This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say "goats.""
11944 members | you are not logged in | 23 August 2014




Tweet







August 24 2011

(SPOILER) A new "Fright Night": what a difference a female screenwriter makes. Light spoilers for the movie: "Marti Noxon, known for her work on Buffy the Vampire Slayer and then Angel, is obviously no newbie when it comes to vampires-nor when it comes to vampire narratives that take on gender norms and critique them."

Oddly enough, the only other review I'd read -- scathing -- specifically cited Poots and Collette as seeming like nobody had bothered to write characters for them at all (TWOP).
Only really heard bad things about it so far as well.
Sadly, the script is probably the worst thing about it.
I've seen the movie and thought it was great. I thought the script was one of the best parts of it. And I agree with everything in the article. Didn't see it that way before I read it and also kinda thought the mom and the girlfriend didn't have much to do in the story, but now I can see how the movie does update the role of the females in a traditional horror movie to modern day versions. I've not seen the original, but I'd like to now to compare it with the new version. (Oh, and David Tennant is fantastic in the movie!)
The script is really bad. The protagonist is unlikable (and never becomes likable through the movie). The Peter Vincent character has no place in this version, so they toss him a really laughable back story just to keep him involved for the final battle. And there are numerous logic jumps. How does Jerry get into Peter's apartment without being invited? How does Peter know where Jerry and Charley are for the ending?

It's a bad, bad script, which really shocks me coming from Noxon.
Haven't seen it yet but rotten tomatoes says the reviews are generally positive.

Of the top critics, 88% gave it good reviews.

I think I'm gonna like it.

[ edited by Squishy on 2011-08-25 03:03 ]
I've heard good things from friends who've seen it.
I just came back from seeing it. I liked it, it was fun. I didn't think the script was that bad; yeah there were some holes, but I didn't really notice because I was having fun.
I don't know where the negativity came from, but to balance it out a bit:

Roger Ebert gave it 3 out of 4 stars and said, "As vampire movies go, 'Fright Night' is a pretty good one." Rotten Tomatoes has it at 75% fresh over all reviews. Lots of good buzz about it out there.

My review blurb on Facebook: "Want to see a GOOD vampire movie? Then I can HIGHLY recommend "Fright Night". The lead actor, likably sympathetic Anton Yelchin is well cast as the teen hero who thinks the neighbor is a vampire but can't get anyone to believe. David Tennant plays his role as magician/vampire expert Peter Vincent with relish.

The winning script by Buffy the Vampire Slayer alum Marty Noxon expertly walks that delicate balance between comedy and horror. This is not a note for note remake of the original, so fans of that first film are in for surprises. The special effects are spectacular, and the best special effect of all is how creepily believable Colin Farrel is as a vampire!"

I took a friend who doesn't like horror generally, but does like David Tennant from his time on Doctor Who. She liked his performance a lot, but she also said, "It (the movie) was really good! Well worth your time! And I liked that it didn't take 1/2 the movie before it got creepy. It started with a bang, and just kept going!"

So, I'm wondering if people are seeing the same movie I did when I read them saying it was a bad script and a bad film.
The problem is that snark has been passing itself off as criticism for so long that quite frankly I think you see negative reviews for the sake of being negative.

That said, I do get a little wierded out by the article in which psychopathic behaviour is being passed off as violent masculinity.
blanetalk, do all of your friends talk in critic blurbs?

It's not an awful movie. Farrell's really, really good. Tennant's fun though wasted. But anyone who thinks they sat through a legitimately good movie is wearing blinders.

[ edited by The Dark Shape on 2011-08-25 04:42 ]
Also blanetalk her name is spelled Marti - think she might be a bit put out by having her gender changed.

I saw the trailer online and thought it looked fun. I don't think I saw the original (Might've, but if so it was forgettable) but I did have to wonder "WHY?" they felt the need to do yet another remake.

I also watched the clip where David's character is approached for vampire hunting tips. And watched it three times. Dear lord the man is, to borrow from our own Amber Benson, Sex on a Stick!
Is it me or does the link not actually work? I can't see anything on the page. I saw a lot of good reviews for Fright Night, so some critics did like it.
The link was slow but working yesterday afternoon. It didn't seem to be working for the last few hours though.

I think there may be a system problem because I don't think I can access anything blog related there at the moment.

[ edited by azzers on 2011-08-25 08:16 ]
Their entire blog is loading blank.
I think saying the script was blindingly awful is walking in expecting too much. The movie was fun, energetic, and legitimately creepy. The dialogue was good and the pacing excellent, the actors did a good job, and Toni Collette and Imogen Poots are supporting characters. In the original, those characters don't even rate enough to talk about them. The movie is about Peter Vincent and Charlie. To say Charlie isn't likable and never gets so is kind of a blanket statement and I don't know its origins other than what he says to Ed. I think both sides of that argument have merit, and Charlie realizes how big of a dick he's become. But where Poots would have been shallow and popular, she isn't, and where the Collette would have been useless in a vampire fight, she wasn't.

Also, I really don't like people criticizing a movie's "script." You have no idea what the script was like, what it's tone was, or how Marti imagined it being executed. Scenes were almost definitely deleted or rewritten, and loads of things were improvised, esp. between Ferrell and Tennant. Unless you got your hands on the script, just say "writing". I think everyone here should know this lesson from the original Buffy movie.

Either way, I highly recommend it. It's definitely a Buffy-style horror comedy, and has a few genuinely surprising and clever moments. Good for a scare and a lot of fun.
anyone who thinks they sat through a legitimately good movie is wearing blinders.
Or possibly has different taste in movies.

As to the article, have to say that despite the disclaimers made about experience vs. determinism, I find the title and the idea behind it kind of off-putting.
Fright Night is only being shown in 3D near me. WTF, 3D?

Listen. I put up with it when you started showing up in movie reviews all the time. I listened to people go on about how good you were in Avatar. Fine, whatevs, people also like Pokemon, I'm not bothered.

Then Cabin in the Woods was delayed because of you. This is the point that I really started to dislike you. It elevated it from annoyance to personal grudge.

Now the nearest theatre is only showing Fright Night in you.

It's official. I hate you, 3D. So much.
Cabin wasn't delayed for 3D. Cabin was delayed because MGM went broke and couldn't afford to release it.
Cabin was originally delayed to be converted to 3D; someone correct me if I'm wrong.
dispatch is correct. The original delay was for 3D conversion. The next delay (or, delays, depending) was due to MGM's financial woes.
My understanding was that the first delay was "reportedly" for the 3D conversion and was a ruse to cover for not having the cash to release it but I could be wrong. I heard that 3rd or 4th hand.
That would not explain that they did actualy run 3D conversion tests on footage from the film.
My source must have been wrong then. I hadn't heard that the 3D conversion had actually taken place. Just a lot of people assuming that it had.
It never did in full. They ran tests (which the filmmakers weren't particularly thrilled with), and then MGM went boom. Part of the problem might stem from the fact that few people remember Cabin originally was slated for October 2009. Most people only ever seem to remember the February 2010 date (and then the January 2011 date), both of which were scuttled due to MGM's financial mess.

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home