Fright Night (2011)

 Welcome to Fright Night.

Charley is just your typical American high school student who lives in your typical suburban neighborhood on the outskirts of the big city (Las Vegas), burdened with having to deal with a not-so-typical situation--he has a vampire living next door, a major threat to his mother and girlfriend. He'll try to recruit help from a Las Vegas showman, proclaimed vampire hunter, Peter Vincent.

***

"You read way too much Twilight."--Charley

"That’s fiction. This is real. He’s a real monster. And he’s not brooding, or lovesick, or noble. He’s the fucking shark from Jaws. He kills, he feeds, and he doesn’t stop until everybody around him is dead. And I seriously am so angry you think I read Twilight."--Evil Ed

There was a moment in Fright Night that really stung to me. Ed reminds me of a friend I have had since I was like 9, and when Brewster informs him that once they become “separable” his life improved for the better it was a major ouch. My best friend had to repeat a grade because of problems at home and while I never felt our friendship grew apart our lives went on different paths. He eventually dropped out while my last year of high school was truly special. I could never condemn my pal in such a manner as Brewster does Ed so this moment does leave a major point of emphasis to me.

There was a scene that even I had to grin in slight amusement although it is well established that Ed’s dead meat: Ed goes into a house, Jerry following behind (ever so calmly and assuredly), and the amateur, young, geeky vampire hunter proudly proclaims that he cannot enter in, with the vampire smilingly throwing back at him, “It is abandoned. Don’t you do your homework?” He later tells Ed, “You bit off more than you can chew.” Nice, juicy quip, eh? I love the fact that Lisa Loeb is Ed’s mom. It brought a warm smile to my face. His fate, however expected, is really one of those lump-in-the-throat moments where Ed is trapped like a fly in a spider’s web, having fallen in the aforementioned abandoned swimming pool, with Jerry steadily immersing in the water, gradually moving towards him, and then the quick strike, bite to the neck, the release of the crucifix as it floats, and the kid’s momentarily fling with hunting vampires will end as quickly as it began. Maybe I attach importance to moments many other viewers will pass on with little regard, but that moment where Ed’s parents were genuinely touched and proud that Brewster arrived to see their son left me with quite a bit of sadness. Parents often just want their children to have friends and not be singled out and bullied. Ed, tragically, was left alone when he needed help the most.

I have to say I liked several moments in this film a lot. It has taken a lot of flak but I try to be an honest bloke and the customary test “to see if an invitation will be granted to a vampire to enter an abode” where Jerry tries to get Brewster to invite him in the house by way of the kitchen (Jerry asked for a “sixer” of beer because he had a lady friend coming over) was well played by Yelchin and Farrell. Both were trying to conceal knowledge, Farrell was attempting to smoothly gain access while Yelchin was trying to keep him out while, at the same time, not arousing suspicion that he knew Jerry was a vampire. I always find these scenes splendid if executed properly. Why? Because I like when two characters try to keep the other at bay. Charley obviously doesn’t want to endanger his mother and himself while Jerry wants fresh meat but needs the cooperation of human targets in order to do so. You see, vampire films typically have Dracula types who not only just want to drink the blood of the living but enjoy how they get to that point. The conquest.

Damn, I have to give it to Farrell. The guy’s got it, doesn’t he? He has that moment where he talks to Charley about the teen being fatherless, bad guys dying to “pluck” his mother and girlfriend (Jerry describes her as “ripe”), and asking Charley if he’s man enough to manage all the tough circumstances rested difficultly on his shoulders. Farrell imbues his Jerry with an assurance, confidence, poise, and command. You know those certain types of guys who have been around, understand what it takes to gain the trust and attraction of a young lady, have the looks and hint of danger that is seductive, and can approach many a woman with ease because so many times before—so many victims who have fallen to the bite—he’s been successful? Farrell, in real life, does that, so it couldn’t have been too difficult to translate life’s experiences to the Jerry character.

This does have the cliché that has been known to infuriate many horny sixteen year old viewers over the last thirty or so years: Charley’s perky, no-nonsense girlfriend, Amy, is ready, willing, and able to have sexual relations with him in his own bed yet the kid’s attention is diverted by Jerry’s activities with a “go-go dancer” at his home outside. When Jerry spots Charley spying, this the next step in their eventual showdown.

I loved how this film gave Farrell’s vampire species a backstory; built to give character towards their peculiar kind of vampire species, through Peter Vincent, Charley learns of Jerry’s heritage through a specific insignia, an image on the wall that represents them. Vincent calls Jerry’s kind “snackers” because they live in the ground, keep their victims alive for days, slowly killing them. It gives them a nasty streak; Farrell’s kind is serial killers who have no pains/qualms drinking humans dry. It’s fun. To me, that adds to his menace. It provides a sense of urgency in ridding the world of him. A vermin in need of extermination. He is a breeder; the finale allows us to see just what kind of menace he really is. He brags about how he’s been around for centuries for a reason and that he’s survived for that long because he’s not so easy to kill. That Charley could just waltz into his domain, his den, and just render him a memory, it wouldn’t be a piece of cake. That’s what Farrell brings to the part; it oozes from every pore, his belief that Charley is just another victim he’ll bury his fangs into, supremely confident that he’s no serious threat. That this will be his downfall, it gives the ending a satisfaction. Sometimes even a centuries-surviving vampire can meet his most unlikeliest match…and lose. Also introduced is the spike, blessed by St. Michael, that, if stuck through the heart of Jerry, can save a recently turned victim.

I also kind of dug how Jerry catches Amy, while poor Charley must endure losing her to him because he’s underage and in a club, caught by a bouncer, taken off, and helplessly is unable to save her from the kiss. A scene needs to really heighten that sympathy for the hero and advantage for the monster, and the pawn piece is obviously the girl one loves and the other desires. It later provides emphasis on the finale as Amy has little time to escape eternal vampirism, could very well give the kiss to Charley while Vincent does what he can to ward off the brood under Jerry’s house. 

The ending could be viewed as weak, when compared with the original. I liked it myself, especially the use of fire and the wise methods in bringing in sunlight by the heroes to shield themselves from the vampiric brood. Under the house is a nice touch, and to be stuck in such tight confines does rather establish that question as to how our heroes would ever get out of such a sticky situation. Improvisation was also key in the original Fright Night.

Just to point it out, I’m a huge Fright Night (1985) fan, and I always will be. I couldn’t tell you how many Friday Night Fright Nights I had during the summer nights of my youth. Interesting enough, I found the remake better suited as a hot summer night in July for some reason. I can actually see myself watching this again on a June Friday. That, from me, is a compliment. Because I wouldn’t give Prom Night that luxury one bit (although, I do plan to revisit and add a review for that remake for this blog sometime in the coming weeks), the remake of Fright Night had plenty to entertain me. I flat liked this cast. I just did. In fact, sacrilege or not, I kind of liked some of the members in the cast of the remake slightly better or at least in equal to those in the original.

I like the Anton Yelchin kid a lot. I just do. He was wonderful as Scotty in Star Trek and not too shabby as Kyle Reese in Terminator: Salvation. His Charley is the kind of grown kid a mother would love to have. He’s mature, doesn’t overdo shock or awe to what goes on before him, sees what happens and acts on it in a believable and refreshingly realistic way. I like that he is aware that no one would believe such a far-fetched story as vampires in Las Vegas and especially enjoyed how he tries to use evidence and get ideas on how to slay Jerry proactively.

Notice how Charley engages Vincent in an uncomfortable scenario where the flamboyant (a persona hiding a deep-rooted terror that has plagued him since he was a teen; this whole Peter Vincent, Vampire Hunter stage act (perfectly suited for Las Vegas!) is a front for a wimpy, self-doubtful coward, a man who needs to address these issues by confronting the creature that causes them) performance artist (whose dwelling is like a Gothic post-modern museum filled with horror set pieces in cases) flops in this chair (fit for a king in a royal court), absinthe consumed in constant quantities, needing advice on how to kill vampires. Vincent rarely wears shirts, often scantily clad in robes (the leather pants cause discomfort for his privates), a bit liquored up and often in profane back-and-forths with his live-in “maid” (Girlfriend? I never truly knew what she was exactly), and so Charley must put aside all these distractions because of the pressing issues. David Tennant, of Dr Who fame, gained plenty of accolades when others were talking about Fright Night during its rather lackluster run in the theaters. He definitely brings an energy when the film finally introduces him; he’s not exactly the most ingratiatingly pleasant character upon first notice but as the film continues he grows on you. Underneath all that booze, performance art, and “I have sold my soul to showbiz” attitude is a likable enough chap with a wit that gives us a good giggle every now and then. Considering the great Roddy McDowell was the Peter Vincent character (this really sealed his legacy in the horror genre; other than the Apes films, I think most associate Roddy to Peter Vincent and Fright Night) in the original (and its unfairly little-seen sequel which deserves a better rep, in my mind), Tennant was saddled with quite a challenge. He is a different Vincent. Oh, he’s a fraud, but when needed in the end, Vincent steps up and helps vanquish the evil vampire. He eventually endears us with his reluctant, at first, eventual “fuck all” heroism, heading into the great unknown with Charley to tackle quite an obstacle few would be so willing to tread. But Tennant is younger, sexier, more centric to the younger generation he's paid to entertain, and closer to a David Blaine/Criss Angel while Roddy was a washed-up, past-his-prime, on-his-way-out-to-pasture television personality. I cherish Roddy's Vincent, but I do think Tennant's casting was a wise choice as to avoid too much comparison to the original.

Imogen Poots, to me, is the real star of the film out of the cast. She’s relatively the new face, considering Toni Collette’s impressive resume as the other female member of the cast. I liked her. She’s a beauty, of course, but I just adore one key scene (that really, for nerds like me, is a fantasy we all wished would have been a reality…) where her Amy tells Charley that she wanted to be with him because he was a dweeb. That brought a smile ear-to-ear to my heart. I am sure many such nerds fell in love with Amy during and after that scene. That, I figure, will give her eventual capture and turning a bit more dramatic weight because she’s such a charmer; with a high-wattage personality and a smile that can melt you into puddles of goo, I imagine Amy’s fate will be of concern for many a viewer who hopes she can be rescued. She’s a doll; I think she has a bright future. Collette is kind of given the MILF, hip and cool mom who gives her son a bit of independence but is interested in his welfare and invested in his life. A single mom with a share of difficulties with men, she tries to rest her son’s unease when it comes to a sexual/relationship interest in Farrell. Christopher Mintz-Plasse is cast probably based on his renown in flicks like Kick-Ass and Superbad. He is in it so sparingly, I’m not sure he was ever as well utilized as Evil Ed as perhaps he could have been. While some consider Stephen Geoffreys an annoyance in the original, I personally felt he left a substantial mark in that role while Mintz-Plasse just doesn’t get much of a chance to shine and the role in the remake never quite develops to a degree where we care for him as perhaps we should. Geoffreys  gave a rather likably weird loser quality to his Evil Ed. Mintz-Plasse is basically just a Dungeons and Dragons nerd who I could see playing on the Xbox for hours. That’s not a criticism against him as much as it doesn’t necessarily give him unique qualities that remain memorable upon his departure from the film.

I can’t say I was that won over by the dependency on CGI effects. I just rarely like any of the effects nowadays regarding characters (mainly vampires) turning to ash the moment a stake (or sunlight) is driven into the heart. I didn’t like the scene where holy water is tossed into Jerry’s face, and how it is shown recuperating from burns, returning to form. I didn’t even really like the effects for all the teeth (like when Amy turns and is about to bite Charley) and the transforming vampiric faces (like when Farrell’s face is full vampire (…after being hit by Collette’s car), approaching a bewildered Chris Sarandon (in a “ah ha!” cameo that seems appropriate and at just the right moment), who crashed into Collette’s car, biting him). I think if you like this movie, the effects will not be why. I can’t even really call them adequate. I consider them rather underwhelming and disappointing. Even a bit sadder, it seems the film almost depends entirely on CGI effects. I watched Piranha (2011) just the other night late and at least Aja’s remake incorporates a mix of CGI and make-up grue. Primarily in Fright Night, the gore is CGI alone. Too bad.

I remember influencing back last year a black lady I work with on going to see Fright Night. She actually went to see it based on our conversation, with her later telling me that the movie didn’t scare her at all and seemed to completely be a comedy. She wasn’t that impressed. I have to agree that Fright Night is really more of a dark comedy, a send-up of vampire films of the past, and the lore of the undead. I like this remake, but I don’t necessarily consider it a go-out-of-your-way-to-see-it horror classic of the 2000’s.