SPOILERS
A lot of people, especially horror fans, have hailed this movie a classic. I am getting more into horror films since I want to become a filmmaker, and a lot of indie filmmakers like horror, cause fans of the genre, tend to go for lower budget movies. Horror movies are actually quite popular at the one film festival I have been to so far, and they don't really show much of any other genre really.
Now perhaps I may have gone through such a movie with a fine-toothed comb, but if I did, I couldn't help it since the hyp was so big. I really didn't see all that was great about. The two really good things of the movie were Roddy McDowall, and Chris Sarandon. They both played their parts well, and were entertaining.
But the teenagers in this movie were so bad, not just the actors, but the characters as well. Stephen Geoffreys (Evil Ed) was the worst of the actors easily. I don't want to be harsh, but I think it was easily one of the worst overacted performances I have ever seen in my life.
I realize that some of these movies cannot afford all of the best actors out there for sure, but that doesn't mean they have to settle for a huge overactor either, does it?
Some of have that his character was sympathetic but I was unable to see that because the acting had so overshadowed any subtext at that point.
Also the main teenager is such a cliched horror character, in that his opening scene, he wants to get laid with his gf, but she is not ready. We have seen this a hundred times before and after, and I don't know why a lot of horror movies involving teens had to use this cliche. The guy has to be sexually anxious and the girl has to prudish, we get it. But even for 1985 it was getting old, if you compare to earlier horrors and slasher movies.
Another cliche is the cop scenario. Charlie tells the police that his neighbor has likely committed murder, and he thinks he may have seen the neighbor move the body... and what does the detective do? He goes to question Jerry, but he takes Charlie, the witness who reported the crime, with him! Why would you take the witness to meet the murder suspect, and tell the murder suspect that he is the witness accusing him of murder? The cop then gets mad at Charlie after not believing him and he tells Charlie that if he tries that again that he will lock him up "forever", as he put it.
Why would a cop have the murder suspect meet the witness, but then when the witness cannot produce the body, why threaten to basically illegally lock him up for the rest of his life, which is a kidnapping threat. They had to have the cop, be a stupid illogical cop, who I am surprised is even still working, because a lot of movies feel they require that. But no one acknowledges that he is dumb or seems be aware of it, so we the audience are suppose to believe this character is a reasonable person.
Another problem with the plot is, is that when the female teenager is seduced by the vampire and undergoes a brainwash/hypnosis type event, her hypnosis seems to come and go for the plots convenience, and she does not jump in and out of it naturally. It just seemed forced.
I will say though, that the last 20 minutes of the movie about, is pretty good. Some scary special effects, and Roddy McDowall does a good job with his entertaining character, on redeeming himself and trying to save the day.
But overall because of the overacting, character cliches, and forced plotting, I just couldn't get into this movie, and it was mostly the acting that kept pulling me out of it. Do I hate a lot of older classic movies for my younger generation? Of course not. Some of my favorite movies are from the 60s actually. And as far as horror movies go, I like some of the classics like The Exorcist, Carrie, and the original Last House on the Left, but I keep flipping back and forth between that one, and it's a tough movie to judge.
I saw the Fright Night remake later to compare, which a lot of fans of the original do not like. I am not one for remakes all the time, and a lot are kind of unnecessary and don't do a better job, but I gotta say this one I thought was pretty good!
The acting was a lot better. The teens were pretty much real teens and not dumb either. They acted like real people. And as far as teen sex goes, in this one the woman tries to seduce the guy, but it's a sharper more mature seduction, with some feminism added into it. It was just less cliche, and the characters did not act immature or more dramatic about it, and I like that. The mother was better too, but the mom in the original was not bad though.
The Evil Ed character was played a lot better, and I felt a lot more sympathy for him in comparison when he came to his demise. Anton Yelchin also did a great job as the lead. Colin Farrel does just as good of a job as Sarandon.
Although I admit the one con of this movie is that the Peter Vincent in this one, although fine, is not near as good as the PV from the original. That's the one con, but everything else is a pro by comparison. The vampire scenarios and cat and mouse games, were actually quite creepy and effective, and I haven't been this suspensed by a horror movie in a while actually. So I like the remake.
But perhaps I judged the original to thoroughly, or missed the ball and what was good about it. Why is it hailed as such a classic? Thanks.
A lot of people, especially horror fans, have hailed this movie a classic. I am getting more into horror films since I want to become a filmmaker, and a lot of indie filmmakers like horror, cause fans of the genre, tend to go for lower budget movies. Horror movies are actually quite popular at the one film festival I have been to so far, and they don't really show much of any other genre really.
Now perhaps I may have gone through such a movie with a fine-toothed comb, but if I did, I couldn't help it since the hyp was so big. I really didn't see all that was great about. The two really good things of the movie were Roddy McDowall, and Chris Sarandon. They both played their parts well, and were entertaining.
But the teenagers in this movie were so bad, not just the actors, but the characters as well. Stephen Geoffreys (Evil Ed) was the worst of the actors easily. I don't want to be harsh, but I think it was easily one of the worst overacted performances I have ever seen in my life.
I realize that some of these movies cannot afford all of the best actors out there for sure, but that doesn't mean they have to settle for a huge overactor either, does it?
Some of have that his character was sympathetic but I was unable to see that because the acting had so overshadowed any subtext at that point.
Also the main teenager is such a cliched horror character, in that his opening scene, he wants to get laid with his gf, but she is not ready. We have seen this a hundred times before and after, and I don't know why a lot of horror movies involving teens had to use this cliche. The guy has to be sexually anxious and the girl has to prudish, we get it. But even for 1985 it was getting old, if you compare to earlier horrors and slasher movies.
Another cliche is the cop scenario. Charlie tells the police that his neighbor has likely committed murder, and he thinks he may have seen the neighbor move the body... and what does the detective do? He goes to question Jerry, but he takes Charlie, the witness who reported the crime, with him! Why would you take the witness to meet the murder suspect, and tell the murder suspect that he is the witness accusing him of murder? The cop then gets mad at Charlie after not believing him and he tells Charlie that if he tries that again that he will lock him up "forever", as he put it.
Why would a cop have the murder suspect meet the witness, but then when the witness cannot produce the body, why threaten to basically illegally lock him up for the rest of his life, which is a kidnapping threat. They had to have the cop, be a stupid illogical cop, who I am surprised is even still working, because a lot of movies feel they require that. But no one acknowledges that he is dumb or seems be aware of it, so we the audience are suppose to believe this character is a reasonable person.
Another problem with the plot is, is that when the female teenager is seduced by the vampire and undergoes a brainwash/hypnosis type event, her hypnosis seems to come and go for the plots convenience, and she does not jump in and out of it naturally. It just seemed forced.
I will say though, that the last 20 minutes of the movie about, is pretty good. Some scary special effects, and Roddy McDowall does a good job with his entertaining character, on redeeming himself and trying to save the day.
But overall because of the overacting, character cliches, and forced plotting, I just couldn't get into this movie, and it was mostly the acting that kept pulling me out of it. Do I hate a lot of older classic movies for my younger generation? Of course not. Some of my favorite movies are from the 60s actually. And as far as horror movies go, I like some of the classics like The Exorcist, Carrie, and the original Last House on the Left, but I keep flipping back and forth between that one, and it's a tough movie to judge.
I saw the Fright Night remake later to compare, which a lot of fans of the original do not like. I am not one for remakes all the time, and a lot are kind of unnecessary and don't do a better job, but I gotta say this one I thought was pretty good!
The acting was a lot better. The teens were pretty much real teens and not dumb either. They acted like real people. And as far as teen sex goes, in this one the woman tries to seduce the guy, but it's a sharper more mature seduction, with some feminism added into it. It was just less cliche, and the characters did not act immature or more dramatic about it, and I like that. The mother was better too, but the mom in the original was not bad though.
The Evil Ed character was played a lot better, and I felt a lot more sympathy for him in comparison when he came to his demise. Anton Yelchin also did a great job as the lead. Colin Farrel does just as good of a job as Sarandon.
Although I admit the one con of this movie is that the Peter Vincent in this one, although fine, is not near as good as the PV from the original. That's the one con, but everything else is a pro by comparison. The vampire scenarios and cat and mouse games, were actually quite creepy and effective, and I haven't been this suspensed by a horror movie in a while actually. So I like the remake.
But perhaps I judged the original to thoroughly, or missed the ball and what was good about it. Why is it hailed as such a classic? Thanks.
Last edited:
