as it's been awhile since we were openly obnoxious

Henchgirl and I, after discussing ANNIE HALL and how we should steadfastly prevent our lives from becoming that movie. Especially considering how unsettlingly easy it would be for me to turn into Woody Allen's character:

ME: I never will. Because I love you. No, that isn't enough, I don't just love you, I lurve you. I... lorve you, I... I... I Louvre you.

HENCHGIRL: ... you French Museum me?

ME: Baby, I would hang paintings in you all night.

HENCHGIRL: ... We posting this to your LJ or mine?

You're so cool, Brewster!

The news of FRIGHT NIGHT's remake doesn't offend me as much as, say, the thought of remarking Romero's MARTIN. It seems fairly inevitable, from the concept alone, not to mention that vampires are so hot right now.

Many people seem excited about the fact that BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER's Marti Noxon has written the remake. I know I'm prejudiced by the fact that I dislike Whedonese, but ugh. It's bad enough that we live in a post-BUFFY world of horror, but do we really have to take one of the greatest vampire movies of all time and redo it through a BUFFY filter? It doesn't need it.

What makes the original great was that it's a film for a post-Hammer generation, where Peter Cushing, Vincent Price, and TV horror hosts--representatives of classic horror--were already considered passe in the time of Freddy and Jason. It was a tribute to a genre that was pretty well loved exclusively by geeks, and it's even more of a niche today.

So I can grudgingly understand then recasting horror host Peter Vincent as a Criss Angel type showman, as that's more "relevant." And yeah, David Tennant, everybody loves David Tennant. I haven't watched DOCTOR WHO, and even I love David Tennant. But Peter Vincent not being a Hammer-style horror host just kind of hurts because of what it represents that we've lost in the horror genre and fans.

Also, he's Roddy Fucking McDowell. Not even the greatest Doctor can replace Jervis Cornelius Timmy (actually, his character in LASSIE COME HOME was named Joe, but whatever).

Now, Anton Yelchin as Brewster? Okay, that works. Colin Farrell as Jerry? A lot of people give Colin Farrell shit, but I've liked him since MINORITY REPORT, and he continues to be interesting in films like IMAGINARIUM OF DOCTOR PARNASSUS and IN BRUGES, so maybe he'll do well with the role. He's just not Chris Sarandon.

Normally, I loathe vampires*, but Jerry Dandridge's more a vampire in the Dracula mold. The key to being an awesome Dracula is that Dracula doesn't fucking angst. He swoops in, seduces ladies (and men; tell me that scene with Evil Ed isn't a seduction), and just generally gets to be awesomely, stylishly evil. Dandridge has that, while still being able to come off as a very ordinary guy. I still love the way he sells, "Velcome to Frrrright Night!... For real." Whatever Farrell will bring to the role, he won't have that quality, I bet.

Then, there's Evil Ed. When we heard that Christopher Mintz-Plasse was cast, Henchgirl and I both went, "Oh fuck, that's brilliant." Red Mist was the only thing about KICK-ASS that I actively loved (I'll give it another chance in a theater without douchebags), and we thought it was casting genius.
CHUD's Devin Faraci hugely disagrees for reasons that further remind me why the original FRIGHT NIGHT was great:

Stephen Geoffreys didn't play Evil Ed as just another geek; there's something weirder and darker and maybe more pervy to him. And that's not taking his gay porn future into account; I think that there's a connection between Evil Ed and the chronic masturbator that Geoffreys played in the underseen classic Heaven Help Us (also a 1985 film, like Fright Night). Geoffreys brings the same sweaty, twisted sexuality to Evil Ed.

Mintz-Plasse doesn't have that. There's no danger to him; even at the end of Kick-Ass he's sort of goofy. What made Evil Ed an iconic character is that he didn't conform to standard nerd tropes, and that he's edgier and more manic than what has become the nerd stereotype these days. His casting in this film makes me think they're leaning more towards making Evil Ed harmless (and that's only aided by the PG-13 they're going for), while the original Evil Ed felt like maybe getting bit by Jerry was the greatest thing that ever happened to him. And not just because it was a nerd power fantasy but because it allowed him to open up something darker inside of himself.

Again, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe writer Marti Noxon has a firm grasp on Evil Ed. It's just hard to see one of the more unique characters in horror history getting on the path for what is essentially gentrification - they're softening him up to make him more lovable to the norms.

... he's right. He's absolutely right. That's what made Evil Ed stand apart from a horror movies version of Anthony Michael Hall in THE BREAKFAST CLUB or Ducky.

But maybe Marti Noxon--someone I'm unfairly judging based on a series for which she wrote, not her actual abilities--has a great story up her sleeve. Maybe it will actually bring something new and interesting up her sleeve, and the cast will knock it out of the park. Maybe they'll even use McLovin to play up the subversiveness of Evil Ed as a "nerd" character. Maybe they'll pull it off.

Oh wait. It'll be PG-13?

Yeah, fuck the FRIGHT NIGHT remake.