Well, as promised in my 'Fright Night' review, this is me and my own personal opinion on why I got a bigger kick out of the updated version of the film as compared to the 1985 version.

Allow me to start by saying that there really is no denying the cult phenomenon that is the original 'Fright Night'. Horror lovers tend to put this one on their list of favorites somewhere. With a 93% on Rotten Tomatoes as compared to this updated version's 74%, one may by all means rank the original as the better film, and its perfectly justified. This isn't the first remake I've personally thought to be better than the original, but that Top 10 list will be around soon enough as that's a whole different pile.

Anyway, without further adieu, I give you my personal reasoning as to why I think the update is the superior film with a perfectly fair Old vs New special.

I have to admit this ends up being fairly close in comparison, but personally, I have to go with Anton Yelchin on this one. They are similar in their characters overall, but I found Ragsdale to be just a bit of a cheesetastic overactor. Yelchin, on the other hand, ended up just acting like your average semi-geeky kid, and his geekiness wasn't thrown in your face. He ends up being a good balance of character, and more human in nature, as there's a part of him you dislike due to the fact that he ditches his old friend Ed to be popular, but you also lik him because he shows real care toward his family AND you see regret in his eyes as he looks back on his friendship with Ed. I always kind of found Ragsdale to be kinda bland, and even a little whiny. Almost, ALMOST comparable to the lead actor from 'Freddy's Revenge' (not quite as bad though). If nothing else, Yelchin just turns into a bad ass by the end whereas Ragsdale, though heroic in the end, still remained that plain and simple dude. I didn't feel as much a transition with him than I did with Yelchin. So, though one may enjoy that themselves, that's all well and good. But the winner for me is Yelchin. Close, but no cigar.
WINNER: '11

This is almost like comparing a couple of James Bonds. They both have their strong points, and to be honest I really liked Chris Sarandon in the '85 version. He was a little more smooth, and had a kind of hidden bad ass-ness to him. He was also well spoken, and the cool thing was that you didn't expect he was a bad guy until the gradual transition of it. He made for a very interesting character. Ferrell on the other hand was just a straight up bad ass all the way through, and you learned very quickly that he was a vampire, which was one of my actual complaints about the new film. Its like I said before in my review, it seemed to run under the impression that the audience had seen the original version first. The thing I liked about Colin Ferrell was that he had that tough guy thing going on rather than the charm of the original, and he was clearly very fond of the kills. He was a real breath of fresh air from that sparkling bullshit all the tweenies know and love. He got to show you what kind of creature a vampire SHOULD be. I also really dug that he was one of those villains who remained so calm and casual through everything, adding a sadistic wit to his dialogue. So they're both very good in their own and very different ways, and I honestly have to give this one an even tie.
WINNER: TIE

Jeeze, talk about a difference in character! They went a whole completely different way with the character of Peter Vincent in the new version. In the original, Vincent was the host of a TV show that showed old vampire movies. However, because the whole vampire genre seemed to get old and boring while he hosted it, he found himself lost and out of work. You actually gave a shit about his character, and you ended up routing for him to get work again 'cause there's something about an oldschool horror TV show host like Elvira or even the Crypt Keeper that we find intriguing (although lets face it, with Elvira, it was her boobs). The new Peter Vincent is more of a Chris Angel type, looking a lot like Russel Brand, who also hosts a show called 'Fright Night', and he makes for good comic relief in the film. He was much more obnoxious though, and though you could laugh at him, you didn't like his character much. Even when you learn about what happened in his past, there's no emotion tied in with it, and it feels kind of rushed. He also tries to help, but ends up being a kind of bumbling idiot, whereas McDowall knew what the hell he was doing and got shit done. So easily, I can't disappoint my audience here, its the original all the way.
WINNER: '85

There is absolutely no contest here! I apologize to all you Evil Ed (Geoffreys) fans out there that loved his character, but goddam did he annoy the everliving piss out of me! For starters, you don't really get the sense of friendship that he might have with Charley and Amy. He seems to just be this guy they know. If a friendship is mentioned anywhere, I sure as hell missed it! His character was this stupidly excentric little giggly Gremlin-like asshole who kept laughing at nothing with this squeeky giggle. He thought Charley was off his rocker for thinking his neighbour was a vampire, and thats fine, but he really laid into him about it and just... my GOD did I want him to go away! Then when he becomes a werewolf (which I don't get 'cause he was bitten by a vampire, so wtf) he turns into this whiney mutant thing thats almost MORE annoying 'cause he ought to be a bad ass! Mintz-Plasse on the other hand in the remake is the one suspicious of the neighbouring vampire which makes a hell of a lot more sense in my head considering the character. He's Charlie's old friend, so there's a history there, and in his vampire form (the way it should have always been) he is this funny, mischievous, one-lining bad ass (even for McLovin)! He was everything I WISHED the old Evil Ed was. Winner: Mintz-Plasse by a freakin' LANDSLIDE! But relax fans of the old, I still give you Peter Vincent!
WINNER: '11

Again, things are pretty close here. In the end, all I see in the original is Marcy from 'Married with Children', and I find her hard to take seriously, but I'd like to try to give her the benefit of the doubt. You end up liking Amanda Bearse's character because she's genuinely sweet and innocent, and fits the typical profile of a leading horror lady in the 80s. So its not that I had any problems with her really, but she does end up being a little too much of a damsel in distress. Considering 80s horror where in series' like 'Nightmare on Elm Street', 'Friday the 13th' and even 'Halloween', the girls can really hold their own against their potential killers, so by that aspect, Bearse's character was weak in comparison. Poots (yes, that's her real name) was a little similar, but I never got the "damsel in distress" thing from her. She's also just one of those girls who's really hot, yet gives the geeky character the time of day because she says she doesn't want a jock type, and liked Charley for Charley. A little more far fetched perhaps, but me being the geek that I am, I like to see that kind of thing. Bearse's character was okay, but again, it didn't play out well for 80s horror, and... dammit, its freakin' Marcy Darcy! So call me picky, but for me Poots comes out on top as the better Amy.
WINNER: '11

To be 100% honest here, I'd be lying if I said the effects weren't awesome in the original. But i'd also be lying if I said they weren't awesome in the remake. The original utilized a lot of practical effects using some pretty damn sweet monster makeup. Dispite the fact that Ed turns into a werewolf instead of a vampire, I have to admit the transformation process looked pretty awesome. Plus those huge, fanged vampire mouths are just straight up scary as shit, and more realistic looking than any CGI can give you. The remake has some awesome effects too, bringing back that particular vampire look. I'm not altogether sure wheteher or not it was easy CG though compared to hours of makeup application. The 3D in the remake was what made it stand out, but one can't rely on 3D much upon a DVD/Blu-ray release (unless you have a 3D TV). I'm gonna have to be a good boy here and give the original the effects solely based on the effort involved for its time, and not having access to such things we can use nowadays. And if thats not enough, the original creature designs came from it.
WINNER: '85

Granted that 'Fright Night' is indeed a classic 1980s cult horror film, and with that comes a certain amount of cheesiness, I still can't quite grasp a real "awesomeness" for the original's dialogue. In the first clip we see Evil Ed after having been turned, and a lot of the dialogue here is really overacted and melodramatic by Stephen Geoffreys. In the second clip I give you 4 minutes of seduction with no dialogue at all... I'm sorry, but that's boring as shit. Even when Amy tries to talk, Jerry hushes her. I felt that the original, ended up taking itself a little too seriously with its dialogue or lack of dialogue in order to convey emotion. Perhaps it can be said that there's more of an artisticness to it, but even with an artsy mind, I'm not sure I quite got it. In the remake, the first clip is Jerry talking to Charley, kinda frustrated at the lack of an invitation into Charley's house (a vampire can't come into your house without an invitation). He then spouts off some rather creepy and somewhat threatening speach about Charley's mother and girlfriend, and in his own way challenges Charley. The cool thing about this scene though is that its so indirect. Charley believes Jerry's a vampire, but Jerry seems to kind of have a suspicion that Charley knows his secret. Its like he lays his cards out on the table going "yeah, I'm a vampire, what are you gonna do about it guy?" The second clip just has one of my favorite lines from Ed, and it conveys that the movie isn't gonna take itself too seriously, and its here to show us a good time. I just have to say I enjoyed the overall back and forth of the remake much better as it showed a solid humor/threat scenario as opposed to the original "threat, threat, threat, scary threat". One could argue that Evil Ed adds the humor, and thats perfectly fine for people to go on. But with me?... No, just... damn that kid, okay?
WINNER: '11

Well there you have it folks. Each with strong enough points, those are the two 'Fright Night' films essentially chopped and analyzed for you. I have to give the original Peter Vincent his spotlight, as the new one is just a little too over the top and completely different. I also have to give the original the better effects as it doesn't have to rely on 3D to be effectively freaky, and the makeup effects are just great. Jerry's character ends up being a tie as they are both awesome in their own ways, again, almost like comparing different Bonds. One's kind of a charming, suave, ladies man, the other is a ruthless and aggressive killer. I actually really enjoyed both, and it helps that the original Jerry is probably the least cheesy character in the movie. Overall though, the characters of Charley, Ed and Amy are all much better in the remake to me. To cap it all off, the dialogue was just more enjoyable in the remake. I found myself bored in certain non-talking scenes in the original, like the club scene and of course the seduction scene that I posted here. The remake gets things going right off the bat, lasts just as long, and it just seemd like a way more fun ride to go on.

In a final note, this is all just my own opinion on either of the films. I think its great that the original is rated so highly and has its fan following, being deemed one of the best horror classics in cinema history. Perhaps I just didn't get what other people get out of it because I watched it so recently and that 80s cheese is kinda reinforced for me. It has a creepiness to it, and it works for its time. I guess for me the highlight of 80s horror was more around slashers than this kind of thing. Points for standing out among what was going on though. I guess just personally, the remake is more of what I wished I saw in the original.