After a mysterious stranger moves into his neighborhood, a teen and his friends accidentally stumble upon his terrifying secret about being a vampire and recruits a famous vampire hunter to try to stop the trail of carnage left behind and his friends become the next target.This was a surprisingly decent enough affair that wasn't really all that bad with some good points to it. Among the better parts here is the absolutely fun storyline throughout here that does compare favorably against the original since the ruse is discovered early on. This has a lot of rather fun antics that really push this along, from their initial meeting that clues him, the strange way he continually creeps around the neighborhood to pop up at exactly the wrong time or the few behavioral ticks that give him away which all go wrapped together alongside the previously-discovered videotapes that all help to give this one the work needed to fully reveal the ruse. Beyond this, the scenes stalking around the house where he has to free the captive inside and her eventual fate not only gives this one yet another charge for the ruse yet also features quite a really suspenseful sequence to help build that section more beyond the friendly scenes. There's a lot to come off of that in its action in here, from the house destruction and eventual high-speed chase along the highway that has a lot to like about it during their various chases and encounters with him to the battle in the office that includes some nice stalking scenes through the endless rows of artifacts stored away or battling the creatures in the panic room. As well, this here has the final assault on the underground hideout with all the turned victims providing enough of a battle to allow for some big action moments before the one-on-one confrontation, which is rather entertaining in its own right as there's some rather fun fighting here with their contraptions and some decent enough gore scenes to make it interesting. Along with the vampire makeup and gore, this is a pretty good effort with a lot to like although there are a few problematic elements here. The film's biggest flaw is the fact that the ruse is found out far too early and far too easily, since there's little investigation required to find out his true identity and it's all out in the open with such little push- back or need to look further into who he is which makes for some questionable storyline points. Along with this effort, the film also manages to stumble somewhat in it's CGI which is rather cheesy and clumsy throughout here as there are some exceptionally weak shots in here. The fact that so many of them are due to the wounds inflicted upon him which is quite obvious due to his spastic movements and disorienting behavior during the attacks, and along with the transformation scenes and use of blood and gore all just make for a rather flawed experience. These do knock it down somewhat but not enough to lower it overall.Rated R: Graphic Language and Graphic Violence.

At the time it came out, a remake of Fright Night seemed like one of those unnecessary movies - what was so wrong with the Tom Holland original, which gave us a subtle/over-the-top performance from Chris Sarandon and some cheeky humor from Roddy McDowell as a vampire named Jerry and the would-be 'celebrity' vampire hunter? Did it need an update? But upon the sudden and to put it mildly tragic death of Anton Yelchin, I thought it was certainly time to watch it. And among a cast that features really major talents like Colin Farrell, David Tennant and Toni Collette, Yelchin holds his own. More than that, he is necessary for the movie to work: he has to be believable as a young guy who starts off somewhat unsympathetic (trying to be 'cool' by ditching his nerdy friend for an attractive girl), and over the course of the story has to man up and not do what his dad did, which was ditch the family behind.Yelchin plays the 'straight man' to a point where we can find him believable as being both completely scared and yet ballsy enough to go for what he has to go through to save and protect the ones he cares about - his mother and then, when she's taken by this 'Jerry' fella, Amy - and it's interesting to see this *after* Green Room, where he played a somewhat similar character though in a different setting (actually substitute Nazis for vampires and you got a somewhat similar premise, with Yelchin as the vulnerable but strong-willed and tough protagonist). If you've ever liked this actors work, this is a must-see of his.Looking at 2011 Fright Night on its own terms, outside of viewing it as some kind of after the fact thing for Yelchin, it's... good. Better than expected, really, as far as these kind of remakes can go (in other hands it could be easily disposable trash like Sorority Row or something). With Yelchin there as the main core for the audience to put their 'what would I do if' perspective on, Farrell and, in the second half of the film, Tennant get to have the time of their lives in these roles. Farrell is so evil he even eats an apple to show off how much of a nasty fella he is! Though it may not possibly require, shall one say, 'range', it takes real screen presence and a sense of menace, and I think Farrell makes this a memorable vampire as far as a) sex appeal (I mean, women and some men wouldn't kick him out of bed), and b) when he gets nasty and violent, the threat feels real. For Tennant, it's not a complicated character either - a fraud of a "vampire hunter" who is mostly for Las Vegas show - but he also gets to have fun in the role and can deliver exposition that is not in the least boring or distracting. And Toni Collette is... Toni Collette, good in all of her scenes. Even McLovin' and Dave Franco give some good supporting turns, turning cliché parts into something with personality.At any rate these characters are put into a setting that is rather novel: having it in/around Las Vegas makes it so that it's believable that people would be out and about largely at night, being the primary time vampires get their food. I liked seeing that and that it was used to good effect. Where the movie loses me most is in certain parts of the execution of the action. I don't know if it's because I'm tired of wasteful or lackluster CGI, but any time Farrell or any of the other vampires "Fully turn" (which doesn't seem to have a lot of logic, it only seems to occur when they're extra mad) it looks really bad and fake, and a particular over the top car chase, which is attempted in part in one "long" take ala Spielberg's War of the Worlds (no coincidence I think it's a Dreamworks production, the setting and lack of/absentee father seem like Spielberg notes). Practical effects could have taken more time or been more intensive, but the results would last longer and not take one out of the movie like here.If one can look at the substance of Fright Night it does work - the screenplay comes from Buffy the Vampire Slayer creative Marti Noxon, and the sense of whip-smart timing in the dialog and come-backs about how people look at vampires is especially funny, even from Peter Vincent most of all - and is a fitting tribute to the original. That film had a little more deadpan wit due to McDowell as Peter Vincent, though it too had some dated things as well (maybe in a cool way) like 80's synth music. Will this hold up so well? I don't know. But for what it is, it's entertaining and successful for being bloody (it looks as if the blood is not all CGI which is good) and knowing of the genre (it's self-conscious of vampire lore and movies, but it doesn't wear you out on it like the other 2011 post-modern horror, Scre4m)

A lot of people have slammed this for not being true to the first one, but I think that's the good part of it. Its like a good song cover, it takes the original and doesn't just copy cat it, it changes a few things, gives it a personal twist, without totally destroying the integrity of the original. There are a lot of connections that were made obvious, but not ridiculously obvious. The biggest difference between them is this one is more vampire, and less love. If you're expecting a love story, or seduction, watch the original. That is the biggest difference - Jerry uses Amy, Jerry doesn't love Amy.This was a fun, updated version, which - I thought - made more sense than the first. It had more back story, anyway, so you understood why Jerry chose that neighborhood, and not just "oh a vampire moved in randomly." Sarandon's Jerry was like a 1980's GQ mag highlighting sweater fashion. Sideways glances in half lighting and talk of love and pain constantly. I was always more afraid of his little friend, who seemed more devious. Collin Farrel is definitely more menacing and believable as a shrewd killer vampire. Sometimes he is uneasy and jittery, followed by a relaxed "cool" and it keeps it uncomfortable in a good way. And his "animal" responses are unexpected, natural, and appreciated. The rest of the cast was also excellent, I thought. The real star is easily David Tennant who is hilarious, and you have to love him. Christopher Mintz-Plasse twist on "Evil" was good and believable, I felt much more for him than I did in the first movies. I really never "got" Evil in the first movie, but this one makes him much more real and not just an obnoxious hyperactive sidekick. Imogen Poots' "Amy" was such an improvement on the first movie's Amy who was SO whiny and annoying.If you watch movies specifically for special effects, you can pass on this one. The effects are not good. Bad CGI. And some things, in retrospect don't make much sense - and I think those things are mainly the character's responses. I kept thinking "why is he not more upset about this?" or "why didn't someone notice this?" or "Really - no one is questioning this??" BUT, the movie itself is pretty good and if you overlook the bad effects and the unrealistic lack of concern sometimes, you'll probably like it and have fun watching it. You had to have some kind of ability to overlook stupidity to watch the first one anyway, right?

Okay let me start off by saying this movie is kick ass and way superior to the 1985 version. For one instead of the movie being cliché and have the family move into a bad neighborhood(Fright Night 1985), the family is moving into a bad neighborhood. Secondly, Collin Farrell as the Vampire in this movie was like the greatest thing to happen to this movie instead of the boring/Emotionless vampire in Fright Night 1985. Thirdly, this movie has really great acting throughout the film. There was not one actor who I hated in this film. Fourthly, this movie is so damn scary and suspenseful but is also really funny at times, unlike the 1985 version where I was not laughing, scared or even feeling a bit of suspense. All in all, this movie is the superior Fright Night film and I had a lot of fun with it. I would definitely recommend this and watch it over and over again!:)