Quantcast Movie Reviews | Vagary.TV

Movie Reviews Archive

0

Film Review: The Avengers

By
Chris Scott
– May 8, 2012Posted in: Movie Reviews, Reviews

There had to be a contingent of people at Marvel that felt spending years of time and nearly a billion dollars in money to facilitate bringing The Avengers to the screen was too big a gamble. After all, the idea of creating a film universe intertwined like the comic books they are based on, spanning over five different films from four different franchises, of varying success, and culminating in one super-sized blockbuster has to fall into the realm of craziest ever in film history. After having seen The Avengers, I have to fathom that those people, along with any other doubters are long gone from the employ of Marvel.

What Marvel have accomplished with bringing The Avengers to audiences is something special and should be commended. Oh and the film is pretty decent as well.

Building off of the events of Thor, The Avengers sees Loki (Tom Hiddleston) up to no good as he steals a dangerous artifact from the covert ops organization, S.H.I.E.L.D. This artifact holds the power to open a portal in space, which Loki plans on using to bring an army of aliens to conquer the mortals of earth. Of course an event of this magnitude requires more than just one super hero to get the job done and S.H.I.E.L.D. director Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) has just the right “team” in mind. He sets about assembling Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Captain America (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), and Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) into a team, albeit under false pretenses.

The assembly of the team establishes the characters and their differing personalities, motives and relationships towards one another but it is also somewhat of a slog. After about the first half hour I started to get a bit restless, and so did the crowd I watched it with. Sadly, it takes about another half hour before things really get going. Fortunately once they do get going, the film took me on a phenomenal thrill ride that few films have in recent memory.

Similar to last year’s Transformers: Dark of the Moon, The Avengers lay waste to an entire city during their climactic final battle. But unlike the bombast filled Bay film, The Avengers never feels tiring. Writer/Director Joss Whedon (Buffy, Firefly) has interspersed moments of levity into the incredible carnage. Every time I felt I was reaching the point of sensory overload, something absurd, yet fully fitting, would cut the tension and reset my attention span. Superhero movies should be fun and these moments of levity show how much Whedon got the material with which he was entrusted to work.

In addition to Whedon fully grasping the material, the entire cast is completely in touch with the material. Everybody from Downey Jr., whom steals scenes every chance he can, to Jeremy Renner (as Hawkeye) has bought into these characters. The shining star of the film though might very well have been Mark Ruffalo as Dr. Banner and his alter ego, The Hulk. Ruffalo, best known for romantic comedies, is charming as Banner and terrifying as the Hulk. It is a fantastic performance all around and one that is sure to get him a shot at his own Hulk film.

After last summer, where so many of the biggest blockbusters failed to fully satisfy (even those setting up this film), The Avengers kicks off the 2012 summer movie season in style. It is a roller coaster ride worth experiencing in theaters. Go see it, you won’t be disappointed.

4 / 5

0

Film Review: The Raven

By
Chris Scott
– May 4, 2012Posted in: Movie Reviews, Reviews

The modern horror genre has much for which they can thank Edgar Allan Poe. His stories and poems of the mysterious and macabre have inspired more than a few creators of the horror we enjoy today. While his literary works have lived on, his life could be viewed as a tragedy. He was an alcoholic that died broke and delirious in Baltimore, Maryland and the mysterious nature of his death could very well have been written as one of his dark tales.

Starring John Cusack as the troubled author, The Raven latches onto the idea of Poe’s last days mirroring his writings. Unfortunately, it shoehorns the concept into a traditional murder mystery with gore soaked trappings. A serial killer in Baltimore has adopted the writings of Poe as his calling card and Edgar gets drawn into a macabre game of cat and mouse as he has to race against time to save a woman he loves. Effectively the film plays out like a 19th century version of Seven mixed with Saw, except it’s horribly tedious.

To its credit the film does start out rather strong. Poe belligerent and drunk gets tossed from a bar only to pass out in an alley, at the very same time a murder is being played out that draws its inspiration from Poe’s works. Because of the circumstances surrounding the murder, Poe is obviously a suspect and because he passed out he cannot prove his innocence. The film toys with this idea for a bit longer but ultimately, like the rest of the film, it is just wasted potential.

Speaking of wasted potential, director James McTeigue may very well be the definition of it as this point. The fact that McTeigue was the helmsman for this shipwreck of a film makes it all the worse.  The filmmaker had such a positive upside from his stellar debut, V for Vendetta, and his work with the Wachowski’s on The Matrix trilogy. But the Raven has none of the intellectual or stylistic flourishes that viewers saw in his past work. It is a massive shame to see what his talent has become.

Much like Poe’s life was a tragedy, The Raven is a tragedy of filmmaking. It wastes a fun performance by Cusack, the film’s lone bright spot, and somehow makes murder and mystery out to be components in the cure to insomnia. Poe deserves better but even more so, the viewer deserves better. Filmgoers’ time and money would be better spent reading some of Poe’s work instead of seeing this sorry excuse for a “historical” thriller.

1 / 5

0

Film Review: The Cabin in the Woods

By
Chris Scott
– April 24, 2012Posted in: Movie Reviews, Reviews

For the most part the horror genre survives by utilizing well worn clichés. Unfortunately, this approach has made much of the genre into a color-by-numbers book; delivering cookie cutter experiences that seemingly get more and more unsatisfactory each time out. However, there are some films that take these clichés, do something new with them, and deliver thoroughly entertaining experiences. The Cabin in the Woods is one of these films.

The Cabin in the Woods features five college kids setting out on a weekend getaway to, wait for it… a cabin in the woods. The five fit the stereotypical horror roles, there is the dumb jock (Chris Hemsworth), the slut (Anna Hutchinson), the nice guy (Jesse Williams), the stoner (Fran Kranz) and the virgin (Kristen Connolly) and being a horror film that is working with standard genre clichés, bad things are bound to happen to these kids. But there is something else at play as well. Talking about this something else would spoil the fun but let us just say that this is not your normal trip to the woods.

The film, written by Joss Whedon and Drew Godard (also the director), is smart and witty throughout. It has fun with the genre, playing with genre conventions in such a way that made the 90 minute run time some of the most fun I have had in a theater in a long time. Knowing beforehand that Whedon was involved in the writing of the film, I expected witty dialog and a frantic pace mixed in amongst standard genre tropes and that is exactly what I got. But, it should be noted that while it plays with the tropes of the slasher genre, the film is not particularly scary. This is not to say that The Cabin in the Woods is any less of a horror film than say the latest Friday the 13th film, but rather that ingrained expectations can be deceiving.

Most people walk into a horror film knowing what to expect and The Cabin in the Woods manipulates these expectations to deliver something unique. If the film is about anything other than delivering a good time, it is about shattering expectations. On one hand it openly mocks the conventions of the genre and what they have become, while at the same time it treats the genre with the reverence it deserves. Each turn of the film plays with the viewer and at times I felt like the film was actively mocking me, leading me down familiar paths with unexpected outcomes.

It is a shame that the lack of genuine scares in the film might be seen as a turn off to some viewers and that others that will not be able to get past their pre-conceived expectations for the film. But for those that can accept it for what it is and what it does with and to the horror genre, The Cabin in the Woods offers a fun, thrill ride that should not be missed.

4 / 5

0

Film Review: Contraband

By
Chris Scott
– January 29, 2012Posted in: Movie Reviews, Reviews

There are good movies, there are bad movies and then there are the entirely watchable but ultimately forgettable movies. Mark Wahlberg’s latest thriller, Contraband, sadly falls into the third camp.

Contraband is, at its core, a simple heist movie. Wahlberg plays Chris Farraday, a retired smuggler who is pulled back into the game when his brother-in-law runs afoul of a local drug runner after botching a job. Farraday’s plan to set things right is to smuggle large shipment of counterfeit currency out of Panama. He assembles his crew, a motley cast of characters that are given far too little screen time, and lays out his plan. Of course things of this nature never go quite as they are planned.

All of this would work if there was an ounce of tension in any of the scenes involving Farraday and his team but Contraband plays like a paint by numbers heist film. The situations Farraday finds himself in are so overly contrived that it kills any potential tension the film may have had.

Fortunately, the film does deliver some solid tension away from the heist itself. Farraday’s wife, played by Kate Beckinsale, and kids are stalked and terrorized by drug runner Tim Briggs (Giovanni Ribisi). This forces Farraday to call in his best friend Sebastian (Ben Foster) to watch over his family resulting in quite a few plot twists and tense scenes. The performances by Foster and Ribisi are the shining spots in the film, with Ribisi in particular delivering something that is borderline absurd but perfect for his role.

The biggest problem with Contraband is that as a heist film, it cheats the audience the satisfaction of seeing everything executed. Farraday’s plan changes in the last act but the audience is never filled in on the new plan and the final piece of the heist’s execution is completely glossed over. This is a standard trope of the genre but normally the film lets the viewer see the execution after the fact, this never takes place in Contraband, leaving audience to just accept it all which ultimately may leave some viewers unsatisfied.

Contraband is entirely enjoyable as a time waster but it is also not anything more than that. Like many new releases in January, the film is just a forgettable piece of cinema.

3/5

1

Film Review: The Devil Inside

By
Chris Scott
– January 25, 2012Posted in: Movie Reviews, Reviews

Considering that found footage films rely on convincing their audiences that what they are watching actually happened, it is surprising to me that more films have not explored the subject matter of exorcism. There have been some, The Last Exorcism most notable among them, but for the most part, found footage films have steered clear of the art of expunging demons from the possessed. That makes The Devil Inside an anomaly of sorts because it deals with the subject matter head on.

The Devil Inside starts out in 1989 with footage from police cameras and news reports at a grisly crime scene where three members of the Catholic Church were seemingly murdered by Maria Rossi (Suzan Crowley). Maria is deemed insane and, for some reason, carted off to Rome to be treated by experts. Fast forward to present day, Maria’s daughter Isabella (Fernanda Andrade), finds out from her dying father that the murders her mother committed took place during an exorcism. And so Maria sets out for Rome to explore the case, complete with her documentarian friend Michael (Ionut Grama).

The setup is solid enough but the film quickly squanders it. There are a number of story points that just do not fit with the overall film. Filming segments of an exorcism class run by the Vatican, introducing the audience to a pair of rogue priests that perform exorcisms outside the authority of the Church, and a hospital that allows anyone with video cameras to come and examine their patients. It all seems overly convenient and staged, which goes against the very nature of the found footage style of film making.

Even worse though is the fundamental filmmaking that takes place. Michael is supposed to be a documentary filmmaker chronicling Isabella’s discoveries, yet he somehow manages to have worse camera work than some high school filmmakers. The camera shakes all the time, even in interview segments where it should have been mounted on a tripod.

As bad as the stilted plotting and amateur filmmaking is, The Devil Inside could have overcome them if it had managed to be even slightly scary. It is not. When the scariest part of a supernatural horror film is a dog barking, things have not gone very well.

The entire production screams amateur hour. If someone were to have told me that The Devil Inside was a senior film project, I would not have been surprised. It would not make the film any better but at least its execution would be understandable. There is no excuse for writer/director William Brent Bell and his writing partner Matthew Peterman, the duo responsible for the reprehensible video game horror film Stay Alive in 2006. They have been around long enough that they should know better.

Found footage films are cheap to produce but there are examples of the style working quite well. There is little doubt that the subjects of possession and exorcism fascinate movie going audiences, it is just a shame that Hollywood preys on those audiences with drivel such as The Devil Inside. Ending aside, The Last Exorcism handles the subject matter in such a way that puts this film to shame. If you are looking for a solid film of this ilk, go watch that instead.

1 / 5

0

Film Review: “The Thing”

By
Jeff Derrickson
– October 24, 2011Posted in: Movie Reviews, Reviews

Nearly everything you need to know about “The Thing” is right there in the title.  The film is technically a prequel that leads directly up to the events in John Carpenter’s 1982 version of “The Thing,” but it feels more like a mediocre, creatively bankrupt remake.  They couldn’t even think of a new title.  And like the creature of the title, it poorly imitates its source material before falling apart into an ugly mess.

In this premake, we get to find out what happened to the other group of scientists who originally discovered the alien in John Carpenter’s “The Thing.”  After a group of Norwegian scientists finds both the alien and its spaceship buried in Antartica, Dr. Sander Halvorson (Ulrich Thomsen) recruits paleontologist Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) all the way from America to provide her expertise.  The only help she provides before trouble starts is telling them it should take about half a day to cut the alien out of the ice, something they could have figured out by, I don’t know, cutting the alien out of the ice.  And that’s just the first in a long series of plot holes, half baked ideas, and other stuff that doesn’t make much sense.

For instance, at one point the thing gets on a helicopter ride back to civilization but for some reason decides to expose itself while the helicopter is still taking off.  If it’s smart enough to pilot a spaceship, why would it do that?  Come to think of it, since the spaceship is (spoilers!) still functional, why doesn’t it just try to escape Earth as soon as it thaws?  In another scene ripped from John Carpenter’s superior film, they attempt to do a blood test, but the thing burns down the lab.  So in this version they replace the blood test with Kate pointing a flashlight into other scientists’ mouths looking for fillings, because the thing can’t imitate inorganic matter.  Not only is the test flawed enough that the movie points it out, but the newly introduced theory makes me wonder how its imitations wear the victims’ clothes.  Part of the problem is that the thing’s intelligence and abilities are poorly defined in both films.

Then again, John Carpenter’s “The Thing” isn’t revered for brilliant plotting.  The film is about paranoia and amazing gross-out effects, and it’s here where fans will be most disappointed.  The tension created by characters who can’t trust each other because any of them could be the thing is equaled in this premake, but an opportunity to up the ante is missed, especially considering there is a language barrier between them.  The film could have capitalized on half of the scientists speaking Norwegian and the other half speaking English; instead, we’re left with a dimwitted scene where Kate searches for fillings in her peers’ teeth.  And, of course, the biggest sin is committed in the effects department.

Most people I know prefer practical special effects over the CGI of today.  The combined artistry of makeup, puppets, and buckets of blood tends to be more convincing and textured than the most advanced effects computers can currently produce, despite Hollywood’s insistence on the latter.  Nowhere is the reliance on CGI more offensive than in “The Thing,” even though it feels like director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. wanted to honor the classic.  There are practical effects, but they are nowhere near as abundant as the serviceable CGI.  This should come as no surprise considering current trends in film, but it’s more egregious here because John Carpenter’s “The Thing” is remembered for its amazing special effects.  Bottom line, there is no excuse for the effects in this version of “The Thing” to look worse than its inspiration, which is nearly 30 years old.

So what’s the point?  The film is watchable, but so are most films, and that doesn’t mean they’re worth watching.  Since so much of the film is an inferior retread of the 1982 classic masquerading as a prequel, you’re better off watching John Carpenter’s version.  With a creature as flexible as the thing, there was an opportunity to go wild with the franchise, but the film lacks any new ideas and instead sticks too closely to the original while simultaneously discarding what made it great.  Again, what’s the point?

 

2 out of 5 stars

1

Film Review: “Drive”

By
Jeff Derrickson
– October 2, 2011Posted in: Movie Reviews, Reviews

“Drive” has been marketed as a gritty action flick, and more specifically a car chase film, and because of that it is bound to disappoint people expecting dumb fun akin to a “Fast and the Furious” movie.  The trailers misleadingly emphasize the action elements of what is essentially an art house crime thriller that slowly builds toward shocking violence.

Ryan Gosling stars as the nameless Driver, a Hollywood stunt driver who moonlights as a heist wheelman.  Throughout, he remains a mysterious loner who doesn’t say much.  We’re given just enough to suspect that he could be mentally unstable and capable of violence.  After he moves into a new apartment, he begins to form an unhealthy relationship with a neighbor down the hall, Irene (Carey Mulligan), and her son, Benicio (Kaden Leos).  He latches onto them to give his life meaning and makes their problems his own.  Both the plot and main character feel heavily inspired by “Taxi Driver,” with the exception that Driver has skills that propel him toward his fate, instead of mere loneliness and creeping madness.

Much of the first half of the film focuses on a budding-but-doomed romance between Driver and Irene, and it is this section in particular that will turn off hardcore action fans.  Even fans of love stories might start checking their watches.  Their romance isn’t developed with cute humor or dialogue, but desperate sideways glances and gestures of kindness, and it doesn’t safely and predictably build toward the guy getting the girl.  Instead, when Irene’s husband, Standard (Oscar Isaac), is freed from prison, Driver decides to protect the family by helping him do one more job to get him out of the game.

It is at this point that things begin to fall apart in thrilling fashion.  There is a car chase or two (three in total in the film, one at the opening), and people start to drop like flies.  If you’re not on the edge of your seat in the second half of “Drive,” you either don’t have a pulse or fell asleep in the first half, in which case you don’t deserve the stylish, character driven thrills the film offers.  The audience I saw it with was surely prepared for the chases, but they seemed caught off guard by the sudden, shocking, gory violence, which uses practical effects and along with the film as a whole acts as homage to the 80s.  Fans of 80s horror will be pleased to know that “Drive” features the best (only?) exploding head of the year.  The gore came as a surprise to me, too, but I gratefully embraced it.

When the gory action begins, for me it wasn’t payoff for sitting through a boring, deliberately paced romance.  It was an immensely satisfying part of a great whole.  There are long sequences devoted to Driver and Irene merely looking at each, Driver smiling at Benicio, and Driver taking them for a ride, and I was engrossed throughout.  Even when little was happening, my eyes were glued to the screen thanks to the artistry and craftsmanship on display.

Director Nicholas Winding Refn breathes confident style into a sparse script, and he is aided by a stellar cast.  Not only does Gosling nail his role as a dangerous, mysterious loner, but he is supported by an incredible roster of players.  Bryan Cranston plays his boss and manager, and he doesn’t get to show off all of his chops like he does on “Breaking Bad,” but he creates a pathetic character who always seems to get himself in trouble, despite his good heart.  Christina Hendricks from “Mad Men” has a brief but memorable role.  Ron Perlman and, in particular, Albert Brooks stand out as vicious small-time organized crime bosses.  Brooks shows off a dark side I never knew he had, and I felt uncomfortable every time he was on screen.

The soundtrack deserves special mention, because it contributes greatly to the film and its 80s vibe.  Like the film, the songs aren’t from the 80s, but they feel inspired by the decade, and they’re incredibly fun and catchy.  Give “A Real Hero” by College featuring Electric Youth or “Nightcall” by Kavinsky, which plays over the opening credits, a listen and see if they don’t stick in your head and evoke a specific mood.  It’s the second time this fall, after “Contagion,” that I’ve fallen in love with a score or soundtrack due to its provocation of 80s nostalgia.

“Drive’ is a film destined to split audiences, a feat I’m convinced means it’s required viewing.  Fans of film as an art form instead of mere entertainment will probably get more mileage out of it.  There is so much to admire, even if you don’t love it as much as I did.  Reactions wildly varied at my screening.  Someone loudly booed at the screen as the credits rolled.  I heard another viewer complain to a theater employee that it was too slow and not as advertised.  On the way to the parking lot, I heard a middle aged man tell his wife that he loved the film, and it kept him on the edge of his seat throughout.  I’m in his camp.  It’s one of my favorite films of the year, and even if it doesn’t eventually make your top ten list, you have to see it.

5 out of 5 stars

“Drive” will be reviewed on the next episode of Movie Dudes. 

1

Film Review: Apollo 18

By
Chris Scott
– September 13, 2011Posted in: Movie Reviews, Reviews

The Last Exorcism bucked the traditional formula for found footage films and in doing so stood out from the crowd of by the numbers horror films. Apollo 18 attempts to follow in its footsteps, stepping even further outside the box by heading to space.

Set during a “secret” mission to the moon, Apollo 18 is the “true” story revealing why NASA canceled the Apollo space program and never returned to the moon. However a film can have all the interesting premises and settings it wants but the success of found footage films rests with its execution in making the audience believe what they are watching is real.

Apollo 18’s execution is a mixed bag. The cinematography, sound, set designs and acting are all top notch and aside from the obvious horror bits, the film looks like an authentic piece of NASA captured footage. Unfortunately, like all found footage films it suffers from a few issues that take away from the overall experience.

The most glaring issue is the fact the ending is known to the audience before they even sit down in the theater. Found footage films by their very nature have a tragic ending, otherwise the footage wouldn’t have been found. This fact unfortunately creates a natural countermeasure to the tension the film attempts to build. Many of these types of films rely on jump scares to create the illusion of tension and Apollo 18 does the same but it doesn’t quite work as well.

Fingers could be pointed in a variety of directions in an attempt to pinpoint why Apollo 18’s scares fail to impress but the key reason is because of the setting. Space being foreign to nearly everyone is inherently a scary place but found footage films rely on familiarity to create tension and scares. Cabinets opening on their own, shadows moving where they shouldn’t be, and little girls who can bend into inhuman shapes are scary because the viewer has a baseline for what is normal. Apollo 18 does not have that baseline and it suffers because of it.

The setting also causes another issue for the film, one of plausibility. The core premise of these films is that someone filmed the events and the footage was “found” by someone else who then edited it into a film and released it to theaters. While it may be a stretch that those events would occur, it is at least somewhat plausible. Apollo 18 asks viewers to buy into the fact that not only did the events on film take place, someone not named NASA retrieved the footage from space, spliced it together and released it. And that is a bit of a stretch, even for horror fans.

3 out of 5

1

Film Review: Conan the Barbarian

By
Chris Scott
– September 1, 2011Posted in: Movie Reviews, Reviews

With the glut of remakes and reboots constantly hitting cinemas I am sure the idea to reboot Conan the Barbarian was seen as a brilliant one. After all how hard could it be to take a hulking behemoth with moderate acting chops and put him in a revenge film with copious amounts of violence? The answer is evidently quite difficult.

Conan the Barbarian seemingly has all the pieces in place to puzzle together something enjoyable to watch. It has a director, Marcus Nispel, with a history of successfully rebooting franchises. It has a lead actor, Jason Momoa, that arguably looks more the part of the titular character than Arnold Schwarzenegger ever did. And it has a large handful of action set pieces filled with blood and gore. What Conan the Barbarian does not have though is anything resembling excitement.

An action film can survive a multitude of inadequacies that would doom any other type of film. Poor acting, plot hole filled narratives, and even moronic dialog can be forgiven if the action is stellar. High quality, well-paced action is the key to everything in the genre. One would think that a veteran horror director would be able to manufacture some degree of tension but Nispel fails to make it seem as if Conan is ever in any danger. Without tension the action scenes are a bore and unfortunately the film bet everything on its action pulling it forward.


Without engaging action as a distraction it is easier to see how many fundamental issues Conan the Barbarian actually suffers from. Jason Momoa may look the part but he lacks the mediocre acting chops that even Arnold had at the birth of his career. Conan is not a deeply complex character but Momoa can no even seem to grasp that aspect as he delivers a performance that is all over the place. Of course not all the blame should be pushed on Momoa as the script is equally as awful. Filled with glaring plot holes and some of the worst dialog in a film this summer, the Conan the Barbarian script makes Green Lantern look like Oscar material.

It would be easy to write off everything in the film as being fetid but it would be grossly unfair to both Stephen Lang and Rose McGowan. The two play the primary villains in the film, Khalar Zym and his daughter, Marique, and both do it exceptionally well. McGowan in particular stands out as she hams it up as Zym’s crazy daughter. Two bright spots though are not enough to save the film from itself and Conan fails to rise above being a below standard action film.

2 out of 5.

3

Film Review: Fright Night

By
Chris Scott
– August 21, 2011Posted in: Movie Reviews, Reviews

While there are many things a film needs to be successful a remake needs two additional aspects for it to succeed. In addition to everything a regular film needs, a remake needs to be able to bring something new to the audience and it needs to be a tale worth retelling. Out of all the recent remakes, Fright Night scared me the most because I didn’t feel it could bring anything new to the table and I did not think it was a tale worth retelling. I couldn’t have been more wrong.

Charlie Brewster (Anton Yelchin) has a problem, his new neighbor, Jerry (Colin Farrell) is creepy and the evidence points towards him being a vampire. Of course Charlie does not believe at first but after his childhood friend Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) goes missing he begins to investigate further and things spiral out of control quite quickly.

The first half of Fright Night is effective set-up it, exploring Charlie’s character and painting Jerry as a mysterious figure. Oddly though the film does away with any sense of subtlety as Jerry is outed as a vampire to the audience very early on. Without the possibility of Charlie being wrong about Jerry there is very little tension in their interactions. Fortunately the second half of the film picks up the slack delivering a tight and tense narrative.

While the second half of the film could have ventured into straight on horror territory, Fright Night stays true to its roots and lightens the mood at just the right times with a healthy dose of humor. Much of this humor comes from the vampire hunter Peter Vincent. In the original film, Peter Vincent was played by Roddy McDowall and his portrayal has made the character into something of a cult hero. David Tennant takes on the role in this remake and he makes the character his own. Vincent’s interactions with Charlie are genuinely funny and his turn from coward to hero is believable every step of the way and it is all due to the natural charisma that Tennant possess as an actor.

Fright Night is very well acted across the board and it helps elevate the film above the standard horror fare that is generally released to theaters. Fright Night‘s focus on the characters and not the next death scene makes it stand out from the pack. That is not to say that Fright Night does not carry its own weight in the horror field though. While it is not particularly gory, the film should satiate the desires of most horror fans and most importantly it gets vampires right.

Over the last five years vampires have seen a major resurgence in popularity due to the likes of Twilight and True Blood. While the popularity of those series cannot be disputed, their portrayal of vampires can leave a lot to be desired. Vampires do not sparkle and they do not live out their lives as if they are starring in a late night Cinemax feature. Vampires are mysterious and charming but also brutal creatures with a lust for blood over all else. Fright Night understands this and builds its horror foundation on this. Together with its solid narrative and well executed performances Fright Night delivers one of the best horror experiences of the year.

4 out of 5.

Older Entries