rawr_xoxo wrote:I really dont understand why youh ate it so much KK
Being a fan of the original myself, sure the storys been alteredslightly to fit in with the modern demographic e.g Evil Ed's conversion from punk to geek.
The pace was more drawn out which I liked because I always felt theoriginal seemed a bit rushed. In doing so they could fit alot more depth into the story e.g
I have many, many issues with what they've done to the original characters.
To be fair Evil Ed is the least of them, although he was pretty much a geek in the first one too. He was also in it a lot more. Mintz-Plasse is barely in it. I found it odd that it's not Charley that discovers his neighbour is a vampire, Ed does. I don't get the decision to change that at all. Charley should be the one who realises something is going on next door and then has to convince everyone else that Jerry is a vampire.
Jerry was a doomed romantic surviving by using his considerable charm in the original. Here he's just an unstoppable monster. The idea that a vampire that has survived for 400 years by keeping a low profile would suddenly decide to blow up the house next door just because he couldn't get in is just absurd and incredibly insulting.
Peter Vincent's back story is a pathetic addition needed to justify making him a Las Vegas illusionist instead of a TV horror show host. David Tennant is very good though despite the changes and his relationship with his PA/girlfriend Ginger played by Sandra Vergara is the most entertaining and funniest bit in the film.
They've also made Charley a bit of a dick who ignores his best friend just because he wants to be popular. The refreshing thing about the original was that they didn't bother with the high-school clique nonsense that is just pointless for a film like this
I couldn't disagree more with the use of the word 'depth'. Putting in more back story doesn't give it depth. This is considerably more shallow than the original. The original has quite a few subtexts for what is basically a comedy horror. The remake has absolutely nothing going on beneath the surface.
I also completely disagree that the first feels rushed. If anything this one has Jerry going from charming next door neighbour to creepy weirdo to full-on monster vampire in a ridiculously quick time.
My main issue is that the original had a love for old movies throughout. The original was a reaction to slasher films like Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street that had become popular at the time, replacing the Hammer Horror style of films in regards to audience popularity. The remake has no evidence of this at all.
It also annoys me that the film-makers have admitted that they wanted to get away from the romantic vampires that have been popular recently and get back to the vampire as horrific monster style of film. If that's the case, don't remake Fright Night as that's what it's about.
I don't think remakes should be identical to the original of course but if you're going to make changes at least make them justifiable. I think the remake fails in this regard. This film feels like studio product made to cash in on the current trend or vampires in film and on TV. I could go on (and I have, my full review for The Film Pilgrim is over 2100 words long) but that's enough for now.
