Original vs. Remake Comparison: Total Recall (2012) vs. Total Recall (1990)

I remember seeing the original Total Recall in theaters way back in 1990 when Arnold Schwarzenegger was at the peak of his action star powers, when he was the king of the world of action movies. Total Recall was up to that point in Schwarzenegger’s career,  the biggest film he’d ever been in, the most expensive, the most epic; the most bombastic. And Arnold was just getting warmed up, a couple of years later he would amaze the world with Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1992). There was no doubt in my mind that Verhoeven’s Total Recall was an event film, people were talking about the special effects and about how over the top it was, but most of all, the movie was getting tons of heat because of the violence and the ‘disrespect for human life’ that it displayed. You know what I say to that: “Wake up people: it’s only a movie!” But then again, this was a time when Hollywood was getting a lot of criticism because of the violent quotient of it’s films. Yes ladies and gentlemen, 1990 was a summer/year of violence in theaters. We got such action packed gore fests as Die Hard 2 (1990), Robocop 2 (1990), Predator 2 (1990), hell, we even got artsy violence with David Lynch’s Wild at Heart (1990). Boy did I love going to the movies that summer! But the king of the violent films that year was the film we will be considering today, Paul Verhoeven’s Total Recall (1990). 

Paul Verhoeven and Arnold Schwarznegger

After seeing the remake last night, I can clearly see what makes both of these movies so different; and trust me they are very different. Let’s start things off with the way the action star has changed through out the decades. The 80’s and early 90’s were filled with action stars that were essentially, huge muscle bound tanks of destruction, you messed with them they’d answer with a roundhouse kick, a punch to the jaw or they’d blow you away really good. One look at the top action stars of the 80’s and it is crystal clear, muscles were the thing. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Jean Claude Van Damme, Chuck Norris, Dolph Lundgren, all of them, muscle bound and unstoppable. These guys were invincible in their films, so one thing that distinguished the action star of those days was the fact that nothing could get through them, they were damn near indestructible. With few exceptions, today’s action stars are not muscle bound freaks, but instead have a leaner figure. They are also more vulnerable, less indestructible. One look at the way James Bond was portrayed in Casino Royale (2006) will tell you this. Where Bond was once the epitome of indestructible, he now takes a beating; yes my friends; today’s action stars have one thing in common and that’s that they are psychologically  and physically vulnerable. This is why for this new remake we get a lean Colin Farrell instead of a muscle bound Arnold Schwarzenegger.

And speaking of Arnold Schwarzenegger, he was a big part of what made the original Total Recall what it is. Arnold has always been a bigger than life character, both in his movies and in real life and he wanted to make sure that this film was going to be as big if not bigger than his ego. He’d been trying to get on board the Total Recall train since the days when Dino De Laurentis was producing it. When that fell through he convinced Carolco to buy the rights of the film for 3 million. He negotiated a deal that gave him unparalleled control over the film. He had veto power over everyone, the producers, the writers, the director…he even had final say so over promotional material which would explain why his face is plastered over the entire poster! It was Arnold who chose Paul Verhoeven as a director because he was impressed with Verhoeven’s Robocop (1987). And here is where another essential element that made the old Total Recall what it was, the involvement of director Paul Verhoeven. It’s no secret that Verhoeven’s loves to cram his films with sex and violence. Veerhoven’s over the top style is plastered all over his Total Recall. When you see both the remake and the original, you see just what Verhoeven and Schwarzenegger brought to the project: sex, violence, cheesy one liners and over the top action. All of these elements are what is missing from the new film. It’s as if the fun was sucked right out of the movie. The new film is much more serious in tone, more solemn, cold. Basically, it’s not as much fun.

When Cronenberg was on board as director for the original Total Recall, he added an important element to the script that went on to become a huge part of Verhoeven's version: it was the element of actually going to Mars, he also added the Mutants and Kuato. Though in Philip K. Dick’s short story ‘We Can Remember it for you Wholesale’ Quaid does want to go to Mars (actually it’s the reason why he goes to Rekal) he never actually does. In Cronenberg’s script, Quaid actually does go to Mars and sides with the mutant rebels. There’d be none of these elements in Veerhoven’s film if it hadn’t been for Cronenberg take on the project. So it’s Cronenberg we have to thank for the whole ‘get your ass to Mars’ twist from the first film; which of course was completely deleted from the remake, apparently this was an effort to keep some amount of faithfulness to Philip K. Dick’s story. This means that on this new remake you won’t get, alien machinery, no mars colony, no mutant whores or clairvoyants, no Kuato, no Benny, no heads about to explode because of lack of air, no Mars with blue sky, no spaceships landing on Mars. Basically, anything that was Mars related was eliminated, which kind of brings the fun level down for me. Instead, we get a post apocalyptic earth in which over population is a huge problem. We get buildings on top of buildings, humans commuting in mass to their jobs, flying cars and a society living under a police state, a society that’s constantly being surveyed by the powers that be. So I guess this is the biggest difference with this new film. Eliminating Mars and keeping the film firmly grounded on Earth. They’ve switched the need to turn on the Alien Atmosphere Producing Machines with the need to stop a dictator from achieving his conquest of the people.

The new film is completely earthbound

Here’s where the two films walk on common ground. Both films are distinctively subversive. In both films Quaid was the evil corporate douche bag who now wants to be who he is, not who he used to be. He is the evil man who prefers to be the good guy he has turned into. His evil side is like a distant memory that he does not want to be a part of. Also, both films are about stopping the powers that be from abusing the people. On the original, we had Quaid trying to give the people free air, the way it should be. Why charge people for something that should be free? On the remake we have the workforce, battling against a government that wants nothing more then to obliterate the poor while looking like they are doing something good; a government that lies through the media, and uses the police as their own personal militia. This whole element of the working class vs. the higher powers actually reminded me a whole lot of Metropolis (1927), which is also a film about the working class asking for some respect. They after all helped build the futuristic city of Metropolis, all they want is to be treated fairly and with respect. Aesthetically, the film also reminded me of Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner (1982) and Spielberg’s Minority Report (2002), especially when the film goes into those flying car chases; which by the way are one of the coolest elements in the film. At the end of the day though, in between all the special effects and action, both films are about the people struggling to be heard and treated fairly. 

     

The original cut for Total Recall got Verhoeven an X Rating from the MPAA, it was deemed way too violent and graphic for the masses and so, cuts had to be made in order to get an R rating. Still, I’d say that Verhoeven walked away with an extremely gruesome movie. I still love watching Verhoeven’s film because it’s so over the top and crazy. I mean, it’s as if the film is constantly trying it’s hardest to shock you, I appreciate that about it. Three breasted prostitutes? Awesome! Heads that are about to explode due to lack of oxygen? Cool! Masks that talk and explode? Tre Cool! Sharon Stone top less? Double the Pleasure, Double the Fun! And what about Arnold’s none stop barrage of one liners? Fun as hell! Unfortunately all these elements where sucked out of the new one. I knew where the one liners were supposed to go on the remake…they just didn’t happen. They weren’t there. I was screaming "see you at the party Richter!" in the theater, and a couple of people laughed, they knew what I was talking about. It’s as if this remake was too self-righteous to have any fun? It’s trying to be so politically correct with its delivery that it looses its edge, it looses what made the previous film fun.

To make matters worse, one of the things that made the original so entertaining were Rob Bottin’s imaginative make up effects. These make up effects were so good that they got Rob Bottin and crew Academy Awards for their work. The three breasted girl, Kuato, the mask, the mutants, even Johnny Cab is gone, all of these creations we have Rob Bottin to thank for. Paul Verhoeven basically gave Bottin free reign to come up with as many gags as he could for the film and Bottin was eager to please. He was the one who came up with some of the films most show stopping moments, like the mask scene, that idea about the mask opening up and saying “get ready for a surprise!” was all Bottin! Sadly, the show stopping make up effects were completely ignored on this one. Instead we get tons of CGI environments.

I don’t want to sound like I didn’t enjoy this remake because it has some very good things going for it. I loved the art direction, which mixed elements from Blade Runner, Metropolis and Minority Report. There's no doubts about it, this is one cool looking movie, kudos to director Len Wiseman for achieving this. And whose fantastic idea was it to put both Jessica Biel and Kate Beckinsale on the same flick? Kudos to that genius, whoever he or she might be. And Colin Farrell did a good job as Quaid. I wouldn’t mind seen him on more action films. I also loved the idea behind these robot cops; they looked awesome and gave me a glimpse at what we might be seeing in the upcoming Robocop remake which is currently in production. Sadly, if that Robocop remake follows the same ‘modus operandi’ of this Total Recall remake, then the new Robocop will be an equally neutered version of the original. So yeah, the point I want to make about this new remake is that even though it had tons of none stop action and great visual effects, when compared to Verhoeven’s film, this new one feels neutered, like the majority of remakes nowadays. They offer us cleaner, “safer”, more politically correct versions of films that had balls. It seems to me like sex and violence are being eliminated from entertainment. Gone are the raunchy comedies, the ultra violent action films and the ultra gory horror films. Society is being neutered, who’s got the balls to bring an edge back to cinema?

(Go to this link for my full review of Total Recall (2012) 

Ratings:

Total Recall (1990): 5 out of 5

Total Recall (2012): 4 out of 5  

Shooting the flying car chase 

Fright Night (1985) vs. Fright Night (2011)

Title: Fright Night (2011) and Fright Night (2011)

Directors: Craig Gillespie and Tom Holland (respectively)

Cast: Collin Farrell, Anton Yelchin, David Tennant, Imogen Poots, Toni Collette, Christopher Mintz Plasse, Chris Sarandon, William Ragsdale, Amanda Bearse, Roddy McDowall, Stephen Geoffreys

Review:

The original Fright Night was one of the first films (along with Nightmare on Elm Street: Dream Warriors) to get me hooked on horror films. When I was a kid, horror films scared me like crazy, but it was Fright Night that taught me how fun horror films could be. Fright Night mixed a love for old school horror films with modern day make up effects. It had awesome characters all through out; Charley is the bookworm, the mild mannered regular Joe who suddenly finds himself dealing with the fact that his next door neighbor is a vampire, and nobody believes him. He befriends Peter Vincent, an aging horror film actor who pays the rent by doing ‘Fright Night’ a television program that showcases old horror films, Peter is the host of the show. Following Charlie in this adventure are Evil Ed, Charlie’s best friend who also happens to be a horror film connoisseur and Amy, Charlie’s nerdy unbelieving girlfriend. The whole cast was made up of the perfect actors for their respective roles. William Ragsdale was perfect as the nerdy Charlie, so naïve, so innocent yet brave enough to do what he’s got to do. Roddy McDowall was perfect as Peter Vincent, an actor who seems like a coward at first but then discovers he wants to become what he always played in the movies – a real life vampire killer! Stephen Geoffrey’s plays one of the most memorable vampires in cinematic history, the drooling, rambling Evil Ed! But the most memorable of all roles on this film was the role of Jerry Dandridge, played with gleeful delight by the great Chris Sarandon. That’s one thing that the original Fright Night had, great characters played by great actors, and an involving story.

Let’s not forget one of the most outstanding things about the original Fright Night: the show stopping make up effects! The vampires looked really demonic on this one, very animal like. Huge fangs, yellow eyes, long finger nails! And we even get a scene in which a vampire transforms into a werewolf! An awesome sequence if there ever was any. This is one of those movies that no matter how much time has passed, the make up effects are still awesome to watch. I still love this movie to death, I re-watch it every now and again, and not just to the ‘good parts’, I love the whole thing. I love how it pays respects to the horror movies of old. For example, Peter Vincent plays a character not that different from Vincent Price or Peter Cushing. Peter’s always remembering the golden days when he participated in making classic horror films. So it’s a film that understands and respects where it’s coming from, it pays homage to all those vampire movies that came before it. At one point Charlie is watching a horror film on television, it turns out he’s watching Hammer films Scars of Dracula (1970)! At another he is watching Children Shouldn’t Play with Dead Things (1973)!

The dynamics between the characters always pulled me in as well. I especially enjoy the friendship that Peter and Charlie develop; Peter becomes something of a father figure to Charlie since Charlie has no father. I liked how they became truly good friends, a friendship that crosses over to the sequel Fright Night Part II (1988); and a worthy sequel that one was, not as great as the original, but still pretty damn respectable as far as sequels go. So when a remake to Fright Night was announced, I had incredibly mixed feelings about it. On the one hand I was curious as to what it would end up being like, with all the modern special effects available nowadays. But at the same time a question kept creeping into my mind: would they get it right? Or would this be another one of those ‘remakes’ that doesn’t pay respects to the original?

Well, I’m happy to announce to you guys that Fright Night (2011) was not the disappointment I expected it to be. The promotional material for this film made it look very tame in comparison to the gruesomeness of the original. Is it just me or did the poster for this remake say “blah” every step of the way? Something that I love about the original film is that awesome poster with the clouds forming into the face of a vampire. To this date, the poster for the original is still one of my favorite horror film posters EVER. The new poster is so freaking bland, it says nothing to me. It certainly doesn’t tell me that Im going to be watching a vampire film. So already, my doubts were raised. And this was just the poster! Would the film be just as bland? Then came the previews, which didn’t inspire a lot of confidence either. No make up effects show up on the trailer for the film, so immediately I’m thinking they toned down the look of the vampires and the gore, because you know, this is the day and age of the watered down action and horror film. So immediately after seeing the previews, my wings of hope where shot down. In my opinion, as far as I could tell, this new Fright Night was going to suck. Still, my curiosity got the best of me and so I ended up at my local theater to see it. I just couldn’t help myself. Plus, to my surprise, the film was actually getting good reviews all around, so I was like “things cant be all that bad”.

Anton Yelchin, the new Charlie Brewster

As expected, a few changes have taken place from old to new. First up was the big surprise that Charlie is no longer a nerdy book worm, but a dude who has crossed over from being a nerdy dude to becoming one of the “cool guys”, Charlie is now part of the “in crowd”, complete with hot girlfriend and all. Evil Ed and Charlie are no longer best friends. In fact, Charlie is ditching Evil Ed because Evil is still a major geekazoid and Charlie doesn’t want to be associated with none of that. I’m not sure I liked that change, one thing I liked about the original was that Charlie was a geek, hell, I thought this would fit in with the current norm of making the geek the star of the film, but whatever, filmmakers wanted to make Charlie a cool kid with a hot girlfriend this time around. The other change? Peter Vincent isn’t a horror show host anymore, now he does a Vegas style magic show a la David Copperfield. He’s no longer the lovable old man/father figure, now he is young, rich (no longer struggling to pay the rent like in the original) a drunkard and a womanizer, great. He is a mix between Chris Angel and Russell Brand. Actually, they originally wanted Russell Brand to play Peter Vincent, but when he backed out David Tennant stepped in. So as you can see, they really twisted the characters around for this new film.

The new Peter Vincent, no longer the sweet old man

Anymore twists? Well yeah, for example Evil Ed is still pretty much a nerd, only he is more of a nerd. In the original, Evil Ed was a horror film buff, he looked like he heard heavy metal and watched a lot of horror films, but he didn’t look like a nerd. On this new one he looks like a major geek, largely due to the fact that they chose Christopher Mintz-Plasse (of McLovin’ fame) to play the character. Now this was a bad casting choice if you ask me. Such an important character in the original, with so many awesome sequences, and on the remake they give the role to McLovin’? What? That never made sense to me! On top of all this, they completely exorcised the sequence in which Evil Ed turns into a werewolf! That sequence was one of the showstoppers in the original! On the remake they replaced this sequence with a battle between Charlie and Evil Ed. Yeah the sequence gets gory on this remake, they even chop off a couple of limbs and a head, but still, I would not have left out the werewolf transformation which was such a cool scene in the original. But whatever, the sequence we get on the remake isn’t bad at all, I’m glad that at least the scene they replaced it with is actually a bit gruesome. Bottom line though: Mintz Plasse as Evil Ed was a bad choice. But here’s the deal my friends: McLovin’ playing Evil Ed was the only real bad choice on this film as far as I’m concerned, everything else clicked.

Christopher Mintz Plasse as Evil Ed, Big Mistake! 

They did tone down the demonic looking faces of the vampires for this remake; yet I’m glad to say that they still managed to squeeze in some cool vampire make up effects and transformations. I can’t imagine why they would leave all these cool looking vampires out of the previews for the film since to me these are some of the biggest selling points for this film. I mean that’s what people want to see, freaking vampires! Show the people a glimpse of the vamps and their demonic visages and this will surely guarantee more seats in the movie theater. But no, apparently gruesomeness isn’t allowed in movie trailers these days. And the studio paid the price for it too, the bland looking trailer equaled low ticket sales. I remember the original exploited its gory aspects to the max in its marketing, including a music video that showcased lots of demonic looking vampires. Here's another funny thing about the original: back in 1985 it only cost a mere 9 million dollars to make! Man they really made the best out of their 'meager' budget! Now compare that with the remake. As it is, the remake underperformed in theaters . It had a 30 million budget yet it only made 18 million in  U.S. theaters, and a worldwide gross of 36.8 million, just barely making it's budget back. Sad part is that this remake's not a bad film at all. I blame the studios marketing, I mean, all promotional material for this film screams “blah” when in fact the movie was all kinds of fun. Did they purposely want this film to fail? Again, me thinks horror films are under attack by the powers that be.

This is not the poster for a vampire film, sorry!

Another big selling point for this film was Colin Farrell playing Jerry Dandridge, and here’s one thing that this remake got very, very right. Farrell was great as Dandridge, playing it cool and ominous. One awesome sequence has him interacting with Chris Sarandon, the original actor who played Jerry Dandridge, not gonna spoil it for you guys but that cameo was all sorts of fun. Speaking of Chris Sarandon, he went all the way with his portrayal of Jerry Dandridge, he wore extensive amounts of make up for his role and if you ask me it was all worth it, the result is one evil looking vampire!.He was charismatic as hell but also very evil when he had to be. Same goes for Colin Farrell’s portrayal of the character, though I wish they would have had the character looking more demonic for longer periods of time. Most of the time all we see is Colin Farrell looking like Colin Farrell except for a few seconds here and there where he completely vamps out. By the way, I loved seeing Jerry Dandridge’s demonic face up close and personal and in 3-D! That shot was freaking cool! At one moment in the film, they do this extreme close up of Jerry Dandridge’s fully vamped out face that was all kinds of awesome. But that was the only really stand out 3-D sequence. The 3-D element worked fairly well in a couple of instances, but it’s nothing to write home about.

New Amy vs. Old Amy, take your pick

The director behind the remake is one Craig Gillespie, the director behind films like Lars and the Real Girl (2007) and Mr. Woodcock (2007). Gillespie is not exactly the kind of director one would associate with a vampire film, especially not when we look at his filmography. There’s a couple of up and coming horror directors out there who would have made great choices for this one, but no, they went with Gillespie. To be honest, I don’t think he did a bad job at directing this one, the performances are decent and the film looks polished as hell. But I personally would’ve preferred a director with a horror background. So what if Ty West (House of the Devil), Eli Roth (Hostel I and II), David Slade (30 Days of Night) or Jim Mickle (Stake Land) could have directed this, no, give the film to the guy who did Lars and the Real Girl? What? That choice makes as much since as Tim Story (Barber Shop, Taxi) directing the Fantastic Four films. But whatever, Gillespie didn’t do a bad job, in fact, there’s this awesome standout sequence that takes place inside of a car as a vamped out Jerry Dandridge chases Charlie and family on his motorcycle, loved that sequence. It was all done in one continuous shot, a la Children of Men (2006). I’m just saying, someone with a horror background could have given the film that extra edge. I guess Hollywood was just playing it safe, same as they always do.

So my final verdict for this remake? Not bad, not bad at all. Like some of the best remakes, this one changed a couple of things around, brought some new things to the table while at the same time paying its respects to the original. Of course, there are some marked differences, most notable of all is how this remake managed to loose the spooky vibe that the original had, especially towards its ending. I remember on the original, when Peter and Charlie walk up to Jerry Dandridge’s house, the house looks like something straight out of the freaking Exorcist! Not so on this one. Final thoughts on the remake is that it’s good (I was expecting a disaster and got a fun vampire flick), but when it comes right down to it, the remake is NOT better than the original. The first one, though silly at times, still has more bite than the remake. Blame it on Hollywood’s ever increasing desire to water down horror films.

Rating for Fright Night (2011): 3 ½

Rating for Fright Night (1985): 5

All you ever wanted to know about the Fright Night Remake!

The original Fright Night (1985) was the horror film responsible for getting me to fall in love with horror movies. Well, it was Fright Night and the Nightmare on Elm Street Movies. But, before Fright Night, I used to be afraid of horror movies. I mean, I would be terrified of them to the point where I had nightmares! Or to the point that I couldn’t sleep right. So much so that when I saw the original Salem’s Lot on television (I must have been around 4 or five) for the longest time I had this incredible fear of seeing a vampire kid hovering outside my bed room window!

But it was with Fright Night (which I saw around the tender age of 11) that I learned to have fun with horror movies! It was all about those awesome make up effects! Yeah it was scary, but it was also fun. I also enjoyed the main characters. The nerdy and naïve Charlie Brewster befriending Peter Vincent, an aging actor living on memories of his glory days when he would kill vampires and monsters in films. I liked the friendship they created, I liked that Charlie’s friends and girlfriend are worried about him, and I just liked the chemistry between all of them.

Chris Sarandon was the perfect Jerry Dandridge. Deceptively charming all through out the film, until he grows some fangs and nails, then he becomes Charlie’s vampire neighbor. Nobody believes Charlie, not his mother, not his best friend, and not his girl. Everyone thinks he has a couple of screws loose from watching so many horror films late at night instead of studying his Trig.

In my opinion, the film is very well constructed, it moves along at just the right pace, it is never boring. The filmmakers also made a lot with very little. I remember reading an article on Fangoria magazine saying that Tom Holland (the original films director) had made “chicken salad out of chicken shit” in reference to the films budget which was a mere 9 million dollars, not really a whole lot when it comes to Hollywood films. But damn, for nine million bucks, they got away with a film that is very atmospheric and at times very funny. They got away with a film that has likable characters and excellent make up effects. The make up effects crew in charge of the look of the vampires and the creature effects are make up effects guys and gals that are not really that well known, but damn did they do a great job. Especially when it comes to a flying bat, a werewolf transformation and the make up effects of the vampires! I’ve always loved the way Amy looks when she is turned into a vampire. It’s the kind of make up effects that makes you wonder how it was done. The film went on to become one of the most memorable vampire flicks from the 80's. It is always mentioned as one of the best from that decade, along with The Lost Boys and Near Dark.

So now here comes this remake, which I’m kind of happy about, but at the same time kind of worried about. As expected, they have changed things around a bit. For example, they amped up the films budget considerably! And the cast is actually looking pretty good. I’m going to go through all the info I have so far on this new movie, just so you guys can get an idea of what to expect from it.

The remakes director Craig Gillespie

First things first: the remakes director is one Craig Gillespie. Not exactly a house hold name, but he has been responsible for two films that I have seen: Mr. Woodcock (2007) which felt like an attempt of Gillespie’s to do a money making commercial film. Mr. Woodcock barely made its budget back. Gillespie is also responsible for Lars and the Real Girl (2007) a film that was nominated for an Oscar for best screenplay, but failed to win that year. Still, the film was nominated for and won many other awards. What worries me about Gillespie is that he isn’t exactly well known for making horror films. In fact this will be his first. Also, he is not a director who is known for working on fx heavy films either, and if this remake sticks to the original, then it should be an effects heavy film. So these facts have me on the fence as far as the director of this remake goes. But I’m giving the guy the benefit of the doubt, Gillespie will probably have the best special effects houses at his disposal. After all, the film is being produced by Dreamworks, they aren’t exactly known for meager budgets. Speaking of budgets, Gillespie will have 17 million at his disposal to make this film. That’s a whole 8 million dollars more than the original. Let’s hope that will be enough for a good remake.

The writer of this remake will be Marti Noxon. I know, I know, you probably never heard of her either. But that’s probably because this is her first stab at writing a screenplay for a feature film. She’s worked a lot on tv though. She’s written for Mad Men, Gray’s Anatomy, Still Life and many more. But what probably got her this gig was the fact that she’d written many episodes for Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. I enjoyed a couple of episodes of Angel (actually I got hooked on it!) so I’m hoping she will do a good job with this remake.

So, what’s the cast looking like? What I’m going to do is I’ll post a pick of the actor who portrayed the character on the first film, and then I’ll show a pic of the actor playing the same character on the remake, so you’ll get an idea of what to expect, cast wise.

William Ragsdale in Fright Night (1985)

Charlie Brewster: On the original Charlie Brewster was played by William Ragsdale. His character is a nerdy teenager who has just discovered that his next door neighbor is a vampire. He tries to convince everyone of what’s happening, but nobody believes him. That probably has a lot to do with the vampire charming the pants out of everyone, even his mother! But the vampire isn’t that charming at all. He has turned Charlie’s best friend into a vampire and has fallen in love and kidnapped Charlie’s girlfriend as well. What is Charlie to do? Will he ever get his best friend or his girlfriend back? And who’s going to help him?

The new Charlie Brewster 

Who plays Charlie in the remake? Anton Yelchin, whom some of you might remember from starring in Terminator Salvation (2009) Most recently he played Chekov in the Star Trek reboot. I think he is perfect for the role; Yelchin seems fragile, nerdy and vulnerable, perfect traits for a Charlie Brewster.

Roddy McDowall as Peter Vincent on the original Fright Night

Peter Vincent: On the original Fright Night Peter Vincent (the great vampire killer!) was played by Roddy McDowall. Peter Vincent is an aging actor on his last legs, he lives mostly remembering his glory days when he starred in old horror films. He survives by hosting a horror movie t.v. show. The show is called Fright Night. Unfortunately, the show has just been cancelled! So when Charlie and his friends offer Peter a couple of bucks in order to kill their vampire neighbor, he accepts. He thinks its all part of a prank, but he soon discovers that it’s all too true. Their neighbor really is a vampire! Peter Vincent is used to killing vampires in his films, but he must know face vampires for real! Will he have the courage to do it?

The new Peter Vincent

Who plays Peter in the remake? David Tenant, some of you might recognize him from the new Dr. Who television series. This is one of the characters that has suffered the most changes. Instead of being an aging television host, on this remake Peter Vincent is actually an illusionist! Vegas style! Something along the lines of David Copperfield or David Blane. Actually, he’s more of a Chris Angel because his magic show is called “Fright Night” and his illusions are based on old horror movies. So that’s a cool element to it. Also, as you can see, Peter Vincent is no longer an old man living on memories of his former glory.

Chris Sarandon in one of his most memorable roles as Jerry Dandridge

Jerry Dandridge: This is the main villain of the film. Sarandon played Dandridge as a man who is irresistible to women. One look from his hypnotic eyes and that’s all it takes, they are immediately in his power. He has just moved into the neighborhood and his main purpose is to suck the town dry! (Not that it would be much of a loss..) Problem comes when Charlie Brewster (his next door neighbor) discovers that he is a vampire. He doesn’t see it as much of a threat, cause who’s going to believe a nerdy teenager? Especially when his story involves vampires? Nobody that’s who! Dandridge than falls in love with Charlie’s girlfriend and kidnaps her. Will he manage to turn her into his lover? And into a vampire as well?

Jerry Dandridge (2011)

Who’s playing Jerry Dandridge on the Remake? Collin Farrell. I think Farrell has what it takes to make a great Jerry Dandridge. I am actually most curious to see how this character turns out in this remake. It’s the one character who can make or break the film, lets hope he nails it.

Amanda Bearse as Amy Peterson in Fright Night (1985)

Amy Peterson: This character was played by Amanda Bearse on the original film. She is the girl starving for more attention from his boyfriend, who seems to only think about horror movies and vampires. She thinks Charlie is going a little coo-coo in the head from watching so many horror movies. She is actually the one who pays Peter Vincent to convince Charlie that there are no such things as vampires. Too bad she is dead wrong! Dandridge falls head over heals for her, because she actually reminds him of a love of his from eons ago. Will Dandridge manage to turn Amy into a vampire? Will Charlie rescuer her in time? Survey says: No chance in hell!

The new Amy? Sure! Why the hell not!

Who Plays Amy in the remake? Imogen Poots. I haven’t heard much of Imogen Poots, but that’s just because she’s an up and coming actress. She’s got the looks though, and she’s definitely a one up on Amanda Bearse. Poot’s has some experience in horror films, she was seen a couple of years ago in the excellent zombie film 28 Weeks Later (2007).

‘Evil’ Ed Thompson: Evil was played on the original by Stephen Geoffrey's. Geoffrey's portrayal of Evil Ed is actually one of the more memorable things about the original. He played the character in a very wacky, evil and crazy fashion. At first he is Charlie Brewster’s best friend. He is also a very knowledgeable dude when it comes to horror movies and vampires. He is kind of nerdy, and gets picked on in school a lot. He thinks Charlie has gone crazy with all these vampire stories, so he takes it all as a joke. “There are no such things as vampires you fruit cake!” he says at one point. He genuinely believes that, until he comes face to face with Jerry Dandridge himself! Will ‘Evil’ crossover to the dark side of the force? Survey says: Yes siree!

  Evil Ed will get some McLovin

Who Plays ‘Evil’ on the remake? Christopher Mintz Plasse. Yeah, McLovin is playing Evil. I mean, he isn’t my favorite choice, but he is appropriately geeky looking which goes with the character. That’s about all I can say about Mintz playing evil, I just hope he can do the character justice. I don’t see Mintz being that menacing as a vampire, but I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

Charlies spaced out mom, not entirely in tune with whats going on in the universe

Judy Brewster (Charlies Mom): On the original, this character was played by an actress known as Dorothy Fielding. This character isn’t all that important on the original, she appears only a few times, but her portrayal is that of a ditzy mom who is never really aware of anything that’s going on. She is living in the clouds, and when Charlie tells her that her next door neighbor is a vampire all she does is offer Charlie some hot cocoa. Jerry Dandridge woos her, so he can get closer to Charlie, cause he knows that Charlie knows.

Charlies new mom

Who plays Judy Brewster on the remake? Toni Collete. Some of you might remember Toni Collete as the mom in Little Miss Sunshine. I wonder if they’ll beef up this character for the remake or leave her as a secondary one? I guess we’ll have to wait and see.

Finally, we have a new character in the film! This new character does not appear in the original at all, it was completely made up for the remake. The character’s name is ‘Virgin’ and she will be played by Sandra Vergara. She is going to be playing Peter Vincent’s assistant magician in his magic show. All I can says is YOWZA!

Peter Vincent sure is moving on up with an assitant like this!

So that’s it my friends, that’s all the info I have on this new remake. How do you feel about it? Is it sounding like something you’d want to see? For your info, this movie is going to be premiering on Oct 17 2011, perfect movie for seeing on Halloween! Actually, I always play the original on Halloween, people seem to always stay stuck to the screen whenever a vampire shows up. Lets hope this new remake lives up to the awesomeness of the original. I leave you with the first pic of Dave Tennant as Peter Vincent. What do you guys think? Comment below and let me know!

Crazy Heart (2009)

Title: Crazy Heart (2009)

Director: Scott Cooper

Stars: Jeff Bridges, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Robert Duval, Collin Farrell

Review:

Jeff Bridges has never won an Academy Award in his whole career. He has been nominated on five occasions, but never won. Sad but true. If you ask me, he should have won it back in 1991 for his portrayal of Jack Lucas in Terry Gilliam’s The Fisher King. But he didn’t. He wasn’t even nominated for that one! Which goes to show you just how much the “members of the academy” don’t know. But here we are, the 2010 Academy Award Nominations are finally in and aren’t we all glad that Jeff Bridges got an Oscar nomination for Crazy Heart? Yes we are! This is his fifth nomination! You know how this Oscar thing goes…sometimes they wont give an award to an incredible actor (even if they deserve it!) just so they can keep him sweating it out for years and years. It’s the academy’s way of saying “we know you are good! Keep cranking out good movies and in a year or two…we’ll think about it!” And then they go and give them an award for their least amazing movie. Which is probably what’s going to happen with Crazy Heart. Its not Jeff Bridges greatest performance to date, but it will more then likely be the one he ends up winning an Oscar for. Still, Crazy Heart isn’t a bad movie, we’ve seen it a thousand times before, but it’s not a bad film.

Story centers on Bad Blake (Bridges) a country singer who has seen better days. He used to be ultra famous, cranking out hit after hit of country songs, until a life of booze and complacency destroyed his former glory. Now he simply exists instead of living the life. This is kind of sad because he is an extremely talented guy, and everyone knows it, except himself. One day, a young female journalist requests an interview with him. This young journalist ends up being Maggie Gyllenhaal, he lets her in and gives her the interview, but only so he can get in her pants! She decides to let him in, and pretty soon old Blake is back trying to redeem himself. Trying as hard as he can to establish a relationship with her. You know, go back to being the man he used to be. But you know how it is, old habits die hard and pretty soon his old habits get in the way. Will he ever make it back from his drunken stupor?

Here’s the thing, I actually despise country music. It’s not that my ears explode when I hear it or anything, but I just don’t like it. Period. I’m pretty sure that I’m not alone in this. So why did I end up seeing a movie about the life of a country singer? This movies incredible cast! That’s what drew me to it! Jeff Bridges plays Bad Blake, a very down on his luck kind of guy. Used to have it all; doesn’t have it now because he is a drunk. Bridges wallows in the self loathing and self pity very well. Bridge’s had done it before in characters like Jack Lucas in The Fisher King were he also played a guy who used to be famous, but isn’t anymore. He also played a happy looser in The Big Lebowski. One of the Coen Brothers funniest masterpieces. So he’s no stranger to playing characters like Bad Blake. Characters that have hit rock bottom. Maggie Gyllenhal turns in a solid performance (as usual) but in my opinion, she still needs a film that truly makes her shine on her own. Robert Duvall plays Bad Blake’s bartender buddy, who always backs him up. And finally, Collin Farrell plays it cool as Bad Blakes protégé. The guy whom Bad Blake taught all the secrets of country music to. So a solid cast elevates this movie to higher ground. Higher then this movie had any right to.

The big problem for me with this movie is that it’s nothing original. At all. In fact, my favorite movie of 2008 -Darren Aronofsky’s The Wrestler- did the same thing a million times better then Crazy Heart ever did. Sadly, what Crazy Heart does is follow the formula set by The Wrestler too damn closely. You almost feel like you are watching the same damn movie! Right down to Bad Blake wanting to reconnect with his estranged son, and getting the cold shoulder while at it. You kind of get the idea that Bad Blake has abandoned writing and singing because of how he ignored his son. Yet the film never really explores this, we never even get to see Bad Blakes son. You also get the feeling that Bad Blake has never really had it bad, he gets payed every now and then, he isnt really hitting rock bottom, he is just being stubborn. So this movie is really about a stubborn dude, who wants to drink for drinking sake. The one big tragedy in his life, having ignored his son his whole life is set aside, like some unimportant side story. When in fact it should be crux of the film. So its like The Wrestler, only not as good.

Much like The Wrestler, Bad Blake tries to make things right, but old habits die hard and you know how it goes, pretty soon, drinking and boozing get in the way of happiness and he messes things up yet again. Problem with this movie is that Bad Blake isn’t half as charming as Mickey Rourke’s Randy the Ram. You watch Randy the Ram going down the rabbit whole and you feel a certain kind of compassion for him, but I have to say I didn’t really warm up to Bad Blake as much as I did to Randy the Ram. All Bad Blake has to do is sit back and wait for the royalty checks and go to Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. They also compare this movie a lot to The Big Lebowski, saying that this is “The Dude” all over again, but instead of having a weed obsession he has an alcohol obsession. I don’t agree with that either. The Dude is one funny guy, again, he is a looser but he is extremely likable. Bad Blake feels like a character who’s life has been sucked out of him. Save for some scenes where he is being ultra sweet to Gyllenhaal’s kid, he is lifeless and charmless character. Except when he wants to get into a lady’s pants or wants some free booze, then he charms the hell out of anyone. Which kind of makes you hate him a bit. But hey, here’s looking forward to some much deserved recognition for Jeff Bridges! In my own personal crazy heart he isn’t going to win an Academy Award (if he wins) for this movie. If he wins it, it'll be for all the countless other great performances he's given us through time.

Rating: 3 out of 5