Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Fright Night (2011) vs Fright Night (1985)

Mr. Scot

By Mr. Scot,
in Huddle Lounge

Recommended Posts

Sapper Explorer

Sapper

Posted
Posted

I loved the first Fright Night (soundtrack easily wins over the 2) and made the mistake of watching the 2nd one in 3D which was way too dark with the glasses.

Acting in the remake was better though IMO. Overall though (being a big horror fan) I thought the 2nd stacked up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Inimicus Mentor

Inimicus

Posted
Posted

I loved the original. One of my all time favorite movies.

That said I thought the second one was different enough that comparisons of the two were like trying to compare Tim Burton's Batman to Chris Nolan's Batman.

I very much enjoyed the new Fright Night and was quite pleased to see Mr Sarandon make an appearance.

Even though I would put the first one higher on my all time favorites list, its mainly for nostalgic reasons. The second one is a better movie I think when judged by the metrics you list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
XClown1986 Proficient

XClown1986

Posted
Posted

Love the original Fright Night. The remake had its moments but ultimately ended up like the Friday the 13th remake, almost too modern and lacked a good flowing story. Lots of flash, but nothing that sticks with you.

Also I hated the way they handled Evil Ed's character in the remake. He is easily the most interesting and sympathetic character in the original film and could have been so in the remake but the film got lazy. *Spoilers* I hated that Charlie just killed Ed, like flat out staked the guy knowing that he could turn him back like everyone else. Instead he burned his friend again (after ditching him to be more popular) without much of a sense of remorse. Made the Charlie character less likeable in my opinion, because unlike the original film, he isn't a true dynamic character. I did like the new take on Jerry Dandridge (Colin Farrell is surprising me with his range lately with Horrible Bosses and now this).

All in all I am biased. The original kicks ass, even if some of the acting is kind of cheesy. The remake is good for a once over, but not multiple viewings in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Scot Grand Master

Mr. Scot

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I think I actually like the new one better overall.

The leads look way more like actual teenagers than the original did.

Colin Farrell's subtle creepiness is a better take than the original characterization.

Evil Ed looks more like a real kid rather than a cartoon character.

The ending is way more badass in this one.

And, much as I like Roddy McDowall, I actually think David (Doctor Who) Tennant's constant F-bomb dropping Peter Vincent was a better character than McDowall's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • tukafan21
      Scourton isn't signed (& apparently it's a thing)

      By tukafan21 · Posted

      Right, so basically what I said in my first post about this last night. Tepper needs to use that big wallet of his in one of the few ways it can be used in the NFL given the cap.   Give Scourton a bigger signing bonus but not a fully guaranteed deal. Everyone wins in that scenario as if Scourton is smart and hires good money people, he'll take that bigger signing bonus and use it to make more money in the end over the next 4 years than if he just had his fully guaranteed deal and a smaller signing bonus.
    • Basbear
      Panthers Wideout Retreat - TMac Vlog

      By Basbear · Posted

      Im super jelly. 
    • Basbear
      Scourton isn't signed (& apparently it's a thing)

      By Basbear · Posted

      It is all confusing and layered. SB is the cash you get very soon within weeks or in simple terms, its what you get to sign the paper work. Players and agents can agree on contract but what to "wait" to sign......teams don't like that cause you can "Carlos Boozer" yourself. In order to get that ink dry, while keeping the contract the same, portion it as a bonus to "sign" and get the funds with ________ .   * But Ive seen worded contracts that split the SB or a 20% to a later date. The beans counters can fill in the details about why certain dates are better and save the team money.. Theres tricks to the trade and accounting is full of them.    Ugh another big layer, is SB can be used to manipulate cap and players. Ill try to give a example that makes enough sense. Believe it or not having a owner like Tepper is a cheat code for this. He has cash in hand, where as Mark Davis had problem making pay roll and had to move the team to Vegas....... Tepper can give you 100,000,000 SB right now and the team can spread out the cap hit. Another owner doesn't have or want to give the player 100,000,000 in cash, but offered the same guaranteed contract in roster bonuses fully guaranteed over the next few years........ Which one do you want??? Everyone wants the money now, not before another inflation waves hits in 2 years. So it does 'pay" to have a owner like tepper that's able to have real cash on hand, while it also works GREAT for cap help. Heres a good video, if you can stand coked up pat and mask look-a-like AJ    
×
×
  • Create New...