What We Liked and Didn’t Like About the Fright Night Remake
It’s like the 1990s and 2000s never happened!
- Another week, another remake of a 1980s flick! As someone once said it is as if Hollywood is deciding which movies to make by flipping through their DVD collection!
- This remake isn’t bad, but not as good as its 74% approval rating on RottenTomatoes.com might lead you believe. Closer to 60% perhaps . . .
- Colin Farrell’s vampire next door isn’t too inconspicuous. Wouldn’t it make sense to feed off people from other neighborhoods instead of the one where he lives? Besides, how many people are NOT going to notice when Colin Farrell moves in right next door to them?
- Funny how times have changed: Peter Vincent (David Tennant, former Doctor Who) is now a David Copperfield-like Vegas act instead of a washed-up TV actor. Colin Farrell’s vampire is more like a Calvin Klein poster boy than Chris Sarandon’s Love at First Bite-style lounge lizard.
- Maybe Hollywood should rethink their remake strategy. Either the public is getting tired of remakes or can’t remember the original movies anymore, but Fright Night scored only $18 million at the U.S. box office . . . and it cost $30 million to make! Considering marketing costs and the cinemas’ cut of ticket sales, it isn’t exactly a good payday for the studio even with DVD sales and TV rights are calculated into the mix over time. (Everybody’s going to rip the thing off the Internet in any case.) Along with The Thing it is yet another low-profile 1980s remake box office bomb!
- The original movie made more money than the remake: $24, 9 million (USA). And that’s not adjusting it for inflation!
- This remake gets right to the action and doesn’t waste too much time on the whole boy crying vampire and no-one believing him shtick.
- Is it me or did the original have more comedy bits than this one?
- Maybe this remake bombed because of its iffy poster art work. Compare the original movie’s poster to the remake below. Which movie would you rather see?