Yes, it’s another horror movie remake review. Obviously, remakes are continuing to be made today, but just going through what has been available on streaming has reminded me how many big franchises—particularly from the 80s—were remade between the years of 2008 and 2015. I wasn’t really interested in seeing these remakes because I assumed they would all be soulless retellings of the movies with just some CGI window dressing. In some cases, I was right with remakes of The Thing and A Nightmare on Elm Street. However, there were moves like Evil Dead that were faithful to their source material and managed to capture the elements of the original that made it special, while also telling a new story that didn’t stray far from what needed to happen. I was against remakes in general back in the early 2000s, but I’ve since given up my animosity for just being hopeful that a remake is able to be its own thing in a new era and still manage to be consistent with the original story. So, with my hopeful nature, I decided to watch the Fight Night remake as it has been mentioned multiple times in YouTube best-of lists as one of the better horror remakes of recent memory.

Pros

Decent acting from the cast
Manages to keep the core details of the original while still telling its own story
Characters don’t come across as dumb or unsympathetic

Cons

CGI effects are dated and look bad
End of the antagonist was a little confusing

Plot & Thoughts

Much like the original Fright Night, the core plot points are centered around a teenager named Charley Brewster in a small suburban neighborhood who believes a vampire named Jerry has moved in next door, so he seeks out the help of an eccentric famous person named Peter Vincent to help him kill the vampire. The difference here is that the character archetypes have been changed around to tell a new story in the same vein.

While the original protagonist was a horror movie geek who was immediately suspicious of his neighbor, Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin) in this is a nerd who has been trying to mature and become more of a lady’s man in high school. He’s not immediately suspicious of his neighbor, it’s only after his friend Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) tries to convince him of this and then goes missing. Likewise the celebrity of this movie, Peter Vincent (David Tennant) is different. The original Peter Vincent, played by Roddy McDowall, was a late-night horror movie host who was just as skeptical of the vampire theory as everyone else. In fact, he was extremely reluctant to believe Charley up until the end. The Peter Vincent of this movie is a Las Vegas magician akin to Chris Angel who has actually encountered a vampire in his past, so he’s far more willing to believe Charley, even if he’s still unwilling to help until the finale.

Essentially, Fright Night from 2011 manages to be consistent with the original’s plot, while changing around the characters and telling a new story. This one focuses less on the idea that no one believes Charley’s accusations about his neighbor, especially when the warning signs get difficult to ignore. As a result, the characters come across as smarter than your average horror character. The deaths of characters don’t feel as unavoidable or needless, and the moments in which everyone is trying to escape Jerry the vampire (Colin Farrell) feel harrowing as they work together to survive. I was rooting for all of them, including Jerry because Colin Farrell, despite how he said the role was difficult, managed to add a level of charisma to the character that was similar to Chris Sarandon.

All that being said, to say that this was a masterpiece of a remake is a stretch. I still liked it overall, and I like how it was able to separate itself from the 1985 film, while still staying true to the material. But it still doesn’t manage to feel necessary. I don’t mean to insinuate that a remake must be necessary to be good. I mean that if the original didn’t exist, this would be a perfectly good vampire movie, but since the original does exist, it’s difficult for me to opt to watch this one instead.

Counter examples to this would include remakes like John Carpenter’s The Thing, or Invasion of the Body Snatchers from 1978, or The Blob from 1988, or even Evil Dead from 2013. Each of these remakes do enough different from the originals that they manage to stand out in ways that make them a good alternative watch. The Thing from Another World is a much different film from Carpenter’s and, likewise, The Blob movies are vastly different from each other in tone and style, giving a wildly different experience. Invasion of the Body Snatchers and the other remakes are all more similar to each other, but they explore alternative themes and ideas, and they have their own style to give their own unique experience.

There’s certainly some charm to this Fight Night. The action scenes are exciting to some extent, though not as much as the original. There are some decent moments of comedy and I think each actor, regardless of the significance of their role, brings a lot to the table. It’s just not enough to make me choose to watch this over the original. Part of the problem is the special effects of this are just terrible in comparison to the make-up practical effects of the 1980s. Even the small things like CGI fangs look crappy. It’s much more problematic in the scene in which Jerry is lit on fire and the CGI is just thrusted into your face.

Computer-generated effects have thankfully gotten a lot better since this came out, but the era of movies that used it between the 90s and the mid-teens is going to be looked back on with sneers and shame. It was just so clear that the technology wasn’t there yet and it’s a shame that the talents of geniuses like Stan Winston, Rick Baker, or Tom Savini were discarded in favor of special effects that would age so poorly. I’m not saying I wouldn’t watch this Fright Night again, just that I will probably watch the original or some other remakes that I prefer.

TL;DR

Fright Night from 2011 is a fun retelling of the original horror film from 1985. It manages to be different enough to have its own identity, while still maintaining consistency with the original that would satisfy some fans. The actors do a great job and some of whom look like they’re having a good time with their roles. However, the CGI has aged extremely poorly and I just can’t see myself choosing to watch this movie in place of the original under any circumstances.

Dagon Dogs Posts