Nefarious Reviews

[Nick Nefarious]

I'd have to agree on that one. However, even though I think Colin Farrell is a great actor, I thought the remake was abysmal in comparison. The script made Farrell come off more as just a psychotic perv than a bloodthirsty vampire. I was pretty bummed after watching that remake. He just wasn't quite Jerry Dandridge enough.

[Pumpkin56]

I'd have to agree on that one. However, even though I think Colin Farrell is a great actor, I thought the remake was abysmal in comparison. The script made Farrell come off more as just a psychotic perv than a bloodthirsty vampire. I was pretty bummed after watching that remake. He just wasn't quite Jerry Dandridge enough.

I'm in the opposite camp, Nick. I loved the remake and I really liked Colin Farrell in it (but that could just be because he was lookin' good ). I especially loved that Jerry 1 made a cameo in it. The new Fright Night reminded me of The Wolfman remake. People either loved it or hated it--there didn't seem to be any middle ground. Such is often the case with horror movies, no?

[Nick Nefarious]

Yeah, it could be. I dunno, in my opinion, a lot of these remakes could have and should have been made as a stand alone flick instead of a remake. 90% of the time they only use the first movie as a basis for their "new and improved" ideas. They end up changing so many things that it doesn't even seem like a remake. I'm a firm believer that Hollywood should focus more on making new and original flicks instead of trying to cash in on pre-existing classics. But what do I know? I'm a movie fan, not a Hollywood accountant. Think of it this way, if AMC created a remake TV series based on Romero's Night of the Living Dead instead of Robert Kirkman's original The Walking Dead graphic novel, I think it might have tanked and not lasted past episode 3. There is so much good material out there for producers to work with. I just get baffled why they keep insisting on rolling the dice with remaking classics.

[Pumpkin56]

Yeah, it could be. I dunno, in my opinion, a lot of these remakes could have and should have been made as a stand alone flick instead of a remake. 90% of the time they only use the first movie as a basis for their "new and improved" ideas. They end up changing so many things that it doesn't even seem like a remake. I'm a firm believer that Hollywood should focus more on making new and original flicks instead of trying to cash in on pre-existing classics. But what do I know? I'm a movie fan, not a Hollywood accountant. Think of it this way, if AMC created a remake TV series based on Romero's Night of the Living Dead instead of Robert Kirkman's original The Walking Dead graphic novel, I think it might have tanked and not lasted past episode 3. There is so much good material out there for producers to work with. I just get baffled why they keep insisting on rolling the dice with remaking classics.

I agree. I'm getting so sick of seeing some of my old favorites being remade. Every once in a while it's not half bad, but most of the time it's just embarrassing to watch. I think most of the time I would rather watch an original movie that's supposed to be cheesy and awful rather than sit through a remake that disgraces it's namesake.

[Nick Nefarious]

I'm 100% with you on that one. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against every remake. Dracula for example, has been remade for film, television, and theater a hundred times over and I still love it. Granted, some remakes are incredible and some are pond scum, but the attempts are cool to watch. What really kills me is when a movie is only 20 years or so old and they feel the need to re-boot it. I never understood this. The Wolfman was filmed in 1941 and then re-booted in 2010. Fine. 69 years later. But Fright Night? It was only 26 years old when they redid it. Same thing with A Nightmare on Elm Street, 26 years old. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was 29 when they redid that one as well.

[Pumpkin56]

Hey when can we expect a new review from you Nick? I'm really slow at work and would love nothing more that to snicker at a Nefarious review of something I've never heard of

[Nick Nefarious]

Ask and you shall receive. Or, in the case of this movie, you might want to ask 3 times

http://nicknefarious.wordpress.com/2010 ... oody-mary/

[Pumpkin56]

Ask and you shall receive. Or, in the case of this movie, you might want to ask 3 times

http://nicknefarious.wordpress.com/2010 ... oody-mary/

Why thank you, Nick. I'm may try to hunt this one down.

[Nick Nefarious]

I have to admit, it's fun. You have to have some patience with it while it gets going, but hey, I can think of way worse ways to kill an hour or so.

[Nick Nefarious]

By the time some of you read this, Friday will be well upon us. Time for the work week to end and the weekend to begin, so Let The right One In.
http://nicknefarious.wordpress.com/2010 ... ht-one-in/

[Murfreesboro]

Good review.

We actually own this movie on DVD, and my husband and I watched it together last fall. We thought it was interesting but didn't find it frightening at all. It was almost more of a romance, we thought. (I should say that my husband was disturbed by the underage nudity. The scene was so brief that I didn't even know what I was looking at until he told me afterward!)

Now, our adult son had seen either this movie or the American version (American, I think), and he found it very scary, apparently. I don't know if the American version is different in that way, or if he just took the story to heart more, being a young man and therefore more susceptible, perhaps, to the seduction going on in this film. He seemed to find it far more unsettling than we did.

I thought the setting of the bleak, Scandinavian winter was one of the most memorable things about this movie. Definitely a different, original take on the vampire film.

[Nick Nefarious]

Well, I saw the American remake as well but I'm not exactly the best candidate to ask if something was "scarier". I've been watching horror flicks since I was a child so I'm pretty well desensitized. In all honestly, I think, subconsciously, I might be trying to relive that feeling of fright from a horror flick. The last film to scare the stuff out of me was the original Dawn of the Dead. I was about 11 years old and it was the first flick I ever saw that had massive amounts of gore and violence in it. Second to that would have to be The Exorcist. After those two I think it was all downhill for me

[Murfreesboro]

See, when I was a young adolescent, say, 11-14, anything at all would scare me. The silliest stuff, like Creature of the Black Lagoon, or the original Cat People, I mean, all those B horror movies they used to show late on Friday nights. But now, in my late 50s, almost nothing does--not in movies, I mean. I do recall the scared feeling I used to get as being a kind of pleasant thrill that I sometimes wish I could get back. But I have seen too many of these movies, and I know all the tricks, I think.

One that really did get to me in later years was The Exorcism of Emily Rose. To me that one was actually scarier than The Exorcist. It was the ambiguity and the eeriness of it that got to me.

I definitely respond more to eerie atmosphere than to gore. Failing that, though, I enjoy humor, even dark humor, like Trick or Treat.

[Nick Nefarious]

Wow, you just said the magic words. Trick r' Treat was absolutely amazing. I read that the writer/director, Michael Dougherty, wanted to create a singular mascot for Halloween to be up there with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. I think he did a bang up job. Little "Sam" is starting to take like wild fire. I even created a Sam costume for Halloween in 2008.

If you like the scare factor instead of gore, have you seen An American Haunting (2006)? It's not the greatest movie out there but I definitely enjoyed it for an hour or so.

[adrian]

I actually sat and watched that movie the other weekend. I've always liked it. The gore is fun but I do enjoy just a good "scare" flick and that one is right on money