Let Me In- 4.5/5

I walked into the theater tonight expecting to hate Let Me In. It’s Swedish source material is one of my favorite movies, and this year hasn’t been a good one for remakes of great movies (Death at a Funeral, need I say more?). I was surprised, to say the least. Let Me In’s filmmakers struck an outstanding balance of maintaining the story and spirit of the original film and altering it enough to make it their own and suit and American audience (because an American audience fears nothing like they fear subtitles).
The film was very well cast, and outstanding performances were given by all. Richard Jenkins and Chloe Moretz deserve special mention. While always an outstanding actor, Jenkins’ performance gave a new level of depth to Abby’s guardian, and portrayed him in a much more human fashion than his predecessor. Hs wide range of facial expression gave a deeper understanding of the characters motives than the audience was given in the past version of the film. Chloe Moretz is rapidly becoming one of my favorite young actresses (if Let Me In isn’t proof enough, just watch Kick-Ass or (500) Days of Summer) and her performance was nothing short of spectacular.
Let Me In’s design was also stupendous. The design team fully committed to the period, and included lots of small details (such as the Reagan speeches on the television, or period radio commercials) that really enhanced the feel of the movie. The soundtrack also included several truly classic early 80s numbers that brought a smile to my face. The only area of design that I have any complaints about is costume design. During the scene when Abby enters Owen’s home without permission, I would have been happier to have seen her wearing white. In my opinion that would have been more visually striking. This is just one example of several interesting color choices that struck me as being... not right. Beyond that, Let Me In’s design was nothing short of outstanding.
I have only two significant complaints about Let Me In, and they didn’t even occur to me until I sat down to write. The film employs a non-linear narrative, in contrast to the style of the original. While opening with the scenes in the ambulance and hospital created some early suspense and started the film with a bang, I’m of the opinion that it detracted from deeper suspense later, as it becomes apparent that Abby’s guardian is going to be caught. The original film, while admittedly slower in the beginning, used the uncertainty about the guardian’s fate to create excellent tension later in the film. That tension served as an excellent introduction to the film’s climax.
The other complaint I have pertains directly to the film’s climax. The Swedish version contained several scenes of foreshadowing that allowed the audience to predict, at least in small part, how Owen’s conflict with bullies was going to end. This new version did not contain the same element. The subtraction of just a few lines of dialogue made all the difference here.
On the whole however, Let Me In was a truly fantastic movie. It did justice and paid homage to its source material, while maintaining enough difference to be distinct. While the points that I mentioned above caused me minor distress, I must stress how minor it was. After conferring with my moviegoing companion for the evening, I’ve come to the conclusion that these points won’t even be noticed by those who haven’t seen the original film. Overall, I give Let Me In 4.5 out of 5, for doing a great remake of a great movie. Go forth and watch.

The Last Exorcism- 4.5/5

Horror has always been one of my favorite genres. I love a good scary movie. Sadly, the term ‘good scary movie’ is usually an oxymoron that ranks among ‘Microsoft Works’, and ‘employed English major.’ Fortunately, for every oxymoron, there are exceptions. Microsoft made the Xbox (shut up, it makes my analogy work), Dave Barry can stand as an example to English majors everywhere, and Daniel Stamm made The Last Exorcism. In a word, this movie was fantastic. It was a coming together of styles and techniques that are frequently used, but rarely used well.
For the first time in recent memory, it feels like a director finally took Alfred Hitchcock’s saying, “There is no terror in the bang, only in the anticipation of it” to heart. This movie was terrifying, but not graphic. There were few bangs, but a great deal of anticipation. We live in a world where directors and producers have come to rely on computer generated monsters and absurd amounts of gore in the making of horror movies. The genre requires neither, and The Last Exorcism is proof of that. It was refreshing to see a movie that didn’t feel the need to try to scare me with effects.
Most mockumentary style films not only gain no benefit from the style, but often would be better movies if they were told as traditional narratives. This wasn’t the case with The Last Exorcism. The developers used the style to their full advantage, and allowed the audience to see things from multiple points of view that would have been difficult, if not impossible, with another style.
Casting largely unknown actors is another practice that isn’t new. It’s a game of Russian Roulette that rarely works for the film as a whole. Fortunately for The Last Exorcism, it’s a practice that worked this time. The lack of recognizable faces led to a much greater sense of realism and immersion.
The last thing that made this film truly fantastic was its ending. Most movies end in a way that is either predictable, or in some way breaks promises that were made to the audience earlier in the movie. The Last Exorcism was one that did neither. The ending of this movie was surprising, but at the same time fulfilled all of their promises to the audience, and made good on all the foreshadowing.
This was a superb movie. It was scary, well made, thought out, and the prefect blend of familiar and unpredictable. I give it a score of 4.5 out of 5, and command that you go see it in the theater. Today.

The American, 2.5/5

I walked into the theater to see The American yesterday with high hopes. The combination of George Clooney and the promise of a smart thriller was enough to lure me to the theater expecting to be dazzled. Perhaps my high expectations led to my severe disappointment when the film finally ended. I wanted to like this one. I really did. I spent the first half of the movie formulating the beginnings of positive reviews in my head, and conjuring up the high praise that I felt sure to give. It was about halfway through the movie however that I realized that this was more than just a slow start. The movie was just slow. It started slow, it continued slow, and had one of the most underwhelming and anti-climatic endings I’ve seen in a long time. But being slow isn’t necessarily a bad thing, and the other ways in which this film failed quite honestly astounded me.
One of the key failures made by most movies is a failure to develop characters beyond basic archetypes. This wasn’t the case with The American. George Clooney and company did a fantastic job of fleshing out their characters, and I felt connected to the main character in a way that I rarely do in movies anymore. The failure lay elsewhere.
The film also contained a strong sense of realism. While I’ve never known any assassins or underground gunsmiths, I’d imagine that Clooney comes as close to real as one can in a movie. I also appreciated the fact that somewhere, someone taught the cast how to handle their prop guns in at least a semi-correct manner. Few things in a movie can annoy me as much as a character that’s supposed to be a professional handling their firearm in a manner that would result in a shot to their own foot. I also find it irritating when firearms are a key topic in the film, and the writer clearly has no idea what they’re talking about. That wasn’t a problem here either.
The film was beautifully shot. Anton Corbijn and his cinematographer deserve a great deal of credit for making excellent use of on location shooting. The scenery was beautiful, and the locations were well chosen.
After praising the good elements of the film, I have to stop for a moment and remind myself that I didn’t like it, and here’s why. There wasn’t a meaningful story. By meaningful story, I really mean any story at all. The film spent all of its time showing the audience what happened, and virtually no time explaining why. The filmmakers tried to be subtle with their references to the protagonist’s past, and they ended up being too vague.
I left the theater thinking: ‘that was a beautiful and well made film, but why did I spend my time and money to watch it?’ That sentiment leads me to give The American a score of 2.5/5, and the recommendation that you wait for the Redbox if you plan to see it.

Iron Man 2- 3.5/5

It's been difficult for any of us to turn on our televisions this week without being bombarded by trailers, interviews or Audi ads reminding us that it's nearly time for us to go to the movie theater and watch the continued exploits of our favorite billionaire/inventor/weapons designer/womanizer/superhero Tony Stark. All hype aside, I really quite enjoyed the first film and had high hopes for this second installment. Sadly, leaving the theater I was filled with mixed feelings about this one. Some aspects of the movie were wonderful, others left a bad taste in my mouth.

The movie began wonderfully, picking up where the original left off and providing an appropriate introduction of Mickey Rourke. After a few minutes however, it became clear that this sequel was sadly lacking in one of the areas that made the first movie so enjoyable and that is balance. The first film successfully balanced comedy, serious drama and a dash of cartoonish fun in a way that kept the movie flowing and the audience engaged. The sequel suffered in that area. Each scene was one dimensional that I have to wonder if they had labels like "Drama," "Comedy," and "Useless Filler" right on the page of the script. Additionally, while I'm inclined to cut sci-fi, fantasy and comic book movies extra slack in terms of their realism and scientific errors, this movie still went over the top to the point of me laughing out loud at a moment or two (such as Tony Stark building a supercollider in his basement.)

Tony Stark's antics and cavalier attitude are tweaked and pushed just far enough over the top to become irritating rather than charming. Sam Rockwell's portrayal of Justin Hammer was also grating, causing the character to come off as whiney. I will however give credit to Scarlett Johansson for giving a fantastic performance that in my opinion deserved far more screen time than it got. As far as Lt.Col. Rhodes goes, I was distressed upon hearing that Terrance Howard wouldn't be reprising his role in this sequel, but Don Cheadle was excellent, and in truth, probably better than his predecessor. The rest of the cast performed adequately, with the only other real stand-out performance coming from John Slattery. His presentation of Howard Stark and its not entirely subtle homage to Walt Disney was a fantastic addition to this movie.

Despite all of the flaws mentioned above, Iron Man 2 succeeded in several areas. It was full of entertaining action sequences and had top notch special effects. And while the film failed to find the balance of the first one, the timing was very well done, giving us a chance to get to know the characters at least a little bit before they began trying to kill each other. All in all, I have to say that Iron Man 2 was a solid movie that was plagued by very specific failures in writing and direction. Taking that into account, I give Iron Man 2 a score of 3.5, a solid film that didn't quite live up to its predecessor or my expectations.

The Book of Eli.

I suppose that it's a little bit inappropriate for me to begin this new endeavor with an entry that doesn't fit the title. While The Book of Eli was far from perfect, hate it I did not. I'm not sure what I was expecting when I sat down to watch this film, but it sure as hell wasn't what I saw. The beginning of the film employed some very effective (while not original) visual styles and one rather impressive fight scene, in which the title character is established as a complete badass. Though for all of the filmmaker's attempts to develop and Eli, the audience is never truly engaged by his story or his quest. Several attempts were made to provide an intimate look at the character's past and his motivation, but all fell flat. While I'm on the subject of falling flat, Mila Kunis should have learned her lesson after her horrendous performance in Max Payne and opted to stop making action movies. Her performance not only fell flat, it was awful. Denzel Washington wasn't terrible, but as I mentioned a moment ago, one doesn't care about his character, or his quest. It's difficult to tell whether this was the result of inexperienced or inadequate direction or whether it was deliberate. One can only speculate. The one shining ray of light as far as performances go is Gary Oldman. He has always been one of my personal favorites to play a villain, and this role is no exception. Oldman made his character easy to identify with, and deliciously evil at the same time. I will give credit to the production team for creating a thought out, and somewhat original vision of a post apocalyptic world, and for developing an original story to go with it. Most post-apocalyptic visions downplay religion, if they mention it at all, but the attitude portrayed in The Book of Eli is, in my opinion much more believable. On the whole, I give Eli a score of 3, for a refreshing take on the post-apocalyptic.