CiCi's horror reviews!

→ in
Tools    





Survivor 5s #2 Bitch
This is the first time I've reviewed a direct remake, so if this is sub par, it will be due to me not quite knowing how to do it I tried to review it without any comparison to the original film or novel, but it was impossible for me to do. Therefore, this is more of a comparison, I feel as though that's inevitable? But anyway, here it is, my review of Let Me In! I'll drop the link to the review of Let the Right One In at the bottom, since I'll refer to it throughout the duration of this review!


Positives
I could have just sent the link to my Let the Right One In review right here, but that wouldn't be right, because its positives were not transferred to this film. With that being said, the technicalities of the film are on par with the original. It is nice to look at, and evidently harnesses the modern technology that its budget granted it access to, but then again, I still think that LTROI was more complex and better in this regard, because its cinematography and mise-en-scene worked in combination with a multitude of other factors. Let Me In is more disjointed, but I will sharply get on to that!

But moving on to the acting, I do feel that some of the cast deserve praise. Particularly Kodi Smit Mcphee who portrayed a tortured soul desperate for some form of companionship rather well. Was he as good as the original Kåre Hedebrant? I'd say he is, but Hedebrant had a significantly stronger script to work with, which levels it out somewhat since Oskar out trumps Owen.

One varying approach this film took which was interesting was its soundtrack. Instead of using a romantic, hopefully enchanting score, they take some inspiration from this, but largely use a more expected, darker one. Nevertheless, it used rather effectively.

As for the film's other merits, and I'm sorry for being blunt, they're only in there because of the work of the original Swedish production and novel.

Negatives
This is going to be lengthy, so bare with me to begin with, I felt the film tried too hard to be scary or frightening. Everything was so dark, or at least tried to be, not just in regard to the lighting, but especially in regards to Chloe Moretz as "Abby". From the first moment we see her, she wears this threatening expression that just isn't because she's a pre-adolescent girl that is barely five foot tall. She is clad in dark clothing to convey how she's oh so mysterious and brooding, and oh god, the CGI... it stuck out like a sore thumb. It made me cringe out of embarrassment, because it made scenes feel gratuitously over the top, with this banshee leaping everywhere whilst attacking someone. I'd compare it to someone gushing whilst accepting an award, you understand that they're happy, but they're doing it very forcefully and not quite knowing where to stop, leaving you wishing it would just end instead.
They had it right in LTROI, we knew Eli was different because of her greasy hair, and her limited wardrobe that left her barely covered in a Stockholm winter which didn't seem to affect her. But for whatever reason, they make sure Abby's hair is pristine, her skin is pristine, she's heavily clothed etc. (bar her shoeless first scene) it doesn't make much sense to me.

It's also nowhere as dark as it tries to be, and this irritated me beyond belief, because it removed anything remotely offensive that could be found in the original film or book. Immediately, this created a problem, because it desperately did not want to offend anyone, but it tried to be disturbing. It was never going to work. What made LTROI so memorable and brilliant was partly due to its capacity to explore extremely dark themes like paedophilia, child abuse, and gender dysphoria in children with no restraint, whilst still creating a bittersweet outcome that was original and innovative. Literally all of this was removed. Abby sometimes hints she's not a girl, but she sounds like a young girl (unlike Eli), and sometimes counteracts these claims with cheap lines i.e. "I'm not a girl, I am nothing". Her care taker is no longer her sort of lover, so he's surrounded in mystery and is given no explanation for why he risks his livelihood for Abby. Owen's father is no longer a raging alcoholic, but a compassionate, adoring father, which leaves Owen's character not quite as isolated or lonely as his Swedish counterpart, Oskar, meaning it's more difficult to pity him.
Even the title was changed out of fear Let the Right One In was too long they assume the viewer is ignorant, and can't or won't handle the original material. Basically, the result is that a substantial amount of sub plots are removed entirely, and a range of crucial characters in the original material are reduced to cameos, despite the impact of their scenes in the original production (Virginia's torturous transformation and death is vastly reduced to a young, mute model who is on screen for less than 5 minutes). The vast majority of supporting characters have their depth stripped away from them here.

What this effectively results in is a film that does not know what approach to take, so it instead relies upon traditional tropes or signifiers to attempt to make it disturbing. Which, for me, makes it forgettable, because we've seen stuff like it countless times before.

In other words, Let the Right One in was subtle and complex, and occupied a haunting presence throughout every scene with ease. Let Me In takes what was subtle, and shoves it in your face, and comes across as a run of the mill horror. I'll illustrate this by posting the pool scenes in each film, because I think they perfectly embody what I'm attempting to say





Conclusion
88% on Rotten Tomatoes and 7.2 on IMDb is obscene for a film that disregards its original piece to such a considerable degree, leaving it a confused jumble of a film that never figures out what it wants to be, or what direction it wishes to take. Just watch Let the Right One In instead, or if you don't like subtitles, read the book, because this film does neither of them any justice.

Remakes create an opportunity as well, I think, to add something new to the film, or to include elements of the source material that its predecessor didn't. This opportunity was wasted, and the fact Matt Reeves takes credit for writing and directing the film is a bit insulting when he takes the original film, and simply somewhat butchers it. There's nothing new, just a lot of stuff lost.

Moral of the story: pandering down to avoid offending people won't work for anything remotely related to horror.



Let the Right One In review!
http://www.movieforums.com/community...55#post1371655



Good review! It wasn't long after I watched Let The Right One In that I heard about the (then) upcoming remake/American version. I refused to watch it, and your review seems to confirm everything I suspected about the movie. Not that I was planning on watching Let Me In anyway, but I'll definitely continue to avoid it haha.



Survivor 5s #2 Bitch
I wouldn't watch it I don't understand how and why so many critics praised it. The only good parts in it were ones lifted directly from LTROI, everything else was a mess I'm glad you liked my post, though!



and oh god, the CGI... it stuck out like a sore thumb. It made me cringe out of embarrassment, because it made scenes feel gratuitously over the top, with this banshee leaping everywhere whilst attacking someone. I'd compare it to someone gushing whilst accepting an award, you understand that they're happy, but they're doing it very forcefully and not quite knowing where to stop, leaving you wishing it would just end instead.
That was one of my biggest gripes with this movie. I don't mind CGI when done right but Let Me In turned it into a farce. I think the one genre where CGI just doesn't seem to fit in is the horror genre. It very rarely ever works out so why not just shell out the money and get some decent special effects artists and call it a day?

Anyway, fantastic review and I'll be on the lookout for future additions.



Survivor 5s #2 Bitch
I think you're right actually, it seemed very out of place, whilst Eli in the original was pretty damn terrifying with just practical effects. And from the top of my head, none of my favourite horror films in recent times had CGI involved. I remember reading that American Mary completely relied on practical effects, to the extent that it almost swallowed the budget, but at least it worked! I think you've hit on the head! CGI shouldn't touch horror.

And thank you! I'm glad you liked it! I'll post my review of Rabid next (should be a couple of days or so!)



I think the one genre where CGI just doesn't seem to fit in is the horror genre. It very rarely ever works out so why not just shell out the money and get some decent special effects artists and call it a day?
This. So much.

I've always been a fan of practical effects, either straight-up or enhanced with CG. Now usually CGI enhancements on practical effects look great, but sometimes it really works to the detriment of the film. Take Mama (2013) for example. They had a brilliant actor to play the creature, and his motion test (that I will link below) was amazingly creepy. However they overdid the CG in the final product and it just looked silly and completely non-threatening. ):


These 50 seconds are infinitely better than anything in the finished film.

On the plus side, it didn't have any horrible looking fake CG blood that you usually see in modern action and horror films. I know squibs can be dangerous (they are explosives after all), but fake blood just looks so bad.



Survivor 5s #2 Bitch
Still haven't watched that one, becuase, you know... ugh.

Will read soon.
Well, imitation is the biggest form of flattery! The author was chuffed it was remade so quickly that being said, it was a loooooong 2 hours.

And bloody hell, Cosmic, that is creepy. They should have just thrown some make up on him and thrown him in there. I mean, anything is possible once you realise they sometimes used male dancers in Flashdance



I heard good things about it, all those great reviews and even some fans of the original say the remake is good.

I love the original and maybe I'll like this, but it's just one of does movies where I see no reason for it to be remade.



They should have just thrown some make up on him and thrown him in there.
They did. The problem was that they ruined it with CGI in post production.

Behind the Scenes with Javier Botet in prosthetics, getting into costume:



Screens from the finished product in the movie:





They should've just put a wig on his screen test getup.



Survivor 5s #2 Bitch
I heard good things about it, all those great reviews and even some fans of the original say the remake is good.

I love the original and maybe I'll like this, but it's just one of does movies where I see no reason for it to be remade.
You summed it up brilliantly as always! They just assumed the Anglophone world was too ignorant to watch or understand the original. They made that evident.

On it's own it's okay, I guess, but it pales tremendously in comparison to Alfredson's film, and the original book.



Survivor 5s #2 Bitch
And yeah, it looks too artificial, Cosmic. I haven't seen Mama, but it looks as though it would have been far better with just practical effects in that regard. He's utterly brilliant, and very creepy!



This. So much.

I've always been a fan of practical effects, either straight-up or enhanced with CG. Now usually CGI enhancements on practical effects look great, but sometimes it really works to the detriment of the film. Take Mama (2013) for example. They had a brilliant actor to play the creature, and his motion test (that I will link below) was amazingly creepy. However they overdid the CG in the final product and it just looked silly and completely non-threatening. ):


These 50 seconds are infinitely better than anything in the finished film.

On the plus side, it didn't have any horrible looking fake CG blood that you usually see in modern action and horror films. I know squibs can be dangerous (they are explosives after all), but fake blood just looks so bad.
Jesus Christ don't remind me about Mama. It wasn't just the horrible effects, it's also the fact that they took a perfectly good short film and gave it a generic background story. They scrapped any mysterious element that made the short so great to begin with. I worry that they're doing the same thing with the Lights Out movie.



He's utterly brilliant, and very creepy!
I see that one of the first reviews in this thread was for REC. He also played Tristana Medeiros in that movie and REC 2. (:

Supposedly he was the Crooked Man in The Conjuring 2, but that just looked like a hilarious bad CG monstrosity when I saw it.

Jesus Christ don't remind me about Mama. It wasn't just the horrible effects, it's also the fact that they took a perfectly good short film and gave it a generic background story. They scrapped any mysterious element that made the short so great to begin with. I worry that they're doing the same thing with the Lights Out movie.
Mama's hair was so bad haha. I had zero intention of seeing the movie, but as it got nearer to its theatrical release, I stumbled across an article about Javier Botet which featured that Mama screen test, and it make me interested in it, because I loved those few seconds. But as you said, they ruined absolutely everything in that movie.

I'm still on the fence about Lights Out. A trailer for it showed before...some movie I saw in theatres a little while ago, and my room mate who was with me couldn't stop laughing. But...it sort of looked like it had potential to be a bit creepy under the right circumstances. I'll probably watch it anyway, but it seems more like a "rent it for dirt cheap one night" thing as opposed to an "actually pay to see this in theatres" type movie.



I said he was only in the first 2 REC movies, but apparently he was in all of them. Probably should've double checked his filmography before posting that haha. But yeah, dude is perfect for playing creepy creatures and deformed humans. He's like, 6'7 and only 120 pounds with lengthened limbs and fingers due to having Marfan syndrome. I'm glad he's found a positive thing to take away from that illness, and I hope he's in many more horror films to come (and is not ruined by bad CGI). (:



Mama's hair was so bad haha. I had zero intention of seeing the movie, but as it got nearer to its theatrical release, I stumbled across an article about Javier Botet which featured that Mama screen test, and it make me interested in it, because I loved those few seconds. But as you said, they ruined absolutely everything in that movie.

I'm still on the fence about Lights Out. A trailer for it showed before...some movie I saw in theatres a little while ago, and my room mate who was with me couldn't stop laughing. But...it sort of looked like it had potential to be a bit creepy under the right circumstances. I'll probably watch it anyway, but it seems more like a "rent it for dirt cheap one night" thing as opposed to an "actually pay to see this in theatres" type movie.
Everything about that movie was bad. I hated the kids and that ending? Where's my face-palm emoticon.....:facepa lm:...:fac epalm:............

And even though I have reservations about Lights Out I'm still watching it. It happens often with me, especially if it's a horror movie. I don't like missing out. I'm a glutton for punishment, so I've been told.

EDIT: Damned emoticons. Even they're so distraught they want no part in this post.



Survivor 5s #2 Bitch
I said he was only in the first 2 REC movies, but apparently he was in all of them. Probably should've double checked his filmography before posting that haha. But yeah, dude is perfect for playing creepy creatures and deformed humans. He's like, 6'7 and only 120 pounds with lengthened limbs and fingers due to having Marfan syndrome. I'm glad he's found a positive thing to take away from that illness, and I hope he's in many more horror films to come (and is not ruined by bad CGI). (:
I've just checked his IMDb page and he's got a lot of work for himself! It's good to hear he's found the bright side of his illness and is actually using it to benefit himself. He's set to appear in It so I'll be on the look out for him!



Everything about that movie was bad. I hated the kids and that ending?
Yeah, unfortunately the only thing good about that movie was his motion test and that's is not even part of the film.

And even though I have reservations about Lights Out I'm still watching it. It happens often with me, especially if it's a horror movie. I don't like missing out. I'm a glutton for punishment, so I've been told.
I think I'm the same way haha.

He's set to appear in It so I'll be on the look out for him!
Oooh, I didn't even notice that. I didn't care about the IT remake, but now I think I might have to follow it more closely. (: