Just to make it clear, I've seen both the 1986 and the 2011 versions within the same time frame. And I will be as biased as possible (aside from David Tennant as Peter Vincent...I cannot personally be biased on that one).
Premise: A teenager (Charley) realizes his next door neighbor is a vampire (Jerry). He has a mom, a girlfriend (Amy), a friend (Ed) and there is a TV personality vampire killer (Peter Vincent).
1986: Charley comes to realize that his next door neighbor is a vampire and enlists in the police and TV icon Peter Vincent, Vampire Killer, to help him. The next door neighbor, Jerry, lives with a roommate and threatens Charley to leave him alone. When Peter Vincent, Charley's girlfriend, Amy, and a highschool friend, Ed, conjure up a plan to convince Charley that Jerry is human, Jerry complies to this plan. However, they soon realise he is in fact a vampire and Jerry must rid all lose ends.
2011: Charley has rid himself of his dorky old friends and picked up a new popular set of friends and "hot" girlfriend, Amy. After the recent disapearance of one of his former best friends, his other former best friend, brings to light that the next door neighbor is a vampire. Charley then sets up to keep his mom and girlfriend from being bitten while trying to enlist the help of TV personality, Peter Vincent.
In the original, the characters have a little more heart. I very much prefer the original Amy to the remake for reasons that she is just much more genuine and wide-eyed to the experience. Both Jerry's played by Chris Sarandon (original) and Colin Ferrell (remake) have their strengths and weaknesses. Sarandon played it with vulnerability, class and sincerity while Ferrell was macho, guarded and powerful. The characters who play Amy both have their strengths and weaknesses as well. In the original, Amy is cautious about losing her virginity to Charley whereas the remake Amy is more of the sex and party type of girl. Both girls are charmed by Jerry but in much different ways. In the remake, their interaction is not as blind forced and seems to be much more emotional. And the characters of Ed? Both actors ("McLovin'" plays Ed in the remake) are pretty similar. They both have the nerdy attitude and voice. They both stake a soft spot in your heart for them but the remake's Ed is more vulnerable while the original is more skeptic. I also probably should mention Charley. The original is more likeable because I feel the remake version is classic "douchebag". The guy who drops his friends just so he can have a "hot" girlfriend and popular friends. However, they both seem to be good guys. The original characters seem to have more heart (with the exception of Ed in the remake who has just as much heart).
Now, on to Peter Vincent. Roddy McDowell (original) and David Tennant (remake) are vastly different. To compare the two would hinder the artists' credibility. McDowell is an older gentleman who hosts a nightly horror film hour where he claims to be a vampire slayer, however, in real life he is genuinely just an actor. He has a heart. Tennant is a different sort of Peter Vincent; while I refuse to ever admitting someone else could have done the job, Russell Brand seems to have a similar correlation with the remake's Peter Vincent. Tennant plays a Peter Vincent who is a Chris Angel-like actor on a horror show in Las Vegas. He bares resemblence to Russell Brand in his leather pants, long black hair, tattoos and piercings--which easily transforms him from his true identity of a skinny man with short (not ginger) brown hair and no amount of piercings or tattoos (couldn't tell if his accent was David Tennant's real Scottish accent or something British). His character is one hooked on Midori and collecting ancient artifacts from Ebay. Visibly scared of real vampires, he has a back story that is briefly mentioned but not touched on. However, this Peter Vincent does have a heart deep down even if it might be buried under selfishness. David Tennant is the comedic relief in this campy horror film.
Original
Pros: Characters, heart, development, campy fun, character of Amy, scary transformations, Amy/Jerry,
Cons: quick storyline, slow scenes, confusing roommate
Remake
Pros: David Tennant's performance, Collin Ferrell, 3D, campy fun, cameo, character of Ed, more story development/backstory, jumpy
Cons: Weaker characters of the 2 films, it's a remake
The films are not super scary. The remake is shown primarily in 3D (it was near impossible to get to the 2D showings so I opted for the easier route). It doesn't need to be 3D with the exception of a few jumpy parts which shows the cheesy side of 3D gags in addition to a very well done scene in the van (which reminds you of a 4D attraction, which I loved). The movies are strong to go with "campy" because they can. They're trademark cult classics--at least the original is. We'll see how the remake fares with today's generation. The movies are not all about gore and fear but they do well to play into your good old-fashion jumps and scares. It's the kind of movie where you know you're going to sit for two hours feeling that simple fear go through your stomach. You're not shielding your eyes or gagging at the grotesque nature. It's the simple fun of vampires and late-night TV before everyone tried to outstage one another.
Would I go see it again? Well, I own the dvd of the original, now. And I've debated on going to see the remake again but just purely for David Tennant's scenes (not enough of them are on youtube) and some good two-hour fun.
Would I buy it? I have the original. The remake is one I'd definitely rent or save to my dvr. Jury's still out on whether or not I'd spend $15-25 to own the movie for home viewings.
Would I recommend it? Depends who I'm suggesting it to. Fans of Twilight? No but that's just me. Fans of horror? Yes, it's one you need to see. Fans of movies? Yes, it's one to see. Fans of Doctor Who? DEFINITELY! Because although it is not a movie about Peter Vincent or David Tennant. It is the highlight of the film and by far my favorite reason to watch this film.
Rating: Original-6/10. Remake-6/10. For various reasons but that's my thoughts for now. Ask me when I've rewatched them.
"A Pebble, Really?"
ReplyDeleteAug. 25th, 2011 at 9:02 AM
Mirror
"I'm like a good date. Get me drunk and I'll try anything"
So, we went out and saw Fright Night last night. Aside from a limited number of jumpy situations, the only real fun part about 3D was when you're in the van and Jerry is chasing you. It's much like a ride you would participate in at Universal Studios except your seat doesn't shake or move with the actions. The audio and visual are spot-on 4-D. Mostly, I would say don't really bother wtih the 3D because aside from the ash and some scary jumps, you're not missing much at all...that is, if you can even find it in 2D. I saw it in 3D because of the 2 theaters that were airingi it in my area, the only times to see it in 2D was at 10am and midnight. So, 3D it was but as a whole, it was not made for 3D primarily. The film played well to being part scary, party comical. At this moment, I cannot relate it to the original 80's film because I don't remember much about it. I plan on watching it tonight...or maybe watch some DW instead and Fright Night later this week. Either way, I'll give you a report later. But, good movie overall. Great waste of my night even though I lacked severe sleep thanks to the late showing. It's one of those films to get your mind out of the real world and enjoy something different for two hours. No awards, nothing new. But good.
I knew I'd see it for D.T., if for nothing else.
"Don't do anything I wouldn't do...well...that's not much. That about narrows it down to mini golf and sushi"