New Review: Fair Game

Secrets and Lies

It’s rough terrain now for the politically inclined film today. It has been well documented that most audiences today don’t have any use for films that attempt to decipher the American political system, particularly of the recent past. It is a shame, but sometimes they simply respond to the marketplace because a lot of the films that are produced border on sensationalism and feel rather shallow. For the most part, people have tended to have the same pattern with this film. Now that is the real shame because this is, surprisingly, one well made film that I think stands as one of the year’s better achievements.

This tawdry tale begins a month after the 9/11 attacks, and C.I.A. analyst and field agent Valerie Plame (Naomi Watts) is part of the team gathering intelligence on whether or not the United States will enter into conflict with Iraq. Few people know that she’s an embedded agent, one of them being her husband Joe Wilson (Sean Penn). Wilson was contracted to investigate whether Iraq was purchasing uranium for Niger. Wilson said the intel was false, but was ignored when the narrative was pushed anyway to justify action. Wilson retaliated with an editorial and the White House, with the aide of Scooter Libby, pushed back themselves by outing Plame and creating a media frenzy.

I was confident the film had the potential to be good, but I was genuinely surprised at how well this film grabbed me pretty much from the beginning. Doug Liman directs this piece like a political thriller and crafts a lot of the intrigue and behind-the-scenes deal with tension and excitement. Liman, working off of a pretty good script, does a really good job of keeping this story interesting as it jets off to many places. I will say that the film doesn’t quite handle the political grandstanding and domestic life that consumes the last twenty minutes of the film, but there are many elements in play that try to make it work.

One of those much appreciated elements is the cast. Watts and Penn cash in well on their chemistry from 21 Grams, and they successfully craft a relationship that is strained but also knows how to deal with one another. It’s great to see them working so well together. Watts has a really grounded performance that feels genuine to the character. She doesn’t blow the role out the water, but she’s capable enough to take on such a stern and vulnerable role. I was more impressed with Penn here. I’ve been on record with saying he is, without any hyperbole, is the greatest actor of his generation, and this is one that he sells with so much authenticity. You really believe his dedication to clear his name and frustration with the system. Like Watts, it’s nothing spectacular but solid nonetheless. The supporting cast is reliable but limited, with the only one worth singling out being David Andrews who plays Libby. The role is very small and not showy at all, but Andrews sells the sleazy guy incredibly well.

The film does sag a little bit in the drawn out ending, but overall I think this is a pretty great film. It’s well crafted, smartly written and ably performed by a very capable ensemble, headlined by Watts and Penn. I really hope people give this film a chance, but I have a feeling that for most the time has already passed. It’s really unfortunate, and I think this will probably go down as one of the most underrated films of the year. If you have the opportunity, check it out before it disappears forever, lost in the political black hole where so many films end up.

A-

Behind the Scenes: Paul Thomas Anderson

PAUL THOMAS ANDERSON

Born: June 26, 1970

Occupation: Director, Screenwriter

Best Work: There Will Be Blood

Other Highlights: Boogie Nights, Punch-Drunk Love, Hard Eight

Upcoming Film: The Master

Paul Thomas Anderson has only made five feature films to date in his entire career. However, each film offers so much conversation and deep exploration into its subjects that it gives back with multiple viewings. Few filmmakers have the potential to enrich so much out of their material, especially when their material is self-generated. You may not always like what he has to offer, but the invitation to dive into the worlds he creates is one that is undeniable.

His first feature was a little movie called Hard Eight, a notoriously dogged production as Anderson had the least control over this project and wrestled with much studio interference. Even with all that baggage, the movie is a pretty solid effort for a first timer. There’s not a great through-line with the film, however, and it actually plays more like three short films strung together by, admittedly, some weak glue. Still, Anderson shows us what’s to come in his future, and plays with audiences’ sensibilities while also giving us some really good performances to admire.

His next film, Boogie Nights, is like a mini-masterpiece in his filmography. I’m completely fascinated with “industry films”: when a film pulls back the curtain on a type of business and gives a look behind the scenes. Before I saw the film, I would never have guessed the porn industry would be such an interesting backdrop for this fascinating tale. Anderson laces all these interconnecting characters with genuine detail, and he’s a master juggler with a slight of hand that invokes a magician that knows exactly how to pull it off. He’s bolstered by a terrific ensemble, but his direction is quite skilled.

Magnolia is probably the most divisive film not only in Anderson’s career, but in the history of cinema itself. There’s very few moderate opinions out there on this film: either you think it’s a fantastic work of art dealing with a layered and complex story, or you think its an overwrought, overstuffed, meandering, dull mess. I actually belong to the latter group. I’m not a fan of this film and quickly became disinterested in its disassociated characters and a howler of an ending that threw any credibility it had out the window. Thankfully I find solace in a great performance from Tom Cruise, but for me, this is my least favorite of his entire works. I’m not alone on the issue, but I’m well aware I’m not unified either.

When Anderson announced that his follow-up to such heavy dramas Boogie Nights and Magnolia was going to be an Adam Sandler comedy, many people thought he was joking. On face value, Punch-Drunk Love would seem like an invitation to be a part of something lower of desired quality. But like most Anderson films, it can’t help but be something more. The film actually works as an answer to all those annoying characters Sandler plays, giving an understanding to the frustration and anger that boils beneath the surface. It will make you see Sandler in a completely different light. I do think the film has some pacing issues and not every off-kilter music choice works, but as the story unfurls into something more ambitious than it originally intended, it’s a great discovery to make.

There Will Be Blood is great. Not only is it great, but I’ve now come to recognize it as the cream of the crop in an already great year that was 2007. Not only that, but I think it’s the best film of the 2000s. Everytime I revisit this film, I’m constantly amazed at how much it is able to give back. I’m still picking out tiny details from the film, and it’s like I’m rediscovering it for the first time again. Anderson’s direction compacts a lot of great elements on the surface, and as you dive down deeper into his layered screenplay, you are filled with a sense of wonder and enchantment. No doubt much of that also has to do with a bravado performance by Daniel Day-Lewis, but it’s Anderson’s work that is really held to a high standard. He lays out a map filled with unchartered terrain, and even as a guide he doesn’t lead us directly to the end. What he does do is start the path and then ascends into the omnipotent role above, leaving us to fend for ourselves. But he doesn’t desert us, and the idea that we are making a self-discovery while never knowing the manipulated hand takes a master craftsmen.

There’s not many people who are able to pick up the tools and automatically create something fantastic. Paul Thomas Anderson is one of those people, and I believe he is a certified genius. While though I don’t like every film of his, even four out of five is enough to get a recommendation on toothpaste. Anderson is currently working on his upcoming Scientology film set to star Philip Seymour Hoffman and Jeremy Renner. Unfortunately, the film has hit walls regarding its financing and creative endeavors, and is currently put on hold. I’m eagerly awaiting for the film, which sounds like more fascinating territory to be explored. Everything this man does is a gem of artistry. I hope this jeweler never retires.

New Reviews: Harry Potter & 127 Hours

End Game

I do believe I can comfortably count myself as a genuine fan of the Harry Potter franchise. I’ve read all the books, seen all the films and have yet to find one that I can’t recommend. I may not know all of the prose that J.K. Rowling puts out, but I can say I am devoted. For example, during a moment where the heroes find themselves trapped in a rather crude predicament, my mind was shouting the necessary spell they needed to cast in order to safely escape. Keep in mind that these spells are not real, and the whole situation is manufactured, but I still have that knowledge stored away. As fun as a moment like that is, it can’t hide the fact that this film, while enjoyable to an extent like them all, is seriously over-stuffed and dull at many occasions.

In case you’ve been living under a rock for the past decade, this is next and penultimate installment in the wildly popular Harry Potter franchise, with the final continuation being released next summer. The light magic world is all but disappeared now, Hogwarts is not even visible here, as Harry, Ron and Hermionie have abandoned school studies in order to find a way to destroy the evil Lord Voldermort.

I wish I could go deeper into what happens in the film, but ultimately it doesn’t really matter. All the film is leading up to the final and epic climax, and while there’s some nice moments of action and tender scenes, a lot of it feels like fan service and useless to the benefit to the overall narrative. If given the choice between remaining extremely faithful to the text or taking liberties with the source material in order to make a crisper film, I’d choose the latter. The screenplay by long-time Potter scribe Steve Cloves is noble and good intentioned, but it fills the movie with many laborious scenes that drag on too much.

David Yates returns as the director, and he shows much of the improvement he made upon himself in the last film, my favorite in the franchise so far. Yates does his best to deliver good on some really exciting action sequences that find the right notes of suspension and excitement. Even in the more quiet moments, he tries to find a somber tone that can pay off on the emotions, and he does that for the most part. The dullness that exudes on so many scenes are not entirely his fault (they were his fault in Order of the Phoenix), but even he can’t save the mess this time.

Other than Yates, I’d put the acting as the real reason this film has any kind of success. We’ve watched Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson grow into these roles for many years, and it’s comforting to see them be able to maintain a genuine, dramatic portrayal. Radcliffe is really fantastic, and I was quite amazed at how he was able to take a character known so well and still put forth a performance that feels fresh and riveting. In complete honesty, if he can keep the same key for the next film, I’d harbor serious award consideration for him. Watson also is lovely in her role, and Grint, while always the most limited one of the trio, gives his Ron a bit more drama to cling onto. Not much more else to speak of on the supporting players (this one’s really about the kids), and the only real standout is a hammy Helena Bonham Carter who I am convinced brought her own clothes and hairstyling to the set.

Even though I’ve been cooler on some of the Harry Potter films than others, I’ve always ended up recommending them. I can’t quite go that distance with this one because it’s only half of a film, and it will more than likely end up being the weaker half. There’s just too much stuffed in here in order to please fans begging for an adaptation slavishly devoted to its source material (didn’t work out too well for Watchmen either). Still, some well conceived scenes here and there, along with some strong central performances pull it out of the gutters entirely. When the final conclusion comes along next summer, I’m sure I’ll join the chorus of praise. Until then, I remain somewhat silent.

B-

Stuck in the Middle With You

Those who know me well know that my affection for filmmaker Danny Boyle is pretty high. Even though I wasn’t completely over the moon for his last film, I still thoroughly enjoyed it, as well as his efforts. As I’ve repeatedly said, Danny Boyle is a man who can film cows grazing for an hour and a half and make it cinematically interesting. That crude example is put to the test with this film. No, it’s not about grazing cows, but it has a premise that is just as immobile: a guy literally stuck between a rock and a wall. However, leave it to Boyle to take that premise and turn it into an exciting and emotional journey that is to be surely remembered.

Some might remember, about seven years ago, a hiker named Aron Ralston who fell in an off-the-beaten-path canyon in Utah when a boulder fell on him. The rock pinned his right hand against the canyon wall, cutting off circulation as well as his ability to move from any other position except standing upright next to the boulder. Ralston was stuck there for five days before finally resorting to amputating his arm to escape.

The real-life Ralston may have conquered mountains, ice tops, mudslides and death itself, but the one obstacle he couldn’t overcome was literature. His memoir Between a Rock and a Hard Place, which the film is based on, is not the most eloquent piece, arbitrarily going back and forth from his past to his present entrapment with very little artistic flourish. Boyle and Slumdog Millionaire writer Simon Beauofy have taken that source and vastly improved upon it. They present a quick story that doesn’t linger too much on exposition, indulges in flashbacks only when provoked, and keeps tight on the much deserved focus, that of the main character. It’s not the most flashy script out there, but it treats its situation with genuine reality.

Still, it is Boyle who makes the great stride here, as his kinetic energy is put to good use, constantly keeping the audience involved in a story that has the potential to turn static. Boyle’s hyped-up, ADD presentation is much appreciated here, and he knows how to spin quite an interesting tale. Some might see this as overcompensating for a story that doesn’t go anywhere, but I’d say it’s more of a reflection of the character’s motives, and I feel they are justified. Boyle can be flamboyant, but he always finds a way to make it work, and this is certainly no different.

A film like this lives or dies on the casting, and whoever steps up for the role better be prepared for a very close proximity. We get very close to James Franco here, and he solidly delivers the best performance of his career. He’s been impressing me for a while now, but here, he’s simply fantastic. There’s not a moment of doubt in his portrayal, and he sells every emotional beat of this character. He captures the cockiness in the beginning well (maybe a bit too well), and then feels so believable as he brakes down in the canyon. It’s a marvelous job that I hope lands him a well deserved Oscar nomination, overdue anyway for his performance in Milk.

I could say that I thought the beginning of the film was a bit rocky (no pun intended), but even that minor hiccup started to feel like it flowed with the rest of the film later on. It can be a tough movie to sit through, but it’s worth it to find something that’s as wonderful as this. Franco’s performance is superb, Boyle’s kinetic direction is enthralling, and the whole thing delivers as an emotional roller-coaster that manages to haunt endearingly. It’s certainly one of the best films of the year, and I hope others can take note of it as well.

A

New Reviews: Hereafter & Conviction

Heaven Can Wait

No matter what, I will never abandon Clint Eastwood. I will argue with anyone, to this day, that the man is one of the most talented filmmakers working today. His style is subtle, but able to conform to any style that can bring out the most important bits in a film. Lately, however, he’s been coming up a little short in the directorial department. I place the blame squarely on Gran Torino, a film that sucked all the creativity out of Eastwood in favor of stale, blatant depictions of very poor storytelling. Even still, I try to support him as much as possible. I think he’s getting slightly better in his work, but this film, while offering some different strokes from him and pays off in small victories, can’t quite reach the level expected of such a master filmmaker.

There are three simultaneous stories going on in this film, all concerning the themes of the afterlife. One is about a French woman (Cécile de France) who is coping with a near death experience from surviving the 2004 tsunami. The other is about a set of twins living in London. When an accident occurs, the surviving film (Frankie McLaren) copes with the loss of his brother. The other story features top-biller Matt Damon as a psychic trying to move beyond his profession. Bryce Dallas Howard shows up briefly in his timeline as a woman who enters his life and finds out more than she initially wanted.

Eastwood seems to be doing something a little different here, as most of his films tend to, while beautifully executed, find a certain note and communicate it with some noted specificity. Here, it seems like Eastwood is trying to leave the door a little more open, and I still find it something that can work well with his style. However, I would still say he doesn’t get a great hold onto the material and lets large sections drag into dull territory. This is also due to the fact that Peter Morgan’s script, working very much out of his element, lacks so much dramatic and emotional weight that the material feels too lofty to truly take hold. Morgan can pick and choose certain moments that are well conceived, but most of the time it comes up short, leaving Eastwood and his actors to fend for themselves.

I think Damon is a great actor, and much like the performance he gave in Invictus, here he’s not going all out but doing serviceable work. I would say he makes a greater impression than his previous work with Eastwood, but it’s still a little more subdued than I’d like him to be. France gives a lot to her performance, but suffers because her storyline mutes a lot of the emotion. The strongest of the is the one concerning the twins, and the two boys give a very convincing performance as one character, carrying nearly all of the film’s genuine emotional weight.

There’s a few elements that I admire in the film, like Eastwood’s mostly stately direction and a few of the performances. There’s even some things I love, like the story concerning the twins. But, in the end, it never quite comes together and the film never finds the emotional pull it needs, particularly with a story that needs that element in order to survive. I will still give a defense to Eastwood, unless he really chooses to abandon all reason and go off the reservation (the pain of Gran Torino will never die). I give him points for trying something different, but not enough to call this a success.

C+

Barring Time

Unfortunately, Hilary Swank only makes two kinds of movies. They are either good, solid films or they are downright terrible. The gap between movies like Boys Don’t Cry, Million Dollar Baby and Insomnia and those like The Core, P.S. I Love You and Amerlia couldn’t be wider. There’s never a film that you’ll think is just okay. You’ll either like it or loathe it. I’m happy to report that, this time around, I didn’t come off hating this film with a passion like so many of her others. In fact, by virtue of the rules, I rather liked it on the whole.

Inspired by real life events, Swank plays Betty Ann Waters, a lower-middle class Boston woman who is shocked when her brother Kenny (Sam Rockwell) is tried and convicted for a murder that he claims he did not commit. She fervently believes him, and sets on a nearly twenty year journey to set him free, which includes her going to law school and becoming a lawyer for the sole purpose of representing her brother. Minnie Driver is along for the ride as Waters’s best friend in her law class, and there’s some supporting work from the likes of Melissa Leo as a possibly corrupt cop and Juliette Lewis as one of Kenny’s flamboyant ex-girlfriends.

For the record, I don’t hate Swank. I even believe that most of the projects she’s in that hinder on the terrible side of the equation are not at her own fault. It’s the material, but she sometimes has difficulty of elevating it to something respectable. This film had the capability of being that type of film, with it’s predictably uplifting storytelling. But, she manages to keep the right amount genuine emotion to keep it all on a believable level. It takes a truly great actor to not get lost in that ridiculously harsh Boston accent, but Swank manages to come out the other side intact. I’d also give a lot of credit to Rockwell, an even better actor, who gives a convincing portrait of Kenny as a complicated man with a lot going on behind the eyes. I wouldn’t count this as one of his best performances, but it’s one that continues to prove how good of an actor he continues to be. Driver, Leo and Lewis all offer some fun in their roles, even though Lewis might be having a little too much fun in the trailer trash role.

There are times when director Tony Goldwyn and writer Pamela Gray come together and create a film that seems sincere in its messages about overcoming the odds and never losing faith. However, Goldwyn often times overindulges on a somewhat saggy midsection in the pace, and Gray deviates far too many times from the actual throughline of the story, particularly felt during flashbacks to see Betty Ann and Kenny as youth. Even though the young Betty Ann is played by the super-talented Bailee Madison, it still comes across as an unnecessary distraction. The film also misses the mark in the follow-up events, leaving out a rather important piece of information as to what happened to one of the main characters. I won’t reveal it, but it certainly puts a more interesting spin on the story that the film chose to leave out.

In all honesty, I was ready to hate this film. Instead, I found it to be well acted, well executed and having a rather uplifting message and theme without doing too much to separate itself beyond some slow parts and usual genre clichés. It’s everything that The Blind Side attempted and failed to be. I’m not touting this as one of the best films of the year, but it’s certainly an enjoyable one and a nice little surprise at that. Hilary Swank has a win for this one, but we still have to take her one project at a time.

B

New Reviews: The Social Network & Let Me In

Friendly Request

When the collection of artists were gathering around one another for the making of this film, I couldn't help but wonder, when the film was in its infancy, whether or not this could be a totally successful film. I didn't doubt any of the talent of these people, but I admit that I was slightly cautious in the beginning if this could be pulled off. Then, when the trailer hit, I was so wowed by its hypnotic tone and somber visuals that my anticipation for it pretty much skyrocketed. Having actual seen the film, I'm happy to report that all the parties involved have done a wondrous job, cultivating in a near masterpiece.

Based on the Ben Mezrich book The Accidental Billionaires, the film opens up on Harvard undergrad Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg) who, after a tortuous breakup conversation with his girlfriend, collaborates with his roommates on a project that rates women based on looks. Because of his veracity and intelligence, Zuckerberg gets invited to work on a local project for Harvard networking. That becomes the basis of the modern "Facebook" which he works on with his more financially stable best friend Eduardo (Andrew Garfield). But as the film shows in multiple deposition hearings, the friendships and betrayals start to show their true colors.

When David Fincher is directing a movie, you can pretty much guarantee that it's going to have some nice merits. What he brings here is his trademark sense of tight control that allows for a great visual feast to be seen. It may not be quite as illustrious as his previous film, but Fincher is still working with material that revolves around intimacy, and he handles the material so seamlessly that it feels effortless. Even in the one instance, present in every Fincher film and surely recognizable in this one, that disavows the natural rhythm of the storytelling in favor of eccentric visual flare feels to have slightly more meaning than his previous indulgences. It's evidence of a filmmaker who is older, not too much wiser, but learning not to seep into mediocrity in his old age (I'm looking at you to follow, Clint Eastwood).

While I did like Fincher's last film a good deal, a big hiccup was that the marriage of director and writer wasn't in complete bliss. Fincher's sense of nihilism doesn't mesh well with Eric Roth's sentimentality. This time around, it would seem that an Aaron Sorkin script, which predicates itself on dialogue that is so quick and fee-flowing that it seems improvised, wouldn't work well with Fincher's controlling and meticulous direction. But in a way, Sorkin's writing has always been dependent on the precision of its delivery, and his script here is very well done. He paints a story that touches on all the raw emotions that surface when friends turn on one another, as well as providing some interesting tension during the deposition scenes. It's another gem in the Sorkin crown, already glowing pretty brightly.

What surprised me the most of this film is that it really isn't a centerpiece on Zuckerberg; he's the core that holds the film together, but he is nowhere near the most important piece to the puzzle. Not to take anything away from Eisenberg, who has been delivering great work since The Squid and the Whale and once again gives an outstanding performance that captures all the right tones that Zuckerberg should maintain. It might not all be true, but Eisenberg embodies a quiet persona that lets onto a complex mind that brims underneath. Garfield is another actor that I've been impressed with for a few years, and word on the street is it was this performance that nabbed him the role of Spider-Man. I can definitely see that, and he is, in my opinion, the best performer in the film, bringing in all the humor and hurt emotions that feel so genuine. I hope Eisenberg and Garfield nab Oscar nominations, and at this point, I'd put Garfield down as a winner in my own personal book.

However, they are not the only good performers here. Timberlake shows up as notorious Napster founder Sean Parker, and he pours on a sly and devious character that makes an interesting foil to the more sheepish Zuckerberg. Timberlake doesn't chew the scenery as much as I would have wanted him to (when you have a character that can get away with it, you should take it), but he's memorable enough to leave an impression on the film as well as leave a promise for an already well established acting career. I also really liked Armie Hammer, who plays the twins that claim to have provided the idea of Facebook that Zuckerberg stole, hence the deposition. It's difficult for any actor to act with themselves, but he pulls it off flawlessly. There's so much he brings to the table that his convictions made me eager to see a film based entirely on his characters. He is the unsung hero of the film that works best when looked as an ensemble piece.

At first, I thought I wasn't incredibly wowed by the film, but after thinking about it more and more, I really did end up loving it. Even the one moment I thought was odd actually makes sense in the larger context. I don't think it's my favorite Fincher film (there's always a place for Fight Club) but he and his collaborators have crafted, without a doubt, one of the best films of the year. Smartly written, wonderfully performed and touching on universal themes known for generations, this is a movie that reminds you of what great filmmaking can aspire to be.

A

Feeling Drained

For some reason or another, the necessity of Americans to have their own English language interpretations of foreign stories is never in short supply. Although, for some unknown and blessed reason, Alfonso Cuarón’s Y Tu Mamá También hasn’t received such treatment. Still, not only has the appetite for American remakes continue to stay strong, the amount of time between the original film and the remake has begun to shrink. Earlier this year we had Death at a Funeral, whose original film was only two and a half years old. Now even the half year is shaved off, as the film this one is based on was released in 2008. As a stand alone piece, it manages some nice tricks here and there while obviously coming up short in its unescapable comparison.

Let the Right One In was an atmospheric vampire film set in Sweden that focused on the relationship between a boy named Oscar and a little girl named Eli with a taste for blood. The new film transport the action to 1983 New Mexico, with now Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) dodging sadistic bullies at every turn. There are also new neighbors who have just moved in next door to Owen’s apartment: an older gentleman (Richard Jenkins) and a younger girl named Abby (Chloe Grace Moretz) with the same thirst.

If you are familiar with the original film, then you’ll recognize just how similar the plot is to the first one. In fact, writer-director Matt Reeves (Cloverfield) seems to have set out to strike the same type of story and tone as the original did. This makes is particularly difficult to judge it as a stand alone piece because so many elements of this film harken back to its Swedish predecessor. While Reeves never quite manages to capture the more ambiguous and ominous tone from the original, which here has pretty much been jettisoned in favor of blunt storytelling, what he does maintain well is a film that works best as a dark love story. For as much horror there is in the film, there’s just enough of the more tender moments as well. Reeves even shortened a subplot that concerned a newly made vampire, and even though he retreads on what most of the original had, there’s a distinct flavor he tries to make his own.

I remember thinking that while Kodi Smit-McPhee was capable in The Road, there was something about a lack of connection with Mortensen that kept me at a distance. Much of the film is Smit-McPhee by himself, and he’s actually quite impressive, carrying a bit more mystery and intrigue than the original Oscar had. I do feel that Moretz is a bit of a letdown, if only because her familiarity with the current pop culture makes the mysterious quality of her character seem less fulfilled. Much like the original film, most of the talented adult actors like Elias Koteas and Richard Jenkins, are left on the sideline, while the bully character this time doesn’t have the same contradictory appeal as the original film had.

If you haven’t seen the original film, then you might like this presentation of a more intimate horror film with some shining performances and tender moments. If you have seen the original, then you’re mind will always harken back to what that film did so well and how hard this one is trying to copy it. Even though Let the Right One In wasn’t perfect, it did handle its material a little better, keeping the horror to an absolute minimum. Let Me In embellishes a little bit more in the horror, but also does its best to sharpen the focus on the relationships. That iconic pool scene doesn’t have the same grab as executed the first time, but it attempts to make it its own. Reeves achieves that to an extent, and hopefully it will give people an incentive to see the original film.

B-