Richard Jenkins |

Archive for Richard Jenkins

JACK REACHER (2012)

Posted in 2012, Action Movies, Cinema Knife Fights, Conspiracy Theories, Crime Films, Fast Cars, Hit Men, Martial Arts, Revenge!, Rogue Cops, Tom Cruise Movies with tags Conspiracy, Jack Reacher, Lee Child, Richard Jenkins, Rogue Cop, Rosomund Pike, tom cruise, werner herzog on December 24, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: JACK REACHER (2012)
By Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

(THE SCENE: A Shooting range. Strangely no one is there shooting. All is silent. MICHAEL ARRUDA & L.L. SOARES approach.)

MICHAEL ARRUDA: Today’s movie, JACK REACHER, has as its villain a sniper who shoots some innocent people in a rather jarring opening scene.

L.L. SOARES: In light of the recent horrific events in Newtown, Connecticut, we’re just not in the mood to joke about this stuff.

MA: That being said, our somber mood doesn’t in any way detract from our feelings towards this movie, one way or the other.

LS: Nor do we believe such movies cause people to commit violent acts.

MA: We both have seen our share of ridiculously violent movies, and we, like you, readers, take them for what they are: fiction, not reality.

LS: Anyway, moving right along, hello everyone, and welcome to this week’s Cinema Knife Fight review. This time around we’re reviewing the new movie JACK REACHER, starring Tom Cruise.

MA: I’m not a Tom Cruise fan, so I wasn’t really looking forward to this one.

LS: You mean a new Tom Cruise movie isn’t a big event in the Arruda household?

MA: Nope.

LS: So, does that mean you hated JACK REACHER?

MA: You know me better than that. You know I have an open mind.

LS: You have a mind?

MA: I have a mind to throw a cream pie in your face!

LS: Yummy!

MA: Anyway, why don’t you tell everyone what this movie is about first?

LS: Sure.

JACK REACHER is a character who has appeared in numerous novels by writer Lee Child (real name Jim Grant). This particular movie is based on Child’s novel ONE SHOT.

As the movie opens, we see a man in a multi-level parking garage aiming a sniper rifle. He looks around at various people in a park before he starts firing on them, killing five people. The police are able to track down a suspect and arrest James Barr (Joseph Sikora), who is back home after a stint in the Army in Afghanistan. When he is being interrogated by the police, he writes down “Get Jack Reacher,” but the police cannot find this man, since he lives off the grid and does not have a permanent address, or anything else that leads back to him. Reacher (Tom Cruise) sees Barr’s face on the news, however, and goes to the police station to investigate. The police, who have been unable to find Reacher, are surprised when he shows up on his own.

Reacher is a former military policeman, and at first, it’s not clear why Barr asked for him. Everyone assumes that Reacher is his friend, but Jack denies this. He discusses the case with the arresting officer, Emerson (David Oyelowo) and the District Attorney, Alex Rodin (Richard Jenkins, who we recently saw previously this year in THE CABIN IN THE WOODS and KILLING THEM SOFTLY), who is prosecuting Barr, but when they are not willing to involve Reacher in their investigation (they only give him a limited number of facts), he says he is leaving town. What stops him is Rodin’s daughter Helen (Rosamund Pike) who is also a lawyer like her father, but she is defending Barr.

Reacher reveals that, in the Army, he tracked some murders down to Barr, but Barr was able to avoid being imprisoned. However, Barr is afraid of Reacher and swore to the man at the time of his arrest back then that he would never do anything like that again. It turns out that Barr asked for Reacher’s involvement because things may not be as they seem in this particular case. And if anyone can uncover the truth, it’s an investigative pit bull like Reacher. Jack works with Helen Rodin to find the truth, both for Reacher’s peace of mind, and for Helen to be able to defend Barr in court.

The more Reacher snoops around, the more it becomes clear that someone doesn’t want him sticking his nose in the investigation. Things are done to get Reacher to drop the case, but he isn’t so easy to get rid of. The storyline eventually involves a long, high-speed car chase, and a bloody showdown at a construction site.

Just what is Barr’s involvement in this case? Who is trying to eliminate Reacher? And who can he trust? These are just some of the questions that pop up during the course of JACK REACHER.

I have to admit, I wasn’t sure what to expect with this one. Based on the trailers, I thought it was a movie where Cruise would be playing an unstoppable killing machine, like he did in the movie COLLATERAL (2004), where he played a merciless hit man. But JACK REACHER was different than the way the trailers made him look.

MA: Yes, the movie did play out differently from what was hinted at in the trailers, which for me, was a good thing. I expected a DIRTY HARRY clone, a glossy and superficial storyline with Cruise smart-assing his way through the script, but that’s not what JACK REACHER is at all. Fortunately, it’s better than that.

LS: Instead of playing an over-the-top vigilante, Cruise is rather low-key as Reacher, keeping things intense throughout. You’re never exactly sure what Reacher’s limits are, and if he is willing to cross certain moral and legal lines to achieve his goals. While reminiscent of Clint Eastwood’s iconic Dirty Harry character, Reacher is more complex, and it’s interesting to see Cruise bring the character to life.

In the books, Reacher is six foot five and about 250 pounds. He’s an intimidating character. Obviously, Tom Cruise does not share the same dimensions, and yet, he’s able to make it work. You believe he is a driven, formidable individual who is not to be messed with.

MA: And that’s the best part of Cruise’s performance for me. I believed him in this role, and I bought that he could do the things he does in this movie. While watching the film, I believed I was watching a guy named Jack Reacher, not golden boy actor Tom Cruise doing his shtick.

So, I have to admit, I enjoyed Cruise a lot in this movie. He did a good job bringing Jack Reacher to life, especially since he’s not a huge hulking figure like the character in the book. The other thing that worked for me is that while Cruise still looks great for his age (he’s 50) he’s looking a little older here, a bit more weathered and rougher around the edges, and it added to the believability of his character.

Cruise seemed natural in the role, and he never came off as arrogant, which I liked. All in all, he makes for a very compelling Jack Reacher.

LS: The rest of the cast is pretty good, too. Especially Rosamund Pike as Helen.

MA: Really? I wasn’t as crazy about Pike. I thought she ran hot and cold. While I believed Helen was a smart attorney, she too often took a back seat to Jack Reacher and his unconventional methods. She spends most of the movie reacting to things he’s done, rather than doing things on her own. Now, I realize this is a movie about Jack Reacher, but this is what I’m talking about in terms of Pike’s performance: she didn’t flesh out Helen as much as I wish she had. Ultimately she’s there just to be rescued, and for a dedicated attorney who really wanted to keep her client off death row, I never really felt this passion.

I enjoyed her more, going back a ways, in the Pierce Brosnan James Bond flick DIE ANOTHER DAY (2002), in which she had a small but memorable role.

LS: I thought Pike’s character in JACK REACHER was believable as a woman who is not totally confident in what she is doing; who wonders if taking on this case was a mistake at one point. She is willing to let Reacher take over, because he is much more determined and not easily swayed when people try to put him off the scent. She’s not a particularly self-assured character, and I liked that. The fact that she does become sort of a damsel in distress toward the movie’s end was a little distressing, but it fit the storyline and didn’t strain believability The fact is, not everyone’s brave all the time, or indestructible.

Richard Jenkins as D.A. Alex Rodin, and German director Werner Herzog, as a mysterious man called The Zec, are also very good. I am a big fan of Herzog, as a director. He has made some cinema classics, like AGUIRRE, THE WRATH OF GOD (1972) and FITZCARRALDO (1982), both of which starred the great Klaus Kinski, and he has recently been making some documentaries as well, some of which have been quite popular, like GRIZZLY MAN (2005). He has done some acting before, mostly in independent films like Harmony Korine’s movies JULIEN DONKEY-BOY (1999) and MISTER LONELY (2007), and he’s quite good here.

MA: Jenkins delivers another excellent performance in what is becoming a regular occurrence, and Werner Herzog is very creepy as the villain The Zec. The only problem I had with the character is when all is said and done, his villainous plans don’t seem anywhere near as dastardly as you would expect from a guy as scary as he is. While Herzog creates a disturbing heavy in The Zec, the guy’s not exactly the most ambitious villain you’ll see in a movie.

LS: I agree. Herzog goes to all this trouble to make The Zec creepy as hell, and you think this is going to lead to some truly intense confrontation between him and Reacher at the end, and what happens is a bit of a disappointment. Although, what happens is believable behavior for both of their characters.

Even Robert Duvall shows up late in the film, as a former Marine named Cash who runs a shooting range, and who becomes Reacher’s unlikely ally.

MA: I thought Duvall was great.

And I also really liked Alexia Fast as Sandy, a young woman who crosses paths with Reacher when her not-so-smart friends are hired to rough up Reacher, and she’s used as bait. Things don’t turn out too well for them. But Fast makes Sandy both sexy and vulnerable, and you really feel for her, as does Reacher, in an almost paternal way. For a small role, I thought Fast stood out as Sandy

LS: I agree, I liked Fast a lot as Sandy. I thought she would have a bigger role in the movie as it developed, but she’s in it just as long as she needs to be. She’s a stand-out here, and I want to see more of her. She really shines.

I also really liked Jai Courtney in the role of Charlie, who turns out to be the main villain here. Courtney previously played Varro in the Showtime series SPARTACUS: VENGEANCE (2010), and I think he is just as intense as Reacher by the end of this movie. Early on, you think he’s going to be a pushover, but he’s not at all, and there’s a great fight scene toward the end between him and Reacher.

MA: Yes, that is a great fight scene, and I liked Courtney a lot too.

LS: Aside from the acting, I also found the storyline pretty riveting.

MA: Ditto.

LS: The screenplay is by Christopher McQuarrie, who also gave us the scripts for the excellent THE USUAL SUSPECTS (1995), and another Tom Cruise movie, VALKYRIE (2008). McQuarrie also directed JACK REACHER, and this is his second time in the director’s chair (the first was THE WAY OF THE GUN (2000) starring Ryan Phillipe and Benicio Del Toro, which I also liked). The script and the direction here are quite good.

MA: I agree. JACK REACHER is a riveting movie, and one of the reasons why is the direction by Christopher McQuarrie. There’s some pretty cool fight scenes in this one, and one helluva car chase sequence that was as good as anything we saw in DRIVE (2011) and reminded me of one of the all-time best car chases on film, the Steve McQueen movie BULLITT (1968) directed by Peter Yates.

LS: There are also some great scenes of dark humor, like whenever Reacher goes up against the local thugs. I actually laughed out loud a couple of times.

MA: You’re right. There were some genuine funny lines.

And while I enjoyed the script, in that Reacher has a lot of memorable lines, and the dialogue rings true throughout, I thought the plot grew more contrived as it went along. The whole conspiracy aspect gets old, and then it plays the “someone you trust is really working for the bad guys” card. While the character of Jack Reacher remains compelling throughout the movie, I can’t say the same for the plot. I thought it grew predictable towards the end.

LS: The last 15 minutes or so are the weakest part of the movie in my opinion, and things tie up a little too easily after the complexity of the rest of the movie. But it’s not enough to ruin what came before it.

MA: While I liked the pacing for the most part, I thought at two hours and ten minutes that it ran a little long. I could have used about 15 minutes shaved off this one.

LS: I’m always complaining about how movies seem to be longer than they need to be. It’s quantity over quality, with directors and studios thinking movies have to be long to seem worth the price of a movie ticket, often to the detriment of the movie itself. But, in this case, I thought JACK REACHER was fine at its length. There never was one part that I felt went on longer than it needed to. And I thought the pacing was good.

Except for some issues I had with the ending, JACK REACHER works, and it’s a good vehicle for Cruise, who clearly would like to turn this into a franchise (there are about 18 books so far in the series, so there’s a lot of possible material there).

MA: And that would take him into his 70s, where he’d still be sporting dark brown hair and kicking bad guys’ butts. Will Cruise ever show some gray hair?

LS: One word of warning, however. Some audience members may have an issue with the overwhelming use of guns throughout the movie.

MA: Guns in a movie? Oh my! It’s guns in real life they ought to be worried about.

LS: I agree, and I hesitate to bring this up. But in the beginning of the film, especially, where the sniper kills his victims, it may be too much for some viewers after the recent real-life tragedy in Connecticut. This will not be true of everyone, but I wanted to put it out there. As time goes on, and people see this movie later on DVD or Netflix, they’ll wonder what all the hubbub was about. It’s all about timing.

MA: Yeah, in that way, the timing for the release of this movie couldn’t have been worse. In fact, it was supposed to open in some markets last week, but the producers delayed its premiere.

And yes, the opening scene is very jarring because of what just happened in Connecticut. I found it painful to watch, as I’m sure a lot of other people will as well.

But moving away from real life for a moment, another reason this scene is so riveting is the way it’s shot by director McQuarrie. It’s shot through the eye of the shooter, and as such it’s a very uncomfortable scene to watch, and yet, it’s not tasteless in terms of graphic violence. I’m not even sure we actually see someone shot. I think the shots occur off camera in quick clever cut-ways just at the dreaded moment.

LS: Yet it’s intense, and it works.

MA: This scene would have been tasteless if the movie were glorifying sniper shooting, but it’s not doing that at all. Sure, there’s a lot of killing in this movie, but none of it is glorified.

For a PG-13 movie, I thought JACK REACHER did a good job cranking up the intensity. In addition to this opening scene, there’s also a disturbing scene involving someone chewing his own fingers off. Now, nothing is shown here, but it still works. It’s compelling storytelling.

LS: That scene involves The Zec, and again, I was disappointed they built him up to be such a scary character and then pretty much don’t do anything with him.

I was surprised it was PG-13, because it didn’t seem to be sanitized or dumbed down, like a lot of movies are to reach a wider audience. JACK REACHER has teeth. It’s a solid thriller, and a better movie than I expected. I give it three knives.

MA: I give it three knives as well. I also liked it more than I thought I would. Jack Reacher is a character who I enjoyed watching, and I think I’d enjoy seeing him in other movies as well. And Tom Cruise does a nice job bringing this guy to life.

Jack Reacher is a character who I enjoyed watching, and I think I’d enjoy seeing him in other movies as well. And Tom Cruise does a nice job bringing this guy to life.

In addition to being a solid action movie, JACK REACHER is also a decent detective film, as it’s fun seeing how Reacher goes about piecing together clues and figuring out the answers to many of the movie’s questions. The evidence against his friend is overwhelming, yet Reacher sees a something right away at the crime scene which raises a red flag for him, and what he sees, as he explains it, makes perfect sense to us the audience.

LS: As Reacher says several times in the movie, Barr is not his friend.

MA: Tom Cruise as Jack Reacher probably does more sleuthing than Robert Downey Jr. in the recent SHERLOCK HOLMES movies.

While I found the plot somewhat more contrived towards the end, the concluding segment to JACK REACHER, where Reacher has to come to the rescue of Helen, I found very satisfying. It’s an exciting sequence.

That being said, things do get wrapped up neat and tidy by the end of the movie, probably too much for my tastes, although I didn’t have a major problem with this since it sort of fits in with Jack Reacher’s style. He’s a slick professional who never leaves traces of himself behind. When he finishes a job, he makes a clean exit, disappearing into the night once more.

JACK REACHER is a very good movie, solid and compelling throughout, well worth a trip to the movies.

And on that note, we leave you.

LS: Until next time.

(MA & LS exit in silence, as 26 candles illuminate the field behind them.)

—END—

Michael Arruda gives JACK REACHER ~ three knives!

LL Soares gives JACK REACHER ~three knives.

1 Comment »

KILLING THEM SOFTLY (2012)

Posted in 2012, Bad Situations, Crime Films, Gangsters!, Hit Men, Killers, Murder! with tags Andrew Dominick, Brad Pitt, Crime Films, Gangsters, hit men, James Gandolfini, Killing Them Softly, Ray Liotta, Richard Jenkins on December 3, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: KILLING THEM SOFTLY (2012)
By Michael Arruda & L.L. Soares

(The Scene: A poker game in the back room of a building. Around the table playing cards sits a tough group of mobsters and killers. The door bursts open, and two men in masks holding guns enter the room shouting for everyone to put their hands up. Another door opens and MICHAEL ARRUDA enters.

MICHAEL ARRUDA: Whoa!

FIRST ROBBER: Put your hands up! Give us the money!

MA: I don’t think you want to do that. Do you realize who these people are?

FIRST ROBBER: Shut up! Just give us the money!

MA: I’ve got some beer and chips in the back. Wouldn’t you rather have that?

FIRST ROBBER: No, I wouldn’t rather have that! Just give us the money already!

MA: Okay. If you say so. Come with me.

(They walk towards the back when a third door opens, and L.L. SOARES enters.)

L.L.SOARES: What’s going on here?

MA: We’re being robbed.

LS: Did you tell them who it is exactly who’s playing here? That these guys are all killers and that if they do this they’re as good as dead?

MA: I tried.

FIRST ROBBER: Shut up! (to LS) You! Put your hands up!

LS: What if I don’t wanna?

FIRST ROBBER: Then I’ll blow a hole through your skull.

LS: I’d like to see you try. It’s going to be real difficult for you to see straight with an ax sticking out of your head.

FIRST ROBBER: An axe?

(LS suddenly retrieves an axe from behind his back and strikes the robber in the head.)

MA (winces): Ouch! That’s gotta hurt!

FIRST ROBBER (with an axe embedded in his skull and blood pouring down his face): Damn your fast for a big guy, I didn’t even see that coming! How the hell were you hiding an axe behind your back?

LS: Trade secret.
FIRST ROBBER: You’re right. I can’t see straight to save my life. I’m outta here! (Flees)

SECOND ROBBER: Hey! Where are you going?

MA: Probably to the hospital. I’d leave too if I were you. The next weapon on our list isn’t an axe. (holds up a nutcracker.)

SECOND ROBBER: Yikes! (runs away).

LS (to players): All set. You can get back to your game now. And we can get on with our movie review.

MA: Yes, today we’re reviewing the new thriller KILLING THEM SOFTLY (2012) by writer/director Andrew Dominik. Shall I start us off?

LS: Sure. I’ve got to find me another axe anyway. Just in case we have any more visitors. I really wish I’d packed the chainsaw for this trip.

MA: KILLING THEM SOFTLY is the latest film by writer/director Andrew Dominik, a guy who’s known for making an underwhelming number of movies. His last film, the critically acclaimed THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD (2007) was made in 2007. He’s not exactly churning them out every year.

LS: That doesn’t mean much. The great Terrence Malick, who made one of my favorite movies of last year, THE TREE OF LIFE, went through a period of 20 years between DAYS OF HEAVEN (1978) and THE THIN RED LINE (1998) where he didn’t put out anything. And Stanley Kubrick, arguably the greatest director whoever lived, took his sweet time between movies. It’s not quantity, brother, it’s quality!

MA: You’re comparing Dominik to Malick and Kubrick?

LS: Not yet. But there’s definitely potential there. He certainly isn’t a bad director. And he made the excellent Australian prison movie CHOPPER (2000) with Eric Bana. Not bad for resume for his first three films.

MA: True, and you’re right about quality over quantity, but I find it a little strange, that’s all. I mean, what the heck are they doing when they’re not making movies?

LS: Does it matter?

MA: Not at all. I’m just curious.

Anyway, KILLING THEM SOFTLY is the story of some low-life crooks who cross paths with dangerous higher tier criminals, set against the backdrop of the troubled economy in the waning days of the George W. Bush administration, so one of the themes in the movie is that crooks are struggling too.

LS: And that they’re not the only crooks. The news, like you said, is constantly rumbling about the Wall Street debacle and how we were teetering on the cliff of financial upheaval. Of course, that’s also when Barak Obama was a Senator campaigning for the presidency for the first time against John McCain, so we hear them on the news as well. I think this footage was a double-edged sword. In one way, it kinda worked because it was drawing a parallel between low-life crooks and the swindlers on Wall Street, and how everyone was feeling pretty desperate around then. In another way, it brought a whole political agenda to the movie that really wasn’t necessary. I think in the long run, I would have preferred the movie without it.

MA: I thought it added to the ugliness of the whole story. I liked the footage.

Frankie (Scoot McNairy) and Russell (Ben Mendelsohn) are hired by Johnny Amato (Vincent Curatola) to rob a poker game run by Markie Trattman (Ray Liotta). The players at this game are an exceedingly dangerous lot, the likes of which a guy like Amato would never dream of stealing from, but the angle here, as Johnny explains it to Frankie, is that some time ago Markie robbed his own game, and since he’s a likeable guy, the players when they found out years later, let him get away with it. Amato tells Frankie that if Markie’s game is robbed again, everyone is going to blame Markie, and he’s the guy who’s going to take the fall. The real robbers would get away with it.

LS: Or so he thinks.

MA: So, Frankie and Russell pull off the job, which of course upsets the criminal powers that be. The man at the top, a guy named Dillon (Sam Shepard) has his man Driver (Richard Jenkins) hire a professional killer Jackie (Brad Pitt) to find the guys who robbed him and kill them. They pretty much know that Markie wasn’t involved, yet decide he should be punished anyway, to send a message.

LS: Well, he’s not completely innocent. He did hire other guys to hold up that poker game years ago. I actually think Jackie’s logic makes complete sense. Markie had it coming. Oh, and did I mention that Brad Pitt is like the personification of cool in this movie. Jackie is friggin terrific.

MA: Jackie also enlists the assistance of a New York City hit man Mickey (James Gandolfini) since Jackie knows one of the guys he has to kill, and he doesn’t feel comfortable doing it. As he says, he likes to kill his victims softly, from a distance. Up close and personal, he explains, it gets messy and emotional, and he doesn’t like that.

LS: Thus, the title.

Gandolfini is actually pretty great here. Mickey is a complete sad sack, always whining and he seems to be always on the verge of tears. Instead of doing his job, he’s too busy drinking and spending all his money on prostitutes. It’s a big leap from the confidence and scariness of his most famous role, Tony Soprano.

(TONY SOPRANO enters the room)

TONY SOPRANO: Are you effin kidding me here? This Mickey is a wimp. I woulda eaten him for breakfast. So are all these guys. I woulda taken care of this whole situation in like five minutes and there would have been a lot of dead bodies on the floor.

LS: Yeah, this town really could have used a Tony Soprano.

MA: But the fact that it’s not that organized, that people get away with stuff like this, is what makes it interesting.

TONY SOPRANO: I still say I would have cleaned this up before lunchtime. And that Mickey is a friggin embarrassment.

LS: No one is disagreeing with you, Mr. Soprano.

TONY SOPRANO: Good. Youse guys make sure and keep it that way. I gotta go back to the Badda Bing now. My favorite girl is dancing tonight.

(SOPRANO exits)

LS: That was scary.

MA: Not really. You forget, this is Cinema Knife Fight Land. We’re in control here.

LS: Oh yeah. I forgot.

MA: Anyway, back to my review, Jackie sets out to complete his job, spending nearly as much time working as haggling with Driver over how much he’s going to get paid and terms of the hits, as well as dealing with Mickey who seems to be in no shape to pull off a hit. Meanwhile, Frankie realizes that the robbery might have been a dumb move once he learns there’s a contract out for his life.

KILLING THEM SOFTLY is one cynical movie. Its stylish creative script tells a gritty story that hooks you immediately and in spite of its ensuing ugliness doesn’t allow you to turn away. It’s not an enjoyable movie by any means. It’s dark and it’s depressing.

I liked it.

LS: If you didn’t like it, I would have had my doubts about your reviewing skills.

It’s a solid little movie. It’s also based on the novel “Cogan’s Trade” by one of the best crime fiction writers of all time, George V. Higgins. He’s the guy who also wrote the classic THE FRIENDS OF EDDY COYLE which was made into a great movie in 1973 by Peter Yates starring Robert Mitchum and Peter Boyle. Higgins had a thing for dialogue – he was a master at it. And as you can tell, most of KILLING THEM SOFTLY is people talking. Sure, there are moments of brutal violence, but most of the time, people are talking things out. And the dialogue is really good. My only complaint is that there’s so much dialogue that sometimes the movie seems a little stagey – which is something that usually happens when people adapt plays for the movies – but it didn’t bother me that much, because the dialogue is so good! Higgins was a master at that stuff.

And Higgins was from Boston – our old stomping grounds – and set his stories there. You can’t really tell where KILLING THEM SOFTLY takes place – it could be any economically depressed town in the US. There is a scene where Frankie mentions local cities like Holbrook and Somerville, but it really could be anywhere.

MA; Even though this movie sports a strong cast, the true star of KILLING THEM SOFTLY is writer/director Andrew Dominik. He scores high on both fronts.

His screenplay, which as LL mentioned is based on the novel “Cogan’s Trade” by George V. Higgins, is dark and cynical, and but it’s also full of sharp clever dialogue, some of it funny, but most of it plain sad. There’s just a bunch of sad characters in this movie. I didn’t particularly like Frankie as a character, but I certainly felt bad for him and didn’t want to see him fall victim to the likes of a hired killer like Jackie.

LS: You didn’t like Frankie? I thought the guy was at least sympathetic. The character who annoyed me the most was Russell (Ben Mendelsohn), an Australian low-life who grated on me with every scene. Don’t get me wrong, Mendelsohn does a great job bringing this guy to life, but every time I saw him, I wanted to smack the taste out of his mouth.

MA: Yes, he was annoying. I liked the clever juxtaposition of the crime story told in this movie with the economic woes going on in the country as a whole. There are nonstop newscasts playing in the background throughout this movie first of press conferences of President Bush speaking about the imminent economic crisis, and then of newly elected Barack Obama speaking about hope and unity, sentiments the characters in this movie, in the midst of their own troubled lives, don’t share at all.

I loved Brad Pitt’s speech at the end of the movie, where he says America isn’t a community, it’s a business, and we’re all on our own. It’s an incredibly cynical soliloquy. For a moment I thought I was on Facebook.

LS; It was a helluva lot more poignant than something you’d read on Facebook, you goober.

MA: No, I meant how people go on relentless political tirades on Facebook. His speech was like that.

LS: Yeah, except it friggin ROCKED.

MA: I enjoyed Dominik’s work behind the camera just as much as his script. There were some very taut scenes in this film, including the robbery of the poker game, which I found very gripping. I kept expecting someone to pull a gun and start a bloodbath.

LS: Yeah, that was always a possibility.

MA: The scene where Markie is worked over is brutal. He gets the crap kicked out of him big time, and it’s as unsettling a beating as you’ll see in a movie. Better yet, Dominik didn’t use CGI blood here, so things looked real.

LS: The way that scene is filmed, the points of view, the use of sound when the punches land, was pretty much perfect. One of the best “guys getting the crap kicked out of him” scenes I’ve seen in a long time.

MA: However, later in a key murder scene, CGI blood is used, and so in spite of some very stylish camerawork, I found this scene less satisfying.

LS: I don’t know, I liked that scene a lot, too. That murder scene is actually poetic, the way every bullet shatters car glass that cascades like rain. And during that scene, the song “Love Letters” by Ketty Lester is playing. It’s a creepy little love song that was also used to similar effect in David Lynch’s masterpiece, BLUE VELVET (1986), and was most probably meant to be a moment of homage to Lynch’s film.

MA: Poetic, but fake looking. It didn’t wow me as much as it wowed you.

KILLING THEM SOFTLY reminded me a little bit of Quentin Tarantino’s RESERVOIR DOGS (1992), although it’s not as “in-your-face” as that movie. It’s much more reserved and less visceral, making its points more through characterizations than violence.

And while the cast is very good, it’s an ensemble cast, and no one person dominates.

LS: In an ensemble story like this, that involves a lot of people and lots of dialogue, it’s really easy to misstep, but Dominick handles everything really well. It doesn’t hurt that he’s got a dream cast here. These actors must have relished the chance to be part of such a great script, though. We should mention again that Dominick also wrote the screenplay.

MA: I enjoyed Brad Pitt a lot as Jackie Cogan, the enforcer who’s all about the business and getting the job done. It’s a subtle performance, nothing like his lively turn in Tarantino’s INGLORIOUS BASTERDS (2009).

LS: You know, Brad Pitt is a really underrated actor. He is better known for his appearances in the tabloids, where every move he makes with Angelina Jolie is scrutinized, than for his acting, which is a shame. He’s certainly not just a pretty boy. This guy can friggin act. The first time he completely blew me away was back in FIGHT CLUB (1999) and he’s had lots of great roles since then, including his hilarious one in INGLORIOUS BASTERDS. KILLING THEM SOFTLY just reinforces how great this guy is.

MA: Agreed.

Scoot McNairy makes for a very sympathetic Frankie. We just saw McNairy in ARGO (2012), and before that in MONSTERS (2010). I thought James Gandolfini was excellent as Mickey, the New York hitman dogged by his personal problems and alcoholism. Once again, Richard Jenkins makes his mark, here as Driver, coming off two memorable performances, one in CABIN IN THE WOODS (2011) and the other in LET ME IN (2010).

LS: Richard Jenkins is a terrific character actor. One of the best in the business. I first really started to pay attention to him as an actor when he played the father (actually most of the time, he was a ghost) in the HBO series SIX FEET UNDER (2001 – 2005), but he had been in tons of movies before then, and he’s been working a lot since. He’s really a great go-to guy for directors. And I hope they keep hiring him, because it’s always a treat to see Jenkins at work.

MA: Ray Liotta, looking older and flabbier, is nearly as sympathetic as McNairy was as Frankie. I found his Markie likeable, mostly because almost everyone else in this film is unlikeable.

LS: Yeah, you can see why he got a pass the first time around. As we’re told, “Everyone likes Markie.” And Liotta is perfect in this role. He’s been in tons of great movies, but he might always be known best as Henry Hill in Martin Scorcese’s excellent GOODFELLAS (1990).

MA: Vincent Curatola is also very good as Johnny Amato, in a small role. Speaking of small roles, you can put down Sam Shepard’s performance as Dillon in the “blink and you’ll miss him” category. I don’t think he’s in the movie for more than sixty seconds.

If there were any drawbacks to KILLING THEM SOFTLY it’s that it’s a difficult movie to like. It presents a very cynical story with characters who really aren’t very likeable. It doesn’t mean it’s not a good movie, but it’s not something I’m going to want to rewatch any time soon.

LS: I disagree completely. But then again, I have never had a problem with cynical stories or unlikeable characters. This movie is dark, sure, but the characters are fascinating. And I think Brad Pitt is likable as hell here. How can you not like a character who is so damn cool? He dominates every scene he’s in.

MA: See, I didn’t find him all that cool. …

LS: WHAT???

MA: On the other hand, I did like the film’s unconventional directorial style a lot. It definitely does not play like a traditional glossy Hollywood production. This is a gritty movie that gets down and dirty. You can almost smell the blood, sweat, and death.

LS: Exactly, and that’s why it’s so good.

MA: Not perfect, and not for everyone, but in terms of telling its story, it’s a killer.

I give KILLING THEM SOFTLY three knives.

LS: Well, I guess I liked this one a little more than you did. I give it three and a half knives. Like you said, it’s not perfect. But it’s really good. And this is one of those movies that, the more I think about it over time, the more I’ll like it.

MOBSTER 1: Are you guys done talking yet?

LS: Yep, that’s our review.

MOBSTER 2: It’s about time.

MOBSTER 1: You two were disrupting the poker game with all that chatter. The other guys got so pissed off they just got up and left. You know how much money that cost me?

MOBSTER 2: Yeah!

MOBSTER 1: Looks like I’m gonna have to take it out of your hides.

MOBSTER 2: It’s time for a beatin’!

MA: Well, if you got another axe like you said, now is the time to use it.

LS: Naw, I couldn’t find another one. Damn, I wish I’d brought the chainsaw.

MA: What are you saying? That we better start running?

LS: Exactly.

(LS and MA flee the scene)

MOBSTER 1: Hey! Come back here!

MOBSTER 2: Yeah, gets your beatins like a man.

(FADE OUT)

Michael Arruda gives KILLING THEM SOFTLY ~three knives!

LL Soares gives KILLING THEM SOFTLY~three and a half knives.

THE CABIN IN THE WOODS (2012)

Posted in 2012, Cinema Knife Fights, Fun Stuff!, Gore!, Hillbillies, Joss Whedon, Monsters, Supernatural, Surprises!, Twist Endings, Zombies with tags Cabin in the Woods, Chris Hemsworth, Drew Goddard, Fran Kranz, Joss Whedon, Monsters, Rednecks, Richard Jenkins, Twists, Zombies on April 16, 2012 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: THE CABIN IN THE WOODS (2012)
By Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

(THE SCENE: A cabin in the middle of the woods. MICHAEL ARRUDA has just arrived, to find L.L. SOARES sitting in front the fire, reading a collection of H.P. Lovecraft stories)

MA: Nice to see you’re so comfortable. It took me forever to find this place.

LS: I know, I’ve been here for three days now. Did you get lost or something?

MA: This place isn’t on any map or GPS that I know of. How did you get here anyway?

LS: I borrowed THE FLY’s teleportation machine.

MA: That explains why you didn’t need a map. Whoa! You borrowed THE FLY’s teleportation machine?

LS: Clean that wax out of your ears, son, that’s what I said.

MA: That didn’t work out so well for Seth Brundle. There weren’t any flies in there with you, were there?

LS: No. But there was this tarantula, and a scorpion. Is that bad?

MA: Aren’t you worried that you’ve somehow all been jumbled together, and that now you might be sharing some of their DNA?

LS (burps): Not really.

MA: Are you telling me that you—?

LS: Yep. They’re just delicious when you add some of Stubbs’ barbecue sauce. Anyway, do you want me to start the review while you’re getting settled?

MA: Sure. Man, you must have a stomach made of iron.

LS: This week’s movie is THE CABIN IN THE WOODS, and it’s the first movie directed by Drew Goddard, who mainly was a writer before this. He wrote CLOVERFIELD (2008), a movie we both liked a lot.

MA: Yep, CLOVERFIELD was one of my favorite horror movies of the last decade.

LS: CABIN is also written by Joss Whedon, who created shows like BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER and ANGEL two shows that Goddard also wrote for. And Whedon will be directing THE AVENGERS movie next month, too!

MA: Goddard co-wrote the screenplay with Whedon. In addition to writing CLOVERFIELD, Goddard also wrote several episodes of the TV show LOST, and I thought there were parts of this movie that reminded me of LOST.

LS: THE CABIN IN THE WOODS starts out kind of strangely, as we see a group of scientists taking a lunch break before they go back to work. These are Hadley (Bradley Whitford) and Sitterson (Richard Jenkins) and they seem to be in charge of some strange experiment.

MA: Strange is the operative word here. The movie opens and I’m thinking, what an odd way to get this one started, but it caught my attention, and so I guess it worked!

LS: Then the story shifts to five college kids who decide to take a weekend “off the grid,” kicking back at a secluded cabin in the middle of nowhere, which belongs to one of the kids’ cousin. They include Jules (Anna Hutchison), a sexy, flirty co-ed who just dyed her hair blonde; her roommate Dana (Kristen Connolly), a slightly less outgoing, innocent-seeming redhead; Jules’ boyfriend Curt (Chris Hemsworth—yes, THOR himself), a jock; Curt’s friend Holden (Jesse Williams) who Jules and Curt are trying to fix up with Dana; and fifth wheel, Marty (Fran Kranz) who is smart and a smart aleck and he smokes a lot of weed, and I wasn’t really sure why he was going along with them, but he’s a welcome addition to the group, as far as I’m concerned.

MA: Yeah, he’s the most fun— and refreshing— character in the movie.

LS: They take an RV out to the country, where they come upon your typical, cliché’ redneck gas station owner, Mordecai (Tim De Zarn) who sets the creepy mood, and you just know these kids are in for some trouble.

MA: This is the scene where I almost groaned out loud. I’ve seen so many scenes like this one; it’s almost painful to sit through any more, so when this movie took this scene and did something completely different with it later, it was that much more refreshing.

(There is a knock at the cabin door. MA opens door to find a redneck gas station owner at the door, and behind him his redneck son, behind him another old man, and on and on the line goes.)

REDNECK MAN: This is no place for strangers!

REDNECK SON: My advice to you is to turn around and go back to where you came from.

OLD MAN: Turn back before ye perish!

EVEN OLDER MAN: You’ll be sorrrrry!

SKELETON IN OVERALLS: Don’t say we didn’t warn you!

MA: I think I’m going to throw up. (Slams door in their faces.)

LS: Yeah, I’m sick to death of those guys, too. Get a life! And get some teeth!

Anyway, like I was saying, you know these kids are headed for trouble. The thing is, what kind of trouble is something a little bit different than what we usually see in these kinds of movies. You might go in expecting yet another retread of THE EVIL DEAD or something along the lines of Eli Roth’s CABIN FEVER, but instead, we get something different than we’re expecting. This ties in to the fact that there are two smart, creative guys at the helm of this one, and they’re determined not to give us something we’ve seen before.

During a game of Truth or Dare, the kids find a doorway into a basement. When they go down to explore, they find lots of very strange artifacts, which will somehow decide their fate, depending on which one they choose. Dana picks up a diary of a girl who lived in the cabin back in 1908, and it’s rather disturbing. Meanwhile, outside, some strange figures start shuffling around, holding some vicious-looking weapons.

Beyond that, I don’t want to say too much, except that the kids in the cabin, the creatures stalking them, and the scientists back at the underground lab are closely linked, and that there really is a reason why all this is going on. A very cool reason. And I figured it out by the half-way mark, but that didn’t affect my enjoyment of this movie at all.

Not only is the directing and writing very good here, the acting isn’t too bad, either. I really enjoyed the interaction between Jenkins and Whitford as the scientists, who also involve their fellow employees in their activities. These are two good actors who turn in good performances.

MA: I agree. I thought veterans Richard Jenkins (who was in LET ME IN (2010), and received an Oscar nomination for Best Actor in THE VISITOR (2007), not too shabby), Bradley Whitford (who most people will recognize from TV’s THE WEST WING) were excellent and lent credibility to the proceedings. They definitely help make the unbelievable seem believable. Credit here also goes to the writing, which gives them plenty of lively lines to deliver.

LS: The kids aren’t too bad, either. Hutchison as Jules is very sexy and Hemsworth is a muscular alpha male as Curt.

MA: Yes, no doubt about it, Hutchison is hot. The scene where she makes out with a stuffed wolf’s head in a game of truth or dare is worth the price of admission all by itself!

And I liked Hemsworth as Curt too. Most jocks in these films are jerks. Hemsworth makes Curt pretty likeable.

LS: I wasn’t as impressed with Jesse Williams as Holden – he was okay, but nothing special. The two best performances here, however, are Kristen Connolly as the “virginal” Dana, who gets tough when she has to, and Kranz (who Whedon fans will recognize as Topher from the short-lived but really good series DOLLHOUSE). He pretty much steals every scene he’s in, and was my favorite character.

MA: I agree with you wholeheartedly here.

LS: Wholeheartedly? That reminds me! (Suddenly there is a bloody heart on LS’ plate next to a bottle of barbecue sauce.) Thanks, I didn’t want it to spoil.

MA: Where did that come from? That’s not yours, is it?

LS: Of course not! Mine isn’t this big. I had it in my pocket for a snack. And right about now, when you’re just about to go into a long rant, is as good a time as any for the munchies.

MA: Long rant? I’ll save those for when I don’t like something! Anyway, as I was saying, the two leads are excellent. Kranz nearly steals the movie as Marty, a character who’s stoned most of the time. Yet, this turns out to help him later in the story. Hmm, a subtle plug for medical marijuana, perhaps? (laughs) Kranz is funny, likeable, and best of all, refreshing. He provides the film with its best moments.

LS: He was great on DOLLHOUSE, too. I’d love to see Kranz become a star because of his performance here.

MA: Kristen Connolly is also excellent as Dana. She enjoys the best of both worlds in this movie, as she’s pretty hot herself, and yet she’s strong, capable, and more than holds her own when the going gets rough. She’s also smart.

LS: Yeah, she is pretty hot, too. Gotta love a redhead. And I liked her character a lot.

MA: Nice job by both these actors. There’s also a surprise cameo appearance at the end that’s been generating some excitement.

LS: Yeah, except I didn’t find it very exciting. The person who shows up isn’t that big a deal, since he/she has been in these kinds of movies before. It certainly wasn’t as big a deal as Bill Murray’s appearance in ZOMBIELAND (2009). I don’t even know why we’re keeping it a secret.

MA: Yeah, I didn’t think it was a big deal, either.

LS: The movie has its fair share of scares and laughs, and knows how to balance the two of them effectively. And the fact that there are some genuine surprises here means that CABIN is a movie you can really enjoy. It’s smarter than the usual Hollywood horror flick, and I enjoyed it a lot. In fact, I give it three and a half knives!

What did you think of it, Michael?

MA: I enjoyed it too, but I didn’t love it.

LS: Of course you didn’t. (starts eating the heart)

MA: THE CABIN IN THE WOODS is definitely different. As advertised, it offers a refreshing take on the usual tale of young people trapped in a haunted cabin in the middle of nowhere. For that, I commend the filmmakers, and I really did like this movie.

It’s just that, I’m not sure that I bought it all. What was going on behind the scenes, in those scenes with Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford, bordered a bit too much on fantasy for my tastes. Now, I know you won’t like this comparison, but some of the stuff was reminiscent of MEN IN BLACK, only better. MEN IN BLACK was science fiction and it was pure comedic fluff, while THE CABIN IN THE WOODS is horror and never strays down the road to goofiness. That being said, I still had a hard time accepting some of the things that happen in this movie once the explanations start rolling in.

LS: MEN IN BLACK? Did you really need to go there?

MA: Sorry, but I think I did.

(There is a knock on the door, and when MA opens it, there is a brutish BIG ZOMBIE standing in the doorway)

BIG ZOMBIE (to LS): You gonna eat that heart?

LS (talks with his mouth full): Way ahead of you. And I’m not sharing!

BIG ZOMBIE: Dammit!

(BIG ZOMBIE growls and skulks away)

MA: I actually bought into THE HUNGER GAMES more. That was a movie that I thought I was not going to believe, but that one, with its combination of strong acting, writing, and directing, convinced me that those deadly games were in fact real. THE HUNGER GAMES had more of an edge, I think, than THE CABIN IN THE WOODS, which as much as I liked it, would have been better served had it had a jagged edge of its own.

But I really enjoyed THE CABIN IN THE WOODS. I enjoyed it a lot. It’s a really creative flick, and it would be difficult not to like this movie.

I said earlier it reminded me a bit of LOST, in that you have a group of characters stuck in a situation that they at first think they know about and have a handle on, but soon they realize there is so much more going on, and it’s way more complicated than what they first thought. At one point, one of the characters remarks that they’re like puppets, manipulated by outside forces, which reminded me of the survivors on LOST when they were dealing with “the Others” early in that show.

LS: Yes, I see what you mean about the LOST comparison, although I thought the ending of THE CABIN IN THE WOODS was more satisfying than the ending of LOST.

MA: And like CLOVERFIELD, which was also written by Drew Goddard, THE CABIN IN THE WOODS has well-written characters and fun, lively dialogue.

I thought the special effects were also very good. I liked the monsters and creatures in this one and thought they looked genuinely scary for the most part. They were credible.

LS: I wish we’d gotten to see more of them!

MA: Not so credible is the plot. Ultimately, did I really buy all that was happening? And the answer to that question is no, I didn’t. Because while the film never breaks out into a full-fledged spoof/comedy— it does get the humor right, and it’s smart in that the dark elements of the movie remain dark— it’s difficult to take the proceedings all that seriously once you learn the secret of what’s ultimately going on.

I liked THE CABIN IN THE WOODS for what it was— a wild, over the top, creative horror movie, but had it somehow been more believable, I would have loved it.

I give it three knives.

LS: Yeah, I liked this one a bit more than you did. But at least we can agree that it’s a lot of fun and that the folks out there should check this movie out.

MA: Yes, it’s definitely worth checking out!

(There’s another knock at the door)

MA: I wonder who it is now.

(Outside the door, lots of REDNECKS and ZOMBIES are playing outside on the front lawn)

LS: What’s going on here?

REDNECK MAN: What does it look like?

REDNECK SON: We’re havin’ a picnic.

OLD MAN: Yeah, and we brought all the fixins’

EVEN OLDER MAN: We even brought the grill!

SKELETON IN OVERALLS: I can’t wait to eat. I’m starvin’ right to death.

REDNECK MAN: Yep, my great great grandpa needs to put some meat on those bones.

MA: That’s all well and good, but it looks like you’ve forgotten the most important part. The food! There’s no meat on the grill.

LS: Yeah, what are we supposed to be eating?

REDNECK MAN: Well, you’re not going to be eatin’ anything.

BIG ZOMBIE: We’re gonna be eatin’ you!

(CLOSE-UP of a LITTLE BOY ZOMBIE licking his lips)

MA (to camera): Gotta go!

(MA and LS run away in fast motion as the ZOMBIES and REDNECKS look on in bewilderment)

-END-

Michael Arruda gives THE CABIN IN THE WOODS ~ three knives!

LL Soares gives THE CABIN IN THE WOODS ~three and a half knives.

1 Comment »

LET ME IN

Posted in 2010, Cinema Knife Fights, Evil Kids!, Remakes, Vampire Movies with tags Chloe Moretz, elias koteas, hammer films, Kodi Smit-McPhee, Let Me In, let the right one in, lots of blood, Matt Reeves, Richard Jenkins, vampire kid on October 4, 2010 by knifefighter

CINEMA KNIFE FIGHT: LET ME IN (2010)
by Michael Arruda and L.L. Soares

(THE SCENE: A jungle gym in the middle of a housing project. Everything is covered in snow. L.L. SOARES and MICHAEL ARRUDA are sitting on it, talking.)

LS: So, as I was telling you, I can’t be your friend.

MA: Why? Because you’re a vampire? That’s not a problem, really. I have lots of friends who are vampires.

LS: No, because you have lousy taste in movies.

MA: Hey, so do you! We should get along great! Here, do you want my Rubik’s Cube?

LS: Yeah, sure, I’ll take a stab at solving it.

(LS turns around and fiddles with the cube. He gives it back to MA, with all the colors together and the puzzle solved)

MA: Wow! How did you do that? Are you good at puzzles?

LS: No. I just took off all the colored tiles and put them back so they’d be in the right place.

MA: An innovative approach.

LS: Pssst. I think we have company.

MA (looks up and notices the readers): You made it! Nice to see you. Come on in. Today, we’re reviewing the new vampire movie, LET ME IN. Want to start this one, LL?

LS: Yeah, sure. As most of our readers know, LET ME IN (2010) is the English-language remake of the Swedish film LET THE RIGHT ONE IN (2008). I reviewed the original film for this site awhile back, and, in a lot of ways, it was a near-perfect little film. I liked it a lot.

Considering how much acclaim the original got, it’s no surprise that we now have a remake.

This time around, Kodi Smit-McPhee plays Owen, a little boy who always seems to be wearing a winter coat, even when he’s indoors. He’s skinny and wimpy and is regularly picked on, especially by the vicious school bully (Dylan Minnette) and his pals. Owen’s parents are also in the midst of a divorce, so there’s not a lot about his life that he’s excited about. And then along comes Abby (Chloe Grace Moretz), a strange little girl who only comes out at night. She just moved into the housing complex with a man who appears to be her father (Richard Jenkins).

MA: Yeah, the movie begins with Richard Jenkins’ character being rushed to the hospital after dousing himself with acid. Then the movie flashes back two weeks beforehand to show us how things got to where they are. For a moment there, I thought I was watching the new TV show THE EVENT, which spends more time going backwards then forwards than it does in telling a story!

LS: So, since you brought the show up, you gotta tell us….WHAT IS THE EVENT?

MA: Not sure yet. My guess is they’re not going to tell us for awhile. TV shows tend to do that. I certainly hope it wasn’t the cliffhanger at the end of the first episode, because that wasn’t much of an event.

Back to the movie. While there’s just the one flashback here in LET ME IN, I can’t say that I liked it or understood its purpose. The story could have been told just as effectively by starting— at the beginning. How’s that for a concept?

LS: Ever since PULP FICTION (1994) and MEMENTO (2000) did it successfully, other directors have been screwing around with timelines. I have to admit, in most cases, I just find it annoying, and it gets in the way of the storytelling. But for some reason, I didn’t really mind it here. It comes full circle about half-way into the film, and it worked just fine for me.

MA: I didn’t think it had much of a point.

LS: The closer Owen and Abby get, the more Owen learns about his new playmate. As he starts to feel the pangs of first love, he has a lot of disturbing little details to deal with, too.

Written and directed by Matt Reeves, who previously made the very cool giant monster movie CLOVERFIELD (2008), LET ME IN is a very atmospheric little flick that draws you in and tells a compelling story.

My problem is, I loved the original, and I don’t really see the need for a remake. Why can’t people just check out the original Swedish film instead? But they won’t. So for those too lazy to read subtitles, they get their own version.

MA: I didn’t see the original.

(A huge collective gasp erupts from the audience.)

MA: Yeah, I know, it’s shocking. I see a lot of movies, but there are just so many out there to see, you can’t see them all, and sometimes you miss the popular ones.

Anyway, as I was saying, I didn’t see the original so I went into this one with a completely fresh outlook, but I’d have to say that, while I agree with you that it’s a very atmospheric movie, I’d disagree about it drawing me in. The reality is, it didn’t draw me in at all.

I mean, the central premise is a love story between two 12 year-olds, and I’m sorry, but the thrill of two 12 year-olds falling for each other only goes so far for me. Even with all the ROMEO AND JULIET references, it’s just not the same. The two stories don’t compare.

LS: What an old grump! Don’t you remember at all what it felt like to fall in love for the first time.

(Sweet violins play in the background)

MA: You romantic sap!

And why do modern love stories insist on throwing in the ROMEO AND JULIET references? Why compare yourself to one of the greatest love stories ever written? You’re only setting yourself up for a fall.

Granted, the portrayals of these characters and their story is much more realistic and refreshing than the boring cardboard characters of the TWILIGHT series, but in this case, they’re so young I felt like I was watching a “very special” episode of THE BRADY BUNCH.

The other thing is, it’s a vampire story, and well, it’s hard to take a fresh approach with these creatures. While I liked this story about a little girl vampire, it wasn’t enough to put this movie over the top.

I thought the subplot with Elias Koteas as an investigating cop was also flat and uninspiring, and lastly, the tale of the bullies picking on our young protagonist I found very predictable. I mean, I knew from the get-go that at some point these nasty bullies were going to get their comeuppance, and so what eventually does happen to them came to me as no surprise whatsoever.

LET ME IN didn’t draw me in. I wanted the film to let me in, but it never really did.

(Two LITTLE BOYS rush out to the jungle gym)

MA: Who are you?

BOY 1: My name is Eddie Munster and this is my friend Pugsley Addams.

BOY 2: Why are you two adults sitting on the jungle gym, misters?

LS: Because we want to.

BOY 1: Would you like to kiss Wolf Wolf? (Holds out his stuffed werewolf doll)

LS: NO!

BOY 1: Have you seen my pet Spot? He ran away.

MA: That’s too bad. Maybe you ought to run along and look for him. As you can see, there aren’t any dogs around here.

BOY 1: He’s not a dog, you idiot. He’s a fire-breathing dinosaur!

MA: Yeah, right.

LS: It’s true, you know. Didn’t you ever watch THE MUNSTERS?

MA: Once in a while. I think I remember Spot. Didn’t he live under the stairs or something?

BOY 2: Oh, these guys don’t know anything. I’ll get my Uncle Fester to help us find Spot.

BOY 1: Great. He can put a light bulb in his mouth, so we can see where we’re going.

(The BOYS run in the opposite direction)

LS: I liked LET ME IN, but I didn’t love it. It was just too familiar. It’s very faithful to the original film, and I knew what was going to happen from scene to scene. It didn’t offer much in the way of surprises.

MA: It didn’t offer any surprises. I thought its story was too predictable.

LS: The cast was great though. Smit-McPhee is fine as Owen. He was also really good in the Viggo Mortensen movie THE ROAD Coming Attractions (2009), as we mentioned in our column last week.

He looks like a scrawny kid that would get tormented in school. And Moretz, who was the amazing Hit Girl in the movie KICK-ASS, is terrific here as Abby, the little girl who is really much older than she appears. We mentioned Richard Jenkins (who also played the father on the HBO series SIX FEET UNDER), who’s great as well, although he’s almost unrecognizable under a scruffy beard. He’s even less recognizable when his face is burned away by acid.

MA: I thought Smit-McPhee and Moretz were fine in the leads. I actually liked Smit-McPhee better, as I thought he really nailed the pain and angst felt by a scrawny 12 year-old boy without many friends, and whose parents were getting divorced. He really made me feel for him.

Granted, Moretz had the more difficult role, that of the young vampire, but I didn’t get the same sense of pain from her. When we see her experience loss, for example, it’s hard to tell if she’s upset or not. Her character was less defined than Smit-McPhee’s Owen.

LS: What a dope. Of course it’s hard to tell how she reacts to loss. She’s a friggin’ VAMPIRE! She’s been around for who knows how many years, and she must have seen a lot of loss during the time. Do you ever think that maybe, the more suffering you see, the more distant you get from it?

MA: Sure, and that would be great if we actually see her being distant. Being distant from something isn’t the same as showing no reaction. Being distant is being cold-hearted in the face of suffering. She’s clueless.

And don’t tell me vampires aren’t emotional. Let’s go down the list. Lugosi, Lee, Langella, Chris Sarandon in FRIGHT NIGHT (1985), and right on down. Vampires aren’t robots.

LS: Another familiar face is Elias Koteas as a police detective trying to solve what is going on after he investigates the gruesome events that led Jenkins’ character to burn himself.

MA: Of all the recent movie roles we’ve seen Koteas perform lately, (SHUTTER ISLAND, THE HAUNTING IN CONNECTICUT, and THE FOURTH KIND) this one was probably my least favorite. He was okay, but he certainly didn’t stand out, and he was stuck in a thankless storyline which had him following the trail of the vampire murders, and always being a step or two behind. Carl Kolchak, or even Kojak, he wasn’t!

LS: Dude, NO ONE is good enough to be another Carl Kolchak! Darren McGavin was the man! But you’re right. And why didn’t the cops go to Jenkins’s apartment right off the bat?

MA: Koteas’s character has no personality. Hell, he doesn’t even have a name! In the credits he’s just listed as “the Policeman.”

LS: Yeah, his character is pretty weak here. To me, his best role will always be as Vaughn in my favorite David Cronenberg movie CRASH (1996). He’s never had a role as good since. But I almost always like him. He’s not given a lot of personality here, though.

I liked the movie, and especially the acting, but it was faithful to a fault. I give it two and a half knives.

MA: I wanted to like it. I really did.

Heck, the chills ran up and down my spine as the Hammer Films logo filled the screen when the film opened. Hammer Films back on the big screen! I wanted to get up and cheer, but I would have looked funny among the 5 other people sitting in the theater with me, which made me feel sad. Opening night, and there were 6 of us in the theater.

LS: I wanted to cheer, too. Hammer is easily one of my all-time favorite movie studios and it was exciting to see them back in action after a long absence. At least the movie theater I saw LET ME IN in was mostly packed. I hope it does pretty decent at the box office, even if I wasn’t completely won over by it.

MA: Yeah, I hope this film does well and gets Hammer back in business. That being said, I wasn’t terribly impressed by this movie, either.

First off, the story takes place in 1983. Why? What’s the significance of this story taking place in the 1980s? I mean, there’s no jump to present day, as the entire story takes place in 1983. And there’s nothing in the story that makes it imperative that it take place in 1983. For example, we had bullies in the 1980s, we had bullies before that, and we have bullies today. What’s so special about the 1980s? Was Ronald Reagan good for vampires or something?

LS: Well, he was good for American punk rock, which was mostly a reaction to his presidency. And I always thought he looked kind of like an old vampire. The thing is, the original movie and story took place in the 80s, but that was Sweden. It doesn’t translate as well to 1980s America for some reason, and feels like it should have been set in modern-day. But the time period was a good excuse for putting lots of 80s hits in the soundtrack. I counted at least four times where David Bowie’s song “Let’s Dance” showed up; there was also The Vapors’ “Turning Japanese,” and Culture Club’s “Do You Really Want to Hurt Me.” Personally, I think some early Black Flag wouldn’t have hurt either. Like “Gimme Gimme Gimme” for the vampire kid’s blood-drinking scenes.

MA: I have to admit, I did enjoy the 80s hits in the soundtrack.

LS: Another choice Reeves made that made me scratch my head was the location. In the original, it was in Sweden and the snow made sense. In the remake, it takes place is Los Alamos, New Mexico. Who knew there was so much snow there? I thought New Mexico was mostly desert! Shows how much I know. But what an odd choice.

MA: Very odd. While LET ME IN is atmospheric and stylish, there’s no denying its pacing is as slow as coagulated blood. Its strength is that it plays like a poignant story of young first love, which is okay, but this doesn’t translate into a compelling or thrilling tale. I liked the kids’ story. I really did. But the whole package, the horror aspect, was lacking big time.

The murder scenes were just OK. A scene in a car at a gas station was somewhat thrilling, but then again, I’ve seen so much better. None of these scenes blew me away. The throat-slitting scene in the woods reminded of a similar scene in the Hammer Dracula movie DRACULA-PRINCE OF DARKNESS (1966) which I just mentioned in our recent MONSTROUS QUESTION column, but even that wasn’t all that intense. I didn’t find these scenes scary, nor did I find the movie as a whole scary.

LS: I didn’t find it scary, either.

MA: The scene in the hospital where a woman vampire’s body ignites in flames when exposed to the sun was a good one, but would a vampire burn up that violently?

LS: Vampires aren’t real. They can ignite as violently as a writer wants them to. What are you, the Keeper of the Myths?

MA: There were some other unanswered questions as well. Why is Abby always barefoot? Don’t vampire girls wear shoes?

LS: Maybe she finds them restrictive! Although, what girl doesn’t like shoes? That is kinda ridiculous.

MA: Why doesn’t Owen have any friends? I know why he’s picked on, because he’s scrawny and can’t defend himself, but no friends at all? What’s up with that? I want to know why.

LS: Maybe because he never takes off his big winter coat, even indoors. People must think he’s always about to leave.

MA: Why is the Elias Koteas policeman character investigating these crimes on his own? Is he the only cop in town?

LS: That’s a good question. All I can guess is that there must have been a lot of budget cuts in Los Alamos in 1983. And what was up with Owen’s obsession with that crappy candy Now and Later? I hated that stuff – it hurt your teeth. The kid could have had better taste in candy! Eat some Snickers or some peanut M&Ms!

MA: LET ME IN could have also used some healthy doses of humor. As is, it’s one dour movie. I don’t mean it should be turned into a comedy, but a chuckle here and there would have been welcome, just to relieve some of the dreariness.

LS: It didn’t need chuckles. It needed more surprises. Since I’d seen the story before, I was hoping Reeves would put his own spin on some of it. Why do a scene-for-scene copy? It needed more spontaneity the second time around!

MA: One thing I did like about LET ME IN was it really captured the essence of blood. In one scene, Owen remarks to Abby that “you smell funny.” This may sound funny, but you can almost smell the blood in this movie. Director Matt Reeves almost saturates this film with blood, from spilling blood, to caked blood on Abby’s lips, to bloody walls and floors. I don’t mean to imply the movie’s a gory bloodbath, because it isn’t. It’s more like the blood in this movie is ever present, so much so, that you start to smell it after a while.

LS: Oh, that reminds me. Excuse me a minute.

(LS leaves and there’s a scream. He comes back a few minutes later with his face smeared with blood)

LS: Man, was I thirsty! That really hit the spot.

MA: All in all, LET ME IN is an OK vampire film, one that does a good job telling the story of its young leads, but as a whole package, it fails to scare, thrill or captivate. I had expected much more from this one. I give it two knives.

LS: I love Hammer Studios, I’m a big Chloe Moretz fan, and I like Matt Reeves a lot. But in this case, I gotta suggest people rent the original Swedish film instead. If you’re going to be exposed to this story just one time – see the definitive version. And get over your fear of subtitles already, America!

(A Giant Red Fish approaches them)

FISH: Instead of being obsessed with Now and Later, that kid should have loved Swedish Fish! This was a remake of a Swedish movie after all!

LS: You’re right. Hey – I LOVE SWEDISH FISH!

MA: Me, too. And I’m really hungry!

LS: Let’s get ‘im!

FISH: YIKES! I gotta go.

(LS and MA chase the giant SWEDISH FISH around the housing complex in fast motion while the BENNY HILL theme plays. Credits roll as the segment ends)

—END–

Michael Arruda gives LET ME IN - 2 knives

L.L. Soares gives LET ME IN - 2 and a half knives

3 Comments »

Archive for Richard Jenkins

JACK REACHER (2012)

KILLING THEM SOFTLY (2012)

THE CABIN IN THE WOODS (2012)

LET ME IN

Pages

Follow “”