Let Me In

Recreating something that's amazing is not easy, and, unfortunately, that is what Hollywood tries all too often to do with amazing foreign films. Some piece of cinema from across the pond will find its way into the hearts and minds of a world audience, and Hollywood barges in and say's "Let's take this idea, stylize the heck out of it, put some gore and tits in it (if it's horror, or a lot more graphic nudity if its drama), slap a new name on it and call it our own". The only problem is, all too often, they completely miss the mark of what made the original so good. Matt Reeves, of Cloverfield fame, however, managed to push the Hollywood machine to be as close to in line with the original film Let The Right One In, as this American version, Let Me In, could be.

Let Me In is the story of a young boy, Owen, who is tortured in school and comes home to a loving mother who is, often times, rendered impotent as a parental figure due to the toll her divorce is taking on her. One evening, while playing in the courtyard of the apartment complex where they live, Owen spies an older man with a young girl moving into the apartment next to his. Eventually, they meet up in the very same courtyard. Her name is Abby. She's about his age, stand offish, and doesn't seem to be bothered that her feet are bear in the sub-freezing winter temperatures of Los Alamos, New Mexico. As time goes on, Owen and Abby begin to become friends, but a string of murders in the area are about to change both of their lives.

Let Me In is an admirable re-make. It gets some of the tone right, but it still doesn't reflect the quiet desperation that is evident in the Swedish town that the original is set in, nor does Kodi Smit-McPhee quite reach the malevolence of Kare Hedebrant in the same role. In a "no surprise there" move, Let Me In never covers the question of gender that the source material does, but if it did, Lena Leandersson definitely makes a better young child of slightly questionable gender than Chloe Moretz does. That being said, Smit-McPhee, Moretz, and Richard Jenkins as Abby's care taker, all deliver great performances in the film. The stylization tactics that Reeves uses (streak filters, very shallow depth of field, CG or overcranking for Abby's attacks and retreats, Abby's makeup effects), come off as being overkill, as the original brought the same world to life without all of those extras.

Another big problem I had was with renaming the film. Changing it to Let Me In takes all of the steam and meaning out of its original title. Let Me In could be the name of any horror or drama. Let The Right One In is so perfect because of its ties to Vampire lore. A vampire can not enter the domain of a human being without that human saying they may come in. If they do, bad things will happen to the vampire (read: death). So, "Let The Right One In" is not only important on the level of a human being having power over whether or not he/she will allow the vampire to enter the home, but it has another meaning as well with these two little children - Let the right one in, guard yourself around those who may try to do harm to you.

I'm not trying to bash Reeves. He did a great job, and, like I said, Let Me In is a very admirable remake of Let The Right One In, but ultimately, this is another case of Hollywood remaking a foreign film that doesn't need to be remade. If you haven't seen the original, I would highly recommend it. I would, actually, recommend seeing both, but if you only have time for one, definitely make it the Swedish version.

Cloverfield

Hype can be a horrible thing. So can shaky hand held camera work. Ever since The Blair Witch Project, people have tried to copy the success of that film by combining those elements, along with others. Cloverfield is no different. A viral marketing campaign started early, with trailers and websites, and only grew bigger as time went on, right up until it's release. I remember seeing the first teaser for it, probably six months or more before it was scheduled to open, and thinking - "I don't know whether this is going to be a complete piece of crap, or the greatest thing I've ever seen". 2006's Children of Men gave us a more formal disaster film, but in a slightly different way, in that the disaster had already happened, and the film focused on the aftermath (favorite film of 2006, by the way). Cloverfield struck me as a film with similar energy and conflict, but focusing on a much more compressed time frame.

The film opens with us meeting Rob and Beth, two people who appear to be a couple in love. We share a few moments with them, before the camera becomes the recording device for Rob's going away party (which occurs a month after the Rob/Beth events). We spend (way too much) time with Rob and his friends, as they all wish Rob a happy life with his new job in Japan. We meet Jason, Rob's brother, Jason's girlfriend Lily, his best friend Hud (who ends up being part of the reason that this movie is watchable on a continous basis, and who also serves as the camera operator for the majority of the film), and Beth shows up, a little late, and with another man. We find out that Rob and Beth were best friends that slept together, and then drifted apart afterwards (ahh... There had to be at least one semi-cheesy caveat to this whole story, didn't there?). We also meet Lilly's friend, Marlena, whom Hud has a serious crush on.

There's not much I can tell you that either isn't already in the trailer, or wouldn't give the movie away, so I'll just go at this from a more technical perspective. First off, Cloverfield rocked my balls off. Although the extended party sequence does get very old, very quick, once you hear the monster for the first time, the film DOES NOT STOP from there. It is a roller coaster ride for the next hour and fifteen minutes or so, and is very unapologetic about it. We are with Rob and his friends, as they try to navigate themselves out of the city, until the very end, following along with them in the most vicarious way we can - through there "home movie" of the events, as they actually happen.

Cloverfield looks like crap. Shot on a cheap, consumer camcorder, the film really does look like a home movie (if the amateur filmmaker behind it had a couple of million for CGI effects). The CGI was pretty incredible, except for the monster. I'm sorry folks, but they all look the same - Not Real. The CGI Statue of Liberty head, along with the CGI New York City, looked incredible, though, with such horrible resolution, and the film being made at night, it probably gave the effects folks a little easier time.

The acting, to the extent that people running around, scared out of their minds, could be called acting, was great. The actor who played Hud, especially, was spot on with his comedic lines, even if you barely see him in the film.

One thing that I give major props to the filmmakers on, though, was leaving so much open for the audience. By doing so, but NOT giving the audience answers, they are allowing us, as an audience, to experience everything exactly how Rob and his crew are experiencing it - in a state of shock, fear, and awe. Because of this, you end up feeling like you are the closest you can possibly be to actually being in the story. You feel connected to these characters, because your on the exact same level as them. You feel their horror, their sadness, their pain, because you experience it with them.

All in all, I would say Cloverfield is one of the few films of the past decade that is worth the massive amount of hype behind it. There isn't much of a story - a monster comes out of nowhere and starts leveling the city - but Cloverfield isn't about that. It's about the ride, and the ride was very fun.