LET ME IN.

I came in slightly late to the game with the original film. By the time I finally saw the whole thing, it had been over-hyped to the point where I expected it to be one of the greatest things ever put on film in the history of the world ever. Needless to say, my expectations were a bit too high going into it. I still loved it and thought it was great. However, I wasn't as blown away by it as everybody else. This time, I saw this version on opening weekend.

The story now takes place in 1980s New Mexico in March (apparently it still snows during March there). Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) is 12-years-old and is constantly bullied by bigger kids at school. And all he wants to do is find a way to get even. Enter Abby (Chloe Moretz), a strange young girl who walks around barefoot in the snow. She lives with her apparent father (Richard Jenkins), who goes out and kills people and drains them of their blood... specially for her. But the police are on the trail of this killing spree, headed up by a main policeman (Elias Koteas). During this, however, Owen and Abby become closer to each other, despite Abby's warnings that they can't be friends.

The movie holds its own against the original. It really does. There are some things I liked better in the original, and there are some things I liked better in this remake. So let's get the comparisons out of the way immediately. This movie isn't a shot-for-shot, but it's your basic concept-by-concept. The scenes portray the same general idea (though a lot of scenes do have a very similar look). There were five main cuts/changes from the original that I noticed in this one (NOTE: If you've not seen the original and don't know the story, skip the rest of this paragraph). First, the subplot of the townspeople/community was changed to people who just live in the same complex as Owen. I actually liked this change, as I didn't care for the townspeople angle in the original film. The second is how the father kills people; in this one, he hides out in their cars and waits for them to come to a desolate stop. Not too bad. The third is the whole segment where the main boy goes to his father's house. There's still turmoil between his parents, but he never goes to visit him. This is another change I didn't mind. Finally, the scene I knew wouldn't be shown: the castration scar. Abby says plenty of times that she's not a girl, but for those uninitiated with the story, most will infer that she means she's a vampire--not that she's a boy. There's actually the scene where he peeks on her getting dressed; they just don't show what he sees like the original does. Finally, unlike the original movie, this one basically comes straight out and tells you that "the father" was an old friend/lover, similar to how Owen is starting out. I liked this addition, despite the original's ambiguity in letting you figure it out on your own.

Anyway, now we have the comparisons out of the way, let's focus on this one, shall we? The acting is superb. Chloe Moretz and Kodi Smit-McPhee are outstanding. I actually forgot I was watching two kid actors (which is especially good with Moretz, who has the Hit-Girl stigma hanging over her). Richard Jenkins plays the troubled and conflicted father-figure well, too. And the main bully was just totally mean/nasty. And I was also totally into Elias Koteas' policeman character, which I don't remember being as big a role in the original, though I haven't seen it in a while. Regardless, he was great.

The cinematography was great, as well. I don't think it was as breathtaking as the original (I know, I said I would stop...), but it was definitely up there. I loved a lot of the camera choices Matt Reeves made, particularly when we had a stationary camera inside a car, so where everything else was moving expect the camera--like in a particularly trippy car crash scene. Overall, everything was great to look at in that regard. Though everything really came down to how they would film the climax, being the scene that grasped so many people in the original. For the most part, it's very similar, but the camera angle is different and there's a lot more blood. The jury's still out on which climax I preferred.

My biggest issue with the film (besides the name change) is the CGI. When Abby goes vamp-mode, they have her in some insanely disturbing and creepy makeup. It looks totally awesome (though they do give her a deeper voice to go with it, which was strange). However, when she's doing vamp-power things, like attacking people or climbing a tree or something like that, it's this silly CGI figure with monkey-like movements. You can tell it isn't real, even though there's never a close up on it. The biggest "why?" moment is relatively early on when Abby has to feed on somebody. She's already in this guy's arms, but then she starts bouncing all over him to attack him in a very CGI-fashion instead of just biting him and knocking him over. Fortunately, there are maybe only 3 or so of these CGI moments throughout the entire film, so you don't have to deal with them much.

The film is very visceral. There are quite a few blood and cringe moments in the film. Now, it's not a slasher/horror or anything like that. It's actually a very quiet film, much like the original. It's just that when one of the violent moments comes up, the violence is amped up and made much more brutal. Again, I liked this change.

The last thing I wanted to touch on is the musical score. The score is just beautiful, and it matches every scene perfectly. That's really all there is to it.

Overall, the movie is fantastic. It's a solid rival for the original. As I said before, some things I liked better in the original (from how some things were handled to how a scene was shot) and some things I liked better in this remake (certain cuts/changes). The acting is superb. The cinematography is really good, though the random CGI moments could have been toned down. This film was very well done and put together. Should people still see the original? Totally. But this was definitely a high class remake.


Royale With Cheese

(P.S. I found it funny that there were quite a few 7-13-year-old girls in my showing. There was even a mom with a girl who couldn't have been any older than 5. Thankfully, they were able to keep quiet for most of the film, except for the preteens giggling at serious moments. I just felt bad for that real little girl.)

SHUTTER ISLAND.

I've been pretty hyped for this movie for a while, mostly from a mystery/thriller standpoint more than a Scorsese standpoint (I'm by no means a Scorsese aficionado or anything). Now I'm just wondering if I went in with my expectations a bit too high. Shutter Island tells the story of U.S. Marshall Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his newly appointed partner, Chuck (Mark Ruffalo). They are sent to Shutter Island because it houses an asylum for the criminally insane, and one of its patience has just escaped. But everything isn't what it seems. The doctors, nurses, and orderlies, and security--including Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley), Dr. Naehring (Max Von Sydow), and Deputy Warden McPherson (John Carroll Lynch)--seem to be in on some kind of conspiracy, and it's up to Teddy to figure out what it is, to "blow the lid off this thing." The movie also stars the likes of Michelle Williams, Emily Mortimer, Patricia Clarkson, Jackie Earle Haley, Ted Levine, and Elias Koteas.

Even after I was already interested in the movie, I was told it had this epic twist to end all twists--one of the best twists in modern literature (since it's based on a book). Well, I wonder if the book is any different, because I was able to figure out the basic twist within the first 3 minutes of the movie. But just the basic part of it. All the other details, I was never able to figure out until they were revealed at the end. Interestingly enough, whenever there were clues to the ending, it felt like a giant flashing sign saying "look at me, I'm a clue!" But while I was easily able to discern the clues that would inevitably add up to the twist, I wasn't able to put them together and make sense of it before it was revealed. Of course, it all made sense afterward, but still. Oh, and they never explain the "rule of 4" thing, unless I just missed it. Because they find this letter that mentions the 'rule of 4' and 'who is 67'? They explain the latter, but never the former...

The acting, for the most part, was good. But there were times when I was like "OK, Leo, right now I'm just seeing Leo trying to play a cop." They weren't frequent, but they were there. And I worried about the movie at the beginning, wondering what I was getting myself into for 2+ hours, as it really wasn't very gripping, and it seemed to be exposition central.

But the movie does pick up after a while. What helps the movie the most are its visuals. Scorsese does good things to set the mood--the rain, the smoke, the shadows--and he runs with it. There's good cinematography here to really help with the atmosphere, not to mention some really great shots in general.

I also noticed, primarily towards the end, how much symbolism there was in the movie. There were a lot of fire and water motifs, as well as smoke. And the storm/rain acted as a great symbol to the chaos of the situation, as well as to the self-destruction of mankind.

I really don't know what else to say. It was really good, but not "OMG I need new pants" great. Maybe I had hyped myself up too much for it or something. I might not buy it when it comes out on DVD/Blu-Ray, but I'd definitely watch it again if I saw it on TV. Because, while it was good and the mystery engaging, I can't see myself sitting down wanting to watch it over and over again. Definitely see it in the theater, though. Just hope you don't get an audience like mine where a woman laughed at all the parts that were supposed to be disturbing and/or unsettling (or, with... like... the one jump-scare in the movie, calls out to the entire theater 'Oh, that scared me!'). So... yeah.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. Though I have to admit, the last line in the movie is excellent.)

Bizarre Noir #6: Fallen.

Welcome to the sixth of seven posts that will review bizarre noir movies! I hope you enjoy the series. For more information or previous entries, check the posts below this one.

------------

Fallen.

Year of Origin: 1998.

Director: Gregory Hoblit.

Why it's bizarre: It's a supernatural/horror/thriller.

There isn’t a whole lot to say about this one, though it’s a great one, nonetheless. Detective John Hobbes (Denzel Washington) has finally caught sadistic murderer, Edgar Reese (Elias Koteas). And it’s finally time for his death sentence. But during the whole death sentence thing, Mr. Reese speaks in funny languages and does some odd things. But Detective Hobbes simply shrugs it off. That is, until after Edgar is put to death, when people start being killed in the exact same way that Edgar Reese killed. At first, Hobbes and his partner, Detective Jonesy (John Goodman), think it’s a copycat killer. But after following some clues that lead to speaking with one Gretta Milano (Embeth Davidtz), Hobbes starts believing that it is, in fact, a demon named Azazel that can pass from person to person via touch. And now Azazel is seemingly framing up Hobbes as a murderous and crooked cop, much to the chagrin of police lieutenant Stanton (Donald Sutherland).

There’s a couple other good-name actors in the movie, such as James Gandolfini and Robert Joy, and the acting all around the board is really good. Elias Koteas does his role at the beginning subtly, yet maniacally. Denzel is good as always, and, hey, it’s John Goodman. And while James Gandolfini’s character is, for all intents and purposes, pointless, it’s still done pretty well. The only real shaky ground when it comes to acting is Hobbes’ nephew, Sam, but it’s a child actor, and they aren’t all Abigail Breslin's or Haley Joel Osment’s (whatever happened to him, anyway? He did some video game voice-overs…).

The story isn’t as sci-fi channel cheesy as it sounds. It’s done very well, and with a two hour time-frame, the movie is quite capable of pulling it off nicely. The scenes that involve chasing through large crowds with Azazel going from body to body are really cool. And the song (‘time is on my side’) that he sings and/or whistles throughout the movie is pretty creepy.

The cinematography is excellent, much like any good noir film. And speaking of noir things, there is voice-over narration by Denzel, done in a very Denzel kind of way. And along the same lines, there’s a nice twist ending that’s pretty awesome. Oh, and the music is classic cop/noir jazz saxophone, so it fits nicely with the rest of the feel of the film.

There’s not much else to say about this movie. If you like noir or movies that deal with the supernatural, you should definitely check this one out. It has a great cast and a really good story that culminates into a really good climax and awesome twist.

A Keanu 'Whoa'