31 Days of Horror: Suspiria (2018)

Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising

Against the Crowd Blogathon 2016: Dell's Entry and Day 3 Recap

The Quick and Dirties: Ladies' Night

Carrie (2013)

Directed by Kimberly Peirce.

2013. Rated PG-13, 99 minutes.

Cast:

Chloe Grace Moretz

Julianne Moore

Gabriella Wilde

Ansel Elgort

Portia Doubleday

Alex Russell

Judy Geer

Zoe Belkin

Karissa Strain

Connor Price

When I heard they were remaking Carrie, the horror classic from 1976, I wasn't the least bit surprised. I wasn't uspet, either. I have a few reasons. First, and foremost, its themes are timeless. This isn't some purely 70s flick that would have to be stripped and rebuilt to fit the twenty-first century. We're talking bullying, self-esteem, mother-daughter relationships, and revenge. Nothing dated here at all, aside from the clothing. That brings me to the other reason I didn't mind. A new version will bring Carrie to people who might not seek out the original simply because it came out before they were born. The only question is would it be botched, or not. The answer is yes...

and no.

Where it works is in the tone it's going for. The setup is essentially the same as the original, but the execution is different. Carrie (Moretz) freaks out in the shower at school when she gets her very first period and her classmates respond by pointing, laughing, and trying to stone her to death with tampons. She also learns she has telekinesis, the ability to move things with her mind. The '76 version plays up the idea of young women blossoming sexually and having that filter throughout the rest of the movie. This time around, we go for a straight horror vibe with some actual sex thrown in. Well, not actual, but you get the picture. Everything is immediately somber and scored with ominous music. It's also purposely drab. Carrie's mom Margaret (Moore) speaks in a hushed voice and our bullies are mean about the way they go about being mean. Let me explain that last sentence. In the original, the bullies certainly did awful things to Carrie. However, they went about their business in a jolly manner. They often made us laugh. Here, we get none of that. It's all dead serious to them.

A lack of humor is just one of many differences between this movie and its predecessor. Not only is it apparent in our bullies, but more importantly, in Carrie's mom. The role is played so outlandishly by Piper Laurie in the original, it becomes sublime ridiculousness. It is difficult not to see it as satire. She also has a domineering presence. The iron fist with which she rules is clearly evident. We sense that Carrie fears her mother with every bone in her body. Laurie's performance is simultaneously a pointed jab at over the top religious fanatics while making an effective one, herself. She's a woman who knows that without a doubt that she is empowered by God to do the things she does. Julianne Moore's take on the same character in the remake is almost the exact opposite. She speaks softly, often appearing even meeker than her daughter, cowering in the presence of others. There is no humor in watching a woman who is completely vulnerable and saddened by this fact. Even her outlook on religion feels different. Where Laurie is absolutely empowered by her faith, Moore's Margaret seems to approach it from a place of weakness. She's not a tall standing soldier in His army, but a flower wilting in His presence. Her only hope is that she's repented enough to not be punished for past indiscretions. This is a dramatic difference. It changes the dynamics of her relationship with Carrie to the point where it doesn't quite work. Where the original Margaret is commanding of Carrie's every move, this one seems to be pleading with Carrie to maybe find it in her to attend a church service or two. This makes it harder to believe that she would still take the same steps as the other Margaret at the end of this movie.

Without directly comparing it to the original, this version of Carrie still doesn't quite work. Carrie herself doesn't feel quite fragile enough to pull this thing off. For starters, she's standing up to Mama way too soon. When we get to that all-important prom scene she's less like a person who just snapped and couldn't take it anymore, and more like one who is simply vindictive. It's like she's been waiting for this moment her entire life. Take note of the pause in the climactic scene with her mother. It's one, maybe two seconds of film, but gives the scene a totally different feel than the same scene in the first movie. It feels like something this Carrie has just been itching to do. Spacek's Carrie just has an instinctive reaction to a heightened situation. Another issue is Carrie's classmates. Right from the start, one character is far too remorseful of her actions toward Carrie in the opening scene. This removes lots of mystery from the movie and it doesn't quite feel like the entire school is really against her. Too many people are in her corner for us to feel the need to be there.

Like I said in the beginning, I really don't mind that Carrie was remade. I just think director Kimberly Peirce's approach to the material was a mistake. Trying to make it a straight horror flick doesn't really work. The original was not that. It was a movie that used teen angst and religious commentary in service of a twisted sense of humor that culminated in two fantastic horror movie scenes. It seems she mistook those non-horror elements as ancillary components of the film rather than being integral to its effectiveness. The performances she gets from Moretz and Moore are actually pretty good, but misguided as detailed above. On the other hand, the major plus of the film is its look, including a fairly impressive prom scene. However, and you should know my rule by now, a movie with not much besides pretty pictures is not a good movie.

MY SCORE: 5/10

The Equalizer

Directed by Antoine Fuqua.

2014. Rated R, 131 minutes.

Cast:

Denzel Washington

Marton Csokas

Chloe Grace Moretz

David Harbour

Johnny Skourtis

Melissa Leo

Bill Pullman

Haley Bennett

Alex Veadov

Vladimir Kulich

At Home Depot...er...HomeMart, where he works, Rober McCall (Washington) is the star employee. His bosses and co-workers all look up to him and he'll do anything he can to help out each and every one of them. He is also a man deeply mired in the routines of his life. He has to have everything a certain way. A bit of an insomniac, he finds himself at the local diner at 2 AM every morning. He sits in the same booth, sets up his silverware the way he likes and gets a cup of hot water for the tea bag that he brings from home. He also talks to Elaina (Moretz), the young girl who is always seated at the counter. She also happens to be a hooker. The night she's not there, Robert becomes very worried. When he finds out she's in the hospital after being badly beaten by her pimp, he takes matters into his own hands.

The early parts of the movie are spent developing Mr. McCall's character. We get to see what makes him tick. During this time, Denzel Washington owns the screen, completely selling us on what type of guy McCall is. The first few scenes establish him as definitely having Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. However, it's subsequent scenes during which the point is driven home. It's not necessarily in the acting out of the routines, but in his subtle reactions when those routines are broken. More importantly, we come to realize how much he cares for those around him. This is most ably demonstrated through his conversations with Elaina and his interactions with Ralphie (Skourtis), one of his co-workers down at HomeMart. Washington's supporting cast helps him out just enough, too. Marton Csokas gives us a solidly detestable villain. In her brief screen time, Chloe Grace Moretz also does very well.

Once the movie transitions into our hero taking care of business, it becomes a very different affair. This part of the movie is loaded with action of the brutally violent sort. Mr. McCall makes use of things such as corkscrews, power drills, nail guns, and more. It's to the point where my wife expressed wariness of ever visiting a Home Depot ever again. Speaking of Home Depot, or Lowe's for that matter, how is it they didn't drop a few bucks to get their name on this? This would have functioned as the best commercial either company has ever had. Just imagine the logo of one of those stores being visible as Denzel Washington strolls away from an explosion in slow motion. By the way, I know such scenes are cliche, but the one in this movie might be the best one ever filmed. And I'm not exaggerating one bit. I generally roll my eyes when these happen in other action flicks. I even started to when I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was about to happen in this one. However, this one was so deliciously overboard that I couldn't help but love it. The action as a whole has this effect. Yes, it's over the top, but it is also done with a twisted sense of humor that comes across really well. Honestly, though, it makes the best use of this when the action happens off-screen. We'll see our hero immediately after he's done something heinous to a bad guy which we didn't get to see. It's usually funny enough that we don't mind missing out on what he actually did.

For those of us old enough to remember, and to care, the big question is how does it compare to the TV show that it was based on. I am old enough to remember. However, I must confess that I was never a fan of the show. I might have watched it a handful of times and really don't remember anything about it other than the star. This means that, sadly, I've no clue whether or not it does the show proud. I do know that it does the action genre proud. Once it gets going The Equalizer is insanely fun, provided you're not put off by all the blood and guts. The first act perfectly sets up the last two acts. It's a guy we like doing things we wish we could do for the people we care about. Admittedly, there are some late second act scenes that fill in some of our hero's back story, though not very much. The real point of these is to provide something that could be expanded on in sequels. Trust me, this movie clearly wants sequels. To be honest, though, it might be better as a standalone. In either case, it's Denzel showing us all that he can still carry a movie without a big name co-star and still be extremely compelling. That quality is what really makes this an excellent watch.

Kick-Ass 2

Directed by Jeff Wadlow.

2013. Rated R, 103 minutes.

Cast:

Aaron Taylor-Johnson

Chloe Grace Moretz

Christopher Mintz-Plasse

Morris Chestnut

John Leguizamo

Jim Carrey

Donald Faison

Lindy Booth

Olga Kurkulina

Augustus Prew

Clark Duke

After his exploits in the first movie, David Lizewski (Taylor-Johnson) is no longer fighting crime as his alter-ego Kick-Ass. These days, he's just trying to lead a normal life. Meanwhile, Mindy Macready (Moretz), or Hit Girl, is vigorously training for her return to action. Finding normal life a bore, David relents and starts working out with Hit Girl and the two decide to form a team. She's got issues of her own, though. Emotionally, she is torn between honoring her father's dying wish for her to continue his life's work as a superhero and her guardian, Det. Marcus Williams' warnings about the inappropriateness, illegality, and pure danger of that lifestyle. She opts out of the crime-fighting business. Still, David is in luck. Through some rigorous internet searching he hooks up with a group of superheroes calling themselves Justice Forever, headed by Colonel Stars and Stripes (Carrey). Of course, things aren't all hunky-dory. The main issue is that Chris D'Amico (Mintz-Plasse), aka Red Mist from the first movie is really pissed about how things turned out in that initial flick. With lots of money at his disposal, he recreates himself as a super-villain and starts putting together his own team for the sole purpose of killing Kick-Ass.

Hit Girl's personal conflict takes up as much of the spotlight as Kick-Ass, if not more. It's just as well since Chloe Grace Moretz is clearly a better actor than Aaron Taylor-Johnson. In an ultra-violent superhero flick built upon trying to apply comic sensibilities to our world, she brings real depth and weight to her character. It's a character given more room to breath as she isn't boxed into reacting to Nicolas Cage this time around. To really sell it, though, she has to convincingly handle the physical aspects of her role. She does so very well. I'd argue hers is the most physically demanding role in the movie and she pulls it off without a hitch.

Christopher Mintz-Plasse is another highlight as our bad guy. Understandably, some viewers may be annoyed by him, but I think that's what the movie is going for. He's a class A Jerk, a privileged brat, remorselessly evil, and at least a little racist. The gallery of criminals he hires is a fun collection of baddies he identifies by stereotyping their ethnicity. The most prominent of these people is Mother Russia (Kurkulina). In my review of Batman: The Dark Knight Returns, Part 2 I noted there is a character who looks like Drago from Rocky IV with boobs. Mother Russia is the live action embodiment of that. Combine this with her flat out ruthlessness and she might be the scariest woman you've ever seen.

Like it's predecessor, Kick-Ass 2 is a sharp spoof of superhero culture, both on the page and the screen. Lots of the dialogue is simplistic, slogan filled, and declaritive. It sounds like it, but it is not lazy writing. In fact, I'd say it's the exact opposite because it's going out of its way to sound that way. It's the way comic book characters often speak. Going back to our bad guy, he does this and laces every tirade with profanity. That demonstrates how much of a spoiled brat he is and that he's part of a reality closer to our own than The Avengers. As far as his use of stereotypes, it is jab at the way non-Anglo characters have been portrayed since the inception of comic books. Look back at the history of non-traditional (read: not white) characters in not just comics, but pop culture at large, and you'll see lots of stereotyping. John Leguizamo, as Chris' driver/helper/friend calls him on it. To this he responds with a line calling them archetypes which perfectly echoes the excuses used for how these people are portrayed.

Alongside broader topics such as those, KA2 narrows its focus a bit and targets the superhero team. The Watchmen seems to be the biggest target. This is ironic because that movie, and the graphic novel it's based on, essentially tries to do the same thing as KA2, bring superheroes nearer to our reality. The Watchmen just goes about the task in a somberly and as an intense examination of this world. KA2 flips things around to focus more on the superhero world and does it in a comedic manner.

I know. I know. I've seen the scores on rottentomatoes.com and metacritic.com. The people who get paid to have an opinion on this sort of thing hate this movie. Many of my fellow hobbyists who just blog about movies are in agreement with the pros. I just can't follow the flock on this one. Is it as good as the original? No. Personally, I'm on record grading it as a classic so there is almost no way this could reach that lofty status. However, I still find it to be highly entertaining and way smarter than it has been given credit for being. Like Nicolas Cage in the first movie, Chloe Grace Moretz hits it out of the park with what is already a massively underappreciated performance, in my book. And yes, I would welcome a Kick-Ass 3.

MY SCORE: 7.5/10

The Amityville Horror (2005)

Directed by Andrew Douglas.

2005. Rated PG-13, 89 minutes.

Cast:

Ryan Reynolds

Melissa George

Chloë Grace-Moretz

Jesse James

Jimmy Bennett

Rachel Nichols

Philip Baker Hall

In 1979, The Amityville Horror hit theaters, and not only became a hit movie, but a cultural phenomenon. People actually made the trek to New York to see the house where the movie was set because it was supposedly a true story. I don’t knock anyone for believing in ghosts and/or haunted houses. To each his own. However, I do have to question the intelligence of people who believe it to be true and go there on purpose. What if it is? Being in the midst of a demonic paranormal entity doesn't sound like a barrel of laughs to me. As noted in my review of the original, whether or not our tale is rooted in reality has been hotly debated and largely debunked. What is inarguable is that it provided the template for the modern haunted house movie which is still being ripped off ad nauseum all these years later.

This brings us to the remake you came here to read about. The setup is the same as the older movie. The Lutz family is house shopping for a place suitable for their family of six: George (Reynolds), Kathy (George), three kids, and one dog. The kids and the dog came with Kathy as part of a package deal, having remarried after the death of her first husband. They check out the fateful house and it is obviously out of their price range. No worries, the real estate agent assures them she’s letting it go cheap. When asked what gives, she explains what we saw at the very beginning. The year before, some nut got up out of bed at 3:15 AM and blasted everyone in his family with a shotgun. Since it is a beautiful house, and George wants to make his woman happy, the Lutzes decide to buy it. After all, as George so eloquently puts it, “houses don’t kill people.” We’ll just see about that, won’t we.

Right away, and every night at 3:15, things go haywire. George is affected more than anyone. The movie, including Reynolds himself, does a nice job with his rapidly deteriorating mental state. This is very clearly a man losing it. Just to make sure we know that it’s the house causing all of his issues, he’s a much nicer guy whenever he is away from it. For the most part, he drives the movie. The film, and the house, uses him to crank things up or ratchet them down at the appropriate times.

The character who shoulders the rest of the load is the daughter Chelsea. She interacts with the house in a way no one else does. As a result, she’s often in harm’s way. This is one of the very early performances of child star Chloë Grace-Moretz. She’s about as solid as any kid would be in the role, but it’s hard to tell from this that she would become a top notch and highly sought after talent with many horror titles on her resumé. Still, the movie effectively uses her to score easy sympathy points and provide some harrowing scenes.

On its own, this is a briskly pace film packed with creepy visuals. It hardly gives us a chance to catch our breath as it is constantly sprinting to the next big moment. Juxtaposed with its predecessor, we see that it is a more concentrated effort. This version is almost solely focused on the Lutz family. The story of Father Callaway (Hall), Father Delaney in the original, ran prominently alongside the main plot in that older flick, but is barely included here, almost totally diminished in importance and altered in execution. Conversely, the bit about Lisa (Nichols), the baby-sitter, is expanded into a much more intense scene and the character herself is completely different. The other major difference is how the dog is handled. In the original, it is used to show how caring a person George really is when not under the house’s influence. This time it’s used to demonstrate George’s loosening grip on reality.

It is my opinion that this is a very underrated movie. It ramps up the tension early and doesn't let up. Ryan Reynolds gives a very convincing performance of a guy flipping out. There are also excellent and unsettling visuals throughout. Normally, a ninety minute remake of a two hour movie is cause to ring the alarms. Ring them even louder when you add the fact that Michael Bay is a producer on this one. Logic tells us that so much would be left out it would feel incomplete. Honestly, there are things left out of this version. However, it feels like what was removed made it a more concise effort without sacrificing the essence of its predecessor. It’s just plain fun to sit through.

MY SCORE: 7/10

Dark Shadows

Directed Tim Burton.

2012. Rated PG-13, 113 minutes.
Cast:
Johnny Depp
Michelle Pfeiffer
Eva Green
Helena Bonham Carter
Bella Heathcote
Chloë Grace Moretz
Jackie Earle Haley
Jonny Lee Miller
Christopher Lee
Alice Cooper

In 1972, the Collinses live in a gigantic secluded mansion in Maine that their ancestors built over 200 years earlier. Once extremely wealthy, they now barely manage to pay the bills since the family business isn’t doing so well. Luckily for them, they’re about to get some help. Thought long dead since he lived in the house when it was first built, Barnabus Collins (Depp) rises from his grave. Having been turned into a vampire by Angelique Bouchard (Green), a jilted witch, he has a score to settle. For you young whipper-snappers, this is based on the late 60s/early 70s soap opera of the same name.

We proceed with the normal jokes that follow people reemerging in a time much different than their own. Some are funny, some are not. More consistently humorous, but not overwhelmingly so, is Michelle Pfeiffer’s sarcasm and the (sorta) functional drunkenness of Burton regular Helena Bonham Carter. Both women are superb as is Eva Green in all her cackling witch glory. Chloë Grace Moretz gives a performance that comes across as bizarre. However, I don’t blame her as much as I do the screenplay which doesn’t properly flesh out her character. The one actor I do blame for their lackluster work is the star, Johnny Depp. This is hard for me because I’m pretty much a Depp apologist, but he doesn’t seem to have his heart in this one.

Still, our hero isn't the most noticeable problem with Dark Shadows. More of an issue is how insecure director Tim Burton is in his storytelling. The movie never seems sure of what it wants to be. It takes turns at parody (including of self), family drama, and straight forward horror without the proper meshing of the genres. The seams are clearly visible. As a result, we feel like we’re switching back and forth between several different movies involving the same characters. Any of them could be good but none are allowed to gather enough steam. We never get into the right frame of mind to enjoy it because as soon as we start to settle in there’s an abrupt change in tone and we have to start all over. Other problems include prematurely discarding subplots, especially those of the children, and a werewolf inexplicably popping up out of nowhere.

The magic of the Depp/Burton connection seems to be waning. As mentioned, Depp’s performance is somewhat less than thrilling and the typically goth-chic visuals of Tim Burton feel peculiarly restrained and his narrative is all over the map. Even the star in his trademark white face paint and funny hairdo is now cliché. The last truly excellent effort produced by the pair is 2007’s morbid musical Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. I like their following picture, 2010’s Alice in Wonderland, but that’s a polarizing film. This seems to be likewise.

Hugo

Directed by Martin Scorsese.

2011. Rated PG, 128 minutes.
Cast:
Asa Butterfield
Ben Kingsley
Chloë Grace Moretz
Sacha Baron Cohen
Jude Law

Ray Winstone
Helen McCrory
Richard Griffiths
Frances de la Tour
Christopher Lee

Hugo (Butterfield) is a tween-aged boy who lives alone inside the giant clock at the train station. Sort of. He’s supposed to be living there with his uncle Claude (Winstone) who is responsible for keeping the clock wound. However, Claude is a drunk and hasn’t been seen in quite some time. Hugo’s dad was already a widower when he died leaving his son in the care of his not-so-responsible brother. So Hugo keeps the clock running all by himself. He also works feverishly to fix the automaton his father left him, a robot that supposedly writes. Hugo has never seen it work.

Much of our hero’s day is spent scavenging food and parts from the shops in the station while avoiding station cop Inspector Gustave (Cohen). His favorite target is the toy store owned by crotchety old Papa Georges (Kingsley). When Georges catches Hugo, he makes the lad work for him to pay for all the stuff he’s stolen. He also confiscates the kid’s notebook which looks like a manual for the automaton. In an effort to get his notebook back, Hugo recruits Isabelle (Moretz) who lives with Papa Georges and his wife because her own parents have passed away. The two embark on a book retrieving adventure.

Eventually, we find out Hugo isn’t at all about the notebook , the writing robot or even the title character. Like Super 8, which I’ve recently watched, Hugo is actually a movie about movies. In this case, it focuses on the earliest days of filmmaking and how magical moving pictures must have been to people who had never heard of such a thing. By extension, it’s also about when we in the contemporary audience first fell in love with movies ourselves. After all, even the most cynical of us has been awed by a film and transported wholly into its world at some point in our lives. Finally, it makes an eloquent point about the need to step up the effort to preserve old films. If the viewer misses all that stuff about movies and merely focuses on the surface of Hugo, they’ll still get an enjoyable film.

Hugo is also about the visuals. That’s not quite right, the visuals are there to enhance the feeling that watching a movie is akin to witnessing magic. They are an important part of the film. Each shot is beautifully framed and the fluid movement of the camera has the effect of sweeping us away into this world. Unfortunately, I’m ill-qualified to comment any further. My lack of technical expertise aside, it’s a movie designed to be a 3D experience that I watched in 2D on a not-so-wide screen. Though I’m not a huge fan of the medium I would like to see this as it is meant to be seen.

Even without the funny glasses, I still had a good time watching Hugo. The story is thoroughly sweet and touching. Admittedly, that’s not what I’m normally looking for out of my Scorcese, but he makes it engaging. Interestingly enough, my children didn’t enjoy it as much despite the two youthful protagonists. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe you do need to understand a bit about the history of movies. After all, it is an adventure that leads not to a treasure of gold or something they deem tangible, but to an archive of silent films (I’m not spoiling anything). Maybe when I’m old and they’re making one of their obligatory visits I’ll force them to watch it with me just to see if they get it.

MY SCORE: 8/10

Let Me In

Directed by Matt Reeves.
2010. Rated R, 116 minutes.
Cast:
Chloë Grace Moretz
Kodi Smit-McPhee
Richard Jenkins
Cara Buono
Elias Koteas
Sasha Barrese
Dylan Kenin
Richie Coster
Dylan Minnette

Owen (Smit-McPhee) is twelve years old and has no friends. Even worse, he’s the class punching bag. Things are so bad, he hangs out alone at night, in the courtyard of his apartment complex and fantasizes about getting revenge. If that weren’t enough, he lives with his mom who’s in the process of divorcing his dad and is an emotional wreck. One night, he notices a girl his age moving into the apartment next door to his with her father. Eventually, we find out her name is Abby (Moretz). As it turns out, she’s also a loner who seeks solitude in the courtyard most nights. Even though, it’s the dead of winter she doesn’t wear shoes. Owen notices this and also finds out rather quickly that she leads some sort of tortured existence, as well. The two seemingly kindred spirits strike up a friendship. However, Owen doesn’t realize something we already know. Abby is a vampire.

To remain as conspicuous as possible, Abby’s “father” (Jenkins) supplies her with blood by killing random people, draining the blood from them and carrying it back to her. Whenever he fails at this task, or hunger overwhelms her, she has to hunt for her own meals. Let’s just say her table manners are less than desirable.

The movie’s pace is deliberately slow but it doesn’t drag. It draws us in through the growing relationship between Owen and Abby. It also never forgets that there are murders being committed so the police are working feverishly to find out who’s responsible. All along, we wonder what will happen when things get figured out? What will happen when Owen comes to understand what Abby really is? What happens when the police figure it out?

Of course, the vampire craze of the last few years can be traced back to the Twilight series. Everything in that critic-proof juggernaut is dolled up to appeal to young girls and teach them about the virtues of abstinence. While that’s a fine message it’s done in a manner that makes the idea of vampires even less tangible than it already is. It’s not just fantasy. It’s impossibly sanitized so that any thoughts deemed to be impure are like the greatest evils know to mankind. On the other hand, any good things are romanticized to the nth degree. In short, the Twilight films alternately panders to and preaches to its audience on a continuous basis.

In Let Me In, the characters are not in some totally foreign dimension where everything is glossy and nice where vampires can go out in the daytime and wean themselves from human blood. Instead, the vampire is dropped into our reality. This offers insight into what it might be like if there really were such a creature in our midst. To understand the difference between this world and the Twilight world think about the Batman movies. Specifically, think of how Gotham City is portrayed in the recent Christopher Nolan movies and in the franchise-killing Joel Schumacher flicks. LMI would be the Nolan films, not quite fully realistic but enough to seem a lot more plausible.

For those of us lucky enough to have seen it, there is yet another elephant in the room. That one is the Swedish original, less than two years old when its American remake hit theaters. Technically, like its predecessor, LMI claims to be based on the novel Let the Right One In. The Swedish film keeps the full title while this one truncates it. Otherwise, there’s not enough of a difference for me to say it isn’t a remake. There are some changes here and there. Most notably, there is one glaring omission and one event moved to the beginning of the film. The omission is the now infamous crotch shot of our vampire. The event involves the father and is key to the movie so I won’t spoil that.

The fact that this is largely the same movie is not a knock on the American flick. It wisely follows the template already created. Aside from the omission I mentioned, it doesn’t water things down, at all. Unlike most remakes, the additions don’t become subtractions. There are no overly big showy moments for no reason other than injecting some perceived excitement. To its credit, the one recognizably American thing it did actually works. It adds a little more gore. However, it does so for good reason and not at the cost of character development as is often the case. It is rare that a remake can stand up to the original, particularly when the remake is American and the original is not. This one does. What I’m going to say next may seem even stranger than that. When the subtitleophobes tell you this one is better, ignore that they’re probably basing their opinion solely on the fact it’s in English. They might actually be right, this time.

Diary of a Wimpy Kid

Directed by Thor Freudenthal.
2010. Rated PG, 94 minutes.
Cast:
Zachary Gordon
Robert Capron
Rachael Harris
Steve Zahn
Devon Bostick
Chloë Grace Moretz
Karan Brar
Grayson Russell

Greg (Gordon) is just starting middle school. He also begins his quest to become one of the school’s favorites, and in fact already ranks himself 19th out of 200. His less mature best friend Rowley (Capron) seems to be holding him back. Meanwhile, his big brother Rodrick (Bostick) and other neighborhood “big kids” threaten to kill him on a daily basis.

Watching our hero repeatedly try and fail to raise his popularity quotient is fairly entertaining. It captures the transition from elementary to middle school rather nicely. For us adults, those days when our best laid social plans went astray may come flooding back to us. For kid, most can relate but won’t admit it. Who wants to be the kid that only wants to be liked?

It help that there are some genuinely funny moments. Like the best of this movie, they’re slightly over the top but somehow still universal. For instance, there is a scene where Rodrick chases Greg, causing Greg to lock himself in his own room. Greg’s lengthy hideout is the universal part. It’s not unlike what plays out in houses all over the country. The conclusion to this segmen just ices the cake.

Even better, the filmmakers have the confidence and trust in their audience to make Greg unlikeable for much of the movie. His self-centeredness both compels and repels us. When his inevitable redemption comes about, and I don’t think I’m spoiling anything, it’s about his relationship with his best friend. That is something we can relate to.

There are a few stretches of flatness. During those times, the jokes get a bit repetitive and don’t work as well. Chloë Grace Moretz, who stole the show as Hit-Girl in [i]Kick-Ass[/i] mostly just take up space, here. Her character should’ve been much more important or absent all together. Like most family movies the adults are only there to show that they do exist in this universe of little heroes and villains. It’s not the greatest kiddie flick you’ll ever see but it’s enjoyable.

The Opposite View: Ty Burr, Boston Globe

What the Internet Says: 6.1/10 on imdb.com (8/24/10), 53% on rottentomatoes.com, 56/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 6.5/10

Kick-Ass

Directed by Jane Goldman and Matthew Vaughn.
2010. Rated R, 117 minutes.
Aaron Johnson
Christopher Mintz-Plasse
Mark Strong
Chloë Grace Moretz
Nicolas Cage
Omari Hardwick
Michael Rispoli
Clark Duke
Garrett M. Brown
Dexter Fletcher

Like a lot of boys, Dave (Johnson) wonders what it would be like to be a superhero. He even carries the fantasy one step further and tries to act it out in real life. He gets his hands on a green wetsuit, names himself Kick-Ass and takes to the streets looking like a jade ninja. From there ensues a wild ride full of perfectly just over the top violence and fueled by an absolutely wicked sense of humor. It’s based on the graphic novel of the same name.

This isn’t Batman Begins so there’s no real training for superhero. Things don’t go smoothly. They go about as good as if you yourself decided to don tights and become a crimefighter. Actually, they go better because he doesn’t wind up dead within the first few minutes. Despite becoming a media sensation, he’s not a very good superhero.

Closer to the real deal, but more homicidal than most, we learn, is Hit-Girl (Moretz), a pint-sized killing machine and her father Big Daddy (Cage). Like everyone else who’s watched this movie I have high praise for Hit-Girl. She totally steals the show. We need more Hit-Girl. However, I’ve not seen anyone give Nicolas Cage his just due. I get that there’s a lot of Cage hatred out there. He’s done a lot of dreadful movies. I also understand that most of KA’s audience is too young to remember what Cage is making fun of. His parody of Adam West’s version of Batman is just dead-on and completely hilarious. Well, it’s hilarious if you have the old TV series as a reference point. If so, you’ll recognize everything he does and might laugh yourself to tears.

This brings me to my next point. KA isn’t just an action-comedy. It’s a brilliant spoof of all things superhero. It’s simultaneously reverential and irreverent. It lovingly skewers the genres of literature, television and cinema that birthed it, holding their feet to the fire even as it gives them a hug. Comic book fans will notice the subtleties that make KA special. For instance, notice the unspoken joke of our hero wearing glasses in his regular life but not when dressed as his alter-ego. What makes it great is that even if you miss those little touches you can still have a great time watching it. This is because the best spoofs use the genre they’re spoofing for inspiration, making fun of that genre’s absurdities while also working within its confines and stand alone as narratives.

In those dreadful “____ Movie” (Scary, Date, Dance, etc) flicks there appears to be no love for whatever they’re trying to parody. It’s all mean-spirited and void of creativity. They merely reenact a scene from some other movie and add something gross to it. When they’re over, you can’t really remember the story it’s trying to tell. Here, you needn’t have seen any specific movie to get most of the jokes. You only have to be familiar with a certain type of movie. This is why Young Frankenstein works for people who’ve never actually seen the original Frankenstein or Scream for people who aren’t necessarily fans of slasher movies. Kick-Ass is one of the best spoofs.

The Opposite View: Stephen Himes, Film Snobs

What the Internet Says: 8.1/10 on imdb.com (#183 all time as of 8/20/10), 76% on rottentomatoes.com, 66/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 10/10

Bolt

Bolt

2008. Rated PG, 96 minutes.

Directors: Byron Howard, Chris Williams. Starring John Travolta, Miley Cyrus, Susie Essman, Mark Walton, Malcolm McDowell, James Lipton, Chloe Grace Moretz.

Plot: Bolt (Travolta) is a dog who stars in his own TV show. He believes that he has superpowers and that the amazing feats he performs are real. Bolt unwittingly gets out into the real world in an attempt to rescue "his person" Penny (Cyrus), whom he believes has been kidnapped by their arch-enemy, The Green-Eyed Man.

The Good: It's a fish-out-of-water tale mixed with a road movie and both aspects work well. The dialogue is sharp and funny. Unlike a lot of Disney movies, it's not afraid to give us a bittersweet ending. Perhaps most importantly for a film like Bolt, we get fun action scenes and intoxicating visuals. Oh, and the pigeons are hilarious.

The Bad: Even though it's barely over an hour-and-a-half, it drags a bit in places. That's partly due to our hero having to literally travel across the country. The movie could've gotten more mileage out of Penny by checking on her more often to see how she's handling the situation, but that's nitpicking.

The Ugly: The way the cats on the studio lot pick with Bolt.

Recommendation: 2008 is the strongest year for animated movies I can remember. That said, Bolt is one of the better entries.

The Opposite View: Lou Lemenick, New York Post

What the Internet Says: 7.5/10 on imdb.com (4/3/09), 88% on rottentomatoes.com, 67/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 7.5/10