What's new

3D Blu-ray Review Fright Night (2011): THE HTF 3D ADDICT REVIEW (1 Viewer)

Ronald Epstein

Founder
Owner
Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 3, 1997
Messages
66,690
Real Name
Ronald Epstein


htf3daddictbanner.jpg

What can I say?  I love 3D!  From the moment I began watching 3D content in my home I quickly discovered that I needed more content.  I suspect that those of you just purchasing your first 3D hardware will acquire the same ferocious appetite.  That's why I became the HTF 3D ADDICT.  I personally love images that pop off the screen and come inches away from your face without becoming overly gimmicky.  However, I certainly appreciate the nature documentaries that offer beautiful depth and separation.  These are not necessarily reviews of the film themselves.  I am not going to concentrate on story or supplements -- you can find the 2D reviews elsewhere on this forum.  My job is to let you know exactly what kind of 3D experience to expect from the titles that are being released.   As I will be receiving a handful of new product from the studios expect to see more title coverage.





51vJokfRKsL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

FRIGHT NIGHT


Studio: Touchstone

Product Release: December 13, 2011

Ratio: 1.78:1

Audio: 7.1 DTS-HD Master Audio. 

Running Time: 106 Minutes

Rating: R



3dsmall.jpg

ON A SCALE 0-5

Overall 3D Presentation Rating: 4

3D Separation: 3

3D In Yo' Face Factor: 4



I suppose, on its own, the 2011 version of  Fright Night is

the kind of fare that best appeals to today's teenage audiences

who have elevated vampires into teen idols thanks to shows

like True BloodVampire Diaries and The Twilight Saga films.  

However, for those of us who fondly cherish the original 1985

movie this remake tries so hard to improve upon, this is one

flick that is difficult to sink your teeth into.



Though this remake attempts to relocate itself and put an

entirely new spin on the original, most of the basic plot points

of the story remain unchanged.  Charlie Brewster (Anton Yelchin)

is your average teen who lives at home with his Mom (Toni

Collette) in a small suburban area just outside of Las Vegas.

Having recently shed his geekness, Charlie has miraculously

managed to hook up with the hottest girl in town (Imogen Poots),

alienating his former best friend Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse),

who is convinced recent neighborhood disappearances are

attributed to a new neighbor named Jerry (Colin Farrell) who

just might be a vampire.


Of course, Charlie isn't easily convinced at first that he might

have a vampire living next door to him, that is, until a scream

in the night leads him to a gruesome discovery that makes him

realize that he's got a problem neighbor.  With nowhere else to

turn, he enlists the help of Peter Vincent (David Tennant), a

washed-up alcoholic Vegas Illusionist who claims to be the

world's foremost vampire hunter.



It's obvious from the start that this remake fails miserably

at recapturing the flavor of the original. Buffy vet Marti Noxon

knew her target teenage audience when she updated Tom

Holland's original screenplay.  All the original humor and charm

of the 1985 film has been reduced to bland storytelling set

against big-budgeted effects.  At least the original film enabled

audiences to connect with its characters, most notably, Peter

Vincent, played by Roddy McDowell in one of the most memorable

roles of his career as a cowardly, but sweet sweet individual who

rises to the occasion of becoming a vampire killer.  In this new

version, David Tennant's egocentric Peter Vincent is a complete

asshole that one wishes were the film's first victim rather than its

savior. Even Charlie's best friend, Evil Ed, immortalized by Stephen

Geoffreys who dominated the original, is reduced here to an

annoying nerd who disappears for 3/4 of the film.  The worst

offense of all is that this new Fright Night is not even casually

frightening.  



The transfer of this film is difficult to gauge -- especially watching

it in 3D.  For the most part, the picture lives up to the normally

expected high levels of detail that Blu-ray provides.  The problem

is, the only time you really take notice of its sharpness and detail

is within the few daylit scenes of the Clark County suburb. It is

these moments that you get the best sense of depth between

characters and backdrop.  The majority of the film takes place

indoors or at night which presented a lot of problems with the 3D
process.  The most major problem I saw was crosstalk that existed

in just about every scene of the film resulting in double imaging 

that traced the outlines of characters and props.   It's bad enough

that low-light levels reduce the overall effectiveness of showing

depth, but with the intentional murky look that many of these scenes

have been given, the film tends to feel more 2D than 3D.



I really need to applaud the attempts of the filmmakers to provide

a few really cool "In Yo' Face" 3D effects for audiences that shell out

the extra bucks for that kind of thing.  There is an abundance of 

post production effect work that, while probably unnecessary, kind

of makes this film more fun to watch than it should be.  I made a

rather long list of objects that get thrown towards the audience which

include shards of glass, splattering blood, an arrowhead and even

the claws of a vampire coming up beneath floor of a car.  Some of

the more prominent 3D projectiles such as a cross floating in water,

a pointed gun or an arrow hurled toward the screen are ruined by the 

excessive amount of crosstalk that blurs and doubles the image as

it reaches beyond the confines of the screen.  The best use of 3D
is the burning embers that float like flakes of snow inches before

our eyes.  It's a great effect that gets used several times throughout

the film without one getting tired of it.


This Blu-ray features a 7.1 DTS-HD MA track that was downcoverted

to 5.1 on my system.  Coming across powerfully and directionally

authentic, this is an immersive sonic experience.  The film's ominous

score is supplemented with just the right amount of low-level LFE and

carefully placed effect and dialogue -- all of which does an admirable

job of raising the level of pending danger.  



Fright Night arrives as a 3-disc combo package that features both

3D and 2D Blu-ray versions of the film as well as a DVD with digital

copy. The set is encased in lenticular packaging.


Extras included here is a gag reel, music video, frightful facts and

terrifying triva, 5 deleted scenes, Peter Vincent: Swim Inside My Mind,

and The Official How to Make a Funny Vampire Movie Guide.



CONCLUSION



This re-imagining of Fright Night isn't the worst thing that you

could rent on Blu-ray, but it falls drastically short of everything

that made the original a classic.  The film makes great use of

post production 3D effects, though some of the projected images

are blurred thanks to a modest level of crosstalk. 


As long as you can refrain from comparing it to the original (unlike

I was able to do), this may make for a moderately interesting

watch.  Otherwise, skip this and watch the 1985 version instead.



Images are for illustrative purpose only not representative of the picture quality of this disc. 


Equipment


LG 60PX950 THX Certified 3D display

Oppo BDP-93 3D Blu-ray Player

Denon 3311CI Receiver

Atlantic Technology H-PAS AT-1 fronts, 4400 center; 4200 rear speakers

SV Sound Subwoofer



 

michael deakin

Deceased Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2000
Messages
186
Location
Warrington
Real Name
Michael Charles Deakin
Hi ron. I watched this the other night and just couldn't enjoy it. Maybe im getting cranky in my old age, But i just think that it was devoid of any charm or excitement compared to the original. The soundtrack was boring and too much use of cgi, Nice cameo by "chis sarandon" tho. Give me the original anyday.
 

Ronald Epstein

Founder
Owner
Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 3, 1997
Messages
66,690
Real Name
Ronald Epstein
Michael,


I would imagine that anyone who has as fond attachment to the

original as most of us do would find this re-imagining to be disappointing.


Hope you are doing well.
 

tbaio

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
145
Real Name
Thomas
No toss up from my end as to which one was better.....the original film wins out by a landslide. The most disappointing thing was the casting of the new Peter Vincent character. He was clearly not inspired by Roddy McDowell but rather by Russell Brand, which was such a shame. Unlike the original film, the character never rose above being comedy relief. I do recall the 3-D being very well done during the theatrical release though. However, I will take the word of the reviewer that the cross-talk effect makes for frustrating viewing (I saw the same thing in the My Bloody Valentine 3-D blu ray as well). Oh, well. Just another case of a remake not coming close to matching the effectiveness of its original counterpart.
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,466
Location
The basement of the FBI building
I'm not saying the remake is particularly good, I'm saying more that the original isn't particularly good either. I see the original Fright Night in the same category as The Goonies and Ferris Bueller- a very average movie that people love more because of nostalgia than because it's a quality movie. I don't mean that in a negative way either because everyone enjoys something in that way.
 

cineMANIAC

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 3, 2008
Messages
2,744
Location
New York City
Real Name
Luis
The remake fell completely flat for me. I can't imagine anyone older than 10 preferring vampires that go "poof" in a cloud of CGI dust over well-executed practial effects and makeup. Movies like the original Fright Night are products of their time. If Tom Holland were to make it today it probably would turn out like the remake - it's just the way it is. More the reason to enjoy and appreciate the original.
 

Ronald Epstein

Founder
Owner
Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 3, 1997
Messages
66,690
Real Name
Ronald Epstein
I watched the original last night. It holds up well after all these years -- especially

with it new beautiful transfer.


The only thing that looks dated in the film are the special effects. However, I sat

there and really appreciated the fact that I was looking at effect work that was more

hand-made than computerized. Really have respect for that in the same way people

still love the Ray Harryhausen effects (if I am making a fair comparison).


And McDowell and Sarandon are just fantastic in their roles.
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,466
Location
The basement of the FBI building
elDomenechHTF said:
I can't imagine anyone older than 10 preferring vampires that go "poof" in a cloud of CGI dust over well-executed practial effects and makeup.
Just like the remake has fake looking CG, there's plenty of fake looking practical effects in the original too. I know most people (especially horror fans) are willing to ignore poor practical effects while criticizing the slightest flaw in CG but in my eyes, it's the same basic sin. There's been amazing effects made out of latex and amazing effects made out of pixels. How it's done should be irrelevant because you should be engrossed in the movie and the effects should be seamless.
Ronald Epstein said:
And McDowell and Sarandon are just fantastic in their roles.
Yeah, I think the cast of the original is its best asset.
 

tbaio

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
145
Real Name
Thomas
I too agree that the original Fright Night holds up very very well over time. Such a feat is only seen in very good movies. As for the special FX, I still believe they are well done; I found nothing dated or cheesy about them (just like those found in the 1981 version of The Thing). This updated version's pace is so off. The vampire seems to be trying to kill everyone in one night which is senseless. Ironically, then the movie goes on to be at least 15 minutes too long. Its a mess. And worse still, it sounds like the movie's 3-D (which I thought was the best part of the film) is not up to par for home theater viewing. Yikes indeed.
 

moonchild69

Auditioning
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
4
Real Name
steve hawkins
Ronald, i am a huge Fright Night fan. I am really excited about the quality of the film on blu-ray. I expected that the film print would be spectacular from previous interviews with William Ragsdale. I really enjoy the audio of a film more than the picture quality. I read your review and was very concerned with what you had said about the 5.1 dts-hd ma re-mix channel separation not being really convincing and not being able to hear the surrounds adequately. Please can you go more in-depth about your experiences. I hope that Sony did not do a poor re-mix from the original dolby stereo track. I expect that if movies like Aliens and Predator can have decent re-mixes that Fright Night could sound good as well. I would also expect the center channel dialogue bleed through to the front L & R channels but the surrounds when mixed correctly should create acoustic bubble more of a three dimensional sound stage. Help!!!
 

Ronald Epstein

Founder
Owner
Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 3, 1997
Messages
66,690
Real Name
Ronald Epstein
Hi Steve!


Welcome to the forum. Hope you stick around.


You are talking about the 1985 Twilight Time release, yes?


You are posting in the 2011 thread.

Yeah, I wasn't blown away by the 5.1 separation on the 1985
version Blu-ray. Only a few times did I really notice rear activity,

and it was mostly to fill out the film score. The disco scene
seemed to have the most prominent rear presence.


Of course, everyone is subjected to having a different experience.
 

Johnny Angell

Played With Dinosaurs Member
Senior HTF Member
Deceased Member
Joined
Dec 13, 1998
Messages
14,905
Location
Central Arkansas
Real Name
Johnny Angell
TravisR said:
Just like the remake has fake looking CG, there's plenty of fake looking practical effects in the original too. I know most people (especially horror fans) are willing to ignore poor practical effects while criticizing the slightest flaw in CG but in my eyes, it's the same basic sin. There's been amazing effects made out of latex and amazing effects made out of pixels. How it's done should be irrelevant because you should be engrossed in the movie and the effects should be seamless. Yeah, I think the cast of the original is its best asset.
I've noticed the same thing. There's a nostalgia for doing practical effects and a bias against cgi. Not everyone of course, but quite a few. I'm a big fan of Harryhausen, I grew up watching his movies. However, so much more can be done with cgi. I would be disappointed if a new dinosaur movie came out and it was exclusively stop-motion. CGI doesn't guarantee a good movie as the reviews of this remake and the remake of Clash of Titans proves. However, IMHO, good cgi beats good stop-motion in most situations. There are of course artistic reasons to go with stop-motion and Coraline and other similar movies prove.
 

tbaio

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
145
Real Name
Thomas
Originally Posted by Johnny Angell

I've noticed the same thing. There's a nostalgia for doing practical effects and a bias against cgi. Not everyone of course, but quite a few. I'm a big fan of Harryhausen, I grew up watching his movies. However, so much more can be done with cgi. I would be disappointed if a new dinosaur movie came out and it was exclusively stop-motion.
CGI doesn't guarantee a good movie as the reviews of this remake and the remake of Clash of Titans proves. However, IMHO, good cgi beats good stop-motion in most situations. There are of course artistic reasons to go with stop-motion and Coraline and other similar movies prove.

Well said. However, when you look at the truly elite use of practical FX, its a different story than comparing current CGI to stop motion FX. I do agree that more can be done with current CGI, but easier made FX does not mean better. Take a look at Rob Bottin's FX in 1981's The Thing. One word comes to mind: unbeatable. No CGI will be able to match that. Other examples include:1979's Zombie, the planes in Tora, Tora, Tora, The Battle of Britain, Flight of the Phoenix and the list goes on. If all this was done nowadays, CGI would come into the mix & it would not be the same. It would look like CGI thus watering down the effect. I'll take stunt men & pilots over drawings any day. Even cinematography is compromised with the use of bad CGI. Take a look at the second Mummy movie. No sets were built, no actual landscapes were shot; it was all CGI & it showed. You are correct: good CGI beats stop motion; that's goes with the changing times. My point being that the bias to CGI is not unwarranted. In many cases, the older FX are simply better & not just for nostalgic reasons.
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,466
Location
The basement of the FBI building
tbaio said:
Take a look at Rob Bottin's FX in 1981's The Thing.  One word comes to mind: unbeatable.  No CGI will be able to match that. 
I LOVE The Thing but if I'm being honest, there's a handful of effects shots that aren't convincing (as Norris' head separates from his body, his neck looks like the ripping latex that it actually is). While it's probably not financially feasible, I think the best way to do effects today is to use a combination of the two artforms- use practical effects whenever possible and if there's any errors, you can smooth them out with CG.
 

Johnny Angell

Played With Dinosaurs Member
Senior HTF Member
Deceased Member
Joined
Dec 13, 1998
Messages
14,905
Location
Central Arkansas
Real Name
Johnny Angell
TravisR said:
I LOVE The Thing but if I'm being honest, there's a handful of effects shots that aren't convincing (as Norris' head separates from his body, his neck looks like the ripping latex that it actually is). While it's probably not financially feasible, I think the best way to do effects today is to use a combination of the two artforms- use practical effects whenever possible and if there's any errors, you can smooth them out with CG.
I love The Thing too, and when I'm involved in the movie the effects all work. But if I observe the movie, I can see some of the wizard behind the curtain. If Carpenter were making this movie today for the first time with the same images in mind, cgi could do it better or at least as well. No practical effects can create a living, breathing, full-length dinosaur like cgi can. Don't dump practical, use it where applicable. The Jurassic Park movies come to mind. A combination of cgi and practical that really work well. In the case of the cgi dinosaurs, when I step out of the movie and observe, I still see living, breathing, muscle rippling dinosaurs. Practical can't do that. CGI is getting a bad rap because there's too much bad cgi. Just watch any scyfy saturday night movie. Aways bad (excepting the specials they put on). CGI can be cheap to do and cheap to watch. But can you imagine how much worse those bad scyfy movies would be if they were all practical? Can you just see a puppet Sharktopus? I need a barf bag just thinking of it.:) There's also been plenty of bad practical.
 

tbaio

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
145
Real Name
Thomas
Originally Posted by TravisR


I LOVE The Thing but if I'm being honest, there's a handful of effects shots that aren't convincing (as Norris' head separates from his body, his neck looks like the ripping latex that it actually is). While it's probably not financially feasible, I think the best way to do effects today is to use a combination of the two artforms- use practical effects whenever possible and if there's any errors, you can smooth them out with CG.

Well said. Your point was brought to life in the remake of The Hills Have Eyes. It was a terrific blend of CGI & practical make-up FX. Too bad the movie wasn't as good as the FX, but that's another issue.
 

tbaio

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
145
Real Name
Thomas
Originally Posted by Johnny Angell There's also been plenty of bad practical.

Dude, you have a thing for dinosaurs!! Almost fetish-like!! On a serious note, not to knock your point (because I do agree with it), but I have seen dinosaurs come to life with the use of puppets & robots with outstanding results. The show as called Walking With Dinosaurs. This was not a film; it was live & the FX were convincing. My point being that practical FX can indeed make your beloved creatures stand out. However, in order to do this in a movie, they would still need CGI & mininatures ala the old Godzilla movies. That would not be, no pun intended, practical because CGI would be used in place of the practical FX & minatures (kills 3 birds with 1 stone).
 

Johnny Angell

Played With Dinosaurs Member
Senior HTF Member
Deceased Member
Joined
Dec 13, 1998
Messages
14,905
Location
Central Arkansas
Real Name
Johnny Angell
tbaio said:
Dude, you have a thing for dinosaurs!!  Almost fetish-like!!  On a serious note, not to knock your point (because I do agree with it), but I have seen dinosaurs come to life with the use of puppets & robots with outstanding results.  The show as called Walking With Dinosaurs.  This was not a film; it was live & the FX were convincing.  My point being that practical FX can indeed make your beloved creatures stand out.  However, in order to do this in a movie, they would still need CGI & mininatures ala the old Godzilla movies.  That would not be, no pun intended, practical because CGI would be used in place of the practical FX & minatures (kills 3 birds with 1 stone).   
I've been to Waling With Dinosaurs too, and thoroughly enjoyed it. However, WWD is a perfect illustration of the limitation of practical effects. In WWD, the big dinosaurs are mounted on a propelled pedestal. It is the pedestal that gives them mobility, not their legs. In the presentation I saw (in an indoor arena) the floor was filled with mist to hide the pedestals. This did contribute to the illusion. i enjoyed the show and would go again, but the illusion was not complete. What makes WWD so effective is that you are in the presence of full-scale dinosaurs that are very well done. If you used them as effects in a movie, it wouldn't work as well When I watch Jurassic Park, the only reason I don't believe that actual dinosaurs were filmed is because I know they haven't been recreated yet. The cgi dinosaurs are totally effective. The WWD dinosaurs, only partially. And yes, I do have a thing for dinosaurs. I grew up in the 50's reading Roy Chapman Andrews and watching Ray Harryhausen bring them back to life. I'm a sucker for a good dino movie. By good, I mean convincing dinos, if the rest of the movie is also good, that's gravy. I almost always do not like the man in a lizard suit effect and I have never liked it when they use real lizards to portray prehistoric beasts. This is heresy, but I don't care for the Godzilla movies (see my first dislike). To speak further heresy, I do like the American Godzilla remake which had extensive use of cgi.
 

WillG

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
7,565
The only thing that looks dated in the film are the special effects.
I wouldn't disagree that some of the effects look a little bit dated, but overall, I think the effects in the Original Fright Night still hold up very well (on a side note, I always think of this movie as one of the few films where blood looked real to me) As for the CGI thing. For me, it gets annoying when it's overused when it doesn't need to be. Obviously, there are think that could not have been done in cinema without CGI, but I get the feeling that alot of filmmakers will just have the "We'll do it digitally" mentality for things that would look more "real" when done practically. And also, remember some of the greatest treats in cinema occurred because of limitations in effects. "Jaws" and "Alien" are two movies that limitations in effects at the time made them better. Another example, the first three Indiana Jones movies had real snakes, real bugs, real rats. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull had CGI ants, which I just regarded as exactly what they were, CGI ants, which had no impact on me at all.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Sign up for our newsletter

and receive essential news, curated deals, and much more







You will only receive emails from us. We will never sell or distribute your email address to third party companies at any time.

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,995
Messages
5,128,008
Members
144,227
Latest member
maanw2357
Recent bookmarks
0
Top