Let the Right One In

Let the Right One In is the vampire movie Hollywood would be terrified to produce. It's a character piece that moves at a slow pace as to allow its hero and heroine to evolve naturally. It has its moments of terror, fear, blood, and gore like anything Hollywood produces, but it is also content to follow quiet and honest exchanges between preteens. One of them just happens to be a vampire.

It's hard to place a horror movie, especially a vampire movie, into the category of realism, but Let the Right One In is the closest to vampires in the real world as I can imagine. Being a vampire is not cool. None of them are proud of it. It's like a mark of shame that separates them from anyone else except for their own kind. Unlike the more recent of successful vampire franchises, these vampires don't hole up in expensive mansions or live in covens or what have you. The young vampire girl lives with an older (and increasingly less useful) vampire in a crappy apartment building. She goes out only at night and is fearful of any real connection and her need to feed on human life (and apparently vampires have an unpleasant odor).

Calling the style "realism" cannot take away from the artfulness of the film. It's cinematography, acting, and plotting are all expertly conceived and executed. It's a lovely film in the midst of the its own carnage.

What sets it apart, among other things, is the care it takes to tell the story of the friendship and young love between a 12 year boy and the vampire girl. It's adorable and frightening. The quality is in the details that could be easily missed. The young boy's nose is always running. She is always quiet and looks sad and lonely, even after ravaging passerbys. Their connection, like most first loves, is awkward. This isn't a storybook romance. And it is a strange tale. You are likely to feel uncomfortable for some if not all of its runtime. But, as a beginning horror genre fan, I was happy to tag along. Even when the film approaches its sensational extremes, I was pleased to see it end the way it did. As it stands now, it is one of my favorite films of the year.

A Simple Plan

If movies have taught me anything, it is that keeping a big bag of money will only make things worse (unless you're the English boy in Millions). That is the lesson learned from A Simple Plan, a movie where problems arise and only get worse at every turn.

1) Don't trust anyone. 2) Don't think you're smarter than everybody else. 3) Don't get anyone else involved. 4) Don't pretend no one will get hurt. And 5) never ever make a plan. Or, if you want to make a nail-biter of a movie, do the opposite. It worked in A Simple Plan.

Hank Mitchell (Bill Paxton in his only good performance...ever) and his brother Jacob (Billy Bob Thorton in a time when he wasn't typecast as the disgruntled, mean a-hole in buffoonish comedies) and Jacob's drinking buddy find a crashed plane with a bag containing millions of dollars in cash. They conspire to keep it, though Hank has to do the thinking for the others who are greedy and dream big immediately. Soon, Hank can't think fast enough to avoid the schemes, mischief, and mistakes his co-conspirators make on the path to financial heaven.

Money changes people. Or, sometimes it just plain ruins them. The path to ruin is where the film is particularly engaging. I found a strange fascination with watching the plan spin hopelessly out of control. It was like slowing down to look at a car wreck as you pass by. Only in this case, I got to see every misstep along the way. These are not bad people, per say. They are just people who keep digging their own graves by making stupid decisions and not following my list at the beginning of the review.

I actually loved the writing of the film. Even as the characters did horrible things, I rooted for them to pull out of the film with some hope even though it went against my conscience and logic. That's part of the dilemma the characters face: to try to be logical about an act/plan that will never submit itself to logic. Or maybe the lesson is that logic doesn't bend to the whims of men. Or maybe the lesson is don't take what isn't yours. Billy Bob Thorton creates a dim-witted, kind-hearted, drunk, social disappointment who I couldn't help but let my heart break for. There're layers to the character. His loyalties, intelligence, will, and love are tested. And all along it is clear that he isn't up to the task.

And Bill Paxton...Bill Paxton...Bill. Well, he's ruined many a fine film. He's even ruined many a bad film. But he doesn't do anything in A Simple Plan that ruins the quality of the film. Actually, my heart pounded every time I saw his look of distress. And that look abounded. I can't say that a different actor couldn't have done just as well or better, but he did well. Let it be known that Bill Paxton is capable of something better than the crap he usually turns in.

And scrappy little Bridget Fonda...what a good time. Her sudden turn into the scheming, conniving, Lady Macbeth was stunning. The very model of sweetness with a belly big with child switches into a would-be mastermind funneling ideas and dreams into her husband every time he loses faith.

The film struggles in its climax to keep the same quality of acting that it carried throughout, but it's a true diamond in the rough. It's also nice to see Sam Raimi do something other than his horror/comedies and superhero flicks. He can do all sorts of good.

***1/2

The Cell

The Cell often gets criticized by reviewers for utilizing the style over substance method. There is certainly style. The film is visually stunning. It never fixes to a look that it can't change whenever it feels like it. It is also terrifying, chiefly because I have never before seen things like I saw in this movie.

But there is substance too. Do I like that substance? That is the question reviewers should be asking themselves. I'm not sure I do, but I think I don't. There are good things about the movie. It explores the mind of a serial killer and offers ideas of what makes men do terrible things.

I didn't like what I saw. It was well constructed visually and well acted by the crazy D'Onofrio and sweet Lopez. But it's horrible stuff that passes before the eyes during the trip inside D'Onofrio's killer's mind.

The film's action climazes when the killer's mind is placed inside Lopez's mind. To comfort him, she chooses to be dressed and presented as the Virgin Mary. Now, I'm all for religious imagery in film, but it must work in the context of the film. Presenting herself as Mary to the killer is a terrible idea. Sure, it's interesting visually, but it doesn't fit with what we've learned about the killer prior to the reveal. He had suffered a very traumatic baptism at a young age, and it seems that he hasn't carried positive feelings about Christianity into adulthood. So, why oh why is it a good idea to comfort him as the Virgin Mary?

Then there's the crucifixion that takes place. No cross, just bolt arrows shot from a crossbow through the killers feet and hands leaving laying out in a Jesus pose. I'm not sure what the filmmakers are trying to say here, and I'm left only to guess. My guess is that the killer must be sacrificed to save the young version he sometimes presents in his mind. But this is a stretch and the film certainly didn't have to include that kind of imagery to convey this to the audience. And I don't think I've ever been more uncomfortable with religious imagery before. Likening the killer to Jesus, even abstractly, is too much for me.

While this is the second-best performance I have seen from Lopez (Out of Sight soaring above and beyond anything else), I am confused why she was paired up (albeit non-romantically) with co-star Vince Vaughn. He is utterly out of place in this movie. Vaughn is talented. I believe he could work in a drama, but not this thriller. Every line he utters (that may be a bit harsh - maybe it's every other line) rings false when it falls from his mouth. That may be because of some awkwardness in the script, but Vaughn certainly doesn't help matters.

I remember really being impressed by this movie when I saw it as a Senior in high school, but it doesn't hold up well to time. It's a decent one-watcher, but revisitng the film will only reveal new flaws to viewers. It is consistently shocking however. That much has not changed.

**1/2

The Bourne Ultimatum

I loved this film. I was gripping my armrests the whole time. Somehow, the filmmakers managed to top its predecessors from the series in action, suspense, and memory-centric plotting and espionage.

There were times in the film when the danger was very real, moments when I thought characters were going to die, to fail, to lose their way. Of course, that is all artifice because the film is engineered to race towards its conclusion like a speeding train.

It's interesting how the film managed to incorporate a character I had little interest in from the first two movies and make her necessary and...well...interesting. Julia Stiles CIA techie matters in the scheme of the film's plot, and I really didn't expect to care so much about her. When Bourne races to save her while an assassin is hot on her trail, I desperately wanted him to be her knight in shining armor. And what's so strange is to be that invested in the fate of a character that meant little or nothing to me in her earlier forms. The credit should go to the writers, but also to Stiles. I often am less than pleased with the actress' work (i.e. - Hamlet, The Omen), but she makes great strides in Ultimatum.

It's so easy to praise the film - the assured directing, the taught script, the supporting cast - that it somehow becomes easy to pass over Matt Damon's performance. It would be so easy for an actor to phone in a performance after playing the character in two previous movies, but Damon is on his game, confident in his interpretation of his character to the point that all that cool composure, that furrowed brow, and the daring physical feats seem effortless somehow. Although Damon infuses Bourne with mannerisms and personality (or lack thereof) from the first two films, the character is still fresh while his character's search for his past is endless and bitter at every turn. I saw Ocean's Thirteen a few days after Ultimatum and the comparison of Damon's performances enhanced my enjoyment of his portrayal of Bourne. Whereas Damon's Linus in Ocean's Thirteen is so far from confident and composed, Damon's Bourne is the opposite. Linus is essentially phoned in, while Bourne shows the work of an actor striving to bring a character believably alive off of the page.

My only complaint (because I don't want to nitpick a film I enjoyed so thoroughly) is that the flashbacks of Bourne's past have grown old. They change throughout the series, perhaps progressing to a moment of complete revelation, but the familiar blurry scene, fuzzy voices, and wavy lenses and camera tilts are tired. I understand the flashbacks have been established in the first two films, and it would be very difficult and awkward to change the style for the third, but I find them almost tacky in a otherwise perfectly composed film. I mean, really! Is there no other way for memories save for the Bourne style and the pink waves and sound cues of Saved by the Bell?

Have fun. Enjoy the ride. Get Excited.

****

Sunshine

All hail, Danny Boyle! May he reign for as long as he lives!

Sunshine finds a way to make space beautiful and terrifying at the same time. Out in the middle of God's creation seperated from home. When things go wrong (and they do) you're on your own. On your own to save the world. From a solar winter. During which little kids wear winter coats and make snowmen. The latter being the vision of the terrible world a dying star has made. It's hardly what I expected to see after all the hub bub in space. It seemed much worse up there - losing oxygen, fires, decoupled airlocks, faulty sun shields, and what have you. That's where the real danger is.

There's lots of beauty in the film. Even when the film starts to race near the end to build toward its dramatic finale, it finds time to flash pictures of space, the sun, and the scientists trying to survive both.

The film was primarily story driven. There's so much going on in Sunshine that it is difficult at first to get more than a surface introduction to the film's characters and their personalities. Certain actors get chances to shine (pun intended), slowly building their characters as the action builds along side them. Cliff Curtis (Three Kings, Bringing Out the Dead), Chris Evans (Fantastic Four franchise, Not Another Teen Movie, Cellular), Rose Byrne (28 Weeks Later, Troy), and Cillian Murphy (hail him while you're at it) all get their time in the sun (pun intended). I expect good things from Curtis and Murphy, but I was pleasantly surprised by Evans and Byrne. Each of these two performers have been likable enough in the past without actually standing out among their peers. But they're good in Sunshine. Evans is macho, but bears the weight of the seriousness of his crew's task and is forced to voice his unpopular opinions in order to keep them blind to all else but that all-important mission: re-ignite the dying sun. Byrne gets to play the sweet natured scientist perhaps too human to save humanity.

And well, Murphy...he can't seem to help but turn in wonderful performance after performance after performance. He's always interesting, always stretching while appearing to be moving effortlessly through his characters' facial expressions (those eyes!). But what really gets me every time is his voice, how he can turn a line over with his tongue to inject all sorts of subtlety and emotion into his words. He also has what many actors and actresses would kill for: screen presence. When he is on screen, I am watching him. There's a lot going on in the film, lots of interesting developments along the journey to the sun, but I was never more interested as when Cillian was on screen acting. It's more than charisma. I think Evans has that. It's a magnetism that can only be observed without truly being explained.

After all that gushing, I must reinterate that the stars of the film are actually the story and the visuals. They pack a punch. Alex Garland, the screenwriter, knows how to plot a suspense movie. He also knows how to have characters spout out science jargon and make it sound real, credible, and utterly of the moment. There's a lot of mumbo jumbo, but I was never lost.

And those visuals! Near the beginning of the film a character talks about how darkness is the lack of everything, it is nothing. But the beauty of the light is that it fills that seemingly endless space. It washes over nothing and creates something. I heard the words and I liked them, but the filmmakers went further and greater and kept showing me time again how exciting and scary that creation is.

I drove to Cleveland to see the film and I am fully prepared to drive back to see it a second time. For those interested, Cedar Lee is a neat little theater in Cleveland Heights that shows indie movies year round.

I recommend ending your pre-viewing experience here. Don't read anymore reviews, feature articles or interviews, or those great trailers off of Apple.com. They're all great, but Danny Boyle gives away too much when he speaks about the movie and the trailer gives away key plot points all the way into the third act of the film.
Be safe. Watch the movie first. Protect your viewing experience. The power is yours!

****

Disturbia

Disturbia spends much of its time jumping through the usual teen movie hoops before finally pulling out some decent thrills. It's a fine one-watcher with a likable and good performance by Shia LaBeouf, but underuses and undersells the creepiness of David Morse. It also contains a severely average performance from the girl next door, played with generally little besides flirtateous glances and scared eyes. But it's worth a look-see for Shia fans. Something I am not ashamed to say I am. The guy's good (see also A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints, The Battle of Shaker Heights), and he could be great.

***

Vacancy

Vacancy accomplished exactly what it set out to do: to scare the snot out of me. There is no real substance to the movie, although the filmmakers do try to create multi-dimensional protagonists with conversations at the beginning of the movie. The characters soon become secondary to the suspense. The scares are the real draw here. Once the terror starts, it doesn’t let up until the end.

Pluses. I thought the leads did a fine job with their parts, although those conversations that attempt to flesh out their characters are the most awkward part of the movie. After that, they pretty much just had to act scared. And they did. Pretty well. I don’t really put a lot of stock in either Luke Wilson or Kate Beckinsale’s acting range, and they didn’t really have to stretch their talent in Vacancy. But they were good enough to hold my attention and keep me rooting for them instead of rooting for them to die, which sadly can be the case with all the stupid young people in most slasher/horror films. I guess part of what made this movie work was that Wilson and Beckinsale behaved in fairly intelligent ways considering the circumstances. I think the film justified much of the helplessness of the two protagonists. Kind of a real “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” conflict.

The film was scary. And while there were a few of those quiet-in-the-dark-then-sudden- rush-of-sound-and-motion jump in your seat moments, I found the general mere suggestion of doom to be the real spine tingler. I just felt the leads were doomed. Horror sequels are the norm nowadays. Killers must live to kill again in further franchise installments. They’re cheap to make so they generally make their budgets back and then some. I mean, Boogyman was the number one movie the weekend it was released. And it sucked. Thankfully, Vacancy did not suck. It is even good enough to get my recommendation.

The film takes place at a little hotel in the middle of nowhere. The filmmakers successfully made the rooms feel claustrophobic for me. I felt as trapped as Wilson and Beckinsale did.

Minuses. While much of the film was suspenseful and scary, a few of the climatic scenes were anti-climatic. Stabbings weren’t the chilling events they were meant to be. The anticipation of the stabbings and confrontations was when the real nailbiting occurred.

Some of the horror movie clichés are there. People who should of died the first time rise again. Protagonists seek darkness as cover. Killers wear masks and dark clothes. People split up. And so on and so on.

Then there is that awkward attempt at the beginning of the film to make Wilson and Beckinsale more than you average horror movie victims. I think the filmmakers succeeded in spite of the attempt, but it can’t be chalked up to the writing, acting, or direction of those conversations.

Frank Whaley also seemed to be a bit zanier than I want my villains to be. I think back to the menacing Rusty Nail from the movie Joy Ride. That guy meant business. Whaley is just too over the top to be put in the same category as other villains from more successfully constructed films. His killer pals were far more effective.

The film doesn't seem like the type of film that can maintain its quality over the course of repeated viewings, so once is probably enough for anybody.

So, the thrill of the chills was plentiful enough to get a solid recommendation from me. Just don’t expect any real substance even when it’s forced on you.

***

The Game

SPOILERS

I've watched a couple of movies in the last week with a Wizard of Oz Syndrome. Heck, in The Game Michael Douglas even said he's pulling back the curtain because he wants to "meet the Wizard."

"And what is the Wizard of Oz Syndrome?" you may ask. Well, it's when you flip around the majority of the reality of everything preceeding the big reveal, the moment our hero or heroine wakes up and says, "I've had the oddest dream. And you were there. And you were there. And..." That is the case with The Game, albeit with a thriller twist. And like most WoOS movies, the satisfaction is in the ending. If it doesn't work, the film doesn't work.

The ending in the Game works for me. It rendered everything before it implausible, but I gladly hand over my disbelief in return for a mind-bending thrill ride with one of my favorite actors, Michael Douglas, and the handiwork of director David Fincher.

I must admit, the film loses some quality of experience on repeated viewings, but very few movies can rival the excitement I felt when I first watched it. First, problems. I found some of the hijinks to fall a little flat this time through. "Hijinks in a thriller?" you might say. Consider them "thriller hijinks." Michael Douglas gets tossed into this game that really kicks off with might be considered an unorthodox "meet-cute" scene not that much different from your average, run-of-the-mill romantic comedy. Only, in the Game, the guy and gal are being chased by police and angry dogs. The snappy dialogue between Douglas and the woman in the scene, played by Deborah Kara Unger, is a real bump out of the film. First, it's not realistic. Second, it's too cute. This movie is actually really dark and that scene really sticks out as one of those "Sesame Street - one of these things is not like the others" moments. Another one of those moments occurs when Douglas interacts with his televison's personality.

The implausibility of the plot does not keep me from loving this film, but it can prove bothersome when the big reveal happens. Even though I labeled this post with a "SPOILER" warning, I'm not going to ruin the twists and turns of the story. Just know that you do have to lay down your better judgment for a moment. It's not difficult to do, I swear.

The film really hits its stride after Douglas starts to unravel the mystery in Christine's apartment. The action picks up, the stakes rise, and all is right in the world of entertainment.

Pluses are many. Michael Douglas gets to do some of his familiar but amazing acting tricks. He plays the rich sour puss. He plays the man at the end of his desperation rope. He plays the vengeful spirit for all its worth. He does all this with considerable skill, which makes the "thriller hijinks" stand out all the more. But he is the audience's eyes and ears into this labyrinth of a mystery. And he portrays all the desperation, frustration, and confusion I felt as I watched The Game for the first time. Because I felt so connected to his character throughout the film, I felt the ending was justified and earned. So, the success of the film should be placed on Douglas' shoulders.

Sean Penn gets to do his familiar acting tricks. He plays it smooth, then lets out his whining shouts in that warbling foul-mouthed child's voice of his. But I like the guy and his talent. His role is small, but Penn knows how to support the lead. Sure, he chews some scenery, but there are few who I would rather watch chow down.

Fincher is the other driving force in the film. He doesn't appear for one second in the film, but his eye for staging a scene is always there. He uses a lot of low angles, hard lighting, and adds a gray tint to the movie. It adds to the already dark tone of the film. The low angles, coupled with various skewed angles portray the confusion of the film. The lighting and camera work during the scenes that take place at night are really remarkable considering many of the key scenes occur outside after dark. Fincher knows how to get the most out of his actors. Much has been written about his obsessive nature as a filmmaker, but I think the results are enough to excuse any hard headedness the guy throws around. He makes good movies. Even when they're so-so (Panic Room), they're made better than most of the movies out there. I say this because he knows how to construct a film. The credits show puzzle pieces splitting apart, and that is essentially what his films are - carefully designed puzzles that he can seperate and put back together at his choosing. The guy really knows how to build suspense and capitalize on the emotions of his audience.

Another big plus is the score. It contains one main theme, but that little piece of music accentuates the chills and thrills that are peppered throughout the film. Timed perfectly with the action on screen, the score often much scarier than what a piece of music has any right to be.

Themes...Well, the movie centers around a "remember what's really important in life" theme. Added to that is the idea that your life is your own; and death doesn't have to be a monkey on your back. While these themes are not exactly subtle, they are nowhere near a hinderance to the enjoyment of the film. And I can't really argue with them. But the real reward for living is the embrace of the good you have and could have if only you would let yourself have it. And it needs to be said even if it's shoved in your face a bit.

***1/2

28 Days Later...

Also on my old site, I found this review for 28 Days Later...which further illuminates my criticisms of its sequel, 28 Weeks Later...



"Sergeant Farrell: Well, I think Bills got a point. If you look at the whole life of the planet, we...you know, man, has only been around for a few blinks of the eye. So if the infection wipes us all out, that is a return to normality.

Zombie movies are littered with excess. Thats part of why we like them. I don't know if anyone ever considered breaking the horror and intensity of the genre down to a personal level before Alex Garland (original novel of The Beach) wrote 28 Days Later and handed it over to director Danny Boyle to make it come alive.

The startling ideas: 1) The zombies are not the undead, but rather are very much alive and infected by a virus transmitted through the infected's blood and saliva. 2) The characters are as rich and as important to the story as the action. 3) The action starts in a medical testing facility where animal rights activists free lab monkeys infected with the virus (called the rage virus for effect). 4) After the mayhem and setup in the testing facility, the story quickly jumps to 28 days later. Manchester is burning and all of England is scattered with wrecked vehicles, loose paper blowing in the wind, and dead bodies. This is striking because every other movie would have been written with the story smack dab in the middle of the outbreak and chaos.

Instead, it picks up when a bicycle courier named Jim (the wonderful Cillian Murphy) wakes up from a coma in an empty hospital room. As he slowly walks through the disheveled hospital and out into the even more ruined streets, the viewer sees the damage as Jim sees it. He, unlike us, has no idea what caused all the wreckage and decay. The atmospheric rock soundtrack rises as his realization of the extent of the terror rises until it culminates with the discovery of a missing persons kiosk in the middle of the city covered with fading and worn photos and desperate messages. After discovering the first of the many infected zombies throughout the film inside a very frightening church, he meets up with two survivors, Selena (Naomie Harris) and Mark (Noah Huntley) who save his life and inform him of the carnage that ensued in the previous 28 days.

In a normal zombie movie, you kill off all the zombies, losing some of your rag tag crew along the way. In 28 Days Later, you just try to survive. That leads to the discovery of Frank (Brendan Gleeson) and his daughter Hannah (Megan Burns) hiding out in a tiny apartment. Frank found a radio message from the army saying the answer to infection was in Manchester. Bickering and bonding leads them to Manchester, where a small group of soldiers waits for women to repopulate the earth.

It's insane, but it all makes sense. People clamor for survival when they see normality slip through their fingers. They change. They do things they wouldn't do otherwise. They kill to live.

All the intensity you can wrap into a tiny independent UK movie is in 28 Days Later. It features great performances from Murphy, Harris, and Gleeson and ushers in the return of Boyle (The Beach, Trainspotting) as a visionary director. What impresses the most is the restraint when any other filmmaker would have started a barrage of action. Apparently, Boyle and his writer Garland know that scares come from raging savages and the promise of loneliness in equal amounts.

I want to write the whole thing down, to share the gem of a movie I found last March, but you ought to experience it on your own. Just watch it. Leave a light on.

****"

The Omen (2006)

Well, I recommend this movie almost soley because it scared me. It can actually be quite corny at times.

Julia Stiles is terrible in the film whenever she speaks (so when her jaw is wired shut, she's swell). Liev Schreiber delivers a solid performance. I'll admit the kid playing Damien scared me, but I can't really praise his one-note performance. The kid merely hangs out looking silently creepy (with some occasional freak outs). The director really doesn't show much skill in guiding his cast. Unless he wanted simple performances from everyone but ole Liev.

Most of the scares are built on religious reality, so atheists need not shiver from anticipation. I, however, felt chills in my bones for most of the second half of this movie.

Unintentional laughs - a beheading, Mia Farrow crazy (jumping on backs and swinging things at cars)

***

Zodiac

Two things: 1)Zodiac is nearly flawless. 2) I only really liked it.

Zodiac has great, award-worthy performances from Jake Gyllenhaal, Robert Downey Jr. (who's becoming a favorite of mine), and Mark Ruffalo in his best peformance since You Can Count on Me. Every time Robert Downey Jr. spoke, I was thinking, "Oscar, Robert. It's on its way."

The film looks great. The film is stylized at times, but not nearly as stylized as Fincher's other films. This is more a straight up drama, a police procedual and mystery, than it is a thriller. And it succeeds in spades with the drama, but the film's running time (2 1/2+ hours), made me rely on the characters for "entertainment." Luckily, the characters are complex and wonderfully portrayed by the cast. Still, the film is a labyrinth of information.

The film does a great job of capturing the fear of the period of the Zodiac killings. The media-savvy killer knew how to push people's buttons, and their buttons were always ripe 'fer a pushin'.

The costs of being a part of the search for the Zodiac are abundant and plague the latter parts of the characters' lives during the film. The costs of obssession and failure ripple on throughout.

Facts of the case come in droves, leaving me to backtrack to review all the previous information over and over again in my head. This wasn't terrible, but it did take my attention away from the action on screen for short periods of time. This left me perpetually playing a game of catch up for the majority of the film. I think a repeat viewing should prove more fruitful as a movie-going experience. I'll write again after the second viewing.

****