Sometimes hitting the multiplex just isn’t in the cards. That’s when cable, the web and streaming step in to provide an instant movie fix. But how to separate the wheat from the chaff? I’m happy to help; every week I’ll pick a flick and see if it’s worth your time. This week it’s the documentary “Forks Over Knives”.

The Story: This documentary takes a cold, hard look at how Americans eat, and how what we decide to shove into our gaping maw affects how crappy we feel. And, how if we switch things around, how the food we put into our bodies could possibly make us feel better, and reverse health problems. Wait, so Ding-Dongs and grape soda aren’t good for me?

The Good: TONS of research went into this documentary, and it’s covered in a way that keeps viewers interested. Forks Over Knives not only throws research evidence at you, it follows test subjects in a personal way. Forks Over Knives introduces you to many different men and women who for one reason or another have been in studies or have found these doctors as a last-gasp effort to be more healthy. These people tell you in their own words how their lives and/or bodies have changed by switching to a plant based (or, in some instances, “plant strong”) diet, and not a one of ‘em sounds like a cult member. Dr. Campbell of Cornell University and Dr. Esselstyn of the Cleveland Clinic — the doctors that lead the way in this research — are personable, and incredibly hands-on, and the movie follows them through their careers to show how these docs came up with their ideas.  The director himself gets in on the diet-switch, and we get to see him and his bloodwork before and after his very own guinea pig-dom; think of this movie as Un-Super Size Me.  By the way, fellas, wanna know how to ditch Viagra and still be a hit with the lay-deez? Forks Over Knives’ll show you exactly how and why what you eat can affect how you get your groove on. And who knew badass Ultimate Figher Mac Danzig was a vegan?

The Bad: Though this is a very interesting documentary that has so much information on how a whole plant-based diet helps you live a healthier life, at times it seems a bit heavy handed. There’s no middle ground here; you live an oil-free, vegan way of life, or you’re doomed to a life less healthy. And I like my EVOO and Miracle Whip (yeah, I’m one of those people) too much to give ‘em up. Then again, any all-or-nothing message repeated over and over again in the course of an hour and half starts to feel a bit oppressive. Yeah, yeah, yeah; of course they’re right. Anyone who doesn’t think eating healthier would be better for them is an idiot. But we’re all a bunch of lazy putzes who would rather eat a handful of Cheetos than grapes, so I have a feeling this is a documentary that will mostly be preaching to the converted instead of those who need saving.

The Everything Else: There’s a cute animated segment in the beginning of the documentary that shows viewers how animals are pleasure seekers, thanks to the roaming of an adorably drawn great white shark. Next Shark Week I’ll be picturing them all in Hawaiian shirts & sunglasses. The pieces of old footage from the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s showing how we were taught how to eat are adorably retro now, especially so after all the information this documentary throws down.

Here’s the breakdown:
Would I watch it again?: Absolutely! In fact, in light of what I had for lunch, I probably should watch it again right now.
Should you see it?: Everyone should see this film. Period.  Force yourself if you have to.  Whether or not it’s all true, it makes you re-evaluate your choices and asks you to live a better life. Not too shabby.
Netflix average rating: 4 ½ Stars
My rating: 5 Stars

Sometimes hitting the multiplex just isn’t in the cards. That’s when cable, the web and streaming step in to provide an instant movie fix. But how to separate the wheat from the chaff? I’m happy to help; every week I’ll pick a flick and see if it’s worth your time. This week it’s the 2011 remake of “Arthur”.

The Story: Okay, so there’s this crazy-rich wealthy dude who hasn’t grown up even though he’s in his 30’s. He’s got a hella drinking problem that causes his family no end of concern. Solution? Marry the guy off to a straightlaced gal, and tell him if he doesn’t go for it he’s cut off. But then he meets the fantastic girl…and it sure ain’t the one mummy picked.  Sound familiar? Of course it is; this is the remake of the super-popular 1981 romantic comedy/drunk-dudes-are-loveable film of the same name. Swap English dude Dudley Moore with English dude Russell Brand…and you have a surprisingly well-done movie that keeps the drunken lout just as loveable as when we first met him all those years ago, but moves him into the 21st Century.

The Good: This isn’t the role Russell Brand was meant to play — that’d be Aldous Snow from Get Him to the Greek and Forgetting Sarah Marshall — but damn if he doesn’t make a fine drunken rich bum. He’s got the childlike quality of Moore’s drunken rich bum, but a bit more charisma and a certain je ne sai slacker that’s perfect for today’s modern lazy-ass 30-something. Helen Mirren doesn’t slide into Sir John Gielgud’s shoes as much as she re-defines the character of Arthur’s nanny/chaperone/conscience and completely owns it. Jason Winer’s ability to take all-out-crazy scenes and make them play like just another day is obviously a skill he honed on Modern Family, and one that can’t be overemphasized. This film could have easily slipped into needless slapstick, but even at it’s craziest the situations ring true. Bonus points for the touching shout-out to Steve Gordon, the director of the original Arthur, who died of a heart attack at age 44. This Arthur’s father shares a similar fate.

The Bad: As much as I wanted to love Jennifer Gardner’s whackjob golddigger Susan, it just doesn’t play true. But Gardner gets mucho bonus points for going for it with gusto, and for so obviously enjoying herself in the role. (You haven’t lived ‘til you’ve seen her meow like a kitty.) I couldn’t help but agree with Susan on one topic; how in the world could a man that is poised to take the reins of a multi-national business not have even the slightest idea of how to handle himself in the business world? It plays for laughs, sure, but when Arthur tries to work and fails ever so miserably, it’s pushed a little too far. Speaking of miserable, the remake of “Arthur’s Theme (Best That You Can Do)” feels insipid and dull now. It just doesn’t fit the goofy, manic pace of this film. Luckily it only plays at the end credits.

The Everything Else: This go-round tones down the drinking a bit; instead of Arthur staggering around and passing out in churches, we have him throwing rowdy parties where he picks up all sorts of women (and according to Hobson, all sorts of diseases if he doesn’t hurry up and wash his winky). To keep things a bit more realistic, our modern-day Arthur does dabble with recreational drugs, but not onscreen. But all the scenes of his opulent wealth, and the ways in which he uses it, have a lovely, childlike grandeur about them, and that keeps our new Arthur and his lady love fresh, fun and fabulous in this new century.

Here’s the breakdown:
Would I watch it again?: Why not? It’s cute, it’s funny and it could turn into a drink-along-with-Arthur game with a handful of friends.
Should you see it?: If you think remaking the original is outright blasphemy, probably not. But if you’re open to a new drunk in town, this film is a good time even if you don’t have a magnetized bed.
Netflix average rating: 3 ½ Stars
My rating: 4 Stars

Sometimes hitting the multiplex just isn’t in the cards. That’s when cable, the web and streaming step in to provide an instant movie fix. But how to separate the wheat from the chaff? I’m happy to help; every week I’ll pick a flick and see if it’s worth your time. This week it’s “The Inheritance”.

The Story: Oh look, it’s a family reunion.  The young twenty/thirty-somethings of the families all meet up at a huge house in the middle of nowhere.  What to do?  The cousins drink a little drink, smoke a little smoke, and meet their whacked-out “elders” who make booze & weed look like little kid stuff.  All thanks to Pazuzu Zuul Fred Chakabazz, a demon that is obviously pissed off because of that hideously stupid name.  So over the centuries the elders of these families have gotten together to decide who gets an “inheritance”.  Wanna know what the rest of the crew gets?  Well, it’s not a set of steak knives.

The Good: At the beginning of The Inheritance, I hoped this would be an interesting, rip-roaring ride with an African-American history backdrop, with an almost all African-American cast; a rarity in this genre.  The idea of how slaves came to their new world, and what they had to do to survive would make for a very interesting horror movie.  Get your scare on, learn a little something, and get to see the horror genre go in a direction that hasn’t been done to death.  Nice….

The Bad: But The Inheritance fails on all levels.  This film takes an interesting premise and uses it to crank out a horror movie that’s only scary when you think about the time you’ve wasted watching it.  There’s no real discussion as to how the families have fared since their humble beginnings, only that they “have money” now.  Their “chosen one” is so obvious from scene one that it kills any sense of suspense.  And the elders don’t look scary once it all goes down, they look silly.  By the way, how does the family survive when each generation needs to go through a weeding-out process that kills every member of that generation but one?  More importantly, how do I get back to the home menu on my Roku?

The Everything Else: The special effects are cheap and done with cutaway shots and haphazard editing.  And when the characters get bumped off one at a time it’s no great shame, since all we know about them is that they’re kinda related-ish.  The moral of the story is a tough one to decipher, since the story is so weakly drawn that it’s not worth following.  Maybe “be scared of wealthy old people”?

Here’s the breakdown:
Would I watch it again?: Not for love or money.  Well, maybe for money; that way I could pay for the therapy I’d need to get over re-watching this dreck.
Should you see it?: No.  Nup.  Nyet.  Try to track down The Legacy, the movie The Inheritance so obviously tried to rip off.  Or Tales from the Hood, a fun anthology of urban horror.  Or…just about anything else in your queue but this.
Netflix average rating: 2 ½ Stars
My rating: 1 Star (and that’s pushing it.)

Sometimes hitting the multiplex just isn’t in the cards. That’s when cable, the web and streaming step in to provide an instant movie fix. But how to separate the wheat from the chaff? I’m happy to help; every week I’ll pick a flick and see if it’s worth your time. This week it’s “Country Strong”.

The Story: Kelly Canter, a ZOMG-huge country music sensation, gets released from rehab early and hits the road for a “comback” tour. Tagging along is Chiles Stanton, a wannabe country singer who has trouble overcoming her stage fright, and talented honky-tonk singer Beau Hutton that Kelly says is her “counselor”. As they get closer and closer to Dallas, the site of Kelly’s pre-rehab explosion, there are ups and downs…and a lot of stuff you’ve seen before. Oh, and Gwyneth sings!

The Good: Did I mention that Gwyneth Paltrow sings? And that she’s good? So is Garrett Hedlund (Tron) as old-school crooner Beau, and “Country Barbie” Leighton Meester (Gossip Girl) as Taylor Swift-like ingenue Chiles. The songs themselves are fun to listen to, if not brief and a little repetative. (I’m guessing the producers figure you’re not here for the tunes.). And Tim McGraw does a very good job with his character, not surprising after his turn in The Blind Side. As far as the character interaction in the film, I’ve no doubt that this sort of in-fighting while on the road happens, and Kelly’s All About Eve cattiness toward Chiles is fun to watch. In these scenes, Country Strong gives viewers a feeling of watching something nobody else gets to see, a rare thing in today’s movies. Too bad there aren’t more scenes like these in the film.

The Bad: Tim McGraw never dusts off his pipes in the film — as Kelly’s manager/hubby he’s there for the actin’, not the singin’ — but he does lend his voice to a song at the end credits. But sadly that’s not the only thing wrong with this film. Country Strong chugs along on the borrowed wheels of several other, better movies before it, most notably A Star Is Born and Walk The Line. That wouldn’t be a problem if the makers of this film knew how to use these bits in a way that is fresh (or at least interesting). Unfortunately, you see every turn coming. Yawn.

The Everything Else: Country Strong does a great job of portraying arena-sized stardom, complete with thousands of screaming fans, tour buses and cramped green rooms. I’m sure there are other things that I could talk about, but to be honest? As soon as I realized where this train was heading, I switched my brain off and just waited for the film to limp to it’s played-out, maudlin conclusion.

Here’s the breakdown:
Would I watch it again?: Only if a friend asked me to. This mashup wishes it had the strength of the movies it ripped off.
Should you see it?: For big fans of Gwyneth, Leighton and Tim McGraw only. Anyone else will see the cracks around the edges. Just crank up some Patsy Cline or Hank Williams instead..
Netflix average rating: 3 Stars
My rating: 3 Stars (it gets and extra star for the excellent musical performances)

Sometimes hitting the multiplex just isn’t in the cards. That’s when cable, the web and streaming step in to provide an instant movie fix. But how to separate the wheat from the chaff? I’m happy to help; every week I’ll pick a flick and see if it’s worth your time. This week? “For Colored Girls”.

The Story: Based on the award-winning play For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Suicide When the Rainbow Is Enuf, by Ntozake Shange, it’s a story of several women whose lives intersect.  Rich, poor, married, single, saint and sinner, they all come together to show the difficulties of being an African-American woman.  This is no pleasure cruise; the topics touch on abortion, rape, promiscuity, abuse, neglect and murder.  But Shange’s beautiful prose delivers hope for a better day through the strength of friendship and sisterhood.

The Good:  Shange, Shange, Shange.  Her words don’t just hit your ears, they grab ‘em and demand that you listen.  They’re so gorgeous I almost wanted to pause the film several times just to take them in.  The all-star cast in this film seems to know how important it is to give these words their all, and they deliver amazing performances.  It’s hard to pick just one or two for special mention because they’re all so moving, but what had me sit up and take notice was Thandie Newton as a sexually promiscuous woman who covers up her uncertainty with pride so thick you could cut it with a knife.  Hollywood really needs to see this performance, and give this woman more, and better roles.  Immediately would be good.  Kimberly Elise’s performance as an assistant that tries to hide the abuse she suffers at the hands of her PTSD-suffering husband runs the gamut of emotions in this role, and nails every single one of them.  Who says there’s no good roles for women anymore?

The Bad:  Good roles, yes.  Good films?  Well not this one.  And it’s heartbreaking to see such amazing performances gone to waste.  It’s hard to be mad at Tyler Perry for attempting to bring to the screen such a moving play, but he’s bitten off more than he can chew here.  The original play’s structure doesn’t quite translate in this film, leaving some scenes feeling heavy-handed and obvious, and others feeling like glimpses into another, better film.  When the characters suddenly stop conversing with each other and spout soliloquies?  It’s difficult to hold on to the story, and the speeches sound pompous, out-of-place, and worst of all, silly.  If Perry had picked one form and stuck with it, this film could have been his master work.  As it is, it’s a half-baked idea that loses steam in all the wrong places, and that’s a shame.

The Everything Else:  Perry gets big points for attempting to bring this beautiful, heart-wrenching play to the masses.  But it’s a failed effort whose moments of greatness only serve to remind viewers of how this movie utterly fails as a whole.  Looking on the bright side, at least now I have a movie I can reference whenever anyone asks me if I’ve ever seen a bad movie with amazing performances.  For Colored Girls has the number one spot on that list in the bag.

Here’s the breakdown:
Would I watch it again?: No.  As brilliant as the performances are, the mash-up of honest character interaction and monologues that sound in no way like real speech?  Pass.
Should you see it?: Try to see if you can track down the filmed version of the play from American Playhouse, or just read Ntozake Shange’s amazing words, and let your mind be your movie.
Netflix average rating: 3 ½ Stars
My rating: 2 Stars

Sometimes hitting the multiplex just isn’t in the cards. That’s when cable, the web and streaming step in to provide an instant movie fix. But how to separate the wheat from the chaff? I’m happy to help; every week I’ll pick a flick and see if it’s worth your time. This week? The Cohen brother’s remake of “True Grit”

The Story: 14-year-old Mattie Ross  heads to a small town in Arkansas to collect the body of her father, who had been killed by a no-account drunk Tom Chaney.  Chaney also took Mattie’s father’s horse and “two California gold pieces”.  She decides to hire not the “best” U.S. Marshall to track Chaney down, but the most violent; Rooster Cogburn.  Tagging along for reasons of his own is Texas Marshall LaBoef (“La-Beef”).  And so they ride out into the great Arkansas nothingness, looking to get Mattie’s revenge on.  Oh, you know it’s not that simple, right?

The Good:  It’s the Cohen brothers, what’s not to like?  Beautifully shot, wonderfully written, with a pacing to the story that spools out the tale at a clip that entertains but leaves no-one in the dust.  Relative unknown Hailee Steinfeld plays Mattie, and if you wondered why a kid would get an Academy Award nod, you haven’t seen this performance.  Jeff Bridges abides as Rooster Cogburn (hey, he’s The Dude.  Respect it.)  He’s a dirty, borderline amoral, drunken bum with a badge.  And he’s one bad shut-yo-mouth.  Bridges can deliver layers of Cogburn in one glance, and his shootin’ prowess scene with Damon’s LaBoef is hilarious and touching, all thanks to Bridges’ amazing performance.  Matt Damon as LaBoef shows that he can completely inhabit a character that isn’t Jason Bourne.  This could have easily been played tongue-in-cheek, but instead it plays in deadly earnest.  And damn if it doesn’t work.  Plus, True Grit has one of the badass-iest minimalist-throwback movie posters I’ve seen in quite a long time.

The Bad:  Um..uh…well, I didn’t like how I had to do a double-take to recognize Josh Brolin, maybe?  He’s got a face you can recognize at 100 clips, but playing Tom Chaney his usually grizzled facade is a bit indistinct.  As if the character himself is as flat as the planes of his face.  And the no-slang-havin’ speech of the characters here sometimes had me giggling, which pulled me out of the film for a second or two.  But it’s completely appropriate for it’s setting, however backward our speech has become nowadays.

The Everything Else:  Gritty.  Earthy.  Real.  That pretty much sums up all of the Cohen oeuvre, but it goes double here.  Much as with No Country for Old Men and O Brother, Where Art Thou?, the Cohen brother’s Wild Wild West is a desolate, dusty place that holds no hope of sanctuary.  It’s been said that this version hews closer to Charles Portis’ novel than the John Wayne version shot in ‘69.  But these are different times, and we as moviegoers require no whitewash to pretty up the harsh realities of living in the American West of the late 1800s.  I wish I could talk about the music here – O Brother’s soundtrack is still among my top 5 — but I was too busy enjoying the performances to focus on much else.  When a film grabs my attention and holds it fast throughout, that ain’t a bad thing.

Here’s the breakdown:
Would I watch it again?: Absolutely.  Another viewing would let me focus on the nuances of the performances, as well a the brilliant writing.
Should you see it?: Absolutely, part deux.  Fans of the Cohen brothers…well, y’all have probably seen this already.  If you didn’t catch it at the multiplex late last year, or during Oscar season, grab this puppy on Netflix/Redbox/On Demand/however-all.  Critics picked it as one of the best movies of 2010 for good reason.  It’s a great piece of filmmaking.
Netflix average rating: 4 Stars
My rating: 4 Stars

Sometimes hitting the multiplex just isn’t in the cards. That’s when cable, the web and streaming step in to provide an instant movie fix. But how to separate the wheat from the chaff? I’m happy to help; every week I’ll pick a flick and see if it’s worth your time. This week? “Red Riding Hood”

The Story: Valerie lives in a village that, well, looks like M. Night Shyamalan’s The Village. Lots of timber, dirt and snow. Any wonder she wants to run away with her love Peter? The fact that her mom just made a marriage contract for Valerie to marry Henry isn’t making it tempting to stay, either. Just when Valerie and Peter decide to blow this popsicle stand, there’s a murder in the village. Seems that there were killings years ago, done by a rather vicious wolf. Killings that stopped when the villagers decided to placate a wolf by sacrificing their best livestock each year. Now that doesn’t seem good enough. Enter Solomon the werewolf hunter. But what’s worse; the Big Bad Wolf or those sworn to defeat it?

The Good: You’ve gotta love it when Gary Oldman gets to play batshit. And with this Were-finder General role, there is plenty of scene-chewing, literally and figuratively. Amanda Seyfried (Mama Mia, Big Love) plays Valerie/Red, all ethereal beauty and fire. How could Red not be gorgeous, with Julia Christie as her grandmother? (And what is Christie doing here, anyway; is she behind on her mortgage?)

There are enough twists and turns in Red Riding Hood to keep viewers guessing, and tons of gorgeous scenery to look at while the story unfolds. Bonus points for throwing in beautifully done art-school shots of long flowing red capes. Red Riding Hood manages to straddle entertainment and art without doing a disservice to either. Nice trick.

The Bad: When Big Bad W is revealed? It’s more of a whimper than a howl. What a shame. With all the obvious work that went into art direction, cinematography and set design, to dump a clunker of an ending is a disgrace. Catherine Hardwicke (Thirteen, Twilight, Lords of Dogtown) should know better.

And the big love triangle? Sure, there’s a love triangle here, but there’s no real heat between anyone. One character seems to love Valerie just because it says so in the script, and since there’s no real history behind the characters, there’s no clear reason for her to choose either of them. The love scenes seem uncomfortable for the actors, and with no real chemistry, I was rooting for Red to just pick up and leave everything far, far behind. That’s a new twist I’d like to see. Future filmmakers? You’re Welcome.

The Everything Else: There’s an interesting side-story about Valerie’s mother that I would have liked to have seen fleshed out a bit more. Since the film runs at a little under an hour and forty-five minutes, a few extra bits of non-verbal communication here and there would have made things a bit more interesting, while keeping the mystery front and center.

The effects are well done, from The Big Bad Wolf to Solomon’s creepy silver fingernails. The cinematography is crisp, clear and sets the mood of the film from the first frame. There’s a focus on the red of Valerie’s “hood” and the white, black and grey of the village. Wolf scenes are handled well, with quick cuts; editing this good is a welcome surprise for what is essentially a throw-away movie dumped into the post-awards season wasteland.

Here’s the breakdown:
Would I watch it again?: Yep. Even though the “romance” is bland and not a little bit forced, Oldman is at his usual Method acting creepy best, Seyfried does a lovely job, and the story has a weird-artsy vibe to it.  Plus, I want to take a closer look at Grandmother’s house.  It’s pretty awesome.
Should you see it?: As long as you’re not expecting the run-of-the mill fairy tale — or even thinking about letting your young kids watch it (Just Say No, people) — it’s a fun way to enjoy the current were-craze without hitting the usual overtired storylines. Just don’t expect much, and you’ll enjoy yourself.
Netflix average rating: 3 Stars
My rating: 3 Stars

Sometimes hitting the multiplex just isn’t in the cards. That’s when cable, the web and streaming step in to provide an instant movie fix. But how to separate the wheat from the chaff? I’m happy to help; every week I’ll pick a flick and see if it’s worth your time. This week? “Let Me In”

It used to be that Hollywood had the common decency to wait a decade or so before remaking movies. No longer. Probably because nobody in Hollywood can come up with a decent new idea. The latest fad? Stealing, er, re-imagining films from the land of the Vikings. Let Me In, a re-telling of Norway’s Låt den rätte komma in (Let The Right One In), joins Insomnia, Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and Troll Hunter as part of the new wave of remakes from the land of ice and snow.  It’s a film that lives up to it’s original, though I couldn’t help but wish for a tweak here and there.

Set in 1983, Let Me In tells the story of a little nerdling named Owen, and the friendship he strikes up with his new neighbor Abby. Since Owen plays at being a serial killer when he’s home alone and doesn’t exactly have sterling social skills, who is he to think badly of a little girl that doesn’t wear shoes (ever) or has all the windows in her apartment covered with cardboard? But soon even Owen has to admit that something weird is going on with Abby. And when bodies start stacking up like cordwood, Owen figures out the truth, and, you guessed it, it changes his life.

Here’s the thing; Owen is just too damn creepy to root for. Though the scenes where he gets teased and bullied are horrible to watch (and amazingly well acted by all involved), his is the type of kid that even the lowest rung of the pre-teen social ladder would have passed by, and with good cause.   Owen is the kind of kid that is a bit too into pretending to kill people while wearing a creepy mask, or spying on his neighbors with his telescope, or mouthbreathing.  All I could do was imagine him as the next “film at 11″ serial killer on the news, instead of the kid you’re supposed to identify with.  I’m assuming, of course, that we’re not supposed to be thinking that the vampire is the one that made the poor choice with the whole friending the neighbor thing.  Chalk it up to Kodi Smit-McPhee, whose wide-eyed gazing served him well in The Road, but seems one-note (and off-putting) here.

Abby is much more interesting, but since her whole job in the movie is to be an enigma, we’re only given brief glimpses into her (un)life. Chloe Moretz (or, Chloë Grace Moretz, as she is credited in this film) does bring the amazing acting chops she showed off in Kick-Ass to this film, giving a world-weary performance that is utterly believable. What makes Abby better than most of the vamps currently bouncing around is Moretz’s ability to project a loneliness that is almost palpable, along with a wish for connection and friendship, even after all she’s seen and done. Richard Jenkins (Burn After Reading) as Abby’s damned-if-he-does Renfield, and Elias Koteas (The Prophecy) as the cop trying to find out the truth also shine here, though their screen time is brief in comparison to the two young stars.

The cinematography here mimics that of the original film, with dim lighting, faded colors and sharp contrasts between light and dark. The special effects are just as darkly lit, and often shown in full/wide shot, and that’s a good thing. Yeah, it’s fun to see close-ups of effects, but when the camera isn’t so close viewers can focus on the action itself, instead of the latex or stop motion,. The most violent scene in the film is told from Owen’s point-of-view, so viewers can’t see much more than blood and the occasional body part. And it’s an awesome scene, all the better for what you can’t see and have to imagine. Vamp-wise, Abby doesn’t go all Vampira on us, and the bits of vampire-ness we do get to see are just enough to be creepy. Matt Reeves (Cloverfield) gets 1983 right, with rubix cubes, The Culture Club and Pac-Man. Reeves also knows his way around a camera, using just the right shot to focus on emotion, build suspense, or give some serious gross out.

Let Me In is a well done movie, and it stand alongside it’s Norwegian counterpart. Unfortunately, all the good this film delivers couldn’t get me past a main character that I wasn’t able to root for.

Here’s the breakdown:
Would I watch it again?: Not really, though it may grown on me in time like the original did. Though Owen didn’t flip my empathy switch, Abby most certainly did.
Should you see it?: If you’d like to compare/contrast this film with the original, by all means. Let Me In also works as an “off the beaten path” film for Halloween or fright fests if you’re looking for something more than your typical blood-instead-of-talent slasher flick.
Netflix average rating: 3 Stars out of 5
My rating: 3 Stars