max in its marketing, including a music video that showcased lots of demonic looking vampires. Here's another funny thing about the original: back in 1985 it only cost a mere 9 million dollars to make! Man they really made the best out of their 'meager' budget! Now compare that with the remake. As it is, the remake underperformed in theaters . It had a 30 million budget yet it only made 18 million in  U.S. theaters, and a worldwide gross of 36.8 million, just barely making it's budget back. Sad part is that this remake's not a bad film at all. I blame the studios marketing, I mean, all promotional material for this film screams “blah” when in fact the movie was all kinds of fun. Did they purposely want this film to fail? Again, me thinks horror films are under attack by the powers that be.

This is not the poster for a vampire film, sorry!

Another big selling point for this film was Colin Farrell playing Jerry Dandridge, and here’s one thing that this remake got very, very right. Farrell was great as Dandridge, playing it cool and ominous. One awesome sequence has him interacting with Chris Sarandon, the original actor who played Jerry Dandridge, not gonna spoil it for you guys but that cameo was all sorts of fun. Speaking of Chris Sarandon, he went all the way with his portrayal of Jerry Dandridge, he wore extensive amounts of make up for his role and if you ask me it was all worth it, the result is one evil looking vampire!.He was charismatic as hell but also very evil when he had to be. Same goes for Colin Farrell’s portrayal of the character, though I wish they would have had the character looking more demonic for longer periods of time. Most of the time all we see is Colin Farrell looking like Colin Farrell except for a few seconds here and there where he completely vamps out. By the way, I loved seeing Jerry Dandridge’s demonic face up close and personal and in 3-D! That shot was freaking cool! At one moment in the film, they do this extreme close up of Jerry Dandridge’s fully vamped out face that was all kinds of awesome. But that was the only really stand out 3-D sequence. The 3-D element worked fairly well in a couple of instances, but it’s nothing to write home about.

New Amy vs. Old Amy, take your pick

The director behind the remake is one Craig Gillespie, the director behind films like Lars and the Real Girl (2007) and Mr. Woodcock (2007). Gillespie is not exactly the kind of director one would associate with a vampire film, especially not when we look at his filmography. There’s a couple of up and coming horror directors out there who would have made great choices for this one, but no, they went with Gillespie. To be honest, I don’t think he did a bad job at directing this one, the performances are decent and the film looks polished as hell. But I personally would’ve preferred a director with a horror background. So what if Ty West (House of the Devil), Eli Roth (Hostel I and II), David Slade (30 Days of Night) or Jim Mickle (Stake Land) could have directed this, no, give the film to the guy who did Lars and the Real Girl? What? That choice makes as much since as Tim Story (Barber Shop, Taxi) directing the Fantastic Four films. But whatever, Gillespie didn’t do a bad job, in fact, there’s this awesome standout sequence that takes place inside of a car as a vamped out Jerry Dandridge chases Charlie and family on his motorcycle, loved that sequence. It was all done in one continuous shot, a la Children of Men (2006). I’m just saying, someone with a horror background could have given the film that extra edge. I guess Hollywood was just playing it safe, same as they always do.

So my final verdict for this remake? Not bad, not bad at all. Like some of the best remakes, this one changed a couple of things around, brought some new things to the table while at the same time paying its respects to the original. Of course, there are some marked differences, most notable of all is how this remake managed to loose the spooky vibe that the original had, especially towards its ending. I remember on the original, when Peter and Charlie walk up to Jerry Dandridge’s house, the house looks like something straight out of the freaking Exorcist! Not so on this one. Final thoughts on the remake is that it’s good (I was expecting a disaster and got a fun vampire flick), but when it comes right down to it, the remake is NOT better than the original. The first one, though silly at times, still has more bite than the remake. Blame it on Hollywood’s ever increasing desire to water down horror films.

Rating for Fright Night (2011): 3 ½

Rating for Fright Night (1985): 5

All you ever wanted to know about the Fright Night Remake!

The original Fright Night (1985) was the horror film responsible for getting me to fall in love with horror movies. Well, it was Fright Night and the Nightmare on Elm Street Movies. But, before Fright Night, I used to be afraid of horror movies. I mean, I would be terrified of them to the point where I had nightmares! Or to the point that I couldn’t sleep right. So much so that when I saw the original Salem’s Lot on television (I must have been around 4 or five) for the longest time I had this incredible fear of seeing a vampire kid hovering outside my bed room window!

But it was with Fright Night (which I saw around the tender age of 11) that I learned to have fun with horror movies! It was all about those awesome make up effects! Yeah it was scary, but it was also fun. I also enjoyed the main characters. The nerdy and naïve Charlie Brewster befriending Peter Vincent, an aging actor living on memories of his glory days when he would kill vampires and monsters in films. I liked the friendship they created, I liked that Charlie’s friends and girlfriend are worried about him, and I just liked the chemistry between all of them.

Chris Sarandon was the perfect Jerry Dandridge. Deceptively charming all through out the film, until he grows some fangs and nails, then he becomes Charlie’s vampire neighbor. Nobody believes Charlie, not his mother, not his best friend, and not his girl. Everyone thinks he has a couple of screws loose from watching so many horror films late at night instead of studying his Trig.

In my opinion, the film is very well constructed, it moves along at just the right pace, it is never boring. The filmmakers also made a lot with very little. I remember reading an article on Fangoria magazine saying that Tom Holland (the original films director) had made “chicken salad out of chicken shit” in reference to the films budget which was a mere 9 million dollars, not really a whole lot when it comes to Hollywood films. But damn, for nine million bucks, they got away with a film that is very atmospheric and at times very funny. They got away with a film that has likable characters and excellent make up effects. The make up effects crew in charge of the look of the vampires and the creature effects are make up effects guys and gals that are not really that well known, but damn did they do a great job. Especially when it comes to a flying bat, a werewolf transformation and the make up effects of the vampires! I’ve always loved the way Amy looks when she is turned into a vampire. It’s the kind of make up effects that makes you wonder how it was done. The film went on to become one of the most memorable vampire flicks from the 80's. It is always mentioned as one of the best from that decade, along with The Lost Boys and Near Dark.

So now here comes this remake, which I’m kind of happy about, but at the same time kind of worried about. As expected, they have changed things around a bit. For example, they amped up the films budget considerably! And the cast is actually looking pretty good. I’m going to go through all the info I have so far on this new movie, just so you guys can get an idea of what to expect from it.

The remakes director Craig Gillespie

First things first: the remakes director is one Craig Gillespie. Not exactly a house hold name, but he has been responsible for two films that I have seen: Mr. Woodcock (2007) which felt like an attempt of Gillespie’s to do a money making commercial film. Mr. Woodcock barely made its budget back. Gillespie is also responsible for Lars and the Real Girl (2007) a film that was nominated for an Oscar for best screenplay, but failed to win that year. Still, the film was nominated for and won many other awards. What worries me about Gillespie is that he isn’t exactly well known for making horror films. In fact this will be his first. Also, he is not a director who is known for working on fx heavy films either, and if this remake sticks to the original, then it should be an effects heavy film. So these facts have me on the fence as far as the director of this remake goes. But I’m giving the guy the benefit of the doubt, Gillespie will probably have the best special effects houses at his disposal. After all, the film is being produced by Dreamworks, they aren’t exactly known for meager budgets. Speaking of budgets, Gillespie will have 17 million at his disposal to make this film. That’s a whole 8 million dollars more than the original. Let’s hope that will be enough for a good remake.

The writer of this remake will be Marti Noxon. I know, I know, you probably never heard of her either. But that’s probably because this is her first stab at writing a screenplay for a feature film. She’s worked a lot on tv though. She’s written for Mad Men, Gray’s Anatomy, Still Life and many more. But what probably got her this gig was the fact that she’d written many episodes for Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. I enjoyed a couple of episodes of Angel (actually I got hooked on it!) so I’m hoping she will do a good job with this remake.

So, what’s the cast looking like? What I’m going to do is I’ll post a pick of the actor who portrayed the character on the first film, and then I’ll show a pic of the actor playing the same character on the remake, so you’ll get an idea of what to expect, cast wise.

William Ragsdale in Fright Night (1985)

Charlie Brewster: On the original Charlie Brewster was played by William Ragsdale. His character is a nerdy teenager who has just discovered that his next door neighbor is a vampire. He tries to convince everyone of what’s happening, but nobody believes him. That probably has a lot to do with the vampire charming the pants out of everyone, even his mother! But the vampire isn’t that charming at all. He has turned Charlie’s best friend into a vampire and has fallen in love and kidnapped Charlie’s girlfriend as well. What is Charlie to do? Will he ever get his best friend or his girlfriend back? And who’s going to help him?

The new Charlie Brewster 

Who plays Charlie in the remake? Anton Yelchin, whom some of you might remember from starring in Terminator Salvation (2009) Most recently he played Chekov in the Star Trek reboot. I think he is perfect for the role; Yelchin seems fragile, nerdy and vulnerable, perfect traits for a Charlie Brewster.

Roddy McDowall as Peter Vincent on the original Fright Night

Peter Vincent: On the original Fright Night Peter Vincent (the great vampire killer!) was played by Roddy McDowall. Peter Vincent is an aging actor on his last legs, he lives mostly remembering his glory days when he starred in old horror films. He survives by hosting a horror movie t.v. show. The show is called Fright Night. Unfortunately, the show has just been cancelled! So when Charlie and his friends offer Peter a couple of bucks in order to kill their vampire neighbor, he accepts. He thinks its all part of a prank, but he soon discovers that it’s all too true. Their neighbor really is a vampire! Peter Vincent is used to killing vampires in his films, but he must know face vampires for real! Will he have the courage to do it?

The new Peter Vincent

Who plays Peter in the remake? David Tenant, some of you might recognize him from the new Dr. Who television series. This is one of the characters that has suffered the most changes. Instead of being an aging television host, on this remake Peter Vincent is actually an illusionist! Vegas style! Something along the lines of David Copperfield or David Blane. Actually, he’s more of a Chris Angel because his magic show is called “Fright Night” and his illusions are based on old horror movies. So that’s a cool element to it. Also, as you can see, Peter Vincent is no longer an old man living on memories of his former glory.

Chris Sarandon in one of his most memorable roles as Jerry Dandridge

Jerry Dandridge: This is the main villain of the film. Sarandon played Dandridge as a man who is irresistible to women. One look from his hypnotic eyes and that’s all it takes, they are immediately in his power. He has just moved into the neighborhood and his main purpose is to suck the town dry! (Not that it would be much of a loss..) Problem comes when Charlie Brewster (his next door neighbor) discovers that he is a vampire. He doesn’t see it as much of a threat, cause who’s going to believe a nerdy teenager? Especially when his story involves vampires? Nobody that’s who! Dandridge than falls in love with Charlie’s girlfriend and kidnaps her. Will he manage to turn her into his lover? And into a vampire as well?

Jerry Dandridge (2011)

Who’s playing Jerry Dandridge on the Remake? Collin Farrell. I think Farrell has what it takes to make a great Jerry Dandridge. I am actually most curious to see how this character turns out in this remake. It’s the one character who can make or break the film, lets hope he nails it.

Amanda Bearse as Amy Peterson in Fright Night (1985)

Amy Peterson: This character was played by Amanda Bearse on the original film. She is the girl starving for more attention from his boyfriend, who seems to only think about horror movies and vampires. She thinks Charlie is going a little coo-coo in the head from watching so many horror movies. She is actually the one who pays Peter Vincent to convince Charlie that there are no such things as vampires. Too bad she is dead wrong! Dandridge falls head over heals for her, because she actually reminds him of a love of his from eons ago. Will Dandridge manage to turn Amy into a vampire? Will Charlie rescuer her in time? Survey says: No chance in hell!

The new Amy? Sure! Why the hell not!

Who Plays Amy in the remake? Imogen Poots. I haven’t heard much of Imogen Poots, but that’s just because she’s an up and coming actress. She’s got the looks though, and she’s definitely a one up on Amanda Bearse. Poot’s has some experience in horror films, she was seen a couple of years ago in the excellent zombie film 28 Weeks Later (2007).

‘Evil’ Ed Thompson: Evil was played on the original by Stephen Geoffrey's. Geoffrey's portrayal of Evil Ed is actually one of the more memorable things about the original. He played the character in a very wacky, evil and crazy fashion. At first he is Charlie Brewster’s best friend. He is also a very knowledgeable dude when it comes to horror movies and vampires. He is kind of nerdy, and gets picked on in school a lot. He thinks Charlie has gone crazy with all these vampire stories, so he takes it all as a joke. “There are no such things as vampires you fruit cake!” he says at one point. He genuinely believes that, until he comes face to face with Jerry Dandridge himself! Will ‘Evil’ crossover to the dark side of the force? Survey says: Yes siree!

  Evil Ed will get some McLovin

Who Plays ‘Evil’ on the remake? Christopher Mintz Plasse. Yeah, McLovin is playing Evil. I mean, he isn’t my favorite choice, but he is appropriately geeky looking which goes with the character. That’s about all I can say about Mintz playing evil, I just hope he can do the character justice. I don’t see Mintz being that menacing as a vampire, but I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

Charlies spaced out mom, not entirely in tune with whats going on in the universe

Judy Brewster (Charlies Mom): On the original, this character was played by an actress known as Dorothy Fielding. This character isn’t all that important on the original, she appears only a few times, but her portrayal is that of a ditzy mom who is never really aware of anything that’s going on. She is living in the clouds, and when Charlie tells her that her next door neighbor is a vampire all she does is offer Charlie some hot cocoa. Jerry Dandridge woos her, so he can get closer to Charlie, cause he knows that Charlie knows.

Charlies new mom

Who plays Judy Brewster on the remake? Toni Collete. Some of you might remember Toni Collete as the mom in Little Miss Sunshine. I wonder if they’ll beef up this character for the remake or leave her as a secondary one? I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

Finally, we have a new character in the film! This new character does not appear in the original at all, it was completely made up for the remake. The character’s name is ‘Virgin’ and she will be played by Sandra Vergara. She is going to be playing Peter Vincent’s assistant magician in his magic show. All I can says is YOWZA!

Peter Vincent sure is moving on up with an assitant like this!

So that’s it my friends, that’s all the info I have on this new remake. How do you feel about it? Is it sounding like something you’d want to see? For your info, this movie is going to be premiering on Oct 17 2011, perfect movie for seeing on Halloween! Actually, I always play the original on Halloween, people seem to always stay stuck to the screen whenever a vampire shows up. Lets hope this new remake lives up to the awesomeness of the original. I leave you with the first pic of Dave Tennant as Peter Vincent. What do you guys think? Comment below and let me know!