So, Let Me In is an English language remake of Let the Right One In, the brilliant Swedish vampire film from last year. (OK, that’s the last time.) It follows the same plot, boy is bullied at school, boy meets girl (well.. sort of girl), boy falls in love with girl, stuff happens, everyone leaves happy (ish). Again there are people out there who are screaming “THAT’S JUST TWILIGHT WITH TWELVE YEAR OLDS!” at their screen, but you’re wrong, almost as wrong as when you said it about the original (really, last time I’ll mention it.)

The acting from the child leads is brilliant. The male lead, a boy called Oscar Owen, is played by Kodi Smit-McPhee. You may remember him from another literary adaptation earlier this year, The Road. He was great in that, he’s great in this. The girl here, Eli Abby, is played by another (hopefully) familiar name, Chloe Moretz. She was the one who played Hit Girl in yet another literary (comic book this time) adaptation called Kick-Ass. The actors have previously proven they can act, and they don’t really disappoint here, except in comparison to the actors from the Swedish version. (Sorry, it slipped out.)

The change of title should really tell you all you need to know about the difference from the original book or film. Let the Right One In is a piece of advice. It’s not telling you what to do, it’s letting you choose. Let Me In is giving you an instruction. You don’t really have a choice. If, for instance, one person catches fire in the original, two people will do it here. If someone is attacked by a vampire in a long shot, you can probably expect a close-up. If there’s a hint of someone’s past, you’ll see some photos. And don’t expect “subtle” CGI here.

This doesn’t make the film bad. As a standalone piece I’d even be tempted to call this a good film, and if you haven’t read the book or seen the Swedish film, then you’ll probably come out happy. But this isn’t a standalone film. This has a history. It’s based on a best-selling book, and a very well written one at that. It’s an English-language remake of a Swedish film, a Swedish film that sets the bar very high.

For this film to be “good” to me it had to get close to that bar. And whilst it tried, and it really did try, it didn’t really come close. I’m torn on whether I should recommend this film to you. Which is strange because I know that I should.

The acting’s great, the story is great, and all considered the film is a good film. But it doesn’t need to exist, and it all the way through I found myself wishing I was watching the original.

So go and see this if you must, but if you don’t see the Swedish version first you will be depriving yourself of a wonderful, magical, experience.

MTFBWY

GameCity 5

The festival is GameCity and this is the fifth year it’s been here. I missed the first two, mainly due to living 140 miles down the country, but my first experience of the festival was one I’m unlikely to forget in a hurry. It was GameCity 3 and I was dressed as a zombie, danced to thriller, watched Jonathan Coulton and got a world record. The following year saw some live Crysis, a LEGO music festival and general great fun, this year, however, I really threw myself into it.

I went to some breakfasts run by Keith Stewart from The Guardian, saw some great people talk about remakes, listened to Jonathan Blow do a developer commentary of Braid. Played some games and went to a stand-up comedy show starring three professional comedians and the three presenters of One Life Left. And that was just day one.

It may be a bit boring for you if I now listed everything I did in the following three days, but let’s just say that I played Spy Party, saw Greig Stewart play his Theremin and Laser Harp, saw Jonathan Blow’s upcoming game The Witness, saw people run around Nottingham playing Urban PacMan and visited Mario’s birthday tea party. All topped off with a drink (or four) in a bar with some very nice people.

So that’s a nice quick rundown of what a great festival we’ve had, and probably comes nowhere near doing justice to the fun that was had. The guys at More to the Game have asked me to do some writeups for them, which I’ll get round to at some point soon-ish and post them here as well as their site.

But for now let me just say that this year’s GameCity was the biggest and the best so far, and I will be very disappointed if I can’t find a way to attend next years.

It’s really easy to explain, it is 95 minutes of one man, in a box, under the ground. That’s it. Well, almost it. There is a blackberry (yes, product placement even reaches this far under ground) and as such there are voices on the other end of the phone, but the film is carried by one man.

Some of you will remember I Am Legend which was carried by Will Smith, alone, for the majority of its runtime, but this is entirely upon the shoulders of Ryan Reynolds (the man who will be hitting our screens as Deadpool in a few years.) Back then I said there were very few people who could carry a film alone and that Smith was one. Well Reynolds certainly deserves a place on that list after this film. The fact that he held the film together so brilliantly whilst it was set in a single location makes his performance even more notable.

I’ve occasionally complained here of other people in the cinema. Be it a projectionist who can’t project, a teenager who can’t stop talking or a person who lights up the screen with their phone, but today I was exposed to another person I didn’t like. I had been near a couple throughout the film and as I was leaving the woman turned to the man and said (although this has been cleaned up somewhat) “Well that was poo, I could have made that for £10.” Now, there are a few problems with this. The least of which being that the Blackberry used would have blown that budget immediately. There’s also the fact that big budget movies aren’t always any good (Pirates of the Caribbean, Transformers, Avatar, Titanic, 2012… I could go on) and then there’s the fact that the film was good.

This film proves something I have long believed to be true. It doesn’t matter what sets you have, it doesn’t matter what big name starts are in your film, what matters is the content. This film is emotionally engaging. Reynolds goes from anger, through pain, up to joy and down to bitter disappointment with plenty more in the middle. And you don’t just see it, you go through it with him. Money doesn’t buy you that, if it did this film would have been the biggest budget film of the year, even the decade (and Avatar would have cost about 10p.)

Rodrigo Cortés appear to have found more space for cameras inside a coffin that anyone would have thought possible. I don’t think there is an inch of that coffin I hadn’t seen bu the end of the film, and that’s not just because it was so small.

It is probably worth noting that the film is rated a 15 by the BBFC (R in America) for “some strong language, including one use of very strong language, and sustained threat and menace.” That “very strong language” is justified at 15 because it:

comes when the sole on-screen character in the film is under extreme duress and screams the word in impotent rage at a dead telephone…  The fact that the intended recipient of this invective was unable to hear it, and the fact that the man is almost hysterical with fear and anger at this stage, provided a compelling context for this single use of very strong language to be contained at ’15′.

Thanks again BBFC for providing a brilliant review of the film for me.

So yes Buried is a gamble. It relied on good old fashioned acting from one man to carry the film for 95 minutes. It didn’t need lots of massive CGI, scantily clad ladies leaning on cars, or anything like that. For me that gamble paid off. And it paid off big time.

If you are of the opinion that only films with a massive budget can be good, and aren’t willing to embrace any other idea, stay away. But if you are willing to try something different, and you appreciate good depth to characters, watch Buried.

Though maybe not if you’re extremely claustrophobic.

MTFBWY

Shortly after I went to bed last night the internet learnt something. Something that caused millions of voices to yell out. Jar Jar Binks is returning to the big screen. Along with Young Anakin, Qui Gon Jinn, Darth Maul and everyone else. That’s right, Star Wars is coming back to cinemas. In 3D.

Anyone who keeps up with me on this blog knows my feelings on 3D. Anyone who follows me on Twitter knows it too. Especially if you also follow some other people who regularly wish to debate 3D’s merits with me. And as you all know I’m not one to apply double standards to something just because I’m a fanboy. That is until it comes to Star Wars. I’m not going to slate this right off the bat. How could I? I have a strict “no reviews unless I’ve seen the film” policy here, and, as much as it may seem otherwise, I try to keep a vaguely open mind when I see a film. Now, I know the Star Wars films forwards, backwards, with no visuals, with no sound, upside down, through a brick wall, you name it, I know it. I also stick to my guns about 3D changing nothing with a film. For that reason I don’t need to worry too much.

The question is, will I be immersed more. Judging by my experience with the 3D and 2D versions of films like Avatar, Up and Toy Story 3, the answer is no. It’s also hard for me to imagine becoming more immersed in a Star Wars film, but I need to give credit to ILM, and assume John Knoll wasn’t lying when he said:

For Star Wars we will take our time, applying everything we know both aesthetically and technically to bring audiences a fantastic new Star Wars experience.

I will also try to hold back my laugh at the press release stating:

the Star Wars Saga has always delivered an entertainment experience that is completely immersive. Presented by Twentieth Century Fox and Lucasfilm Ltd., the cutting edge conversion will take that immersion to the next thrilling level, with Industrial Light & Magic supervising the project.

I honestly don’t care about 3D. The fad has passed, it wasn’t great with Avatar, it wasn’t great for Clash of the Titans and it was only a “fun thing” for Piranha 3D (Still the best 3D film I’ve seen). But I do care about seeing Star Wars on a big screen again. I gave my reasons, earlier this month, for why I don’t hate the prequels, this isn’t quite the same. I defended the “Special Editions“, and this is kinda different.

TPM Will be the first 3D Star Wars release in 2012

It’s not the same as the first prequel release because this isn’t new, it isn’t really different, but it is putting Star Wars where it belongs again, on a big screen. The Special Editions “re-wrote” some Star Wars, and only some of them on the big screen. 3D doesn’t change the film, it slaps some new fangled technology on top and makes things pointy. I won’t be going to see this film because it’s Star Wars 3D. The same reason I didn’t go to see The Clone Wars film for the animation style. I went because it was a Star Wars film, and I could be in a cinema with that special atmosphere again. That is why I will see The Phantom Menace in 3D. I’ve never seen another film in the cinema that can generate that same feeling as Star Wars.

People clap, people cheer, people love Star Wars. It drags you in, you live that universe, and you love it. Star Wars in theatres is great. Star Wars in theatres is at home. Star Wars in 3D… Well, we’ll have to wait and see.

MTFBWY

First I want to tackle a small problem with using the term “Special Edition” to describe Star Wars releases. A lot of people use the term to refer to any changes made after the 1977 release of the film, but in truth there have been many different points that the original film changed between the theatrical releases of Episodes IV, V and VI and now that simply blaming the 1997 theatrical release is a tad simplistic. “Han shot first” is the cry of many fanboys, “Where’s the Ewok dance?” from some others, but rarely do you hear a cry of “Why does he say ‘Close the blast doors?’” or “He wants to know where Biggs is, not Wedge.”

You could say that those tiny dialogue changes mean nothing whereas Han not shooting first is a complete change in character, and to a degree I am inclined to agree, but it’s worth noting at what point these changes occurred. Blade Runner fans have so many different versions of their films, with so many large changes it’s often regarded as the most edited film ever, but let me just list the different versions of Star Wars (The first one, episode IV, A New Hope).  Since its theatrical release in 1977 there has been the theatrical re-release in ’81 where they added the episode number to the crawl and there were soundtrack/dialogue changes, ’85 saw the VHS and laserdisc release with remastered sound, there’s the ’93 Laserdisc edition with more sound changes and that bit in the canyon being darkened, the 1995 “Faces” VHS/Laserdisc releases weren’t really changed from the ’93 laserdiscs but it’s still a variant, We then have the 1997 remaster with, among others, the famous change to Han’s shooting, and then we have the 2004 DVD release with the re-re-edited Han Vs. Greedo where they shoot at almost the same time. There’s also been a rumour of some soundtrack changes being made up at Skywalker Ranch, which could mean the 2011 Blu Ray release will be yet another variation.

So that’s 7 “remastered” versions, each has its own differences, some carrying through to later versions, some being dropped, some being edited again. I don’t really have the patience to sit here and list every change in every film, but thankfully I don’t have to, someone at Wikipedia already has. Reading through that list you will see really obvious changes, and no I won’t mention that scene again, like the addition of moving Dewbacks, added effects shots, even the added Jabba scene. People bemoan the replacement of Sebastian Shaw with Hayden Christensen at the end of the 2004 Return of the Jedi DVD, and again I almost agree. The thing is, I don’t hate the special editions.

The first time I saw Star Wars was a VHS copy, presumably the Faces release though I was five or six so can’t really remember, the first time in the cinema, however was the 1977 theatrical “special edition”. Whether that blinds me to the fact Han should shoot first or not I don’t know, but I was 7 and was still amazed, and for me that’s the difference between Star Wars fans.

When you’re a kid you don’t care who shoots first, you just care that the good guy wins, You don’t really notice whether the fireworks are all over the galaxy instead of Ewoks dancing, and you really don’t care how many times Lando says “attention” and that’s the point. Sure it might make a difference when you’re older and you go back and think “Hey, maybe that does change Solo’s character” or “Actually I kinda like that ‘Yub Nub’ song”, but when you watch the films as a kid, it doesn’t matter. And Star Wars is for kids.

The main reason for this rant comes from the people all over the internet complaining that the Blu Ray release next year will probably have the remastered edition, and that they want a cleaned up cut of the 1977 theatrical release, and how George doesn’t care what the fans think. Well let me just remind you people that you got a theatrical release on DVD in 2006. It might not have been the cleanest print in the world, but they were old prints of an old film, what were you expecting? You got what you wanted and you moaned more, are you surprised George is going to ignore you?

I love Star Wars no matter what edition it is. It transports me to a galaxy far, far away whether it’s the 1977 print or the 2004 print. For that reason I, like many other Star Wars fans, will be buying the Blu Ray and I will be transported to that place again. If you are stuck in the 70s and 80s, and you hate George Lucas for “ruining your childhood” I have a news flash for you. You don’t need to buy the Blu Ray the same way you didn’t need to buy those DVDs.

It’s Star Wars. If you don’t like it that’s fine, but don’t claim to like something just so you can moan about it and pretend you have a right. because I have news for you.

That means you aint a Star Wars fan.

MTFBWY

Let’s get straight to it and say that the acting isn’t going to be winning any Oscars. There aren’t any great set pieces that are going to blow you away, and if you’re looking for an enjoyably complex story and deep characterisation you’re definitely looking at the wrong film. But this is a trashy 70′s B-movie horror through and through, and it knows it.

From the opening scene you know what you’re getting. It’s a comedy horror that really knows where its roots, and strengths, lie. With an opening starring Richard Dreyfuss in true Jaws style the film gets off to a flying start. The original piranha sets out the story being about military research going wrong and piranhas being unleashed on an unsuspecting population. This “remake” changes the story slightly with an earthquake opening up a trench and releasing thousands of the pre-historic flesh eaters into a lake where college students are enjoying spring break. It’s not giving too much away, however, to say that, like the original, the ending does leave the opportunity for a sequel very open.

Those who have seen the original Piranha know that of all the Jaws rip-offs we had at that time, it was pretty much the best. The balance of humour and suspense, and in that way Piranha 3D is a true remake. The humour in Piranha 3D had me, and indeed the other 7 people in the 600-ish seat screen, laughing out loud. The quiet that descended during the more suspenseful moments was a stark contrast and proof that the art of making a B-movie comedy horror is not dead.

So how about that exceptionally large elephant in the room. The one wearing the silly glasses. Well you are now expecting me to ignore the fact I had great fun with the film, laughing, cowering, jumping, and generally loving every minute and say the 3D was horrible and I want it in 2D. Well, I’m sorry to disappoint you, but I won’t be saying that for one simple reason. In Clash of the Titans and Alice in Wonderland the 3D really did look tacked on. In Toy Story 3 3D nothing changed from Toy Story 3 2D to make me enjoy the film more or less. Even in the “holy grail” of 3D films, at least that what it’s supposed to be according to some people, Avatar I was left feeling that the world felt a lot more real without the dimness and colour loss brought on by the 3D when compared to the 2D version. But with piranha I didn’t get that. I loved the way the film makers treated the technology. So often we have heard people like “the great” James Cameron, great what I can’t say for fear of being taken off the internet, that this “new” 3D is special, and immerses you more and adds so much to a film, blah blah blah, give us more money, but the makers of Piranha know that’s a load of rubbish. They see through it the way the other horror people saw through it when we still had red and blue glasses.

3D is a cheap trick that can be exploited for fun. I moan so much about deep canyons and pointy sticks being used in 3D because that’s all it’s good for, and lo and behold I’m praising Piranha for using that. Why? Because they are doing it with the same humour they used to approach the rest of the film. There’s a reason you see “3D” and “4D” shows in theme parks as rides and attractions.

James Cameron had the nerve to insult Piranha for “cheapening” 3D, and accused them of “last few drops of blood out of the turnip” by charging the extra price for 3D. This coming from the guy who sold Dances with Smurfs purely on the fact it was “new 3D” and is re-releasing Titanic in 3D. No double standards with Jim. No sir. Maybe he’s still mad about how badly he handled Piranha 2. Yes James, that was your first feature film, not Terminator, and yes, you were as good as fired.

The film’s an 18 because of the “strong gory horror” and the “frequent strong language, scenes of sexualised nudity and some moderate sex references.” So those who are easily offended may wish to steer clear, but you know what, scantily clad ladies and a severed penis isn’t what this film is about.

It’s about fun, and that’s what this film is. And that’s where 3D should stay.

MTFBWY

For those unfamiliar with the source material, it tells the story of a 22 year old called Scott Pilgrim who falls in love with the girl of his dreams, literally, but finds that dating her won’t be as easy as he imagined. This is mainly because of her seven evil ex-boyfriends exes, who Scott must battle defeat.

I want to state now that I love the books. They have great humour and O’Malley works wonders with developing the characters making you switch sides on aspects as you start to learn more. This carries over well to the screen, and whilst the visuals often outshine anything else on the screen it doesn’t do so in a way that makes you wish it was more subtle. The fast pace and humour keep you on your toes and don’t fall into that trap many films about “youth” do in leaving older audience members behind.

From the moment a Commodore-64 inspired opening hits the screen you know what you are going to see will be special. We hear a lot about “immersion” in films at the moment, and its relation to a certain “technological advance”, but this film is truly immersive. It’s such a spellbinding film that you are drawn into this world and for 112 minutes it doesn’t matter what’s shown on screen, you believe it.

Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World is an utterly amazing piece of work from Edgar Wright with brilliant visuals and a brilliant soundtrack. It doesn’t matter if you;ve read the books or not, though I strongly suggest you do, this film is a brilliant experience and well worth watching.

MTFBWY

It's all one story

More specifically the prequels. Episodes I-III were a long time coming for many fans, not quite so for those of us born in the nineties, but no matter how old you were, if you knew about Star Wars you wanted to see these films, and you were quite excited for the release. After it hit the big silver screen the fans split. Haters on one side, lovers on the other. I will admit to having had a period where I didn’t really like the prequels at all, but then I watched them again, and realised I was wrong. OK so they aren’t perfect, but then what film is? The acting wasn’t top class all the way, the dialogue was a bit clunky in places, and maybe it didn’t have all the action of the original trilogy, but it was still Star Wars.

I was still transported to a galaxy far far away and utterly engrossed in what was happening. I liked the slightly more political side that set the groundwork for the empire, I liked the subtleties of Palpatine’s manipulation, dare I say that I even liked seeing a younger, innocent Anakin living on Tatooine with his mummy, blissfully ignorant of what his future would hold. And after a while even Jar Jar didn’t irritate me so much.

But more than just the story and how it exists in terms of those three films I like how the films parallel the OT. The trials and tribulations of Anakin through Episode II mirror very closely what happens with Luke in Episode V. If you re-watch V having seen II you see how close Luke comes to the edge of the dark side. You knew it when you saw V anyway, but after II you have that added impact of knowing how far Luke could have fallen. Like father, like son.

Vader the Chef at Celebration Europe

Then you have the impact of the films outside of the universe. Without the prequels it’s unlikely we would have the sort of fan community we have now. We just had Star Wars Celebration V, I might not have been there, but with the community how it is I wasn’t left out. There are so many fans, with so many resources among them that Youtube has video, blogs everywhere post information, and Twitter comes to life with a live stream of Star Wars fun. And, of course, with no prequels, we probably wouldn’t have Celebration at all. So the prequels didn’t just split the community, it brought them much closer together as well.

I love Star Wars. I might not love everything out there, but I love the universe, I love the characters, I love the fact that I can talk with fourteen year olds, other twenty year olds or fifty year olds, mention Star Wars, and immediately we have something in common, and without the prequels and The Clone Wars, that’d probably be where it stops. But so often I can walk around and see kids much younger with Anakin, Ahsoka or R2D2 on their T-shirts and know that it’s not just because the dads made them do it, but because they have something they can enjoy within that universe as well.

Some fans just didn't like him

You can say what you like of the prequels as films. But what they did for the Star Wars saga, and what they did for the Star Wars fan community, was brilliant. And that is why I love them. Even midi-chlorians.

MTFBWY

I’d like to say that is where the differences end between the TV series and the film but it isn’t true. I’d go as far to say that maybe the writers, at least I assume this film had writers but I can’t be sure, had seen a few clips of the TV show and decided that was enough. The team dynamic stands reasonably unchanged, but aside from that it’s hard to see why the film really bears the name.

There are certainly some laughs in the film, particularly the moment in which the A-Team go 3D. Aside from that however there are ver few redeeming features. I know this sort of action film isn’t well known for its characterisation but it’s more the fact that a vague attempt was bolted on superfluously and really didn’t help. A film like this knows its limitations, and whilst trying to break from them should be applauded, this was a very half-hearted attempt and would have served better with its absence. The CGI was somewhat impressive, although I felt there were times when carefully crafted models and good old fashioned movie making would have served better.

At 117 minutes the film outstayed its welcome and seemed to be going on as long as its production (since the mid ’90s) and is again proof why TV shows work on the small screen rather than the big. You can stretch it out, but it always ends up being thinner than the original, and is invariably less enjoyable to watch.

There is undeniably a fun element to this film that the young teenagers in the audience seemed to enjoy, but it’s a mediocre action blockbuster at best.

And I got all the way through this without complaining Vue decided to start the film projected in the wrong ratio and that they should start hiring dedicated projectionists again.

MTFBWY

The film is, of course, Toy Story 3. The third instalment of that story about toys. The latest offering from that great studio we call “Pixar”. The first film was a five-star film in every way. It was the first ever entirely CGI feature film released way back in 1995. Now, my memories of being 5 aren’t perfect, but I’m fairly sure I didn’t see it on release in a cinema. I have seen it on the big screen many years later, but when I first saw it, it was on a TV, on VHS and I was probably six or seven. I loved it. At that age I had no idea what CGI really was, I had no idea each frame (of which there are 24 a second) took many, many, many hours to render. It was just magical. Toy Story two came out in 1999. that one I know I did see in the cinema on release, and whilst it’s hard to improve on five stars, for me this film did it. It’s like Spinal Tap turning it up to 11. And bearing that all in mind I went into Toy Story 3. In 3D.

I’m older than I was in 1995, some would say wiser, but I would laugh at those people. Now I know that it takes, on average, six hours to render a single frame in a Pixar movie. Now I know that one of my favourite film makers, Mr. George Lucas, sold Pixar to one of my less favourite people, Mr. Steve Jobs, off the back of Howard the Duck. Now I actually understand what The House of Mouse is. And now I have experience in 3D design so I understand CGI. But none of that matters. Toy Story 3 is still magical.

You don’t have to look far on this blog to find my opinion on this wave of 3D in our cinemas. My comments about Avatar made it perfectly clear, and so you will hopefully understand the gravity of my next sentence. I forgot I was watching a 3D film. I forgot the glasses, the lowered brightness, and the 30% less colour. I was just watching a film. Was it the story? Was it the characters? Was it that the 3D wasn’t really jumping off the screen? I don’t know. I’ve only seen it once in 3D, so I couldn’t possibly say, but I do know one thing, this film has given me the problem of having to rethink my position on those silly glasses.

This film is rated U. You can take your kids in, you can take your grandparents in. I was in an audience of people that appeared to have everyone from aged 4 to 84 and all of them seemed to love it. There were laughs and, as you’ve all probably heard by now, there were tears. I will even admit that as the film was drawing to a close I may have shed a tear or two. That’s one advantage of the 3D glasses, and the added bits over the credits, you have time to execute some manly coughs and hide the tears before leaving.

Toy Story 3 is a truly Universal film, the BBFC were right. It’s isn’t just for kids, it’s for everyone, as Pixar films always are. It works on so many levels, for all the different people in the audience. It’s a true successor to Toy Story and Toy Story 2. Maybe not quite level with them in greatness, but still a truly excellent film. It may well be that we finally have a flawless trilogy of films.

Just let me go back and see it again to make sure. Maybe twice.

MTFBWY