Review of Fright Night (1985) by Jeremy K — 19 Feb 2014

Much like "An American Werewolf in London" updated the classic werewolf story while still keeping the mythology, "Fright Night" attempts that same feat with the vampire story. And I say "attempts" because while this movie does have some pretty good highlights and clearly respects the vampire stories of old, its flimsy story and awkward performances prevent it from being anything but above average at best.

Charley Brewster (William Ragsdale) is a teenager who loves classic horror movies; specifically, he loves watching the horror movie TV series "Fright Night," hosted by Peter Vincent (Roddy McDowall), an actor who played a vampire killer in many movies. A new neighbor named Jerry (Chris Sarandon) moves in next door, whom Charley discovers is actually a vampire; naturally, nobody believes him, so he goes to Peter himself for help.

Of course, Peter is just an actor; he doesn't really believe in vampires. But the show has just been cancelled and he's strapped for cash, so he takes money from Charley's girlfriend Amy (Amanda Bearse) and friend Evil Ed (Stephen Geoffreys) to do a fake test on Jerry in an attempt to convince Charley that his neighbor isn't a vampire. However, in a scene reminiscent of "Dracula," he discovers that Jerry has no reflection in his pocket mirror, proving Charley is right. He's terrified at first, so Charley has to help him find his faith when Jerry captures Amy.

I'm very mixed about Chris Sarandon as Jerry. When he has to act like a vampire-that is, when he has to act really evil and sinister and seductive and threatening-he does a pretty good job; he comes across as legitimately threatening. But when he has to act charming and innocent and unassuming, that's where I have my problems, because it just seems so obvious that there's something wrong with this guy. He's probably the second most obvious-acting vampire in movie history, behind only Edward Cullen.

William Ragsdale-looking quite a bit like Crispin Glover-is strangely one-note as Charley. I always picture that same deer-in-the-headlights expression on his face, and while I suppose he's likeable enough as the main character, he's a little flat in my opinion. In fact, the only actor I thought was consistently good was Roddy McDowall as Peter Vincent; the name, by the way, is a combination of Peter Cushing and Vincent Price, but I digress. He's believable as just an ordinary celebrity who's suddenly caught up in a real world situation. Evil Ed...I can't tell if he's really funny or obnoxiously annoying; his voice is certainly annoying, but it's one of those things where we've probably all met someone like him. He reminds me of Matt Bush as Frigo in "Adventureland" in that regard. But I thought Amy was incredibly annoying for most of this movie; she just acts like one of those irritating girls that makes everything about her. Charley's preoccupied with his suspicions about Jerry, and she's basically screaming, "What about me? What about my needs?!" It just felt like a terribly executed version of "Rear Window." She's a little better once the secret is finally out, but it doesn't redeem her, in my opinion.

The story in general just feels very loose, like it needed a few rewrites. Jerry's plan to get Charley seems needlessly complicated; I feel like he can just kill him any time he wants. Later on there's a scene where Jerry is stalking Charley and Amy at a club; he attacks Charley and actually kills a couple of the bouncers, going pretty much full vampire. Way to keep your secret, pal; again, how can nobody figure out this guy is evil? When Jerry turns Ed into a vampire, he then goes to attack Peter, who is able to burn his head with a cross. But then later, it doesn't work on Jerry because he "has to have faith." So...did he not have faith before when he did this to Ed? There's also this guy named Billy (Jonathan Stark), who I guess is Jerry's caretaker or something. He clearly seems human, so Peter shoots him, but then Jerry says a few words and he awakens as an undead being; what exactly happened there? The character itself seems pretty pointless.

Now while I'm mostly harping on this film, there are some good things about it. As I said, it pays tribute to the old vampire story; there are clips of the Hammer "Dracula" films that play on the TV and movie posters on the wall, they re-establish how vampires can be harmed by crosses, killed by wooden stakes and sunlight, etc. The special effects are top-notch, particularly the vampire and transformation effects.

I also like the idea of a kid suspecting his neighbor is a vampire; again, it goes back to Alfred Hitchcock's "Rear Window." It taps into a young person's imagination, the idea that someone living so close to you may be a dangerous killer. It's scary, yet also pretty exciting. Maybe if they had put more mystery into it, make it so you didn't really know Jerry was a vampire until later in the film, really built up that imagination element, but whatever; like I said before, I don't want to harp on what isn't in the movie.

"Fright Night" is a film that I really want to like, and like I said, it does some very good things. I think there are some clever aspects and the climax is really exciting, but the story needed better execution, it needed a smoother actor to play its vampire, and it needed better interactions between its characters; I like the ones between Charley and Peter, but most of Charley and Amy's is not interesting. She becomes important to the story, so I think that's a really important miss. To sum the movie up, it's relatively decent, but it's kind of a disappointment.