Fright Night (2011)

Just saw the remake of my favorite all time flick, Fright Night. Now the original 1985 movie I can recite the entire movie from start to finish. I just love it that much and have seen it 100s of times. I expected the new movie to be a cheap remake in which I would end up quitting half way through the movie and throwing something at the screen. Instead I was pleasantly surprised. The 2011 remake was not as bad as I expected.


The good: Tons of references to the original movie. Evil Ed still says the line "Oh your so cool Brewster" but for different reason than in the original. They exactly duplicated the scene in which Jerry Dandrige is coming down the central staircase (he still has one in the new movie) while digging his nail into the handrail and says "Welcome to Fright Night...for real." The characters are all named the same and those who lived and died in the original are met with the same fate.


The bad: Even though I would say that the new movie was an exact copy of the original there were quite a few things that were completely different. As expected the actors are different, the setting is different, but there were some things that were completely changed for the sake of originality perhaps? Colin Farrell versus Chris Sarandon as Jerry. Colin has the good looks while Chris Sarandon had the looks and the seduction. They skipped the seductive scenes between Jerry and Amy in the remake. The original Jerry seemed more suave where the new Jerry is more like an animal. The other big change was Ed being the one finding out about Jerry the vampire and not Charlie. Jerry doesn't even live next to Charlie so no window peeping scenes like in the original. They also skipped one of my favorite scenes in which Evil visits Peter Vincent and Peter marks his forehead with a cross. *sigh*


Overall the movie was better than I had expected mostly because of the amount of similarities to the original. Lots of one-liners taken from the original and some scenes (Amy abducted by Jerry from the nightclub. Jerry's central staircase) were such throwbacks to the original. The differences were expected and some were not, but they did a great job with them. Specially a scene with one of Jerry's victims in which she helps out Charlie. Amazing enough to give you shivers.


Verdict: Great remake of my favorite classic. Check it out. (3 out of 5)

Night of the Demons (2009)

I barely remembered the 1988 version of this movie. I just know it was bloody, chaotic and scary. This was none of those things. This movie was so bad it even killed careers. Edward Furlong and Shannon Elizabeth how far you have fallen.

The acting was horrible. The effects were extremely cheap and ridiculous. The script, the plot...oh so many things wrong with it. Even if I got those 93 minutes of my life back I would still not feel compensated enough.


Verdict: Only a drinking game would redeem this movie. 1 drink per cheesy line. (0 out of 5)

ps. Can I go lower than zero on these?

A Nigthmare on Elm Street (2010)

A remake of the 1984 suspense slasher film by Wes Craven. This new version of the original follows along the same lines as the original. Teens are having horrible nightmares about a burned man with knives on one hand. As they are killed in their nightmares they are also killed in real life. Trying to stay awake and find out what is going on, Nancy, finds a way to bring Freddy out of the dream world in order to kill him and be rid of him for good.

The plot is an exact copy of the original, but this was to be expected. The pacing of the movie on the other hand was horrible. Within minutes into the film you are able to clearly see the main antagonist. Bye bye suspense. The transitions between the real and dream were too clear on this remake. In the original it would take the viewer a few minutes to realize in which world the movie was in. This added to the confusion and lack of safety. The remake did away with this as well.

The actors in the film had horrible scripts to follow and the dialogue seemed contrived in several parts of the film. Not only was the acting simply average, but the characters were unimpressive and undeveloped. When one of them would be killed you would not find yourself gasping in horror, just simply yawning and looking at your watch. Lastly for a slasher film this remake had the lowest bodycount of its genre.

Verdict: Flat characters, no suspense, nothing scary about it. (2 out of 5)

Get Him to the Greek

An outrageous spin off to the movie Saving Sarah Marshall. Russell Brand reprises his role as Aldous Snow, an over the top rocker who has just recently returned to heavy drug use. Jonah Hill plays a mild mannered fan who works for a record company and an extremely over the top boss, Sean "P Diddy" Combs. He has to get the rocker to a sold out concert in 3 days, but the rocker is so outrageous and out of it that it leads him through a hilarious set of drug induced parties and extreme circumstances.

The movie is hilarious and the circumstances are quite believable. The movie does touch on a few subjects such as relationships with their loves and their family. These scenes are of course overshadowed by the rest of the debauchery and intense situations that Jonah's character is put through. There were a few scenes that were so over the top that they became really uncomfortable. These scenes even cross a line that almost made the rest of the movie unwatchable....almost.

Verdict: Extremely funny and fast paced, but some scenes were just too much. (3 out of 5)

Robin Hood (2010)

Another adaptation of the old English folklore hero. This time Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett lead the story of how the outlaw came to be. The story starts with Robin Longstride, his original name before becoming an outlaw, fighting in the last battle of a ten year long Crusade for King Richard. This Crusade has proven exhaustive for the troops as well as for England in resources. As the battle is about to finish the King is killed and Robin uses the opportunity to make his way back home to England. Through lies and deceit he becomes the son of one of the nobles and Marian's husband. His deceit is eventually discovered but he is able to rally all the disgruntled nobles of England to fend off a French invasion. Regardless the new and incompetent King John declares him an outlaw for his deceit.

The story is well told and the acting if of expected high quality from all the A-list actors involved. It is a refreshing change of pace to see the story told in a gritty and non-romantic perspective. You will not see any Merry Men wearing leotards on this movie. No cheesy archery tricks. The only negative about this movie is the length of it. Its only 140 minutes, but the pace of it at times makes it seem like a 3 hour movie. The fight scenes are great, but there are a few too many plotlines going on and it becomes exhausting by the end.

Verdict: Great adaptation of a  classic story. Slow pace at times and lengthy. (3 out of 5)

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

I'll begin by saying that I have not played the video games that this movie is based on. From my experience that is usually a good thing. Same thing happens with books and movies. If you read the book then usually the movie will not live up to the expected translation. Well needless to say Prince of Persia was an enjoyable flick for me.

Movie's plot is nothing spectacular. Outcast taken in by rich family, he falls in love with a princess, betrayed by family, clears his name and gets the girl. Nothing new and pretty standard plot...I cant help to think of a live version of Aladdin when I see this movie. The special effects were done very well and used rather sparingly for the most part which is a welcome change from the Mummy series and such. The acting was good as was expected from such big name actors as Jake Gyllenhaal, Ben Kingsley and others. Now the choice of actors is a bit of a problem.

As you might have heard there was a bit of controversy when this movie was cast since it is based in the middle east and there are plenty of non-caucasian actors capable for the roles. I personally agree that the casting should have been a bit more "accurate", but then again Im sure that the Hollywood machine uses the A-listers in order to bring in the crowds (Jake was the eye candy for the female demographic).

Verdict: Lots of action, great effects, questionable casting, predictable plot. (3 out of 5)

Dead Alive aka. Braindead

When I saw that Peter Jackson (known for the Lord of the Rings movies) had written and directed a zombie flick some time ago I just had to see it. The movie was made in 1992 so I expected the effects to be a bit dated. The movie makes up for it by adding a lot of quirky humor to the film. The biggest aspect of this film is the amount of gore. There are just bucket loads of blood and gore. If you think that you have seen a bloody and violent film, Dead Alive will beat it by a landslide. The storyline and dialog are lacking, but again due to the humor of the film it is hard to tell if this was done on purpose just for laughs.


Verdict: Dated effects, quirky humor and tons of blood and gore. (3 out of 5)