We Are What We Are (2013)

By now, you're probably well aware that this is yet another US remake of the original 2010 Mexican movie Somos Lo Que Hay (I'll save you the trouble and admit that my review of the original is just a placeholder, i.e. no need to click that link). Usually, I would beg that you at least watch the original first but still give the remake its shot (for e.g. La Casa Muda/The Silent House; Låt den rätte komma in/Let Me In), and in some cases skip the remake all together (every 80s slasher movie remake thus far). In this case, though, I'm experiencing an unorthodox bent toward suggesting to watch the remake first. If, like me, you've already seen the remake rather recently (within the past year), I suggest waiting another year or two to let its impression fade from memory. Not that one is strikingly better than the other, in this case; it's just that knowing the story and basic execution could cause extreme boredom for the first and much of the second acts.

Carrie (2013)

Review forthcoming.

Silent House (2011)

By now you probably know this is a remake of the Uruguayan film La Casa Muda.  Without hesitation I can affirm that the original is by far one of the best horror movies I've seen.  Minimalistic, technically impressive, subtle, confusing in the manner of a Lovecraft tale, and just plain creepy.  By the time the credits rolled, which are in themselves a sort of epilogue, I was thoroughly bothered in that way all horror fiends crave.  So when I heard there was an English-language remake, I was thrilled; and due to my awareness of its subtle nature, I made the appropriate decision to wait for the BluRay instead of going to a crowded cinema.

Unfortunately, by the time the credits rolled on Silent House, I wasn't nearly as impressed.  In fact, I was quite disappointment with almost all of this version's departures from the original.  At the same time, however, I don't know that it needed to be a repeat of what Michael Haneke did with Funny Games--a shot-for-shot remake of the original--because I like to experience reimaginings.  Silent House, for me, was three different films in one: the first third being extremely satisfying; the second third being an eyeroller; and the final third being a complete let-down.  But let's focus on the positive first.

The film sticks with the original's one-take setup, which still impressed me the second time around, especially since the action takes off nearly right away.  This is no easy feat with a film that has such a simple plot, setting, and cast.  Unless you went to film school, are an amateur filmmaker, or just a cinematography nut, you don't tend to realize all the little things that stitch a move together into a cohesive story.  Things such as scene/shot transitions, point-of-view, segue stock footage (trees, streams, highways, planes landing, etc.) are heavily used and easily overlooked, but they all go together to give a sense of elapsed time within the actual runtime of the film.  So, yes, when it comes to a one-continuous-take movie that is 90 minutes long, and that stays in the POV of a single character, it's no easy feat indeed.

Elizabeth Olsen, whom I've never seen before, nailed her role.  I mean, nailed it!  I would watch any horror movie with this actress.  And, as I've mentioned, this is a demanding role being that the whole film rests on her shoulders à la Ryan Reynolds in Buried (which is a good thing because the father and uncle characters are terrible).  I can't say I've ever seen a horror actress exhibit a sense of fear and dread quite this intense before.  There were many times I realized I was mimicking her actions: holding my breath being my most frequent response.  And that's a definite token to how great her performance was.  She was able to bring me into the film, into the silent house, if you will.

And now the negative stuff, which will inevitably include "spoilers" (deliberate quotes).  This version chooses to go with a visual entity (entity is my word for antagonist/monster/killer/stalker/etc.; not necessarily a metaphysical entity); and not only this but the entity is shown on-screen right away.  This is a huge pet peeve of mine, even with creature features.  We, the audience, stop fearing that which we've seen.  It would have been better if the film had chosen to ride it out a bit longer, instead of choosing to do this lame attempt at recreating the magic of the first in-house reveal in The Strangers.  Because, man, until this point in Silent House, I was so literally creeped out, wondering what was going on that my wife nearly scared me to death when she decided to come downstairs and ask me to turn the subwoofer down.

The other negatives revolve around the scares and the wrap-up.  A lot of scares employ the something's-there-then-a-character-blocks-the-frame-for-a-moment-then-it's-gone method, or vice-versa.  This is uncalled for in a movie of this type--of any type really.  It's insulting to the audience.  Although I can say that there were a few times the scares were setup to be predictable and then drew out past the moment of predictability, effectively raising the audience's pulse.  One of the best scares in the movie occurs at the beginning, when Olson is under a table and a glass bottle rolls across the floor.  (What occurs next is the actual good scare I'm referring to.)  If the film had maintained this type of form, I'd have been sold.

Then there's the wrap-up.  Oh! after all that disappointing middle layer, we're given no icing and no cherry on top.  Instead we're given this bizarre genre mix that is out-of-place and too far of a stretch to wow or emphiphanize (I think I made that word up) the audience.  The film is going, going, going, then it just turns and rapidly spits out what seems to be several different attempts at an ending.  Then, finally, one official turn and The End.  Then credits--but not cool credits like the original.  And I'm sitting there lamenting over what could have been a great film.  So, my final assessment is tough because it's really 3 dips into different genres: it begins as subtle psychological thriller, then haunted house, then home invasion, then killer, then survival, then mystery, then supernatural, then back to psychological.  And if you're into that, so much the better.  For me, I'd be delighted to re-watch only the first 20 minutes of this one.

Let Me In (2010)

Rating: A

Seeing as how I picked the original Swedish film, Låt den rätte komma in, as the #1 DVD Release for 2009, I had vehemently sided with the group who truculently cried foul about an American remake...a year after the original...for seemingly no other reason than the "language barrier." So, yeah, I began the film with my arms folded, stubborn, bordering on disgusted. I might have muttered once or twice about how pointless the effort was. But, man, was this an excellent movie, let alone the absolute best remake I've ever seen, bar none.

And to think: Let Me In is helmed by Matt Reeves, director of Cloverfield, which I truly did not care for. Could be, I was at the end of my tolerance for overly shaky hand-held cam movies, but Cloverfield just didn't do it for me. Enough about that, though; I'm a Matt Reeves fan now. Just like that! Two new favorite directors within one week: first Adam Green and now Matt Reeves. This is some of the best cinematography I've seen in American horror. Terrific angles, superb lighting. Reeves captures and maintains the snow-laden bleakness and the 1980s setting of the novel (surely by now it's well known that this is a remake of a movie that was an adaptation of a novel), despite moving the locale from Sweden to Los Alamos, New Mexico. The only visual design I wish had been omitted was Abby's (i.e. Eli's) ocular effects and her erratic X-Menesque movements, both of which took a bathetic dip toward cheesy.

Aside from being beautifully shot, Reeves did a great job with the tone of the film. Somehow (and this is something I was worried about) the film tends more toward a darker, more horror genre film without losing the slow-burn coming-of-age character drama. The two genres are well balanced. There are moments, especially during the procurement of lifeblood, that are brilliantly chilling. And the tension between Owen and the bullies at school is so perfectly depicted, that, by the end, I felt terrified for Owen, the tension was palpable in a way I actually did not feel with the original. Furthermore, the film renders the sadness of Abby's harrowing existential situation and Owen's disheartening filial dilemmas. It's been a while since I've seen a horror movie that can both chill my skin and and genuinely tug at my emotions.

This is absolutely worth checking out. A big thank-you to Carl over at I Like Horror Movies for talking me into watching Let Me In with his recent review. Even if you're an Original Film Puritan, get a copy and give it a chance. This is a remake done right!

Friday the 13th (2009)

The movie starts off with the climax of the original first installment.