Tom Holland! I simply love the guy - we share a thing for historical stuff.
So... fond memories are washing over me. Verily.
It's actually been ages since I watched this movie for the last time - I don't even remember how long it was. I have to admit that I am much more fond of the second movie in the franchise (amongst other things because of that one having been one of the first non-Hammer vampire flicks I watched and actually enjoyed - yes, I saw Fright Night after Fright Night II, blame the TV stations back then), I still like this movie a lot. There's something fundamentally different between old-fashioned, awesome, cool and fun horror flicks and those that come out these days. Compare Fright Night with, I don't know, some random nameless vampire flick of the last decade. Nah, make that two decades and exclude Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula and... uhm... okay, let's count Interview With the Vampire as a horror movie for a second (*cries inside*). Also, it speaks to us children of the 80s' night and horror afficionados.
I mean, seriously: Who can not emphasize with this movie's plot? 'Random men carrying a coffin at night' understandably intrigues Charlie Brewster (as portrayed by William Ragsdale), young male of the movie - I would be intrigued as well. Coffins. Night. Possibly vampires or other fiendish creatures dwelling in darkness or something similar.
And damn, it's - of course! - 80s' flair all around: The clothes (by all Gods and Monsters, how on earth could people have actually worn these things?!) - terrifying as ever. The cars - full of win and awesome. Heck, even maths for school looks more interesting and fun than the one I had to do in these modern nights. I mean, yes: Who expected something different from a movie from '85? It's awesome, in an 80s kind of way. However, it also holds its share of "IT'S THE 80s!!!"-terror - you will doubtlessly see what I mean when (if) you should decide to watch this flick. Which you should. Especially because that is an excuse to watch David Tennant shirtless in the remake. But I digress.
So: Plot.
Charlie Brewster is something akin to what we'd term a geek these days. He has a very... 80s looking girlfriend with whom he doesn't have teh_sexxx, he watches 'Fright Night' religiously. So much for characterisation. Oh, yes: Fright Night. It's a TV-show with a presenter who presents horror movies. Like Elvira, only different. His name is Peter Vincent, by the way. I hope to hear at least some Hammer-horror fans howl with laughter now, otherwise I am seriously disappointed. I mean, especially if you look at the getup the character employs to play the character of Peter Vincent you should be shaken with recognition.
*raises her right eyebrow expectantly*
Anyways.
Charlie notices during one nice evening he spends with his girlfriend Amy, watching 'Fright Night', that the new neighbour moving in next door has a fucking coffin being moved into the house ...remember the beginning of this review? Here you are). His attention is instantly captured, and he focuses onto that - one may guess it also is caused by a bit of nervous behaviour, as Amy offered him the possibility to have a go at sexuality in the proper sense with her. Under the sheets. And OMG, the guy actually starts spying on the coffin-carrying people moving into the neighbour's house instead of ravaging her. Dude. I can so understand that... and at the same time not. Call me torn. I'm like Jekyll and Hyde in that regard.
Anyways, he comes to the conclusion that the neighbour is a vampire. A fucking vampire. So naturally, he feels threatened and tries to kill the abomination - to which said abomination, a quite cultured, suave and stereotypically gay-looking guy, in those 80s aesthetics with their focus on men, takes a bit of an exception. With Charlie trying to kill the vampire, enlisting the help of his girl, his best friend Evil Ed, and even 'Fright Night''s Peter Vincent, Fearless Vampire Killer (heh), and the vampire in turn trying to wreak havoc upon the life of the Brewster, we're in for a very 80s-like ride. From the 80s. With 80s vampires. w00t!
So much for the plot.
So it really is no wonder that teh_sex is not coming along as we would expect in the exalted year of 2012 with non-kinkster-kitten Amy running around in human form, and it really is no wonder either that our horror-fan is busy with avidly spying on the new neighbour when not watching 'Fright Night' on TV (I am sure most of us can emphasise. About the TV-show, I mean... *coughs and hides goggles and selection of air-borne poisons*).
It's not that he's bi-curious or anything: It's that the Brewster suspects him (the neighbour) to be some kind of night-creature - and alas, he is completely right. The vampire next door may look incredibly gay to viewers from this day and age, but A) he is apparently not gay (although I suspect that living through centuries, millennia even, would lead to a person appreciating the sexual fun one can have with all kinds of people, not limited in one's choice to one gender), B) vampires are usually a bit sexually ambiguous in the mind's eye of the public. Well, vampires of the Twilight-persuasion aside - I cannot for the life of me imagine these... 'characters' to be sexually adventurous. Matrimony, for fuck's sake. Anyways: Nearly forgot C): He's Chris Sarandon.
Anyways.
Charlie's ideas about his neighbour being a vampire don't go over too well - neither with the local police officer, who starts to think that the Brewster is an unhinged teen (an assessment with which he is not entirely off the mark), nor with his girl (who thinks he is kind of weird), or the vampire (who definitely notices that ...incident).
A commendable appearance that annoys the ever living shit out of me every time I watch this movie is the one by Stephen Geoffreys who plays the Brewster's friend Evil Ed (or 'Evil' for short). He advises Charlie on the details of vampire lore - crosses, garlic, sunlight, not being able to enter unless asked to do so by the owner; all the basics that we know and cherish.
However, things advance with the speed we're used to from the Bloodsucking Evils of Darkness: Before Charlie can come up with a plan what to do about the vampire infesting his neighbourhood, the suave guy has already established a firm footing in the area (geographically as well as interpersonally).
The movie is very strong when it comes to establishing a creepy atmosphere - then again, the terrible sound (80s. what else...) that cues in whenever the vampire appears is... messing with my joy a little bit; however, things like these have to be accepted when watching a movie from 1985. Being pissed off at the movie because it actually works as a historical document would be stupid - especially when identifying as a horror movie addict and a historian. So I'll just stand by my assessment that modern viewers might possibly be turned off if they are not open minded in that regard... and do not have a particular tolerance for the different kinds of societal stratification throughout the past decades... *whistles*
Things do not go well when it comes to Charlie's plans concerning the vampire. He learns that the vampire learned about his interest in him; the vampire's attempt to kill Charlie fails - being forestalled by the mother, and as most of us know, mothers are indeed a terrible, unpredictable force of nature that should be banished by all means -, but the young man is scared of the supernatural invading his life and the potential threat of being killed by a vampire. He decides on the most natural course of action: He tries to attempt contacting The Great Vampire Killer, Peter Vincent played convincingly by Roddy McDowall.
This does not go as planned. No wonder, even the Great Vampire Killer does not believe a ranting teen talking about vampires out to kill him, thrashing cars etc.; speaking of that idea, there is a hilarious scene when Charlie confronts Mr. Vincent about vampire flicks being less trendy than slashers. I had to laugh, considering especially today's situation.
The reactions of the people remaining 'normal', in the world without vampires, are quite believable. No one actually believes Charlie (with a very moving scene about belief and love), but they're supportive nonetheless. Well... 'supportive'. As Evil and Amy figure out, Charlie is so obsessed with killing the vampire that he'll actually go through with it against all sanity or laws against trying to drive a stake through the heart of your creepy neighbour; so they decide to ask Mr. Peter Vincent for help: He may be able to cure the poor bloke of his 'vampiric' delusions by faking his (Vincent's) vampire-expert-sk1llZ in order to assure the poor deluded (?) boy that his neighbour is not a blood drinking monstrosity of the primordial night.
It is hilarious (and, interesting enough, also moving to a degree in a weird way). Charlie's despair to be believed and taken seriously, Vincent's attempts at stopping his delusions, the vampire eating apples (of all things!) and falling for Charlie's girl - at times, the scenes seem like straight out of Stoker's Dracula.
Effectively, we have two conceptions of reality clashing with one another: World without vampires, world with vampires. Both are real (respectively) - the world with vampires in the way that Charlie's reality has changed forever due to the incursion of these creatures into the otherwise normal world, coupled with the fact that the rest of the world does not really believe in vampires roaming the world; coupled with the normal consensus reality we all agree u
This does not go as planned. No wonder, even the Great Vampire Killer
does not believe a ranting teen talking about vampires out to kill him,
thrashing cars etc.; speaking of that idea, there is a hilarious scene
when Charlie confronts Mr. Vincent about vampire flicks being less
trendy than slashers. I had to laugh, considering especially today's
situation.
The reactions of the people remaining
'normal', in the world without vampires, are quite believable. No one
actually believes Charlie (with a very moving scene about belief and
love), but they're supportive nonetheless. Well... 'supportive'. As Evil
and Amy figure out, Charlie is so obsessed with killing the vampire
that he'll actually go through with it against all sanity or laws
against trying to drive a stake through the heart of your creepy
neighbour; so they decide to ask Mr. Peter Vincent for help: He may be
able to cure the poor bloke of his 'vampiric' delusions by faking his
(Vincent's) vampire-expert-sk1llZ in order to assure the poor deluded
(?) boy that his neighbour is not a blood drinking monstrosity of the
primordial night.
It is hilarious (and, interesting
enough, also moving to a degree in a weird way). Charlie's despair to be
believed and taken seriously, Vincent's attempts at stopping his
delusions, the vampire eating apples (of all things!) and falling for
Charlie's girl - at times, the scenes seem like straight out of Stoker's
Dracula.
Effectively, we have two conceptions of
reality clashing with one another: World without vampires, world with
vampires. Both are real (respectively) - the world with vampires in the
way that Charlie's reality has changed forever due to the incursion of
these creatures into the otherwise normal world, coupled with the fact
that the rest of the world does not really believe in vampires roaming
the world; coupled with the normal consensus reality we all agree upon
that there are no bloodsucking creatures of the night, this kind of
clashes. In an interesting way.
The deception to cure
Charlie of his delusions actually goes wrong (in a way) when Peter
Vincent realises that the vampire does not have a reflection. This
kickstarts what I like to call the movie proper. Fright Night has quite a
pon that there are no bloodsucking creatures of the night, this kind of clashes. In an interesting way.
The deception to cure Charlie of his delusions actually goes wrong (in a way) when Peter Vincent realises that the vampire does not have a reflection. This kickstarts what I like to call the movie proper. Fright Night has quite a setup that establishes itself before they start to delve into the ...'actual' movie. This may sound as if I was complaining, and I want to clarify that I'm not. I thoroughly enjoy this kind of stuff.
Note to self: Maybe it's my dislike for whining guitars singing their way through unnecessary solos that makes the vampire scenes in this movie so 'meh' for me; I am nearly 100% sure that it is the music associated with the appearance of a bloodsucker doing vampiric things that causes my not-really-there-appreciation for Sarandon as the vampire. Or possibly the 80s look.
Who the hell knows.
As for the vampires - this is not a movie that will make females swoon for the undead: Our main vampire looks... well, gay (I mean this as an insult, but not against homosexual people. thank you for your understanding) when in human form and like a mishappen werewolf when in vampire form; Evil as a vampire has the most ridiculous teeth ever (they look cool, though); Amy looks okay (until she goes into full-blown vampire-mode, as noted before), but then again: Females undergoing vampirisation always seem to become better looking, more elegant and filled with grace; unless their teeth are out, though - that makes for awesome horrifying, a bit ridiculous but still exceptional vampire-monster depictions. But yeah, there's no 'Edward'-type here who may enchant and ensnare the hormonally challenged twats so happy with and about vampires ever since the tragedy that is Twilight struck - although there is indeed vampiric seduction in this movie. Granted, it's not really possible to have a traditional vampire movie and concept without the erotic intruding onto the horror, as vampires have come to be associated with sexuality and eroticism ever since Bram Stoker insisted on writing his seminal Dracula.; and ever since Bela Lugosi donned the black cape as the public vampire #1, eros and thanatos have been closely intertwined when it comes to vampires on screen. Cue in terrible 80s music with a howling/whining guitar, an erotic scene involving what I can only assume to be a minor, biting-made-for-screen, and lo and behold - voilá!, we got us a veritable Dracula-moment here (as there seem to be quite a few nods to that seminal work in general).
Speaking of Evil as a vampire - he becomes even more annoying after his transformation. However, this movie shines when it comes to animatronics. I am not the biggest fan of CGI, to be honest - maybe that is something unnatural these days, but still: Good old-fashioned animatronics are waaaaay better and cooler and more awesome than CGI. The scene during which Evil switches to wolf-form followed by the drawn-out transformation back is amazing and really manages to perk up my interest every time I see it. I have this fondness for wolf-man-transformations, I admit it freely.
Oh, something to remember: In this movie, some creatures melt when staked. Melt. It's like, I don't know, watching something in which Brian Yuzna has been involved: Green, vile liquid, melting flesh - I stand in awe. Couldn't even remember that scene.Reminds me of Re-Animator.
Okay.
Ends on a happy note - which of course means that the monster is being killed and no one who has been infected with monstrousness remains a monster. Yay. Woohoo.
Nonetheless: Solid flick.
On to the remake.
7/10 lithe creatures of the night transformed into grinning, ridiculously funny vampire-monsters
