Good remake of the '85 classic, but something was lost. Maybe you need a great actor like Chris Sarandon to make it work or may be you need the funny "comedy" situation, but it doesn't deliver the great amusement as the original! Farrel is not bad as the movie's vampire, but he's not able to be as charming and darkly ambiguous as Sarandon. It's not an easy job, Chris created one of the most realistic vampire of all times, but Craig Gillespie could take him to be a little less "bad" and a little more "Gothic". I mean: it's not "30 days of night", this vampire is not a "wild animal", we are talking of a centenarian man that can even love, in its way, a Gothic creature that can be charming.
Same thing for "the great vampire slayer" Peter Vincent: here he is a boozer and quite a psychopath, not an actor out of business.
Anyway the movie works, it's a good horror movie, I just wonder why making a remake if you change the story and character so drastically! It makes no sense to me!
If it did not pretended to be a remake, with a slightly different story, it could have been considered an 8/10 movie!
Same thing for "the great vampire slayer" Peter Vincent: here he is a boozer and quite a psychopath, not an actor out of business.
Anyway the movie works, it's a good horror movie, I just wonder why making a remake if you change the story and character so drastically! It makes no sense to me!
If it did not pretended to be a remake, with a slightly different story, it could have been considered an 8/10 movie!