There's my review! Thank you and goodnight.
Well... I'd like to write a spoiler-free review, so we'll see how this goes. Craig Gillespie's Fright Night, coming out today in theaters nation-wide, is a remake of the 1985 film with Chris Sarandon and Roddy McDowall. So in that respect, I'm not sure how much can be considered spoilers seeing as the movie has been out for so long already. ANYWAY. I've never seen the original so I went into this film with only my low expectations. Because honestly, the trailers were not very impressive. And I'm the kind of movie-goer now that avoids trailers and preview images like the plague. I don't want other people's impressions to ruin me before I see a film.
Yet here I am doing that very thing.
So I'll just tell you what I think worked and what didn't work.
Visuals: I'll start off by saying that the screening I attended at the Disney Studios in Burbank was in 3D. (Making this screening my first foray into 3D film.) And there were quite a few shots in 3D that worked incredibly well. The establishing shots were stunningly gorgeous and all the outdoor filming was great. The layering and depth of shots in 3D were really beautiful and there was a lot of careful detail put into the rendering. Yet that was ruined a bit by the GOTCHA! moments. The stuff made to intentionally jump out at the audience was pretty lame. But we expect that now with 3D in movies, right? .... right. I wish filmmakers had more faith in 3D visuals. It's apparent to me that 3D can be used to make something beautiful and engaging, but seeing a dude in a club throw a t-shirt and have it jump out of the screen at me? Puh-lease. Whatever. And there's this digital 360º pan that's just ... unnecessary. Another dumb thing is the ending credits. They basically just re-show things from the movie. "Hey stupid movie-goer, don't forget what happened in the movie YOU JUST SAW." Heh.
Acting: The acting was really great. I mean, really. Especially from Tennant and Yelchin. They totally made the movie. Colin Farrell was almost able to pull off being creepy (without Vampire makeup) but he's just a bit too sexy for it (I guess). The supporting cast was great: Toni Collette (as Mom ... again) was a bit underutilized, but that happens to the Mom Role in movies like this. Imogen Poots managed to take a relatively dry side-character, the "out of his league" girlfriend, and make her relatively interesting. Ginger, Peter Vincent's assistant/girlfriend/antagonist was maybe the best side-character in this movie. She was hilarious. But really, David Tennant as Peter Vincent was fantastic casting. He was very, well, himself, especially with the yelling and the quick delivery of his lines. But it worked perfectly for the role; his comedic timing was excellent and he didn't take himself too seriously. The DT Fangirls will eat this movie up. And fun to hear the Doctor swear. There have been rumblings of a spin-off/sequel of Peter Vincent going around killing vampires, which I'd totally see. I'd 100% go see that in theaters. I think the only gripe I have is Christopher Mintz-Plasse, who is way too bitchy and angsty for me to feel any empathy for his character (his name is "Evil Ed," so maybe that's the point). Oh, and they spend a bit too much time with Charley's stupid jock/stoner friends. They're pretty useless.
Sound: To be honest, I found the sound design to be the least interesting aspect of the movie. Yes, I know, Claudia Gorbman says music has to remain unnoticed to be effective, but I don't know if I necessarily buy that. Music is definitely noticeable at all times, it just depends on the audience's level of engagement with the film. I have a biased ear (I study film and television music if you didn't know), and I didn't find any element of the sound design engaging in any way. There was one moment, very early on in the film, where they panned the audio across the stereo channels as the camera did a 180º. Which was cool! It's like you're there. But that was it. The rest of the film used relatively stock horror music, pauses for enhanced jump-out-of-your-seat factor and popular music mixed in way too loudly. One cue in particular, which you'll all notice I'm sure, happens on a shot of Peter Vincent looking out his window. The camera is positioned outside so you'd figure the music would start softer, then become louder when we eventually get a shot of the interior of the room. But no. It's SUPER LOUD SO YOU KNOW IT'S A POP SONG AND THAT THEY'RE IN A VEGAS CASINO. Which is just lazy sound editing. The weird cover of "99 Problems" at the end of the film is .... well, weird. I'm not sure why they play it. If they're relying on the lyrics to drive home some point of the film it's lost on me. Except for Jerry's weird adolescent lust and semi-homoeroticism. But it doesn't seem to be a big narrative point so... I don't get it. My best guess is they used it because the music video has similar horror visuals as the film and the end credits.
Overall: I hear there have been some minor changes to the story, aside from location and what-have-you. If you're a fan of the original you may find that a bit distracting, about as distracting as the stupid 3D goggle things that didn't quite fit over my glasses. But overall, if you like slightly campy vampire/horror flicks you will definitely enjoy this. I sincerely hope the 3D element doesn't deter people. I also hope the "success" of the Twilight films doesn't make this film less appealing to the general masses. This is a true popcorn-horror flick. It's not meant to be a serious horror movie. It's meant to be fun. And if you go in with that mentality I guarantee you'll enjoy it. I wish more movies like this were being made. I'll be seeing Fright Night again at the Alamo in 2D to see if it plays out any differently. And to see Tennant [edited] again. I lol'd.
Well... I'd like to write a spoiler-free review, so we'll see how this goes. Craig Gillespie's Fright Night, coming out today in theaters nation-wide, is a remake of the 1985 film with Chris Sarandon and Roddy McDowall. So in that respect, I'm not sure how much can be considered spoilers seeing as the movie has been out for so long already. ANYWAY. I've never seen the original so I went into this film with only my low expectations. Because honestly, the trailers were not very impressive. And I'm the kind of movie-goer now that avoids trailers and preview images like the plague. I don't want other people's impressions to ruin me before I see a film.
Yet here I am doing that very thing.
So I'll just tell you what I think worked and what didn't work.
Visuals: I'll start off by saying that the screening I attended at the Disney Studios in Burbank was in 3D. (Making this screening my first foray into 3D film.) And there were quite a few shots in 3D that worked incredibly well. The establishing shots were stunningly gorgeous and all the outdoor filming was great. The layering and depth of shots in 3D were really beautiful and there was a lot of careful detail put into the rendering. Yet that was ruined a bit by the GOTCHA! moments. The stuff made to intentionally jump out at the audience was pretty lame. But we expect that now with 3D in movies, right? .... right. I wish filmmakers had more faith in 3D visuals. It's apparent to me that 3D can be used to make something beautiful and engaging, but seeing a dude in a club throw a t-shirt and have it jump out of the screen at me? Puh-lease. Whatever. And there's this digital 360º pan that's just ... unnecessary. Another dumb thing is the ending credits. They basically just re-show things from the movie. "Hey stupid movie-goer, don't forget what happened in the movie YOU JUST SAW." Heh.
Acting: The acting was really great. I mean, really. Especially from Tennant and Yelchin. They totally made the movie. Colin Farrell was almost able to pull off being creepy (without Vampire makeup) but he's just a bit too sexy for it (I guess). The supporting cast was great: Toni Collette (as Mom ... again) was a bit underutilized, but that happens to the Mom Role in movies like this. Imogen Poots managed to take a relatively dry side-character, the "out of his league" girlfriend, and make her relatively interesting. Ginger, Peter Vincent's assistant/girlfriend/antagonist was maybe the best side-character in this movie. She was hilarious. But really, David Tennant as Peter Vincent was fantastic casting. He was very, well, himself, especially with the yelling and the quick delivery of his lines. But it worked perfectly for the role; his comedic timing was excellent and he didn't take himself too seriously. The DT Fangirls will eat this movie up. And fun to hear the Doctor swear. There have been rumblings of a spin-off/sequel of Peter Vincent going around killing vampires, which I'd totally see. I'd 100% go see that in theaters. I think the only gripe I have is Christopher Mintz-Plasse, who is way too bitchy and angsty for me to feel any empathy for his character (his name is "Evil Ed," so maybe that's the point). Oh, and they spend a bit too much time with Charley's stupid jock/stoner friends. They're pretty useless.
Sound: To be honest, I found the sound design to be the least interesting aspect of the movie. Yes, I know, Claudia Gorbman says music has to remain unnoticed to be effective, but I don't know if I necessarily buy that. Music is definitely noticeable at all times, it just depends on the audience's level of engagement with the film. I have a biased ear (I study film and television music if you didn't know), and I didn't find any element of the sound design engaging in any way. There was one moment, very early on in the film, where they panned the audio across the stereo channels as the camera did a 180º. Which was cool! It's like you're there. But that was it. The rest of the film used relatively stock horror music, pauses for enhanced jump-out-of-your-seat factor and popular music mixed in way too loudly. One cue in particular, which you'll all notice I'm sure, happens on a shot of Peter Vincent looking out his window. The camera is positioned outside so you'd figure the music would start softer, then become louder when we eventually get a shot of the interior of the room. But no. It's SUPER LOUD SO YOU KNOW IT'S A POP SONG AND THAT THEY'RE IN A VEGAS CASINO. Which is just lazy sound editing. The weird cover of "99 Problems" at the end of the film is .... well, weird. I'm not sure why they play it. If they're relying on the lyrics to drive home some point of the film it's lost on me. Except for Jerry's weird adolescent lust and semi-homoeroticism. But it doesn't seem to be a big narrative point so... I don't get it. My best guess is they used it because the music video has similar horror visuals as the film and the end credits.
Overall: I hear there have been some minor changes to the story, aside from location and what-have-you. If you're a fan of the original you may find that a bit distracting, about as distracting as the stupid 3D goggle things that didn't quite fit over my glasses. But overall, if you like slightly campy vampire/horror flicks you will definitely enjoy this. I sincerely hope the 3D element doesn't deter people. I also hope the "success" of the Twilight films doesn't make this film less appealing to the general masses. This is a true popcorn-horror flick. It's not meant to be a serious horror movie. It's meant to be fun. And if you go in with that mentality I guarantee you'll enjoy it. I wish more movies like this were being made. I'll be seeing Fright Night again at the Alamo in 2D to see if it plays out any differently. And to see Tennant [edited] again. I lol'd.
Write a comment
Post a Comment