BRYAN SAYS...![]() As an avid horror fan, I'll admit that it is a bit peculiar that I've avoided seeing the classic Fright Night until now. I'm not sure what was so off-putting about it- it might have been the fact that few 'classics' live up to their statuses, and the somewhat terrible DVD cover.
Then, a remake came out - and received surprisingly decent press. I found myself suddenly drawn back to Fright Night, excited to watch it as part of the annual IMDb October Horror Movie Challenge. Electricity built as I slipped the DVD into my drive... ...and then it started. For the first twenty minutes or so, I was charmed by its campiness, goofiness, and B-grade special effects. The lack of acting talent was acceptable as well, since that's an issue prominent in most '80s horror staples. Then, after a half-hour, forty minutes...I started to get weary of it. At some point, Friday the 13th and other senseless gore-fests find some redeeming qualities, but Fright Night failed to do so. Most people acclaim the movie due to its tongue-in-cheek humorous look at other horror films. However, I'm calling complete werewolf-poo on this. This is a fanboy's way of covering for a cheesy movie - the movie was not self aware, and in my opinion, it wasn't meant to be. Unfortunately, Fright Night will only suffice if you catch a screening in the middle of the night, and you feel comfortable dozing in and out knowing you won't miss anything. Seeking the movie out for thrills and laughs...would be a mistake. I'm going to give Fright Night a frightful 2 pumps of butter. Rewatch Value: Zzzzz. | EMILY SAYS...![]() Until the new Fright Night came out earlier this summer, I wasn't even aware that the 1985 Fright Night existed--let alone that it is one of those cult horror films that avid horror fans must see. Going into the film, then, I not only didn't know what to expect, but also didn't know much about the great following and ratings the film possesses.
Finding that out now, after seeing the film, my only reaction is one of complete confusion. I'm not one to dislike campy horror films. In fact, I readily admit to thoroughly enjoying The Craft. But this one was just too much for me. The plot follows teenage horror buff Charley Brewster as he witnesses suspicious activity at his new neighbor's house and immediately jumps to one conclusion: that his seemingly charming neighbor Jerry is a vampire. Alone in his belief and scorned by many who he tries to enlist to help him, Charley turns to television's best vampire slayer Peter Vincent, and the two embark on a journey to discover the truth about Jerry. While the plot itself is similar to those seen in Rear Window and Disturbia, Fright Night fails to produce as many scares or screams as either film. For Night neither generates suspense slowly like Rear Window nor produces true terror like Disturbia. Instead, it spends three fourths of the film simply following its frustrated protagonist around as he tries to convince his friends and family that Jerry is a vampire. And this wouldn't be too bad if any of the actors were good. Or decent. Or more talented than a performing monkey. Both William Ragsdale (Charley) and Amanda Bearse (Amy) are one-note actors whose stale characters come across as obnoxious--making me cheer for their potential deaths rather than cry. Roddy McDowall couldn't be more over the top as Peter Vincent, and Chris Sarandon's Jerry is as lifeless as the vampire he portrays. The Razzie, though, goes to Stephen Geoffreys as Evil Ed. His acting surpasses annoying and moves into unbearable within the first two seconds of his entrance. The ridiculous 'score,' if one can call it that, is the only thing on the same horrible caliber as Geoffreys, and it made even the best moments in the film humorous. So, while it may mean that I may never be able to claim the title of a horror movie buff, I have to say that Fright Night wasn't so much horror as it was horrible. I give Fright Night 2 pumps of butta. Rewatch Value: Not unless I'm in the mood for a good laugh. |