I saw it Friday, and loved it!
As with my 'Harry Potter' movie reviews, I'll first talk about what I disliked about it, to get it out of the way quickly.
WARNING! SPOILERS!
1. I'd agree with some of the earlier commenters that more could have been done with Evil Ed. They didn't need to have him get bitten so soon.
2. The beginning spent a little too much time dwelling on the fact that Charlie's now one of the "Cool kids."
3. For the scene when Amy briefly becomes a vampire, I didn't think it looked as scary as that scene did in the original. I just didn't like how they made her vampire face look compared to how terrifying it looked in the original.
4. Peter's girlfriend Ginger was a bit annoying, though I liked that the scene when Peter sees her corpse on the video monitor, he is noticeably affected by it. Even though they fought and cursed each other out a lot, that one scene showed that he still cared a lot about her.
5. This is just a very minor gripe, but at the start of the end credits, they didn't have to show so many earlier clips from the movie.
Now, for all that I liked about it (I think first I'll go with the basic things I liked, then the specific characters):
1. The concept of having it take place in one of the residential/ suburban areas of Las Vegas rather than Anytown USA like the original was a very smart choice. It would make sense that a vampire would want to set up there, between the fact that many of the people who live there sleep during the day and work on the Strip at night, and the fact that all the abandoned houses in those neighborhoods would make perfect nesting areas for vamps.
2. The nods made to the original were all funny and enjoyable, between repeating beloved lines from it (i.e. "You're so cool, Brewster!"), and an amusing cameo from the original's star, Chris Sarandon.
3. Although I just saw it in 2-D, it appears to be one of the few films available in both formats I've seen in which the 3- D could actually work well. It has plenty of "Stuff flying at you" moments, from splashes of blood to a flying paint can in one scene to a tossed T- Shirt in another scene that I'd imagine would work even better in 3-D. If you're going to pay the extra money to see a film in 3-D, 'Fright Night' would be the one to spend it on.
4. With the exception of the aforementioned scene with Amy, the visual effects/ makeup for the vampires looked very scary and cool.
5. Anton Yelchin was great as Charlie! He has so much more depth than he had in the original. We see throughout the movie all the struggles he faces, from the pressure of being part of the In Crowd, to the guilt he shows over having abandoned Evil Ed, to the growing fear as he realizes the truth about Jerry, and finally the courage and leadership he shows in the climax. I'd agree with an earlier poster that Yelchin would make a very good choice to play Harry Osborn in the rebooted 'Spider- Man' films.
6. I'm not sure if Colin Farrell was a better Jerry than Chris Sarandon in the original, but he still handles the role very well. He plays Jerry in all the different ways you'd expect: Charming and funny when he's trying to win people over, and terrifying towards people who know the truth about him. The scene near the beginning when he's hanging just outside the doorway to Charlie's house hoping to get invited in was very spooky and unnerving. I'd nominate him for next year's MTV Movie Award for Best Villain.
7. Even though, as I said, Evil Ed wasn't in the movie as much as he should have been, what there was of him was really good. One of the main problems I had with the original was that I thought Stephen Geoffrey made Evil Ed too loud, over- the- top, and flat- out annoying. In contrast, in this version, Christopher Mintz- Plasse makes Ed funny in more of a quiet, subtle way that worked perfectly. He made Ed both hilarious (i.e. Talking about his and Charlie's past together, and when you see him as a vampire, I loved how he spends much of the first couple minutes of that scene basically just geeking out over his new life), and at times moving (You feel his pain in the beginning when Charlie says that his own life didn't start getting good until he stopped being friends with Ed, and when he gets staked the way he whispers "It's ok, it's ok" as he turns to dust, trying to keep Charlie from feeling much guilt over what he had to do).
8. I liked that the Mom isn't quite as much of an idiot in this one as she was in the original. She's smart, charming, and well- played.
9. PETER VINCENT! No offense whatsoever to the late, great Roddy McDowall who was wonderful in the original, but I definitely preferred this movie's interpretation of him and David Tennant's performance as him. He is freaking hilarious, dominating every scene he's in with his funny lines and body language. Also, as is the case with Charlie, Peter gets a great deal more depth in this version. The explanation for how he comes to believe Charlie in this version is a bit more complicated than it was in the original, but it still makes sense and still works. As funny as he is, there are also a couple scenes when he becomes serious and sympathetic, and those work well, too. If I wasn't so lazy, I'd definitely add this version of Peter Vincent to an earlier thread of mine in which I listed movie characters I'd like to see get spinoffs.
In summary, not only is 'Fright Night' a very good movie, I'd say it's one of my top 10 favorite movie remakes ever. A solid 8/10.
