Fright Night - Remake Showdowon

 

Vampires are a proud staple of Halloween traditions and horror fiction. From the great classics like Dracula to modern iterations such as Blade from Marvel Comics. In the 1980s, while many cinephiles had nightmares of a burnt psycho in a Christmas sweater with knives for fingers, a little film called Fright Night renewed our fear for the creatures of the night. It is regarded as a memorable bit of cheesy fun for its story, special effects, and memorable cast. Then, a little over twenty years later, a remake of the cult-classic hit the silver screen. Does it hold up to the original at all? Well, the answer might surprise you. Join me as we sink our teeth into both versions of Fright Night

Theme 

In both versions of the film, the story follows a teenaged boy named Charley, who discovers that his recently-moved-in neighbor happens to be a Vampire. Despite witnessing clear indications, and many attempts to prove it to others, no one believes in Charley. Thereby forcing him to take on the demonic creature himself. 

What separates the two versions of the story is there thematic elements. While the original film was primarily about the value of old-fashioned practices and ideas in the modern age, the remake is more about identity and self-image. In the remake, Charley is a former nerd, who, after a growth spurt and a relationship with one of the popular girls, abandons his nerdy friends and geeky self to become one of the “cool” kids. however, when his former best-friend warns him of the dangerous threat living next door to him, Charley ignores him and refuses to believe. It is only when his friend ends up missing does Charley decide to take some initiative. After realizing his friend was telling the truth, Charley must now reconnect with his inner-nerd to take down the Vampire and save the day. 

This new idea of embracing ones genuine self, no matter how “uncool” others may perceive it to be, is more than proficient to earn the remake lots of points. Any story that promotes the importance of self-acceptance and the value of individuality is always welcome in my book. 

Supporting Characters 

Both films respectively feature a few memorable and lovable supporting characters. The most essential for both iterations of the story is Charley’s girlfriend, Amy, and the charismatic yet cowardly superstar, Peter Vincent. 

Amy, in both the original and the remake, is an attractive young girl who is in love with Charley. At some point in the story, she gets captured by the villainous Vampire, causing Charley to come to her rescue. However, there is a surprisingly superior difference between the two iterations of Amy’s character. 

In the original, Amy is, for want of a better term, a bit of an airhead. She’s attracted to Charley, and is confident she want’s to loose her virginity to him, but as things become too scary and uncertain, while Charley’s Vampire neighbor closes in on them, Amy seems to find herself, well, more attracted to the Vampire. While you could argue that she is falling victim to the Vampire’s supernatural charm, in the original film, it’s kind of ambiguous just how much of her getting captured is against her will. It almost seems to imply that Amy starts to believe that Charley is no longer worthy of her affection, and is more attracted to the Vampire’s assertiveness. Which, if you ask me, is a terrible way to treat women characters in any setting. 

However, in the remake, Amy is better fleshed out as a character. She is more proactive in the story, shows herself to be genuinely attracted to Charley for who he is, and is incredibly obviously not attracted to the predatory nature of the villain. While she still falls into the damsel-in-distress cliche, at the very least, it does not feel contrived or lazy in this presentation. 

Another fantastic supporting character from both versions of the film is Peter Vincent. In the original, he is the host and star of a television show where he proclaims himself as an accomplished Vampire killer, and official expert on all things pertaining to the blood-sucking monsters. However, when Charley approaches him for advice and assistance in taking down his neighbor, it turns out that Peter Vincent is nothing more than a down-on-his-luck actor who has milked his Vampire kick for as long as he can. Even though he is an expert, he never believed that Vampires were real, until he learns the truth about Charley’s neighbor, and gains the courage to take him down. 

In the remake, Peter Vincent is still an expert on all things Vampire, but now, he’s a Vampire-themed illusionist performing regularly in Las Vegas. Also, much like Amy, the remake succeeds in adding texture and extra depth to his character. In addition to being an expert, he gets a backstory to explain why he is so obsessed with Vampires. Also, he provides the story with a greater sense of urgency, because the villainous Vampire happens to be of a particular sect that specializes in hostile takeovers of entire populations. Meaning they will eventually wipe out the entire community unless Charley can stop them. 

Also, David Tennant, who portrays Peter Vincent in the remake, is absolutely astonishing to watch. 

Conclusion

While the original will always have a proud place in cult-classic history, this is a rare occasion where I find the remake to be a superior film. It builds upon the elements that make the original so memorable, while retaining its own identity as a more in-depth story. Not to mention the pitch-point casting and witty writing often not found in remakes at all. While I recommend both films for a good Halloween movie marathon, if you have to choose one, my money is on the remake, and I do not make that endorsement lightly. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading.