Copy + Paste

Surprisingly, Kimberly Peirce's Carrie is the ONLY horror film this year to get a wide release during the month of October. Considering the year we're having in the horror genre, that's really quite a surprise, as 2013 has seen a number of solid-to-great releases thus far, between The Conjuring, Evil Dead, Texas Chainsaw, and even some horror offshoots in World War Z and Warm Bodies. Sure, Paranormal Activity decided to sit the year out (and after seeing a trailer for the upcoming sequel The Marked Ones, I can't say I'm disappointed), but that's still no excuse to leave the traditionally scariest month of the year without the type of fare that exemplifies its reputation.

And is that one film a keeper? The original Carrie, directed by Brian De Palma and released in 1976, is a horror classic, often regarded as the best Stephen King adaptation of all time. Is a remake - even one featuring the casting of the uber-talented pair of Julianne Moore and Chloe Grace Moretz - really all that necessary? Pierce certainly has the female perspective that should give an edge to this particular remake, and her experience exploring gender identity and growth (just look at Boys Don't Cry, if you can), Carrie ought to have been a slam dunk. Add on top the claim that it skews closer to the themes of King's original novel, plus the added focus on bullying in today's society, and this could have been a remake to eclipse the original.

Detention didn't want her...

And in some ways, it does. De Palma's interpretation of the the classic novel - while still beloved today - was certainly a product of its time, and the campiness and outdated fashion and technology clash terribly with today's norms. If nothing else, Peirce does an excellent job modernizing the environment, even if she doesn't go far enough; one student films the infamous "tampon" scene on her phone and even uploads it onto the internet, but that new plot line doesn't really go anywhere significant. Certainly the bullying aspects of the original Carrie are more prevalent today than ever before, and Peirce highlights that fact well, not to mention the apparent inaction of those supposedly in charge (from unassuming principals to teachers who are just as bad as the bullies). As a modern adaptation, Carrie works because Peirce manages to take a 40-year-old novel and make it feel current and relevant.

Just for the record; this amazing actress is 16!

Carrie also features an excellent cast, with Pierce succeeding with not only her two leads, but a number of the younger actors whom you may or may not recognize. In the lead, Moretz is simply the best young actress working today. Her versatility has led to scene-stealing roles in multiple films, and this is just the latest example of an up-and-comer taking it to the next level. Moore is similarly well cast, the veteran putting in one of her best performances in years as Margaret White, Carrie's religious fanatic mother. She's always been at least a solid actress, but Carrie sees her take it up a notch, and with a lesser actress it might have been too much. Moore engages the audience with every scene however, becoming one of the film's stronger parts. Judy Greer takes a break from comedies to take on a more serious tone, proving she's suited for these types roles as well. And thankfully, the younger performers do their share as well, as talents like Portia Doubleday (Youth in Revolt), Gabriella Wilde (The Three Musketeers), Alex Russell (Chronicle) and Ansel Elgort (soon to be seen in Divergent) do wonders on the big screen.

Mother and daughter have never been so scary.

Unfortunately, Carrie just doesn't do enough to sufficiently separate itself from the original movie. While claiming that the film hearkens back more to the King novel, what we get is essentially a scene-for-scene (though not shot-for-shot) remake of the original, with updated dialogue being the only significant enhancement. Yes, the ending is slightly altered, but not in a way that makes the film any better or more distinctive. Peirce even rips off the multiple-angle blood spill shot of De Palma's exactly; it's a move that was surely meant as an homage, but merely draws attention to the remake's derivative nature. Worse, the special effects in that iconic scene are blatant CGI effects, taking you out of the moment you've been waiting for the entire film. Evil Dead surprised and pleased many by using more practical effects in their more gratuitous blood-letting, and Peirce can't be bothered to use a real bucket of (fake) blood for one climactic scene?

Because you begged to see it.

Carrie had all the makings of a great horror flick, and if it had been the first of its kind, I doubt I'd be so harsh on it now. But Peirce owes far too much to Brian De Palma's original to accept this new Carrie White as anything original, no matter how good the acting or how modernized the production values. Instead, Carrie exists as a testament against remakes, or at least ham-fisted ones that bring little new to the table. It should have been a modern classic, especially with no major horror titles coming out to challenge its dominance. Unfortunately, this new Carrie mainly makes one want to go back and see a true classic from 1976.

"Hugo", not Weaving

There might not be a more celebrated director in Hollywood today than Martin Scorcese. The artist, who has been making groundbreaking films since the seventies, is renowned not only for his ability to create great cinema, but for also building a fundamentally different experience every time out, a skill not many of his peers can claim. For all that however, Scorcese has never made a film like Hugo until now. It must have surprised some when he announced he was going to make a PG-rated film in 3D (two firsts for the director) based on the not-exceptionally-well-known children's book The Invention of Hugo Cabret, by Brian Selznick. I mean, this is the guy who made serious adult fare like Taxi Driver and Raging Bull; Goodfellas and Casino; Gangs of New York, The Aviator and The Departed. Compared to these awe-inducing titles, at first glance Hugo feels grossly out of place; a rogue family film hanging with the big boys.

We needn't have worried, however. After seeing Hugo, I'm quite happy naming it one of 2011's best films, and possibly one of Scorcese's best works in recent years. The story follows young orphan Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield), who lives within the walls of a Parisian rail station, maintaining the building's clocks without anyone knowing. While trying to stay out of the way of the station's security inspector Gustav (Sasha Baron Cohen), Hugo attempts to fix an old automaton, or wind-up machine, that he used to work on with his father, a deceased clockmaker (Jude Law). This eventually gets him into trouble, but a chance encounter and budding friendship with the curious Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz) helps him put together the final pieces of the puzzle and try to find his purpose in the world.

Yes, Ben Kingsley is in this film. No, that doesn't automatically mean it's bad

Because this film is based on a book that's not mainstream enough to be common knowledge, most viewers probably won't and can't automatically assume what is going to happen as the story is presented to them. Unlike the Twilight or Harry Potter set, Hugo won't be seen almost entirely by fans of the intellectual property, and that's good because Hugo is one of the more original titles to arrive in theaters in 2011. With an unusual setting (post-Great War Paris), interesting characters, and a multitude of plot twists, turning points, and unique messages, prediction of what comes next is an exercise in futility. You simply don't know what's happening until it passed, and the fact that you can't predict the future means that each moment is a treasure, unwrapped and beloved for every moment you remain in the theater.

Personally, I want to remain on THIS side of the clock, thank you

Another Scorcese strength is in the characters he brings to the screen, and on that front, he brings in some of the best cast members for any title this year. Staying away from his usual casts of De Niro's and DiCaprio's, he surrounds young Asa Butterfield with a shockingly deep core of actors that do everything asked of them and more. Butterfield, best known for his role in 2008's The Boy in the Striped Pajamas,  is himself compelling and exceedingly talented, more than a match for the many paths the script takes young Hugo Cabret. Despite not having to carry the film on his shoulders, Butterfield carries what he can, and often his performance is the best on screen. Still, if he were all that the title offered, it wouldn't have been enough, and thankfully for that he's not alone. Ben Kingsley surprises in a comeback role of sorts, when you consider just how many horrid movies he's appeared in over the years. Playing a toy merchant at the train station, Kingsley doesn't disappoint and for the first time in years shows the versatility for which he was once cheered. Chloe Grace Moretz also impresses; the former Kick-Ass and Let Me In actress is even good in relatively "normal" roles, in this case as an adventure-craving, book-loving young woman. While Butterfield is good, Moretz makes a perfect pairing, as the two play well with their character's differences and make each other more interesting. Jude Law appears only briefly in flashbacks but actually comes off well in the only role in which I've really liked him that wasn't Sherlock Holmes. And Sasha Baron Cohen is humorous and impressive as the station's crippled Inspector, thankfully not as evil as we're at first led to believe. In fact, many of the film's supporting characters are made more interesting when we look over Hugo's shoulder in seeing their daily lives sort out, especially the budding romances in the most romantic city on Earth.

He's very... European...

The three-dimensional character development is somewhat better than the actual three-dimensional effects, of course. This doesn't really come as a surprise since Scorcese has no real experience in the medium. Of course, his first try is better than most people's, and if you can get past the visual distractions it really isn't much of a problem. There are some establishing shots that try to take advantage of the 3D early on, but to be frank they're impressive enough without the added technology brought to bear. Still, it is an impressive first take for Scorcese, who doesn't usually get kudos for his special effects use.

Yes, Jude Law is there too. No, I really DID love this movie!

Martin Scorcese has made a large number of treasured films. I don't think I've ever seen a release from him that I DIDN'T like, and Hugo is no different; at least not in that regard. While on the surface different from anything the director has achieved before, Hugo is always as good as his previous efforts, and at time even better. It's for that reason and more that it knocks just about everything else down a notch, coming in as the #4 film of 2011. You might have no idea what this film is about going in, but that's no reason not to go. If you haven't caught this unexpected gem, take a moment to check it out with your younger family members, as children and adults of all ages should get more than enough entertainment out of this strong presentation..

A Vampire Movie that DOESN'T Suck

Somehow by now I thought I'd be done with 2010's films. 2010 still manages to sneak in however, most notably in films that don't even make their way to wide release until 2011 but count towards 2010 due solely to extremely limited runs that qualify those titles for the big award shows. This is not one of those movies. In fact, it's probably my most surprising 2010 film success story. Here in Boston, the Coolidge Corner Theater is one of our smaller, independent theaters that often focuses on the art house films. On weekends, the theater hosts its Coolidge After Midnite series, which comprise of cult and horror films shown at midnight to a small crowd of dedicated viewers. This past weekend, the film was Let Me In, the American remake of popular Swedish film and novel Låt den rätte komma in, which translates to Let the Right One In. Hollywood has gotten a bit remake-crazy lately, with both this and the upcoming Girl with the Dragon Tattoo quickly converted from worldwide popular Swedish films into Americanized versions to market directly to a local audience. Since I'd yet to sit down and watch the original Swedish edition, I was hesitant to take in the remake. But since Let Me In had gotten good reviews and since I wasn't in a hurry to see the original anyway, I figured "why not" and so "Southland Dan" and I trekked to the Coolidge to give this unseen film a shot.

Moretz auditioning for the "creepiest kid alive" award

The story of Let Me In focuses on young Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee), a smallish loner constantly bullied by others at his school and suffering from an aversion to swimming. His favorite past-times include visits to the local arcade and spying on his neighbors through his telescope. His parents are getting divorced, and he doesn't feel much connection to either his emotionally-disturbed mother or his absent father. He doesn't have a friend in the world until the day an odd girl (Chloe Grace Moretz) moves into the apartment next door.

Uh... yeah... you don't have problems at all

The story gets a little bit into a few side characters, but for the most part the film focuses on the two juvenile leads. Moretz of course is familiar to anyone who remotely heard of the controversy surrounding her foul-mouthed superhero Hit-Girl in 2010's Kick Ass. Here she gives an outstanding performance as Abby, the child vampire. Abby is lonely from several lifetimes worth of moving around, stuck in an apartment while the man who cares for her goes out at night to hunt for fresh blood. Moretz's creepy-yet-fragile performance is even better than that of Hit-Girl, proving that she's no one-hit wonder. While Abby has no peers, Owen is alone while surrounded by them. Smit-McPhee wasn't as heralded in his role as Viggo Mortensen's son in The Road, but that role paved a path to a very impressive performance here. The victim of bullying, divorcing parents and now vampire necro-voodoo, Owen has to be a type of victimized everyman, and Smit-McPhee does a great job playing the straight man to the what would be otherwise unbelievable. Other good performances come from Richard Jenkins as a man who has been taking care of Abby for years, and Elias Koteas as a police officer following the bodies left in Abby's wake.

Awww, did you start the cranberry-crushing party without me?

As for the themes present in this tale, Let Me In brings up topics not necessarily seen in mainstream Hollywood films. Bullying is a major topic these days, especially with all the new legislation being passed by the government banning it in schools, which makes seeing the odd duck Owen bullied by other boys at school feel so real as we see it on the screen. In fact, the film asks a great question by exploring why the other boys pick on Owen at all, and really makes sense when you see it happen. The themes of alienation and loneliness play out well through the two child leads, and the idea of parental divorce is actually one of the best displayed themes in the film. Owen lives with his mother and she appears in several scenes, but from the get-go we never really get a good look at her, as she's seen either out of focus or from behind. In the film doing so, we get Owen's feelings of disassociation from her by never REALLY seeing her at all.

No, he's a police officer... NOT a child molester. He gets that all the time

It's a shame when a good film like this has problems, so it's a relief when those problems translate to the mere cosmetic. Special effects were surprisingly uninspired when you consider this film was done by Matt Reeves, the director who made Cloverfield. Though sparsely used, effects of Abby jumping and running unlike a normal human look far too much like the herky-jerky motions the monsters from Japanese horror films like The Ring or Ju-on. The film also has a severe lack of interesting secondary characters, as it would have benefited from a bit more perspective. Still, that's no major flaw, and may be more due to the basis of the screenplay on the source material than anything else. When the characters are played by interesting actors like Smit-McPhee, Moretz and Jenkins, that can easily be enough.

It's okay! We've got Kick-Ass on DVD!

According to Dan, who had seen the original Swedish film, the story has a few differences but otherwise was almost identical to the first. From what I could tell in my viewing of the original's first twenty minutes, Reeves decided that he couldn't really change the setting beyond relocating Sweden to rural New Mexico. Even the apartment complex Owen and Abby live in is remarkably similar to the original. It's honestly kind of sad that despite the film and story's quality, there was next to nothing that Reeves added to make the film his own. Still, it IS an amazing film to behold; the retelling suffering a few awkward translation moments but overall not feeling like an ersatz release for the heck of it. Excellent acting, a well paced story and significantly few flaws propels Let Me In to #8 on 2010's Best Film list, a feat I really hadn't expected it to achieve. It's the best of both worlds: a modern day take on a classic vampire horror story. Definitely worth seeing.