User Score
6.8

Generally favorable reviews- based on 199 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 19 out of 199

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Aug 28, 2011
    1
    Its awful. There is a feeble attempt to interject some 'are you from London' english humor but it falls flat. This is a awful awful movie......i dont get it. What was Colin Farrell thinking !
  2. Aug 19, 2011
    4
    I've been hesitant to write this review because I think Colin Ferrell brings the right attitude to the role, but the film as a whole really left me flat and, most damningly, bored. This horror fan wasn't "scared" in the least - there's nothing frightening about it. And it's just not very funny - aside from McLovin', who is genuinely solid in a small role. The lead actor (Yelchin) was a poor choice - they could have done much better. Even the Las Vegas act - who is also funny - isn't charming enough to make it a great film. I kept thinking that Bruce Campbell would have been a great choice to sneak into the film somehow. Also, 3D did nothing for the movie - in fact, it almost detracted from my experience. Just another film that I have to disagree with the critics on. It happens. Expand
  3. Sep 16, 2011
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The comeback for vampires as a bankable horror sub-genre of film was still in its incubation stage when "Fright Night" snuck into theaters during the slasher pic's heyday back in the mid-eighties. With tactless anti-heroes such as Jason, Michael Myers, and Freddy Krueger upping the gore factor with each subsequent sequel for their respective franchises, how could the relatively subtle bloodletting induced by the fang bite of a debonair gentleman compete with arterial spray? "The kids today, Peter Vincent, the host of a local TV "creature feature" show complained, "don't have the patience for vampires. They want to see some mad slasher running around and chopping off heads." Charley, however, had a taste for the vintage stuff, albeit not a goth, he knew that Bela Lugosi was dead, which automatically made him an outsider like British Invasion rock aficionado Max Fleischer, whose eclectic interests helped fill the void of being without female companionship in "Rushmore". Likewise, the losers in "Weird Science", old school horror buffs both, not coincidentally, are invisible at their high school, but at least they use their geeky fandom to good use by building themselves the perfect woman, based on their viewing of "Frankenstein". With Lisa's help, they come of age, where the "monster" corrupts Gary and Wyatt, who gawk nervously at the buck naked sex goddess, unsure of how one goes about losing their virginity. Conversely, or so it seems, Charley appears all raring to bust his cherry, hers too. Amy, his girlfriend, whom he has on the floor in the opening scene, the two going at it hot and heavy, in which Charley reappropriates the televised monster flick as background noise, the coverage they need to absorb the impassioned cries of their potential lovemaking. As usually is the case, judging by Charley's incensed reaction, the girl puts a halt to their amorous doings from going any further, leaving him, once again, with, presumably, blue balls. But how blue are those balls, in actuality? This time, Amy agrees with Charlie's protestations, and makes herself available on his bed, just what he was, only moments ago, clamoring for. The moment passes. Now his attention is drawn to the neighbors next-door, carrying a coffin, like life imitating art(or an outward projection of his cinephilia), yet what could be more important to a young man than life imitating a porno. Some moments don't pass. "Premature Burial", like all films made during the Production Code era, was virtually free of sex and nudity. Why would a red-blooded male teen want to watch that? It should come as no surprise, then, that Charlie would rather stare out the window than ogle a half-naked nubile, since unlike other guys his age, the titillation factor in catching a glimpse of breast before the homicidal maniac stabs his sexually active sister to death(from "Halloween"), holds no interest for him. On a subtextual level, the coffin is not what enraptures Charlie; it's the prospect that the two men are lovers. Drawn to them, on another night when Amy isn't around, he goes outside to investigate, spying on his neighbors from behind the bushes. When Mrs. Brewster call out for her son, she blows his cover(as both a voyeur and heterosexual), whereupon detection, Jerry rolls a half-eaten red apple towards Charlie, as if enticing him to take a bite(read: to sin). Exactly what does the slightly effeminate "Evil" mean, when he asks his friend, "Did she find out how you really are?" But nevertheless, Charlie has outgrown Ed, a latent fact which the new "Fright Night" brings to its inevitable fruition, accurately predicting that their friendship would have eventually dissolved had his the evil one not "died". Reaffirming his own masculinity, Charley equates vampire fixation with liking Stephanie Meyer novels, provoking Ed to respond: "I'm seriously angry that you think I read 'Twilight'," while they investigate the disappearance of a mutual confidant. But Charlie, in a shrewd move on the film's part, isn't a fan like his eighties counterpart, even though it's now socially acceptable to be into vampires...if you're a girl. "Fright Night" aims to remind people that these nocturnal creatures have more in common with the shark from "Jaws" than Edward Cullen. Vampires don't glitter prettily in the sun, they burst into flames. This time around, Jerry eats green apples, and doesn't share his forbidden fruit with Charlie. This time around, Charlie discovers vampires, then he ignores Amy. The gratuitous action that dominates the third act, smacks of overcompensation for a perceived feminine genre, mirroring Charlie's own exaggerated machismo by dating a sexpot. Could there be an even more incriminating photo on Ed's phone? More than a series of vampire murders, "Fright Night" is about a murdered friendship, two people who are in very different places in their lives, suggesting a prequel to "Chuck & Buck". Expand
  4. Nov 30, 2011
    0
    Should've been called **** Night.' What a dreadful film. I have no idea how the main cast signed on for this. Feels like it was written by a 1st year film student. Zero drama, zero suspense, zero interest. I agree with a few others on here -- this film was boring. Would've worked better as a spoof comedy. Give it a miss.
  5. Oct 19, 2012
    1
    The worst attempt at a reboot that I have ever seen. The casting was decent, but the script is terrible, the settings are terrible, and the cg FX were god-awful. I realize what they were trying to do, updating it for a new generation, but they managed to lose everything that gave the original its charm. Charlie was supposed to be the one that believed, not Evil Ed... major difference. Tom Holland should be ashamed that he sold out, letting one of his best franchises be turned into this trash. Should have stuck with the original stars and made a Part III where Charlie is a father protecting his kids. It would have drawn attention to the originals while bringing it to the next gen. Instead we got this terrible terrible movie that we have to try to forget. Expand
  6. Oct 13, 2011
    4
    horror movie? is this a joke? by god that looked like a cheap comedy, where you looked you think the most absurd thing you've ever seen, damn lucky I did not spend my damn money to see it in 3D because it showed normal screen were a mess.
  7. Jun 30, 2012
    0
    I am completely amazed at how horrible this movie is. The original is one of my favorite movies of all time. This movie really pales in comparison. The only thing it had in common with the original are the names. Thats it. Everything good about the first movie was removed and replaced with cliche. I can't understand how anyone could've enjoyed this movie. I do not recommend at any cost.
  8. Jun 4, 2012
    1
    I don't know what drugs reviewers have been taking, but this was one of the most unoriginal, boring and dissapointing movies I've seen in years. Colin Farrell will be the next Nic Cage if he keeps making trash like this, and this may just ruin Mintz-Plasse's career. There's a reason this bombed at the box office - the truth is in the ticket sales. Stay away from this bore of a film.
  9. Aug 28, 2011
    3
    Have you ever had that "uh oh" feeling? That is exactly how i felt as the movie moved along. The character payed by "McLovin" could have totally been editted from the film. To be honest, I believe the movie would moved along better without him. The movie had some nice 3d effects, but they weren't enough to save this stinker of a movie. There were no "spooky" parts in the film. Now that i think of it, there weren't many action scenes either. I honestly have no clue why someone would reccommend this film. Expand
  10. Nov 29, 2011
    0
    I registered with Metacritic so I could write this review. There just has to be more in your life for you to do than watch this movie. Seriously. Go do something productive, you'll thank yourself for it in the long run.

    worst. anything. ever.
  11. Sep 29, 2013
    0
    Exploitive, vulgar, and trashy, Fright Night is one of the worst movies in 2011. Everything that comes out of it is glossed over with an obnoxious coat of profanity and sexually explicit dialogue that doesn't fit in. I don't disown those kinds of movies when the content is justified (Goodfellas had good reason to have 300 f words), but this movie is abysmal, disgustingly shocking, and grotesque, and is not justified at all. It's barely justified to be on the silver screen in the first place. Expand
Metascore
64

Generally favorable reviews - based on 30 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 21 out of 30
  2. Negative: 1 out of 30
  1. Reviewed by: Helen O'Hara
    Aug 29, 2011
    60
    Funny and scary - and sometimes both at once - it lives up to the original, even if it fails to surpass it.
  2. Reviewed by: Keith Staskiewicz
    Aug 19, 2011
    75
    It ends up getting a surprising number of things right.
  3. Reviewed by: Mike Scott
    Aug 19, 2011
    50
    While this nouveau Fright Night does a reasonable job of maintaining the fun spirit of the original film, between the blood splatters and vamp stakings, it never builds on what the original had to offer -- and thus never quite makes a convincing case for its own existence.