Man, he was hot back in the day! How is this version in comparison to the original? Thanks :)
I will skin you. I will debone you. I will feed your entrails to our neighbor's Shih Tzu!
Yes and no. Colin Farrell is just dead sexy anyway, but I didn't feel they used that as much as they could have. In the original, you'd have been begging Chris Sarandon to bite you - he didn't turn all ugly and scary until the last minute. He managed to make the whole thing seem like foreplay. They made Farrell a lot scarier overall, when I think he could've turned the seductive vampire thing on its head if given the chance. Pity.
shareChris Sarandon "owned it".
It see,ed like Colin was doing a "poor man's Henry Rollins" the whole time.
[deleted]
Farrell= sexy hot.
Saradon= sexy seductive.
It's been quite a while since I saw Fright Night (1985). Did they show the vampire's nasty vampiry nails when he was biting his victims in that one?
How the vampire's bite is shown makes all the difference in how you think about the vampire. The biting is like having sex. So whether you see the vampire as a lover or as a rapist/serial killer depends on whether the victim is shown first being mesmerized then driven to sexual ecstasy with the bite by a beautiful passionate vampire lover, or instead is shown being terrified then butchered by a ghoulish fiend.
If I recall correctly, you never saw the vampire's nasty nails during the bites in Christopher Lee's Hammer films or in Frank Langella's (one of the sexiest vampires) in the Dracula (1979). The only time you saw the disgusting aspects of the vampire was either at the beginning of films, when the vampire had been starved of blood, or at the end, when the vampire was being destroyed. That allowed you to see the vampire as sensual and sexual.
In Fright Night (2011), they chose to go with the more ghoulish, sadistic vampire, one who has piranha teeth (something you never saw that with Christopher Lee or Frank Langella) and filthy nails, even as he is biting his victims. And I think that was a mistake, although maybe they intentionally wanted him to be more ghoulish and less sensual.
hells no. he should have been better directed to be sexy, but nothing holds a candle to chris sarandon!
shareI just rewatched the original yesterday.
No comparison.
That scene where Sarandon and Amanda Bearse are dancing in the club.
He puts his hand on her leg and runs it up the inside of her thigh, pulling her dress up as his hand goes up. Then lifts her up and swings around.
And the scene where he finally bites her. Her look of ecstasy.
Not even close.
They both bring different things to the role, I honestly think Farrell's version wasn't as seductive and more aggressive to avoid any Twilight comparisons. I personally like the more menacing, animalistic version Farrell had to offer it made a change from the amount of brooding vampires on our screens today.
And Colin Farrell is hot, can't forget that...
Truly Happy Mondayed.
Nope. And I think Farrell is hot as hell! Just not in this is.
You will pay the price for your lack of vision
IMO Colin wasn't given a chance to be as sexy as he could have been--he was, to be sure, as gorgeous as usual and moved with a sleek grace that was truly captivating. Yet we only saw him talking to the women in the movie from a distance and very briefly--we never got to see him use his charm on or seduce a woman. I thought he did very well with what he was given, but he should have been given more.
Discover my world of cutting edge women's romantic fiction
http://goldenmuse.tripod.com