Alright, I realize I've been letting this blog just sorta sit here and collect dust, so starting today I'm gonna try to make a real effort to write on here more often. Typically, it will be my thoughts on whatever news I come across, particularly pertaining to my beloved horror genre. For instance:I have mixed feelings on wise-beyond-their-years kids. On one hand, they sorta creep me out. I remember hearing about how Dakota Fanning, when meeting with producers of films she was trying out for, would leave her parents and other adult handlers outside, and come into the room with her own copy of the script that she had already made extensive notes in regarding the character she was auditioning for. That's not "cute." It's scary. Think back to how dumb and scatter-brained you were when you were a young child. Now compare that to what I just said, and everything else we know and have seen of Fanning. We better hope that, as she grows older, Fanning continues to focus primarily on acting. At the rate she's maturing, she could probably rule us all one day if she turned her attention toward it.
Now, on the other hand, as someone who has worked in retail and had to deal with the usual dumb-as-bricks kids (and their equally stupid parents) on a fairly regular basis, I can see the positives of these way-too-smart kids, as well. Sure, Dakota Fanning's maturity might be a little off-putting, but at least you can probably trust her on her own for a while, without the fear that she is going to randomly tear open packages and try to stick things up her nose for no reason (that would be Lindsay Lohan, actually).
Plus, the other nice thing about these kids is that, sometimes, it's nice to hear that they really know what the fuck they're talking about. Take Chloe Moretz, for instance. This 13-year-old is best known to most for her role in 500 Days of Summer. Not to me, though, because I still haven't seen 500 Days of Summer, and am in no hurry to do so. Actually, one of the biggest reasons I avoided 500 Days of Summer was how annoying Moretz' character looked in the trailer. Sure, she only had one line ("alright, start from the beginning"), but it was delivered in such an annoying manner that I wanted to punch her. And I've found it's probably best if I avoid any movies that have a by-product of making me want to assault small children.
Still, I can't avoid her forever. And, in fact, I'm quite looking forward to Moretz' next film, the gleefully raunchy and violent superhero satire Kick-Ass. If the film's red-band trailer (which depicts Moretz dismembering bad guys and uttering the c-word) is any indication, Moretz is poised to be a breakout star thanks to her role as Hit Girl. What does this mean for horror fans? Well, it means there will be an extra level of attention paid to her next project - one that many fans like myself are naturally worried about: the American remake of the excellent Swedish vampire film Let the Right One In.
Now, as I have already documented in this very blog, I have nothing against the idea of horror remakes in general. But I think most of us can agree that this is one of those remakes that is pretty darn unnecessary. For one thing, Let the Right One In is from 2008! It's not like this will be a re-telling for a new generation. Plus, the original is widely considered by many horror fans (including this one) to be one of the best vampire movies ever. It seems doubtful that a new version can really improve upon it.
That being said, I have to admit that there are slight positive signs starting to emerge regarding Let Me In (as the American remake has been bizarrely re-named). In terms of its writer-director, there could certainly be far worse options that Cloverfield helmer Matt Reeves. That giant-monster movie showed an impressive talent behind the camera - at least in terms of big-budget mayhem. I'm not sure if that necessarily translates to the more subtle chills that Let Me In demands, but still, I'd rather see it in the hands of someone like Reeves, who has made at least one excellent movie, than some no-namer or someone with a sketchier resume.
But the real interesting developments so far have been in the casting department. The always great Richard Jenkins will be playing the young vampire's guardian - a creepy role than could be even creepier if this version hews closer to the original novel than the first film (although I somehow doubt that). Meanwhile, there are the all important lead-roles, which it's only natural to worry about since, let's face it, talented child actors aren't exactly one of America's most abundant resources. Thankfully, it appears this, too, has gone better than it could have, as the central role of the young boy is being played by Kodi Smit-McPhee, who recently impressed by sharing the screen and totally holding his own with Viggo Mortensen in The Road. And, as the film's mysterious young vampire? Yup...Chloe Moretz.
I realize this isn't enough to really start getting excited for a project that still seems like a pointless idea, if not an outright bad one. But, like I said, there are positive signs. Take, for instance, this quote from a new interview Moretz did for Movieline, in which she shared her take on her role in Let Me In.
"The character of Abby…I mean, usually a lot of movies glamorize being a vampire. It’s pretty, it’s cool, you look awesome! It’s scary, deep, and dark, this devil inside of her. The vampire is different than Abby. It’s like her alternate personality, and when it takes her over, she has no control."
So here we have a 13-year-old girl, not only showing a better understanding of what makes vampires interesting than a bestselling hack author like Stephenie Meyer does, but also saying exactly the right things when it comes to the hoped-for tone of this movie. Now, once again, it's way too early to start getting my hopes up. And I realize that, just because Moretz "gets" the character, doesn't mean the film (and Reeves) will actually live up to that understanding. Although, worse comes to worse, maybe they could just let her direct the damn thing. Hell, that one comment above sounds a lot more intelligent and with-it than anything I've ever heard come out of, say, Brett Ratner's mouth.
All things considered, though, Moretz' comments at least hint at some possible good signs in what at first seemed like the mother of all bad ideas. I'm still reserving judgment, and I still feel that even a decent Let Me In will probably not come close to equaling Let the Right One In. But a decent film would obviously be better to have out there than an awful one. Look at it this way - best case scenario, the film actually does stay true to the original and hit the right tone, and maybe finally starts weaning American audiences away from their Twilight-induced wimpy-vampire leanings. Do I want a Let the Right One In remake? Not necessarily. But with three more Twilight films on the way, I'm certainly not going to complain about any new American vampire movies that actually give the creatures their teeth (and balls) back.
