Datasets:

DDDDZQ

/

imdb_reviews

like 0

Honey is Sweet ***1/2

tt0322589

Honey Daniels, an aspiring dancer, runs a dancing school with emphasis on hip-hop. Her goal is to keep the children off the streets of Harlem.One of several reasons that this is a good film is that there is absolutely no violence.When Honey makes it big, she begins to neglect the children and then discovers that her producer wants sexual favors before her career and really jump. Refusing to yield to his demands makes him do the most despicable thing-have her fire the children he had previously agreed to letting perform.At this point, the film takes a Judy-Mickey approach. Have a benefit to raise funds for a dance school. Of course, this is successful as you can imagine.The dancing is great. The story-line of fulfillment and promise are both realized. Jessica Alba, as Honey, is wonderful in the role.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0322589/reviews-159

ur2542703

title: Honey is Sweet ***1/2 review: Honey Daniels, an aspiring dancer, runs a dancing school with emphasis on hip-hop. Her goal is to keep the children off the streets of Harlem.One of several reasons that this is a good film is that there is absolutely no violence.When Honey makes it big, she begins to neglect the children and then discovers that her producer wants sexual favors before her career and really jump. Refusing to yield to his demands makes him do the most despicable thing-have her fire the children he had previously agreed to letting perform.At this point, the film takes a Judy-Mickey approach. Have a benefit to raise funds for a dance school. Of course, this is successful as you can imagine.The dancing is great. The story-line of fulfillment and promise are both realized. Jessica Alba, as Honey, is wonderful in the role.

Hail Surprise!

tt0164334

Well, this morning I was looking for a movie to watch before I went to work and my mom recommended Along Came A Spider, we are both Morgan Freeman fans, so I figured to give the movie a shot, despite typical endings when you see a Morgan Freeman thriller. So the movie started off really strong, but ended up flaking as usual to a "big surprise" ending that well... wasn't that all surprising. I don't know, I guess I'm just too smart for my own good because I could just see everything that was going to happen, while it was an alright thriller, I wasn't that impressed with the way things peeled out.Well, Morgan Freeman who plays Alex, has just lost his partner in a under cover crime gone fatally wrong and he has retired, until that is, he gets a phone call from a mysterious man who has just kidnapped the senator's daughter and for some odd reason, doesn't want a ransom for the girl. The secret service lady, Jezzie, who was supposed to be guarding the little girl failed to protect her and well, things of course are not always as they seem.I just don't want to give any spoilers, for those who haven't seen those movies, you know the typical thrillers that are supposed to have a big surprise ending? But any who, it's an average thriller at least in my opinion, the acting wasn't bad or anything, I guess just for a while, you see one thriller, you've seen them all, right? But Morgan does still rock, I will never deny his credit, therefore I will be kind over all and say for the rating.5/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0164334/reviews-306

ur1293485

title: Hail Surprise! review: Well, this morning I was looking for a movie to watch before I went to work and my mom recommended Along Came A Spider, we are both Morgan Freeman fans, so I figured to give the movie a shot, despite typical endings when you see a Morgan Freeman thriller. So the movie started off really strong, but ended up flaking as usual to a "big surprise" ending that well... wasn't that all surprising. I don't know, I guess I'm just too smart for my own good because I could just see everything that was going to happen, while it was an alright thriller, I wasn't that impressed with the way things peeled out.Well, Morgan Freeman who plays Alex, has just lost his partner in a under cover crime gone fatally wrong and he has retired, until that is, he gets a phone call from a mysterious man who has just kidnapped the senator's daughter and for some odd reason, doesn't want a ransom for the girl. The secret service lady, Jezzie, who was supposed to be guarding the little girl failed to protect her and well, things of course are not always as they seem.I just don't want to give any spoilers, for those who haven't seen those movies, you know the typical thrillers that are supposed to have a big surprise ending? But any who, it's an average thriller at least in my opinion, the acting wasn't bad or anything, I guess just for a while, you see one thriller, you've seen them all, right? But Morgan does still rock, I will never deny his credit, therefore I will be kind over all and say for the rating.5/10

Along came a spider in my opinion is average at best.

tt0164334

A congressman's daughter under Secret Service protection is kidnapped from a private school by an insider who calls Det. Alex Cross, sucking him into the case even though he's recovering from the loss of his partner. Detective/psychologist Alex Cross loses his partner in an out of control 'bust.' He stops working and cannot forgive himself. He is drawn back to work reluctantly when a senator's daughter is kidnapped and the kidnapper seems to want to deal with Alex personally. Roger Ebert wrote "A few loopholes I can forgive. But when a plot is riddled with them, crippled by them, made implausible by them, as in "Along Came a Spider," I get distracted. I'm wondering, since Dr. Alex Cross is so brilliant, how come he doesn't notice yawning logical holes in the very fabric of the story he's occupying? Dr. Cross (Morgan Freeman) is a District of Columbia police detective, a famous forensic psychologist whose textbook is quoted by other cops. As the movie opens, he loses his partner in one of those scenes where you're thinking, gee, I didn't know the police had that kind of technology. A woman cop has a small camera concealed on her being, which takes a TV signal of the killer who is driving a car and relays it to Cross in a helicopter, causing us to wonder if there is a way to arrest this guy at less taxpayer expense." Along came a spider in my opinion is average at best.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0164334/reviews-349

ur26897720

title: Along came a spider in my opinion is average at best. review: A congressman's daughter under Secret Service protection is kidnapped from a private school by an insider who calls Det. Alex Cross, sucking him into the case even though he's recovering from the loss of his partner. Detective/psychologist Alex Cross loses his partner in an out of control 'bust.' He stops working and cannot forgive himself. He is drawn back to work reluctantly when a senator's daughter is kidnapped and the kidnapper seems to want to deal with Alex personally. Roger Ebert wrote "A few loopholes I can forgive. But when a plot is riddled with them, crippled by them, made implausible by them, as in "Along Came a Spider," I get distracted. I'm wondering, since Dr. Alex Cross is so brilliant, how come he doesn't notice yawning logical holes in the very fabric of the story he's occupying? Dr. Cross (Morgan Freeman) is a District of Columbia police detective, a famous forensic psychologist whose textbook is quoted by other cops. As the movie opens, he loses his partner in one of those scenes where you're thinking, gee, I didn't know the police had that kind of technology. A woman cop has a small camera concealed on her being, which takes a TV signal of the killer who is driving a car and relays it to Cross in a helicopter, causing us to wonder if there is a way to arrest this guy at less taxpayer expense." Along came a spider in my opinion is average at best.

Simple, straight-forward kidnapping thriller.

tt0164334

This is a sequel to Kiss the Girls, once again starring Morgan Freeman as detective/psychologist Alex Cross, who this time loses his partner while on the case and cannot forgive himself of the incident. When a congressman's daughter is kidnapped, he is back on the workforce and sees that the kidnapper has a personal vendetta with him.There is some mystery and a little kick-butt action in this film that will surely keep the audience at least mildly entertained. The story is straightforward and simple, but provides for a good conventional thriller. Freeman is intelligent, thoughtful and committed in his role as Cross and Monica Potter is an attractive and unpredictable FBI agent, determined to help Cross nab the kidnapper.With limited action and tension, I have, however, seen more exciting thrillers than this. However, it's still worth the watch.Grade B-

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0164334/reviews-341

ur0437174

title: Simple, straight-forward kidnapping thriller. review: This is a sequel to Kiss the Girls, once again starring Morgan Freeman as detective/psychologist Alex Cross, who this time loses his partner while on the case and cannot forgive himself of the incident. When a congressman's daughter is kidnapped, he is back on the workforce and sees that the kidnapper has a personal vendetta with him.There is some mystery and a little kick-butt action in this film that will surely keep the audience at least mildly entertained. The story is straightforward and simple, but provides for a good conventional thriller. Freeman is intelligent, thoughtful and committed in his role as Cross and Monica Potter is an attractive and unpredictable FBI agent, determined to help Cross nab the kidnapper.With limited action and tension, I have, however, seen more exciting thrillers than this. However, it's still worth the watch.Grade B-

The archetypes, the twists, the filming--everything is standard fare, passably well done, but that's all

tt0164334

Along Came a Spider (2001)Well, Morgan Freeman is pretty dependable, and he keeps this movie going. Otherwise the use and re-use of tired plot devices and general crime clichés is too much. And some of the acting is pretty marginal, too, making for rough sledding.The essence is a kidnapping with ransom in play, and with the common addition that the criminal wants a particular cop to do the case. (For prestige.) So Freeman takes the case. The actual crime is clever and highly improbable (the criminal needed to be in disguise for 2 years straight before the crime--2 years!). And then the series of twists begins, with people who are not suspects suddenly (very suddenly) in the middle of it all.Of course these things all have their interest, so even as you watch knowing it could be better you're curious who did what and how. It makes sense, too, whatever the unlikelihood. Expect scene after scene to depend on Freeman's steady hand to keep it afloat.Director Lee Tamahori has an up and down career, and he's no stranger to mediocre productions, and so this is right up his alley ("The Devil's Double" is the more interesting, and the most recent). The most praised by far is the one dealing with his own New Zealand issues, "Once Were Warriors, so that might be a place to go instead of this. If you, like me, never mind a good Morgan Freeman detective movie (there are lots of them), then you might get along with this just fine--with expectations in line with reality.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0164334/reviews-335

ur20961309

title: The archetypes, the twists, the filming--everything is standard fare, passably well done, but that's all review: Along Came a Spider (2001)Well, Morgan Freeman is pretty dependable, and he keeps this movie going. Otherwise the use and re-use of tired plot devices and general crime clichés is too much. And some of the acting is pretty marginal, too, making for rough sledding.The essence is a kidnapping with ransom in play, and with the common addition that the criminal wants a particular cop to do the case. (For prestige.) So Freeman takes the case. The actual crime is clever and highly improbable (the criminal needed to be in disguise for 2 years straight before the crime--2 years!). And then the series of twists begins, with people who are not suspects suddenly (very suddenly) in the middle of it all.Of course these things all have their interest, so even as you watch knowing it could be better you're curious who did what and how. It makes sense, too, whatever the unlikelihood. Expect scene after scene to depend on Freeman's steady hand to keep it afloat.Director Lee Tamahori has an up and down career, and he's no stranger to mediocre productions, and so this is right up his alley ("The Devil's Double" is the more interesting, and the most recent). The most praised by far is the one dealing with his own New Zealand issues, "Once Were Warriors, so that might be a place to go instead of this. If you, like me, never mind a good Morgan Freeman detective movie (there are lots of them), then you might get along with this just fine--with expectations in line with reality.

Holy

tt0164334

I have one big question, why did the kidnapper leave clues to his whereabouts in the beginning of the movie then totally forget about that theme for the rest of the movie. This movie lacked coherence and was full of plot holes. Morgan Freeman was, as usual, good but was saddled with a poor script. The rest of the cast were forgettable two dimensional caricatures. Typically situations were resolved by blowing big bloody holes in people with the ever present guns. The only real suspense was how and when the bad guys were going to be shot. The movie didn't disappoint since many people were killed. Gun play was used again as a substitute for decent writing. The script was also a victim. It was shot full of holes.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0164334/reviews-160

ur0608898

title: Holy review: I have one big question, why did the kidnapper leave clues to his whereabouts in the beginning of the movie then totally forget about that theme for the rest of the movie. This movie lacked coherence and was full of plot holes. Morgan Freeman was, as usual, good but was saddled with a poor script. The rest of the cast were forgettable two dimensional caricatures. Typically situations were resolved by blowing big bloody holes in people with the ever present guns. The only real suspense was how and when the bad guys were going to be shot. The movie didn't disappoint since many people were killed. Gun play was used again as a substitute for decent writing. The script was also a victim. It was shot full of holes.

Crime and Mystery...

tt0164334

"Along Came a Spider" is a movie which has to do with a kidnapping of a girl who is a congressman's daughter from a private school by an insider teacher. This kidnapper calls Det. Alex Cross (Morgan Freeman) who is recovering from the loss of his partner, to solve this case.I liked this movie because of the plot and because this movie combines really well the mystery of a crime with the suspense for the solution of this case. I also liked it because is a subversive movie and because of the interpretations of Morgan Freeman who plays as Det. Alex Cross,Monica Potter who plays as Jezzie Flannigan and of the bad guy Michael Wincott who plays as Gary Soneji.Finally I have to tell you that the interpretation of the little one Mika Boorem's who plays as Megan Rose was really outstanding. I also believe that Lee Tamahori in the direction of this movie did a really great job.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0164334/reviews-339

ur33907744

title: Crime and Mystery... review: "Along Came a Spider" is a movie which has to do with a kidnapping of a girl who is a congressman's daughter from a private school by an insider teacher. This kidnapper calls Det. Alex Cross (Morgan Freeman) who is recovering from the loss of his partner, to solve this case.I liked this movie because of the plot and because this movie combines really well the mystery of a crime with the suspense for the solution of this case. I also liked it because is a subversive movie and because of the interpretations of Morgan Freeman who plays as Det. Alex Cross,Monica Potter who plays as Jezzie Flannigan and of the bad guy Michael Wincott who plays as Gary Soneji.Finally I have to tell you that the interpretation of the little one Mika Boorem's who plays as Megan Rose was really outstanding. I also believe that Lee Tamahori in the direction of this movie did a really great job.

Decent Thriller

tt0164334

Along Came A Spider is based on a novel by James Patterson, and has Morgan Freeman reprising his role as FBI psychologist Alex Cross. This is film is not as good as Kiss the Girls, and is not as dark, but it does fill a spot and is decent viewing.The basic plot of the film is Alex Cross is called out of retirement after a Senator's young daughter is kidnapped from her school under the noses of the Secret Service. The kidnapper picks Cross to be the main negotiator because he is damaged: he is suffering from grief and guilt after the death of his partner.The film is not the most well written, with some of the plot twists a bit unbelievable: but it does offer some gems like general politics and the politics within the Secret Service, the kidnap itself (the first 30 minutes are the best) and the general psychology of the characters. There is some good acting, Morgan Freeman can never give a bad performance, even in bad film. I thought the young actress playing Megan Rose (the kidnap victim), Mika Boorem, was very good and has promise, but I felt that the filmmakers could have shown more and play up the impact of being kidnapped. Michael Wincott and Monica Potter also offered decent performances. Lee Tamahori, the director, was really just a gun-for-hire director, but he still did solid job. He wasn't terrible but not spectacular. This was his last decent film because he ended up directing Die Another Day, XXX2: State of the Union and NextDecent enough film if it is on television.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0164334/reviews-318

ur17571044

title: Decent Thriller review: Along Came A Spider is based on a novel by James Patterson, and has Morgan Freeman reprising his role as FBI psychologist Alex Cross. This is film is not as good as Kiss the Girls, and is not as dark, but it does fill a spot and is decent viewing.The basic plot of the film is Alex Cross is called out of retirement after a Senator's young daughter is kidnapped from her school under the noses of the Secret Service. The kidnapper picks Cross to be the main negotiator because he is damaged: he is suffering from grief and guilt after the death of his partner.The film is not the most well written, with some of the plot twists a bit unbelievable: but it does offer some gems like general politics and the politics within the Secret Service, the kidnap itself (the first 30 minutes are the best) and the general psychology of the characters. There is some good acting, Morgan Freeman can never give a bad performance, even in bad film. I thought the young actress playing Megan Rose (the kidnap victim), Mika Boorem, was very good and has promise, but I felt that the filmmakers could have shown more and play up the impact of being kidnapped. Michael Wincott and Monica Potter also offered decent performances. Lee Tamahori, the director, was really just a gun-for-hire director, but he still did solid job. He wasn't terrible but not spectacular. This was his last decent film because he ended up directing Die Another Day, XXX2: State of the Union and NextDecent enough film if it is on television.

A simple but effective entertaining film

tt0164334

The film is rather simple but it works. And it works not because of the kidnapping of the child. Not because of the pathos that comes along with such a case all the time, every time. Not because of the failed attempt of the girl to escape. Not because of the child's father's over-reacting. It works because the plot is too simple to be accepted like that. A solitary man could not have planned and realized that plot in Washington DC, with the Russian security services looking after the son of the Ambassador and the secret service working there full time in that private school. Too much security in that school for such a kidnapping to have been done by only one person. Then there must have been accomplices and that's how the film works because we do not know who he or she or they is or are and we are looking out for the clues, for the punch line, for the final and supreme plotter. And that's just what it is all about, one plotter double-crossing the other or the others, or even maybe three tiers instead of just two, and maybe even four tiers, and we are double-crossed in a magnificent way just the very same way the profiling cop is double-crossed in a very standard way. The profiler is profiled by the criminal and then side-tracked because when you know the profile of the profiler the profiler becomes predictable and then inefficient, impotent. So that helps to take the medicine down indeed, even if the girl survives only because the criminals did not do one thing right, only one thing, one single and unique thing. It only takes one mistake for the best adventures to fail. Just find out which thing and who.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0164334/reviews-315

ur3836774

title: A simple but effective entertaining film review: The film is rather simple but it works. And it works not because of the kidnapping of the child. Not because of the pathos that comes along with such a case all the time, every time. Not because of the failed attempt of the girl to escape. Not because of the child's father's over-reacting. It works because the plot is too simple to be accepted like that. A solitary man could not have planned and realized that plot in Washington DC, with the Russian security services looking after the son of the Ambassador and the secret service working there full time in that private school. Too much security in that school for such a kidnapping to have been done by only one person. Then there must have been accomplices and that's how the film works because we do not know who he or she or they is or are and we are looking out for the clues, for the punch line, for the final and supreme plotter. And that's just what it is all about, one plotter double-crossing the other or the others, or even maybe three tiers instead of just two, and maybe even four tiers, and we are double-crossed in a magnificent way just the very same way the profiling cop is double-crossed in a very standard way. The profiler is profiled by the criminal and then side-tracked because when you know the profile of the profiler the profiler becomes predictable and then inefficient, impotent. So that helps to take the medicine down indeed, even if the girl survives only because the criminals did not do one thing right, only one thing, one single and unique thing. It only takes one mistake for the best adventures to fail. Just find out which thing and who.Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines

Intelligent Thriller

tt0164334

It was better than I expected. The film has many plots and twists and it takes you on a very intricate and intelligent kidnapping trip. I liked the soundtrack from Jerry Goldsmith and the good picture. Congratulations to the director Lee Tamahori for this good work that I missed very much in his last James Bond "Die Another Day". Morgan Freeman did as usual a perfect job as an agent. If you like thrillers don't miss it. If you want to see more kidnapping movies I highly recommend you "Ransom", "Don´t Say A Word" or "Trapped". I will add "Along Came a Spider" in my best of dvd collection. Too underrated votes on IMDd. My wife and me vote 7/10.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0164334/reviews-252

ur1634796

title: Intelligent Thriller review: It was better than I expected. The film has many plots and twists and it takes you on a very intricate and intelligent kidnapping trip. I liked the soundtrack from Jerry Goldsmith and the good picture. Congratulations to the director Lee Tamahori for this good work that I missed very much in his last James Bond "Die Another Day". Morgan Freeman did as usual a perfect job as an agent. If you like thrillers don't miss it. If you want to see more kidnapping movies I highly recommend you "Ransom", "Don´t Say A Word" or "Trapped". I will add "Along Came a Spider" in my best of dvd collection. Too underrated votes on IMDd. My wife and me vote 7/10.

Tight Thriller with Great Ending

tt0164334

I have not read the Patterson novel so can only speak for the film itself. The story concerns a profiler doctor/writer(Morgan Freeman) losing his partner in a wonderfully shot opening scene being brought into the abduction of a senator's daughter. What follows is a roller-coaster of twists and turns, lots of action, and some good solid acting. Technological advances, psychological profiling, even a bit of international importance are weaved throughout a very taut and tight thriller directed under the capable hands of Lee Tamahori. Freeman gives a wonderfully skilled performance as he is always like to do. He puts pieces together cognitively amidst a sea of clues and red herrings. Monica Potter plays his new partner(and she is lovely to boot)and gives a very nice turn in her somewhat complicated role. The end of the film, for me, was a complete surprise, and I found myself enjoying every minute of this fast-paced film. This is the kind of entertainment thats deserved of such an appellation. While not a great film, Along Came a Spider is an exciting, good film. Watch for Michael Moriarity and Penelope Anne Miller as the parents of the kidnapped child. Nice to see them in film every now and then.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0164334/reviews-322

ur0166205

title: Tight Thriller with Great Ending review: I have not read the Patterson novel so can only speak for the film itself. The story concerns a profiler doctor/writer(Morgan Freeman) losing his partner in a wonderfully shot opening scene being brought into the abduction of a senator's daughter. What follows is a roller-coaster of twists and turns, lots of action, and some good solid acting. Technological advances, psychological profiling, even a bit of international importance are weaved throughout a very taut and tight thriller directed under the capable hands of Lee Tamahori. Freeman gives a wonderfully skilled performance as he is always like to do. He puts pieces together cognitively amidst a sea of clues and red herrings. Monica Potter plays his new partner(and she is lovely to boot)and gives a very nice turn in her somewhat complicated role. The end of the film, for me, was a complete surprise, and I found myself enjoying every minute of this fast-paced film. This is the kind of entertainment thats deserved of such an appellation. While not a great film, Along Came a Spider is an exciting, good film. Watch for Michael Moriarity and Penelope Anne Miller as the parents of the kidnapped child. Nice to see them in film every now and then.

Or is it a Fly? A Secret Recipe?

tt0164334

Neither actually. The plot is given away in the trailer, but in case you missed that it's gone over meticulously in the first fifteen minutes. Psycho-kidnapper hatches devilish plot for perfect kidnap. Only the audience know who it is. Watch the poor detectives bumble along. After much yawning they get close, so scriptwriter kindly adds a bit more plot (a popular device in bad British thrillers of late - each "twist" gets more unbelievable than the last - they were ALL afterthoughts!)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0164334/reviews-122

ur0064493

title: Or is it a Fly? A Secret Recipe? review: Neither actually. The plot is given away in the trailer, but in case you missed that it's gone over meticulously in the first fifteen minutes. Psycho-kidnapper hatches devilish plot for perfect kidnap. Only the audience know who it is. Watch the poor detectives bumble along. After much yawning they get close, so scriptwriter kindly adds a bit more plot (a popular device in bad British thrillers of late - each "twist" gets more unbelievable than the last - they were ALL afterthoughts!)

The Story Just Isn't as Interesting or Thrilling as it's Predecessor,and there are a Ton of Plot Holes,

tt0164334

Along Came a Spider is a decent movie with a good storyline that has several plot holes but still contains plenty of enjoyable scenes and a good cast.The movie certainly isn't as good as the previous Alex Cross movie Kiss the Girls,it just wasn't as exciting and there wasn't really any mystery as to who the kidnapper and other criminals were,they made the audience aware of everything so there was never a scene where you would be shocked or surprised.Morgan Freeman still does a good performance,but he's definitely done much better and I think he knew himself that about 90% of this script was far fetched and basically ridiculous.After watching this you will definitely be asking yourself a lot of questions,you'll be wondering how one thing happened,how did this happen,etc, you will definitely be confused because the writers clearly didn't develop this story enough.Along Came a Spider has it moments,but it's mostly just a mediocre crime movie and unless you want to see every movie that stars Morgan Freeman,I wouldn't recommend this movie.Forensic psychologist Alex Cross,teams up with secret service agent Monica Potter to track down a psychotic kidnapper.Best Performance:Morgan Freeman Worst Performance:Dylan BakerIf you have any recommendations on films/TV series I should watch or review,or any questions to ask me,just tweet me @DillonTheHarris

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0164334/reviews-340

ur23055365

title: The Story Just Isn't as Interesting or Thrilling as it's Predecessor,and there are a Ton of Plot Holes, review: Along Came a Spider is a decent movie with a good storyline that has several plot holes but still contains plenty of enjoyable scenes and a good cast.The movie certainly isn't as good as the previous Alex Cross movie Kiss the Girls,it just wasn't as exciting and there wasn't really any mystery as to who the kidnapper and other criminals were,they made the audience aware of everything so there was never a scene where you would be shocked or surprised.Morgan Freeman still does a good performance,but he's definitely done much better and I think he knew himself that about 90% of this script was far fetched and basically ridiculous.After watching this you will definitely be asking yourself a lot of questions,you'll be wondering how one thing happened,how did this happen,etc, you will definitely be confused because the writers clearly didn't develop this story enough.Along Came a Spider has it moments,but it's mostly just a mediocre crime movie and unless you want to see every movie that stars Morgan Freeman,I wouldn't recommend this movie.Forensic psychologist Alex Cross,teams up with secret service agent Monica Potter to track down a psychotic kidnapper.Best Performance:Morgan Freeman Worst Performance:Dylan BakerIf you have any recommendations on films/TV series I should watch or review,or any questions to ask me,just tweet me @DillonTheHarris

Timeless

tt0097351

So Field of Dreams, pretty famous film over all, created one of the major quotes of movie history "If you build it, he will come". My boyfriend was shocked that out of all the movies I had seen, I've never watched Field of Dreams. So he gave me the movie and said that if I'm a true baseball fan that I would watch it, being a (disappointed) fan of the Chicago Cubs, I have to say that he was right. This is a movie that is about the love of baseball. What I enjoyed most about this story is that it felt like it was timeless, this is a movie that really doesn't age, I thought it was made in the 1990's, surprising to find out that it was made in the 1980's. The characters are so wonderful and charming, how could you not adore them and wish for Kevin Costner to succeed in making this baseball field? The love that was put into this movie shows and was a pleasure to watch.Ray Kinsella is a novice farmer who lives in rural Iowa with his wife, Annie, and their young daughter Karin. While walking through his cornfield, Ray hears a voice whisper, "If you build it, he will come", and sees a vision of a baseball field. Believing he is somehow being asked to build it, and fearing he is in danger of "turning into" his father, Ray strongly wishes to do so. Although skeptical, Annie is supportive. Watched by incredulous neighbors, Ray plows under his corn and builds the field. A year passes without incident. Ray and Annie are eventually forced to consider replacing the field with corn to stay financially solvent. At this point Karin spots a man on the ball field who Ray discovers is Shoeless Joe Jackson, a baseball player idolized by his father. Joe is thrilled to be able to play baseball again and asks to bring others with him to the field. He later returns with the seven other players banned in the 1919 Black Sox scandal, emerging from the corn by the outfield. With the help of others Ray sticks to his faith and believes that this field means something and do whatever he can to find out what this will do for his life.I'm really glad I gave Field of Dreams a chance, it's a delightful film. We have some powerhouse performances from Costner, Liotta and Jones. I'm surprised I didn't see this movie earlier, but better late than never. I think also visually this is one of the most memorable films in is simplicity, Ray Liotta and his teammates coming out of the field and going back in was so memorizing. Also just what it represented in possibly being Heaven or to be forever young and happy, it was wonderful. If you get the chance to see Field of Dreams, I highly recommend it. It's a lovely family film with terrific actors and a timeless story about the love of baseball and making your dreams come true. Not to mention the ultimate tear jerker ending, you'll have to trust me on this one.8/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097351/reviews-279

ur1293485

title: Timeless review: So Field of Dreams, pretty famous film over all, created one of the major quotes of movie history "If you build it, he will come". My boyfriend was shocked that out of all the movies I had seen, I've never watched Field of Dreams. So he gave me the movie and said that if I'm a true baseball fan that I would watch it, being a (disappointed) fan of the Chicago Cubs, I have to say that he was right. This is a movie that is about the love of baseball. What I enjoyed most about this story is that it felt like it was timeless, this is a movie that really doesn't age, I thought it was made in the 1990's, surprising to find out that it was made in the 1980's. The characters are so wonderful and charming, how could you not adore them and wish for Kevin Costner to succeed in making this baseball field? The love that was put into this movie shows and was a pleasure to watch.Ray Kinsella is a novice farmer who lives in rural Iowa with his wife, Annie, and their young daughter Karin. While walking through his cornfield, Ray hears a voice whisper, "If you build it, he will come", and sees a vision of a baseball field. Believing he is somehow being asked to build it, and fearing he is in danger of "turning into" his father, Ray strongly wishes to do so. Although skeptical, Annie is supportive. Watched by incredulous neighbors, Ray plows under his corn and builds the field. A year passes without incident. Ray and Annie are eventually forced to consider replacing the field with corn to stay financially solvent. At this point Karin spots a man on the ball field who Ray discovers is Shoeless Joe Jackson, a baseball player idolized by his father. Joe is thrilled to be able to play baseball again and asks to bring others with him to the field. He later returns with the seven other players banned in the 1919 Black Sox scandal, emerging from the corn by the outfield. With the help of others Ray sticks to his faith and believes that this field means something and do whatever he can to find out what this will do for his life.I'm really glad I gave Field of Dreams a chance, it's a delightful film. We have some powerhouse performances from Costner, Liotta and Jones. I'm surprised I didn't see this movie earlier, but better late than never. I think also visually this is one of the most memorable films in is simplicity, Ray Liotta and his teammates coming out of the field and going back in was so memorizing. Also just what it represented in possibly being Heaven or to be forever young and happy, it was wonderful. If you get the chance to see Field of Dreams, I highly recommend it. It's a lovely family film with terrific actors and a timeless story about the love of baseball and making your dreams come true. Not to mention the ultimate tear jerker ending, you'll have to trust me on this one.8/10

Americans Love Baseball, Even When the Players Are Dead

tt0097351

A surprise hit from 1989, and one of a few late 1980s movies that launched Kevin Costner into super-stardom for a period of time during the next decade.This magical realist fable finds Costner's farm owner building a baseball diamond in one of his fields as a place for him to commune with baseball players dead and gone. The film feeds off of Americans' nostalgic and sentimental attitudes about the sport, and it boasts a shamelessly manipulative ending custom made to wring tears from its audience, but damned if it doesn't work.Grade: A-

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097351/reviews-270

ur4532636

title: Americans Love Baseball, Even When the Players Are Dead review: A surprise hit from 1989, and one of a few late 1980s movies that launched Kevin Costner into super-stardom for a period of time during the next decade.This magical realist fable finds Costner's farm owner building a baseball diamond in one of his fields as a place for him to commune with baseball players dead and gone. The film feeds off of Americans' nostalgic and sentimental attitudes about the sport, and it boasts a shamelessly manipulative ending custom made to wring tears from its audience, but damned if it doesn't work.Grade: A-

"One Of Costner's Best!"

tt0097351

Kevin Costner, Amy Madigan, Ray Liotta, Timothy Busfield, Gaby Hoffmann, James Earl Jones, Frank Whaley, Dwier Brown and Burt Lancaster star in this 1989 drama based on the novel, "Shoeless Joe." Ray Kinsella (Costner) is an Iowa farmer who lives with his wife, Annie (Madigan) and young daughter, Karen (Hoffmann). Ray has a good life, but regrets not spending time during his childhood with his late father, John whom was a baseball player. One day out in his cornfield, Ray hears a voice telling him to build a baseball field. Ray thinks he's crazy at first, but realizes he has to do it to find the answers. Soon, he meets baseball legend, "Shoeless" Joe Jackson (Liotta) plus other past players discovering there's magic in the field and that it's a place where dreams can come true. Busfield plays Annie's brother, Mark who tries to help Ray save his farm from bankruptcy, Jones plays Terrence Mann, an author who used Ray's father's name in one of his books, Whaley plays young baseball player, Archie, Brown plays baseball player, John and the late, Lancaster plays former baseball player turned doctor, Archibald "Moonlight" Graham. I grew up watching this and always liked it. It's got a great cast & excellent score by James Horner as usual. I recommend this classic that's definitely one of Costner's best.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097351/reviews-308

ur6918917

title: "One Of Costner's Best!" review: Kevin Costner, Amy Madigan, Ray Liotta, Timothy Busfield, Gaby Hoffmann, James Earl Jones, Frank Whaley, Dwier Brown and Burt Lancaster star in this 1989 drama based on the novel, "Shoeless Joe." Ray Kinsella (Costner) is an Iowa farmer who lives with his wife, Annie (Madigan) and young daughter, Karen (Hoffmann). Ray has a good life, but regrets not spending time during his childhood with his late father, John whom was a baseball player. One day out in his cornfield, Ray hears a voice telling him to build a baseball field. Ray thinks he's crazy at first, but realizes he has to do it to find the answers. Soon, he meets baseball legend, "Shoeless" Joe Jackson (Liotta) plus other past players discovering there's magic in the field and that it's a place where dreams can come true. Busfield plays Annie's brother, Mark who tries to help Ray save his farm from bankruptcy, Jones plays Terrence Mann, an author who used Ray's father's name in one of his books, Whaley plays young baseball player, Archie, Brown plays baseball player, John and the late, Lancaster plays former baseball player turned doctor, Archibald "Moonlight" Graham. I grew up watching this and always liked it. It's got a great cast & excellent score by James Horner as usual. I recommend this classic that's definitely one of Costner's best.

second Kevin Costner baseball themed film

tt0097351

i found this fantasy/drama/baseball themed film starring Kevin Costner to be very enjoyable and moving.it was also very well acted all around.there are too many good performances to mention all,but Amy Madigan,Frank Whaley,and especially James Earl Jones were outstanding.i also liked Ray Liota.i just wished his character had a larger part to play.unfortunately,i hated Timothy Busfield's character.i just found him too loud,and mean.he didn't really belong in the move,just didn't fit in with the rest of the characters,and the quiet,serene tone of the story.there isn't really a lot of baseball played in the movie.baseball serves more as the theme for the movie rather than anything else.anyway,it's a moving,thought proving film.for me,Field of Dreams is an 8/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097351/reviews-285

ur11423174

title: second Kevin Costner baseball themed film review: i found this fantasy/drama/baseball themed film starring Kevin Costner to be very enjoyable and moving.it was also very well acted all around.there are too many good performances to mention all,but Amy Madigan,Frank Whaley,and especially James Earl Jones were outstanding.i also liked Ray Liota.i just wished his character had a larger part to play.unfortunately,i hated Timothy Busfield's character.i just found him too loud,and mean.he didn't really belong in the move,just didn't fit in with the rest of the characters,and the quiet,serene tone of the story.there isn't really a lot of baseball played in the movie.baseball serves more as the theme for the movie rather than anything else.anyway,it's a moving,thought proving film.for me,Field of Dreams is an 8/10

Bit off more than it could chew

tt0097351

Field of Dreams is a film about baseball that has nothing to say about the sport and a film about the supernatural that has nothing new to add to that genre either. Ultimately, there is nothing here other than a lot of sentimentality and a talented cast. Unfortunately, those two things do not always make a great movie especially with little help from any other category. The attraction factor to this film is obvious; a heartwarming story about baseball with Kevin Costner. Unfortunately, that is about it in this one-note creation that really is nothing but a bunch of clichés on top of an ending that makes you laugh instead of cry. It's unintentional laughter I tell you.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097351/reviews-305

ur26550510

title: Bit off more than it could chew review: Field of Dreams is a film about baseball that has nothing to say about the sport and a film about the supernatural that has nothing new to add to that genre either. Ultimately, there is nothing here other than a lot of sentimentality and a talented cast. Unfortunately, those two things do not always make a great movie especially with little help from any other category. The attraction factor to this film is obvious; a heartwarming story about baseball with Kevin Costner. Unfortunately, that is about it in this one-note creation that really is nothing but a bunch of clichés on top of an ending that makes you laugh instead of cry. It's unintentional laughter I tell you.

This is where it's at!

tt0097351

Where do I begin with a film as great as this? Someone once told me that there are two types of people, those who love Field of Dreams and those who don't. Although I thought this was amusing at first, I later realized that this is truly not a movie for a middle-ground rating. You either get it and are touched or you wonder to yourself why someone would make a movie about baseball players in a cornfield in Iowa. When you can watch a movie over and over and find something new to appreciate about it each time, you know you've discovered something special. This is simply a different type of sports movie, one that can take you where no other can and return you yearning for more.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097351/reviews-265

ur19438380

title: This is where it's at! review: Where do I begin with a film as great as this? Someone once told me that there are two types of people, those who love Field of Dreams and those who don't. Although I thought this was amusing at first, I later realized that this is truly not a movie for a middle-ground rating. You either get it and are touched or you wonder to yourself why someone would make a movie about baseball players in a cornfield in Iowa. When you can watch a movie over and over and find something new to appreciate about it each time, you know you've discovered something special. This is simply a different type of sports movie, one that can take you where no other can and return you yearning for more.

This story is a diamond

tt0097351

"Field of Dreams" works on faith, and with the help of a director who can evoke nostalgia, paint with emotions, generate magic from visuals, expressions, and single lines. The film shows a different scenario, but it is the story of believing in something regardless of the logic behind the dream, the yearning, the impulse. Here is a man who "hears voices", and through the power of film, we are in the position to see that it's not madness. It's a more powerful force, and the mystery is trying to find out where this is all going.Ray Kinsella (Costner) is asked to build a baseball field, to clear his corn fields and wait for some type of result, and it must be a leap of faith. Soon, his family, friends, and the community start wondering about his sanity. Eventually, the field is up, and a stream of visitors arrive, but as it usually happens in this type of movies. Only a selected few can see these apparitions, and there is more at the heart of Kinsella's following directions. The "voice" continues to throw hints, and the mystery deepens.There are many seasoned actors here, and each plays his/her part perfectly. Madigan is powerful as the supporting spouse, simple and complex at the same time. She struggles to find how far she must go, and she's not afraid to voice her concerns and/or her emotions. In later scenes we see Ray Liotta playing a famous baseball figure with regrets of his own, and it's his entrance that takes this film into a genre that is rarely successful in the big screen, but it works very well here. As the messages continue, we visit other figures in history, past and present, and sentimentality mixes in with skepticism, with mystery, as the quest to the ultimate discovery goes on, we learn more about Kinsella and ourselves.Some scenes in "Field of Dreams" are amazing, as the title indicates, it's all about the dreams of many, and since those are people, they might even somehow mirror some of our hopes, too. Metaphors abound here as family members have an opportunity to revisit their relationships and see what really matters while we are on this planet. This is a rare film, and it barely misses achieving perfection, but it comes close because of the fine talent involved. It never deteriorates into a cheap soap opera or a flight of fancy. It treats the subject matter with respect and creativity.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097351/reviews-311

ur2115026

title: This story is a diamond review: "Field of Dreams" works on faith, and with the help of a director who can evoke nostalgia, paint with emotions, generate magic from visuals, expressions, and single lines. The film shows a different scenario, but it is the story of believing in something regardless of the logic behind the dream, the yearning, the impulse. Here is a man who "hears voices", and through the power of film, we are in the position to see that it's not madness. It's a more powerful force, and the mystery is trying to find out where this is all going.Ray Kinsella (Costner) is asked to build a baseball field, to clear his corn fields and wait for some type of result, and it must be a leap of faith. Soon, his family, friends, and the community start wondering about his sanity. Eventually, the field is up, and a stream of visitors arrive, but as it usually happens in this type of movies. Only a selected few can see these apparitions, and there is more at the heart of Kinsella's following directions. The "voice" continues to throw hints, and the mystery deepens.There are many seasoned actors here, and each plays his/her part perfectly. Madigan is powerful as the supporting spouse, simple and complex at the same time. She struggles to find how far she must go, and she's not afraid to voice her concerns and/or her emotions. In later scenes we see Ray Liotta playing a famous baseball figure with regrets of his own, and it's his entrance that takes this film into a genre that is rarely successful in the big screen, but it works very well here. As the messages continue, we visit other figures in history, past and present, and sentimentality mixes in with skepticism, with mystery, as the quest to the ultimate discovery goes on, we learn more about Kinsella and ourselves.Some scenes in "Field of Dreams" are amazing, as the title indicates, it's all about the dreams of many, and since those are people, they might even somehow mirror some of our hopes, too. Metaphors abound here as family members have an opportunity to revisit their relationships and see what really matters while we are on this planet. This is a rare film, and it barely misses achieving perfection, but it comes close because of the fine talent involved. It never deteriorates into a cheap soap opera or a flight of fancy. It treats the subject matter with respect and creativity.

If you see this movie, it will suck.

tt0097351

This movie is actually pretty insulting to Iowa people. The guy hears voices and then he builds a baseball field in his corn field. He loses all his money but then he keeps losing money after he hears more voices that tell him irrelevant things. Not one voice told him to waste his delicious corn or go to Boston but he did. If he was hearing voices, he should have went to see a psychologist and even if he couldn't afford it, he should have done it before he built the field.Maybe he wouldn't have lost so much money. That is what makes the movie so dreadful. He should have vanished into that corn before the movie began. The only thing good about this movie was the acting. Other than that, the ears of corn didn't hear anything else good about it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097351/reviews-232

ur10123981

title: If you see this movie, it will suck. review: This movie is actually pretty insulting to Iowa people. The guy hears voices and then he builds a baseball field in his corn field. He loses all his money but then he keeps losing money after he hears more voices that tell him irrelevant things. Not one voice told him to waste his delicious corn or go to Boston but he did. If he was hearing voices, he should have went to see a psychologist and even if he couldn't afford it, he should have done it before he built the field.Maybe he wouldn't have lost so much money. That is what makes the movie so dreadful. He should have vanished into that corn before the movie began. The only thing good about this movie was the acting. Other than that, the ears of corn didn't hear anything else good about it.

The field of acting legends urns into a fabulous spectacle

tt0097351

In this film that epitomizes the American love for baseball, Ray Kinsella, a struggling Iowa farmer (Kevin Costner), obeys a mysterious voice in his cornfield that tells him to replace part of his crop with a baseball diamond, resulting in the magical meeting of baseball heroes from the past, including Shoeless Joe Jackson, and the seven other Chicago White Sox players who were suspended for purposefully losing the 1919 World Series. Even after building the diamond, Ray continues to hear voices, and seeks the help of a hermit-like author in sorting out the mystery, which allows the confrontation of ghosts of other sorts. Field Of Dreams 10/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097351/reviews-282

ur17119745

title: The field of acting legends urns into a fabulous spectacle review: In this film that epitomizes the American love for baseball, Ray Kinsella, a struggling Iowa farmer (Kevin Costner), obeys a mysterious voice in his cornfield that tells him to replace part of his crop with a baseball diamond, resulting in the magical meeting of baseball heroes from the past, including Shoeless Joe Jackson, and the seven other Chicago White Sox players who were suspended for purposefully losing the 1919 World Series. Even after building the diamond, Ray continues to hear voices, and seeks the help of a hermit-like author in sorting out the mystery, which allows the confrontation of ghosts of other sorts. Field Of Dreams 10/10

not your usual baseball movie

tt0097351

This film could so easily have become 'Field of Corn'; the fact that it didn't is a tribute to the talents of director Phil Alden Robinson, and cast members Kevin Costner (as the guy who builds a baseball field and calls up Shoeless Joe, a player from the past, and eventually comes to terms with his own family troubles at the same time), James Earl Jones (as tetchy writer Terence Mann), and Burt Lancaster (as the jovial gentleman Dr Grahame).What we have is a plot which, ok, is a bit hard to swallow - especially once a whole ghostly baseball match is created with two complete teams - but it is so well-written you don't quibble with the realities of the Kinsella's situation. It is a fairly touching film without being crushed under the sentimentality that could have so easily crept in.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097351/reviews-171

ur0137908

title: not your usual baseball movie review: This film could so easily have become 'Field of Corn'; the fact that it didn't is a tribute to the talents of director Phil Alden Robinson, and cast members Kevin Costner (as the guy who builds a baseball field and calls up Shoeless Joe, a player from the past, and eventually comes to terms with his own family troubles at the same time), James Earl Jones (as tetchy writer Terence Mann), and Burt Lancaster (as the jovial gentleman Dr Grahame).What we have is a plot which, ok, is a bit hard to swallow - especially once a whole ghostly baseball match is created with two complete teams - but it is so well-written you don't quibble with the realities of the Kinsella's situation. It is a fairly touching film without being crushed under the sentimentality that could have so easily crept in.

I love this movie! 10/10

tt0097351

I first saw "Field of Dreams" once when I was a about four or five years old and never saw it again. Then last year, "Dreams" was being shown on Encore and I was able to grab hold of the last 20 of the movie. So I rented it and watched it and loved it. Now, just today I watched it again, and the feeling is the same: I love this movie!Kevin Costner stars as Ray Kinsella, an Iowa corn farmer who one day hears a spiritual request to build a baseball field in his corn crop. He is supported by his wife, Annie (Amy Madigan) and young daughter, Karin (Gaby Hoffman). So Ray gets to work. Not long goes by when the great "Shoeless" Joe Jackson (Ray Liotta), as well as several other of professional baseball's greats begin appearing on the field. Ray is also joined by a disillusioned and embittered former writer, Terrance Mann (James Earl Jones).This is a great film that is timeless. Even 13 years after its release, this movie is still batting a thousand, touching the lives of people who view it. I was really touched by Costner's performance. He had a sort of falling out with his father when he was a kid, and never had a chance to reconcile. It kind of reminds me of my relationship with my father. Though, the circumstances are no where near as severe as Costner's (my father is still alive and I still talk to him), but it's still generally affecting. The appeal of this movie is that it can be watched over and over. I'm not big on baseball, but it's clear of the effect that baseball has on some people. It's America's pasttime and for some, a religion. There are so many greats who played the game, that for every ball hit or thrown, their spirit continues living on in the game. Though I guess, that's one of the movie's biggest attributes: That baseball greats like Joe Jackson and Archibald Graham would have a chance to play again, even after their deaths.I love this movie and it's definitely in my top 50. Watch and enjoy!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097351/reviews-148

ur0892646

title: I love this movie! 10/10 review: I first saw "Field of Dreams" once when I was a about four or five years old and never saw it again. Then last year, "Dreams" was being shown on Encore and I was able to grab hold of the last 20 of the movie. So I rented it and watched it and loved it. Now, just today I watched it again, and the feeling is the same: I love this movie!Kevin Costner stars as Ray Kinsella, an Iowa corn farmer who one day hears a spiritual request to build a baseball field in his corn crop. He is supported by his wife, Annie (Amy Madigan) and young daughter, Karin (Gaby Hoffman). So Ray gets to work. Not long goes by when the great "Shoeless" Joe Jackson (Ray Liotta), as well as several other of professional baseball's greats begin appearing on the field. Ray is also joined by a disillusioned and embittered former writer, Terrance Mann (James Earl Jones).This is a great film that is timeless. Even 13 years after its release, this movie is still batting a thousand, touching the lives of people who view it. I was really touched by Costner's performance. He had a sort of falling out with his father when he was a kid, and never had a chance to reconcile. It kind of reminds me of my relationship with my father. Though, the circumstances are no where near as severe as Costner's (my father is still alive and I still talk to him), but it's still generally affecting. The appeal of this movie is that it can be watched over and over. I'm not big on baseball, but it's clear of the effect that baseball has on some people. It's America's pasttime and for some, a religion. There are so many greats who played the game, that for every ball hit or thrown, their spirit continues living on in the game. Though I guess, that's one of the movie's biggest attributes: That baseball greats like Joe Jackson and Archibald Graham would have a chance to play again, even after their deaths.I love this movie and it's definitely in my top 50. Watch and enjoy!

Well-fielded

tt0097351

I've always been a sucker for fantasy films and even if my knowledge of American baseball only comes from John Simons' wonderful HBO documentary series and occasional movies like "Eight Men Out" and "The Natural", that was enough to ground me in the background of this very entertaining film.Kevin Costner is the 60's inspired smalltown farmer, happily married to his sassy, hippy wife and baseball-loving daughter seeking redemption for breaking with his dad while growing up. When a mysterious voice commands him to build a baseball field, wonderful, supernatural events occur taking in along the way a reclusive, one-time radical writer and civil-rights campaigner (the kernel of whom is obviously based on J.D. Salinger) and a veteran doctor who as a young baseball rookie, never got his chance to play in the big league.All of them reach out to the "eight men out" from history and in different ways find redemption in an admittedly fantastical but still very enjoyable movie. Costner is excellent as the initially unbelieving Ray while Amy Madigan is a good foil as his kooky but clued-up wife, her early defence of freedom-of-speech at a school-parents meeting amply, if obviously highlighting her liberal credentials as well as providing the link to James Earl Jones initially tetchy Terence Mann / Salinger character who quickly gets with the dream.He and Ray later pick up Burt Lancaster's Doc Graham along the way to complete the set of pilgrims. Both Jones and Lancaster add gravitas to the flyaway plot while Ray Liotta gives a subtle portrayal of the sad figure of baseball legend Shoeless Joe Jackson, whose part in the original Chicago Whitesix fix of 1919 has long been disputed. I'm not sure the film needed the back-story of Ray and his wife facing repossession of their house and farm at the hands of her brother, but otherwise this cleverly plotted and interwoven film, beautifully shot in the golden light of Iowa stands as a modern, feel-good classic, regardless I would imagine, of the viewer's knowledge of the history of baseball.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097351/reviews-332

ur15298231

title: Well-fielded review: I've always been a sucker for fantasy films and even if my knowledge of American baseball only comes from John Simons' wonderful HBO documentary series and occasional movies like "Eight Men Out" and "The Natural", that was enough to ground me in the background of this very entertaining film.Kevin Costner is the 60's inspired smalltown farmer, happily married to his sassy, hippy wife and baseball-loving daughter seeking redemption for breaking with his dad while growing up. When a mysterious voice commands him to build a baseball field, wonderful, supernatural events occur taking in along the way a reclusive, one-time radical writer and civil-rights campaigner (the kernel of whom is obviously based on J.D. Salinger) and a veteran doctor who as a young baseball rookie, never got his chance to play in the big league.All of them reach out to the "eight men out" from history and in different ways find redemption in an admittedly fantastical but still very enjoyable movie. Costner is excellent as the initially unbelieving Ray while Amy Madigan is a good foil as his kooky but clued-up wife, her early defence of freedom-of-speech at a school-parents meeting amply, if obviously highlighting her liberal credentials as well as providing the link to James Earl Jones initially tetchy Terence Mann / Salinger character who quickly gets with the dream.He and Ray later pick up Burt Lancaster's Doc Graham along the way to complete the set of pilgrims. Both Jones and Lancaster add gravitas to the flyaway plot while Ray Liotta gives a subtle portrayal of the sad figure of baseball legend Shoeless Joe Jackson, whose part in the original Chicago Whitesix fix of 1919 has long been disputed. I'm not sure the film needed the back-story of Ray and his wife facing repossession of their house and farm at the hands of her brother, but otherwise this cleverly plotted and interwoven film, beautifully shot in the golden light of Iowa stands as a modern, feel-good classic, regardless I would imagine, of the viewer's knowledge of the history of baseball.

Well, I liked it.

tt0097351

I know a lot of people who absolutely despise this movie. I've heard people compare it to Frank Capra and "Forrest Gump" in derogatory ways. When it was made known that it is George W. Bush's favorite movie of all-time, it only solidified the theory that it's for fantastical Republicans who like their entertainment peachy-clean and schmaltzy.I finally saw it on AMC about a week ago and I enjoyed it. I actually really liked it, and I'm not a big fan of baseball (or sports) in general.Kevin Costner plays a farmer in Iowa who begins to hear voices and witnesses eerie images in his cornfields. He is convinced that the ghosts of baseball players are telling him to construct a playing field in his cornfields...so he risks it all - his wife, his job, his sanity - and tries to hunt down a guy named Terence Mann (James Earl Jones in one of his best roles), whom he thinks can help him with his mission of faith.This movie is very lightweight and inspirational and "clean." It carries a none-too-subtle message of faith against reason - for that reason alone I think many Christians probably enjoy it, and that's why it has become known as a conservative film. It doesn't help, as I said before, that it's Bush's favorite film and Costner is a Republican.Political links aside, I'm a rather pessimistic guy but I still found the story strange, different and entertaining. I enjoyed it. I'm not a big fan of Costner's but in spite of his presence the movie is still amusing and James Earl Jones gives a great performance as a rusty, bitter old man.Yes, "Field of Dreams" is a "nice" movie and certainly is a feel-good film. But once in a while I think we all need a bit of refreshment.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097351/reviews-210

ur1173088

title: Well, I liked it. review: I know a lot of people who absolutely despise this movie. I've heard people compare it to Frank Capra and "Forrest Gump" in derogatory ways. When it was made known that it is George W. Bush's favorite movie of all-time, it only solidified the theory that it's for fantastical Republicans who like their entertainment peachy-clean and schmaltzy.I finally saw it on AMC about a week ago and I enjoyed it. I actually really liked it, and I'm not a big fan of baseball (or sports) in general.Kevin Costner plays a farmer in Iowa who begins to hear voices and witnesses eerie images in his cornfields. He is convinced that the ghosts of baseball players are telling him to construct a playing field in his cornfields...so he risks it all - his wife, his job, his sanity - and tries to hunt down a guy named Terence Mann (James Earl Jones in one of his best roles), whom he thinks can help him with his mission of faith.This movie is very lightweight and inspirational and "clean." It carries a none-too-subtle message of faith against reason - for that reason alone I think many Christians probably enjoy it, and that's why it has become known as a conservative film. It doesn't help, as I said before, that it's Bush's favorite film and Costner is a Republican.Political links aside, I'm a rather pessimistic guy but I still found the story strange, different and entertaining. I enjoyed it. I'm not a big fan of Costner's but in spite of his presence the movie is still amusing and James Earl Jones gives a great performance as a rusty, bitter old man.Yes, "Field of Dreams" is a "nice" movie and certainly is a feel-good film. But once in a while I think we all need a bit of refreshment.

Dreams Can Come True, You Just Gotta Work For It.

tt0097351

Put Kevin Costner, Ray Liotta, James Earl Jones, and baseball in a movie and you know I will watch it. There are not many things I love more in this world than baseball and movies. Field of Dreams is hands down the best baseball movie ever made. With the great acting from Kevin Costner and James Earl Jones is backed up by the great writing and interesting and mystical story. I first saw this movie when I was very young and The Voice scared me but I manned up and watched it, and I loved it. In case you don't know the story, Ray, a farmer from Iowa, hears a voice that changes his life. This embarks him on an adventure where dreams can come true and the sport of baseball ties in perfectly.Kevin Costner narrates the first scene and he gives am awesome backstory to Shoeless Joe Jackson, himself, his father, and his family. I love that scene for introducing everything we need to know about the movie. I never heard of Joe Jackson or the 1919 Black Sox Scandal so that was cool. The movie starts with the voice saying "If you build it, he will come," lines that everybody who has seen or even not seen the movie knows. These lines made this more than a baseball movie introducing mysticism and a higher power into the real world. The voice scared me and in a way it still does, its creepy and I put myself in Ray's position and I don't know what I would have done. My favorite scene is the first scene with Ray and Joe Jackson. Ray follows his gut and the voice by deciding to plow over a chunk of his corn to build a baseball field. He built it, and Shoeless Joe came. The scene itself is subtle as Jackson stands in left field, his actual position when he played, Ray then picks up a bat and hits balls to him. After a few hits Jackson comes in they talk a little and then Jackson takes the bat and he hits. There is no music in this scene, it is the natural sounds of the night and the crack of the bat. It was beautifully shot and the sound captured the imagination of the situation. Ray was pitching to a ghost. Then the writing came in. The way Jackson described the game of baseball was perfect. He says something along the lines of, "to me it wasn't a game, it was life." Being a huge fan of baseball I know exactly what he means and he was so right. The voice comes back and brings Costner to Boston to find James Earl Jones. The field took a huge chunk out of their money and Ray was going broke. This added the major conflict in the story. It is a race against time and money so Ray takes a bigger risk and goes to Boston to find Terrance Mann. Terrance Mann is an author from the 60s and this movie ties so many generations together so well. The old days with Jackson, the 60s with Mann and the present day of the film. Mann also has a strong connection with baseball so he ties in perfectly. James Earl Jones brings his loud and strong voice to this character. This is my favorite role he has played as his character has so much depth.Nothing made me happier than seeing old Fenway without the green monster seats. Fenway Park is the best stadium in major league baseball and was the perfect choice for this movie, and that's coming from a Yankee fan. They could have went for Yankee Stadium and possible touched on the history of the stadium and the sport, but no, they chose Fenway and I couldn't have been happier. The mind boggling in this movie is crazy with the twists and turns are hard to believe. There are elements of time travel and what is in the corn field which I am still trying to figure out. Another famous quote, "Hey, is this Heaven?" "No, it's Iowa." The fact that they deny that its heaven is interesting because to the men the field affected it seemed like heaven. I would have called it heaven. Ray's brother-in-law can't see the player so that is an interesting factor that obviously is used to keep the problem relevant but other than that this movie is flawless.Overall, Field of Dreams is one of the best movies ever made. It molded careers in Costner and made James Earl Jones' even greater. The "People Will Come, Ray" speech was one I could listen to over and over and is another piece of beautiful writing. The description of baseball and the effects it has on people is 100% true. The score to this movie is also fantastic and fits each scene perfectly. Field of Dreams is a baseball story but also so much more so for that it gets the WillyT Seal of Approval.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097351/reviews-321

ur26976606

title: Dreams Can Come True, You Just Gotta Work For It. review: Put Kevin Costner, Ray Liotta, James Earl Jones, and baseball in a movie and you know I will watch it. There are not many things I love more in this world than baseball and movies. Field of Dreams is hands down the best baseball movie ever made. With the great acting from Kevin Costner and James Earl Jones is backed up by the great writing and interesting and mystical story. I first saw this movie when I was very young and The Voice scared me but I manned up and watched it, and I loved it. In case you don't know the story, Ray, a farmer from Iowa, hears a voice that changes his life. This embarks him on an adventure where dreams can come true and the sport of baseball ties in perfectly.Kevin Costner narrates the first scene and he gives am awesome backstory to Shoeless Joe Jackson, himself, his father, and his family. I love that scene for introducing everything we need to know about the movie. I never heard of Joe Jackson or the 1919 Black Sox Scandal so that was cool. The movie starts with the voice saying "If you build it, he will come," lines that everybody who has seen or even not seen the movie knows. These lines made this more than a baseball movie introducing mysticism and a higher power into the real world. The voice scared me and in a way it still does, its creepy and I put myself in Ray's position and I don't know what I would have done. My favorite scene is the first scene with Ray and Joe Jackson. Ray follows his gut and the voice by deciding to plow over a chunk of his corn to build a baseball field. He built it, and Shoeless Joe came. The scene itself is subtle as Jackson stands in left field, his actual position when he played, Ray then picks up a bat and hits balls to him. After a few hits Jackson comes in they talk a little and then Jackson takes the bat and he hits. There is no music in this scene, it is the natural sounds of the night and the crack of the bat. It was beautifully shot and the sound captured the imagination of the situation. Ray was pitching to a ghost. Then the writing came in. The way Jackson described the game of baseball was perfect. He says something along the lines of, "to me it wasn't a game, it was life." Being a huge fan of baseball I know exactly what he means and he was so right. The voice comes back and brings Costner to Boston to find James Earl Jones. The field took a huge chunk out of their money and Ray was going broke. This added the major conflict in the story. It is a race against time and money so Ray takes a bigger risk and goes to Boston to find Terrance Mann. Terrance Mann is an author from the 60s and this movie ties so many generations together so well. The old days with Jackson, the 60s with Mann and the present day of the film. Mann also has a strong connection with baseball so he ties in perfectly. James Earl Jones brings his loud and strong voice to this character. This is my favorite role he has played as his character has so much depth.Nothing made me happier than seeing old Fenway without the green monster seats. Fenway Park is the best stadium in major league baseball and was the perfect choice for this movie, and that's coming from a Yankee fan. They could have went for Yankee Stadium and possible touched on the history of the stadium and the sport, but no, they chose Fenway and I couldn't have been happier. The mind boggling in this movie is crazy with the twists and turns are hard to believe. There are elements of time travel and what is in the corn field which I am still trying to figure out. Another famous quote, "Hey, is this Heaven?" "No, it's Iowa." The fact that they deny that its heaven is interesting because to the men the field affected it seemed like heaven. I would have called it heaven. Ray's brother-in-law can't see the player so that is an interesting factor that obviously is used to keep the problem relevant but other than that this movie is flawless.Overall, Field of Dreams is one of the best movies ever made. It molded careers in Costner and made James Earl Jones' even greater. The "People Will Come, Ray" speech was one I could listen to over and over and is another piece of beautiful writing. The description of baseball and the effects it has on people is 100% true. The score to this movie is also fantastic and fits each scene perfectly. Field of Dreams is a baseball story but also so much more so for that it gets the WillyT Seal of Approval.

Wonderful

tt0097351

"Field of Dreams" goes to show that movies do not have to be logical, realistic, or believable to be excellent. I'm amazed by this film. In this film, Ray Kinsella (Kevin Costner) hears a voice telling him "If you build it, he will come." He believes this means he must build a baseball field for dead player "Shoeless" Joe Jackson to come play in. From there he ends up following more instructions from the voice, all of which end up helping him see his dead father again and make up for the lost time they never had. Forgive me for spoiling the plot, but I can't help it when telling what I love about this film. Perhaps its the acting of this film that makes it so great, as Costner as well as the supporting cast (including Burt Lancaster and James Earl Jones) are all excellent. However, I think it's the film's inspiring story that makes us love it so much. The film has little to do with baseball; it has everything to do with the relationship between a grown man and his father. Films like this don't come around often. See it for sure. What an absolute perfect movie.**** out of ****

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097351/reviews-268

ur19720242

title: Wonderful review: "Field of Dreams" goes to show that movies do not have to be logical, realistic, or believable to be excellent. I'm amazed by this film. In this film, Ray Kinsella (Kevin Costner) hears a voice telling him "If you build it, he will come." He believes this means he must build a baseball field for dead player "Shoeless" Joe Jackson to come play in. From there he ends up following more instructions from the voice, all of which end up helping him see his dead father again and make up for the lost time they never had. Forgive me for spoiling the plot, but I can't help it when telling what I love about this film. Perhaps its the acting of this film that makes it so great, as Costner as well as the supporting cast (including Burt Lancaster and James Earl Jones) are all excellent. However, I think it's the film's inspiring story that makes us love it so much. The film has little to do with baseball; it has everything to do with the relationship between a grown man and his father. Films like this don't come around often. See it for sure. What an absolute perfect movie.**** out of ****

Another Romero classic! Highly underrated

tt0088993

Day of the Dead is the third movie in George A Romero's classic tale of the world being overrun by zombies. I find that this a very underrated movie. The FX (done by legendary Tom Savini) are the greatest of any George A Romero film (in my opinion) and the characters are developed brilliantly. The sense of dread and claustrophobia throughout the film is really well done, despite the simple plot.Set after Dawn of the Dead, this takes place in a army bunker. The world is now overrun by zombies, they outnumber the human race. Some of the survivors lock themselves up in an old military silo. Half are scientists and the other half are military men. Tensions are rising as the scientists, head by the nutcase Dr. "Frankenstein" Logan, are capturing and running tests on zombies. Unfortunately, Dr. Logan's tests are a little on the nutty side. Soon, the scientists and army men are fighting each other amongst the horde of zombies.Romero has really accomplished a lot on such a low budget. The cast are all fine and the acting surprised me, since low budget horrors tend to have shoddy acting. The FX are outstanding and some of the effects are quite disgusting. The pacing is a bit slow, but not so slow that it doesn't hold your interest. The apocalyptic atmosphere is done to great effect. And for those who love their zombie carnage, you will not be disappointed, as the last 20 mins involve huge amounts of feastings and other disgusting bodily mutations.It's a shame that this Romero gem is so disliked. The reason I think this is not as popular is because it had to follow in the footsteps of the fantastic Dawn of the Dead, which had an entirely different feel. It was much more upbeat and comical then straight out horror, which this most certainly is. The slow set-up and dark feel probably put off a lot of people. But for the hard-core horror fans, don't be put off, this is an underrated gem.3½/5.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088993/reviews-331

ur5237888

title: Another Romero classic! Highly underrated review: Day of the Dead is the third movie in George A Romero's classic tale of the world being overrun by zombies. I find that this a very underrated movie. The FX (done by legendary Tom Savini) are the greatest of any George A Romero film (in my opinion) and the characters are developed brilliantly. The sense of dread and claustrophobia throughout the film is really well done, despite the simple plot.Set after Dawn of the Dead, this takes place in a army bunker. The world is now overrun by zombies, they outnumber the human race. Some of the survivors lock themselves up in an old military silo. Half are scientists and the other half are military men. Tensions are rising as the scientists, head by the nutcase Dr. "Frankenstein" Logan, are capturing and running tests on zombies. Unfortunately, Dr. Logan's tests are a little on the nutty side. Soon, the scientists and army men are fighting each other amongst the horde of zombies.Romero has really accomplished a lot on such a low budget. The cast are all fine and the acting surprised me, since low budget horrors tend to have shoddy acting. The FX are outstanding and some of the effects are quite disgusting. The pacing is a bit slow, but not so slow that it doesn't hold your interest. The apocalyptic atmosphere is done to great effect. And for those who love their zombie carnage, you will not be disappointed, as the last 20 mins involve huge amounts of feastings and other disgusting bodily mutations.It's a shame that this Romero gem is so disliked. The reason I think this is not as popular is because it had to follow in the footsteps of the fantastic Dawn of the Dead, which had an entirely different feel. It was much more upbeat and comical then straight out horror, which this most certainly is. The slow set-up and dark feel probably put off a lot of people. But for the hard-core horror fans, don't be put off, this is an underrated gem.3½/5.

Just another day in George's crazy zombie world

tt0088993

You know, right when I think that I'm a fan of the Dead trilogy from Romero, I had the silliest notion the other day, I've never seen Day of the Dead. Romero revolutionized zombies and made them the monsters that they are today and the thing that makes him so excellent and these movies classic is that he knows how to write characters so well and plays into our survival instincts. However it's weird, I never heard many things about Day of the Dead, so I thought it wasn't that good maybe. But I should know better to look on the internet with users and reviewers who describe the film and show how famous it is in our treasure box world of cult classics. I bought Day of the Dead without seeing it and actually found myself loving this movie and seeing a possible inspiration for 28 Days Later. It's always interesting to see who did it first and George was way ahead of his time when he wrote and made this great film.Sara and three survivors, John, Bill and Miguel, land a chopper in deserted streets of Fort Myers to search for other possible survivors. They try to call people with a megaphone, but only attract hordes of undead. The group returns to their base, an underground army missile bunker near the Everglades. The group is revealed to be part of a military-supported scientific team assigned by the remnants of the government to study the zombie phenomenon in the hopes of finding a way of stopping or reversing the zombification process. But of course there are certain soldiers who are taking their jobs a little above and beyond their line of duty.Day of the Dead was a great conclusion before Romero continued his story with Land of the Dead, which is another movie I highly recommend. Like I said, Romero knew how to write his characters very well and even adds that cheesy moment in his films where they're unbelievable but such an awesome scene that you just fall in love with it, like where the zombies attack one of the soldiers and he's being ripped apart as he's still screaming "Choke on it!!!". The whole setting of this movie was extremely creepy, I can't imagine if this was real how scary it would be to see people who are acting like total savages and instead of trying to help the situation with the zombie attack are acting like total power freaks. The sad part is, this would happen in real life if this situation was true and again makes for great writing.Another thing that I loved was I saw an inspiration for a movie I saw a few years ago called Fido where we got to see what a zombie who was made to fit back into society and we see in Day of the Dead a zombie that actually starts to remember his life before he died named Bubba. I loved that the scientist was like a father to him and that he was so quick to avenge whatever wrong was done. If this movie was made today, I would say Bubba deserves his own movie. The dead series are classics and way ahead of their time, not to mention that they molded the zombie genre. Day of the Dead is a great movie not to be missed and I think I may throw a Zombie party one night for a marathon, nothing says friendship than flesh eaters.8/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088993/reviews-442

ur1293485

title: Just another day in George's crazy zombie world review: You know, right when I think that I'm a fan of the Dead trilogy from Romero, I had the silliest notion the other day, I've never seen Day of the Dead. Romero revolutionized zombies and made them the monsters that they are today and the thing that makes him so excellent and these movies classic is that he knows how to write characters so well and plays into our survival instincts. However it's weird, I never heard many things about Day of the Dead, so I thought it wasn't that good maybe. But I should know better to look on the internet with users and reviewers who describe the film and show how famous it is in our treasure box world of cult classics. I bought Day of the Dead without seeing it and actually found myself loving this movie and seeing a possible inspiration for 28 Days Later. It's always interesting to see who did it first and George was way ahead of his time when he wrote and made this great film.Sara and three survivors, John, Bill and Miguel, land a chopper in deserted streets of Fort Myers to search for other possible survivors. They try to call people with a megaphone, but only attract hordes of undead. The group returns to their base, an underground army missile bunker near the Everglades. The group is revealed to be part of a military-supported scientific team assigned by the remnants of the government to study the zombie phenomenon in the hopes of finding a way of stopping or reversing the zombification process. But of course there are certain soldiers who are taking their jobs a little above and beyond their line of duty.Day of the Dead was a great conclusion before Romero continued his story with Land of the Dead, which is another movie I highly recommend. Like I said, Romero knew how to write his characters very well and even adds that cheesy moment in his films where they're unbelievable but such an awesome scene that you just fall in love with it, like where the zombies attack one of the soldiers and he's being ripped apart as he's still screaming "Choke on it!!!". The whole setting of this movie was extremely creepy, I can't imagine if this was real how scary it would be to see people who are acting like total savages and instead of trying to help the situation with the zombie attack are acting like total power freaks. The sad part is, this would happen in real life if this situation was true and again makes for great writing.Another thing that I loved was I saw an inspiration for a movie I saw a few years ago called Fido where we got to see what a zombie who was made to fit back into society and we see in Day of the Dead a zombie that actually starts to remember his life before he died named Bubba. I loved that the scientist was like a father to him and that he was so quick to avenge whatever wrong was done. If this movie was made today, I would say Bubba deserves his own movie. The dead series are classics and way ahead of their time, not to mention that they molded the zombie genre. Day of the Dead is a great movie not to be missed and I think I may throw a Zombie party one night for a marathon, nothing says friendship than flesh eaters.8/10

In Day of the Dead we get to see the zombie emotions and feelings.

tt0088993

A small group of military officers and scientists dwell in an underground bunker as the world above is overrun by zombies. Zombies rule the world, except for a small group of scientists and military personnel who reside in an underground bunker in Florida. The scientists are using the undead in gruesome experiments; much to the chagrin of the military. Finally the military finds that their men have been used in the scientists' experiments, and banish the scientists to the caves that house the Living Dead. Unfortunately, the zombies from above ground have made their way into the bunker. Roger Ebert wrote "he zombies in "Day of the Dead" are marvels of special effects, with festoons of rotting flesh hanging from their purple limbs as they slouch toward the camera, moaning their sad songs. Truth to tell, they look a lot better than the zombies in "The Night of the Living Dead," (1967) which was director George Romero's original zombie film. His technology is improving; perhaps the current emphasis on well- developed bodies (in "Perfect," "First Blood" etc.) has inspired a parallel improvement in dead bodies." 'Day of the Dead' is definitely my favourite of George A. Romero's 'Dead' series. This is in my opinion, the most unique zombie film that tries to not copy clichés in zombie cinema. This one takes things further and explores emotions through a zombie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088993/reviews-478

ur26897720

title: In Day of the Dead we get to see the zombie emotions and feelings. review: A small group of military officers and scientists dwell in an underground bunker as the world above is overrun by zombies. Zombies rule the world, except for a small group of scientists and military personnel who reside in an underground bunker in Florida. The scientists are using the undead in gruesome experiments; much to the chagrin of the military. Finally the military finds that their men have been used in the scientists' experiments, and banish the scientists to the caves that house the Living Dead. Unfortunately, the zombies from above ground have made their way into the bunker. Roger Ebert wrote "he zombies in "Day of the Dead" are marvels of special effects, with festoons of rotting flesh hanging from their purple limbs as they slouch toward the camera, moaning their sad songs. Truth to tell, they look a lot better than the zombies in "The Night of the Living Dead," (1967) which was director George Romero's original zombie film. His technology is improving; perhaps the current emphasis on well- developed bodies (in "Perfect," "First Blood" etc.) has inspired a parallel improvement in dead bodies." 'Day of the Dead' is definitely my favourite of George A. Romero's 'Dead' series. This is in my opinion, the most unique zombie film that tries to not copy clichés in zombie cinema. This one takes things further and explores emotions through a zombie.

Third part in George A. Romero's saga with scenes of graphic violence and doesn't hold up to its previous installments

tt0088993

Acceptable though inferior third part on George Romero's Zombie series initiated in the original classic film Night of the living dead and with expert make-up artist , Tom Savini along with Greg Nicotero . This powerful horror film with more budget than George A Romero classic film , one of the most successful independent films of all time that was initially dismissed as exploitation, but when was re-released , it struck deeply with a disillusioned youth angry . Here there is a team searching for survivors of a terrible crisis that began almost a year earlier . Flesh-eating zombies taking over the world and scientific experimenting on zombies . It deal with a small group of military officers and scientists (Lori Cardille , Terry Alexander) dwell in an underground bunker as the world above is overrun by zombies . As creatures trap a female scientific named Sarah and an army of angry soldiers commanded by a stiff-upper-lip officer called Rhodes (Joseph Pilato) . There a scientist wants to study them .This gory film contains chills , thrills , graphic scenes of cannibalism and violence , dismemberment and other scary carnage in which real pig intestines were used during the gore scenes. Gruesome third film, combining gore, 'bona fide' frights horror and in dirty style with simple characterization . The first time the Zombies appeared was in ¨White Zombie(1932)¨. From then on Zombies remained a firm staple of terror B-genre , bringing the dead back to life was a popular pastime in the 30s and 40s . The early zombies were basically genteel beings and generally likable and agreeable types . Romero created in Pittsburg his own production company Image Ten Productions with his friends, John Russo among them and they each contributed 10.000 dollars and formed the budget for his first ¨Night of living dead¨ movie which made Romero world famous and he gave birth to the modern Zombie genre . Most of the zombie extras in this film were Pittsburgh residents who volunteered to help in the film . This follow-up that doesn't hold up to its predecessors is mostly set in an underground bunker , but results to be relentless claustrophobic and talky for over an hour . The underground facility was not on a soundstage , it was shot in the Wampum mine, a former limestone mine near Pittsburgh, that was being used for a underground storage facility ¨Day of the dead¨ is even gorier than the first two "Dead" films . Unlike the other pictures this one has no truly agreeable roles to root for . Being easily the least of the entries and the lowest grossing film in George A. Romero's "Dead" trilogy. Nonetheless, it's gained a cult following over the last two decades and director George A. Romero claims this is his favorite film out of the original "dead trilogy". This trilogy formed by ¨Night of the living dead¨, ¨Dawn of the dead¨ and this ¨Day of the dead¨ were of the first successful independent terror productions influencing and inspiring countless imitations, copies and rip-offs . Romero gave birth to the modern Zombie genre and the film has had a lasting importance , giving interesting consideration to the violence executed by the zombies . And many years later Romero directed ¨Land of dead (2005)¨ with high budget played by Simon Baker , Asia Argento and Dennis Hooper . And also an inferior remake in 1990 by Tom Savini with Tone Todd , Patricia Tallman in which again a bunch of people are pursued by ghouls Zombies .

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088993/reviews-476

ur3270789

title: Third part in George A. Romero's saga with scenes of graphic violence and doesn't hold up to its previous installments review: Acceptable though inferior third part on George Romero's Zombie series initiated in the original classic film Night of the living dead and with expert make-up artist , Tom Savini along with Greg Nicotero . This powerful horror film with more budget than George A Romero classic film , one of the most successful independent films of all time that was initially dismissed as exploitation, but when was re-released , it struck deeply with a disillusioned youth angry . Here there is a team searching for survivors of a terrible crisis that began almost a year earlier . Flesh-eating zombies taking over the world and scientific experimenting on zombies . It deal with a small group of military officers and scientists (Lori Cardille , Terry Alexander) dwell in an underground bunker as the world above is overrun by zombies . As creatures trap a female scientific named Sarah and an army of angry soldiers commanded by a stiff-upper-lip officer called Rhodes (Joseph Pilato) . There a scientist wants to study them .This gory film contains chills , thrills , graphic scenes of cannibalism and violence , dismemberment and other scary carnage in which real pig intestines were used during the gore scenes. Gruesome third film, combining gore, 'bona fide' frights horror and in dirty style with simple characterization . The first time the Zombies appeared was in ¨White Zombie(1932)¨. From then on Zombies remained a firm staple of terror B-genre , bringing the dead back to life was a popular pastime in the 30s and 40s . The early zombies were basically genteel beings and generally likable and agreeable types . Romero created in Pittsburg his own production company Image Ten Productions with his friends, John Russo among them and they each contributed 10.000 dollars and formed the budget for his first ¨Night of living dead¨ movie which made Romero world famous and he gave birth to the modern Zombie genre . Most of the zombie extras in this film were Pittsburgh residents who volunteered to help in the film . This follow-up that doesn't hold up to its predecessors is mostly set in an underground bunker , but results to be relentless claustrophobic and talky for over an hour . The underground facility was not on a soundstage , it was shot in the Wampum mine, a former limestone mine near Pittsburgh, that was being used for a underground storage facility ¨Day of the dead¨ is even gorier than the first two "Dead" films . Unlike the other pictures this one has no truly agreeable roles to root for . Being easily the least of the entries and the lowest grossing film in George A. Romero's "Dead" trilogy. Nonetheless, it's gained a cult following over the last two decades and director George A. Romero claims this is his favorite film out of the original "dead trilogy". This trilogy formed by ¨Night of the living dead¨, ¨Dawn of the dead¨ and this ¨Day of the dead¨ were of the first successful independent terror productions influencing and inspiring countless imitations, copies and rip-offs . Romero gave birth to the modern Zombie genre and the film has had a lasting importance , giving interesting consideration to the violence executed by the zombies . And many years later Romero directed ¨Land of dead (2005)¨ with high budget played by Simon Baker , Asia Argento and Dennis Hooper . And also an inferior remake in 1990 by Tom Savini with Tone Todd , Patricia Tallman in which again a bunch of people are pursued by ghouls Zombies .

"Pretty Good 80's Zombie Flick!"

tt0088993

Lori Cardille, Terry Alexander, Joe Pilato, Jarlath Conroy, Anthony Dileo, Richard Liberty and Sherman Howard star in George Romero's 1985 horror film. This film takes place in Fort Myers, Florida where we meet scientist, Dr. Sarah Bowman (Cardille) and her military soldier team members, John (Alexander), McDermott (Conroy) and Miguel (Dileo) who have just arrived during the mysterious zombie chaos happening around the world. They head to an underground military research station where Sarah's lead scientist, Dr. Matthew Logan Aka "Frankenstein" (Liberty) is conducting experiments on zombies trying to find out what motivates them and teaches them about communication and behavior. Howard plays Logan's main experiment, Bub who starts making progress and Pilato plays military Captain, Rhodes who begins taking over the operation and threatens the scientists to follow his orders. This is a pretty good 80's zombie flick with a decent cast, Tom Savini did terrific as usual with the make-up effects and his protégé, Greg Nicotero (The Walking Dead) makes an appearance as Private soldier, Johnson. I recommend this for horror fans.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088993/reviews-455

ur6918917

title: "Pretty Good 80's Zombie Flick!" review: Lori Cardille, Terry Alexander, Joe Pilato, Jarlath Conroy, Anthony Dileo, Richard Liberty and Sherman Howard star in George Romero's 1985 horror film. This film takes place in Fort Myers, Florida where we meet scientist, Dr. Sarah Bowman (Cardille) and her military soldier team members, John (Alexander), McDermott (Conroy) and Miguel (Dileo) who have just arrived during the mysterious zombie chaos happening around the world. They head to an underground military research station where Sarah's lead scientist, Dr. Matthew Logan Aka "Frankenstein" (Liberty) is conducting experiments on zombies trying to find out what motivates them and teaches them about communication and behavior. Howard plays Logan's main experiment, Bub who starts making progress and Pilato plays military Captain, Rhodes who begins taking over the operation and threatens the scientists to follow his orders. This is a pretty good 80's zombie flick with a decent cast, Tom Savini did terrific as usual with the make-up effects and his protégé, Greg Nicotero (The Walking Dead) makes an appearance as Private soldier, Johnson. I recommend this for horror fans.

An Underrated Horror Classic. One of Romero's Best.

tt0088993

George A. Romero's Day of the Dead is one of the best Horror/Zombie films ever made and one of Romero's best films. While it maybe the weakest in the trilogy in terms of story,it's the best in the trilogy in terms of the special effects.Taking place years after the events in Dawn of the Dead,Day of the Dead tells the story of a group of scientists and soldiers working in an underground cave among zombies. While the scientists want to work with the zombies to understand them and control them the soldiers want the zombies dead. There's tension between the groups,but they will have to deal with the zombies and the darkest day the world will ever know...the Day of the Dead.Day Of The Dead is an excellent underrated Horror classic and an amazing Zombie film. Some have said that the movie is too talky and boring but I disagree because one of great things about the film is the tension between the soldiers and scientists. The tension in film between the soldiers and scientists i think adds to the Horror and dread because there are characters in the film you will love or hate. The scientists and soldiers are on the verge of going insane whether it's dealing with the zombies or they're human selves and the tension between the main characters is one of the most interesting things about the film. If NIGHT was about why the zombies are attacking and killing and DAWN was about the zombies and consumer culture,then DAY my opinion is about trying to control,socialize and understand the zombies and trying to figure out why they eat and kill and that is where the conflict between the scientists and soldiers comes about the scientist want to study zombies and the soldiers want them dead. While the film is talky it is never boring. I guess because Night and Dawn had more action and a few more likable character people would find this film boring,I don't. The film shows that if human beings don't work together and cooperate with each other society will fall apart and be responsible for it's own darkness. That's pretty much what Romero's zombie films are about is a failure to communicate with each other. What i also love about this movie is you feel that the human characters in the film are the only people alive on earth and are the only ones left. The characters are isolated and we as the viewers feel as isolated as them. I love that the film has a different and darker tone than Dawn where as Dawn was more colorful in terms of the visuals whether it was the gore or humor,Day is somber,less cheerful and almost humorless and that's one of the things I love about the movie and why it's a great Horror film. A fine job by Romero by giving viewers a since of dread and loneliness. At the same time it's a shame what happened to Day of the Dead before it was filmed. Originally DOTD's screenplay was a going to be an epic or as Romero said was going to be a Gone With The wind of zombie films and who knows probably would've topped both Night and Dawn. The budget was originally 7 million dollars,but in order for Romero to get the 7 million he had make DOTD with an R rating,Romero refused and instead went with an unrated film and the budget was cut to 3 million dollars and some of the characters and other things in the script were cut out and it's a shame because Day could've been so much more. But that doesn't stop DOTD from being a great film. The blood and gore in the film is great,disgusting and once the blood and gore appears on screen it never stops until the very end. The Action that comes in the last half of the film is great and intense and gets more intense as the film goes on. The ending of the film or final 40 minutes is brilliant and probably some of best zombie carnage ever seen on film and it is something you will never forget. Lori Cardille does a great job as Sarah,one of the scientists. Cardille brings a toughness and sympathy to the only female character in the film. Terry Alexander does an amazing job as John the helicopter pilot. Joe Pilato is excellent and over the top as soldier Captain Rhodes the villain of the film. Jarlath Conroy does a great job McDermott John's friend and radio operator who loves to drink. Antone'Dileo is wonderful as Miguel Sarah's frightened soldier boyfriend Richard Liberty is great as scientist Dr.Logan the scientist who wants know how to control and know the zombies. Howard Sherman is brilliant as Bub,a Zombie that's Dr. Logan's personal project. G.Howard Klar and Ralph Marrero are a delight as Steel and Rickles two of Rhodes' lackeys who bring humor to the film. Also lookout for a cameo role from K.N.B FX artist Greg Nicotero as one of the soldiers.The direction from George A. Romero superb,bringing the same level of energy and camera angles he brought to Dawn of the Dead. The screenplay he wrote his great and the action scenes are well directed and well executed. The special effects by Tom Savini are some the best things he's ever done as an effects artist. The effects are bloody,messy,and realistic and some of the best zombie carnage you'll see on screen.John Harrison's score is great and adds to the tone of the film. While it's not as iconic as the score in Dawn of the Dead it is still a memorable score.If you love Horror films and Zombie films I suggestion to you is to see this is underrated Horror classic and add it to your collection. Highly Recommended. 10/10.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088993/reviews-452

ur32939276

title: An Underrated Horror Classic. One of Romero's Best. review: George A. Romero's Day of the Dead is one of the best Horror/Zombie films ever made and one of Romero's best films. While it maybe the weakest in the trilogy in terms of story,it's the best in the trilogy in terms of the special effects.Taking place years after the events in Dawn of the Dead,Day of the Dead tells the story of a group of scientists and soldiers working in an underground cave among zombies. While the scientists want to work with the zombies to understand them and control them the soldiers want the zombies dead. There's tension between the groups,but they will have to deal with the zombies and the darkest day the world will ever know...the Day of the Dead.Day Of The Dead is an excellent underrated Horror classic and an amazing Zombie film. Some have said that the movie is too talky and boring but I disagree because one of great things about the film is the tension between the soldiers and scientists. The tension in film between the soldiers and scientists i think adds to the Horror and dread because there are characters in the film you will love or hate. The scientists and soldiers are on the verge of going insane whether it's dealing with the zombies or they're human selves and the tension between the main characters is one of the most interesting things about the film. If NIGHT was about why the zombies are attacking and killing and DAWN was about the zombies and consumer culture,then DAY my opinion is about trying to control,socialize and understand the zombies and trying to figure out why they eat and kill and that is where the conflict between the scientists and soldiers comes about the scientist want to study zombies and the soldiers want them dead. While the film is talky it is never boring. I guess because Night and Dawn had more action and a few more likable character people would find this film boring,I don't. The film shows that if human beings don't work together and cooperate with each other society will fall apart and be responsible for it's own darkness. That's pretty much what Romero's zombie films are about is a failure to communicate with each other. What i also love about this movie is you feel that the human characters in the film are the only people alive on earth and are the only ones left. The characters are isolated and we as the viewers feel as isolated as them. I love that the film has a different and darker tone than Dawn where as Dawn was more colorful in terms of the visuals whether it was the gore or humor,Day is somber,less cheerful and almost humorless and that's one of the things I love about the movie and why it's a great Horror film. A fine job by Romero by giving viewers a since of dread and loneliness. At the same time it's a shame what happened to Day of the Dead before it was filmed. Originally DOTD's screenplay was a going to be an epic or as Romero said was going to be a Gone With The wind of zombie films and who knows probably would've topped both Night and Dawn. The budget was originally 7 million dollars,but in order for Romero to get the 7 million he had make DOTD with an R rating,Romero refused and instead went with an unrated film and the budget was cut to 3 million dollars and some of the characters and other things in the script were cut out and it's a shame because Day could've been so much more. But that doesn't stop DOTD from being a great film. The blood and gore in the film is great,disgusting and once the blood and gore appears on screen it never stops until the very end. The Action that comes in the last half of the film is great and intense and gets more intense as the film goes on. The ending of the film or final 40 minutes is brilliant and probably some of best zombie carnage ever seen on film and it is something you will never forget. Lori Cardille does a great job as Sarah,one of the scientists. Cardille brings a toughness and sympathy to the only female character in the film. Terry Alexander does an amazing job as John the helicopter pilot. Joe Pilato is excellent and over the top as soldier Captain Rhodes the villain of the film. Jarlath Conroy does a great job McDermott John's friend and radio operator who loves to drink. Antone'Dileo is wonderful as Miguel Sarah's frightened soldier boyfriend Richard Liberty is great as scientist Dr.Logan the scientist who wants know how to control and know the zombies. Howard Sherman is brilliant as Bub,a Zombie that's Dr. Logan's personal project. G.Howard Klar and Ralph Marrero are a delight as Steel and Rickles two of Rhodes' lackeys who bring humor to the film. Also lookout for a cameo role from K.N.B FX artist Greg Nicotero as one of the soldiers.The direction from George A. Romero superb,bringing the same level of energy and camera angles he brought to Dawn of the Dead. The screenplay he wrote his great and the action scenes are well directed and well executed. The special effects by Tom Savini are some the best things he's ever done as an effects artist. The effects are bloody,messy,and realistic and some of the best zombie carnage you'll see on screen.John Harrison's score is great and adds to the tone of the film. While it's not as iconic as the score in Dawn of the Dead it is still a memorable score.If you love Horror films and Zombie films I suggestion to you is to see this is underrated Horror classic and add it to your collection. Highly Recommended. 10/10.

Romero's Third Zombie Film Is Easily The Worst

tt0088993

Day Of The Dead is Director George A. Romero's last zombie film to date, and it is easily his worst of the bunch. The military vs. scientist angle along with the Frankenstein sub-plot really are formulaic in execution. Despite, the much larger budget for this film, it looks like a very cheaply made film. It's poorly made from a technical standpoint also, especially with the abrupt, choppy editing. The screenplay is pretty much static, and the claustrophobic setting, minus the surprises and thrills from the first two films, makes things even worse. The emphasis in this film is on graphic gore, bad actors overall, and excessively mean villains. The conflicts, and their resolution, between the scientists and the military group offer us nothing new. This prevents us from identifying with anyone or anything. The killing of the zombies is often played for laughs, and doesn't play well with the more serious plot tone. Gone is most of the social commentary seen in earlier films, and any intended messages lack originality, coming across as heavy-handed. The film does have some creepy good gore scenes however, which are the reasons most viewers watch this stuff anyway. * of 4 stars.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088993/reviews-231

ur2567338

title: Romero's Third Zombie Film Is Easily The Worst review: Day Of The Dead is Director George A. Romero's last zombie film to date, and it is easily his worst of the bunch. The military vs. scientist angle along with the Frankenstein sub-plot really are formulaic in execution. Despite, the much larger budget for this film, it looks like a very cheaply made film. It's poorly made from a technical standpoint also, especially with the abrupt, choppy editing. The screenplay is pretty much static, and the claustrophobic setting, minus the surprises and thrills from the first two films, makes things even worse. The emphasis in this film is on graphic gore, bad actors overall, and excessively mean villains. The conflicts, and their resolution, between the scientists and the military group offer us nothing new. This prevents us from identifying with anyone or anything. The killing of the zombies is often played for laughs, and doesn't play well with the more serious plot tone. Gone is most of the social commentary seen in earlier films, and any intended messages lack originality, coming across as heavy-handed. The film does have some creepy good gore scenes however, which are the reasons most viewers watch this stuff anyway. * of 4 stars.

The "Black Sheep" Of The Original Dead Trilogy?

tt0088993

"Day of the Dead", depending on your love of George A. Romero's previous Zombie movies is definitely the one that sticks out as a love it or hate it experience. The great aspects come from the fact that we still have a very strong cast, despite the fact that the mannerisms of a certain villain becomes hilariously absurd (But in no way less threatening), and that the style has very much remained the same. The bad decisions however come from how outlandish some of the events are either portrayed, or how far-fetched Romero's ambitions were towards this Horror icon he practically defined (In this excerpt taken from Wikipedia, Romero describes the film as a "tragedy about how a lack of human communication causes chaos and collapse even in this small little pie slice of society").Zombies have overrun the world, and the remaining survivors we follow are formed of government military and a few scientists held up in a underground base. Whilst certain aggression and angst among fellows survivors surely pose impending doom, experiments and discoveries about the Zombies are being made which lead to particularly interesting results.The effects are consistent and progressive with the previous movies, and Tom Savini returns with his special effects that really are of his own unique brand. The characters are consistently strong, some great set pieces are shown and the dialogue delivers and saves the day when the scenes get very outlandish. What do I mean by outlandish? "Bub" the zombie, both breaks and makes the movie for me. Of course I love him, but he easily remains a little too far-fetched from what I would expect from a Romero picture, especially when he represents something so vastly "out there" and ends up playing such an important part to Romero's theme of the movie (As stated in the excerpt above). It never really sat well with me, but I cannot imagine the movie without "Bub". It's the contradiction I have that consistently beats me into submission (I love you "Bub").I hate to feel like I'm rambling, but everything else to me is largely hit and miss. Joseph Pilato as Captain Henry Rhodes really was a one of a kind villain, and Romero had bigger plans for "Day of the Dead" but his $7 million budget was cut in half, thus having to re-draft the story countless times. I guess what I really need to say is that I enjoy this film, and there's plenty enough to make up for any shortcomings. Final Verdict: "Outlandish" is the word of the day (For a Zombie movie, who knew?). I don't love it as much as "Night" or "Dawn", but we will always ask ourselves what may have been. 8/10.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088993/reviews-480

ur48102834

title: The "Black Sheep" Of The Original Dead Trilogy? review: "Day of the Dead", depending on your love of George A. Romero's previous Zombie movies is definitely the one that sticks out as a love it or hate it experience. The great aspects come from the fact that we still have a very strong cast, despite the fact that the mannerisms of a certain villain becomes hilariously absurd (But in no way less threatening), and that the style has very much remained the same. The bad decisions however come from how outlandish some of the events are either portrayed, or how far-fetched Romero's ambitions were towards this Horror icon he practically defined (In this excerpt taken from Wikipedia, Romero describes the film as a "tragedy about how a lack of human communication causes chaos and collapse even in this small little pie slice of society").Zombies have overrun the world, and the remaining survivors we follow are formed of government military and a few scientists held up in a underground base. Whilst certain aggression and angst among fellows survivors surely pose impending doom, experiments and discoveries about the Zombies are being made which lead to particularly interesting results.The effects are consistent and progressive with the previous movies, and Tom Savini returns with his special effects that really are of his own unique brand. The characters are consistently strong, some great set pieces are shown and the dialogue delivers and saves the day when the scenes get very outlandish. What do I mean by outlandish? "Bub" the zombie, both breaks and makes the movie for me. Of course I love him, but he easily remains a little too far-fetched from what I would expect from a Romero picture, especially when he represents something so vastly "out there" and ends up playing such an important part to Romero's theme of the movie (As stated in the excerpt above). It never really sat well with me, but I cannot imagine the movie without "Bub". It's the contradiction I have that consistently beats me into submission (I love you "Bub").I hate to feel like I'm rambling, but everything else to me is largely hit and miss. Joseph Pilato as Captain Henry Rhodes really was a one of a kind villain, and Romero had bigger plans for "Day of the Dead" but his $7 million budget was cut in half, thus having to re-draft the story countless times. I guess what I really need to say is that I enjoy this film, and there's plenty enough to make up for any shortcomings. Final Verdict: "Outlandish" is the word of the day (For a Zombie movie, who knew?). I don't love it as much as "Night" or "Dawn", but we will always ask ourselves what may have been. 8/10.

"This is a great big 14 mile tombstone."

tt0088993

I love George Romero's work, because despite being contained to a few genres he always manages to make you think deeply about what's going on. Thru subtle emotions, the unsaid fatigue, it's all masterful. Besides I never saw what the big deal was about specializing in certain genres. By now, everyone knows about the early production problems this film faced, the problem being that its initial much larger budget and script lead to the studio's wanting of the film to be more accessible for mainstream (God I hate that word) audiences. In other words, for more money, Romero would have to soften his film's impact; less gore, less gloom, less striking macabre visuals. Of course, Romero stuck to his guns and instead went the route of cutting down on his script.With that out of the way, I'll elaborate on why the human characters are so great in this one. In. "Day of the Dead", the characters presented are very much so on the brink of collapse. Time is running out, and the main argument of the film is how pointless it is to keep dwelling on a problem that just can't be solved. Instead, the directive should be to renew. The beauty of the film is that when you think about it the actual antagonist is hard to discern. Many would claim Cpt. Rhodes, played by the awesome Joseph Pilato, but if you really think about it his actions are only rational. In the presence of 'Dr. Frankenstein', its only natural violence would break out amongst the survivors. Is Dr. Frankenstein the villain, for his disregard of the sanctity of the dead? The pure insanity of Richard Liberty as Dr. Logan (a.k.a. Frankenstein) is so perfect. The character is clearly mentally unstable, but the thing that makes him human is Bub (played by Sherman Howard). The two share an almost parent-child relationship, making the film that much more dynamic. And Mr. Howard, he's easily the most memorable zombie ever, period.The rest of the cast is pretty solid, starring the likes of the beautiful Lori Cardille, Terry Alexander and Jarlath Conroy.Aside all the wonderful dark cinematography, its amazing opening (gotta love the alligator) and claustrophobia -causing atmosphere, the film also delivers the goods. The gore effects, curtsey of Tom Savini's team, are astounding to this day. The make-up effects are spectacular, Gregory Nicotero making sure each zombie is as unique as it is gruesome-looking. If you haven't seen "Day of the Dead" you know nothing of horror.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088993/reviews-449

ur20916867

title: "This is a great big 14 mile tombstone." review: I love George Romero's work, because despite being contained to a few genres he always manages to make you think deeply about what's going on. Thru subtle emotions, the unsaid fatigue, it's all masterful. Besides I never saw what the big deal was about specializing in certain genres. By now, everyone knows about the early production problems this film faced, the problem being that its initial much larger budget and script lead to the studio's wanting of the film to be more accessible for mainstream (God I hate that word) audiences. In other words, for more money, Romero would have to soften his film's impact; less gore, less gloom, less striking macabre visuals. Of course, Romero stuck to his guns and instead went the route of cutting down on his script.With that out of the way, I'll elaborate on why the human characters are so great in this one. In. "Day of the Dead", the characters presented are very much so on the brink of collapse. Time is running out, and the main argument of the film is how pointless it is to keep dwelling on a problem that just can't be solved. Instead, the directive should be to renew. The beauty of the film is that when you think about it the actual antagonist is hard to discern. Many would claim Cpt. Rhodes, played by the awesome Joseph Pilato, but if you really think about it his actions are only rational. In the presence of 'Dr. Frankenstein', its only natural violence would break out amongst the survivors. Is Dr. Frankenstein the villain, for his disregard of the sanctity of the dead? The pure insanity of Richard Liberty as Dr. Logan (a.k.a. Frankenstein) is so perfect. The character is clearly mentally unstable, but the thing that makes him human is Bub (played by Sherman Howard). The two share an almost parent-child relationship, making the film that much more dynamic. And Mr. Howard, he's easily the most memorable zombie ever, period.The rest of the cast is pretty solid, starring the likes of the beautiful Lori Cardille, Terry Alexander and Jarlath Conroy.Aside all the wonderful dark cinematography, its amazing opening (gotta love the alligator) and claustrophobia -causing atmosphere, the film also delivers the goods. The gore effects, curtsey of Tom Savini's team, are astounding to this day. The make-up effects are spectacular, Gregory Nicotero making sure each zombie is as unique as it is gruesome-looking. If you haven't seen "Day of the Dead" you know nothing of horror.

Arguably the best of the series

tt0088993

Considering that this film is about as far from what it was originally intended to be as possible, George A Romero did a remarkable job in shaping this film into a near masterpiece. The script is one of the best presented on celluloid, delivering line after line of razor sharp dialogue. Characterisation is a massive improvement on the previous two films, a considerable achievement considering that the last two were also fantastic horror films. Lori Cardille, Terry Alexander and Jarlath Conroy are brilliant as the only three characters who still seem vaguely human. However, to find the best roles, you need look no further than Joseph Pilato and Richard Liberty as Rhodes and Logan. The two leaders of the opposing factions amongst the survivors are sensational on their own, and the best scenes in the movie are the ones where they are verbally sparring with each other.The make-up was incredible and realistic. It hasn't dated in the slightest, although there are a couple of dodgy moments. The closing scenes in particular are visually impressive, and at times I found it a little difficult to watch. Saw can't make me think that, and thats basically the point of the Saw films.Romero's difficult third album comes good in every sense. While it has been criticised for being dialogue heavy, when the script is as good as this, thats no bad thing

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088993/reviews-394

ur18632880

title: Arguably the best of the series review: Considering that this film is about as far from what it was originally intended to be as possible, George A Romero did a remarkable job in shaping this film into a near masterpiece. The script is one of the best presented on celluloid, delivering line after line of razor sharp dialogue. Characterisation is a massive improvement on the previous two films, a considerable achievement considering that the last two were also fantastic horror films. Lori Cardille, Terry Alexander and Jarlath Conroy are brilliant as the only three characters who still seem vaguely human. However, to find the best roles, you need look no further than Joseph Pilato and Richard Liberty as Rhodes and Logan. The two leaders of the opposing factions amongst the survivors are sensational on their own, and the best scenes in the movie are the ones where they are verbally sparring with each other.The make-up was incredible and realistic. It hasn't dated in the slightest, although there are a couple of dodgy moments. The closing scenes in particular are visually impressive, and at times I found it a little difficult to watch. Saw can't make me think that, and thats basically the point of the Saw films.Romero's difficult third album comes good in every sense. While it has been criticised for being dialogue heavy, when the script is as good as this, thats no bad thing

Romero at his best & zombies at theirs

tt0088993

Day of the dead is a follow up from dawn of the dead by the same director George A. Romero. The story takes place underground in an abandoned missile silo , where a group of scientists and soldiers are barricaded in.Now let me explain something. After the release of the successful dawn of the dead in 1979 Romero intended to end his "trilogy of he dead" with a big budgeted follow up. But because of major budget disputes and the artistic need to release the film unrated, Romero was granted £3.5 million for the budget, just under half the initial £7 million he had at first. This forced Romero to scale back his story, rewriting the script and adjusting his original vision to fit the smaller budget. so the movie we see today is completely different from the one we were intended on having. Apparrerntly the script for the original version is leaked all over the Internet but i haven't read it yet. But i wouldn't change this movie for the world its the essential horror film , just look at how many other films and TV shows have used material from Day of the Dead - resident evil extinction ( the zombie using the phone like bub) 28 days later( with the physcotic military & keeping the infected alive for testing) the band GORILLAZ use audio from day of the dead in the beginning of the song, south park made an episode about zombies and borrowed a lot of elements from Day of the dead.I must say that the opening scene in this movie throws you into the action head first, the characters land the helicopter in a city and use a megaphone to see if there is any survivors. but then the undead rise and within seconds,there are literally hundreds of the undead around the city. the first thing i noticed when i first watched this film, was just how genuinely scary the zombies looked compared to the blue skinned ones from Dawn of the dead. These zombies look outstanding, Tom Savini i salute you! The phsycotic military leader Captain Rhodes ( Joseph Pilato) is a truly outstanding character. I mean he is such an ar*ehole and you are always hoping throughout the movie that he gets killed (and trust me you wont be disappointed). Now I've heard people say that this movie is full of terrible acting, but i find it really good. Its not too over dramatic or bland its just right. I also hear people say daft sh*t like " There was no action until the last 10 minutes" and "All they did was argue all the time". well thats okay i suppose, they weren't exactly lying, but it only makes sense that everyone in the movie is at each others throat. They are the last people on the face of the planet, there is bound to be a lot of tensions!I gotta go all out and say this film has the best zombies ever in it. they can tear limbs off like its no problem, and the eat everything they can from humans, unlike some zombie films where they just eat certain parts, and that makes these zombies seem all the more scary. The special effects are out of this world . Back in 1985 i couldn't imagine what the peoples reactions were to the gore fest in the last 15 minutes of the film. Tom Savini at his best no doubt, he received a Saturn award for his work on day of the dead and he more than deserved it. Another aspect of the movie that does it well is the soundtrack, its brilliant and helps set the dark tone the movie goes for. I Always liked the dawn of the dead soundtrack but i think this one makes dawns just sound a bit sillyThe trailer for this films describes day of the dead as "the darkest day of horror the world has ever known" , and it is well worthy of that statement. This movie has to be one of the darkest, most claustrophobic and gory films in history. that being said, is it a good film? plain and simple - YES!!By Scott Dewhurst

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088993/reviews-437

ur18483444

title: Romero at his best & zombies at theirs review: Day of the dead is a follow up from dawn of the dead by the same director George A. Romero. The story takes place underground in an abandoned missile silo , where a group of scientists and soldiers are barricaded in.Now let me explain something. After the release of the successful dawn of the dead in 1979 Romero intended to end his "trilogy of he dead" with a big budgeted follow up. But because of major budget disputes and the artistic need to release the film unrated, Romero was granted £3.5 million for the budget, just under half the initial £7 million he had at first. This forced Romero to scale back his story, rewriting the script and adjusting his original vision to fit the smaller budget. so the movie we see today is completely different from the one we were intended on having. Apparrerntly the script for the original version is leaked all over the Internet but i haven't read it yet. But i wouldn't change this movie for the world its the essential horror film , just look at how many other films and TV shows have used material from Day of the Dead - resident evil extinction ( the zombie using the phone like bub) 28 days later( with the physcotic military & keeping the infected alive for testing) the band GORILLAZ use audio from day of the dead in the beginning of the song, south park made an episode about zombies and borrowed a lot of elements from Day of the dead.I must say that the opening scene in this movie throws you into the action head first, the characters land the helicopter in a city and use a megaphone to see if there is any survivors. but then the undead rise and within seconds,there are literally hundreds of the undead around the city. the first thing i noticed when i first watched this film, was just how genuinely scary the zombies looked compared to the blue skinned ones from Dawn of the dead. These zombies look outstanding, Tom Savini i salute you! The phsycotic military leader Captain Rhodes ( Joseph Pilato) is a truly outstanding character. I mean he is such an ar*ehole and you are always hoping throughout the movie that he gets killed (and trust me you wont be disappointed). Now I've heard people say that this movie is full of terrible acting, but i find it really good. Its not too over dramatic or bland its just right. I also hear people say daft sh*t like " There was no action until the last 10 minutes" and "All they did was argue all the time". well thats okay i suppose, they weren't exactly lying, but it only makes sense that everyone in the movie is at each others throat. They are the last people on the face of the planet, there is bound to be a lot of tensions!I gotta go all out and say this film has the best zombies ever in it. they can tear limbs off like its no problem, and the eat everything they can from humans, unlike some zombie films where they just eat certain parts, and that makes these zombies seem all the more scary. The special effects are out of this world . Back in 1985 i couldn't imagine what the peoples reactions were to the gore fest in the last 15 minutes of the film. Tom Savini at his best no doubt, he received a Saturn award for his work on day of the dead and he more than deserved it. Another aspect of the movie that does it well is the soundtrack, its brilliant and helps set the dark tone the movie goes for. I Always liked the dawn of the dead soundtrack but i think this one makes dawns just sound a bit sillyThe trailer for this films describes day of the dead as "the darkest day of horror the world has ever known" , and it is well worthy of that statement. This movie has to be one of the darkest, most claustrophobic and gory films in history. that being said, is it a good film? plain and simple - YES!!By Scott Dewhurst

The Third and Most Underrated of the Living Dead Series.

tt0088993

In the third film of the Apocalyspe Horror Series from the Living Dead film is Written & Directed by George A. Romero (Creepshow, Monkey Shines). This was the least successful of the series but it still packs a punch and also this was supposed to be last of the Living Dead films.When the Human Race is almost gone, a group of survivors (Lori Cardille, Terry Alexander, Jarlath Conroy, Anthony DiLeo Jr., Gary Howard Klar, Ralph Marrero, John Alplas, Gregory Nictero, Phillip G. Kellams and Taso N. Stavrakis) are living in a Underground Banker. When sereval scientist are trying to find to control the problem but it is too late to find a solution. But when a mad doctor known as Dr. Frankenstein (Richard Liberty) finds a way to control the living dead after his successful test with a bright zombie (Howard Sherman), which that Zombie has some humanity left. But time is running out, when the soldiers are getting relentless with a violent control freak Captain Rhodes (Joseph Pilato). The Soldiers will do anything to get out of the Underground Banker. Since the Underground Banker is a Mix of Civilians and Scientists will try to get out of there first before the Soldiers do. Before they get stuck in that cold, lifeless dark place.When the film was released in 1985, the film suffer, because Romero shot the film with an X-Rating. It might have worked with "Dawn of the Dead" but with the 1980's audiences didn't flocked to see it. It receive Mixed Criticism with Moviegoers and Film Critics. This film features one of Tom Savini's Best Make-Up Effects Work. This film has a dark sense of humor and Romero manages to have some clever touches. Howard Sherman as the Zombie-Bub steals the show.DVD has an digitally remastered Picture Quality and Superior Sound. DVD has an sharp anamorphic Widescreen (1.85:1) transfer. DVD has an strong DTS 6.1 Es Surround Sound (also in Dolby Digital 5.1 Ex Surround Sound). DVD has an running commentary track by writer/director:George A. Romero, Make-Up Efffects Artist:Tom Savini, Production Designer:Cletus Anderson and Actress-Lori Cardille. DVD also has Commentary Track by Oscar-Winner Filmmaker:Roger Avery (Pulp Fiction, Silent Hill). The Second Disc has two feautrettes, One with the Cast and Crew and the Other with the Make-Up Effects Team. DVD has also an Radio Interview with the late actor:Richard Liberty and more. This is Romero's favorite Zombie film. This film is Too Talky for Some, Too Slow for Some but Fans of the Living Dead Series will love it. Don't miss it. Followed by "Land of the Dead". (****/*****).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088993/reviews-287

ur5115203

title: The Third and Most Underrated of the Living Dead Series. review: In the third film of the Apocalyspe Horror Series from the Living Dead film is Written & Directed by George A. Romero (Creepshow, Monkey Shines). This was the least successful of the series but it still packs a punch and also this was supposed to be last of the Living Dead films.When the Human Race is almost gone, a group of survivors (Lori Cardille, Terry Alexander, Jarlath Conroy, Anthony DiLeo Jr., Gary Howard Klar, Ralph Marrero, John Alplas, Gregory Nictero, Phillip G. Kellams and Taso N. Stavrakis) are living in a Underground Banker. When sereval scientist are trying to find to control the problem but it is too late to find a solution. But when a mad doctor known as Dr. Frankenstein (Richard Liberty) finds a way to control the living dead after his successful test with a bright zombie (Howard Sherman), which that Zombie has some humanity left. But time is running out, when the soldiers are getting relentless with a violent control freak Captain Rhodes (Joseph Pilato). The Soldiers will do anything to get out of the Underground Banker. Since the Underground Banker is a Mix of Civilians and Scientists will try to get out of there first before the Soldiers do. Before they get stuck in that cold, lifeless dark place.When the film was released in 1985, the film suffer, because Romero shot the film with an X-Rating. It might have worked with "Dawn of the Dead" but with the 1980's audiences didn't flocked to see it. It receive Mixed Criticism with Moviegoers and Film Critics. This film features one of Tom Savini's Best Make-Up Effects Work. This film has a dark sense of humor and Romero manages to have some clever touches. Howard Sherman as the Zombie-Bub steals the show.DVD has an digitally remastered Picture Quality and Superior Sound. DVD has an sharp anamorphic Widescreen (1.85:1) transfer. DVD has an strong DTS 6.1 Es Surround Sound (also in Dolby Digital 5.1 Ex Surround Sound). DVD has an running commentary track by writer/director:George A. Romero, Make-Up Efffects Artist:Tom Savini, Production Designer:Cletus Anderson and Actress-Lori Cardille. DVD also has Commentary Track by Oscar-Winner Filmmaker:Roger Avery (Pulp Fiction, Silent Hill). The Second Disc has two feautrettes, One with the Cast and Crew and the Other with the Make-Up Effects Team. DVD has also an Radio Interview with the late actor:Richard Liberty and more. This is Romero's favorite Zombie film. This film is Too Talky for Some, Too Slow for Some but Fans of the Living Dead Series will love it. Don't miss it. Followed by "Land of the Dead". (****/*****).

Romero's finest 'Dead' offering

tt0088993

"Day of the Dead" is an excellent film. George A. Romero ,who in essence created the modern day horror film, has never been finer than on this 'Day'. The political and sociological commentary we have come to love from Romero is at it's most poignant in 'Day'. It isn't necessarily evident on the first viewing but I've found that as I've re watched the film that I appreciate it even more. It is by far Romero's grimmest picture and viewing it after viewing "Dawn of the Dead" isn't really beneficial to appreciating "Day". "Dawn" is much lighter fare compared to "Day". What Romero dissects in "Day" is much deeper than the American consumer culture..."Day" has it's critics, and the critiques on "Day" aren't entirely unjustified. I, myself used to think it was the worst "Dead" film.The general consensus seems to not appreciate "Day"'s lack of "likeable" characters. I honestly think that these viewers come from a lens of having loved "Dawn",which had great well written characters who we root for. We are not supposed to like Rhodes and his team. They have been put in an entirely different scenario, and have been detached from the so called normalcy longer than the characters of "Dawn".Sarah and Captain Rhodes are battling over their destinies. This military base is divided between the scientists and the soldiers who both want to control their counterparts. Rhodes wants to jump in the helicopter and just fly away, Sarah wants to scientifically find the root of this pandemic to potentially end it. What Romero does so brilliantly is point out the great ironies. Rhodes' plan won't succeed because he simply doesn't have the supplies or means. Sarah's plan while noble is doomed for failure as well. She may find a cure or the cause but what power does she have with that information? What Romero does is try to hint that these people may in fact be the last on earth. The idea that humanity is left to these individuals who are making wrong decisions is ironic, and brilliant. The only person truly right in the midst is John the pilot, who observes that Rhodes and Sarah are Representatives of a society that failed in the face of Armageddon, a society that should be left to rot with the living dead.Much of the draw of "Day of the Dead" is Howard Sherman's brilliant portrayal of Bub the Zombie. The performance is absolutely above any expectations and is powerful. Sherman is delivering a Karloff caliber performance and ironically Bub is the most human character in the film. Intentional? You bet. Bub is capable of the simplest yet the most powerful of human emotions. When we see Bub and compare him to the rest of the cast who are wasting their lives away amidst constant bickering and melodrama, than we question who is really "alive" or "dead" Rhodes and his men are as barbaric as any of the flesh ripping zombies and yet they are human. Sherman is brilliant and really drives home Romero's intent. Credit must also be given to Tom Savini's fantastic make up which really highlights Sherman's brilliant pantomime.What I also love is that Romero blatantly attacks the military. Rhodes and his men all proudly wear their army duds and we ask "So what?" In this society where there is no government, constitution, or American way to defend, these titles and uniforms mean absolutely nothing. These men aren't soldiers, they're psychopaths. Bub's salute to Rhodes couldn't be anymore satisfying.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088993/reviews-431

ur4986911

title: Romero's finest 'Dead' offering review: "Day of the Dead" is an excellent film. George A. Romero ,who in essence created the modern day horror film, has never been finer than on this 'Day'. The political and sociological commentary we have come to love from Romero is at it's most poignant in 'Day'. It isn't necessarily evident on the first viewing but I've found that as I've re watched the film that I appreciate it even more. It is by far Romero's grimmest picture and viewing it after viewing "Dawn of the Dead" isn't really beneficial to appreciating "Day". "Dawn" is much lighter fare compared to "Day". What Romero dissects in "Day" is much deeper than the American consumer culture..."Day" has it's critics, and the critiques on "Day" aren't entirely unjustified. I, myself used to think it was the worst "Dead" film.The general consensus seems to not appreciate "Day"'s lack of "likeable" characters. I honestly think that these viewers come from a lens of having loved "Dawn",which had great well written characters who we root for. We are not supposed to like Rhodes and his team. They have been put in an entirely different scenario, and have been detached from the so called normalcy longer than the characters of "Dawn".Sarah and Captain Rhodes are battling over their destinies. This military base is divided between the scientists and the soldiers who both want to control their counterparts. Rhodes wants to jump in the helicopter and just fly away, Sarah wants to scientifically find the root of this pandemic to potentially end it. What Romero does so brilliantly is point out the great ironies. Rhodes' plan won't succeed because he simply doesn't have the supplies or means. Sarah's plan while noble is doomed for failure as well. She may find a cure or the cause but what power does she have with that information? What Romero does is try to hint that these people may in fact be the last on earth. The idea that humanity is left to these individuals who are making wrong decisions is ironic, and brilliant. The only person truly right in the midst is John the pilot, who observes that Rhodes and Sarah are Representatives of a society that failed in the face of Armageddon, a society that should be left to rot with the living dead.Much of the draw of "Day of the Dead" is Howard Sherman's brilliant portrayal of Bub the Zombie. The performance is absolutely above any expectations and is powerful. Sherman is delivering a Karloff caliber performance and ironically Bub is the most human character in the film. Intentional? You bet. Bub is capable of the simplest yet the most powerful of human emotions. When we see Bub and compare him to the rest of the cast who are wasting their lives away amidst constant bickering and melodrama, than we question who is really "alive" or "dead" Rhodes and his men are as barbaric as any of the flesh ripping zombies and yet they are human. Sherman is brilliant and really drives home Romero's intent. Credit must also be given to Tom Savini's fantastic make up which really highlights Sherman's brilliant pantomime.What I also love is that Romero blatantly attacks the military. Rhodes and his men all proudly wear their army duds and we ask "So what?" In this society where there is no government, constitution, or American way to defend, these titles and uniforms mean absolutely nothing. These men aren't soldiers, they're psychopaths. Bub's salute to Rhodes couldn't be anymore satisfying.

I'm biased, but...

tt0088993

...I still enjoy a romp with Romero's trilogy-capper at least once a year. Why am I biased? Well, I'm a horror movie buff for one, and second, I had the good fortune to play several zombie extras in this film. Still, I'm also a generalist film fan, and although much underrated, "Day of the Dead" is worthy addition to the Romero zombie mythos and a well-crafted film in its own right.Rather than dissect the film one more time, I'd like to take a moment to praise the recent DVD reissue: it kicks! This is the best edition of the 1985 gut-muncher I've ever seen, better even than the original theatrical release, which I saw premiere several times, including its Pittsburgh opening with scores of zombies in attendance. The DVD features a fine interview/making-of documentary as well as a tasty commentary track with Romero, make-up wizard Tom Savini, producer Cletus Anderson, and lead actress Lori Cardille. Also included are a behind-the-scenes reminisce from Savini & Co., and another commentary track by director Roger "I am not Quentin Tarantino" Avary, along with the usual DVD gobbets of stills, trailers and the like. Anchor Bay has very classily repackaged this film and is to be commended.The Romero zombie mythos has fascinated me since I first saw "Night of the Living Dead" at college back in the (very) early 70's. "Dawn of the Dead" (1979)* was an absolute revelation and gave me deliciously creepy nightmares for weeks after first seeing it. By the time "Day of the Dead" was released, I wasn't quite as impressionable, but the intelligent, somewhat talky script expanded upon Romero's cynical view of humanity in a way that complemented my continued fascination with extreme special effects, which Savini delivered with affectionate relish. The acting is mostly good to very good (and, no, I never had a problem with Joe Pilato's vein-popping high dudgeon; given the situation his character is in, I would have been chewing the scenery as well). The only true disappointment I have with "Day of the Dead" is that it wasn't the full vision that Romero first intended. Perhaps he will have the opportunity to lay the dead to rest someday, hopefully before he joins them himself.*Please note: although the IMDb credits the film as a 1978 release, it was not actually released in the U.S. until Spring of 1979, which is why I so label it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088993/reviews-179

ur0431565

title: I'm biased, but... review: ...I still enjoy a romp with Romero's trilogy-capper at least once a year. Why am I biased? Well, I'm a horror movie buff for one, and second, I had the good fortune to play several zombie extras in this film. Still, I'm also a generalist film fan, and although much underrated, "Day of the Dead" is worthy addition to the Romero zombie mythos and a well-crafted film in its own right.Rather than dissect the film one more time, I'd like to take a moment to praise the recent DVD reissue: it kicks! This is the best edition of the 1985 gut-muncher I've ever seen, better even than the original theatrical release, which I saw premiere several times, including its Pittsburgh opening with scores of zombies in attendance. The DVD features a fine interview/making-of documentary as well as a tasty commentary track with Romero, make-up wizard Tom Savini, producer Cletus Anderson, and lead actress Lori Cardille. Also included are a behind-the-scenes reminisce from Savini & Co., and another commentary track by director Roger "I am not Quentin Tarantino" Avary, along with the usual DVD gobbets of stills, trailers and the like. Anchor Bay has very classily repackaged this film and is to be commended.The Romero zombie mythos has fascinated me since I first saw "Night of the Living Dead" at college back in the (very) early 70's. "Dawn of the Dead" (1979)* was an absolute revelation and gave me deliciously creepy nightmares for weeks after first seeing it. By the time "Day of the Dead" was released, I wasn't quite as impressionable, but the intelligent, somewhat talky script expanded upon Romero's cynical view of humanity in a way that complemented my continued fascination with extreme special effects, which Savini delivered with affectionate relish. The acting is mostly good to very good (and, no, I never had a problem with Joe Pilato's vein-popping high dudgeon; given the situation his character is in, I would have been chewing the scenery as well). The only true disappointment I have with "Day of the Dead" is that it wasn't the full vision that Romero first intended. Perhaps he will have the opportunity to lay the dead to rest someday, hopefully before he joins them himself.*Please note: although the IMDb credits the film as a 1978 release, it was not actually released in the U.S. until Spring of 1979, which is why I so label it.

Music soothes even the savage zombie.

tt0088993

The third and final installment in George Romero's Living Dead trilogy is surprising in that it comes so close to being a dismal, depressing close to one of the most famous horror film series' ever made. True, the movie sucks pretty badly and pretty consistently except for the last 20 minutes or so, but that last 20 minutes come on pretty strong to save the rest of the movie. Strife among characters has been a major element in the series since the beginning, but in Day of the Dead the characters are so antagonistic toward each other that the movie almost becomes unwatchable. We have gone from an uncomfortable group fighting a small but quickly growing hoard of zombies in Night of the Living Dead to a group of people who mostly get along except for a herd of bikers with an inexplicable urge to kill them in Dawn of the Dead to this, a bunch of military guys and some scientists in an underground bunker, so suspicious and angry at each other that there are fingers on triggers pointed at other living people throughout the majority of the movie. And here I was thinking that something that threatens the entire human race might tend to bring the remaining survivors together, regardless of their differences. If Independence Day taught me a single thing, I thought that was it. I could see, for example, Michael Moore and Dick Cheney desperately fighting for each other's survival if they were, like the people in Day of the Dead, outnumbered by walking cannibalistic zombies 400,000 to 1. Not this movie.Interestingly, the movie starts out really well and ends really well, kind of like a really good song often does. The opening of the movie is a brief but fascinating tour of the streets of a city taken over by the dead. Here was something a little strange that happened while I was watching it – during this opening sequence, I was reminded of the description of the deserted Jerusalem's Lot in the beginning of Stephen King's novel ‘Salem's Lot, which I am currently re-reading because it was mentioned at the end of Wolves of the Calla, the fifth installment in Stephen King's Dark Tower series. The ghost town of ‘Salem's Lot is described as though it were suddenly deserted, even with a transaction rung up in a local store and $50 cash in the register, untouched. The town in Day of the Dead is overrun with garbage and rotting carcasses of cars, alligators for some reason roam free, and cash blows down the street like leaves. Later in the movie, a copy of ‘Salem's Lot actually makes a cameo appearance. Weird!Anyway, the new things that happen in Day of the Dead (these things take their sweet time in emerging from the endless human bickering, by the way) deal mostly with the psychology of the zombies. For that reason, the vast majority of the movie is clinical and dull. The setting is an underground bunker, and we are forced to sit through scene after scene of a scientist conducting numerous tests on a captive zombie, which could be a pretty interesting character study (how often do you actually get this close to a gory horror movie villain?), except that the military guys are just down the hallway sulking and threatening to kill the hard-working doctor if he doesn't come up with some results and fast. I could see the captain getting mad at the scientist for suggesting an evolutionary link between humans and reptiles, but what else did he want the guy to do, sit around and mope with him and his buddies? The smartest thing this captain Rhodes ever does in the movie is call the doctor `Frankenstein,' although Rhodes probably doesn't even know he's right that Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is the doctor, not the monster.We find out eventually that the scientists big plan is to find some way to control the zombies, although the obvious obstacle is that this plan would require close and fairly extensive contact and treatment of millions of zombies to put them all under control. Not exactly a plan that lies within their power, but the doctor correctly concludes that the only way to win against the zombies is to make them behave. There are also some clever scenes that ponder about the role of God in this whole spectacle. One character speculates that God has risen the undead as a way to punish the human race for our sins, hinting to the audience that we better straighten out and live holy lives. What a message to get from a horror movie! But then, a couple minutes later, the assertion is made that the only way to make the zombies behave is to trick them into thinking there's some reward coming to them for good behavior, the way the rest of humanity has been tricked. So much for the God message…They exercise control over the zombies (one zombie, anyway) mostly through the use of classical conditioning, positive reinforcement, and attempts at model behavior (`How are we going to set an example for them if we behave barbarically ourselves?'), which results in a clever role for one of the zombies and the unexpected result that one of them becomes a protagonist. The caves at the end mark the beginning of the best portion of the movie. They're very effective atmospherically, despite the goofy, bright red haunted-house-ride lighting. The gore is largely absent from most of the middle of the movie, since this is the portion that's so preoccupied with the humans arguing with each other, but the gore at the beginning and at the end has improved massively from the last two movies. Some scenes were a little too realistic. Given recent events in the Middle East, I seem to have lost what little appetite I may ever have had for beheading scenes, and one such scene in the movie takes place while a man is screaming, his scream becoming more and more high-pitched as his vocal cords are stretched and severed. I'm only 25 and I think I'm too old for this.There is an interesting scene in which one of the characters is bitten on the arm by a zombie and they try to save him by cutting his arm off, supposedly before the zombie poison can get to the rest of his body and take him over. That was clever, I hadn't seen that in any of the other movies. This character, incidentally, is the one who ultimately goes on to make an `escape attempt,' which probably was the single event that saved the movie from the Oblivion of the Ridiculous, a realm populated by countless thousands of horror films. I won't go into details, but his attempt to escape is the moment that the movie starts getting good. Sadly, since there are only about 15 minutes left in the movie by this point, it doesn't have time to move in the right direction for very long. Ah well

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088993/reviews-234

ur0562732

title: Music soothes even the savage zombie. review: The third and final installment in George Romero's Living Dead trilogy is surprising in that it comes so close to being a dismal, depressing close to one of the most famous horror film series' ever made. True, the movie sucks pretty badly and pretty consistently except for the last 20 minutes or so, but that last 20 minutes come on pretty strong to save the rest of the movie. Strife among characters has been a major element in the series since the beginning, but in Day of the Dead the characters are so antagonistic toward each other that the movie almost becomes unwatchable. We have gone from an uncomfortable group fighting a small but quickly growing hoard of zombies in Night of the Living Dead to a group of people who mostly get along except for a herd of bikers with an inexplicable urge to kill them in Dawn of the Dead to this, a bunch of military guys and some scientists in an underground bunker, so suspicious and angry at each other that there are fingers on triggers pointed at other living people throughout the majority of the movie. And here I was thinking that something that threatens the entire human race might tend to bring the remaining survivors together, regardless of their differences. If Independence Day taught me a single thing, I thought that was it. I could see, for example, Michael Moore and Dick Cheney desperately fighting for each other's survival if they were, like the people in Day of the Dead, outnumbered by walking cannibalistic zombies 400,000 to 1. Not this movie.Interestingly, the movie starts out really well and ends really well, kind of like a really good song often does. The opening of the movie is a brief but fascinating tour of the streets of a city taken over by the dead. Here was something a little strange that happened while I was watching it – during this opening sequence, I was reminded of the description of the deserted Jerusalem's Lot in the beginning of Stephen King's novel ‘Salem's Lot, which I am currently re-reading because it was mentioned at the end of Wolves of the Calla, the fifth installment in Stephen King's Dark Tower series. The ghost town of ‘Salem's Lot is described as though it were suddenly deserted, even with a transaction rung up in a local store and $50 cash in the register, untouched. The town in Day of the Dead is overrun with garbage and rotting carcasses of cars, alligators for some reason roam free, and cash blows down the street like leaves. Later in the movie, a copy of ‘Salem's Lot actually makes a cameo appearance. Weird!Anyway, the new things that happen in Day of the Dead (these things take their sweet time in emerging from the endless human bickering, by the way) deal mostly with the psychology of the zombies. For that reason, the vast majority of the movie is clinical and dull. The setting is an underground bunker, and we are forced to sit through scene after scene of a scientist conducting numerous tests on a captive zombie, which could be a pretty interesting character study (how often do you actually get this close to a gory horror movie villain?), except that the military guys are just down the hallway sulking and threatening to kill the hard-working doctor if he doesn't come up with some results and fast. I could see the captain getting mad at the scientist for suggesting an evolutionary link between humans and reptiles, but what else did he want the guy to do, sit around and mope with him and his buddies? The smartest thing this captain Rhodes ever does in the movie is call the doctor `Frankenstein,' although Rhodes probably doesn't even know he's right that Mary Shelley's Frankenstein is the doctor, not the monster.We find out eventually that the scientists big plan is to find some way to control the zombies, although the obvious obstacle is that this plan would require close and fairly extensive contact and treatment of millions of zombies to put them all under control. Not exactly a plan that lies within their power, but the doctor correctly concludes that the only way to win against the zombies is to make them behave. There are also some clever scenes that ponder about the role of God in this whole spectacle. One character speculates that God has risen the undead as a way to punish the human race for our sins, hinting to the audience that we better straighten out and live holy lives. What a message to get from a horror movie! But then, a couple minutes later, the assertion is made that the only way to make the zombies behave is to trick them into thinking there's some reward coming to them for good behavior, the way the rest of humanity has been tricked. So much for the God message…They exercise control over the zombies (one zombie, anyway) mostly through the use of classical conditioning, positive reinforcement, and attempts at model behavior (`How are we going to set an example for them if we behave barbarically ourselves?'), which results in a clever role for one of the zombies and the unexpected result that one of them becomes a protagonist. The caves at the end mark the beginning of the best portion of the movie. They're very effective atmospherically, despite the goofy, bright red haunted-house-ride lighting. The gore is largely absent from most of the middle of the movie, since this is the portion that's so preoccupied with the humans arguing with each other, but the gore at the beginning and at the end has improved massively from the last two movies. Some scenes were a little too realistic. Given recent events in the Middle East, I seem to have lost what little appetite I may ever have had for beheading scenes, and one such scene in the movie takes place while a man is screaming, his scream becoming more and more high-pitched as his vocal cords are stretched and severed. I'm only 25 and I think I'm too old for this.There is an interesting scene in which one of the characters is bitten on the arm by a zombie and they try to save him by cutting his arm off, supposedly before the zombie poison can get to the rest of his body and take him over. That was clever, I hadn't seen that in any of the other movies. This character, incidentally, is the one who ultimately goes on to make an `escape attempt,' which probably was the single event that saved the movie from the Oblivion of the Ridiculous, a realm populated by countless thousands of horror films. I won't go into details, but his attempt to escape is the moment that the movie starts getting good. Sadly, since there are only about 15 minutes left in the movie by this point, it doesn't have time to move in the right direction for very long. Ah well

A good movie

tt0088993

This is a decent film in it's own right & stands up well against the other Romero films too. It's quite good start to the film with the fake scare before the opening credits have even rolled & a group of civilians with 1 soldier looking for survivors in what seems to be a ghost town but is full of the living dead.With the return back to the compound you see the civilians are in the minority in an underground military bunker where research is being done on the undead by a crazed scientist called Logan. There is definitely a big divide between the military & the civilians & quite a lot of animosity and frayed nerves of those living on the edge.Despite it's age this film still looks good, the effects stand up to close scrutiny. The script & acting aren't fantastic, the people playing the soldiers all over-act like crazy playing their characters to the extreme. The scares are still good but not much more.Captain Rhodes is insane with power & his men (what's left of them) aren't all that much saner than he is. As much as they want to leave the lead scientists question is very valid. Where would they go? The actual location itself is great. It certainly does look like an underground bunker. It was a mine, and is a storage facility now. The location supports the feeling of living in too close quarters with people getting cabin fever & just wanting out, no matter where.The attempts to civilise or domesticate the zombies by Logan is quite an interesting idea, as is the reaction of the military who would much sooner kill them all. Private Steel is pretty much pushed over the edge after seeing 1 of his men killed & having to kill another who was infected (even though he was begged by the man to kill him rather than become a zombie).The stand-off after this & the idea you can prevent someone becoming a zombie by cutting off the effected limb are quite cool scenes. Sarah (the lead female scientist) is pretty much on the edge of hysteria herself there at the thought of having to possibly kill someone she cares about (Private Salazar, the 1 soldier who seems sane but on the brink of exhaustion).After finding out Dr Logan had not only been experimenting on the bodies of his men but also feeding them to Bub (the tame zombie), Captain Rhodes goes totally crazy & kills Dr Logan & his assistant Ted Fisher. He takes everyone prisoner & insists the civilian helicopter pilot John flies just the soldiers to safety.Even though I've seen this film several times I still can't work out how Bub manages to undo his chains so easily. Salazar takes the lift to the surface. The scares where Sarah and William find the rock-slide are possibly the best in the entire film.John manages to jump Rhodes & escape. I assume Salazar opens the gates to let the zombies in as he feels he is almost certainly going to become one anyway.There's a great goof that the American Football Zombie comes down on the elevator (he's the one who falls off) but ALSO comes through the corral entrance in a completely different part of the compound. I guess the director didn't think we'd be looking at the zombies that carefully.Bubs emotional outburst at finding Dr Logan dead was a completely new idea back then, that a zombie could care for someone. The special effects for the deaths of the remaining soldiers are really gory & still look pretty darn amazing to be honest. Steel is the only one not killed by the zombies (shooting himself in the head) and his death effect is very convincing too.The scare when Sarah gets in the helicopter is very good (I'll be honest, pretty much all the scares apart from the very 1st which I remembered wasn't real managed to make me jump) and the weakest thing about this movie is the lack of an ending, Sarah, John & William on a sandy beach somewhere just isn't enough for me.It still stands the test of time & is far superior to its modern "remake". Highly worth a watch if your a horror fan.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088993/reviews-391

ur0727639

title: A good movie review: This is a decent film in it's own right & stands up well against the other Romero films too. It's quite good start to the film with the fake scare before the opening credits have even rolled & a group of civilians with 1 soldier looking for survivors in what seems to be a ghost town but is full of the living dead.With the return back to the compound you see the civilians are in the minority in an underground military bunker where research is being done on the undead by a crazed scientist called Logan. There is definitely a big divide between the military & the civilians & quite a lot of animosity and frayed nerves of those living on the edge.Despite it's age this film still looks good, the effects stand up to close scrutiny. The script & acting aren't fantastic, the people playing the soldiers all over-act like crazy playing their characters to the extreme. The scares are still good but not much more.Captain Rhodes is insane with power & his men (what's left of them) aren't all that much saner than he is. As much as they want to leave the lead scientists question is very valid. Where would they go? The actual location itself is great. It certainly does look like an underground bunker. It was a mine, and is a storage facility now. The location supports the feeling of living in too close quarters with people getting cabin fever & just wanting out, no matter where.The attempts to civilise or domesticate the zombies by Logan is quite an interesting idea, as is the reaction of the military who would much sooner kill them all. Private Steel is pretty much pushed over the edge after seeing 1 of his men killed & having to kill another who was infected (even though he was begged by the man to kill him rather than become a zombie).The stand-off after this & the idea you can prevent someone becoming a zombie by cutting off the effected limb are quite cool scenes. Sarah (the lead female scientist) is pretty much on the edge of hysteria herself there at the thought of having to possibly kill someone she cares about (Private Salazar, the 1 soldier who seems sane but on the brink of exhaustion).After finding out Dr Logan had not only been experimenting on the bodies of his men but also feeding them to Bub (the tame zombie), Captain Rhodes goes totally crazy & kills Dr Logan & his assistant Ted Fisher. He takes everyone prisoner & insists the civilian helicopter pilot John flies just the soldiers to safety.Even though I've seen this film several times I still can't work out how Bub manages to undo his chains so easily. Salazar takes the lift to the surface. The scares where Sarah and William find the rock-slide are possibly the best in the entire film.John manages to jump Rhodes & escape. I assume Salazar opens the gates to let the zombies in as he feels he is almost certainly going to become one anyway.There's a great goof that the American Football Zombie comes down on the elevator (he's the one who falls off) but ALSO comes through the corral entrance in a completely different part of the compound. I guess the director didn't think we'd be looking at the zombies that carefully.Bubs emotional outburst at finding Dr Logan dead was a completely new idea back then, that a zombie could care for someone. The special effects for the deaths of the remaining soldiers are really gory & still look pretty darn amazing to be honest. Steel is the only one not killed by the zombies (shooting himself in the head) and his death effect is very convincing too.The scare when Sarah gets in the helicopter is very good (I'll be honest, pretty much all the scares apart from the very 1st which I remembered wasn't real managed to make me jump) and the weakest thing about this movie is the lack of an ending, Sarah, John & William on a sandy beach somewhere just isn't enough for me.It still stands the test of time & is far superior to its modern "remake". Highly worth a watch if your a horror fan.

"Dark Days, Bright Nights"

tt0088993

The third film in George A. Romero's immensely popular "Living Dead" trilogy is by far the bleakest and most complex film the director has ever worked on. "Day of the Dead" received a lot of negative press upon its release in 1985 - people picked apart unsavory characters, OVER-acting from a no-name cast, and outlandishly gory special effects that only Tom Savini himself could be proud of.But none of this makes it a bad experience really, does it? I don't think so. For the reason that I usually detest zombie flicks, I have worked up a fondness for the works of Romero and over the last two weeks have separately watched each film in his trilogy."Night of the Living Dead" (1968) virtually defined a new genre of horror movie-making and basically set the standards for the many zombie flicks that would follow in its footsteps. Next up to bat was the most praised film in the trilogy - "Dawn of the Dead" (1978) - which was more of an action film than a horror movie and was nothing short of epic. Then came "Day" in 1985, which got the tongue-lashing that I described earlier.However those that did like it, praised the Savini effects, its complex, plot-driven characters, and satire. While "Day" is certainly a step down from "Night" and "Dawn," "Day" is more of a claustrophobic horror movie and that allows it to stand on its own as a fitting end to Romero's trilogy. It's more in sync with the tension of "Night" than it is with the adrenalin-laced action, zombie-slaughterfest that was "Dawn."A team of civilian scientists and a loose army unit clash with each other's motives after they have taken shelter at an underground military base from the hordes of living dead that storm the surface above. The civilian scientists aren't seeking to eradicate the zombies like the soldiers are hell-bent on doing, but are instead trying to get to the bottom of what is causing them to be what they are.In doing so, they need live zombie specimens, which are held captive in a maze of dark underground tunnels where they're corralled like cattle. We later get what is one of the most profound and moving experiences in the entire trilogy with "Day," when we see one zombie, nicknamed "Bub" by one particularly eccentric scientist, who eventually learns what it means to be "alive," so to speak."Day of the Dead" obviously isn't a perfect movie, but is more or less a fitting conclusion to one of the most daring film trilogies in the horror genre. It may be best to not watch "Day" thinking it'll be anything like "Dawn" just because it has military men blasting away mercilessly at the living dead. Zombie slaughter is few and far between and much of the first hour of the film is clashing dialogue between the characters.The darkest day in the world - "Day of the Dead."9/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088993/reviews-243

ur0892646

title: "Dark Days, Bright Nights" review: The third film in George A. Romero's immensely popular "Living Dead" trilogy is by far the bleakest and most complex film the director has ever worked on. "Day of the Dead" received a lot of negative press upon its release in 1985 - people picked apart unsavory characters, OVER-acting from a no-name cast, and outlandishly gory special effects that only Tom Savini himself could be proud of.But none of this makes it a bad experience really, does it? I don't think so. For the reason that I usually detest zombie flicks, I have worked up a fondness for the works of Romero and over the last two weeks have separately watched each film in his trilogy."Night of the Living Dead" (1968) virtually defined a new genre of horror movie-making and basically set the standards for the many zombie flicks that would follow in its footsteps. Next up to bat was the most praised film in the trilogy - "Dawn of the Dead" (1978) - which was more of an action film than a horror movie and was nothing short of epic. Then came "Day" in 1985, which got the tongue-lashing that I described earlier.However those that did like it, praised the Savini effects, its complex, plot-driven characters, and satire. While "Day" is certainly a step down from "Night" and "Dawn," "Day" is more of a claustrophobic horror movie and that allows it to stand on its own as a fitting end to Romero's trilogy. It's more in sync with the tension of "Night" than it is with the adrenalin-laced action, zombie-slaughterfest that was "Dawn."A team of civilian scientists and a loose army unit clash with each other's motives after they have taken shelter at an underground military base from the hordes of living dead that storm the surface above. The civilian scientists aren't seeking to eradicate the zombies like the soldiers are hell-bent on doing, but are instead trying to get to the bottom of what is causing them to be what they are.In doing so, they need live zombie specimens, which are held captive in a maze of dark underground tunnels where they're corralled like cattle. We later get what is one of the most profound and moving experiences in the entire trilogy with "Day," when we see one zombie, nicknamed "Bub" by one particularly eccentric scientist, who eventually learns what it means to be "alive," so to speak."Day of the Dead" obviously isn't a perfect movie, but is more or less a fitting conclusion to one of the most daring film trilogies in the horror genre. It may be best to not watch "Day" thinking it'll be anything like "Dawn" just because it has military men blasting away mercilessly at the living dead. Zombie slaughter is few and far between and much of the first hour of the film is clashing dialogue between the characters.The darkest day in the world - "Day of the Dead."9/10

Not bad, but not great.

tt0088993

George A. Romero's Day of the Dead is my least favorite of his living dead series. This is not to say it is a bad venture, but I thought it lacked the innovativeness of his other works. Still, one has to remember Day of the Dead followed Dawn of the Dead, which was the pinnacle. It was a hard project to top. Moreover, Day of the Dead was not bad. At the outset, I know Romero could not create his original vision because of budget restraints, which resulted in another script. That being said, Romero worked with what he had, and pulled it off pretty well. This one picks up during the bleakest time in a very claustrophobic setting. At this point, scientists estimate there are 100,000 zombies per live human being. Our remnant has fortified its position in an old military station. It is an underground bunker surrounded by chain link fence above ground. In this facility, scientists Sarah (Lori Cardille), Logan (Richard Liberty), and Dr. Fisher (John Amplass) are trying experiments to solve the living dead problem. They are trying under duress as the military leaders Rhodes (Joseph Pilato) and Steel (G. Howard Klar) are becoming more and more antagonistic. They have lost men trying to get more zombie specimens. Caught in the middle are John (Terry Alexander) and Jarleth (William McDermot). They are the only ones who know how to fly the helicopter to get them out. Moreover, there are not enough seats. One scientist, Dr. Logan, has been doing experiments in hopes to domesticate the zombies. One in particular is Bub who starts to remember his former life. He is rewarded, but this appeasement comes at too high a price. I will get two gripes out of the way. First, it seems Romero was running out of ideas for the zombies. What could they do? Was there anything new for them? Not really. Second, the setting was too static. Remaining at one location was a bit too much. I know with Dawn, the setting was mostly at the mall, but there was also the boonies, Philadelphia, a television station, an airport, and even other mall stores. Here, we stay at one place far too long. However, this is also a benefit. Romero does create a claustrophobic atmosphere that is far more serious than Dawn of the Dead. There is also a heavy sense of despair comparable to Night of the Living Dead. He also relies more on the scares to match the overarching dread. This can also be attributed to the actors involved. Tension is prevalent, along with conflict, distrust, and even paranoia. It works and works well. Another good aspect was the juxtaposition of the zombie, Bub, with the military personnel. Bub has far more character and soul than the heartless grunts. Also, it seems that Romero might have made a statement against science. I don't know, I might have misread the interpretation. Yet, when I was watching this movie, I wondered if under such bleak conditions could the remaining living appease the living dead and domesticate them? It seemed the task was too daunting and far-fetched under the situation. In any case, this was not a bad venture for Romero. It just could not compare to his Dawn of the Dead masterpiece.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088993/reviews-387

ur10002238

title: Not bad, but not great. review: George A. Romero's Day of the Dead is my least favorite of his living dead series. This is not to say it is a bad venture, but I thought it lacked the innovativeness of his other works. Still, one has to remember Day of the Dead followed Dawn of the Dead, which was the pinnacle. It was a hard project to top. Moreover, Day of the Dead was not bad. At the outset, I know Romero could not create his original vision because of budget restraints, which resulted in another script. That being said, Romero worked with what he had, and pulled it off pretty well. This one picks up during the bleakest time in a very claustrophobic setting. At this point, scientists estimate there are 100,000 zombies per live human being. Our remnant has fortified its position in an old military station. It is an underground bunker surrounded by chain link fence above ground. In this facility, scientists Sarah (Lori Cardille), Logan (Richard Liberty), and Dr. Fisher (John Amplass) are trying experiments to solve the living dead problem. They are trying under duress as the military leaders Rhodes (Joseph Pilato) and Steel (G. Howard Klar) are becoming more and more antagonistic. They have lost men trying to get more zombie specimens. Caught in the middle are John (Terry Alexander) and Jarleth (William McDermot). They are the only ones who know how to fly the helicopter to get them out. Moreover, there are not enough seats. One scientist, Dr. Logan, has been doing experiments in hopes to domesticate the zombies. One in particular is Bub who starts to remember his former life. He is rewarded, but this appeasement comes at too high a price. I will get two gripes out of the way. First, it seems Romero was running out of ideas for the zombies. What could they do? Was there anything new for them? Not really. Second, the setting was too static. Remaining at one location was a bit too much. I know with Dawn, the setting was mostly at the mall, but there was also the boonies, Philadelphia, a television station, an airport, and even other mall stores. Here, we stay at one place far too long. However, this is also a benefit. Romero does create a claustrophobic atmosphere that is far more serious than Dawn of the Dead. There is also a heavy sense of despair comparable to Night of the Living Dead. He also relies more on the scares to match the overarching dread. This can also be attributed to the actors involved. Tension is prevalent, along with conflict, distrust, and even paranoia. It works and works well. Another good aspect was the juxtaposition of the zombie, Bub, with the military personnel. Bub has far more character and soul than the heartless grunts. Also, it seems that Romero might have made a statement against science. I don't know, I might have misread the interpretation. Yet, when I was watching this movie, I wondered if under such bleak conditions could the remaining living appease the living dead and domesticate them? It seemed the task was too daunting and far-fetched under the situation. In any case, this was not a bad venture for Romero. It just could not compare to his Dawn of the Dead masterpiece.

The Dead Have Won

tt0088993

George A. Romero, the legendary director of Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead, brings us another entry into his "Dead" series. Armed by amazing gore effects by Tom Savini, Romero makes another fantastic zombie film. Romero never fails to entertain.The humans have lost the war (as another reviewer once wrote) and now the dead have taken the world. A group of scientists and soldiers hide in an underground mining facility to find a solution to the zombies that exists above. Not all goes as planned...Romero has created one of the favorite genres of movie-going audiences, the zombie apocalypse. This time the zombies aren't black and white, they aren't blue, they actually look like the walking dead! The gore was very realistic and I applaud Tom Savini for this.I personally feel like Dawn of the Dead is the best of the Romero zombie films, this one wasn't bad, but it wasn't the as good as the first two, it was better than Land of the Dead (which wasn't bad either). Day of the Dead just wasn't as good as the previous films in the series.10/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088993/reviews-409

ur12114282

title: The Dead Have Won review: George A. Romero, the legendary director of Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead, brings us another entry into his "Dead" series. Armed by amazing gore effects by Tom Savini, Romero makes another fantastic zombie film. Romero never fails to entertain.The humans have lost the war (as another reviewer once wrote) and now the dead have taken the world. A group of scientists and soldiers hide in an underground mining facility to find a solution to the zombies that exists above. Not all goes as planned...Romero has created one of the favorite genres of movie-going audiences, the zombie apocalypse. This time the zombies aren't black and white, they aren't blue, they actually look like the walking dead! The gore was very realistic and I applaud Tom Savini for this.I personally feel like Dawn of the Dead is the best of the Romero zombie films, this one wasn't bad, but it wasn't the as good as the first two, it was better than Land of the Dead (which wasn't bad either). Day of the Dead just wasn't as good as the previous films in the series.10/10

the zombies are almost a distraction...

tt0088993

No movie in the history of cinema has made my critical radar as confounded as this one; it seems like I've given no other film more chances to earn my approval, but lately it has really started to grow on me, to the point where I can (almost) see what people mean when they call it "the best in the trilogy." Of course, I'm not going to go that far, but I am going to praise it for what it is: a brilliant depiction of a desperate situation, the nihilism of existence after existence (as a human being) has been rendered meaningless, and a reminder of why humans would be better off conforming to the zombie plague instead of trying to fight it.My initial viewings always were soured by the human characters, who were unpleasant or apathetic enough to drive me to indifference or contempt. Yet, considering "Day of the Dead" as a progression of the situation created in "Night" (for all the zombies roaming the countryside, there are still a lot of humans, too) and "Dawn" (okay, the zombies have the upper hand, but there are still a FEW humans left), the handful of characters gathered in the elaborate underground shelter are at a dead end (as one of them sarcastically intones: "Maybe we are the only ones left."). Romero has always cleverly implied that the zombies, who act on instinct, are really less 'monstrous' (and indeed, less scary) than the humans battling them. This point is boldly underlined in "Day of the Dead," where military and science is at war, unable to work cooperatively toward common goals; in such a desperate situation, it makes an ironic bit of sense that the most apathetic characters also turn out to be the most sensible.Lately, I have really come to appreciate the human element of Romero's films. Whereas I was once a 12-year old staying up late to gaze in wonder at exploding heads and severed limbs in "Dawn of the Dead," lately the zombies have begun to feel like periphery to the overriding themes of human relationships. Roger Ebert once described the zombies as "blameless," and he's right--they are innocents who just happen to thrive on warm flesh. By comparison, the humans are selfish, manipulative, and hopelessly flawed in their actions, which ultimately determines the downfall that causes the inevitable third-act zombie riot.Though Romero seems to be more ambitious than can be sustained for 100 minutes, his effort is admirable--"Day of the Dead" is a fine showcase for Tom Savini's gore, memorable characters (especially Joe Pilato's loathsome Rhodes), and down-to-earth writing (working from a truncated script). Here's hoping "Land of the Dead" continues in this difficult, uncompromising direction...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088993/reviews-273

ur1193248

title: the zombies are almost a distraction... review: No movie in the history of cinema has made my critical radar as confounded as this one; it seems like I've given no other film more chances to earn my approval, but lately it has really started to grow on me, to the point where I can (almost) see what people mean when they call it "the best in the trilogy." Of course, I'm not going to go that far, but I am going to praise it for what it is: a brilliant depiction of a desperate situation, the nihilism of existence after existence (as a human being) has been rendered meaningless, and a reminder of why humans would be better off conforming to the zombie plague instead of trying to fight it.My initial viewings always were soured by the human characters, who were unpleasant or apathetic enough to drive me to indifference or contempt. Yet, considering "Day of the Dead" as a progression of the situation created in "Night" (for all the zombies roaming the countryside, there are still a lot of humans, too) and "Dawn" (okay, the zombies have the upper hand, but there are still a FEW humans left), the handful of characters gathered in the elaborate underground shelter are at a dead end (as one of them sarcastically intones: "Maybe we are the only ones left."). Romero has always cleverly implied that the zombies, who act on instinct, are really less 'monstrous' (and indeed, less scary) than the humans battling them. This point is boldly underlined in "Day of the Dead," where military and science is at war, unable to work cooperatively toward common goals; in such a desperate situation, it makes an ironic bit of sense that the most apathetic characters also turn out to be the most sensible.Lately, I have really come to appreciate the human element of Romero's films. Whereas I was once a 12-year old staying up late to gaze in wonder at exploding heads and severed limbs in "Dawn of the Dead," lately the zombies have begun to feel like periphery to the overriding themes of human relationships. Roger Ebert once described the zombies as "blameless," and he's right--they are innocents who just happen to thrive on warm flesh. By comparison, the humans are selfish, manipulative, and hopelessly flawed in their actions, which ultimately determines the downfall that causes the inevitable third-act zombie riot.Though Romero seems to be more ambitious than can be sustained for 100 minutes, his effort is admirable--"Day of the Dead" is a fine showcase for Tom Savini's gore, memorable characters (especially Joe Pilato's loathsome Rhodes), and down-to-earth writing (working from a truncated script). Here's hoping "Land of the Dead" continues in this difficult, uncompromising direction...

It just keeps getting better

tt0088993

The 80s was a big decade for zombie movies. It gave us such classics as Lucio Fulci's 'The Beyond' and 'The Gates of Hell' and Dan O'Bannon's 'The Return of the Living Dead.' But as we all know these movies would likely not exist had it not been for George A. Romero's 1968 and 1978 zombie film hits. Like 'Night of the Living Dead,' 'Dawn of the Dead' didn't end with the zombie outbreak coming to an end. In fact it got worse as the film progressed, so it seemed only right that another installment be made and made it was 7 years later. Unfortunately, the third film suffered the same fate that befell 'Alien 3.' The previous film was such a crowd-pleaser while 'Day of the Dead' is a much more downbeat and a bit slower in pace. But over the last 20+ years it's gained a huge following, one that I am proud to be a member of.Pros: A terrifying opening dream sequence. Spectacular special, make-up, and gore effects. A powerful and sometimes haunting score. Excellent performances all around. Has a real feeling of dread thanks to the dark and dirty setting and the lack of civility between the scientists and soldiers. Though not as good as in the previous film, this film's cinematography is still quite good. Buckets of blood and gore. The first two films had smarts in the writing and this one is no exception. Romero does a good job of keeping the viewers in suspense. Moves at a good pace, especially for a film that doesn't have a lot action scenes. A finale that'll stay with you.Cons: The yelling and bickering does get old after a while.Final thoughts: I can't stress enough about how much I love this film. Unlike a lot of horror films in recent years, which are mindless and totally lacking in real suspense or likable characters, this one actually feels satisfying after it's over. It's dark, scary, gruesome, makes you think, has a few characters to root for, and more. Now how many horror films today can we say that about? My rating: 5/5

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088993/reviews-392

ur4597795

title: It just keeps getting better review: The 80s was a big decade for zombie movies. It gave us such classics as Lucio Fulci's 'The Beyond' and 'The Gates of Hell' and Dan O'Bannon's 'The Return of the Living Dead.' But as we all know these movies would likely not exist had it not been for George A. Romero's 1968 and 1978 zombie film hits. Like 'Night of the Living Dead,' 'Dawn of the Dead' didn't end with the zombie outbreak coming to an end. In fact it got worse as the film progressed, so it seemed only right that another installment be made and made it was 7 years later. Unfortunately, the third film suffered the same fate that befell 'Alien 3.' The previous film was such a crowd-pleaser while 'Day of the Dead' is a much more downbeat and a bit slower in pace. But over the last 20+ years it's gained a huge following, one that I am proud to be a member of.Pros: A terrifying opening dream sequence. Spectacular special, make-up, and gore effects. A powerful and sometimes haunting score. Excellent performances all around. Has a real feeling of dread thanks to the dark and dirty setting and the lack of civility between the scientists and soldiers. Though not as good as in the previous film, this film's cinematography is still quite good. Buckets of blood and gore. The first two films had smarts in the writing and this one is no exception. Romero does a good job of keeping the viewers in suspense. Moves at a good pace, especially for a film that doesn't have a lot action scenes. A finale that'll stay with you.Cons: The yelling and bickering does get old after a while.Final thoughts: I can't stress enough about how much I love this film. Unlike a lot of horror films in recent years, which are mindless and totally lacking in real suspense or likable characters, this one actually feels satisfying after it's over. It's dark, scary, gruesome, makes you think, has a few characters to root for, and more. Now how many horror films today can we say that about? My rating: 5/5

Talk about an underrated film!

tt0088993

Talk about a film that never gets the credit it deserves. When originally released, many Romero fans panned "Day of the Dead" because it featured none of the social commentary found in his earlier works. However, I strongly disagree, and in my mind this is better than "Dawn of the Dead" (its a close second to "Night" as my favorite of the trilogy). Personally, I always felt the supposed social commentary was a bit overstated in "Dawn of the Dead". I thought the fact it was set in a mall was more of a clever joke as opposed to an actual subtext. One also has to remember that Romero insists the casting of Duane Jones in "Night of the Living Dead" was simply because he was the best actor who auditioned, not to add a racial subtext. "Day of the Dead" does away with political allegory and focuses on sheer apocalyptic terror. Romero also explores the human condition, as this features possibly the strongest characters hes devised.The film is very well directed by Romero, who keeps everything at a quick pace. No other filmmaker can makes sequences in the daytime so frightening. It was also a good decision to keep it short ("Dawn of the Dead" is a classic, buts its overlong by at least a half hour). The acting is a bit over-the-top, but the characters are so well-developed the film manages to overcome this flaw. Also, this was one of the first 80s science fiction films to feature a tough heroine as the central protagonist. "Day of the Dead" is a film thats been underrated for far too long. (9/10)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088993/reviews-367

ur0630665

title: Talk about an underrated film! review: Talk about a film that never gets the credit it deserves. When originally released, many Romero fans panned "Day of the Dead" because it featured none of the social commentary found in his earlier works. However, I strongly disagree, and in my mind this is better than "Dawn of the Dead" (its a close second to "Night" as my favorite of the trilogy). Personally, I always felt the supposed social commentary was a bit overstated in "Dawn of the Dead". I thought the fact it was set in a mall was more of a clever joke as opposed to an actual subtext. One also has to remember that Romero insists the casting of Duane Jones in "Night of the Living Dead" was simply because he was the best actor who auditioned, not to add a racial subtext. "Day of the Dead" does away with political allegory and focuses on sheer apocalyptic terror. Romero also explores the human condition, as this features possibly the strongest characters hes devised.The film is very well directed by Romero, who keeps everything at a quick pace. No other filmmaker can makes sequences in the daytime so frightening. It was also a good decision to keep it short ("Dawn of the Dead" is a classic, buts its overlong by at least a half hour). The acting is a bit over-the-top, but the characters are so well-developed the film manages to overcome this flaw. Also, this was one of the first 80s science fiction films to feature a tough heroine as the central protagonist. "Day of the Dead" is a film thats been underrated for far too long. (9/10)

Sui generis zombie cinema.

tt0088993

By far, this is the most serious and dramatic zombie movie ever created. Yes, you can have a dramatic feature inserted in a Horror movie that deals with the undead, military stations, and scientific sub-plots."Day Of The Dead" gives the audience a message in the kinds of "Cannibal Holocaust" when it comes to humanity, a scientific revolution that isn't necessary something good, human instincts and even greed, betrayal, and violence.Forget about the previous "Dead" films because "Day" takes a more mature and critical orientation. It's more of an intelligent Horror film that tries to focus more on the plot and character development. But it doesn't forgets about gore (oh, it's glorious gore), action, and genuine fear.This is in my opinion, the most unique zombie film that tries to not copy clichés in zombie cinema. This one takes things further and explores emotions through a zombie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088993/reviews-411

ur2843647

title: Sui generis zombie cinema. review: By far, this is the most serious and dramatic zombie movie ever created. Yes, you can have a dramatic feature inserted in a Horror movie that deals with the undead, military stations, and scientific sub-plots."Day Of The Dead" gives the audience a message in the kinds of "Cannibal Holocaust" when it comes to humanity, a scientific revolution that isn't necessary something good, human instincts and even greed, betrayal, and violence.Forget about the previous "Dead" films because "Day" takes a more mature and critical orientation. It's more of an intelligent Horror film that tries to focus more on the plot and character development. But it doesn't forgets about gore (oh, it's glorious gore), action, and genuine fear.This is in my opinion, the most unique zombie film that tries to not copy clichés in zombie cinema. This one takes things further and explores emotions through a zombie.

A Solid B-Movie

tt0088993

If you're looking for a horror movie with zombies that takes place exclusively in an underground bunker (film studio), look no further!The plot takes place in Florida, where a small group of military-men and scientists are living in an underground bunker, periodically leaving by helicopter to search for other survivors. The longer they stay in their underground base, the more intense their feuding becomes. And of course all of the scientific progress is threatening to the military types for some reason, who just want to go around blasting zombies (even if that is a self-destructive attitude). Great Scott! Is that some '80s social commentary?! Anyway, the military guys are threatened by, or don't understand, the scientific progress (some of which is downright disturbing) and some of the film becomes a suspense piece between the survivor factions in the bunker. It works, but the monotonous scenery becomes irritating by the end. I mean, "Dawn of the Dead" had the same kind of thing going on, with the protagonists stuck in a mall. I suppose when zombies are roaming the land, it's hard NOT to hunker down in a fortress full of weapons, right? The acting in this one can be way over-the-top, which does sometimes work to the film's advantage. The leader of the military faction resembles Christopher Macdonald and goes authentically berserk at the drop of a hat. The protagonist, a female scientist, is the only female among the whole group. The romance between her and the weepy military guy was (intentionally?) pathetic and hilarious.I did not find this third "Dead" movie as compelling as the previous two, nor the later follow-up, "Land of the Dead". However, it is very watchable and contains some disturbing death scenes towards the end of the movie. We're talking top-notch gore, here. Yeah, the make-up was pretty dang impressive, I gotta say! I was actually pretty surprised where they went with some of those scenes.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088993/reviews-399

ur2826075

title: A Solid B-Movie review: If you're looking for a horror movie with zombies that takes place exclusively in an underground bunker (film studio), look no further!The plot takes place in Florida, where a small group of military-men and scientists are living in an underground bunker, periodically leaving by helicopter to search for other survivors. The longer they stay in their underground base, the more intense their feuding becomes. And of course all of the scientific progress is threatening to the military types for some reason, who just want to go around blasting zombies (even if that is a self-destructive attitude). Great Scott! Is that some '80s social commentary?! Anyway, the military guys are threatened by, or don't understand, the scientific progress (some of which is downright disturbing) and some of the film becomes a suspense piece between the survivor factions in the bunker. It works, but the monotonous scenery becomes irritating by the end. I mean, "Dawn of the Dead" had the same kind of thing going on, with the protagonists stuck in a mall. I suppose when zombies are roaming the land, it's hard NOT to hunker down in a fortress full of weapons, right? The acting in this one can be way over-the-top, which does sometimes work to the film's advantage. The leader of the military faction resembles Christopher Macdonald and goes authentically berserk at the drop of a hat. The protagonist, a female scientist, is the only female among the whole group. The romance between her and the weepy military guy was (intentionally?) pathetic and hilarious.I did not find this third "Dead" movie as compelling as the previous two, nor the later follow-up, "Land of the Dead". However, it is very watchable and contains some disturbing death scenes towards the end of the movie. We're talking top-notch gore, here. Yeah, the make-up was pretty dang impressive, I gotta say! I was actually pretty surprised where they went with some of those scenes.

Starts with and S and ends with a T you can guess what I think about this film?

tt0088993

Spoiler This film is a grave dissapointment after watching Dawn of the Dead. Lower budget, no script, and unbelievable characters. No one could behave this way a survive. Drunk, rude, very unprofessional army, and un logical doctor, and a 2 dimentional Jamacian character that is written not well. I could not relate with any of the character unlike dawn 78 or 04. What is with the 80's Miami vice feel to it. Maybe if they had Mike Thomas and D Johnson I would have like it more. Just some gross out effect it the end that did not look believable. Even more unbelievable is how the Zombies got in the bunker. I hate this film. When their is no room in hell the dead will be forced to watch this movie. Rent Isthar it's a better film. At least Isthar is scary even if that was not it's intention. 1/10.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088993/reviews-221

ur0453228

title: Starts with and S and ends with a T you can guess what I think about this film? review: Spoiler This film is a grave dissapointment after watching Dawn of the Dead. Lower budget, no script, and unbelievable characters. No one could behave this way a survive. Drunk, rude, very unprofessional army, and un logical doctor, and a 2 dimentional Jamacian character that is written not well. I could not relate with any of the character unlike dawn 78 or 04. What is with the 80's Miami vice feel to it. Maybe if they had Mike Thomas and D Johnson I would have like it more. Just some gross out effect it the end that did not look believable. Even more unbelievable is how the Zombies got in the bunker. I hate this film. When their is no room in hell the dead will be forced to watch this movie. Rent Isthar it's a better film. At least Isthar is scary even if that was not it's intention. 1/10.

George A. Romero's done it again!

tt0088993

George A. Romero has to be one of the greatest horror directors in the business. He created zombies! He shocked everyone with his creation in "Night Of The Living Dead" (1968) and took to another level 10 years later with 1978's "Dawn Of The Dead". With "Day Of The Dead" (1985), he created a great motion picture! I adore Day Of The Dead,it just proves that George A. Romero knows how to do a zombie film. It's got a very good score, zombies, very believable characters, suspense and gore! An excellent horror film to watch, it's better than the stupid rip-offs that are terribly done and the remakes which just make them more advanced and modern-day set. Watch all three of the dead films and you'll just see how brilliant they are compared to very dumb remakes of classic films. 10/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088993/reviews-379

ur17908096

title: George A. Romero's done it again! review: George A. Romero has to be one of the greatest horror directors in the business. He created zombies! He shocked everyone with his creation in "Night Of The Living Dead" (1968) and took to another level 10 years later with 1978's "Dawn Of The Dead". With "Day Of The Dead" (1985), he created a great motion picture! I adore Day Of The Dead,it just proves that George A. Romero knows how to do a zombie film. It's got a very good score, zombies, very believable characters, suspense and gore! An excellent horror film to watch, it's better than the stupid rip-offs that are terribly done and the remakes which just make them more advanced and modern-day set. Watch all three of the dead films and you'll just see how brilliant they are compared to very dumb remakes of classic films. 10/10

Worth Watching - The Second Best in the Line, IMO

tt0088993

This was done pretty well, although I couldn't believe it was worldwide, as it failed miserably in generating the true "it's the end" feeling, but it has some nice splatter, an adequate amount of gore, and some good character development. The start shows all the easiest ways something like this could spread, and while it's completely messed up, I could almost see it all happening. Almost. But not on a global level.Personally, I consider this the second best in the line, with Dawn in the lead, but Night is classic and none of those following come close to the atmosphere of the original. All in all? This is worth watching if you're a genre fan. If not, none of these will do much for you, really. But you'll never know, if you don't check them out for yourself. This is well written and well enacted, but you won't understand what's happening or why without first viewing the classic horror, George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead. It rates a 6.2/10 on the movie scale. It rates an 8.8/10 on the Romero scale. It rates an 8.2/10 on the splatter scale from...the Fiend :.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088993/reviews-404

ur2626332

title: Worth Watching - The Second Best in the Line, IMO review: This was done pretty well, although I couldn't believe it was worldwide, as it failed miserably in generating the true "it's the end" feeling, but it has some nice splatter, an adequate amount of gore, and some good character development. The start shows all the easiest ways something like this could spread, and while it's completely messed up, I could almost see it all happening. Almost. But not on a global level.Personally, I consider this the second best in the line, with Dawn in the lead, but Night is classic and none of those following come close to the atmosphere of the original. All in all? This is worth watching if you're a genre fan. If not, none of these will do much for you, really. But you'll never know, if you don't check them out for yourself. This is well written and well enacted, but you won't understand what's happening or why without first viewing the classic horror, George A. Romero's Night of the Living Dead. It rates a 6.2/10 on the movie scale. It rates an 8.8/10 on the Romero scale. It rates an 8.2/10 on the splatter scale from...the Fiend :.

The way vampire movies should be made!

tt1228987

On the internet last year, it seemed like the whole internet was buzzed with a movie called Let Me In. On a certain critic's site he was naming his favorite vampire movies and Let Me In was his number one. I had my guard up, sadly since the Twilight franchise became popular, vampires have become nothing more than a joke and it seems like the vampires are just a sick trend right now. When I read that it was about two 12 year olds, I was even more put back, I wasn't so sure how this would work, but with the overwhelming good reviews, I decided to take a risk and buy without watching and I just have to thank all the users who gave this film nothing but positive reviews because this is one of the strongest horror films I have seen in years. Being a vampire has been so glamorized, Let Me In shows that it can be a curse and the pain of adolescence can make it even worse. With great actors, a clever director who also made a brilliant script for it as well and wonderful special effects, Let Me In keeps you glued to your seat and takes you on a ride that you will never forget.Owen is an unhappy and lonely 12 year old boy, who is neglected by his divorcing parents, and continually harassed at school by cruel bullies. One evening, when Owen is alone in the courtyard of his apartment complex he is approached by a 12 year old girl who has moved into the apartment next door. Her name is Abby, she tells Owen that they cannot be friends, but regardless Abby and Owen grow closer, seeing each other at night in the courtyard, and start communicating by Morse code through the walls of their apartments. Meanwhile, Abby's father, occasionally goes out to kill local residents in order to acquire blood for the vampiric Abby. Abby continues developing her relationship with Owen, and Thomas asks her to stop seeing Owen, but she does not. Abby, saddened by the later death of her father, moves on to Owen for psychological comfort. Meanwhile, the detective gradually learns of the protector's connection to Abby. After Owen finds out about who Abby really is, after all she has done for him he vows to protect her.Chloe Grace Moretz is becoming such an incredible actress, such presence for a young age on the screen, she's like an old soul who you think would be in the business for a long time with her gift, who knows? Maybe she is a vampire for real, just a thought. Also Kodi Smit-McPhee couldn't have been a more perfect choice for Owen, his eyes were so strong in the sensitivity and loneliness that was needed for the part. He and Chloe had such amazing chemistry and their love story was beautiful and extremely tragic. I like the whole theme around Romeo and Juliet, seeing as Owen's mother being very religious compared to Abby who would be considered a demonic creature and how could they be together? At 12 years old, your going out of your "boys/girls are icky" phase and your hormones are insane, so it could have been turned into a love story that you really wouldn't have taken seriously. But since the characters seem like old souls, they click very well and really balance each other out.Let Me In is one of my new favorite movies, I watched it a couple of days ago and still cannot get it out of my head. I've been bragging about it to my friends and can't wait to show them. I highly recommend this movie to anyone, it's absolutely beautiful, elegant and one of the best horror movies and I'm sure will be a classic for years to come. Thanks again for the wonderful reviews, let's keep this movie going and make sure that more movies like this get made for the vampire genre, before we know it, vampires just might be scary again.10/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-290

ur1293485

title: The way vampire movies should be made! review: On the internet last year, it seemed like the whole internet was buzzed with a movie called Let Me In. On a certain critic's site he was naming his favorite vampire movies and Let Me In was his number one. I had my guard up, sadly since the Twilight franchise became popular, vampires have become nothing more than a joke and it seems like the vampires are just a sick trend right now. When I read that it was about two 12 year olds, I was even more put back, I wasn't so sure how this would work, but with the overwhelming good reviews, I decided to take a risk and buy without watching and I just have to thank all the users who gave this film nothing but positive reviews because this is one of the strongest horror films I have seen in years. Being a vampire has been so glamorized, Let Me In shows that it can be a curse and the pain of adolescence can make it even worse. With great actors, a clever director who also made a brilliant script for it as well and wonderful special effects, Let Me In keeps you glued to your seat and takes you on a ride that you will never forget.Owen is an unhappy and lonely 12 year old boy, who is neglected by his divorcing parents, and continually harassed at school by cruel bullies. One evening, when Owen is alone in the courtyard of his apartment complex he is approached by a 12 year old girl who has moved into the apartment next door. Her name is Abby, she tells Owen that they cannot be friends, but regardless Abby and Owen grow closer, seeing each other at night in the courtyard, and start communicating by Morse code through the walls of their apartments. Meanwhile, Abby's father, occasionally goes out to kill local residents in order to acquire blood for the vampiric Abby. Abby continues developing her relationship with Owen, and Thomas asks her to stop seeing Owen, but she does not. Abby, saddened by the later death of her father, moves on to Owen for psychological comfort. Meanwhile, the detective gradually learns of the protector's connection to Abby. After Owen finds out about who Abby really is, after all she has done for him he vows to protect her.Chloe Grace Moretz is becoming such an incredible actress, such presence for a young age on the screen, she's like an old soul who you think would be in the business for a long time with her gift, who knows? Maybe she is a vampire for real, just a thought. Also Kodi Smit-McPhee couldn't have been a more perfect choice for Owen, his eyes were so strong in the sensitivity and loneliness that was needed for the part. He and Chloe had such amazing chemistry and their love story was beautiful and extremely tragic. I like the whole theme around Romeo and Juliet, seeing as Owen's mother being very religious compared to Abby who would be considered a demonic creature and how could they be together? At 12 years old, your going out of your "boys/girls are icky" phase and your hormones are insane, so it could have been turned into a love story that you really wouldn't have taken seriously. But since the characters seem like old souls, they click very well and really balance each other out.Let Me In is one of my new favorite movies, I watched it a couple of days ago and still cannot get it out of my head. I've been bragging about it to my friends and can't wait to show them. I highly recommend this movie to anyone, it's absolutely beautiful, elegant and one of the best horror movies and I'm sure will be a classic for years to come. Thanks again for the wonderful reviews, let's keep this movie going and make sure that more movies like this get made for the vampire genre, before we know it, vampires just might be scary again.10/10

Let the same film in.

tt1228987

Bullied schoolboy Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) befriends a 12 year old girl named Abby (Chloë Grace Moretz) who turns out to be a vampire.Stephen King called Let Me In 'the best American horror film in the last 20 years'; what he should have said was is that it is 'one of the better American horror remakes of the last 20 years', the film not being all that different to the Swedish original Let The Right One In.Yes, there are a few changes here and there, some of which might be seen as improvements, others that seem rather pointless, but if you've already seen the original, this Americanised version will hold very few surprises. Which of the two films you prefer will probably depend on how you feel about reading subtitles rather than any alterations made to the plot.I say give each a go—they're both very well made, stylish and touching movies—but I suggest leaving it a good while between viewings: watching them back to back might feel like you're seeing exactly the same film twice in a row.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-420

ur0945066

title: Let the same film in. review: Bullied schoolboy Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) befriends a 12 year old girl named Abby (Chloë Grace Moretz) who turns out to be a vampire.Stephen King called Let Me In 'the best American horror film in the last 20 years'; what he should have said was is that it is 'one of the better American horror remakes of the last 20 years', the film not being all that different to the Swedish original Let The Right One In.Yes, there are a few changes here and there, some of which might be seen as improvements, others that seem rather pointless, but if you've already seen the original, this Americanised version will hold very few surprises. Which of the two films you prefer will probably depend on how you feel about reading subtitles rather than any alterations made to the plot.I say give each a go—they're both very well made, stylish and touching movies—but I suggest leaving it a good while between viewings: watching them back to back might feel like you're seeing exactly the same film twice in a row.

pre-teen vampire friendship is the theme of this

tt1228987

Before watching this, I had no idea it was a horror story about a vampire. But the vamp is a pre-teen instead of in high school. The story was slow moving but creepy as we get short snipits of what Abby is like in her other form. There is also a brutal murder in the beginning that had me saying, "what!!!" But later it makes sense. Abby has just moved to a new place and befriends another kid, Owen. She tells him they can't be friends, but soon forgets that. But, when Owen sees her doing strange things, he basically over looks it since she's his only friend. There's also a gruesome pouring acid on your head scene. But this movie is more about the characters and acting then gory parts.FINAL VERDICT: Different take on vampire movies. Worth seeing.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-342

ur1773414

title: pre-teen vampire friendship is the theme of this review: Before watching this, I had no idea it was a horror story about a vampire. But the vamp is a pre-teen instead of in high school. The story was slow moving but creepy as we get short snipits of what Abby is like in her other form. There is also a brutal murder in the beginning that had me saying, "what!!!" But later it makes sense. Abby has just moved to a new place and befriends another kid, Owen. She tells him they can't be friends, but soon forgets that. But, when Owen sees her doing strange things, he basically over looks it since she's his only friend. There's also a gruesome pouring acid on your head scene. But this movie is more about the characters and acting then gory parts.FINAL VERDICT: Different take on vampire movies. Worth seeing.

An overlooked and bullied boy, finds love and vengeance through Abby , a beautiful but peculiar girl who turns out to be a vampire

tt1228987

Magnificent remake from a prestigious Sweden film dealing with Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) , a bullied 12-year old, dreams of revenge . He falls in love with Abby, a peculiar girl . Owen's parents are in the process of a nasty divorce, and he lives with his mummy (Cara Buono , whose face is never shown throughout the entire film). One evening, he notices a girl (Chloë Grace Moretz) about his age and her father (Richard Jenkins) moving into the apartment next door to his . Despite being asked twice by Owen , Abby never reveals her true age. She can't stand the sun or food and to come into a room she needs to be invited . Owen spies on his neighbors Jack and Virginia from his telescope, his neighbor who exercises at home, Abby and the father from the cracked door, Abby while she is changing clothes, the policeman from the peephole in Abby's apartment, and Kenny on several occasions, including when he is harassed by his brother in front of his friends . Abby gives Owen the strength to hit back but when he realizes that Abby needs to drink other people's blood to live he's faced with a choice. How much can love forgive? . Meanwhile a police detective (Elias Koteas, who plays , also provides the voice of Owen's father) investigates some strange murders .This is an interesting story about early adolescence, vengeance, and vampires . Marvelously sad and melancholic tale about loneliness and longing for love and starred by two phenomenal kid actors. The picture details in elegant and deliberate style the bizarre misadventures of a pair of pre-teen star crossed lovers, one of whom is an androgynous vampire . Production value and set design are stellar , with all technical aspects , lighting , soundtrack , and photography , blending in perfect synchronization to produce a Hitchockian tale that somehow brings love and life into what could have been the darkest drama imaginable . It is poetic , sensible , artistic , and in many manners a pretty profound film delving the nature of evilness and goodness . The title of the original Swedish novel, and the film based on it, was ¨Let the Right One In¨ by Tomas Alfredson , which was successful around the world . Extraordinary performance of Grace Moretz , in the scenes where Abby is barefoot in the snow, Chloë was really barefoot , during filming the crew had to heat up her feet in between takes so she didn't get too cold . Equally sensational is Kodi Smit as a shy kid who is harassed on as usual by three older boys . Very good cinematography by Greig Fraser , filmed on location in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Los Alamos, New Mexico , where is colorfully set the action . Thrilling and emotive musical score by Michael Giacchino , J.J. Abrams's usual .The motion picture well produced by a reborn Hammer Company was stunningly directed by Matt Reeves (Coverfield , Palbearer) ; he explained why a deleted scene, showing Abby being attacked as a human, was cut , contrary to the belief that the scene, depicting her being changed to a vampire and entering Owen's mind, would be too intense for the viewers, Reeves stated that he felt the scene would have disturbed the flow of the film . Rating : Better than average , essential and indispensable seeing .

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-359

ur3270789

title: An overlooked and bullied boy, finds love and vengeance through Abby , a beautiful but peculiar girl who turns out to be a vampire review: Magnificent remake from a prestigious Sweden film dealing with Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) , a bullied 12-year old, dreams of revenge . He falls in love with Abby, a peculiar girl . Owen's parents are in the process of a nasty divorce, and he lives with his mummy (Cara Buono , whose face is never shown throughout the entire film). One evening, he notices a girl (Chloë Grace Moretz) about his age and her father (Richard Jenkins) moving into the apartment next door to his . Despite being asked twice by Owen , Abby never reveals her true age. She can't stand the sun or food and to come into a room she needs to be invited . Owen spies on his neighbors Jack and Virginia from his telescope, his neighbor who exercises at home, Abby and the father from the cracked door, Abby while she is changing clothes, the policeman from the peephole in Abby's apartment, and Kenny on several occasions, including when he is harassed by his brother in front of his friends . Abby gives Owen the strength to hit back but when he realizes that Abby needs to drink other people's blood to live he's faced with a choice. How much can love forgive? . Meanwhile a police detective (Elias Koteas, who plays , also provides the voice of Owen's father) investigates some strange murders .This is an interesting story about early adolescence, vengeance, and vampires . Marvelously sad and melancholic tale about loneliness and longing for love and starred by two phenomenal kid actors. The picture details in elegant and deliberate style the bizarre misadventures of a pair of pre-teen star crossed lovers, one of whom is an androgynous vampire . Production value and set design are stellar , with all technical aspects , lighting , soundtrack , and photography , blending in perfect synchronization to produce a Hitchockian tale that somehow brings love and life into what could have been the darkest drama imaginable . It is poetic , sensible , artistic , and in many manners a pretty profound film delving the nature of evilness and goodness . The title of the original Swedish novel, and the film based on it, was ¨Let the Right One In¨ by Tomas Alfredson , which was successful around the world . Extraordinary performance of Grace Moretz , in the scenes where Abby is barefoot in the snow, Chloë was really barefoot , during filming the crew had to heat up her feet in between takes so she didn't get too cold . Equally sensational is Kodi Smit as a shy kid who is harassed on as usual by three older boys . Very good cinematography by Greig Fraser , filmed on location in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Los Alamos, New Mexico , where is colorfully set the action . Thrilling and emotive musical score by Michael Giacchino , J.J. Abrams's usual .The motion picture well produced by a reborn Hammer Company was stunningly directed by Matt Reeves (Coverfield , Palbearer) ; he explained why a deleted scene, showing Abby being attacked as a human, was cut , contrary to the belief that the scene, depicting her being changed to a vampire and entering Owen's mind, would be too intense for the viewers, Reeves stated that he felt the scene would have disturbed the flow of the film . Rating : Better than average , essential and indispensable seeing .

Excellent movie of the sci-fi genre.

tt1228987

What is going on with Hollywood these days? They are actually producing high quality movies such as this one. Don't get fooled by the title or the plot or the slew of little known actors. This is a solid movie of the sci-fi genre. This movie offers an interesting interpretation of the vampire legend. Instead of an austere aristocrat the vampire now takes the form of a young innocent-looking girl. With her are her devotees who love her and serve her unconditionally. Without their help the vampire cannot survive. Although violent, she is not a wanton killer. Although not human, she is capable of love. Although fundamentally a malevolent spirit, she is capable of defending others. In short, she is not a repugnant creature. Lethal, yes! Dangerous, yes! Repugnant, no! After all, how could such an innocent-looking little girl hurt anyone?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-99

ur6458242

title: Excellent movie of the sci-fi genre. review: What is going on with Hollywood these days? They are actually producing high quality movies such as this one. Don't get fooled by the title or the plot or the slew of little known actors. This is a solid movie of the sci-fi genre. This movie offers an interesting interpretation of the vampire legend. Instead of an austere aristocrat the vampire now takes the form of a young innocent-looking girl. With her are her devotees who love her and serve her unconditionally. Without their help the vampire cannot survive. Although violent, she is not a wanton killer. Although not human, she is capable of love. Although fundamentally a malevolent spirit, she is capable of defending others. In short, she is not a repugnant creature. Lethal, yes! Dangerous, yes! Repugnant, no! After all, how could such an innocent-looking little girl hurt anyone?

Good Movie But Its Nothing On The Original

tt1228987

In Los Alamos, New Mexico, the twelve year-old Owen is a lonely and outcast boy bullied in school by Kenny and two other classroom mates; at home, Owen dreams on revenging the trio of bullies. He befriends his twelve-year-old next door neighbor Abby that only appears during the night in the playground of their building. Meanwhile, Abby's father is a wanted serial-killer that drains the blood of his victims to supply Abby, who is actually an ancient vampire. Abby advises Owen to react to Kenny fighting back; however, sooner he discovers that she is a vampire and he feels fear and love for the girl. Meanwhile a police officer is investigating the murder cases believing that it is a satanic cult.I Saw This In Cinemas And To Be Honest - With All The Other Remakes That Are Coming And Turning Out To Be Crap - I Was Pleasantly Surprised(I Thought That This Would Be Like Twilight - BOY WAS I WRONG).I Will First Talk About The Acting. Chloe Moretz Does A Satisfactory Job In This Movie And Does As Well As Can Be Being As That She Had Huge Shoes To Fill, Kodi Smit-McPhee Is The Worst Actor Out Of This Movie. Its Just He Does Not Have The Chops For A Lead Role.The Dialogue Is Unfortunately Almost Word For Word With The Version Of The Original That I Have (Dubbed To English). I Also Feel That This Needed The Scene Where Owen And Abby Talk About The Dark Side Of Humanity Because That Was The Most Well Written Scene Out Of The Original.As Far As Character Development Goes, This Movie Is Great At It. I Found Myself Caring For The Characters And The Two Lead's Relationship.The One Major Problem I Have With This Movie Is Its Existence. I'm Not Saying Its A Bad Movie But Why Did They Remake This? What Was Wrong With The Original? A Problem That Occurs In Both Movies Is That It Is Left On A Cliffhanger And It Just Doesn't Feel Right.As Far As I Am Concerned If Anyone Says That All Remakes Coming Out Are Crap Should Watch This. I Am Not Saying F##k The Swedish Version But This Is The Most Half Descent Remake Out There.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-299

ur20815663

title: Good Movie But Its Nothing On The Original review: In Los Alamos, New Mexico, the twelve year-old Owen is a lonely and outcast boy bullied in school by Kenny and two other classroom mates; at home, Owen dreams on revenging the trio of bullies. He befriends his twelve-year-old next door neighbor Abby that only appears during the night in the playground of their building. Meanwhile, Abby's father is a wanted serial-killer that drains the blood of his victims to supply Abby, who is actually an ancient vampire. Abby advises Owen to react to Kenny fighting back; however, sooner he discovers that she is a vampire and he feels fear and love for the girl. Meanwhile a police officer is investigating the murder cases believing that it is a satanic cult.I Saw This In Cinemas And To Be Honest - With All The Other Remakes That Are Coming And Turning Out To Be Crap - I Was Pleasantly Surprised(I Thought That This Would Be Like Twilight - BOY WAS I WRONG).I Will First Talk About The Acting. Chloe Moretz Does A Satisfactory Job In This Movie And Does As Well As Can Be Being As That She Had Huge Shoes To Fill, Kodi Smit-McPhee Is The Worst Actor Out Of This Movie. Its Just He Does Not Have The Chops For A Lead Role.The Dialogue Is Unfortunately Almost Word For Word With The Version Of The Original That I Have (Dubbed To English). I Also Feel That This Needed The Scene Where Owen And Abby Talk About The Dark Side Of Humanity Because That Was The Most Well Written Scene Out Of The Original.As Far As Character Development Goes, This Movie Is Great At It. I Found Myself Caring For The Characters And The Two Lead's Relationship.The One Major Problem I Have With This Movie Is Its Existence. I'm Not Saying Its A Bad Movie But Why Did They Remake This? What Was Wrong With The Original? A Problem That Occurs In Both Movies Is That It Is Left On A Cliffhanger And It Just Doesn't Feel Right.As Far As I Am Concerned If Anyone Says That All Remakes Coming Out Are Crap Should Watch This. I Am Not Saying F##k The Swedish Version But This Is The Most Half Descent Remake Out There.

Charming Romance!

tt1228987

Stop right there if you think this is a horror film. This film dances around a horror atmosphere while hiding in the shadows of a thriller. It's actually first and foremost, a romance.Chloe Moretz, of Hit-Girl fame from Kick-Ass, plays a child vampire who moves in next door to a boy named Owen, who is very much alone and bullied at school. Owen's mother is an alcoholic who won sole custody and Owen's father is not allowed to come around. Moretz once again steals the show as the tragic character of Abby.Let Me In is an adaptation, written and directed by Matt Reeves, of the 2008 Swedish film Let the Right One In. Barely anything has been changed from the original story, but the cinematography, some dialogue, different actors and adjusted characters make for a new movie. Although many fans of the original boycotted this film for months, Let Me In will allow for the original to be viewed.Matt Reeves does an excellent job and I've enjoyed his first two films I've seen. Let Me In and Cloverfield are his only two pieces of work I've seen and they are his most popular thus far.This is a romance because it plays very intimately between the two lead actors. The scenes between Owen and Abby are tender and very romantic for the age of the characters. It's surprising to see how well two child actors can be this mature and loving with such a great chemistry. It has some thrills and chills and there's room for drama but it's definitely meant to be a romance.Personally, I've not seen the original film, but I do think this is a great film in its own right. It certainly did a good job to get me interested in watching the original whenever I get a chance.It has a very short list of cast, as the only other names I can recognize are Richard Jenkins and Elias Koteas. Their involvement is less than secondary characters and even then they are still overshadowed by the breathtaking Moretz. At 13 years of age, Moretz amounts maturity and skill in her acting as much as an adult can. Her timing and delivery is well-established and crafted almost as if she's been doing this work for decades.I can't say anything bad about Let Me In because I haven't seen the original to compare and mostly because I really enjoyed the movie. Perhaps it's my favourtism of romance movies and I am fascinated by Moretz and child actor leads, but whatever the reason, I believe Let Me In is going to be a great success with audiences.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-51

ur6732597

title: Charming Romance! review: Stop right there if you think this is a horror film. This film dances around a horror atmosphere while hiding in the shadows of a thriller. It's actually first and foremost, a romance.Chloe Moretz, of Hit-Girl fame from Kick-Ass, plays a child vampire who moves in next door to a boy named Owen, who is very much alone and bullied at school. Owen's mother is an alcoholic who won sole custody and Owen's father is not allowed to come around. Moretz once again steals the show as the tragic character of Abby.Let Me In is an adaptation, written and directed by Matt Reeves, of the 2008 Swedish film Let the Right One In. Barely anything has been changed from the original story, but the cinematography, some dialogue, different actors and adjusted characters make for a new movie. Although many fans of the original boycotted this film for months, Let Me In will allow for the original to be viewed.Matt Reeves does an excellent job and I've enjoyed his first two films I've seen. Let Me In and Cloverfield are his only two pieces of work I've seen and they are his most popular thus far.This is a romance because it plays very intimately between the two lead actors. The scenes between Owen and Abby are tender and very romantic for the age of the characters. It's surprising to see how well two child actors can be this mature and loving with such a great chemistry. It has some thrills and chills and there's room for drama but it's definitely meant to be a romance.Personally, I've not seen the original film, but I do think this is a great film in its own right. It certainly did a good job to get me interested in watching the original whenever I get a chance.It has a very short list of cast, as the only other names I can recognize are Richard Jenkins and Elias Koteas. Their involvement is less than secondary characters and even then they are still overshadowed by the breathtaking Moretz. At 13 years of age, Moretz amounts maturity and skill in her acting as much as an adult can. Her timing and delivery is well-established and crafted almost as if she's been doing this work for decades.I can't say anything bad about Let Me In because I haven't seen the original to compare and mostly because I really enjoyed the movie. Perhaps it's my favourtism of romance movies and I am fascinated by Moretz and child actor leads, but whatever the reason, I believe Let Me In is going to be a great success with audiences.

a completely unnecessary and inferior remake

tt1228987

I give it 2, for those film goers who saw the Swedish original, or 4 for those who did not. Average 3. The Swedish version is much better, not to mention it was fresh and surprising. The Swedish had a better director, and the actors were better. I love Moretz in general but here she is kind of, no pun intended, colorless and flat. The kid is also mediocre, and the school bullies are like we saw in a hundred other American school movies. And I wonder, how can the old guy's face be all eaten up by the acid, I mean all, from chin to the hair, but both eyes are intact?? The bitten lady on a hospital bed, turning into a vampire, makes a final sacrifice of her life to destroy what she becomes in the Swedish version, here she is just exploded by the daylight, which is a huge difference and shows that the director is a third-rate one. Just two examples of the mediocrity of this film in comparison.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-217

ur13876601

title: a completely unnecessary and inferior remake review: I give it 2, for those film goers who saw the Swedish original, or 4 for those who did not. Average 3. The Swedish version is much better, not to mention it was fresh and surprising. The Swedish had a better director, and the actors were better. I love Moretz in general but here she is kind of, no pun intended, colorless and flat. The kid is also mediocre, and the school bullies are like we saw in a hundred other American school movies. And I wonder, how can the old guy's face be all eaten up by the acid, I mean all, from chin to the hair, but both eyes are intact?? The bitten lady on a hospital bed, turning into a vampire, makes a final sacrifice of her life to destroy what she becomes in the Swedish version, here she is just exploded by the daylight, which is a huge difference and shows that the director is a third-rate one. Just two examples of the mediocrity of this film in comparison.

A decent remake

tt1228987

Let me in is a remake of the Swedish film, Let the right one in, which is one of my favorite horror movies of all time. It is so good that there is no reason for another version. That being said, Hollywood has managed to make a fairly decent version for those of you who are too lazy to read subtitles. The plot is basically the same as the original with a twelve year old boy being constantly picked on by classmates at school. He befriends a girl, Abby, a next door neighbor and fellow loner. Chloe Grace Moretz is a good choice as the little outcast. The reason for her isolated status, is her need for blood to survive, she is a vampire of an unknown age. Her father Thomas(Richard Jenkins, Oscar nominated for The Visitor), is an enabler, he kills in order to supply his daughter with blood. After Thomas dies, Abby tells her friend Owen her secret which he accepts as they help each other against all enemies. The ending is fine, and although not as good as the original, Let Me In is good enough to watch for an entertaining and well made scare flick.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-357

ur14295241

title: A decent remake review: Let me in is a remake of the Swedish film, Let the right one in, which is one of my favorite horror movies of all time. It is so good that there is no reason for another version. That being said, Hollywood has managed to make a fairly decent version for those of you who are too lazy to read subtitles. The plot is basically the same as the original with a twelve year old boy being constantly picked on by classmates at school. He befriends a girl, Abby, a next door neighbor and fellow loner. Chloe Grace Moretz is a good choice as the little outcast. The reason for her isolated status, is her need for blood to survive, she is a vampire of an unknown age. Her father Thomas(Richard Jenkins, Oscar nominated for The Visitor), is an enabler, he kills in order to supply his daughter with blood. After Thomas dies, Abby tells her friend Owen her secret which he accepts as they help each other against all enemies. The ending is fine, and although not as good as the original, Let Me In is good enough to watch for an entertaining and well made scare flick.

A competent but unnecessary remake

tt1228987

Independently from the utility, relevance and quality from this remake, I will say something: I felt a chill all over my body when I saw the words "A Hammer Films Production" in the screen. I could not avoid it; the films from that British studio substantially contributed to the obsession with horror cinema I developed during my childhood. And now, various decades later, I liked to see that name associated again with my favorite genre (even though it was only a distributor, and even though it never disappeared actually). End of the nerd's speech. Now, let's move on the subject which concerns us: the film Let Me In, a competent but unnecessary remake of the brilliant Swedish film Let the Right One In.I would put Let Me In at the same level of Quarantine or Dark Water: North American remakes which have a certain level of intrinsic quality despite the questionable reasons which motivated their making. In other words, I think Let Me In is a solid horror movie on its own merit, with a good atmosphere, some well achieved moments of suspense and excellent performances from Chloe Moretz and Kodi Smit-McPhee (who had both already left me astonished in Kick-Ass and The Road, respectively). On the other side of the coin, I have to mention a few scenes which try to startle us with bad special effects and cheap thrills.In conclusion, Let Me In is a good movie (but if I have to talk about recommendations, my absolute suggestion would be for you to watch the original film), but which suffers from the "Hollywood Syndrome", supposing that the spectators are idiots, and that because of that, it has to explain everything and leave nothing to the imagination, because otherwise we would not understand it (for example: instead of letting the spectator to deduct that the film is set during the 80's, the screenplay feels obliged to say that from the beginning and, just in case we did not understand it, it fills various scenes with relics from that decade, including Ms. Pac-Man, Ronald Reagan, Culture Club and the song Turning Japanese; and if it does that with the historical context, which is not very relevant, imagine what it does with more relevant stuff, like the relationship between one of the main characters and her "father"; wow, what a long parenthesis). So, Let Me In is not a bad movie, and I moderately enjoyed it while I was watching it; however, that does not avoid me from considering it unnecessary: why trying to fix something which is not broken?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-258

ur6216723

title: A competent but unnecessary remake review: Independently from the utility, relevance and quality from this remake, I will say something: I felt a chill all over my body when I saw the words "A Hammer Films Production" in the screen. I could not avoid it; the films from that British studio substantially contributed to the obsession with horror cinema I developed during my childhood. And now, various decades later, I liked to see that name associated again with my favorite genre (even though it was only a distributor, and even though it never disappeared actually). End of the nerd's speech. Now, let's move on the subject which concerns us: the film Let Me In, a competent but unnecessary remake of the brilliant Swedish film Let the Right One In.I would put Let Me In at the same level of Quarantine or Dark Water: North American remakes which have a certain level of intrinsic quality despite the questionable reasons which motivated their making. In other words, I think Let Me In is a solid horror movie on its own merit, with a good atmosphere, some well achieved moments of suspense and excellent performances from Chloe Moretz and Kodi Smit-McPhee (who had both already left me astonished in Kick-Ass and The Road, respectively). On the other side of the coin, I have to mention a few scenes which try to startle us with bad special effects and cheap thrills.In conclusion, Let Me In is a good movie (but if I have to talk about recommendations, my absolute suggestion would be for you to watch the original film), but which suffers from the "Hollywood Syndrome", supposing that the spectators are idiots, and that because of that, it has to explain everything and leave nothing to the imagination, because otherwise we would not understand it (for example: instead of letting the spectator to deduct that the film is set during the 80's, the screenplay feels obliged to say that from the beginning and, just in case we did not understand it, it fills various scenes with relics from that decade, including Ms. Pac-Man, Ronald Reagan, Culture Club and the song Turning Japanese; and if it does that with the historical context, which is not very relevant, imagine what it does with more relevant stuff, like the relationship between one of the main characters and her "father"; wow, what a long parenthesis). So, Let Me In is not a bad movie, and I moderately enjoyed it while I was watching it; however, that does not avoid me from considering it unnecessary: why trying to fix something which is not broken?

Incredible

tt1228987

This is an amazing film... And I enjoyed it even more on DVD than at the cinema, so have raised it's rating accordingly. It's all about two misfits who find each other, one a lonely bullied boy called Owen whose divorcing parents are worst than useless, and the other is a girl vampire by the name of Abby who must kill to survive and is doomed to be stuck at the age of 12 forever. Together, they make an unconventional but somehow ideal couple, as they confront a world that doesn't understand them and avoid discovery in their dingy little housing complex, but Abby must have blood...A bleak atmosphere pervades the entire film... You get the feeling that most of the people featured here are destined to lead dead-end lives, so perhaps death could only come as a blessed relief to them. Especially Owen, he would probably grow up to be a downbeat, manic-depressant doormat if Abby hadn't come along. It's just a shame it takes one of the bloodiest massacres I've seen for him to find true purpose in his life. There's cruel beauty everywhere, and it's sick and disturbing to watch... but also mesmerisingly beautiful. A true gem. 8/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-377

ur37327729

title: Incredible review: This is an amazing film... And I enjoyed it even more on DVD than at the cinema, so have raised it's rating accordingly. It's all about two misfits who find each other, one a lonely bullied boy called Owen whose divorcing parents are worst than useless, and the other is a girl vampire by the name of Abby who must kill to survive and is doomed to be stuck at the age of 12 forever. Together, they make an unconventional but somehow ideal couple, as they confront a world that doesn't understand them and avoid discovery in their dingy little housing complex, but Abby must have blood...A bleak atmosphere pervades the entire film... You get the feeling that most of the people featured here are destined to lead dead-end lives, so perhaps death could only come as a blessed relief to them. Especially Owen, he would probably grow up to be a downbeat, manic-depressant doormat if Abby hadn't come along. It's just a shame it takes one of the bloodiest massacres I've seen for him to find true purpose in his life. There's cruel beauty everywhere, and it's sick and disturbing to watch... but also mesmerisingly beautiful. A true gem. 8/10

A Heartbreaking Story That is Disturbing and Bittersweet

tt1228987

Before finding out about this film, I had no knowledge of the book nor seen the Swedish film adaptation of "Let the Right One In." After first seeing a TV spot for "Let Me In", I got the impression that this was going to be a very original vampire story unlike any other. I went in the theater keeping my expectations leveled and I came out with a sense of complete satisfaction."Let Me In" feels fresh and it left a good impression on me. The pacing of the film felt right and the cast did a great job. I got to praise Chloe Moretz's portrayal of Abby/Eli. The character of Abby is so eerie and it is never implied if she is really manipulating Owen for her own motives or if she genuinely cares for him. As a vampire, she is a ruthless monster that will stop at nothing to murder a helpless victim to satisfy her cravings for blood. As a "twelve year old" girl, she appears innocent and comes off as introverted. Overall, I feel that there is a lot of tragedy in the character of Abby, but the question is does she really have a heart? I would like to think she does, but I cannot give a straight answer to that, so that would be up to the viewer to decide.Kodi Smit-McPhee does a good job playing Owen. You can really feel a sense of alienation in Owen's world due to the constant bullying from his classmates and having nobody to rely on. It is easy to see why he develops a friendship with Abby who also happens to be a loner living the type of lifestyle she does. It was a treat to watch scenes with these two together, because it sheds a bit of light in a film with such a dark tone. Not only that, but it helps prevent "Let Me In" from being classified as a straight up horror movie.There are some pretty gory moments in the film, but overall, the whole thing stays focused on the character's interactions. The film does a good job by staying focused on the relationship between Abby and Owen and not relying on violence to completely overtake the film.I also got to give Richard Jenkins props for playing Abby's father. There is a lot to this character and I couldn't help but feel sympathy for him. All of his scenes are intense and a pleasure to watch.I praise this film for introducing me to such a beautiful story. I feel a personal connection to "Let Me In." It really hits me on a deep level of emotion. I know there are people that feel that this film should not have been made, but If it was not for this film, I probably would not have known about the novel or the Swedish adaptation of "Let the Right One In." Update: After watching "Let the Right One In", I feel that these two movies are similar, but they each have it's own differences which is enough to make both the Swedish and American version stand on its own. The Swedish version blew me away just like the American version, but in ways that are different from how I reacted to the American version, which is a good thing.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-37

ur23990121

title: A Heartbreaking Story That is Disturbing and Bittersweet review: Before finding out about this film, I had no knowledge of the book nor seen the Swedish film adaptation of "Let the Right One In." After first seeing a TV spot for "Let Me In", I got the impression that this was going to be a very original vampire story unlike any other. I went in the theater keeping my expectations leveled and I came out with a sense of complete satisfaction."Let Me In" feels fresh and it left a good impression on me. The pacing of the film felt right and the cast did a great job. I got to praise Chloe Moretz's portrayal of Abby/Eli. The character of Abby is so eerie and it is never implied if she is really manipulating Owen for her own motives or if she genuinely cares for him. As a vampire, she is a ruthless monster that will stop at nothing to murder a helpless victim to satisfy her cravings for blood. As a "twelve year old" girl, she appears innocent and comes off as introverted. Overall, I feel that there is a lot of tragedy in the character of Abby, but the question is does she really have a heart? I would like to think she does, but I cannot give a straight answer to that, so that would be up to the viewer to decide.Kodi Smit-McPhee does a good job playing Owen. You can really feel a sense of alienation in Owen's world due to the constant bullying from his classmates and having nobody to rely on. It is easy to see why he develops a friendship with Abby who also happens to be a loner living the type of lifestyle she does. It was a treat to watch scenes with these two together, because it sheds a bit of light in a film with such a dark tone. Not only that, but it helps prevent "Let Me In" from being classified as a straight up horror movie.There are some pretty gory moments in the film, but overall, the whole thing stays focused on the character's interactions. The film does a good job by staying focused on the relationship between Abby and Owen and not relying on violence to completely overtake the film.I also got to give Richard Jenkins props for playing Abby's father. There is a lot to this character and I couldn't help but feel sympathy for him. All of his scenes are intense and a pleasure to watch.I praise this film for introducing me to such a beautiful story. I feel a personal connection to "Let Me In." It really hits me on a deep level of emotion. I know there are people that feel that this film should not have been made, but If it was not for this film, I probably would not have known about the novel or the Swedish adaptation of "Let the Right One In." Update: After watching "Let the Right One In", I feel that these two movies are similar, but they each have it's own differences which is enough to make both the Swedish and American version stand on its own. The Swedish version blew me away just like the American version, but in ways that are different from how I reacted to the American version, which is a good thing.

Kids who can act

tt1228987

Wow what a pleasant surprise this was. I was expecting the film to be OK but is was great. This is mainly down to the 2 young actors in the lead roles who are simply fantastic. They prove that you can act without the histrionics of a Dakota Fanning or Hoel Haley Osmond. I expected Chloe from Kickass to be good but the boy as well. Simply amazing. I don't think I have ever seen and probably never will see a film where two such young people provide such a thoughtful and convincing romantic performance without feeling wrong or uncomfortable. It also proves that you can make an excellent horror film without a load of torture porn and gore. Create a amazingly believable story and well drawn characters who are amazingly portrayed by the two young leads and you achieve an innovative movie. It just feels like a couple of kids running away and they are having a normal conversation at the end. Ther is no need to see the obvious trail of destruction left behind or a wailing mother. It just feels so perfect for them to be together for time immemorial.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-324

ur24719973

title: Kids who can act review: Wow what a pleasant surprise this was. I was expecting the film to be OK but is was great. This is mainly down to the 2 young actors in the lead roles who are simply fantastic. They prove that you can act without the histrionics of a Dakota Fanning or Hoel Haley Osmond. I expected Chloe from Kickass to be good but the boy as well. Simply amazing. I don't think I have ever seen and probably never will see a film where two such young people provide such a thoughtful and convincing romantic performance without feeling wrong or uncomfortable. It also proves that you can make an excellent horror film without a load of torture porn and gore. Create a amazingly believable story and well drawn characters who are amazingly portrayed by the two young leads and you achieve an innovative movie. It just feels like a couple of kids running away and they are having a normal conversation at the end. Ther is no need to see the obvious trail of destruction left behind or a wailing mother. It just feels so perfect for them to be together for time immemorial.

Not as good as the original but still a worthy effort...

tt1228987

Very well made with the same haunting quality of the original; they got the look and feel of it just right. The performances were all excellent as well; particularly the two young leads; Kodi Smit-McPhee as Owen and Chloë Grace Moretz as Abby. They were ably supported by; Richard Jenkins as The Father, Elias Koteas as The Policeman, Dylan Minnette as Jack and Cara Buono as Owen's Mother.I find it hard to talk about this film without drawing comparisons with the original. I guess if I hadn't seen, and fallen in love with the original, I would have thought this was quite brilliant. The trouble is, it's almost shot-for-shot the same film; with some obvious references changed. I noticed also that it was set in the 1980's also, giving scope for a sequel with Owen as a grown-up. So how does it compare; well I must say I preferred the mystery of the original and it will always be my favourite version. However, I still found this one perfectly watchable and have no problem in deeming it Highly Recommended if you're not lucky enough to have seen the original… Otherwise.SteelMonster's verdict: RECOMMENDED.My score: 7.5/10IMDb Score: 7.2/10 (based on 45,673 votes at the time of going to press).MetaScore: 79/100: (Based on 35 critic reviews provided by Metacritic.com at the time of going to press).Rotten Tomatoes Score: 89/100 (based on 205 reviews counted at the time of going to press).Rotten Tomatoes 'Audience' Score: 74/100 'Liked it' (based on 58,854 user ratings counted at the time of going to press).You can find an expanded version of this review on my blog: Thoughts of a SteelMonster.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-364

ur29798050

title: Not as good as the original but still a worthy effort... review: Very well made with the same haunting quality of the original; they got the look and feel of it just right. The performances were all excellent as well; particularly the two young leads; Kodi Smit-McPhee as Owen and Chloë Grace Moretz as Abby. They were ably supported by; Richard Jenkins as The Father, Elias Koteas as The Policeman, Dylan Minnette as Jack and Cara Buono as Owen's Mother.I find it hard to talk about this film without drawing comparisons with the original. I guess if I hadn't seen, and fallen in love with the original, I would have thought this was quite brilliant. The trouble is, it's almost shot-for-shot the same film; with some obvious references changed. I noticed also that it was set in the 1980's also, giving scope for a sequel with Owen as a grown-up. So how does it compare; well I must say I preferred the mystery of the original and it will always be my favourite version. However, I still found this one perfectly watchable and have no problem in deeming it Highly Recommended if you're not lucky enough to have seen the original… Otherwise.SteelMonster's verdict: RECOMMENDED.My score: 7.5/10IMDb Score: 7.2/10 (based on 45,673 votes at the time of going to press).MetaScore: 79/100: (Based on 35 critic reviews provided by Metacritic.com at the time of going to press).Rotten Tomatoes Score: 89/100 (based on 205 reviews counted at the time of going to press).Rotten Tomatoes 'Audience' Score: 74/100 'Liked it' (based on 58,854 user ratings counted at the time of going to press).You can find an expanded version of this review on my blog: Thoughts of a SteelMonster.

Let Me In

tt1228987

A little boy makes friends with a new girl only to discover her terrifying secret. Now first of all, I personally did not find this frightening, rather 'thrilling' simply because I believe that Vampires have lost the 'creature of the night' reputation to becoming romantic archetypes, but this is done quite well as we see what the consequences of being a Vampire or associating with one can lead to.Kodi Smit-Mcphee and Chloe Moretz play off each other quite well, Kodi portrays a boy who has been pushed too far by school bullies, a mother who neglects her child and an absent father. The scene when he is in his room with the knife quite disturbing. Chloe Moretz plays the weak Vampire brilliantly, you feel sad for her but at the same time on the edge of your seat, but I truly loved the setting of the film a remote town were nothing ever happens, or so it would seem. Brilliant drama although I now desperately want to see the original as I believe the original is always better!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-276

ur8131454

title: Let Me In review: A little boy makes friends with a new girl only to discover her terrifying secret. Now first of all, I personally did not find this frightening, rather 'thrilling' simply because I believe that Vampires have lost the 'creature of the night' reputation to becoming romantic archetypes, but this is done quite well as we see what the consequences of being a Vampire or associating with one can lead to.Kodi Smit-Mcphee and Chloe Moretz play off each other quite well, Kodi portrays a boy who has been pushed too far by school bullies, a mother who neglects her child and an absent father. The scene when he is in his room with the knife quite disturbing. Chloe Moretz plays the weak Vampire brilliantly, you feel sad for her but at the same time on the edge of your seat, but I truly loved the setting of the film a remote town were nothing ever happens, or so it would seem. Brilliant drama although I now desperately want to see the original as I believe the original is always better!

Let Me In

tt1228987

Who hated this movie? I haven't even seen the original. I just did not like this movie. My least favorite of the year. Not that that's saying much, I've only seen like 20 movies that have been released in 2010, I really have only seen "the better" films this year, except this crap.The boy actor is just weird as hell, he looks weird, and he acts weird. Hell, there's a scene were he is stabbing a tree! Serial killer in training.But the reason he is crazy is because he is constantly bullied by average teenagers. They didn't even make an effort to make the bullies any different from every bully you've ever seen in a movie. It's like a kid being bullied by caricatures of bullies.But he meets this vampire chick who ultimately teaches him to stand up for himself. (Never seen that before)And after about three unneeded sexual scenes (by 12 year-old kids), the movie finally hits it's climax.The movie is only an hour and 56 minutes and feels like 3 hours. I could never watch this movie again.The only good part about it was the scenes were the vampire girl and her dad(?) go out and kill people for blood. And the ending. That was kick-ass.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-127

ur20481545

title: Let Me In review: Who hated this movie? I haven't even seen the original. I just did not like this movie. My least favorite of the year. Not that that's saying much, I've only seen like 20 movies that have been released in 2010, I really have only seen "the better" films this year, except this crap.The boy actor is just weird as hell, he looks weird, and he acts weird. Hell, there's a scene were he is stabbing a tree! Serial killer in training.But the reason he is crazy is because he is constantly bullied by average teenagers. They didn't even make an effort to make the bullies any different from every bully you've ever seen in a movie. It's like a kid being bullied by caricatures of bullies.But he meets this vampire chick who ultimately teaches him to stand up for himself. (Never seen that before)And after about three unneeded sexual scenes (by 12 year-old kids), the movie finally hits it's climax.The movie is only an hour and 56 minutes and feels like 3 hours. I could never watch this movie again.The only good part about it was the scenes were the vampire girl and her dad(?) go out and kill people for blood. And the ending. That was kick-ass.

Earnest, yet incredibly mediocre

tt1228987

Watching Let Me In was difficult, because I wanted to be as objective as possible about the film as it stands alone, yet the comparisons to the stellar Let The Right One In are inevitable. In every way I can think of, this film comes up short in that comparison. But that doesn't mean this film is necessarily bad. It is, however, not great.The thing about it that I really don't understand is why Matt Reeves wanted to remake it at all. I cannot think of what the audience for this film possibly is. People who are watching it simply because they liked LROI (where I fall) will be intrigued but likely disappointed, and people who responded to the completely misleading advertising for it will almost undoubtedly experience a range of emotion somewhere between disappointed and furious. The story is slow, its about loneliness and friendship and coming of age in a soft, touching, weird (and even violent) sort of way. It's really a simple character study and, at least in today's zeitgeist, is the antithesis of typical 'scary' movies like saw or Halloween. If I had to pick only one word to describe it, it would be 'subtle'. And Let Me In is anything but subtle, which is why it just completely doesn't work.One of the most atrocious examples of this lack of subtlety and what made me want to bang my head against the chair by the end of the film was the absolutely HORRIBLE score. Honestly, it alone was more than capable of making sure I would never watch this film again. Michael Giacchino apparently wrote the score for LOST which I rarely watched, though I've heard it was very fitting. Here, its like being hit over the head with a hammer while someone tells you its a wet noodle. To be completely fair, in some of its softer moments it feels appropriate but they are far and few between. Its ironic then that LROI barely had much of a score at all, which worked fantastically.The kids do alright here, in what are really pretty challenging roles. Chloe to me (especially at the start of the film) felt like she was forcing it a bit. I felt myself watching her act, instead of really believing her performance. Again, it really does illustrate just how fantastic the child actors were in LROI.The film looks great, some fairly cheesy CGI aside. The hospital scene also looked a bit more campy than anything, and the choice to really go all out with Abby's vampirism felt a little jarring and again not super appropriate to the story, but its a choice that really doesn't make much difference.Ultimately, while Matt Reeves obviously was trying to stay close to the tone and feel of the source material, and I commend this effort (less the awful score), this film was disappointing, and while I fully admit that I possess some biases that simply cannot be fully overcome, I would be surprised if the average film goer felt any different. 5/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-66

ur8396180

title: Earnest, yet incredibly mediocre review: Watching Let Me In was difficult, because I wanted to be as objective as possible about the film as it stands alone, yet the comparisons to the stellar Let The Right One In are inevitable. In every way I can think of, this film comes up short in that comparison. But that doesn't mean this film is necessarily bad. It is, however, not great.The thing about it that I really don't understand is why Matt Reeves wanted to remake it at all. I cannot think of what the audience for this film possibly is. People who are watching it simply because they liked LROI (where I fall) will be intrigued but likely disappointed, and people who responded to the completely misleading advertising for it will almost undoubtedly experience a range of emotion somewhere between disappointed and furious. The story is slow, its about loneliness and friendship and coming of age in a soft, touching, weird (and even violent) sort of way. It's really a simple character study and, at least in today's zeitgeist, is the antithesis of typical 'scary' movies like saw or Halloween. If I had to pick only one word to describe it, it would be 'subtle'. And Let Me In is anything but subtle, which is why it just completely doesn't work.One of the most atrocious examples of this lack of subtlety and what made me want to bang my head against the chair by the end of the film was the absolutely HORRIBLE score. Honestly, it alone was more than capable of making sure I would never watch this film again. Michael Giacchino apparently wrote the score for LOST which I rarely watched, though I've heard it was very fitting. Here, its like being hit over the head with a hammer while someone tells you its a wet noodle. To be completely fair, in some of its softer moments it feels appropriate but they are far and few between. Its ironic then that LROI barely had much of a score at all, which worked fantastically.The kids do alright here, in what are really pretty challenging roles. Chloe to me (especially at the start of the film) felt like she was forcing it a bit. I felt myself watching her act, instead of really believing her performance. Again, it really does illustrate just how fantastic the child actors were in LROI.The film looks great, some fairly cheesy CGI aside. The hospital scene also looked a bit more campy than anything, and the choice to really go all out with Abby's vampirism felt a little jarring and again not super appropriate to the story, but its a choice that really doesn't make much difference.Ultimately, while Matt Reeves obviously was trying to stay close to the tone and feel of the source material, and I commend this effort (less the awful score), this film was disappointing, and while I fully admit that I possess some biases that simply cannot be fully overcome, I would be surprised if the average film goer felt any different. 5/10

Let Me In - a solid but inferior remake of Let The Right On In.

tt1228987

Owen is a lonely boy being bullied at school. He meets Abby when she moves into the building and a friendship grows between them. But as a series of murders occur, it becomes apparent that Abby is hiding a secret... she is a vampire.Of all the film reviews I've posted on the IMDb site, Let Me In is a film I never wanted to review. Not because it's a bad film, it isn't, but because of how I feel about Let The Right One In. In my opinion, Let The Right One In is the best film of the last ten years. When I heard of this new version, I was filled with anger at it being remade so soon, and dread as remakes of horror films have on the whole been pretty poor. I mean for example, The Wicker Man, The Ring, A Nightmare On Elm Street, The Hitcher, When A Stranger Calls, Prom Night, Dark Water, and many others have all been terrible compared to the originals. But to confuse the matter more, was the fact that Let Me In was being produced by the resurrected film company Hammer. This was to be their first cinema film released for over thirty years. Hammer in it's original company, made some of the best horror, fantasy and science- fiction films ever made, and made my own favourite horror film of all time, Dracula.So were does Let Me In sit? Well lets start with the positives. The casting of Kodi Smit-McPhee and Chloe Moretz was inspired. Both of them are very good in the central roles of Owen and Abby. They are fast becoming two of the best child actors in Hollywood at the moment, and both are brilliant here, especially Kodi Smit-McPhee. The rest of the cast are pretty good too with the likes of Richard Jenkins and Elias Koteas giving strong supporting performances.This version of the story, follows a similar pattern to the film version of the original novel more than the novel itself. As a result, like Let The Right One In film, it strips out a lot of back-story and subplots, to concentrate on the relationship between Owen and Abby, and when they are on screen, the film works very well indeed.But where the film goes wrong is in some decisions made by Matt Reeves as writer and director. For instance, changing the way the Jenkins character, known only as The Father, goes after victims. Reeves has decided to make the scenes almost like inserts from a different serial killer film, with the character hiding in the back of cars waiting to pounce on the victims. Also there is the strange decision to never show Owen's mothers face throughout. She is only seen in blurred image, or from the neck down or from behind. I'm not sure why Reeves wanted to do it this way but I don't think it fully works. As for Owen's father unlike the original book and film we never see him at all, instead reduced to a voice on the phone. This is a shame as I always felt that the visit to the father was a key scene in both book and film.The most disappointing thing overall though is the violence and bloodshed in the film. The attacks Abby carries out involve CGI which I was disappointed with. I suppose they were trying to show Abby as some kind of animal when attacking, but the CGI is poor indeed. As for the bloodshed and violence, there is more of it here than the original. To my mind this is only because the film-makers felt they needed it to grab the audiences attention, something the original never resorted to. In Let The Right One In, attacks were shown from a distance away from them, never in close up. It's a change I didn't feel was needed.A key change Reeves had made is in the decision to use a cop (Elias Koetas) investigating what is going on, instead of the group of friends from the book and original film. While this does keep things going, the friends in the story played a key part and are missed. It also means when the victims are attacked they are faceless unknowns, instead of characters you care about.I have to say also the music score is poor. It feels like a generic horror score, making it almost instantly forgettable and lacks the haunting quality of the music from Let The Right One In.I hate comparing Let Me In to Let The Right One In, but it is unavoidable for one simple reason : Reeves chooses to repeat certain scenes from Let The Right One In almost exactly the same. This means of course you end up comparing the versions, and sadly Let Me In isn't as good as Let The Right One In in this comparison. And note, this is not another version of the book as was claimed during the making of this film. It's another version of the film instead.Let Me In though is still a much better remake than most that have been made recently. And if you have not seen Let The Right One In, you may enjoy this film a lot more. But having seen the Swedish original film and having read the novel, I have to say it's not as good as the source novel and film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-119

ur0680065

title: Let Me In - a solid but inferior remake of Let The Right On In. review: Owen is a lonely boy being bullied at school. He meets Abby when she moves into the building and a friendship grows between them. But as a series of murders occur, it becomes apparent that Abby is hiding a secret... she is a vampire.Of all the film reviews I've posted on the IMDb site, Let Me In is a film I never wanted to review. Not because it's a bad film, it isn't, but because of how I feel about Let The Right One In. In my opinion, Let The Right One In is the best film of the last ten years. When I heard of this new version, I was filled with anger at it being remade so soon, and dread as remakes of horror films have on the whole been pretty poor. I mean for example, The Wicker Man, The Ring, A Nightmare On Elm Street, The Hitcher, When A Stranger Calls, Prom Night, Dark Water, and many others have all been terrible compared to the originals. But to confuse the matter more, was the fact that Let Me In was being produced by the resurrected film company Hammer. This was to be their first cinema film released for over thirty years. Hammer in it's original company, made some of the best horror, fantasy and science- fiction films ever made, and made my own favourite horror film of all time, Dracula.So were does Let Me In sit? Well lets start with the positives. The casting of Kodi Smit-McPhee and Chloe Moretz was inspired. Both of them are very good in the central roles of Owen and Abby. They are fast becoming two of the best child actors in Hollywood at the moment, and both are brilliant here, especially Kodi Smit-McPhee. The rest of the cast are pretty good too with the likes of Richard Jenkins and Elias Koteas giving strong supporting performances.This version of the story, follows a similar pattern to the film version of the original novel more than the novel itself. As a result, like Let The Right One In film, it strips out a lot of back-story and subplots, to concentrate on the relationship between Owen and Abby, and when they are on screen, the film works very well indeed.But where the film goes wrong is in some decisions made by Matt Reeves as writer and director. For instance, changing the way the Jenkins character, known only as The Father, goes after victims. Reeves has decided to make the scenes almost like inserts from a different serial killer film, with the character hiding in the back of cars waiting to pounce on the victims. Also there is the strange decision to never show Owen's mothers face throughout. She is only seen in blurred image, or from the neck down or from behind. I'm not sure why Reeves wanted to do it this way but I don't think it fully works. As for Owen's father unlike the original book and film we never see him at all, instead reduced to a voice on the phone. This is a shame as I always felt that the visit to the father was a key scene in both book and film.The most disappointing thing overall though is the violence and bloodshed in the film. The attacks Abby carries out involve CGI which I was disappointed with. I suppose they were trying to show Abby as some kind of animal when attacking, but the CGI is poor indeed. As for the bloodshed and violence, there is more of it here than the original. To my mind this is only because the film-makers felt they needed it to grab the audiences attention, something the original never resorted to. In Let The Right One In, attacks were shown from a distance away from them, never in close up. It's a change I didn't feel was needed.A key change Reeves had made is in the decision to use a cop (Elias Koetas) investigating what is going on, instead of the group of friends from the book and original film. While this does keep things going, the friends in the story played a key part and are missed. It also means when the victims are attacked they are faceless unknowns, instead of characters you care about.I have to say also the music score is poor. It feels like a generic horror score, making it almost instantly forgettable and lacks the haunting quality of the music from Let The Right One In.I hate comparing Let Me In to Let The Right One In, but it is unavoidable for one simple reason : Reeves chooses to repeat certain scenes from Let The Right One In almost exactly the same. This means of course you end up comparing the versions, and sadly Let Me In isn't as good as Let The Right One In in this comparison. And note, this is not another version of the book as was claimed during the making of this film. It's another version of the film instead.Let Me In though is still a much better remake than most that have been made recently. And if you have not seen Let The Right One In, you may enjoy this film a lot more. But having seen the Swedish original film and having read the novel, I have to say it's not as good as the source novel and film.

Creepy but strangely touching

tt1228987

Though I really am not into horror moving I just had to see this one after reading a lot of the reviews. I have to say that it didn't disappoint. The movie builds slowly and really pulls you into the sad, but ultimately satisfying relationship between this neglected boy and not so human girl (who may not be a girl at all). I did have a little trouble with the adults in this movie who seem oblivious to the goings on of these two children. Only the girls'supposed father (later on he is proved to be someone else) seems to notice that these two are out late at night together. The movie was tense but it was not as scary as I thought it would be. I think that is because I try had to make the girl a sympathetic character and thus makes the boy and the audience want to see everything work out okay.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-237

ur1062771

title: Creepy but strangely touching review: Though I really am not into horror moving I just had to see this one after reading a lot of the reviews. I have to say that it didn't disappoint. The movie builds slowly and really pulls you into the sad, but ultimately satisfying relationship between this neglected boy and not so human girl (who may not be a girl at all). I did have a little trouble with the adults in this movie who seem oblivious to the goings on of these two children. Only the girls'supposed father (later on he is proved to be someone else) seems to notice that these two are out late at night together. The movie was tense but it was not as scary as I thought it would be. I think that is because I try had to make the girl a sympathetic character and thus makes the boy and the audience want to see everything work out okay.

Just as good and affective as the original

tt1228987

I was surprised to see this film turn out the way it did. The remakes rarely surpass the originals, especially when the original films are new films themselves. But there are some cases where it does. Films like The Grudge and The Ring were good remakes, but those films didn't have the depth of Let Me In. This remake matches the original not only in scares, and suspense, but in acting, atmosphere and direction as well.A few things that Let Me In does better is the action. This remake is gorier and has more CGI in it. And the CGI is pretty good too. I also liked some things like the car stunts, and of course, the higher budget helped make this film stand out a bit more than the original. However ,that doesn't mean it's better than Let The Right One In. The 1st film was paced better, and the characters had more to say. And so this also doesn't mean this new version is inferior to the original either. They each have their own merits and flaws.Some other things worth mentioning is the soundtrack. Micheal Giacchino is a real genius. This is one of the best horror scores I've heard in a long time. Absolutely brilliant. And I must say, the acting in Let Me In is a bit better, the main characters are also more sympathetic than in the 1st film. Especially Abbey (Eli). In this film, she is cursed, and in the 1st film she was more sinister. Abbey lets you know she's killing to survive, while Eli did it because it's simply her nature. The result is a different feeling for the character and in my opinion, prefer Abbey's character.I rated both films an 8, don't miss this one regardless of whether your fan of the original or not. The screenplays are similar and it's very well written. It's more than another vampire film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-220

ur1556514

title: Just as good and affective as the original review: I was surprised to see this film turn out the way it did. The remakes rarely surpass the originals, especially when the original films are new films themselves. But there are some cases where it does. Films like The Grudge and The Ring were good remakes, but those films didn't have the depth of Let Me In. This remake matches the original not only in scares, and suspense, but in acting, atmosphere and direction as well.A few things that Let Me In does better is the action. This remake is gorier and has more CGI in it. And the CGI is pretty good too. I also liked some things like the car stunts, and of course, the higher budget helped make this film stand out a bit more than the original. However ,that doesn't mean it's better than Let The Right One In. The 1st film was paced better, and the characters had more to say. And so this also doesn't mean this new version is inferior to the original either. They each have their own merits and flaws.Some other things worth mentioning is the soundtrack. Micheal Giacchino is a real genius. This is one of the best horror scores I've heard in a long time. Absolutely brilliant. And I must say, the acting in Let Me In is a bit better, the main characters are also more sympathetic than in the 1st film. Especially Abbey (Eli). In this film, she is cursed, and in the 1st film she was more sinister. Abbey lets you know she's killing to survive, while Eli did it because it's simply her nature. The result is a different feeling for the character and in my opinion, prefer Abbey's character.I rated both films an 8, don't miss this one regardless of whether your fan of the original or not. The screenplays are similar and it's very well written. It's more than another vampire film.

A decent, if unnecessary, remake

tt1228987

Let Me In is a movie which really need not exist. It's a remake of Swedish film Let the Right One In. And that original film stands perfectly well on its own merits, there was no need for an English-language version unless you're someone completely horrified by the idea of reading subtitles. And the Swedish setting also works much better for this sort of story. The remake unfolds in New Mexico. Sweden seemed much more ominous. Colder, darker, bleaker. The New Mexico setting is rather mundane compared to the otherworldly feel in Sweden. And otherworldly is appropriate for this story. Because we're talking about a vampire.As anyone who saw the original film will know the vampire in question here is a young girl. Or at least appears to be a young girl. Trapped in this young girl's body is someone who has lived a lifetime, maybe many lifetimes. A tormented soul who is mature way beyond the years her physical appearance suggests. That requires a very mature performance from a young actress and here Chloë Grace Moretz delivers. There's a lot of nuance to this part, a young girl who's not actually a young girl, yearning for a life and a love she can never have. And a young girl who, when the need arises, must be a ferocious, cold-blooded killer. That's a lot for Moretz to handle but she is definitely up to the task. The other key character is the meek, bullied young boy our vampire befriends. Kodi Smit-McPhee plays the part here and crucially he works very well with Moretz. They have a chemistry which works very well in drawing their characters closer together which in turn draws the audience into the story.That story unfolds pretty much exactly as it did in the original film. Really the only significant change is that it is now a cop investigating the strange goings-on whereas in the original film it was an ordinary guy poking his nose into things. Other than that this is a note-for-note, line-for-line, scene-for-scene remake. So if you saw the first film there's nothing here to provoke even mild surprise, much less genuine shock. So with that in mind it's to be expected that this film seems just a touch less satisfying than the original. The new film has its merits. But in every department the original is just a little bit better. The first film had a better setting, better frights and, for as good as Moretz and Smit-McPhee are, probably slightly better performances. Lina Leandersson, the star of the original film, always had that odd, otherworldly quality to her. Moretz, for all her talents, is a bit too familiar. You can see her as an ordinary American girl. This is a story perhaps best suited for unknowns, that was probably a big part of the appeal of Let the Right One In. That film had a bit of a magical quality which Let Me In lacks. That does not mean this remake is a bad film. Far from it. But this film was always going to be judged against the original. And in that comparison it falls just a little bit short.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-417

ur0915482

title: A decent, if unnecessary, remake review: Let Me In is a movie which really need not exist. It's a remake of Swedish film Let the Right One In. And that original film stands perfectly well on its own merits, there was no need for an English-language version unless you're someone completely horrified by the idea of reading subtitles. And the Swedish setting also works much better for this sort of story. The remake unfolds in New Mexico. Sweden seemed much more ominous. Colder, darker, bleaker. The New Mexico setting is rather mundane compared to the otherworldly feel in Sweden. And otherworldly is appropriate for this story. Because we're talking about a vampire.As anyone who saw the original film will know the vampire in question here is a young girl. Or at least appears to be a young girl. Trapped in this young girl's body is someone who has lived a lifetime, maybe many lifetimes. A tormented soul who is mature way beyond the years her physical appearance suggests. That requires a very mature performance from a young actress and here Chloë Grace Moretz delivers. There's a lot of nuance to this part, a young girl who's not actually a young girl, yearning for a life and a love she can never have. And a young girl who, when the need arises, must be a ferocious, cold-blooded killer. That's a lot for Moretz to handle but she is definitely up to the task. The other key character is the meek, bullied young boy our vampire befriends. Kodi Smit-McPhee plays the part here and crucially he works very well with Moretz. They have a chemistry which works very well in drawing their characters closer together which in turn draws the audience into the story.That story unfolds pretty much exactly as it did in the original film. Really the only significant change is that it is now a cop investigating the strange goings-on whereas in the original film it was an ordinary guy poking his nose into things. Other than that this is a note-for-note, line-for-line, scene-for-scene remake. So if you saw the first film there's nothing here to provoke even mild surprise, much less genuine shock. So with that in mind it's to be expected that this film seems just a touch less satisfying than the original. The new film has its merits. But in every department the original is just a little bit better. The first film had a better setting, better frights and, for as good as Moretz and Smit-McPhee are, probably slightly better performances. Lina Leandersson, the star of the original film, always had that odd, otherworldly quality to her. Moretz, for all her talents, is a bit too familiar. You can see her as an ordinary American girl. This is a story perhaps best suited for unknowns, that was probably a big part of the appeal of Let the Right One In. That film had a bit of a magical quality which Let Me In lacks. That does not mean this remake is a bad film. Far from it. But this film was always going to be judged against the original. And in that comparison it falls just a little bit short.

The remake no one wanted is surprisingly decent

tt1228987

When it was first announced that that Swedish film Let the Right One In fans of the original bemoan why do it? Is nothing sacred? I even shared this view point but I decided to give Let Me In a chance and there plenty of things that work and some that do not.Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) is a 12 year old who is a loner, bullied at school by a sadist kid (Dylan Minnette) and his parents are going thought a bitter divorce. He plays with knives and is a serial killer in the making. One day a man (Richard Jenkins) and his 'daughter' Abby (Chloe Grace Moretz) move into the apartment building. Owen slowly befriends Abby who gives him the confidence to face the bullies. But Abby has a thirst for blood, which her 'father' has to get for her and the police end up investigating a series of mysterious and brutal murders.There is a whole question why is Let the Right One In being remade, especially because Matt Reeves shot it in the style of original. But Reeves does bring his own approach to the film, the scene where he attacks the teenager in the car as his friend is in a petrol station and we see the fight in the background, the car chase afterwards, seen completely within the car and a quick creepy scene where Owen finds an old series photo of Abby with a boy with glasses. Reeves also cut out the scene with the cats, which in the original was one of the few weak links. The relationship between Owen and Abby is made out to be a little more fun loving, that she attempts to be a more jolly character because Owen shows affection. The acting throughout is very strong, Smit-McPhee and Moretz are two of the strongest child actors around and they both give understated performances, Moretz being the slightly stronger performer. Jenkins too gives a rather understated performance and Elias Koteas is simply a cop trying to do his job: he was not an evil or even a bad character.But of course there are problems. One involves the special effects when Abby attacks people. When she attacks her first victim it looks pretty much how Gollum would attack someone, it was almost comical. It was handled much more subtly and better in Let the Right One In when she was picked up and then she bite him, having made sudden impact then it turning into a fight scene. The bullies were just sadistic. The is a problem of the original as well, but they were so unrealistic: they were just psychopaths, willing to kill a 12-year-old boy and they are meant to be 12 themselves, though Minnette looked older. There are some small differences as well that I personally think work better in the original film, like the cutting out of the other resident of the building, the cutting of Owen's dad and the scene of the new vampire being set alight when she see explored to the sun was more over-the-top in this film seeing that a nurse also gets killed by the flames. But I might be a little too critical because of my affection for the original film.If Let Me In was a stand alone film it possibly it would have stood up better but as a remake it is surprisingly good and well done, if a little too reliant of the original.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-348

ur17571044

title: The remake no one wanted is surprisingly decent review: When it was first announced that that Swedish film Let the Right One In fans of the original bemoan why do it? Is nothing sacred? I even shared this view point but I decided to give Let Me In a chance and there plenty of things that work and some that do not.Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) is a 12 year old who is a loner, bullied at school by a sadist kid (Dylan Minnette) and his parents are going thought a bitter divorce. He plays with knives and is a serial killer in the making. One day a man (Richard Jenkins) and his 'daughter' Abby (Chloe Grace Moretz) move into the apartment building. Owen slowly befriends Abby who gives him the confidence to face the bullies. But Abby has a thirst for blood, which her 'father' has to get for her and the police end up investigating a series of mysterious and brutal murders.There is a whole question why is Let the Right One In being remade, especially because Matt Reeves shot it in the style of original. But Reeves does bring his own approach to the film, the scene where he attacks the teenager in the car as his friend is in a petrol station and we see the fight in the background, the car chase afterwards, seen completely within the car and a quick creepy scene where Owen finds an old series photo of Abby with a boy with glasses. Reeves also cut out the scene with the cats, which in the original was one of the few weak links. The relationship between Owen and Abby is made out to be a little more fun loving, that she attempts to be a more jolly character because Owen shows affection. The acting throughout is very strong, Smit-McPhee and Moretz are two of the strongest child actors around and they both give understated performances, Moretz being the slightly stronger performer. Jenkins too gives a rather understated performance and Elias Koteas is simply a cop trying to do his job: he was not an evil or even a bad character.But of course there are problems. One involves the special effects when Abby attacks people. When she attacks her first victim it looks pretty much how Gollum would attack someone, it was almost comical. It was handled much more subtly and better in Let the Right One In when she was picked up and then she bite him, having made sudden impact then it turning into a fight scene. The bullies were just sadistic. The is a problem of the original as well, but they were so unrealistic: they were just psychopaths, willing to kill a 12-year-old boy and they are meant to be 12 themselves, though Minnette looked older. There are some small differences as well that I personally think work better in the original film, like the cutting out of the other resident of the building, the cutting of Owen's dad and the scene of the new vampire being set alight when she see explored to the sun was more over-the-top in this film seeing that a nurse also gets killed by the flames. But I might be a little too critical because of my affection for the original film.If Let Me In was a stand alone film it possibly it would have stood up better but as a remake it is surprisingly good and well done, if a little too reliant of the original.

Let Me In is a solid remake

tt1228987

¨Do you think there's such a thing as evil? ¨ Many viewers might consider Let Me In as one of the best films of the year because it is such a great horror-romantic film, but that's only because they probably haven't seen the original Swedish version entitled Lat den ratte Komma (Let the Right One In) directed by Tomas Alfredson back in 2008. Both these films are based on the novel of the same name written by Ajvide Lindqvist. The original Swedish film is just breathtaking and an absolutely brilliant film which I didn't think needed to be remade. It is one of the best horror movies of the decade and without a doubt the best vampire film. When I heard it was going to be remade I was a little disappointed, but I still wanted to see how they went about it. Let Me In is actually a decent remake, but not nearly as great as the original. If you haven't seen either of these films then I recommend you watching the original one, but if you don't like having to read subtitles then I guess the American version is worth your time. The story is so powerful that it works in both these films, but of course I already knew what was going to happen so I wasn't all that blown away by this film as I had been with the original one. Lindqvist actually collaborated with the screenplay of the original film while Matt Reeves adapted the screenplay for the American version. Matt Reeves (known for his direction and collaboration with J.J. Abrams in Cloverfield) directs this film by trying to stay as true as possible to the original film. Many of the scenes are similar in both films and the storyline is pretty much the same with a few minor changes.As for the plot goes the names of the main characters have been changed. Eli is now Abby (played by Chloe Moretz) and Oskar is Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee). The story which took place in a Swedish suburb now takes place in New Mexico. Owen is a twelve year old kid who spends a lot of time alone in his house due to the fact that his parents are getting a divorce. He talks to himself a lot and dreams of getting revenge on the kids who bully him at school (who instead of tormenting him to squeal like a pig like they did in the original film, in Let Me In they torment him with telling him to cry like a girl). Owen plays with his knife imagining he is fighting off Kenny (Dylan Minnette), the bully from school, by stabbing a tree and repeating the words cry like a girl. One night in his quiet neighborhood a twelve year old girl moves in to the apartment next door along with who seems to be his father. The girl is Abby (Chloe Moretz) and the guardian's name is never mentioned (played by Richard Jenkins). We soon find out that Abby is not your normal girl, her guardian actually is a serial killer who drains the blood of his victims in order to feed Abby. The problem is that Jenkins's character is getting old and sloppy and he is a bit unsuccessful in his few tries. The police officer who is investigating the murders is played by Elias Koteas. We aren't given his name either, because the central theme of the film revolves around Owen and Abby's friendship. They somehow discover that they need each other despite their differences.This film works because it stays true to the original story and central theme of the novel dealing with the bond that Owen and Abby form. It is such a powerful story that raises questions about love, friendship, and morality. Owen loves Abby, but is she evil? That is a question he will have to find an answer to himself. I loved the two kid actors in the Swedish version, and the two American actors are equally as good. Chloe Moretz is just fantastic as Abby. She makes us fall in love with her despite the fact that she is a bloodsucking vampire. There seems to be a sadness and innocence in her face that also captivates Owen. It has been a great year for Chloe as an actress. She was also so good in Kick-Ass one of the most entertaining films of the year. These two roles are very different from each other and Chloe Moretz has proved she belongs in Hollywood. What I really didn't enjoy as much as the original film was the cinematography. The Swedish film was beautifully shot by Hoyte Van Hoytema (who recently worked in The Fighter) and the scenery was just spectacular. I remember being awed by the white snow contrasting with the dark red blood, especially in the first murder scene. In Let Me In the cinematography (Greg Fraser) just wasn't as breathtaking. I still think this is a decent remake, but I have to stick with the original. The story just moved and shocked me at the same time, but I already knew what I was getting into in this film so it wasn't as surprising. If you haven't seen any of these two movies, see the original Swedish film first, but if you don't like subtitles Let Me In isn't a bad choice either.http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-228

ur13566917

title: Let Me In is a solid remake review: ¨Do you think there's such a thing as evil? ¨ Many viewers might consider Let Me In as one of the best films of the year because it is such a great horror-romantic film, but that's only because they probably haven't seen the original Swedish version entitled Lat den ratte Komma (Let the Right One In) directed by Tomas Alfredson back in 2008. Both these films are based on the novel of the same name written by Ajvide Lindqvist. The original Swedish film is just breathtaking and an absolutely brilliant film which I didn't think needed to be remade. It is one of the best horror movies of the decade and without a doubt the best vampire film. When I heard it was going to be remade I was a little disappointed, but I still wanted to see how they went about it. Let Me In is actually a decent remake, but not nearly as great as the original. If you haven't seen either of these films then I recommend you watching the original one, but if you don't like having to read subtitles then I guess the American version is worth your time. The story is so powerful that it works in both these films, but of course I already knew what was going to happen so I wasn't all that blown away by this film as I had been with the original one. Lindqvist actually collaborated with the screenplay of the original film while Matt Reeves adapted the screenplay for the American version. Matt Reeves (known for his direction and collaboration with J.J. Abrams in Cloverfield) directs this film by trying to stay as true as possible to the original film. Many of the scenes are similar in both films and the storyline is pretty much the same with a few minor changes.As for the plot goes the names of the main characters have been changed. Eli is now Abby (played by Chloe Moretz) and Oskar is Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee). The story which took place in a Swedish suburb now takes place in New Mexico. Owen is a twelve year old kid who spends a lot of time alone in his house due to the fact that his parents are getting a divorce. He talks to himself a lot and dreams of getting revenge on the kids who bully him at school (who instead of tormenting him to squeal like a pig like they did in the original film, in Let Me In they torment him with telling him to cry like a girl). Owen plays with his knife imagining he is fighting off Kenny (Dylan Minnette), the bully from school, by stabbing a tree and repeating the words cry like a girl. One night in his quiet neighborhood a twelve year old girl moves in to the apartment next door along with who seems to be his father. The girl is Abby (Chloe Moretz) and the guardian's name is never mentioned (played by Richard Jenkins). We soon find out that Abby is not your normal girl, her guardian actually is a serial killer who drains the blood of his victims in order to feed Abby. The problem is that Jenkins's character is getting old and sloppy and he is a bit unsuccessful in his few tries. The police officer who is investigating the murders is played by Elias Koteas. We aren't given his name either, because the central theme of the film revolves around Owen and Abby's friendship. They somehow discover that they need each other despite their differences.This film works because it stays true to the original story and central theme of the novel dealing with the bond that Owen and Abby form. It is such a powerful story that raises questions about love, friendship, and morality. Owen loves Abby, but is she evil? That is a question he will have to find an answer to himself. I loved the two kid actors in the Swedish version, and the two American actors are equally as good. Chloe Moretz is just fantastic as Abby. She makes us fall in love with her despite the fact that she is a bloodsucking vampire. There seems to be a sadness and innocence in her face that also captivates Owen. It has been a great year for Chloe as an actress. She was also so good in Kick-Ass one of the most entertaining films of the year. These two roles are very different from each other and Chloe Moretz has proved she belongs in Hollywood. What I really didn't enjoy as much as the original film was the cinematography. The Swedish film was beautifully shot by Hoyte Van Hoytema (who recently worked in The Fighter) and the scenery was just spectacular. I remember being awed by the white snow contrasting with the dark red blood, especially in the first murder scene. In Let Me In the cinematography (Greg Fraser) just wasn't as breathtaking. I still think this is a decent remake, but I have to stick with the original. The story just moved and shocked me at the same time, but I already knew what I was getting into in this film so it wasn't as surprising. If you haven't seen any of these two movies, see the original Swedish film first, but if you don't like subtitles Let Me In isn't a bad choice either.http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

A faithful remake

tt1228987

American movie makers don't have an especially impressive track record when it comes to adapting hit foreign films for stateside audiences (who generally avoid like the plague anything with subtitles). But with "Let Me In," a remake of the highly acclaimed Swedish film "Let the Right One In," Hollywood finally gets one right. This somber and chilling tale of a friendless, put-upon 12-year-old boy who becomes romantically (albeit platonically) involved with the vampire-girl next door emerges as a sort of antidote to the far more crowd-pleasing and commercially successful "Twilight" series, providing a more subdued and thoughtful variation on the same theme.Transferring its setting from Scandinavia to an equally frigid and snowbound Los Alamos, New Mexico, the remake remains true to the core elements that made the original such a quality film in the first place: its artful tone, its unsensationalistic approach to its material, and its incisive look at what it means to be a misfit in a world in which conformity is prized above all else – and never more so than during adolescence. For Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) and Abby (Chloe Grace Moretz) are both outcasts from society, Abby quite literally since her condition makes it impossible for her to interact with others in any kind of meaningful way (except to devour their blood). But Owen is no less of an outsider, since his diminutiveness, shyness and dreamy nature make him an easy and perpetual target for the town's bullies. It's no surprise, then, that Owen and Abby eventually reach out to one another for love and acceptance, despite the seeming impossibility of their relationship.As a horror film, "Let Me In" doesn't hold back from showing us the requisite gore and grue that comes with the genre, but director Matt Reeve's script is far more concerned with the interaction among characters and the exploration of theme than it is with piling up easily achievable gross-out moments. For instance, the gruesome task of securing victims that Abby and others close to her are forced to do to assure her continued survival help to make this a profoundly sad and emotionally unsettling story.Smit-McPhee and Moretz are both superb as the inter-species Romeo and Juliet, and there's a fine supporting cast to boot.In this case at least, "Let Me In" is a command well worth obeying.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-292

ur0375636

title: A faithful remake review: American movie makers don't have an especially impressive track record when it comes to adapting hit foreign films for stateside audiences (who generally avoid like the plague anything with subtitles). But with "Let Me In," a remake of the highly acclaimed Swedish film "Let the Right One In," Hollywood finally gets one right. This somber and chilling tale of a friendless, put-upon 12-year-old boy who becomes romantically (albeit platonically) involved with the vampire-girl next door emerges as a sort of antidote to the far more crowd-pleasing and commercially successful "Twilight" series, providing a more subdued and thoughtful variation on the same theme.Transferring its setting from Scandinavia to an equally frigid and snowbound Los Alamos, New Mexico, the remake remains true to the core elements that made the original such a quality film in the first place: its artful tone, its unsensationalistic approach to its material, and its incisive look at what it means to be a misfit in a world in which conformity is prized above all else – and never more so than during adolescence. For Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) and Abby (Chloe Grace Moretz) are both outcasts from society, Abby quite literally since her condition makes it impossible for her to interact with others in any kind of meaningful way (except to devour their blood). But Owen is no less of an outsider, since his diminutiveness, shyness and dreamy nature make him an easy and perpetual target for the town's bullies. It's no surprise, then, that Owen and Abby eventually reach out to one another for love and acceptance, despite the seeming impossibility of their relationship.As a horror film, "Let Me In" doesn't hold back from showing us the requisite gore and grue that comes with the genre, but director Matt Reeve's script is far more concerned with the interaction among characters and the exploration of theme than it is with piling up easily achievable gross-out moments. For instance, the gruesome task of securing victims that Abby and others close to her are forced to do to assure her continued survival help to make this a profoundly sad and emotionally unsettling story.Smit-McPhee and Moretz are both superb as the inter-species Romeo and Juliet, and there's a fine supporting cast to boot.In this case at least, "Let Me In" is a command well worth obeying.

A good remake

tt1228987

This film surprised me. Why? Simply because it was a lot better than I expected it to be. The acting is fantastic, The two leads showing that even with their young age they are going to be huge in the acting world. The direction is good. The changes made to the location do not detract from the overall film. The characters are well crafted and well rounded.It is not as good as "Let the Right One in" but that may be because the original is so good. It is still a good film in it's own right.This film is a great return for Hammer Horror and I look forward to the films they bring out in the future.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-262

ur4936744

title: A good remake review: This film surprised me. Why? Simply because it was a lot better than I expected it to be. The acting is fantastic, The two leads showing that even with their young age they are going to be huge in the acting world. The direction is good. The changes made to the location do not detract from the overall film. The characters are well crafted and well rounded.It is not as good as "Let the Right One in" but that may be because the original is so good. It is still a good film in it's own right.This film is a great return for Hammer Horror and I look forward to the films they bring out in the future.

Horrific Tweens For All Eternity

tt1228987

Most girls wear lipstick, but Abby wears blood on her lips. The tolls of being a pre-adolescent vampire have tragic effects on those around Abby, including her Guardian and new friend, Owen, a 12-year-old boy unsuspecting of what Abby really is. Let Me In is the English- language remake of foreign flick, Let The Right One In, and while I have not seen the original, I can say that Let Me In is an often uneven piece of movie-making that at times excels, and at other times lacks dramatic tension, but the movie is overall a fresh take on the vampire myth.Divorced parents and an almost always absent mother, young Owen is a pre-teen with violent tendencies. When he's playing at home, he's either spying on his neighbors with his telescope, or he has a knife and pretends to stab little girls, making him a perfect kinsmate for a vampire. At school, Owen tries to hide in solitude, but the school bullies rarely leave Owen alone, and we as an audience calculatedly wait for the moment in which Owen's violent tendencies lash out upon the boys bullying him. But things change for Owen when Abby moves into the apartment next door, and her and Owen embark in a puppy dog-vampire love.Let Me In redefines the standard vampire tale while remaining true to the core mythology of the vampire, but while so doing, teling a pre-adolescent love story at its core. Of course, this movie is not a romanticized look at the vampire, like Bela Lugosi's Dracula, but it is rather unromanticized. Being a vampire is almost portrayed as being a curse in this movie and not a blessing. We see these carnivorous, animalistic tendencies in Abby, and when she attacks it's like a lioness attacking a gazelle. Swift and violent. Bloody and gruesome. You actually pity Abby. A girl who can never enter into sunlight or she will spontaneously combust. A girl who will always be that, a girl who is immortal. A girl who has a Guardian in character actor Richard Jenkins, so that she does not have to stalk and hunt prey. Jenkins' character murders the people for Abby and just delivers her the blood in milk jugs, but of course there would be no dramatic tension if Abby never bit into somebody's neck at some point.There are three different story lines in this movie that all eventually converge into one, and it is here where the movie becomes uneven. There is the romance between Owen and Abby, there is the relationship between Abby and her Guardian, and there is the Detective (played by Elias Koteas) who is trying to uncover the source behind the body count that Abby and her Guardian leave in their wake. The first love, so to speak, between Abby and Owen is the most dramatically intriguing arc of the story, and the one in which the time is actually taken to develop and let live. I love how the director, Matt Reeves, really showed Owen's sudden yearning for the opposite sex in many different scenes, such as his attentiveness to watch the woman across the street undress through his telescope, and then he meets Abby and finds not just a friend, but someone to go"steady" with. Of course, I don't know if Owen was Abby's first love.It's alluded occasionally throughout the movie that Abby's Guardian has cared for her ever since he was Owen's age, but he has grown weary of this over time, problem is I never felt the character's desire to not have to kill and maim for Abby's blood anymore. Sure, Richard Jenkins says it at one point, and he is such a good actor, he clearly knows each step of how he got there, but this was a case where simply saying it wasn't enough and the filmmakers should have spent more time developing it. Then, there's the story of the Detective which lacks dramatic tension -- much like Richard Jenkins' arc -- primarily cause the story never allows the Detective any chance to be anything more than a stock movie detective. It sort of felt as if the Detective was merely there so that we could see the progress of the police getting closer to Abby in a ploy for suspense, but the suspense was flat. I never got that impending sense that the police were closing in, but rather felt the entire time that they were always clueless, even when their necks were being chomped upon.But guzzling blood can have its rewards when one is a vampire. The acting from the two leads, Kodi Smit-McPhee and Chloe Moretz, are both magnificent, but it's Moretz that breaks away from the pack as Abby. I've followed Moretz's career ever since I first saw her in (500) Days of Summer, and then as Hit-Girl in Kick-Ass, but she really shows a depth in this role that makes me believe she could possibly make the transition from child to adult star. Moretz lives this character, she isn't acting like a 12-year-old girl, but acting like an adult trapped inside a child's body. The acting coupled with the eerie, yet oddly beautiful score from Michael Giacchino, make this movie worth watching.So can this movie survive the generations, like Abby, and continue to befriend moviegoers years from now? Even though Let Me In is an uneven examination of the vampire lore, it is a movie that has enough originality alongside some spectacular acting by its young stars, that makes this horror movie passable, but will it be a classic? Depends on who's doing the biting.I give Let Me In a C!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-79

ur6136793

title: Horrific Tweens For All Eternity review: Most girls wear lipstick, but Abby wears blood on her lips. The tolls of being a pre-adolescent vampire have tragic effects on those around Abby, including her Guardian and new friend, Owen, a 12-year-old boy unsuspecting of what Abby really is. Let Me In is the English- language remake of foreign flick, Let The Right One In, and while I have not seen the original, I can say that Let Me In is an often uneven piece of movie-making that at times excels, and at other times lacks dramatic tension, but the movie is overall a fresh take on the vampire myth.Divorced parents and an almost always absent mother, young Owen is a pre-teen with violent tendencies. When he's playing at home, he's either spying on his neighbors with his telescope, or he has a knife and pretends to stab little girls, making him a perfect kinsmate for a vampire. At school, Owen tries to hide in solitude, but the school bullies rarely leave Owen alone, and we as an audience calculatedly wait for the moment in which Owen's violent tendencies lash out upon the boys bullying him. But things change for Owen when Abby moves into the apartment next door, and her and Owen embark in a puppy dog-vampire love.Let Me In redefines the standard vampire tale while remaining true to the core mythology of the vampire, but while so doing, teling a pre-adolescent love story at its core. Of course, this movie is not a romanticized look at the vampire, like Bela Lugosi's Dracula, but it is rather unromanticized. Being a vampire is almost portrayed as being a curse in this movie and not a blessing. We see these carnivorous, animalistic tendencies in Abby, and when she attacks it's like a lioness attacking a gazelle. Swift and violent. Bloody and gruesome. You actually pity Abby. A girl who can never enter into sunlight or she will spontaneously combust. A girl who will always be that, a girl who is immortal. A girl who has a Guardian in character actor Richard Jenkins, so that she does not have to stalk and hunt prey. Jenkins' character murders the people for Abby and just delivers her the blood in milk jugs, but of course there would be no dramatic tension if Abby never bit into somebody's neck at some point.There are three different story lines in this movie that all eventually converge into one, and it is here where the movie becomes uneven. There is the romance between Owen and Abby, there is the relationship between Abby and her Guardian, and there is the Detective (played by Elias Koteas) who is trying to uncover the source behind the body count that Abby and her Guardian leave in their wake. The first love, so to speak, between Abby and Owen is the most dramatically intriguing arc of the story, and the one in which the time is actually taken to develop and let live. I love how the director, Matt Reeves, really showed Owen's sudden yearning for the opposite sex in many different scenes, such as his attentiveness to watch the woman across the street undress through his telescope, and then he meets Abby and finds not just a friend, but someone to go"steady" with. Of course, I don't know if Owen was Abby's first love.It's alluded occasionally throughout the movie that Abby's Guardian has cared for her ever since he was Owen's age, but he has grown weary of this over time, problem is I never felt the character's desire to not have to kill and maim for Abby's blood anymore. Sure, Richard Jenkins says it at one point, and he is such a good actor, he clearly knows each step of how he got there, but this was a case where simply saying it wasn't enough and the filmmakers should have spent more time developing it. Then, there's the story of the Detective which lacks dramatic tension -- much like Richard Jenkins' arc -- primarily cause the story never allows the Detective any chance to be anything more than a stock movie detective. It sort of felt as if the Detective was merely there so that we could see the progress of the police getting closer to Abby in a ploy for suspense, but the suspense was flat. I never got that impending sense that the police were closing in, but rather felt the entire time that they were always clueless, even when their necks were being chomped upon.But guzzling blood can have its rewards when one is a vampire. The acting from the two leads, Kodi Smit-McPhee and Chloe Moretz, are both magnificent, but it's Moretz that breaks away from the pack as Abby. I've followed Moretz's career ever since I first saw her in (500) Days of Summer, and then as Hit-Girl in Kick-Ass, but she really shows a depth in this role that makes me believe she could possibly make the transition from child to adult star. Moretz lives this character, she isn't acting like a 12-year-old girl, but acting like an adult trapped inside a child's body. The acting coupled with the eerie, yet oddly beautiful score from Michael Giacchino, make this movie worth watching.So can this movie survive the generations, like Abby, and continue to befriend moviegoers years from now? Even though Let Me In is an uneven examination of the vampire lore, it is a movie that has enough originality alongside some spectacular acting by its young stars, that makes this horror movie passable, but will it be a classic? Depends on who's doing the biting.I give Let Me In a C!

Closer to Sweden than it is to Hollywood

tt1228987

Saw this one last Saturday, almost two years after seeing the Swedish "Let the Right One In". To be honest, I wasn't, at all, looking forward to see Matt Reeves' first feature film since "Cloverfield". I don't recall when it was released theatrically in my city, hell, I'm not even sure if it was. Did I know Matt Reeves was the director? Not really… so yes, it was one of those movies for me, one of those that you're not interested at all in them. But I had to see it at this film course I just began taking. And one day after I saw it I was getting "Let the Right One In" on Blu-Ray. Yes, "Let Me In" left me with great desire to finally see again that great Swedish picture. In a way, that's the biggest compliment I can give to Matt Reeves' movie. Why? Well, if this would have been what I was expecting, the typical crappy American remake (anyone else's attention was gained when at the opening credits we see the logo of Hammer? Mine was, so yes, this is a USA/UK production), I guess I might have been just very p*ssed-off, thinking again in "Let the Right One In" but at the same time sort of not wanting to hear of this story for a long time thanks to the *crappy American remake*. So fortunately, here we have a remake that's almost identical to the original. So yes, in a way that only confirms how unnecessary are these kind of remakes, but I get what's the deal with them (remember Amy Adams' character from "The Fighter" with her "I had to read the whole f*****' movie" dialog?) and if I watch them I want them to be like this one. It's certainly just a personal opinion, but I was glad, very glad that "Let Me In" recalled how great this story is and how great are the two main characters. My girlfriend had seen it before and she said it to me really clear: "I didn't like it at all, and I prefer, by a long shot, the girl with the huge eyes", in reference to Lina Leandersson who played Eli (here the names were changed: Abby instead of Eli and Owen instead of Oskar). To me there's no doubt in that regard too. The original is superior in all aspects, from the actors to those incredible shots featuring Hakan (here is played by Richard Jenkins). But really, I thought the main actors, especially Kodi Smit-McPhee as Owen, here had their very own charm. But Chloe Moretz doesn't, indeed, blow your mind as Abby. She was definitely the weakest choice in the whole cast but still she was a bit more than just decent. And take there's this sort of key scene for the movie with Abby, when Owen sees her really as a vampire. It's a key scene because that is the exact thing we were expecting from a Hollywood remake: completely different to the original, louder… just the trying to be more spectacular kind of thing. If the whole movie had followed that patron, well I would have hated it, simply as that. Thankfully, most of it goes for the slow kind of thing.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-231

ur14207038

title: Closer to Sweden than it is to Hollywood review: Saw this one last Saturday, almost two years after seeing the Swedish "Let the Right One In". To be honest, I wasn't, at all, looking forward to see Matt Reeves' first feature film since "Cloverfield". I don't recall when it was released theatrically in my city, hell, I'm not even sure if it was. Did I know Matt Reeves was the director? Not really… so yes, it was one of those movies for me, one of those that you're not interested at all in them. But I had to see it at this film course I just began taking. And one day after I saw it I was getting "Let the Right One In" on Blu-Ray. Yes, "Let Me In" left me with great desire to finally see again that great Swedish picture. In a way, that's the biggest compliment I can give to Matt Reeves' movie. Why? Well, if this would have been what I was expecting, the typical crappy American remake (anyone else's attention was gained when at the opening credits we see the logo of Hammer? Mine was, so yes, this is a USA/UK production), I guess I might have been just very p*ssed-off, thinking again in "Let the Right One In" but at the same time sort of not wanting to hear of this story for a long time thanks to the *crappy American remake*. So fortunately, here we have a remake that's almost identical to the original. So yes, in a way that only confirms how unnecessary are these kind of remakes, but I get what's the deal with them (remember Amy Adams' character from "The Fighter" with her "I had to read the whole f*****' movie" dialog?) and if I watch them I want them to be like this one. It's certainly just a personal opinion, but I was glad, very glad that "Let Me In" recalled how great this story is and how great are the two main characters. My girlfriend had seen it before and she said it to me really clear: "I didn't like it at all, and I prefer, by a long shot, the girl with the huge eyes", in reference to Lina Leandersson who played Eli (here the names were changed: Abby instead of Eli and Owen instead of Oskar). To me there's no doubt in that regard too. The original is superior in all aspects, from the actors to those incredible shots featuring Hakan (here is played by Richard Jenkins). But really, I thought the main actors, especially Kodi Smit-McPhee as Owen, here had their very own charm. But Chloe Moretz doesn't, indeed, blow your mind as Abby. She was definitely the weakest choice in the whole cast but still she was a bit more than just decent. And take there's this sort of key scene for the movie with Abby, when Owen sees her really as a vampire. It's a key scene because that is the exact thing we were expecting from a Hollywood remake: completely different to the original, louder… just the trying to be more spectacular kind of thing. If the whole movie had followed that patron, well I would have hated it, simply as that. Thankfully, most of it goes for the slow kind of thing.

I'm not a snob, but I'm also not impressed.

tt1228987

With the rising tide of vampire-mania these days it's easy to cash in, and easier to become irritated by those doing the cashing, but if you're like most people you just want to see a good and interesting movie and don't really care about whose vampire lore is more accurate. Let Me In is an American version of a Swedish movie, based on a book, and in some strange way it is an original story. It's about love, death and life and stands unique among other vampire stories of the same ilk. However, the problem I had with this is not the story, but the fact that the story has already been told. Remaking movies is no sin to me, but when I've seen and enjoyed the original made only two years ago, I'm helpless but to feel that I've read the same book twice, paraphrased on different paper and there is no new revelations to behold. Regardless of the intentions of those who remade this, it really wasn't necessary, and while I give it a 5/10 on its own merits, I can't help but realize that the original film highlights why I'm not especially into this one. There were a few unnecessary vulgarities in this version that made Owen seem far more warped and thus harder to sympathize with, Chloe Moretz is a competent actress but Abby's lapses between sickly and bored little girl to demon-possessed orangutan simply cannot compare to Lina Leandersson's versatility playing both a sweet girl and a desperate creature in the original. The special effects were very good, but while the Swedish version tempered the violence and gore with a cold atmosphere of sterility, the American version embraces it's penchant for slasher tones and it becomes even harder to feel anything for any of the characters. Whether or not you will enjoy this movie is really all about your bias, since everyone has one. If you like the original, there's a 50/50 chance you'll like this one too since there isn't too much different about it. If you're a fan of the horror genre you'll like it, if you're a Twilight fan you probably won't, and if you like anything vampire then you already know the answer. Give it a shot; it couldn't hurt.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-43

ur3739707

title: I'm not a snob, but I'm also not impressed. review: With the rising tide of vampire-mania these days it's easy to cash in, and easier to become irritated by those doing the cashing, but if you're like most people you just want to see a good and interesting movie and don't really care about whose vampire lore is more accurate. Let Me In is an American version of a Swedish movie, based on a book, and in some strange way it is an original story. It's about love, death and life and stands unique among other vampire stories of the same ilk. However, the problem I had with this is not the story, but the fact that the story has already been told. Remaking movies is no sin to me, but when I've seen and enjoyed the original made only two years ago, I'm helpless but to feel that I've read the same book twice, paraphrased on different paper and there is no new revelations to behold. Regardless of the intentions of those who remade this, it really wasn't necessary, and while I give it a 5/10 on its own merits, I can't help but realize that the original film highlights why I'm not especially into this one. There were a few unnecessary vulgarities in this version that made Owen seem far more warped and thus harder to sympathize with, Chloe Moretz is a competent actress but Abby's lapses between sickly and bored little girl to demon-possessed orangutan simply cannot compare to Lina Leandersson's versatility playing both a sweet girl and a desperate creature in the original. The special effects were very good, but while the Swedish version tempered the violence and gore with a cold atmosphere of sterility, the American version embraces it's penchant for slasher tones and it becomes even harder to feel anything for any of the characters. Whether or not you will enjoy this movie is really all about your bias, since everyone has one. If you like the original, there's a 50/50 chance you'll like this one too since there isn't too much different about it. If you're a fan of the horror genre you'll like it, if you're a Twilight fan you probably won't, and if you like anything vampire then you already know the answer. Give it a shot; it couldn't hurt.

Decent remake of a Swedish original

tt1228987

Twelve year old Owen lives with his mother in Los Alamos, New Mexico; he is a fairly quiet boy but is bullied by a group of boys in his class. His life starts to change though when Abby, a girl around his age moves in next door along with a man we assume to be her father. It quickly becomes apparent that there is something strange about them when the father murders somebody and attempts to drain his blood. When Owen first meets Abby she tells him they can never be friends but despite this they start spending more and more time together and a friendship develops. As their friendship develops Owen's self-confidence grows although he doesn't know what she really is despite her cryptic remark about not being a girl. When he does learn the truth about her he is remarkably sanguine.Having enjoyed the Swedish original, 'Let the Right One In', I was unsure whether or not I'd enjoy this; however I tried to put that to the back of my mind when I sat down to watch this… although the similarities make it difficult. Kodi Smit-McPhee and Chloë Grace Moretz put in solid performances as the two young protagonists giving them the right degree of vulnerability. These two carry the film but that doesn't mean the rest of the cast are weak; the boys playing the group of bullies make them believably unpleasant which leads to some rightly uncomfortable scenes. The concentration on the youngsters means we care less for some of the victims than we might.If you are a fan of the original this remake might seem unnecessary however there are enough differences to make it worth watching at least once. That said I do think the original is the better film; here we are explicitly shown Abby's vampiric side rather than the more subtle approach used in the original film. I also thought some of the dialogue was somewhat mumbled… although it is possible that this was also true of the original; with subtitles I wouldn't notice! As a horror film this isn't excessively scary but there are some well-handled disturbing moments. I cared about the characters and the story interesting. The icy setting gives the story a suitably cold feel.Overall I'd say this is well worth watching and if you enjoy this and haven't seen the original yet I'd recommend searching it out.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-395

ur13977076

title: Decent remake of a Swedish original review: Twelve year old Owen lives with his mother in Los Alamos, New Mexico; he is a fairly quiet boy but is bullied by a group of boys in his class. His life starts to change though when Abby, a girl around his age moves in next door along with a man we assume to be her father. It quickly becomes apparent that there is something strange about them when the father murders somebody and attempts to drain his blood. When Owen first meets Abby she tells him they can never be friends but despite this they start spending more and more time together and a friendship develops. As their friendship develops Owen's self-confidence grows although he doesn't know what she really is despite her cryptic remark about not being a girl. When he does learn the truth about her he is remarkably sanguine.Having enjoyed the Swedish original, 'Let the Right One In', I was unsure whether or not I'd enjoy this; however I tried to put that to the back of my mind when I sat down to watch this… although the similarities make it difficult. Kodi Smit-McPhee and Chloë Grace Moretz put in solid performances as the two young protagonists giving them the right degree of vulnerability. These two carry the film but that doesn't mean the rest of the cast are weak; the boys playing the group of bullies make them believably unpleasant which leads to some rightly uncomfortable scenes. The concentration on the youngsters means we care less for some of the victims than we might.If you are a fan of the original this remake might seem unnecessary however there are enough differences to make it worth watching at least once. That said I do think the original is the better film; here we are explicitly shown Abby's vampiric side rather than the more subtle approach used in the original film. I also thought some of the dialogue was somewhat mumbled… although it is possible that this was also true of the original; with subtitles I wouldn't notice! As a horror film this isn't excessively scary but there are some well-handled disturbing moments. I cared about the characters and the story interesting. The icy setting gives the story a suitably cold feel.Overall I'd say this is well worth watching and if you enjoy this and haven't seen the original yet I'd recommend searching it out.

One of the most accurate and well-written horror remakes in recent years.

tt1228987

Let the Right One In was one of the most talked about films of 2008. Even outside the horror community, critics and moviegoers alike were raving how the film breathed new life into the tired vampire genre. While the Swedish film certainly had its moments and told a pretty amazing story, it wasn't quite as exceptional as everyone made it out to be. When word came that Cloverfield director Matt Reeves would be remaking the film for American audiences, there was a massive amount of skepticism. You've probably heard the complaints about remakes before. How they're never as good as the original and are only done to make a quick buck. Well Hollywood may have pulled a fast one on you and is set to release a remake that's actually worth seeing for once.The trickiest part when handling a remake like this is what the writers, directors, and anyone else behind the scenes decide to change in comparison to the original film. If they change too much then people complain that it strayed too far from the original, but if they change too little then people claim it's too similar to the original and that it was pointless to remake in the first place. They've got to find a balance; add just the right amount of different and new material while maintaining a film that follows in the same footsteps of whatever it was based on. Let Me In just does that.Let Me In is actually at its strongest during the scenes where it ventures away from the 2008 film. Just about any scene that takes place in a car is spectacular, especially during one particular scene where things don't go exactly as planned. There's also a scene where Abby attacks a jogger in a tunnel that's pretty brutal. These added scenes didn't take anything away from the already well-established story, but actually managed to add depth to these characters a good portion of the people seeing this are already familiar with. Considering most Hollywood remakes, this is well worth mentioning. Let Me In at least deserves credit for pulling off something like that.There are several alterations to the story that may put off some who were Let the Right One In enthusiasts. Oskar and Eli are now Owen and Abby and the film now takes place in New Mexico rather than Stockholm. Some of the more memorable scenes in the film didn't make quite as much of an impact as they did in Let the Right One In. Virginia being exposed to sunlight and the pool scene at the end of the film being the two biggest examples. It's not that those particular scenes weren't done well, but they just felt too similar or maybe weren't quite different enough to distinguish them in comparison to the original. That's probably my biggest complaint with the film overall. If you've seen Let the Right One In, then you know how everything turns out. That's a pretty obvious statement dealing with a remake, but knowing that going in really seemed to hurt the experience overall.Let Me In definitely deserves to be held in high regard as one of the best horror remakes in recent years and perhaps ever. Its newly added material blends in nicely into an already well-written vampire story. It just felt like the film could have been even stronger if it was a bit more unpredictable. Nevertheless, its wonderful cast, enticing storyline, and eye-catching camera work will satisfy just about any moviegoer and is a surprisingly strong horror film to be released this late in the year.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-24

ur5811408

title: One of the most accurate and well-written horror remakes in recent years. review: Let the Right One In was one of the most talked about films of 2008. Even outside the horror community, critics and moviegoers alike were raving how the film breathed new life into the tired vampire genre. While the Swedish film certainly had its moments and told a pretty amazing story, it wasn't quite as exceptional as everyone made it out to be. When word came that Cloverfield director Matt Reeves would be remaking the film for American audiences, there was a massive amount of skepticism. You've probably heard the complaints about remakes before. How they're never as good as the original and are only done to make a quick buck. Well Hollywood may have pulled a fast one on you and is set to release a remake that's actually worth seeing for once.The trickiest part when handling a remake like this is what the writers, directors, and anyone else behind the scenes decide to change in comparison to the original film. If they change too much then people complain that it strayed too far from the original, but if they change too little then people claim it's too similar to the original and that it was pointless to remake in the first place. They've got to find a balance; add just the right amount of different and new material while maintaining a film that follows in the same footsteps of whatever it was based on. Let Me In just does that.Let Me In is actually at its strongest during the scenes where it ventures away from the 2008 film. Just about any scene that takes place in a car is spectacular, especially during one particular scene where things don't go exactly as planned. There's also a scene where Abby attacks a jogger in a tunnel that's pretty brutal. These added scenes didn't take anything away from the already well-established story, but actually managed to add depth to these characters a good portion of the people seeing this are already familiar with. Considering most Hollywood remakes, this is well worth mentioning. Let Me In at least deserves credit for pulling off something like that.There are several alterations to the story that may put off some who were Let the Right One In enthusiasts. Oskar and Eli are now Owen and Abby and the film now takes place in New Mexico rather than Stockholm. Some of the more memorable scenes in the film didn't make quite as much of an impact as they did in Let the Right One In. Virginia being exposed to sunlight and the pool scene at the end of the film being the two biggest examples. It's not that those particular scenes weren't done well, but they just felt too similar or maybe weren't quite different enough to distinguish them in comparison to the original. That's probably my biggest complaint with the film overall. If you've seen Let the Right One In, then you know how everything turns out. That's a pretty obvious statement dealing with a remake, but knowing that going in really seemed to hurt the experience overall.Let Me In definitely deserves to be held in high regard as one of the best horror remakes in recent years and perhaps ever. Its newly added material blends in nicely into an already well-written vampire story. It just felt like the film could have been even stronger if it was a bit more unpredictable. Nevertheless, its wonderful cast, enticing storyline, and eye-catching camera work will satisfy just about any moviegoer and is a surprisingly strong horror film to be released this late in the year.

As Expected, the American Version Lacks Subtlety

tt1228987

"Let Me In" is the American version of an acclaimed Swedish film entitled "Let the Right One In." The setting is transported from Sweden to Los Alamos, New Mexico, as the characters all become Americans. The story is the same, of course. Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee), a lonely 12- year old boy, is constantly picked on by bullies in school. He strikes a friendship with his similarly lonely new neighbor, a strange 12-year old girl named Abby (Chloe Moretz), who does not wear shoes in the snow and loves puzzles. As their friendship develops, a series of unexplained bloody murders were taking place in the neighborhood. To tell you more will be spoiling the story for those who have not seen the original film.As I have also seen the original Swedish version, I could not help but compare the two. All the salient points of the story are there. The suspenseful story-telling was still evident even if I already knew what was going to happen. The actors who played the two kids were very effective in essaying their parts in both movies. The main differences lie in the direction and treatment of the scenes and the characterization. The Swedish film was much colder and relentlessly bleak. The American version is predictably more noisy and garish in production value. While the Swedish film shows Oskar and Eli as friends, the American version pushes it further to budding romantic love between Owen and Abby. (This is not necessarily a bad thing, though). The American version uses some terrible CG effects to emphasize evil (you'll know what I mean when you see it), while things were simpler and suggestive (rather than blatant) in the Swedish version.I think you can watch either film if you want to see this unconventional story unfold. You now have a choice of either subtle or direct styles of exposition. Or like me, you can watch and enjoy both, as they are both watchable (if you enjoy this genre of film) in their own ways.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-137

ur4294858

title: As Expected, the American Version Lacks Subtlety review: "Let Me In" is the American version of an acclaimed Swedish film entitled "Let the Right One In." The setting is transported from Sweden to Los Alamos, New Mexico, as the characters all become Americans. The story is the same, of course. Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee), a lonely 12- year old boy, is constantly picked on by bullies in school. He strikes a friendship with his similarly lonely new neighbor, a strange 12-year old girl named Abby (Chloe Moretz), who does not wear shoes in the snow and loves puzzles. As their friendship develops, a series of unexplained bloody murders were taking place in the neighborhood. To tell you more will be spoiling the story for those who have not seen the original film.As I have also seen the original Swedish version, I could not help but compare the two. All the salient points of the story are there. The suspenseful story-telling was still evident even if I already knew what was going to happen. The actors who played the two kids were very effective in essaying their parts in both movies. The main differences lie in the direction and treatment of the scenes and the characterization. The Swedish film was much colder and relentlessly bleak. The American version is predictably more noisy and garish in production value. While the Swedish film shows Oskar and Eli as friends, the American version pushes it further to budding romantic love between Owen and Abby. (This is not necessarily a bad thing, though). The American version uses some terrible CG effects to emphasize evil (you'll know what I mean when you see it), while things were simpler and suggestive (rather than blatant) in the Swedish version.I think you can watch either film if you want to see this unconventional story unfold. You now have a choice of either subtle or direct styles of exposition. Or like me, you can watch and enjoy both, as they are both watchable (if you enjoy this genre of film) in their own ways.

Entry Granted

tt1228987

As I can be kind of stubborn toward particular films that get heaps of praise from every conceivable angle (let's admit: the hype factor can saturate even a niche conscience to the point where interest is decreased as a result), it took me a good long while to get around to watching "Let the Right One In," the Norwegian vampire saga that is as interested in the fragility of children's relationships as it is in subverting conventional cinematic standards of the vampire mythos. In the end, I was converted into -- and still am -- a true believer in its greatness. The Americanization of foreign films has always been a tricky prospect (even in the decades preceding Hollywood's current infatuation with recycling), synonymous with "dumbing down" a concept for the sake of placating the impatient masses (and their notorious intolerance of subtitles). There is a lot to admire about "Let Me In," Matt Reeves' faithful U.S. transplant: the moody score is fantastic; the performances by Chloe Moretz ("Kick-Ass") and Kodi Smit-McPhee ("The Road") are delicately heartbreaking; and the sparing use of CG allows a quiet, simple story of childhood camaraderie (paradoxically complicated by the extraneous factors -- absentee parents, religious tension, schoolyard bullies, puberty -- that make a child's life complex) to take precedence above all else. Reeves deserves an accolade for resisting the urge to transform the film into a surround-sound, jump-scare-happy headache of the Platinum Dunes sort, instead challenging the viewer to something more subtle and deliberate. Where he falters, however, is in making the strong setpieces of the original (particularly the climactic "pool scene") truly his own -- there just isn't enough creativity or divergence present to reconfigure these now-classic moments into something that will impress those who have seen "Let the Right One In." Still, "Let Me In" coasts on a uniquely moody energy that makes it worth a look on its own terms.6.5 out of 10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-87

ur1193248

title: Entry Granted review: As I can be kind of stubborn toward particular films that get heaps of praise from every conceivable angle (let's admit: the hype factor can saturate even a niche conscience to the point where interest is decreased as a result), it took me a good long while to get around to watching "Let the Right One In," the Norwegian vampire saga that is as interested in the fragility of children's relationships as it is in subverting conventional cinematic standards of the vampire mythos. In the end, I was converted into -- and still am -- a true believer in its greatness. The Americanization of foreign films has always been a tricky prospect (even in the decades preceding Hollywood's current infatuation with recycling), synonymous with "dumbing down" a concept for the sake of placating the impatient masses (and their notorious intolerance of subtitles). There is a lot to admire about "Let Me In," Matt Reeves' faithful U.S. transplant: the moody score is fantastic; the performances by Chloe Moretz ("Kick-Ass") and Kodi Smit-McPhee ("The Road") are delicately heartbreaking; and the sparing use of CG allows a quiet, simple story of childhood camaraderie (paradoxically complicated by the extraneous factors -- absentee parents, religious tension, schoolyard bullies, puberty -- that make a child's life complex) to take precedence above all else. Reeves deserves an accolade for resisting the urge to transform the film into a surround-sound, jump-scare-happy headache of the Platinum Dunes sort, instead challenging the viewer to something more subtle and deliberate. Where he falters, however, is in making the strong setpieces of the original (particularly the climactic "pool scene") truly his own -- there just isn't enough creativity or divergence present to reconfigure these now-classic moments into something that will impress those who have seen "Let the Right One In." Still, "Let Me In" coasts on a uniquely moody energy that makes it worth a look on its own terms.6.5 out of 10

For Once A Superb Hollywood Translation

tt1228987

YESSSS! Hammer Films are back! Not the 70s-style Benny Hill horrors with cheesy sets and plenty of female flesh, but a thoughtful, intelligent and well-realised update of the Swedish vampire movie Let The Right One In. I enjoyed the original while thinking it a bit overpraised; and I was very pleased with this Hollywood remake, which contains much of the same story but is certainly not a shot for shot clone. Writer/Director Matt Reeves has done a fine job of bringing the story to English-speaking audiences.The movie concerns a bullied 12 year-old - here called Owen, Oskar in the original - and his friendship with new arrival on the block Abby. This vampire tale has been transplanted from the original Swedish location to Los Alamos but contains a similar bleakness. Owen's mother is wrapped up in religion, his father has left and is undertaking divorce proceedings; and on top of that Owen has to deal with 3 sadistic school bullies (the leader of which looks uncannily like a young Brian Wilson!) Owen soon realises that Abby is strange and different, and is drawn to her; the two quickly become fast friends. But there is a punchline...for Abby, you see, is a vampire.This is not a Twilight-style story, but a mature examination of childhood loneliness and horror, and it packs a hell of a punch. The gore content is upped slightly from the original, and although there are shocks they are well-paced and not just thrown at the viewer. I actually thought the acting was better in this version than the Swedish film. There are some changes, including the central revelation being removed from the film altogether - it's just hinted that Abby is not er, all there physically.This is a great little movie. Hammer may never be the same as they were in the old Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee days, but what a come back!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-122

ur9725326

title: For Once A Superb Hollywood Translation review: YESSSS! Hammer Films are back! Not the 70s-style Benny Hill horrors with cheesy sets and plenty of female flesh, but a thoughtful, intelligent and well-realised update of the Swedish vampire movie Let The Right One In. I enjoyed the original while thinking it a bit overpraised; and I was very pleased with this Hollywood remake, which contains much of the same story but is certainly not a shot for shot clone. Writer/Director Matt Reeves has done a fine job of bringing the story to English-speaking audiences.The movie concerns a bullied 12 year-old - here called Owen, Oskar in the original - and his friendship with new arrival on the block Abby. This vampire tale has been transplanted from the original Swedish location to Los Alamos but contains a similar bleakness. Owen's mother is wrapped up in religion, his father has left and is undertaking divorce proceedings; and on top of that Owen has to deal with 3 sadistic school bullies (the leader of which looks uncannily like a young Brian Wilson!) Owen soon realises that Abby is strange and different, and is drawn to her; the two quickly become fast friends. But there is a punchline...for Abby, you see, is a vampire.This is not a Twilight-style story, but a mature examination of childhood loneliness and horror, and it packs a hell of a punch. The gore content is upped slightly from the original, and although there are shocks they are well-paced and not just thrown at the viewer. I actually thought the acting was better in this version than the Swedish film. There are some changes, including the central revelation being removed from the film altogether - it's just hinted that Abby is not er, all there physically.This is a great little movie. Hammer may never be the same as they were in the old Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee days, but what a come back!

An amazing visually stunning unique vampire flick

tt1228987

Why are horror fans so anti-remakes? Sure some remakes don't live up to the originals but some are mind blowingly terrific and shed light on the original film. I have not seen the original version of this movie but it is absolutely on my list now to check out. Let Me In is this sad, eerie, dark tale about a young girl and a young boy who are from completely different worlds but share a similar feeling of not belonging. The performances from the lead youngsters are just simply amazing and should rocket their careers. In a world saturated with Vampire flicks it would be near impossible to create something truly outstanding and yet the creators of this film made something truly awe-inspiring.Kodi Smit-McPhee plays the young lonely and bullied Owen. He adds such a sad emotional performance to the cast. He also has this terrific wide eyed naivety that carries the film perfectly. Keep your eyes on Chloë Grace Moretz because this girl has a big career ahead of her. She gives, in my opinion, an award worthy performance as the tortured and emotional Abby. Her and Smit-McPhee are just astonishing together and carry this movie like consummate pros. Her chemistry on screen will literally rivet you. Richard Jenkins is excellent as Abby's mysterious father figure. Jenkins' character has so much mystery and questions surrounding him and he is terrific and has excellent chemistry with Moretz. Cara Buono has a small but important role as Owen's mother. She does great with a very small role. And finally a character I would have loved to have seen more from is that of 'the Policeman' played by Elias Koteas. Koteas is a great actor and does a great job in the role but it is such an unfortunately small role.It doesn't surprise me at all that Matt Reeves and director JJ Abrams are close because they have a lot of similar style in their direction. Reeves co-wrote this screenplay and directs and delivers one of the most unique, dark, depressing and gritty horror flicks I have seen in years. The entire setting of the tenements and the snow and the bloody scenes and everything about it had this older style 70's feel to it and he keeps the mystery in tact. One of the most unique things about this film is the questions that are opened and that don't get answered but at the same time the film does not leave you unsatisfied. You need to see this outstanding film! It is a hidden gem that is truly riveting and entertaining!! 9/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-345

ur1697212

title: An amazing visually stunning unique vampire flick review: Why are horror fans so anti-remakes? Sure some remakes don't live up to the originals but some are mind blowingly terrific and shed light on the original film. I have not seen the original version of this movie but it is absolutely on my list now to check out. Let Me In is this sad, eerie, dark tale about a young girl and a young boy who are from completely different worlds but share a similar feeling of not belonging. The performances from the lead youngsters are just simply amazing and should rocket their careers. In a world saturated with Vampire flicks it would be near impossible to create something truly outstanding and yet the creators of this film made something truly awe-inspiring.Kodi Smit-McPhee plays the young lonely and bullied Owen. He adds such a sad emotional performance to the cast. He also has this terrific wide eyed naivety that carries the film perfectly. Keep your eyes on Chloë Grace Moretz because this girl has a big career ahead of her. She gives, in my opinion, an award worthy performance as the tortured and emotional Abby. Her and Smit-McPhee are just astonishing together and carry this movie like consummate pros. Her chemistry on screen will literally rivet you. Richard Jenkins is excellent as Abby's mysterious father figure. Jenkins' character has so much mystery and questions surrounding him and he is terrific and has excellent chemistry with Moretz. Cara Buono has a small but important role as Owen's mother. She does great with a very small role. And finally a character I would have loved to have seen more from is that of 'the Policeman' played by Elias Koteas. Koteas is a great actor and does a great job in the role but it is such an unfortunately small role.It doesn't surprise me at all that Matt Reeves and director JJ Abrams are close because they have a lot of similar style in their direction. Reeves co-wrote this screenplay and directs and delivers one of the most unique, dark, depressing and gritty horror flicks I have seen in years. The entire setting of the tenements and the snow and the bloody scenes and everything about it had this older style 70's feel to it and he keeps the mystery in tact. One of the most unique things about this film is the questions that are opened and that don't get answered but at the same time the film does not leave you unsatisfied. You need to see this outstanding film! It is a hidden gem that is truly riveting and entertaining!! 9/10

Innocence Dies. Abby Doesn't

tt1228987

An alienated 12-year-old boy befriends a mysterious young newcomer to his small New Mexico town, and discovers an unconventional path to adulthood. (Overture Films)Ignore the marketing for the film. LET ME IN is not an action-oriented horror film. Those who have seen the original Swedish film, LET THE RIGHT ONE IN, would already know this. What LET ME IN is, is a thoughtful, harrowing, and heartfelt journey of a boy who befriends a girl who just happens to be a vampire. It's like a romance with horror elements. LET ME IN takes what made the original film so special, that is, the relationship between the two kids, Owen and Abby, and puts a lens focus on it. This, I say cautiously, is why I believe LET ME IN is the better of the two. In fact, the film puts less emphasis on the adult supporting characters and more focus on the young in the film. You don't even get to see Owen's mother's face!Ironically, the film is also more violent than the original film, but I guess that's due to the fact that most American horror films usually have gallons of blood. To those who are cautious about seeing the film, yes, LET ME IN plays out in a similar way like the original film (with some events switched together), but the atmosphere between the two couldn't be any more different! It's like you're watching a similar but different film. Get what I'm saying? Also, there are some different scenes to this remake, some for the better, including a brilliantly-shot car accident sequence. The bullying aspect of the film is also amped up considerably, which adds more emphasis of a threat for Owen.The two child leads, Kodi Smit-McPhee and Chloe Moretz, do a terrific job in their roles. Smit-McPhee does great playing the confused, hurt, lonely boy while Moretz does well as the sweet but monstrous vampire lurking within. Richard Jenkins also plays a sympathetic but very conflicted character. Dylan Minnette pulls off a convincing role as the lead villain, especially the fact that I last seen him playing a sweet and an emotionally wounded son in the TV show, LOST.Director and screenwriter Matt Reeves also does a fantastic job. The film clearly shows that he has high respect for the original source, whether it's the book or the Swedish film. The cinematography is very beautiful as well. I loved the use of blurry images in particular. The score by Michael Giacchino is extremely heart-tugging yet conveys a sense of the 1980s time era, in which the film is taken place. However, there's one bad thing that stuck out to me: The use of CGI. Even though the overall use of it was kept at a minimum, some of the CGI effects were really dodgy, although not as bad as the infamous cat sequence in the original film, which was smartly removed for the remake. LET ME IN also didn't match up to the original's elegantly-orchestrated ending, which was disappointing.Overall, those who haven't seen the original film will definitely get more of a kick out of this than those of us who have already seen the original film (or read the book, for that matter). However, to those who have truly embraced the Swedish film, I can tell you that LET ME IN didn't "ruin" it at all. If anything, it embraced it. As for me, in particular, I actually thought the remake was the better version because it focused more on the relationship between the two kids, which is what these films are really about. LET ME IN is easily one of the best films of the year and one of the more commendable remakes ever made.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-25

ur8334868

title: Innocence Dies. Abby Doesn't review: An alienated 12-year-old boy befriends a mysterious young newcomer to his small New Mexico town, and discovers an unconventional path to adulthood. (Overture Films)Ignore the marketing for the film. LET ME IN is not an action-oriented horror film. Those who have seen the original Swedish film, LET THE RIGHT ONE IN, would already know this. What LET ME IN is, is a thoughtful, harrowing, and heartfelt journey of a boy who befriends a girl who just happens to be a vampire. It's like a romance with horror elements. LET ME IN takes what made the original film so special, that is, the relationship between the two kids, Owen and Abby, and puts a lens focus on it. This, I say cautiously, is why I believe LET ME IN is the better of the two. In fact, the film puts less emphasis on the adult supporting characters and more focus on the young in the film. You don't even get to see Owen's mother's face!Ironically, the film is also more violent than the original film, but I guess that's due to the fact that most American horror films usually have gallons of blood. To those who are cautious about seeing the film, yes, LET ME IN plays out in a similar way like the original film (with some events switched together), but the atmosphere between the two couldn't be any more different! It's like you're watching a similar but different film. Get what I'm saying? Also, there are some different scenes to this remake, some for the better, including a brilliantly-shot car accident sequence. The bullying aspect of the film is also amped up considerably, which adds more emphasis of a threat for Owen.The two child leads, Kodi Smit-McPhee and Chloe Moretz, do a terrific job in their roles. Smit-McPhee does great playing the confused, hurt, lonely boy while Moretz does well as the sweet but monstrous vampire lurking within. Richard Jenkins also plays a sympathetic but very conflicted character. Dylan Minnette pulls off a convincing role as the lead villain, especially the fact that I last seen him playing a sweet and an emotionally wounded son in the TV show, LOST.Director and screenwriter Matt Reeves also does a fantastic job. The film clearly shows that he has high respect for the original source, whether it's the book or the Swedish film. The cinematography is very beautiful as well. I loved the use of blurry images in particular. The score by Michael Giacchino is extremely heart-tugging yet conveys a sense of the 1980s time era, in which the film is taken place. However, there's one bad thing that stuck out to me: The use of CGI. Even though the overall use of it was kept at a minimum, some of the CGI effects were really dodgy, although not as bad as the infamous cat sequence in the original film, which was smartly removed for the remake. LET ME IN also didn't match up to the original's elegantly-orchestrated ending, which was disappointing.Overall, those who haven't seen the original film will definitely get more of a kick out of this than those of us who have already seen the original film (or read the book, for that matter). However, to those who have truly embraced the Swedish film, I can tell you that LET ME IN didn't "ruin" it at all. If anything, it embraced it. As for me, in particular, I actually thought the remake was the better version because it focused more on the relationship between the two kids, which is what these films are really about. LET ME IN is easily one of the best films of the year and one of the more commendable remakes ever made.

Nowhere near as good as the original, but still a well done remake

tt1228987

It is extremely hard to even consider discussing Let Me In without making comparisons to its Swedish original, Let the Right One In. Both are very different films, but both have the same story at its core – a lonely young boy (Owen in this version, played by Kodi Smit-McPhee) befriends a mysterious young girl (Abby in this version, played by Chloe Moretz), who he later figures out is actually a vampire. It does not sound like much, and is definitely unlike any American film made about vampires over the past few years.Let the Right One In is an unadulterated masterpiece that will leave you reeling from its simplicity and quiet subtleness. It played itself out so slow, so calculating, and so unlike any vampire movie you would have ever seen. This is the movie that should have invigorated the genre, not those pesky Twilight franchise. So when they announced the American remake, it was obvious that a lot of people would be disheartened. Why remake something that was so well done in the first place (looking at you now too Girl with the Dragon Tattoo)? Have we not come far enough as a film-going audience that we can now sit through subtitles with ease? And this is where my initial simultaneous concern and praise stems from. Writer/director Matt Reeves (best known for his work in Cloverfield) has recreated Tomas Alfredson's film with such beauty and such grace, that it feels a bit too close to the original work. The story lines differ, but the snow covered look of the film and the silent subtlety of lost innocence is all too present in both films. I commend Reeves for maintaining the look, pacing and feel of the original film, and am even more impressed at how he did not allow the film to fall prey to becoming a cookie-cutter mainstream American thriller. But when he said that he was making the film his own, I did not think we would see identical shots from the original film recreated with new actors. Sure, he pushes a 1980s sensibility throughout the film (what, with multiple shots of Ronald Reagan and a gross overuse of David Bowie's "Let's Dance"), but it does not shield or allow anyone who seen the original film to think this film is an original and unique product we were initially promised it would be.What he also sadly maintains here are the absolutely atrocious special effects. While they were laughable at best in the original film, they still fit in with the film's charm and sensibilities. Here, they look even worse and look downright awful. While I can forgive some of them (especially because Reeves wisely cut a memorable scene involving cats), the majority are just downright inexcusably bad. I understand Abby is not a human, and can move in ways that no human can really recreate, but standard effects in 2010 can make some of these moves appear totally realistic, especially in a darkened setting (where the majority of the film takes place). So why do they look even less believable than effects from the early 1990s? It just looks very sloppy, and very unpolished. Each time Abby moved around, it took me right out of the movie, and right out of what was happening. And considering how scary some of these scenes should have been, it made for a few rather disappointing sequences. At least some time was put into making the makeup effects look significantly better.But Reeves does do a few things right. For one, he wisely amped up the role for the "Father" character (Håkan in the original), played here by Richard Jenkins. He is still an enigmatic and mysterious character, but he has much more depth than he had in the original. When some of the more emotional scenes hit, you actually feel for the character and understand its importance. Reeves even adds a whole layer of background to the character that was either hidden or merely poked at in the original film that makes his arch even more heartbreaking. He is such a small character in the grand scheme of things, but I could have only asked for more to be done with him. And having such an incredible talent as Jenkins in the role is an added blessing, as he brings an intensity to the role that you would have never thought possible for this character.Reeves also makes Owen and Abby's friendship less creepy and more into a budding love story. In both films, these two individuals come together because of their loneliness and society's rejection. Abby because she is a centuries-old vampire with only an elder "father" figure to keep her company, and Owen because he's bullied at school and has next to no relationship with his parents. In the original, their union is more creepy and unsettling than anything else, but still comes off as rather beautiful and innocent because of how young these two appear to be. Here, there is still something rather unsettling about their union, but their tale is a much more involving story of love. I found the reality of their relationship to be much more obvious to grasp here, and much more delicately beautiful. Adding the quiet innocence of the two young leads, Smit-McPhee and Moretz, only helps add to how beautiful their relationship slowly becomes.While it is nowhere near the masterpiece the original film was, Let Me In is still a well done remake. It follows a few elements a bit too close, but it adds and expands on other ones in ways the original never attempted. It could have easily been a better film, but for how low key and anti mainstream it is, the film just may have to contend with being good enough.7/10.(This review also appeared on http://www.geekspeakmagazine.com).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-77

ur1622466

title: Nowhere near as good as the original, but still a well done remake review: It is extremely hard to even consider discussing Let Me In without making comparisons to its Swedish original, Let the Right One In. Both are very different films, but both have the same story at its core – a lonely young boy (Owen in this version, played by Kodi Smit-McPhee) befriends a mysterious young girl (Abby in this version, played by Chloe Moretz), who he later figures out is actually a vampire. It does not sound like much, and is definitely unlike any American film made about vampires over the past few years.Let the Right One In is an unadulterated masterpiece that will leave you reeling from its simplicity and quiet subtleness. It played itself out so slow, so calculating, and so unlike any vampire movie you would have ever seen. This is the movie that should have invigorated the genre, not those pesky Twilight franchise. So when they announced the American remake, it was obvious that a lot of people would be disheartened. Why remake something that was so well done in the first place (looking at you now too Girl with the Dragon Tattoo)? Have we not come far enough as a film-going audience that we can now sit through subtitles with ease? And this is where my initial simultaneous concern and praise stems from. Writer/director Matt Reeves (best known for his work in Cloverfield) has recreated Tomas Alfredson's film with such beauty and such grace, that it feels a bit too close to the original work. The story lines differ, but the snow covered look of the film and the silent subtlety of lost innocence is all too present in both films. I commend Reeves for maintaining the look, pacing and feel of the original film, and am even more impressed at how he did not allow the film to fall prey to becoming a cookie-cutter mainstream American thriller. But when he said that he was making the film his own, I did not think we would see identical shots from the original film recreated with new actors. Sure, he pushes a 1980s sensibility throughout the film (what, with multiple shots of Ronald Reagan and a gross overuse of David Bowie's "Let's Dance"), but it does not shield or allow anyone who seen the original film to think this film is an original and unique product we were initially promised it would be.What he also sadly maintains here are the absolutely atrocious special effects. While they were laughable at best in the original film, they still fit in with the film's charm and sensibilities. Here, they look even worse and look downright awful. While I can forgive some of them (especially because Reeves wisely cut a memorable scene involving cats), the majority are just downright inexcusably bad. I understand Abby is not a human, and can move in ways that no human can really recreate, but standard effects in 2010 can make some of these moves appear totally realistic, especially in a darkened setting (where the majority of the film takes place). So why do they look even less believable than effects from the early 1990s? It just looks very sloppy, and very unpolished. Each time Abby moved around, it took me right out of the movie, and right out of what was happening. And considering how scary some of these scenes should have been, it made for a few rather disappointing sequences. At least some time was put into making the makeup effects look significantly better.But Reeves does do a few things right. For one, he wisely amped up the role for the "Father" character (Håkan in the original), played here by Richard Jenkins. He is still an enigmatic and mysterious character, but he has much more depth than he had in the original. When some of the more emotional scenes hit, you actually feel for the character and understand its importance. Reeves even adds a whole layer of background to the character that was either hidden or merely poked at in the original film that makes his arch even more heartbreaking. He is such a small character in the grand scheme of things, but I could have only asked for more to be done with him. And having such an incredible talent as Jenkins in the role is an added blessing, as he brings an intensity to the role that you would have never thought possible for this character.Reeves also makes Owen and Abby's friendship less creepy and more into a budding love story. In both films, these two individuals come together because of their loneliness and society's rejection. Abby because she is a centuries-old vampire with only an elder "father" figure to keep her company, and Owen because he's bullied at school and has next to no relationship with his parents. In the original, their union is more creepy and unsettling than anything else, but still comes off as rather beautiful and innocent because of how young these two appear to be. Here, there is still something rather unsettling about their union, but their tale is a much more involving story of love. I found the reality of their relationship to be much more obvious to grasp here, and much more delicately beautiful. Adding the quiet innocence of the two young leads, Smit-McPhee and Moretz, only helps add to how beautiful their relationship slowly becomes.While it is nowhere near the masterpiece the original film was, Let Me In is still a well done remake. It follows a few elements a bit too close, but it adds and expands on other ones in ways the original never attempted. It could have easily been a better film, but for how low key and anti mainstream it is, the film just may have to contend with being good enough.7/10.(This review also appeared on http://www.geekspeakmagazine.com).

Horror with a Heart!

tt1228987

Let Me In is a brilliant remake of the 2008 Swedish film, "Let the Right One In." This is a horror film per se, but it's more about a film about bonding, family, and love. When I mean vampire love, this story has nothing to do with the Twilight series at all. This film should satisfy both drama and horror fans alike.This film is about how a bullied boy and his mother have mysterious new neighbors move in next door. The boy starts up a friendship with the new girl next door, but she is not the normal new girl.....The acting is very good. Chloe Grace Moretz is a fine young actress with a great road ahead of her. Kodi Smit-McPhee holds his own very well in this film.Overall, this is a great example of a remake done properly. Not all remakes will be bad as this film proves. Let Me In is sufficient in showing gore and violence, but it also has a big heart. This film also plays very well with the average human's emotions. I rate this film 9/10.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-371

ur17646017

title: Horror with a Heart! review: Let Me In is a brilliant remake of the 2008 Swedish film, "Let the Right One In." This is a horror film per se, but it's more about a film about bonding, family, and love. When I mean vampire love, this story has nothing to do with the Twilight series at all. This film should satisfy both drama and horror fans alike.This film is about how a bullied boy and his mother have mysterious new neighbors move in next door. The boy starts up a friendship with the new girl next door, but she is not the normal new girl.....The acting is very good. Chloe Grace Moretz is a fine young actress with a great road ahead of her. Kodi Smit-McPhee holds his own very well in this film.Overall, this is a great example of a remake done properly. Not all remakes will be bad as this film proves. Let Me In is sufficient in showing gore and violence, but it also has a big heart. This film also plays very well with the average human's emotions. I rate this film 9/10.

Let the right one in...72.5/100

tt1228987

This American remake of the terrific Swedish film "Let the right one in" (Låt den rätte komma in) seems to have come out with undue haste perhaps...I reviewed the original (subtitled) movie here on 22 April 2009. When I heard that there was to be a US remake, I was sure I would ignore it, as the original was in no way flawed. What changed my mind? Two things: 1) Chloë Moretz. She was inspiring in the comic book themed movie "Kick-Ass". 2) "At the movies" mentioned that the remake was pretty close to the original. Personally I still find the original the gold standard for this film, so would encourage people to see that on a big screen before you see the remake.The story is identical to the original...a troubled young teenage boy (about 13 years old) doesn't fit in at his high-school. Then a similarly aged teenage girl moves to his town and to a flat right next door to him. She seems strange too. They form an unlikely relationship...which seems to perhaps offer up salvation to both of them. However, some brutal murders soon start occurring in the small, isolated town they live in. The local policeman fears that a Satanic cult or some such is at work in the town and he tries to find it.Comparing the two movies - since the original is still fresh in my memory, I had a check list watching the remake...seeing that all the key scenes for me were in the new movie. They pretty much were. Maybe that was a sort of distraction...ticking boxes as I watched the movie. Maybe a couple of extra scenes have been added in the US versions. David Stratton complained about one scene not being replicated in the remake...where the young girl is naked. In some ways this is better, I think. I'll go into that later.The original let me in more. With the remake, I felt a bit of a distance to the story. Kodi Smit-McPhee as the young boy Owen is terrific in this movie. He brings a subtle understanding to the character. For instance, I like the way he casually taunts Chloë Moretz' Abby about coming inside his house. Chloë is very good too, but maybe her ticking all the boxes as far as the physicality of her character goes left Abby with a lot less soul. Both convey a nice sense of alienation from society...sort of like mall rats.I suppose I was hoping that the remake would convey a very European sensibility. American movies don't really go for that or couldn't if they tried, perhaps...although "My girl" was a terrific example of an American movie capturing that European sensibility. Instead, you get a sort of American Gothic. You get a good sense of the character of place in the small town Owen and Abby find themselves in. The flats that both find themselves in are nicely represented too...sort of in the Barton Fink mould...I mean the hotel room that movie was set some of the time.Now, to the scene which didn't make it into the remake and which David Stratton criticised on "At the movies"...personally I think that maybe they made a wise choice leaving that naked scene out. Here's why: in the original, the interpretation you give to the Abby character's self-observations are directed towards viewing it as a question on her own anatomical status. In the remake, however, her question seems more about her essential nature. In other words, the remake gives you less information about the character, and I think that actually not having that information about her makes her self musings more philosophical...they can't really be taken literally any more.It was also a concern of mine that some aspects of the relationship between Abby and her guardian would not be featured in the remake. They are. You're really not missing anything storywise from the remake...it's just that the original was more fulfilling...to me at least.From memory, Abby looks more androgynous at times than her original counterpart (Eli). Australian actor Kodi Smit-McPhee looks the part as Owen. You also get the terrific character study of the original...perhaps made more explicit. E.g. you are constantly forming views of certain characters then having to reinterpret them later on, as more information comes to light. For instance, Owen is quite creepy early on in the movie. One of his class mates is also disturbing...but things aren't really that simple or black and white. It's a very nuanced character portrait many times in the film.My biggest problem with the movie was the ending. Sure, it ticked that box too, from the original. However, I felt that the pool scene in the original gave a feeling of exhilaration which the remake lacked. Perhaps the original constructed that scene better, or did the sequence of events in a different way. What should have been a great emotional high for the movie is really just flat. It just failed to manipulate my emotions as the original did. That's a great shame. Perhaps it being so close to the original in scenes and screening is to blame? Maybe, but I just think that the original did that scene much better too.Starting out wanting this movie to tick all the boxes of the original, in hindsight was a mistake...for me and the makers. If they had added many new elements to the story then perhaps the movie could have carved out its own identity more.It's sad to me that the need for this remake was thought necessary. Watching the original, the performances were captivating...the central characters had such beautiful voices that I wished I could understand what they were saying without the need for subtitles. Here now you have a movie where you don't need the subtitles, but something has been lost in the translation...a little bit of soul.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-104

ur4025773

title: Let the right one in...72.5/100 review: This American remake of the terrific Swedish film "Let the right one in" (Låt den rätte komma in) seems to have come out with undue haste perhaps...I reviewed the original (subtitled) movie here on 22 April 2009. When I heard that there was to be a US remake, I was sure I would ignore it, as the original was in no way flawed. What changed my mind? Two things: 1) Chloë Moretz. She was inspiring in the comic book themed movie "Kick-Ass". 2) "At the movies" mentioned that the remake was pretty close to the original. Personally I still find the original the gold standard for this film, so would encourage people to see that on a big screen before you see the remake.The story is identical to the original...a troubled young teenage boy (about 13 years old) doesn't fit in at his high-school. Then a similarly aged teenage girl moves to his town and to a flat right next door to him. She seems strange too. They form an unlikely relationship...which seems to perhaps offer up salvation to both of them. However, some brutal murders soon start occurring in the small, isolated town they live in. The local policeman fears that a Satanic cult or some such is at work in the town and he tries to find it.Comparing the two movies - since the original is still fresh in my memory, I had a check list watching the remake...seeing that all the key scenes for me were in the new movie. They pretty much were. Maybe that was a sort of distraction...ticking boxes as I watched the movie. Maybe a couple of extra scenes have been added in the US versions. David Stratton complained about one scene not being replicated in the remake...where the young girl is naked. In some ways this is better, I think. I'll go into that later.The original let me in more. With the remake, I felt a bit of a distance to the story. Kodi Smit-McPhee as the young boy Owen is terrific in this movie. He brings a subtle understanding to the character. For instance, I like the way he casually taunts Chloë Moretz' Abby about coming inside his house. Chloë is very good too, but maybe her ticking all the boxes as far as the physicality of her character goes left Abby with a lot less soul. Both convey a nice sense of alienation from society...sort of like mall rats.I suppose I was hoping that the remake would convey a very European sensibility. American movies don't really go for that or couldn't if they tried, perhaps...although "My girl" was a terrific example of an American movie capturing that European sensibility. Instead, you get a sort of American Gothic. You get a good sense of the character of place in the small town Owen and Abby find themselves in. The flats that both find themselves in are nicely represented too...sort of in the Barton Fink mould...I mean the hotel room that movie was set some of the time.Now, to the scene which didn't make it into the remake and which David Stratton criticised on "At the movies"...personally I think that maybe they made a wise choice leaving that naked scene out. Here's why: in the original, the interpretation you give to the Abby character's self-observations are directed towards viewing it as a question on her own anatomical status. In the remake, however, her question seems more about her essential nature. In other words, the remake gives you less information about the character, and I think that actually not having that information about her makes her self musings more philosophical...they can't really be taken literally any more.It was also a concern of mine that some aspects of the relationship between Abby and her guardian would not be featured in the remake. They are. You're really not missing anything storywise from the remake...it's just that the original was more fulfilling...to me at least.From memory, Abby looks more androgynous at times than her original counterpart (Eli). Australian actor Kodi Smit-McPhee looks the part as Owen. You also get the terrific character study of the original...perhaps made more explicit. E.g. you are constantly forming views of certain characters then having to reinterpret them later on, as more information comes to light. For instance, Owen is quite creepy early on in the movie. One of his class mates is also disturbing...but things aren't really that simple or black and white. It's a very nuanced character portrait many times in the film.My biggest problem with the movie was the ending. Sure, it ticked that box too, from the original. However, I felt that the pool scene in the original gave a feeling of exhilaration which the remake lacked. Perhaps the original constructed that scene better, or did the sequence of events in a different way. What should have been a great emotional high for the movie is really just flat. It just failed to manipulate my emotions as the original did. That's a great shame. Perhaps it being so close to the original in scenes and screening is to blame? Maybe, but I just think that the original did that scene much better too.Starting out wanting this movie to tick all the boxes of the original, in hindsight was a mistake...for me and the makers. If they had added many new elements to the story then perhaps the movie could have carved out its own identity more.It's sad to me that the need for this remake was thought necessary. Watching the original, the performances were captivating...the central characters had such beautiful voices that I wished I could understand what they were saying without the need for subtitles. Here now you have a movie where you don't need the subtitles, but something has been lost in the translation...a little bit of soul.

Captivating vampire movie.

tt1228987

LET ME IN is possibly setting a new standard for vampire movies. Based on the novel by John Ajvide Lindquist and leaps and bounds more captivating than the first big screen adaptation LET THE RIGHT ONE IN(2008). Special effects used moderately, but very crafty. A 12 yr old Owen(Kodi Smit-McPhee)is a misfit that is daily the victim of vicious bullying at school. The lonely lad befriends a new neighbor to the housing complex. Abby(Chloe Moretz)is a bit mysterious; usually barefoot in the frigid snow; she seems ageless and compassionate. Abby's secretive life requires a caretaker(Richard Jenkins), who disappears after a series of violent murders. Owen thinks he is in love with his evasive friend, but at the same time he tries to put together the clues of her admission she is not a girl. Ms. Moretz has that ability to mesmerize. You can't help but like this flick, because you have a developing concern for the characters...and you stay ready to be frightened. Kudos to director Matt Reeves. The cast also includes: Elias Koteas, Sasha Barrese, Cara Buono, Dylan Minneete and Ritchie Coaster.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-266

ur0449021

title: Captivating vampire movie. review: LET ME IN is possibly setting a new standard for vampire movies. Based on the novel by John Ajvide Lindquist and leaps and bounds more captivating than the first big screen adaptation LET THE RIGHT ONE IN(2008). Special effects used moderately, but very crafty. A 12 yr old Owen(Kodi Smit-McPhee)is a misfit that is daily the victim of vicious bullying at school. The lonely lad befriends a new neighbor to the housing complex. Abby(Chloe Moretz)is a bit mysterious; usually barefoot in the frigid snow; she seems ageless and compassionate. Abby's secretive life requires a caretaker(Richard Jenkins), who disappears after a series of violent murders. Owen thinks he is in love with his evasive friend, but at the same time he tries to put together the clues of her admission she is not a girl. Ms. Moretz has that ability to mesmerize. You can't help but like this flick, because you have a developing concern for the characters...and you stay ready to be frightened. Kudos to director Matt Reeves. The cast also includes: Elias Koteas, Sasha Barrese, Cara Buono, Dylan Minneete and Ritchie Coaster.

Great to watch, even if you have already seen the original.

tt1228987

Remakes are not always necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes it can even be an improvement over the original, due to an higher budget or more and better experienced people involved, both in front and behind the cameras. But there are also certain remakes that don't try to be bigger and better than the original movie and mostly simply rely on the original material, that was good enough as it was already. This is one of those remakes. You could perhaps say that it's playing things simply safe by trying to remain loyal to the original or you could also say it's being respectful toward its original material and makes the movie and story simply more accessible and available to a broader audience. I certainly didn't mind the movie taking this kind of approach and it's still different enough with little things and nuances to allow this movie to coexist, alongside the original and to also consider this a watchable and good movie, even if you're already familiar with the original one.Some people claim this is simply being a shot-by-shot remake of the 2008 Swedish movie "Låt den rätte komma in" but people probably only say this because both movies have a very similar visual style and some sequences and pieces of dialog are being exactly the same. But really, there is still plenty of difference between the two movies. Not just minor story changes but some characters are simply completely left out or added into the movie.Then the unavoidable question of which movie is the better one? Well, both are in some ways better than the other. For instance, in the original the whole relationship and friendship between the two main characters worked out far better and more convincing, while in this movie there are less distractions and it really mainly focuses on its main plot line and 2 main characters. In other words; both movies are good in their own way, despite them being the same, in a lot of ways.The foremost thing I like about this movie is that it's a kid's movie but a very dark one. It's horror but not kid's horror that got done in a very fluffy or exaggerated way, in order to be more safe and considerate toward children and their 'tender, unspoiled' souls. It's really not holding back with anything and basically the movie got done like any other horror production. It takes its young audience more serious in that regard and this really pays off.Because it's a serious and very straightforward done film, it's also very good to watch for adults as well. Really, people of all ages should be able to appreciate the drama, horror and mystery of this movie and everybody will get something (different) out of it.It's a well done and subtle told movie, that isn't necessarily fast paced but yet never boring. It always remains a humble film, that mostly just sticks to its two main characters, giving this movie also a somewhat more realistic feeling, despite its fantasy concept. Its dark and moody atmosphere strengthens the movie its themes and characters and besides ensures that the movie has good look to it, all throughout.A movie worth seeing for everyone, even if you have already seen the original.8/10 http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-366

ur1416505

title: Great to watch, even if you have already seen the original. review: Remakes are not always necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes it can even be an improvement over the original, due to an higher budget or more and better experienced people involved, both in front and behind the cameras. But there are also certain remakes that don't try to be bigger and better than the original movie and mostly simply rely on the original material, that was good enough as it was already. This is one of those remakes. You could perhaps say that it's playing things simply safe by trying to remain loyal to the original or you could also say it's being respectful toward its original material and makes the movie and story simply more accessible and available to a broader audience. I certainly didn't mind the movie taking this kind of approach and it's still different enough with little things and nuances to allow this movie to coexist, alongside the original and to also consider this a watchable and good movie, even if you're already familiar with the original one.Some people claim this is simply being a shot-by-shot remake of the 2008 Swedish movie "Låt den rätte komma in" but people probably only say this because both movies have a very similar visual style and some sequences and pieces of dialog are being exactly the same. But really, there is still plenty of difference between the two movies. Not just minor story changes but some characters are simply completely left out or added into the movie.Then the unavoidable question of which movie is the better one? Well, both are in some ways better than the other. For instance, in the original the whole relationship and friendship between the two main characters worked out far better and more convincing, while in this movie there are less distractions and it really mainly focuses on its main plot line and 2 main characters. In other words; both movies are good in their own way, despite them being the same, in a lot of ways.The foremost thing I like about this movie is that it's a kid's movie but a very dark one. It's horror but not kid's horror that got done in a very fluffy or exaggerated way, in order to be more safe and considerate toward children and their 'tender, unspoiled' souls. It's really not holding back with anything and basically the movie got done like any other horror production. It takes its young audience more serious in that regard and this really pays off.Because it's a serious and very straightforward done film, it's also very good to watch for adults as well. Really, people of all ages should be able to appreciate the drama, horror and mystery of this movie and everybody will get something (different) out of it.It's a well done and subtle told movie, that isn't necessarily fast paced but yet never boring. It always remains a humble film, that mostly just sticks to its two main characters, giving this movie also a somewhat more realistic feeling, despite its fantasy concept. Its dark and moody atmosphere strengthens the movie its themes and characters and besides ensures that the movie has good look to it, all throughout.A movie worth seeing for everyone, even if you have already seen the original.8/10 http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Finally a scary vampire movie!!!

tt1228987

We movie goer's seem to have a love of Vampires. I think it's because at some level we would all like to be one. However this movie definitely points out being a Vampire has it's drawbacks. This is a superb movie with great acting. For a movie to be great it must make us give a damn about the characters being portrayed. A great horror film must have tension, this one has plenty to spare. Very few horror movies are truly scary, this one was. As I read some of the reviews for this movie it struck me that everyone has seen the Swedish version and is comparing this movie to it. The rating of this movie is being hurt by this. I'm glad I haven't seen the other version and don't have to do comparisons. In fact I probably will never seek out the other version as I like this one so much. I just watched another horror movie called Devil - written by M. Night Shamala, it was very good and I gave it an 8, however this is a much much better movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-63

ur11511110

title: Finally a scary vampire movie!!! review: We movie goer's seem to have a love of Vampires. I think it's because at some level we would all like to be one. However this movie definitely points out being a Vampire has it's drawbacks. This is a superb movie with great acting. For a movie to be great it must make us give a damn about the characters being portrayed. A great horror film must have tension, this one has plenty to spare. Very few horror movies are truly scary, this one was. As I read some of the reviews for this movie it struck me that everyone has seen the Swedish version and is comparing this movie to it. The rating of this movie is being hurt by this. I'm glad I haven't seen the other version and don't have to do comparisons. In fact I probably will never seek out the other version as I like this one so much. I just watched another horror movie called Devil - written by M. Night Shamala, it was very good and I gave it an 8, however this is a much much better movie.

Dumbed-down version of a far superior adaptation

tt1228987

12 year-old Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) lives alone with his divorced mother. He is bullied at school and leads a generally lonely existence, until a man and what looks like a little girl moves in to the flat next door. The man (Richard Jenkins) kidnaps a young man, hangs him up by his feet and slits his throat, catching the blood. He slips on the ice, causing him to drop the blood which spills onto the floor. Later, we see the young girl Abby (Chloe Grace Moretz) shouting at him for doing this. Abby and Owen start a strange friendship, and it soon becomes clear that Abby is a vampire. Owen shows Abby what it is like to be human, many things she has forgotten, and Abby teaches Owen that he must stand up to his tormentors.Matt Reeves' second adaptation of John Ajvide Lindqvist's Swedish novel Let The Right One In faced a backlash from fans of Tomas Alfredson's brilliant original when it was announced. Reeves was adamant, however, that this was not a re-make of Alfredson's film, but a fresh adaptation of the book, relocating the action from Stockholm to New Mexico. This film would keep the same focus on the central friendship between Owen and Abby (originally Oskar and Eli), and this would be a film in its own right.I'll try not to mention Alfredson's 2008 version too much as this is a novel adaptation, but it is hard to ignore it given that it is one of my all-time favourite films, and, in my opinion, the greatest vampire film of all time (including Muranu's Nosferatu and Dreyer's Vampyr). Let Me In introduces the character of the Policeman (Elias Koteas), who does not appear in the original (I'm not sure if he is in the novel), and he seems to be there to play the moral centre of the film. This choice I could have lived without, as it is almost like they were worried that the whole film may seem amoral to an American audience. Well, it is about good and evil after all, and what defines it, so the addition seems wholly unnecessary.Thinking about it, the more I write about this film the less I'm liking it. I know I said I wouldn't mention the original too much, but even though Reeves said this was a fresh adaptation, there are a lot of shots and scenes that are exactly the same to Alfredson's original. Only here, they are devoid of any atmosphere or heart. The original's perfect pace, and creeping atmosphere really got to the heart of Oskar. It emphasised that he was a troubled child with a worrying obsession with crime, knifes and voyeurism. Let Me In tones this down, making him a much more innocent character. Everything that was dark and different that the first film explored - the revelation that Eli/Abby is a castrated boy; the hinting that Eli/Abby's protector is a paedophile - are wholly ignored. It's like Reeves and the producers felt the Western audiences would be stupid to grasp these dark themes.Also, the extremely poor CGI deserves a special mention. While it was used only when necessary in Alfredson's version, here it is used a number of times, especially when Abby is in her vampire mould, attacking a person or climbing up a tree before the hunt. It does nothing except take away the 'reality' of it all. This is a story that needs to be grounded in a believable setting, in order to emphasise the social themes, and to make the coming-of-age story more real and easier to relate to. But this is seriously damaged, and the film feels ever more like a fantasy horror, rather than a drama, which at the story's heart, it ultimately is.The good, there is very little of to be honest. The acting, especially by McPhee and the always-impressive Moretz, is very good, although it is a shame they weren't given the whole of their characters to explore. But everything the original made subtle, atmospheric and scary, this Americanised version makes obvious, loud and jumpy. I don't know when directors will realise that loud noises aren't scary. Overall, very disappointing, but wholly expected. This is not a re-imagining, but a re-make. And a very average one at that.www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-325

ur3741220

title: Dumbed-down version of a far superior adaptation review: 12 year-old Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) lives alone with his divorced mother. He is bullied at school and leads a generally lonely existence, until a man and what looks like a little girl moves in to the flat next door. The man (Richard Jenkins) kidnaps a young man, hangs him up by his feet and slits his throat, catching the blood. He slips on the ice, causing him to drop the blood which spills onto the floor. Later, we see the young girl Abby (Chloe Grace Moretz) shouting at him for doing this. Abby and Owen start a strange friendship, and it soon becomes clear that Abby is a vampire. Owen shows Abby what it is like to be human, many things she has forgotten, and Abby teaches Owen that he must stand up to his tormentors.Matt Reeves' second adaptation of John Ajvide Lindqvist's Swedish novel Let The Right One In faced a backlash from fans of Tomas Alfredson's brilliant original when it was announced. Reeves was adamant, however, that this was not a re-make of Alfredson's film, but a fresh adaptation of the book, relocating the action from Stockholm to New Mexico. This film would keep the same focus on the central friendship between Owen and Abby (originally Oskar and Eli), and this would be a film in its own right.I'll try not to mention Alfredson's 2008 version too much as this is a novel adaptation, but it is hard to ignore it given that it is one of my all-time favourite films, and, in my opinion, the greatest vampire film of all time (including Muranu's Nosferatu and Dreyer's Vampyr). Let Me In introduces the character of the Policeman (Elias Koteas), who does not appear in the original (I'm not sure if he is in the novel), and he seems to be there to play the moral centre of the film. This choice I could have lived without, as it is almost like they were worried that the whole film may seem amoral to an American audience. Well, it is about good and evil after all, and what defines it, so the addition seems wholly unnecessary.Thinking about it, the more I write about this film the less I'm liking it. I know I said I wouldn't mention the original too much, but even though Reeves said this was a fresh adaptation, there are a lot of shots and scenes that are exactly the same to Alfredson's original. Only here, they are devoid of any atmosphere or heart. The original's perfect pace, and creeping atmosphere really got to the heart of Oskar. It emphasised that he was a troubled child with a worrying obsession with crime, knifes and voyeurism. Let Me In tones this down, making him a much more innocent character. Everything that was dark and different that the first film explored - the revelation that Eli/Abby is a castrated boy; the hinting that Eli/Abby's protector is a paedophile - are wholly ignored. It's like Reeves and the producers felt the Western audiences would be stupid to grasp these dark themes.Also, the extremely poor CGI deserves a special mention. While it was used only when necessary in Alfredson's version, here it is used a number of times, especially when Abby is in her vampire mould, attacking a person or climbing up a tree before the hunt. It does nothing except take away the 'reality' of it all. This is a story that needs to be grounded in a believable setting, in order to emphasise the social themes, and to make the coming-of-age story more real and easier to relate to. But this is seriously damaged, and the film feels ever more like a fantasy horror, rather than a drama, which at the story's heart, it ultimately is.The good, there is very little of to be honest. The acting, especially by McPhee and the always-impressive Moretz, is very good, although it is a shame they weren't given the whole of their characters to explore. But everything the original made subtle, atmospheric and scary, this Americanised version makes obvious, loud and jumpy. I don't know when directors will realise that loud noises aren't scary. Overall, very disappointing, but wholly expected. This is not a re-imagining, but a re-make. And a very average one at that.www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

The best vampire film since Bigelow's NEAR DARK; one of the year's best.

tt1228987

LET ME IN (2010) **** Chloe Moretz, Kodi Smit-McPhee, Richard Jenkins, Cara Buono, Elias Koteas, Dylan Minnette. Eerie and excellent Hollywood remake to the Swedish import vampire film "Let The Right One In" scores on all points particularly the smart casting of Smit-McPhee and Moretz (both stars on the rise, justly so) as (respectively) a put-upon tween whose life changes in more ways than one when his new neighbor, a pale barefoot girl, moves in his apartment complex with her dubious guardian (Jenkins in fine low-key form), resulting in a sinister yet romantic kinship. Director Matt Reeves builds up enough suspense, tension and lets the blood flow copiously with élan in this, the finest vampire film since Kathryn Bigelow's "NEAR DARK". The poignant puppy-love story and dark underpinnings of the undead and the living attempting to bond is both heart breaking and fear inducing. One of the year's best films (NOTE: Although I didn't see the original foreign film I'm sure it's a worthy adaptation).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-103

ur0937743

title: The best vampire film since Bigelow's NEAR DARK; one of the year's best. review: LET ME IN (2010) **** Chloe Moretz, Kodi Smit-McPhee, Richard Jenkins, Cara Buono, Elias Koteas, Dylan Minnette. Eerie and excellent Hollywood remake to the Swedish import vampire film "Let The Right One In" scores on all points particularly the smart casting of Smit-McPhee and Moretz (both stars on the rise, justly so) as (respectively) a put-upon tween whose life changes in more ways than one when his new neighbor, a pale barefoot girl, moves in his apartment complex with her dubious guardian (Jenkins in fine low-key form), resulting in a sinister yet romantic kinship. Director Matt Reeves builds up enough suspense, tension and lets the blood flow copiously with élan in this, the finest vampire film since Kathryn Bigelow's "NEAR DARK". The poignant puppy-love story and dark underpinnings of the undead and the living attempting to bond is both heart breaking and fear inducing. One of the year's best films (NOTE: Although I didn't see the original foreign film I'm sure it's a worthy adaptation).

A Nutshell Review: Let Me In

tt1228987

When Hollywood runs out of ideas, it turns to what's hot in world cinema, and picks up a film or two to adapt from and/or be remade. It could be a Martin Scorsese film based upon a Hong Kong crime action thriller, or of late, Swedish cinema being the hunting ground of choice with David Fincher's upcoming and much hyped about adaptation of Stieg Larsson's The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, and here, Matt Reeves translating one of the more inventive and evocative vampire films in recent history with Tomas Alfredson film based on John Ajvide Lindqvist's novel Let The Right One In, an almost shot for shot, scene for scene remake that makes you wonder why the effort to go through this adaptation process when a recent original already exists, and one that made it to the cinema halls in Singapore as well.Granted, Hollywood does come knocking with a larger budget to begin with, but here it managed to avoid the risk of attempting something totally flashy but useless for the story, I felt Reeves had remained on the side of caution in not wanting to branch off too much from what's already established and canon, and like Gus Van Sant in his remake of Hitchcock's Psycho, preferred to have recreated scenes as they are with no major departures or surprises, which to any audience already familiar with the Swedish version, may not find anything narratively more that Reeves' film has to offer. As it turned out Let Me In still had a longer runtime, but captured and retained all essence of the earlier film, with some budget going toward recreating the 80s era it was set in, and heightening the usual creepy elements to brand this a horror film, with the requisite gory elements that somehow when unintentionally but hilariously (to me at least) overboard, when it came to discover the what if that explains its title when permission to enter a home is not granted.Matt Reeves burst onto the scene with his found-footage film Cloverfield which featured some crazy hand-held camera techniques and angles crucial to the narrative, and here trades all that to jump into the other end of the spectrum in opting for the still camera that's a staple in any art house cinema. Unlike the usual Hollywood bastardized version of films that contain plenty of verbatim explanation and incessant talk to idiot-proof it for anyone to follow what's going on, this film has significant moments of silence to ramp up its atmospherics, with so much being said through so little, that you may mistake this for being anything but churned out from Hollywood. Attention was paid to detail, especially in populating the art direction with 80s era motifs, and elements, And for those who have seen the Swedish original, perhaps one of the prime reasons is to compare whether the leads of Kodi Smit-McPhee as Owen and Chloe Grace Moretz as Abby measure up to the original pair of Kare Hedebrant as Oskar and Lina Leandersson as Eli. It's needless to say this comparison will always exist, and personally I felt it was a mission accomplished as they both did a tremendous job in being equally on par without letting the weight of pressure eat into the performances. Their beautiful chemistry made the primary love story here believable, moving, and one which you will root for, nevermind the alarm bells ringing that it's something quite unnatural, and in some ways, the corruption of innocence. There are plenty of subtext still contained in the film from the way character relationships especially that between Abby and her "Father" (played by Richard Jenkins) and even their sexual orientation but if there's a flaw in this remake, then it is here that it didn't measure up to the way the Swedish original had dangled and tackled this deviation from the novel.Kodi Smit-McPhee was spot on in his interpretation of Owen/Oskar, being vulnerable when it calls for it, when he's bully fodder, or when the feeling of isolation just overwhelms from discovering the truth about his new squeeze and a mom who gradually finds solace from the bottle to numb the pain of an impending divorce, his false bravado in role play reversal of standing up against his physical and mental tormentors, and the child like innocence he fills the screen with when he plays Romeo to a Juliet that can never inhibit the same waking hours as him. Chloe Moretz saw her stock rise with her profanity-spewing Hit Girl in Kick-Ass, and here she's in a totally muted role as the 12 year old, more of less, young girl who's more than meets the eye. Moretz brought out her apprehension of being discovered and found out, her helplessness at the sight of plasma, and the start of yet another budding romance, although she was quite unmistakably replaced by a CG equivalent for her character's most violent action scenes, an effect that drew unnecessary attention to itself, whether be it scaling walls, or pouncing on the pack of her prey and making a rag doll out of them.To someone who has seen the Hollywood version first, you may be in awe with Matt Reeves' film, and may embrace his vision of the story. But take heed that the Swedish one came first, and you'll do yourself a favour by checking that out as well, since it's already available on DVD. For those who swear by Let The Right One In, I'd still encourage you to watch this for the actors' performances, as they step into roles that you hold dear to and are familiar with, showing that a strong story is essentially necessary, followed by a solid casting to bring the characters to life, no matter how many remakes (though it may be pointless after this effort) come by in future. Recommended!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-149

ur0317399

title: A Nutshell Review: Let Me In review: When Hollywood runs out of ideas, it turns to what's hot in world cinema, and picks up a film or two to adapt from and/or be remade. It could be a Martin Scorsese film based upon a Hong Kong crime action thriller, or of late, Swedish cinema being the hunting ground of choice with David Fincher's upcoming and much hyped about adaptation of Stieg Larsson's The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, and here, Matt Reeves translating one of the more inventive and evocative vampire films in recent history with Tomas Alfredson film based on John Ajvide Lindqvist's novel Let The Right One In, an almost shot for shot, scene for scene remake that makes you wonder why the effort to go through this adaptation process when a recent original already exists, and one that made it to the cinema halls in Singapore as well.Granted, Hollywood does come knocking with a larger budget to begin with, but here it managed to avoid the risk of attempting something totally flashy but useless for the story, I felt Reeves had remained on the side of caution in not wanting to branch off too much from what's already established and canon, and like Gus Van Sant in his remake of Hitchcock's Psycho, preferred to have recreated scenes as they are with no major departures or surprises, which to any audience already familiar with the Swedish version, may not find anything narratively more that Reeves' film has to offer. As it turned out Let Me In still had a longer runtime, but captured and retained all essence of the earlier film, with some budget going toward recreating the 80s era it was set in, and heightening the usual creepy elements to brand this a horror film, with the requisite gory elements that somehow when unintentionally but hilariously (to me at least) overboard, when it came to discover the what if that explains its title when permission to enter a home is not granted.Matt Reeves burst onto the scene with his found-footage film Cloverfield which featured some crazy hand-held camera techniques and angles crucial to the narrative, and here trades all that to jump into the other end of the spectrum in opting for the still camera that's a staple in any art house cinema. Unlike the usual Hollywood bastardized version of films that contain plenty of verbatim explanation and incessant talk to idiot-proof it for anyone to follow what's going on, this film has significant moments of silence to ramp up its atmospherics, with so much being said through so little, that you may mistake this for being anything but churned out from Hollywood. Attention was paid to detail, especially in populating the art direction with 80s era motifs, and elements, And for those who have seen the Swedish original, perhaps one of the prime reasons is to compare whether the leads of Kodi Smit-McPhee as Owen and Chloe Grace Moretz as Abby measure up to the original pair of Kare Hedebrant as Oskar and Lina Leandersson as Eli. It's needless to say this comparison will always exist, and personally I felt it was a mission accomplished as they both did a tremendous job in being equally on par without letting the weight of pressure eat into the performances. Their beautiful chemistry made the primary love story here believable, moving, and one which you will root for, nevermind the alarm bells ringing that it's something quite unnatural, and in some ways, the corruption of innocence. There are plenty of subtext still contained in the film from the way character relationships especially that between Abby and her "Father" (played by Richard Jenkins) and even their sexual orientation but if there's a flaw in this remake, then it is here that it didn't measure up to the way the Swedish original had dangled and tackled this deviation from the novel.Kodi Smit-McPhee was spot on in his interpretation of Owen/Oskar, being vulnerable when it calls for it, when he's bully fodder, or when the feeling of isolation just overwhelms from discovering the truth about his new squeeze and a mom who gradually finds solace from the bottle to numb the pain of an impending divorce, his false bravado in role play reversal of standing up against his physical and mental tormentors, and the child like innocence he fills the screen with when he plays Romeo to a Juliet that can never inhibit the same waking hours as him. Chloe Moretz saw her stock rise with her profanity-spewing Hit Girl in Kick-Ass, and here she's in a totally muted role as the 12 year old, more of less, young girl who's more than meets the eye. Moretz brought out her apprehension of being discovered and found out, her helplessness at the sight of plasma, and the start of yet another budding romance, although she was quite unmistakably replaced by a CG equivalent for her character's most violent action scenes, an effect that drew unnecessary attention to itself, whether be it scaling walls, or pouncing on the pack of her prey and making a rag doll out of them.To someone who has seen the Hollywood version first, you may be in awe with Matt Reeves' film, and may embrace his vision of the story. But take heed that the Swedish one came first, and you'll do yourself a favour by checking that out as well, since it's already available on DVD. For those who swear by Let The Right One In, I'd still encourage you to watch this for the actors' performances, as they step into roles that you hold dear to and are familiar with, showing that a strong story is essentially necessary, followed by a solid casting to bring the characters to life, no matter how many remakes (though it may be pointless after this effort) come by in future. Recommended!

LET ME IN (Matt Reeves, 2010) ***

tt1228987

Though I liked the director's previous monster effort – CLOVERFIELD (2008) – well enough, I cannot say that I held much hope for the film under review (this, too, in spite of having been impressed with co-star Chloe Grace Moretz' scene-stealing turn in KICK-ASS [2010]). My reservation was two-fold: for one thing, I felt it to be an unnecessary Americanization of a near-masterpiece of the genre (especially since the Swedish original dated from just two years back) and, also, because it happened to inaugurate Hammer Films' long-promised resurgence (which 30 years ago had reached saturation point in view of the fact that the style the company had firmly established over the previous two decades suddenly found itself passé in the age of visceral horrors such as THE EXORCIST [1973] and THE Texas CHAIN SAW MASSACRE [1974])! However, I must say that my fears proved largely unfounded, being repaid instead not just with a surprisingly strong remake and another stunning performance from Moretz, but what certainly amounts to a prodigious start to the British House Of Horror's revitalized fortunes (which, hopefully, will be upheld by their upcoming productions).Inevitably, this review will from now on take the form of parallels between the remake and the original (though not the novel, since I am not familiar with it) – or, if you, like the pros and cons of this new version vis-a'-vis the earlier adaptation (courtesy of the author himself). Essentially, the film rests once again on the central relationship between the lonely, bullied kid (ably played by Kodi Smit-McPhee) and the enigmatic but obviously knowing vampire girl – which is just as persuasive, compelling and touching as the first go round: if anything, the two seem to bond even more here, as they go out and are shown listening to music together in their secret hide-out…though I doubt Abby (her name having been changed from the Eli of the book and Swedish film) would care to be up-to-date on such apparently 'mundane' matters! As has come to be expected of my inherently over-analytical nature (especially when it comes to my favorite genre), I found a good many negative aspects within the film that would seem to contradict the "Good" rating; so, I will just list these regardless, and people can make of them what they will! To begin with, I found the relocation to New Mexico pointless (since one usually associates the place with an arid desert atmosphere anyway, why not go all-out and set the whole against a totally conflicting backdrop?!). Elias Koteas' snooping cop is likewise redundant (not only is he made to repeat his actions along the way, but some of the original's 'local color' – conveyed through the various characters – is thus lost…and does it not have greater impact when it is a relative of one of the victims seeking revenge on the vampire rather than just a law-enforcement officer in the line of duty?!). The change of locale in the vampire protector/procurer's self-mutilation also does not work – though the car-crash POV shot was an undeniably nice touch, I rather suspect that the fleshing-out of his depredations arose merely out of a need to justify giving the role to an Oscar-caliber actor as Richard Jenkins(!)…and, contrary to what I have read (and as was unequivocally the case with the first version), his death-leap looks like a suicide now! On the other hand, the fiery demise of the vampire-attack survivor (which seems to have been played up a bit here) is not self-induced this time around…plus I missed the scene with the character's newly-apprehensive cats! To get to the heart of the matter, however, the CGI effects were frankly crap: the demon-like appearance and jerky accelerated movements of the aroused Abby were not only unnecessary but seemed like concessions to – or, worse, patronizing of – apparently unsophisticated American audiences, as were the omission of the vampire's gender twist and its intermittent ageing (which, invariably, would have further confused the issues!). Having only watched the original early this year, I was quite familiar with the plot and I admit to actively longing for how its various highlights would play out (that said, the inspired economy displayed during the startlingly effective swimming-pool climax comes across as curiously muffled in this newer rendition!). Much has been made in reviews of Owen (formerly Oskar)'s 'transparent' mother, which I did not mind, but also of the fact that Abby only attacks people whom the boy has spied on with his telescope…yet, since the two never breach the subject of his being something of a peeping-tom, I hardly think this was intentional! Similarly, the much-touted snippets from telecasts of Ronald Reagan's 'Evil' tirades are sparsely used and subtly incorporated into the narrative…but I honestly do not think there was any overt attempt to parallel the vampire's activities with the 'rotten' state of the modern world.In the end, this is a very fine effort as modern horrors go – even if it is little more than a carbon-copy of an even more impressive one (whose refreshingly dense texture and novel spin on a much-abused theme it sensibly retains).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/reviews-156

ur1399158

title: LET ME IN (Matt Reeves, 2010) *** review: Though I liked the director's previous monster effort – CLOVERFIELD (2008) – well enough, I cannot say that I held much hope for the film under review (this, too, in spite of having been impressed with co-star Chloe Grace Moretz' scene-stealing turn in KICK-ASS [2010]). My reservation was two-fold: for one thing, I felt it to be an unnecessary Americanization of a near-masterpiece of the genre (especially since the Swedish original dated from just two years back) and, also, because it happened to inaugurate Hammer Films' long-promised resurgence (which 30 years ago had reached saturation point in view of the fact that the style the company had firmly established over the previous two decades suddenly found itself passé in the age of visceral horrors such as THE EXORCIST [1973] and THE Texas CHAIN SAW MASSACRE [1974])! However, I must say that my fears proved largely unfounded, being repaid instead not just with a surprisingly strong remake and another stunning performance from Moretz, but what certainly amounts to a prodigious start to the British House Of Horror's revitalized fortunes (which, hopefully, will be upheld by their upcoming productions).Inevitably, this review will from now on take the form of parallels between the remake and the original (though not the novel, since I am not familiar with it) – or, if you, like the pros and cons of this new version vis-a'-vis the earlier adaptation (courtesy of the author himself). Essentially, the film rests once again on the central relationship between the lonely, bullied kid (ably played by Kodi Smit-McPhee) and the enigmatic but obviously knowing vampire girl – which is just as persuasive, compelling and touching as the first go round: if anything, the two seem to bond even more here, as they go out and are shown listening to music together in their secret hide-out…though I doubt Abby (her name having been changed from the Eli of the book and Swedish film) would care to be up-to-date on such apparently 'mundane' matters! As has come to be expected of my inherently over-analytical nature (especially when it comes to my favorite genre), I found a good many negative aspects within the film that would seem to contradict the "Good" rating; so, I will just list these regardless, and people can make of them what they will! To begin with, I found the relocation to New Mexico pointless (since one usually associates the place with an arid desert atmosphere anyway, why not go all-out and set the whole against a totally conflicting backdrop?!). Elias Koteas' snooping cop is likewise redundant (not only is he made to repeat his actions along the way, but some of the original's 'local color' – conveyed through the various characters – is thus lost…and does it not have greater impact when it is a relative of one of the victims seeking revenge on the vampire rather than just a law-enforcement officer in the line of duty?!). The change of locale in the vampire protector/procurer's self-mutilation also does not work – though the car-crash POV shot was an undeniably nice touch, I rather suspect that the fleshing-out of his depredations arose merely out of a need to justify giving the role to an Oscar-caliber actor as Richard Jenkins(!)…and, contrary to what I have read (and as was unequivocally the case with the first version), his death-leap looks like a suicide now! On the other hand, the fiery demise of the vampire-attack survivor (which seems to have been played up a bit here) is not self-induced this time around…plus I missed the scene with the character's newly-apprehensive cats! To get to the heart of the matter, however, the CGI effects were frankly crap: the demon-like appearance and jerky accelerated movements of the aroused Abby were not only unnecessary but seemed like concessions to – or, worse, patronizing of – apparently unsophisticated American audiences, as were the omission of the vampire's gender twist and its intermittent ageing (which, invariably, would have further confused the issues!). Having only watched the original early this year, I was quite familiar with the plot and I admit to actively longing for how its various highlights would play out (that said, the inspired economy displayed during the startlingly effective swimming-pool climax comes across as curiously muffled in this newer rendition!). Much has been made in reviews of Owen (formerly Oskar)'s 'transparent' mother, which I did not mind, but also of the fact that Abby only attacks people whom the boy has spied on with his telescope…yet, since the two never breach the subject of his being something of a peeping-tom, I hardly think this was intentional! Similarly, the much-touted snippets from telecasts of Ronald Reagan's 'Evil' tirades are sparsely used and subtly incorporated into the narrative…but I honestly do not think there was any overt attempt to parallel the vampire's activities with the 'rotten' state of the modern world.In the end, this is a very fine effort as modern horrors go – even if it is little more than a carbon-copy of an even more impressive one (whose refreshingly dense texture and novel spin on a much-abused theme it sensibly retains).