Let The Right One In vs. Let Me In

Let The Right One In Vs. Let Me In

This is a subject that I feel quite strongly about, and agonized over the decison of whether to review each movie individually. But I have never known a project so universally hated from the start as the English language remake of the Swedish vampire movie, that despite being only four years old has already been elevated to the position of classic. So instead I have decided to compare the two versions, simply for the sake of comparison, because there are many prejudiced attitudes regarding Let Me In, which I feel must be put to rights.

I really do not feel Let Me In is as bad a movie as many believe it to be, so here is a little review dedicated to distinguishing both versions and recognizing their merits. This will include a comparison between; a) Oskar b) Hakan/Father c) Bullies d) Settings and cinematography e) Depictions of the story, and of course the depiction of Eli, the vampire child.

                    V.S.

Oskar V.S. Owen - Now I know that I have yet to begin any type of comparison, but I have to say that my ultimate and preferred choice is Owen. Why? Well, firstly I have to say that the character is simply more well rounded than his Swedish counterpart. The Oskar in the Swedish version seems rather indifferent to the fact that he is being bullied and his home life is not in the least bit traumatic, he has a mother and though she is overprotective she is still kind and caring, unlike Owen.

Whose home is, well, crap, his mother is an alcoholic who drinks until she's dead drunk and the bullying is simply more traumatic, in some scenes its just downright disturbing. We are shown the trauma and abuse he has endured, and its all a little more understandable as to why he runs away with the Eli character and his desire to escape the prosaic pressures of reality and integration with the adult world.

Owen my pick for the perfect Oscar.

The Bullies - Again despite a lack of comparison, my choice for the bullies would again be the English language version. Why? Because the bullies in the English language version are simply more threatening, they are more physically imposing than the Swedish bullies. The Bullies in the English version are taller and stronger than the Oskar character, plus the bullying scenes were more disturbing, they wedgie the poor kid until he pees his pants, slash him across the face with an atenna and like the original attempt to drown him. As I said before, the Oskar in the original just seemed very indifferent to the bullies, though this maybe because I don't consider the original bullies very intimidating, they look like ordinary twelve year olds.

Of course one could make the arguement that because the book is grounded in hard realism, that the portrayel of the bullies as twelve year olds is more realistic. But I consider the larger American bastards much more threatening than the Swedish bully brats. So in short if you want realism go with the Swedish version, but if you want good honest threat and villians to hate, go with the American version.

Hakan V.S. The Father - Now this character is a little more interesting and require a little more comparison. But in order to better understand the character I feel we must return to the book a little more. If you felt there was some ambiguity regarding the character in the Swedish film version, let me clarify for you now, he was a pedophile and his relationship with Eli was, shall we say, less than savioury. In the Swedish version however this is only implied, in the English language version, the character is a human thrall only to escape the pressures of adulthood, and has been with the Eli character since childhood.
Both characters are tortured and mildly sympathetic if not piteous, Hakan by the unnatural sexual attractions toward youg children that have plagued him all his adult life and the Father whose obsessive love relationship leads to the ultimate sacrifices, murder and suicide. Hakan in the Swedish version is played by Per Ragnar and in the English version by Richard Jenkins, who both offer similiar portrayals, only their motivations are different. They both appear stoic and emotion-less, you never really know what Ragner's Hakan is thinking but the emotions that Jenkin's Father is more obvious and something we as the audience can connect as the more tragic character. A close call, but my ultimate choice is Jenkin's Father.

Eli V.S. Abby - Now you may be wondering why on earth I have given so much credit to the English language version, particularly when that version seems to be the one so many people hate. This comaparison between the performances of Lina Leandersson and Chloe Moretz, may be subject to technicality as I am biased against Moretz, I cannot stand her. So ultimately my choice is Lina Leandersson, but with that said I would like to go in to some detail as to exactly why. Their performances are strangley similiar, their both lacking in any real three dimensional qualities and seem to be rather maudelin. But the reason I go with the Sweish version and also gave so much credit to the English version, I do not like the portrayal of Abby in that film. As the film so shamelessly implies Abby has been collecting gaurdians over the years, controlling them with the promise of unconditional love. This is what makes the relationship between the main characters less about love and more about meticulous manipulation.
I enjoy how the English version proffers more character development and more character motivations, but this is simply unforgivable. Ultimately the Swedish version offers what the book did and that is why our vampiric anti-hero and the love relationship is something we can sink our teeth into. (And yes, I have been waiting four reviews to use this joke)

THE PLOT - Yes, now is the time to review the differences in plot and setting. You may have guessed it, though you may not know it, the Swedish version is the winner. Whilst I enjoy the English version for the aforementioned reasons, there is a bundle of characters that are rarely seen and barely explained, such as Virginia, the english counterpart who appears could have been interesting yet only appears in two scenes and the police investigator who did not appear in either book or Swedish movie. Also the plot doesn't really seem to offer anthing new, some scenes are pratically shot for shot from the orginal or simply glanced over, like the bleeding when not originally invited scene.
The cinematography is comprised of warm colours predominantly orange and ember, and this is not good, the original Swedish film featured cold midnight blues and stark white, all to reflect the darkness of human desire whilst simultaneously allowing us to believe in the existence of vampires. Orange and ember is not threatening, warm colours do not reflect a grittily realistic world.
And still we have that strange deviation in characterization for Abby. So yes, the winner is Let the Right One In, to answer my own question Let Me In is still a good film, despite its faults both films are enjoyable. But the original is simply the best, what else can you really say.

Near Dark Review

Near Dark (1987) Review

Who would have thought that the combination of certain genres woud become so successful and attract such a sizeable cult following? Well certainly not Kathryn Bigelow when she released the Weird West movie Near Dark, when I first saw this I was attracted to the notion of a gang of vampires who traveled along desolate country roads attacking whom they please. Just like the 80's it took a little of the old to create something fresh exciting and new and it really shows.

The film begins with a young redneck named Caleb attempting to romance an attractive drifter named Mae but her eccentric behaviour makes her a little difficult to woo. As the dawn approaches Mae gives Caleb the traditional vampire goodbye, a kiss on the mouth and a bite on the neck. As he attempts to return home Caleb discovers the sun burns his skin, vampires never get caught without your SPF one million.
Mae's roving vampire family abducts Caleb and decides to let him stay as long as he can proves himself an effective hunter. But of course Caleb finds he is not use to killing people and refuses. During a ploice raid however he manages to prove himself by braving the harsh light of day to retrieve their van.
Meanwhile Caleb's father and sister (the mother evidently having died of the fatal off camera disease), go in search of him. They find him at a motel where Caleb enjoys the momentary gratitude of the group, that is until sister and daddy crash the party.
Needless to say he is now no longer trusted by the group and faster than you can say deus ex machina is cured by his vetrinarian father (how this allows him to cure vampirism with a simpe blood transfusion I honestly have no idea, or how he has come to possess spare packets of human bood, ho hum).

Mae returns just as Caleb is getting his life back on track and attempts to convince Caleb to return to them. However this is a simple ruse and Caleb learns that the gang has abducted Caleb's younger sister. The plot then comes full circle as Caleb faces off against the Drac pack ultimately resulting in their demise and Mae's salvation as she too is cured by the same improbable means and they meet the coming dawn.
As I mentioned before it was the 80's that caused a cinematic revolution and it is this that helps to create his film which I consider to be an example of post modern filmmaking efforts. The reason I believe this is because the film creates a grittily realistic atmosphere and the supernatural elements seem incidental. Bigelow has really created something unique, she helps the film overcome its low budget by the aforementioned gritty realism but also by the three dimensional characterization.
The film stars a young Adrian Pasdar as Caleb and I enjoy the the way he portrays the character. He begins pretty much as a straightforward horny cowboy but soon matures and develops into a more responsible person.
Jenny Wright plays Mae and though don't have much to say on her character she seems a little passive and Wright does not bring much to the role. However I do like the way her character is introduced as a sly unassuming seductress.
But by far my favourite character has to be Severen a strange sociopathic nutball, Bill Paxton really lets loose as this wicked un-redemptive vampire, who finds sadistic glee in boodshed and death like any good vamp. In my view his performance alone is worth the price of admission.
I also feel that I must give an honourable mention of the film's special effects, the vampires have a particular aversion to sunlight and the subsequent burn make-up is some of the best I have seen, particularly for 1987.

In short the film is amazing, mixing shocking grit with a perennial movie monster. Unlike other vampire movies of the 80's this film dares to take vampires seriously and has now garnered the attention it so rightly deserves. So thankyou the 1980's for scaring up this horror favourite.

Lost Boys Review

The Lost Boys (1987) Review

Today I thought a little change of pace and review a movie intended for a slightly older audience, in this case adolescents, this is the Lost Boys.

In the eighties as the slasher genre rose and the more archetypal monsters such as vampires, werewolves and ghosts were falling into relative obscurity, Lost Boys flew on to the screens to remind of all we had nearly lost and simultaneously starting the trend of vampire movies but with more familiar modern settings in great contrast to previous vampire movies which had mostly been period pieces. It also created in its intended demographic a fanbase which remains prevelant and perceives to this day, after all how could teenagers remain so emotionally invested in things like Vampire Academy and (as much as it kills me to admit it), Twilight.

The film begins with a baby Kiefer Sutherland leading a motorcycle gang through a boardwalk, they fall foul of another biker gang, presumably because Sutherland is insecure that the other gang looks more ridiculous than they do. An overweight security guard breaks up the ruckus but is later attacked by an unseen flying force that pull him into the air.

We cut to a middle American family as they go to live with their overly eccentric grandpa, there is Michael played by Jason Patric and Sam played by Corey Haim, two young up and coming teens with only one thing on their minds escaping the boredom of living in dreary Santa Carla which claims to be the murder capital of the world, hmm I wonder why, but I think we can all agree that it has absolutely nothing to do with imaginary vampires.

So Michael gives in to his latent teenage sex drive as he comes across Star played by Jamie Gertz who leads Micheal in with the biker gang as lead by baby Kiefer Sutherland, Sutherland challenges Micheal to race which nearly sends him falling to his untimely death off the side of a cliff but still eager to get into Star's panties Micheal forgives the obviously psychotic Sutherland for this and follows them down into their lair, geez I wonder what Micheal would do for a Klondike bar.
Once there the gang toys with Michael and convinces him to drink what he believes to be wine but of course it turns out to be blood, and to the shock of all those who possess less than half a chromosome, they are revealed to be vampires.

Sam meanwhile becomes friends with the Frog Brothers who look and act like the demented love children of Rambo and the Terminator. They convince Sam that vampires exist just in time for Sam to notice the changes in his older brother, Sam and Michael reconcile and come up with a plan to finish the wicked vampire gang, aiding them are the Frog brothers and Star. Michael, Sam, Star and the Frog Brothers engage in bloody battle and succeed in vanquishing the vampires

The situation seems resolved until overly eccentric grandpa goes to the refridgerator and remarks on how he could never quite come to terms with the existance of vampires and their prescence within the town, with the line "One thing about livin' in Santa Carla I never could stomach, all the damn vampires".

The film itself is a delightful little visceral romp into the realms of surburban horror. The film was directed by Joel Shumacher, when his credibility as a director was still intact, orignally conceived as a simple kiddy vampire movie, Shumacher went to greater lengths to ensure that the film could be enjoyed by virtually any audience member above the age of thirteen and that the film was effective in the sense of being a movie, which I have to admit is, the writing and characterization is interesting as it allows the film to oscillate between the serious and the childishly humourous. Such as with the character of Micheal, who along with vampirism could be seen as an allegory for the threat of drug addiction or alcoholism on impressionable young people.

I particularly enjoy the group feeding scene in which the threat of attack is handled through high angles, low angles and of course the always popular dutch angle as a means of conveying threat. The lighting of the film also has to be praised, the first thing you learn about Schumacher is that he loves lighing effects. The lighting is handled in reds, oranges and yellows, the colour scheme is relevant as it of course conveys the threating, the sensual and of course the bloody.

The story is quite good, but I feel that the film is lacking in its third act, becoming increasingly stereotypical and a factory for cliche` catchphrases that quite thankfully never caught on.

Overall the film is entertaining and, as far as vampire movies go is functional but really seems to be a case of style over substance, the writng perfectly balances the serious and the humourous but even with that the characters become slightly cliche`as the film draws to its conclusion, but its just like the man says;

'No-one ever paid to see under the top'.

The Little Vampire Review

The Little Vampire (2000) Review

Hello! My children of the night and welcome to the first installment of what I hope is the first of many vampire movie reviews to come. My mission is to review any and all vampire movies that I possess, until eternity passes me by.

I want to talk to you today about obsessions, what effect do they have on a person and I suppose a more pertinent question would be where and how do they begin. For me, my obsession with vampire movies began all at the tender age of nine when young impressionable me was taken to the local Odeon cinema to see the cinematic adaption of Angela Sommer Bodenburg's Little Vampire series.

The series was initially published under the German title Der Kleine Vampir, beginning circulation in the early 1980's and eventually spawned a television series in the year 1985 that starred Micheal Gough and Gert Frobe.

A second televison series appeared in 1993, but the 2000 movie was the first to the adapt the material for the big silvery screen.

The movie was produced by Richard Curtis and starred the cream of the British crop, Richard E. Grant, John Wood, Jim Carter and Alice Kridge.

The Movie begins with little Tony Thompson a recent American immigrant to Scotland, here the plot embarks on a typical fish out of water story. Tony finds it hard fitting in partially due to the fact that he is completely obsessed with vampires. He ultimatley comes to befriend a vampire when one flies in his window one night. The young vampire also has a family and they establish themselves as the main character focus of the film alongside Tony.
From here the greatest and widest deviations from the novel series becomes evident, in the original stories the vampires enjoyed being vampires and were all delightfully quirky characters each possesing individual personalities. But in the film they long to become human and despise being vampires and all search for a mystical stone to guarantee their humanity. Now whilst it is true that each story in the books was rather episodic and the story was relatively self contained and I suppose the film did require some sembleance of a plot, but I hate these changes they make the characters completely quirk-less they're bland and rather one dimensional, the only characters who seem genuinly likeable is Anna, portrayed by Anna Popplewell, who is in love with Tony and possess a cheerful yet morbid disposition.
And of course the vampire hunter Rookery, now usually vampire movies cheer on the vampire hunter and hope he defeats the villianous vampire, but here their is a complete role reversal the vampire hunter is the villian and the vampires are the heroes. Jim Carter plays the delicously foul Rookery, a man with poor personal hygeine and an equally poor sense of morality (if any at all), whilst the vampires just look like rejects from an Anne Rice novel.

Overall the film is enjoyable as a functional children's film, it is charming and whilst the performances are rather poor they come across as easy for any child to sink their teeth into, straightforward and simple. I also enjoy how the film utillizes traditional vampire imagery such as stakes, garlic and crosses and if you were me then these were the first vampires you ever saw and rightly so, just goes to show that sometimes traditional is the right way to go.
The film holds a special place in my heart as it was the first vampire movie I ever saw, so I suppose the film is a guilty pleasure, it's not particularly memorable and not in the least bit faithful to the novels but fun all the same. With a little hope it will continue to inspire obsession within all future vamp crazed fanatics.