The Tall Man - Know what you're getting

Tall Man has come in for a fait of criticism from people expecting one thing and getting another. If you've seen (Director) Pascal Laugier's previous film `Martyrs' then you may be a little more prepared for a film that deliberately leads you in one direction, only to almost switch genres midway through and go off in a totally different direction.

Tall Man is about a woman (Jessica Biel) whose child goes missing in a town where this sort of kidnapping is commonplace and put down to the legend of the `Tall Man' - a shadowy figure who steals children. From there, she has to unravel the mystery behind the kidnappings.

Most people (including me) expected a straight horror film. What it turns out to be is more than that. Perhaps `thriller' would describe it better. Everyone turns in a solid performance and, if you're in the mood for something a little different, with a few twists and turns, then you could do worse than this.

Just know that this isn't simply your average `horror.'

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

Doom: Annihilation – Bring back ‘The Rock’


I really wanted to like this film.  I love the ‘Doom’ computer games.  I love B-movies and I even found some small enjoyment in the first ‘Doom’ movie.  I felt I was in a pretty ‘forgiving’ mood when I sat down to watch the latest movie based on a video game, ‘Doom: Annihilation.’ I tried so hard to like it.  I figured that – at worst – it would be a bit of a ‘cheese-fest’ and I could enjoy it on a ‘it’s-so-bad-it’s-good’ kind of way.  I was wrong.  It’s just bad.


For those who don’t know, the ‘Doom’ franchise (both on computer and film) centres around Mars being overrun by demons and a lone soldier having to gun his way through their hordes.  It’s hardly ‘Shakespeare,’ but in the right hands you can probably turn it into a decent enough action flick.  Unfortunately, it looks like ‘Doom: Annihilation’ wasn’t made by ‘the right hands.’


From the opening scene you can tell that it’s cheap.  The external sets (of space stations etc) are obviously done on computers.  Then we’re treated to the scene where the scientists unleash something pretty nasty.  Only they can’t act.  Or, if that’s a bit unfair on the actors, they can’t act a decent scene with the script they’ve been saddled with.  Jump across to Earth and we meet our ‘heroes.’ Only, if you’ve seen the infinitely-superior ‘Aliens’ you’ll already know the character types – a bunch of space marines.  Only with ‘Aliens’ you actually cared about them.  Here they’re just a bunch of stereotypes from diverse nationalities.  Oh, and ‘Doom Guy’ is a woman now.  A lot of people on the internet objected to that.  I would have had no problem if the lead actress actually had charisma, but she – like everyone else on the cast list – doesn’t.


I could go on about the lack of budget – the uniforms look cheap, the guns that are supposed to be big and powerful look like they’ve been made out of cardboard.  The actors all seem to be putting on accents which don’t match up to – clearly – their own natural accent.  But the bottom line is that you’ve probably seen it all before.  I kind of enjoyed the first ‘Resident Evil’ film.  I could see it was a sort of rip-off of (again!) ‘Aliens’ only with zombies, now ‘Doom: Annihilation’ seems to be a rip-off of a rip-off, only with space zombies instead of the undead type or xenomorphs.


Yeah, there are quite a few nods to the computer game this was based on – and that’s nice, but it’s not enough to save this from looking, sounding and generally being one of the most cheap films ever made.  It’s a case of the film-makers clearly didn’t have the budget to do the source material justice, so they should have just left well alone.  My advice – just stick to playing the computer games.


5/10 a hard trek, a bit like unicycling to Mordor and back

The Bay - `Different' does not necessarily mean good (sadly)

Hollywood is churning out `found footage' films as if they were the only genre left available to film-makers. Yes, as the Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity proved, they are cheap to make and therefore they can offer a huge return on your investment if you get it right.

You can't look through the horror shelves in a DVD store without seeing many taglines such as `they were never seen again, this is the last footage ever recorded.' Although The Bay clearly falls into the same `found footage' genre, it does try to do its best to be different.

Instead of a nauseating cameraman/woman constantly shaking the camera and running through woods while screaming, The Bay consists of someone trying to compile an online documentary about an incident where numerous people lost their lives in suspicious circumstances. As least, by doing this, you will never yell at the screen "Just turn the camera off and run!" or "Why are you still filming this?" Here, the `found footage' consists of CCTV footage from police cars, home movies, Skype conversations etc.

The main problem I had with this film is that, although it does succeed in presenting itself in a different way, there was just no real characterisation. We're treated to one interview-type scene after a next. Unlike other `found footage' films, there's not just three characters we can get to know (as they scream and run away from things we can't see). I never thought I'd miss them, but I did. Instead, there's just too many to care about. We only ever see characters either dying, or talking into camera as part of an interview.

Yes, there are some nicely done gory moments, but they really aren't worth watching the whole film (and I use that term lightly - it's more like a documentary) for. If you really want to sit through another `found footage' film, then you might get something out of this. However, just because it's well-presented and acted, doesn't actually make it enjoyable. I found it pretty boring as there was little story to follow, only a kind of blatantly ecological message that wouldn't be out of place in Avatar.

4/10 You can watch this film while you're doing the ironing (you'll still get the general gist of it)

The Dead Don’t Die – Nothing new, but nicely done


I know, I know... this is ANOTHER zombie movie.  Twenty years ago that might have been met with a collective gasp, but nowadays we’ve seen pretty much every type of zombie movie there is to make.  Even the once great ‘The Walking Dead’ is slowly slipping from public relevance.  So, is ‘The Dead Don’t Die’ worth a watch?  Well, first of all it’s a ‘zom-com.’ Again, that might have been different if ‘Shaun of the Dead’ hadn’t stolen the spotlight around fifteen years ago.  In short... ‘The Dead Don’t Die’ doesn’t offer a single thing that’s different to any other sub-genre of a typical film, but that doesn’t mean you should necessarily skip it.

I guess the main thing this film has going for it is its cast.  The ever-dry Bill Murray plays a small-town Sherriff who finds himself caught up in one of those typical zombie apocalypse settings.  He’s backed up with well-known actors like Adam Driver, Tilda Swinton, Danny Glover and Steve Buscemi , so with a cast like that you know you’re going to get a few good performances.


It’s quite self-knowing and some of the humour does tend to be a little ‘meta’ in places, plus there are some simply random elements that you’ll never see coming (but I think that’s the point!).  The ‘random’ element is good when it comes to humour and surprises, but I felt that – due to the large cast list – many characters’ stories don’t really go anywhere and some seem to be originally set up to play some big, important part of the story, only for them to get killed off screen and that’s the end of them.


Perhaps the film’s budget went on paying so many recognisable actors to star in it, because if you’re expecting some sort of wall-to-wall gore fest then you won’t find it here.  Most of the gore is very obviously computer-generated and there isn’t really even much in the way of ‘comedy over-the-top’ violence like other films such as the afore-mentioned ‘Shaun of the Dead.’


‘The Dead Don’t Die’ does tend to suffer from all the typical zombie movie tropes, but the cast are good enough to pull it off so that if you’re in the mood for something funny (or should I say ‘dry?’) to go with your run-of-the-mill zombie movie then I’d definitely give this one a watch.  Bill Murray makes it, but credit to Tilda Swinton for her memorable role as a Scottish Samurai mortician and Adam Driver for a role with numerous ‘Star Wars’ references.


8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Home – fun, for the kids (mainly)

Shrek and Toy Story, or rather the two ‘holy grails’ of children’s films.  This is largely because they can be enjoyed by both kids and adults alike.  They are both packed with jokes and gags which can be appreciated on two levels – some of which the adults will roll their eyes at, others that will go completely over the little ones’ heads and have them asking Mummy and Daddy why they’re laughing.

Sadly, ‘Home’ isn’t one of these films.  Yes, it’s meant for children and if my ten year old daughter was writing this review she’d probably give it top marks.  And that would be a fair grade – from a child, i.e. its primary audience.  However, kids seldom write film reviews online.  I do.  And I had to sit through this.

To be fair... I’ve been forced to watch worse children’s movies in my time as a parent.  This one is about a race of aliens who one day decide that Earth will be their new home.  Naturally the existing earthlings who just so happen to inhabit the planet aren’t taken into a consideration.  All us pink flesh-bags are scooped up and dumped in Australia while the little purple spacemen merrily move into our apartment blocks and offices.  All humans but one.

A little girl (and her cat) called ‘Tip’ (believe it or not) is the only human left behind.  She exists kind of like ‘Newt’ from ‘Aliens,’ forced to scavenged and steal when the aliens’ backs are turned.  That’s until she meets ‘Oh’ (again, I didn’t name him).  He’s an alien who is generally a misfit and at odds with his species.  They form a friendship and yadder, yadder, yadder – adventure, bonding, if you’ve seen a kids’ movie you know how it goes.  And there’s a moral at the end and stuff like that.

This is all pretty run-of-the-mill stuff and I could live with that.  If it wasn’t for Oh himself.  To me – and I stress, I am only an adult – I found him really annoying.  It was almost like the film-makers wanted to give Jar-Jar Binks his own movie (*shudders* at the thought).  Seriously, this alien is very irritating.  He’s always doing the wrong thing and I can see why his own species want to get rid of him.  I was half tempted to jump into the TV screen and laser the little guy to death myself.

But, as I kept having to remind me, it’s a KIDS’ movie.  And I’m not the intended audience.  So, if you have a little one who you want to keep entertained for an hour and a half, stick ‘em in front of this DVD and they’ll be happy.  You can probably get away with popping out and sticking the kettle on.  You won’t miss much and, by this stage, you’ve probably seen enough kids’ movies to work out that everyone lives happily ever after.  But, unlike Toy Story and Shrek, I doubt even the kids will be that keen on repeat viewings of ‘Home.’ Find a friend or relative with the DVD and borrow it for a couple of weeks while the children are on holiday.  Then, if they really love it, buy it.  Don’t waste your money straight away. 

5/10 a hard trek, a bit like unicycling to Mordor and back

Ghost – You will believe (that it’s a timeless classic)


I first watched ‘Ghost’ back when it was released in 1990.  I was a typical teen in those days, only really interested in films involving Austrian musclemen beating villains to a pulp.  Yet there was something about a supernatural, romantic comedy that just shouldn’t have appealed to me – but it did.  And I’m as pleased to say that ‘Ghost’ is still as perfect today as it ever was.


I’m pretty sure most people know the plot by now, but, on the off-chance you’ve never seen it (or figured out the basic premise via the title!), it involves one of the central characters dying before their time and therefore carrying on existing in spectral form in order to take care of business before they can cross over to the other side.


The main stars all perform some iconic roles here – don’t think that it’s just Patrick Swayze and Demi Moore all the way (who are both brilliant), but – as the Oscars showed – it’s Whoopie Goldberg who steals every scene she’s in as the larger-than-life psychic/con-woman who finds she has a sudden knack at speaking to those on ‘the other side.’


Don’t go thinking that this is just a ‘rom-com.’ Yes, the ‘love aspect’ is an integral part of the story, but it has an appeal that’s far broader than your average Jennifer Anniston flick.  Hopefully, anyone of any age and gender should appreciate this.  It even gets a little creepy towards the end with two instances that have brought a shiver down my spine every time I watch it.


I can’t really stress just how perfect ‘Ghost’ is.  There’s so little to say that’s negative about it (unless you count my Mum’s comment about how Demi Moore just spends the whole movie crying!).  Perhaps there are some ‘green screen’ effects that are more noticeable today than when they were first released, but that’s about the only vaguely-negative thing I can think of saying.  You really should have watched ‘Ghost’ at least once in your life.  It really is a timeless tale that hasn’t aged a bit in its thirty year lifespan.  Should I say it will probably live forever? 


10/10 The Monty Python Knights of Camelot are currently looking for this

The Final Cut - Great concept - not so great end result

Almost everyone agrees that the idea behind `The Final Cut' is pretty sound - we visit a world where people can record their entire lives via a `chip' inserted into their brain at birth. Plus we have Robin Williams in one of his `serious roles' (which I prefer him as, after watching him in The Fisher Kind, The World's Greatest Dad and - the excellent One Hour Photo).

Unfortunately, despite its intriguing premise, The Final Cut doesn't live up to expectations. Not only does Robin Williams (uncharacteristically) `phone-in' his performance, coming across as bored and uninteresting, but the film itself is about as interesting as he appears to be.

Through his work as a `cutter' (someone who splices together people's memories after they die for the benefit of their grieving relatives), he discovers some dark secrets that need to be investigated. If you read the blurb for this film, it mentions that his dark discovery leads him into danger. Well... there lies the problem - I just didn't feel the danger at any time. Maybe the film didn't have the budget to add in any sort of `chase scenes' that have become synonymous with this sort of film, but he just sort of wandered here and there for an hour and a half.

Ultimately, despite the good ideas behind the film, I just found it a bit dull, which was a shame as the idea and talent on offer should have added up to so much more.

6/10 May just keep you awake if Freddy Krueger was haunting your nights

Pet Sematery (2019) – A reasonable remake


I’ve always been a fan of Stephen King’s original book-to-film adaptation of ‘Pet Sematery;’ it was a very competent horror which, although having numerous plot-strands that were kind of glossed over or not given the time they deserved, was still very memorable and had plenty of creepy and gory moments.  Since Stephen King’s ‘IT’ was remade it seemed that many other of his classics would, starting with ‘Pet Sematery.’


I happened to watch this remake straight after sitting through the original.  I was actually surprised at how closely the new version followed the eighties incarnation.  You get the same named characters moving to the new house in the American countryside, opposite the same neighbour and finding the same secretive ‘Pet Sematery’ (misspelt due to children creating it) where the father of the family, ‘Lewis’ (Jason Clarke) feels forced to bury the family’s pet cat after he falls foul of a lorry on the nearby road.  Naturally, things don’t go too well after that and the once-treasured animal returns from the grave with more than just a taste for a mouse or two.


It’s only at about the three-quarters of the way through mark that the film starts to take on a feel of its own and dares to throw us die-hard ‘Pet Sematery’ fans a few curved balls when things start to happen that don’t in either the book, nor the film.


I can imagine people who haven’t seen the original enjoying this film.  It’s a perfectly competent little horror film.  Yes, it’s no masterpiece, but there’s enough here for any casual horror fan to enjoy.  Then, for us fans of the eighties version, the first three quarters just kind of retread what we already know, before then changing enough up to make things different enough to be worth a watch.  I’m perfectly happy with the remake, but, due to nostalgia reasons, I’d always choose the original over the remake.  Jon Lithgow adds some acting heavyweight as the lovable next door neighbour ‘Judd,’ however he’ll never be able to deliver his lines in as memorable way as the original ‘Judd,’ played perfectly by Fred Gwynn (and immortalised for his performance in ‘South Park’).


7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

Gone Girl - Gone, but definitely not forgotten

Wow, actually a thriller that’s pretty good.  Yes, it’s fair to say that ‘Gone Girl’ is a really engrossing film.  As with almost every film, it’s based on a book.  And, as with most films based on a book, I haven’t read the book, so I haven’t got a clue how well the film relates to the source material.  But then I don’t care.  I just enjoyed the ride.

‘Gone Girl’ is one of those films where you don’t want to say too much about for fear of giving things away and spoiling it for people who haven’t seen it.  Ben Affleck plays a (reasonably) decent husband whose well-to-do wife disappears.  The media circus that follows then starts to reveal that the truth is far more complicated that it first seems (not to mention the obligatory police investigation).  It’s fair to say that what follows is a film that twists and turns, so you only really get one chance to watch it and not know what’s coming.

Many people don’t really like Affleck when it comes to acting (even less now he’s due to don the Batsuit!), but I think most people will relate to him as he gets pursued and hounded (unfairly?  You’ll have to wait and see!) by the media.  Rosamund Pike plays his (gone!) wife with a flawless American accent.  Again, you’ll have to see whether she’s found alive or dead.  The story bounces around back and forth in time, making sure you’re just confused enough never to put too much together before the film’s ready to reveal what’s happening.

If I had one complaint it’s that the film is a little too long.  Perhaps ten to fifteen minutes could have been edited out at around the three quarters mark, just to speed it up.  But that’s a minor gripe.  Basically, if you like your thrillers twisty and turny (and have a couple of hours to spare on a film that you really have to concentrate on) give this one a go.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Wilt - Forgotten classic of a film

Okay, so ‘classic’ may be a little overstating ‘Wilt,’ but, whenever British comedy films are mentioned, it never even gets a look in, which I feel is a little unfair.  Yes, there are no real ‘stars’ in the film to broaden its appeal.  Mel Smith and Griff Rhys Jones may be easily recognisable faces on UK TV, but it’s unlikely anyone will be too familiar with their work overseas.

Perhaps that’s ‘Wilt’s’ major charm – it’s a very British film.  And I don’t mean the weird portrayal of British life that Richard Curtis seems to want to sell the worldwide audiences.  The plot is simple: Jones plays the titular character, Mr Wilt, who, after years of living with his overbearing wife, finds she’s disappeared.  He doesn’t seem that bothered, whereas dopey local detective, played by Mel Smith, feels the need to prove that Wilt is more murderer than he seems.

There may be only a few ‘laugh out loud’ moments in the film, but that doesn’t mean that you won’t smile.  The humour is, largely, subtle and understated, as are the performances.  Perhaps the best way to enjoy the film is to lower your expectations slightly.  Don’t go thinking it’s going to be a massively laugh-a-minute ride.  Its charm is its poignancy and the feeling of overall sadness about a group of people who, by and large, aren’t really happy with their lives, no matter how hard they pretend to be.

If you want something with plenty of poignant, subtle black humour, you may want to give this a try.  I’m guessing it’ll only appeal to us Brits, but I’m hoping it’ll also strike a chord with other nationalities, too.

7/10 if I woke up on Groundhog Day and had to watch this again, I could live with that

The Internship - Did someone say ‘Google?’

One of the main problems with making a film which utilises a well-known brand as part of the story is that you get a little sick of the product after a while.  Having spent watching two hours of ‘The Internship’ I really don’t think I’ll ever search the internet via Google again.

The film is about Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson – a pair of salesmen who lose their jobs – and their attempts to get an internship at possibly the most famous web-based company to date, Google.  So begins their ‘hilarious’ shenanigans at Google’s headquarters.  I put ‘hilarious’ in quote marks because the film is two hours.  Two hours.  To make anything ‘hilarious’ for two hours is a job harder than building up the world’s most recognisable web search engine.  And, sadly. The Internship doesn’t really pull it off.

It starts out with some promise, i.e. it’s actually funny.  However, as the two hours go by, the jokes get fewer and fewer and more time elapses when you get this real feeling of de ja vu.  I can’t put my finger on it, but the whole premise seems to have been done before.  I don’t know if the genre of film has an actual name, but it’s basically one of those films where the team of misfit losers ends up learning to work together and beat every other team who are blatantly better and more organised than them – off the top of my head two types I can think of is ‘Monsters: University’ and ‘The House Bunny.’

Naturally, you have the ‘bad’ team of rival interns who, despite being the best, are also completely objectionable and full of themselves.  Guess what... I wonder if they’ll get what’s coming to their smug faces throughout the story?

Then you have the ‘love interest’ for Owen Wilson, who he ‘romances’ by basically stalking and annoying her until she falls madly in love with him.

Ultimately, I saw The Internship like Google’s ‘anti-recruitment’ video.  Being as big as they are, they must get more than their fair share of job applicants, begging to work for them.  Having watched the film, I think it could be the last place I’d ever want to work.  Their ‘recruitment process’ involves all of the worst things you’ve ever been forced to do in the name of ‘team bonding’ on works outings, mixed with all those pointless and embarrassing activities you were made to do when you went to a job interview for a company who thought they were trendy.

Bottom line: there just aren’t enough laughs or originality to stretch this film out to two hours.  Cut half an hour out here and there and you might have had a much better and tighter film.  Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off you search for other people’s opinions on the film via AOL.

5/10 a hard trek, a bit like unicycling to Mordor and back

Playback - There are worse horror films around

If you read some of the reviews for Playback, you may notice it receives more than its fair share of negativity. In some ways it deserves it, in others it doesn't. A lot of the criticism comes from how it's been sold. If you read the blurb, you'll see it mentions an `ex cop [played by Christian Slater] investigating a mysterious killer.' This is simply not true. For a start, Christian Slater's part in this film is little more than an extended cameo and it seems to be a blatant attempt by the studio/promoters to do their best at cashing in on the one and only (semi) big name attached to the project.

The film is actually about a group of teenagers who are trying to make their own horror film when they stumble on a particularly nasty supernatural force that links back to their town's past. In many ways, Playback is little more than a (supernatural) slasher film that loosely borrows from superior works like The Ring. You may even forget that Christian Slater is in the film because his character has so little to do.

Playback is okay. If you can ignore its miss-selling and are just looking for a run-of-the-mill horror to fill an hour and a half, then this one will probably do. Yes, there are a fair few unexplained bits that may leave you with a question mark or two over your head, but, like I say, it's far from perfect, but it just about makes the grade.

6/10 May just keep you awake if Freddy Krueger was haunting your nights

Scream 2 - Not bad for a sequel

Yes, the first ‘Scream’ movie basically reinvented the tired ‘slasher’ genre and it’s still being imitated to this day.  I dare say that not even the producers dreamed it would be as popular as it was.  Yet it was.  Therefore a sequel was almost guaranteed.

The greatest thing about ‘Scream’ was how ‘self aware’ it was, constantly parodying its own genre.  Therefore, the imaginatively-titled ‘Scream 2’ had a lot to live up to.  Did it?  The film itself answers the question.  Knowing it’s a sequel, one of the characters states that by definition a ‘sequel is an inferior product.’ I guess he has a case (although the other characters disagree with him!). ‘Scream 2’ may not be as original as the original (surprise, eh?), but it carries on nicely in the same vain.

Neve Campbell (and the remaining survivors of the first encounter) all return (which is nice and not always common in horror sequels) for this outing where, once again, they’re mercilessly stalked by a masked killer.  Yes, the plot is pretty simple – as was the original and so many slasher flicks before it – but it works, again.  The fact is that there’s so many awful slasher/horror films infesting the bargain DVD buckets that this sequel almost seems like a masterpiece in its own right.

Once again there are plenty of ‘red herrings’ in terms of characters who may or may not be the killer and I doubt anyone will really guess who’s behind the mask until it’s too late.  Neve Campbell is great to root for as the heroine, but David Arquette does tend to steal the show in terms of sheer lovability!

It’s witty, it’s gory and it’s fun.  If you liked the first, you should enjoy the second and if you like slasher/horror films in general, you should also get something out of this.  Yes, like the character ‘Randy’ says, it may be an inferior product, but don’t let that put you off.  And don’t think too deeply about plot points – but then if you’re a fan of the genre you probably do that anyway when it comes to slasher flicks.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one

Men in Black - Still great after all this time

The men in black have been part of ‘UFO-lore’ almost as confused people have noticed lights in the sky and claimed that little grey men gave them a damn good probing on board the Starship Enterprise.  The stories go that they’re shadowy figures who cover up all traces of UFO and alien activity on planet Earth.  Now, whether or not any of that is true, at the height of the nineties the X-files ruled the airwaves, therefore someone was going to transpose the men in black legend to the big screen.

While die-hard UFOlogists claimed that the tone of the film was too light, it was a damn good family romp.  Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith play the titular Men in Black – Jones is the hardened pro and Smith is the wise-cracking new kid on the job.  When a rogue alien decides he wants to help himself to a device that will give him great power (etc) it’s a race against time to prevent the planet from getting destroyed in the process.  That’s about all you need to know.  The plot is kind of by the way when you compare it to the general fun-feeling of the film.

It doesn’t matter where Smith and Jones are they play off each other perfectly.  That’s why it shouldn’t matter whether you’re into sci-fi or not, you should enjoy this.  It’s the sort of movie that’s in the same league as Indiana Jones, Star Wars and (the old) James Bond films.  The whole family could sit down on a Saturday afternoon and enjoy this.

It’s a short and simple film (not just simple and fun to follow, but weighing in at a mere ninety minutes – quite short for a summer blockbuster).  But you’ll enjoy it as primarily a comedy with the science fiction part later.  Give it a go.  Just don’t expect too much from the ‘so-so’ sequels!

9/10 almost as perfect as The Godfather

Let the Right One in - Nice take on the whole ‘vampire myth’

Sometimes you may wonder if every different version of those infamous blood-suckers hasn’t already been done to death.  The big screen has had every incarnation from a planet run by vampires (Daybreakers) to vampires that came from space (Lifeforce) and twinkling vampires (that franchise that cannot be named).  So, here we have a Swedish offering based on the book of the same name – ‘Let the Right One in.’

It’s set in the eighties if you’re wondering where the ‘bad’ haircuts came from and we’re introduced to a young lad who is being bullied at school (Oskar).  Now, rather than tell a responsible adult about his troubles, he enlists the help of the ‘new kid on the block’ (Eli). And, it just so happens that the little girl who has moved into the flat next door is full of secrets – mainly associated with the blood-thirsty deaths that have been happening in the community ever since the girl moved into the neighbourhood.

I can’t compare the big screen adaptation to the book as I haven’t read it, but it certainly is an ‘earthy’ take on vampires.  By that I mean that if you can suspend your disbelief to appreciate immortal bloodsuckers living among us, then you will be able to believe that this is probably how it would go.

It’s a pretty bleak film, not just in content (killer-child vampires are hardly happy-go-lucky types), but also in look and feel.  The snowy setting is quiet and eerie and also used to perfection to create a look and feel for the film.  There’s plenty of great shots that are brilliantly-framed and even have a slight ‘Kubrick-feel’ to them (my opinion, anyway).

‘Let the Right One in’ won’t be for everyone.  It’s hardly fast-paced and you’ll have to put up with the subtitles (those foreign films, eh?).  Plus there is a decent amount of gore and red stuff flying here and there.  I noticed a couple of slightly cheap-looking CGI effects in there, but I’m guessing the film didn’t have the budget to do any better and I can forgive those on account of the overall story and feel.

There is an American remake out there and it’s not that bad either, however it’s so similar that if you like the sound of this sort of deep, slow, arty vampire tale then you might as well just watch the original.

8/10 The Force is definitely strong with this one