Plan 9 Cinema: Hercules in New York

In today’s cynical culture, it’s so much easier to tear things down than it is to build them up. Think about it: how many times have you tried to explain to your friends why you love your favorite movie, but failed because you just can’t describe it in words? Conversely, how often have you completely bashed a movie you hate (or love to hate) and found exactly the right things to say?

It’s my belief that in art, appreciation is a personal, unique experience. You may love a book, movie or piece of music for completely different reasons than the person next to you. That’s what makes art great, and also what makes it hard to describe. Dislike, on the other hand, is a unifier. While, like every good piece of art, every bad piece of art is bad in its own way, it’s easy for people to agree that it is, in fact, awful.

This is why we love movies that are laughably bad. They bring us together through agreement that we’re watching something of poor quality, but also evoke feelings of enjoyment because the film is uniquely and ridiculously terrible. The viewing experience is always fun, but differs depending on when and where the movie is viewed. Audiences get the best of both worlds.

So, here on “No More Popcorn,” I’m devoting one of my rotating regular topics to what I call “Plan 9 Cinema” (in honor of Ed Wood’s famously terrible “Plan 9 from Outer Space): movies that are truly and wonderfully awful, so bad they’re good.

Our first pick is 1969’s “Hercules in New York,” starring loads of people you’ve probably never heard of, but one person I’m sure you have, because he’s…well…

That’s right. “Hercules in New York” stars a post- Mr. Universe, pre- “Pumping Iron” Arnold Schwarzenegger (here billed as “Arnold Strong”) as the titular demigod who takes a quick vay-kay from Mt. Olympus to mingle with mortals in the Big Apple. During his trip, he falls in love with a professor’s daughter (appropriately named Helen), becomes a successful pro wrestler, and makes friends with a pathetic-but-sweet alcoholic pretzel vendor called Pretzie (Arnold Stang, who should have sued Schwarzenegger over name rights). It’s a ridiculous premise but, surprisingly, I think it could have made for an entertaining family film, except for a few major obstacles: the script, Schwarzenegger’s acting, and the god awful production values. Basically, it was a decent idea, horribly carried out. The result is a jaw-dropping train wreck of a movie.

We’ll start with the star. This was Schwarzenegger’s first-ever acting gig. He’s given the most basic of basic lines, akin to “Yes” “No” and “Hulk smash.” This is because a) Arnie can’t act his way out of a paper bag and b) at this point, his Austrian accent was still so thick that he was barely intelligible. It would probably be appropriate to note here that there are two versions of “Hercules in New York:” one with Schwarzenegger’s original accent (the better one) and one with his lines dubbed (the lamer one). Due to Arnold’s total lack of ability to make his lines do anything but fall out of his mouth like lead, bits that would have been clever are completely lost. This is a problem that plagues the film only in its first few scenes, so I imagine director Arthur Siedelman arranged for some rewrites once he figured out any potential for witty repartee was lost on his leading man.

Arnold’s acting also creates a weird dichotomy between the scenes among the gods on Mt. Olympus and Hercules and his friends on Earth. In the New York scenes, the actors seem to be well aware that Schwarzenegger is wooden (when they can understand him), and just kind of go with it. But the actors in the Mt. Olympus scenes, many of which are Arnie-free, behave like they’re in an entirely different movie. These guys seem to think this movie is something like “Jason and the Argonauts,” except for Pluto, who’s under the impression that it’s a Bob Fosse production:

Of course, it doesn’t help that the script is ridiculous and the production values are just slightly better than a home movie. In the Mt. Olympus scenes, you can clearly hear traffic going by in the background. There are continuity issues by the busload. And then, of course, we have this gem:

This is scene is a perfect little snippet of “Hercules in New York” because it captures just about everything that’s wrong with the movie. From the lighting, this scene apparently took place simultaneously at night and mid-afternoon. A supposedly 600-pound grizzly bear is played by a man in an animal suit. Helen (who’s an exceptional screamer, by the way) shouts not for her man to escape the bear’s clutches, but to beat him up as though the animal were a pervy drunk that had just tried to goose her at a bar.  It’s classically bad.

But you want to know the one thing that’s not wrong about “Hercules in New York?” Pretzie, Hercules’ loser pretzel-vending best buddy. Despite his kooky name, Pretzie’s actually capable of some pathos. There’s an alternate version of “Hercules in New York” in my head that stars Pretzie as the main character. It’s all about how Hercules comes to Earth and changes his life for a few glorious weeks before taking off without warning and leaving his friend to resume his lonely life. This version, my version, is an entertaining but somewhat-deep exploration of the banality of life, and the existence of people for whom life is a series of disappointments.

But of course, the actual film barely even hints at poor old Pretzie’s hidden depths. There are two scenes that look like they could go somewhere, then just…end. Watch for the one after Hercules abandons Pretzie at the Empire State Building. What starts off as a surprisingly touching monologue (given the nature of everything that’s come before it) trails off and ends with quite possibly the weirdest closing line I have ever heard.

So, that’s “Hercules in New York,” the little movie that couldn’t. It’s really kind of amazing that Arnold Schwarzenegger managed to have a career after this. Who’d have thought that the guy nobody could understand in a worthless movie would eventually become Governor of California? It just goes to show you that some folks always manage to land on their feet.

Links:

While it may be a little tough to find a DVD copy of this movie, both versions are easily available online:

YouTube (non-dubbed version)

Hulu (dubbed version–also music-free)

Halloween Cinerama: Movies to check out for October 31st

What a crazy couple of days it’s been! I would never have guessed that Wednesday’s post would end up on the front page of WordPress, but, low and behold, it did. I’ve had more views on Wednesday, Thursday and today than I’ve ever gotten before, and it’s very exciting. Thank you to everyone who read and commented, and welcome to all you new readers. I usually have new posts every Wednesday on rotating regular topics. Today, though, I thought I’d provide you guys with a little something extra, by way of greetings and thanks.

Next weekend is Halloween, which means legions of folks will be preparing for parties, making food, assembling costumes and (of course) renting horror movies. I love horror movies. I love the squirmy way they make me feel, and surprises I get when I’m watching one for the first time with friends. However, I have my limits. I like my horror movies to be somewhat smart and original. I don’t go in for that torture-porn stuff like the Saw or Hostel franchises. Other movie series, like Halloween or Friday the 13th are good for a while (Far be it from me to question the brilliance of John Carpenter or Wes Craven), but lose their appeal over time. For a horror movie to appeal to me, it has to explore new territory.

If, like me, you get tired of the same old slasher flicks year after year, here are a few movies that just might pull you out of your rut.

28 Days Later

I’m not going to hold back here. “28 Days Later” is one of my favorite movies. Say what you want about director Danny Boyle’s lack of consistency over the course of his career, when it comes to genre movies, the man’s got it down. On its surface, “28 Days Later” is a post-apocalyptic horror movie in the vein of “Night of the Living Dead” (A group of survivors try to stick together and ride out a virus that’s turning people into mindless raging cannibals. Conflicts ensue; violence and psychological infirmity inevitably follow). But Boyle and writer Alex Garland (“Never Let Me Go”) make the movie something much more profound. “28 Days Later” is really about survival tactics in extreme situations, and what those choices do to the people who make them. How far would you be willing to go to ensure your own survival? How much do you care about the safety of your friends? Horror movies don’t get much more philosophical than this.

The Mist

Okay, so perhaps this movie doesn’t quite fit in with the smart set. But it’s a lot of fun. “The Mist” made a stir when it first came out, but kind of lost steam after a while, which is a shame, since it’s such a satisfying movie. This story of a small town plagued by otherworldly creatures and a thick, mysterious fog really delivers in the thrills and chills department. It’s part Twilight Zone, part David Cronenberg movie. Plus, it’s fun to watch “serious actors” like Toby Jones and Marcia Gay Harden go over the top in campy roles. It’s based on a story by Stephen King, which you’d be able to recognize even if you didn’t see his name on the poster, since the writing has his style all over it. This movie is also a great way to gear up for AMC’s upcoming TV series “The Walking Dead,” since “The Mist” director Frank Darabont is the show’s creator and directed the pilot. All of AMC’s TV spots have been noting Darabont as the director of “The Shawshank Redemption” and “The Green Mile,” which is great, but I think this movie is really what makes him qualified.

Pontypool

If you’ve seen some of my previous posts, you’ll know that I like Bruce McDonald’s “Pontypool” an awful lot. It was the first movie I ever watched at a film festival, and it holds a very special place in my heart because of that. Of course, that’s not the only reason I like it. The movie also has those smart and original qualities that I hold in high esteem when it comes to scary movies. Set in a radio station in rural Canada, “Pontypool” follows a day in the life of prickly radio host Grant Mazzy (an amazing Stephen McHattie), and two producers of his morning show (Lisa Houle, Georgina Reilly). A seemingly normal morning is thrown totally out of whack when a strange virus that appears to be carried through speech patterns infects the town and turns citizens into a violent mob. The best part? We hardly even see the disease victims. Instead, we hear them through outside radio reports and voices outside the station. It’s a tactic that borrows more from “War of the Worlds” than from “Night of the Living Dead,” and works wonders. Watch it, watch it, watch it.

Shallow Grave

Danny Boyle’s first movie was an impressive debut that established a unique voice, a talent for working with dark material, and Ewan McGregor’s career. This often-overlooked but effective thriller tells the story of three self-absorbed flatmates (McGregor, Kerry Fox and Christopher Eccleston), looking for a fourth person to live with them. Their chosen man, Hugo, moves in, but dies of an overdose the next day, leaving behind a briefcase chock-full of money. The group decides to keep it, and bury Hugo themselves. Of course, this choice sets them down a path fraught with consequences. While McGregor ended up being the star-in-the-making here, the real person to watch is Christopher Eccleston (who you might recognize from “28 Days Later” and his one-season turn on “Doctor Who”) as a shy, unstable accountant who totally loses it over the course of the movie.

The Frighteners

Like “The Mist,” Peter Jackson’s “The Frighteners” is just good old-fashioned sloppy fun. It’s like a much darker “Ghostbusters.” Michael J. Fox plays a small-town paranormal investigator who uses a couple of ghostly accomplices to con homeowners into calling him to exterminate ghosts they don’t actually have. It’s a pretty sweet gig, until someone starts killing off townspeople, cutting numbers into their foreheads beforehand. Some of the writing can tend towards the cheesy, but the climax is nice and creepy. As scares go, “The Frighteners” is a creative middle-of-the-road pick for those who want something riskier than a Tim Burton movie, but less hardcore than “A Nightmare on Elm Street.”

Videodrome

While it’s more sci-fi than horror, David Cronenberg’s bizzarro cult classic still delivers tension, violence and gore aplenty (it wouldn’t be a David Cronenberg movie if it didn’t). James Woods plays Max Renn, a sleazy cable CEO whose approach to programming decisions lean more towards pornography than family-friendly fare. One day, he comes across a broadcast of a shockingly violent program called Videodrome. After deciding that he needs to include the mysterious show in his lineup, Max slowly starts to lose it as he tries to track down the program’s creators, and discovers political conspiracy and surprisingly prophetic visions of the future from the mysterious Brian O’Blivion, who only allows himself to appear via television. Technology and biology intertwine in this movie in simultaneously riveting and repulsive ways that only Cronenberg could devise. It’s not for the faint of stomach, but it sure is good.

Cronenberg fans check this out: David Cronenberg’s iphone charger

Diabolique (1955)

This one’s a classic thriller of the Hitchcock variety, with a great plot and some delicious old-school scares. At a French boarding school, two women conspire to murder the school’s cruel headmaster, Michel Delasalle: his wife, Christina, and his mistress. Nicole. Michel physically abuses both of them. It’s particularly hard on Christina, who has a heart condition. Nicole and Christina drown Michel in the bathtub, and then dump the body in the school swimming pool. But, when the pool is drained, Michel’s body is nowhere to be found. What’s more, he (or someone who looks just like him) keeps showing up around town. “Diabolique” is a twisty, tense experience with an ending that will leave you breathless. The movie was remade in 1996 with Sharon Stone and Chazz Palminteri, but that’s not the one you want. Trust me, go with the original.

Near Dark

Way before she won the Best Directing Oscar for “The Hurt Locker,” Kathryn Bigelow directed this 1987 movie about a newly-minted vampire traveling the highways with a group of fellow bloodsuckers in a Winnebago. If you’ve ever read the excellent graphic novel series “Preacher,” this movie’s a fair comparison. It takes place in dry, desolate parts of the country, and is bloodier than a rare steak. It’s a movie that’s been getting more attention of late, thanks to Bigelow’s big win, so now’s the time to get a jump on it. Bill Paxton is the standout performer as the rash, merciless Severen.

Slither

This movie has a solid background in the “Evil Dead” and “Tremors” school of horror movies (also great choices for Halloween viewing). “Slither” is a campy, gross-out party of a flick filled with in-jokes and references to the legendary B-movies it draws so heavily on. Nathan Fillion plays small-town sheriff Bill Pardy, whose dull existence leading the law enforcement department gets shaken up when people and animals go missing, and local businessman Grant Grant (a wonderful Michael Rooker) starts behaving suspiciously. He’s more aggressive than normal to his wife (Elizabeth Banks). There are strange rotting smells coming from the basement. Weirdest of all, he’s got this nasty rash that just keeps getting bigger and bigger. Suddenly, weird sluglike creatures start turning the townspeople into zombies. Fillion, Rooker, Banks and Gregg Henry as the town’s foulmouthed mayor all look like they’re having a blast, and I don’t blame them. The effects are icky fun, and the script is filled with a kind of goofy dark sarcasm.

The Orphanage

I’ve been watching horror movies for a while, and my reactions to the scares on screen vary. Often I jump, sometimes I gasp. Very rarely, if ever, do I scream. I screamed during “The Orphanage.” Twice. It’s one of the few movies I’ve seen during which I was legitimately frightened by the things I saw. If you’ve seen it, you know why, because this movie is nothing if not haunting. If you haven’t…well, the feeling won’t be the same if you know what happens. It’s just better if you don’t know. But despite the scary bits (and there are plenty), “The Orphanage” is also a touching, emotional movie. It’s rewarding in lots of ways. Director J.A. Bayona goes places with his horror, both in terms of surprise and dramatic heft that few other modern directors do. It’s a treat to watch. Just don’t watch it alone.

The Non-Fiction Section: “Hell House”

In honor of Halloween, this week’s Non-Fiction Section is dedicated to “Hell House,” George Ratliff’s 2002 documentary about a fundamentalist church in Texas putting on its tenth annual fire-and-brimstone themed “alternative” haunted house. At the time the documentary was made, Hell Houses were something of a rarity. Now, of course, they’re everywhere. Even if you weren’t previously aware of Ratliff’s documentary, you’ve probably heard about them from the New York Times, This American Life, or NPR. Heck, you may even have one in your town. On the surface, “Hell House” is an interesting little window into a few weeks in the life of Trinity Assembly of God Church in Cedar Hill, Texas. In a deeper sense, it’s a telling portrait of conservative Christianity that never judges the subjects, but instead lets them speak for themselves (and, in some cases, lets them dig their own graves…pun partially intended).

I’ve always found the concept of Hell Houses fascinating and repulsive in equal measures. A church depicting scenes of mortal sins and eternal damnation in gruesome ways is hardly tactful, but you’ve got to admit it’s intriguing. In the documentary, The Trinity Hell House’s scenes include the following: a botched abortion, a school shooting, a gay man dying of AIDS, a rape (followed by suicide), domestic violence, and a drug deal gone wrong. Each scene is accompanied by a sneering, whiny-voiced demon character that tempts the sinner into doing something drastic, then drags them off to meet their spiritual fate. The film’s combination of horror and amateur theater dynamics result in a documentary that feels a bit like Wes Craven directing “Waiting for Guffman.” It’s shot on 16mm film with a low-budget quality and often-shaky camerawork, making it bear aesthetic resemblance to horror movies like Craven’s original “Last House on the Left,” especially during the opening scenes.

One of the most interesting aspects of the movie involves Ratliff’s profiles of the Hell House cast and crew. There’s the burly small-time pro wrestler, who plays an abusive father in the domestic violence scene, but seems like a kind, devoted churchgoer and family man in every other respect. There’s the cast member who met his girlfriend when she played a rape victim. The film’s closest profile is Alexandra Cassar (“Abortion Girl”) and her family, which includes her single father and a seizure-prone baby brother with cerebral palsy. Absent (but still ever-present) is Alexandra’s mother, who left the family to be with a man she met on the Internet. Trinity’s congregation is filled with similar stories of members enduring hardships in their lives, and finding salvation in the church.

Of course, the other major area the film covers is Trinity Church’s theology. It’s a doozy, but unfortunately not that surprising or uncommon. In a secular society like the one we live in, it would have been easy for the director to make his subjects look like fools. But Ratliff never takes that step. Never once does the filmmaker’s perspective come into the film. Instead, he simply depicts what happens, and lets the events tell the audience everything they need to know. The Trinity congregation end up coming off as nice folks, but far too serious about their message and without a doubt out-of-touch with the culture they’re trying to influence. For reference, I’ll direct your attention to the picture below, part of the set for the “Occult Human Sacrifice” scene:

It’s supposed to be a Pentagram. As you can see, it’s clearly a Star of David. Oops.

Similar moments involve a monologue for the occult scene that mentions the Harry Potter and Goosebumps books as points of entry for satanic influence. In preparation for a rave scene, participants repeatedly mention “the date rape drug,” but forget its proper name (that’d be Rohypnol, guys). Another scene shows a teenage couple going on their first date…to a church service. This sequence is particularly telling, as it includes Trinity Church’s pastor charging his congregation to “infect the culture.” According to him, it’s what Jesus came to do. As a Christian myself, I don’t agree that Trinity’s approach to influencing secular culture is the way to go about saving souls, nor do I believe that it was the approach Jesus took. But, as “Hell House” shows, it is a point of view held by a number of other Christians.

Whether you believe in God or not, the last half of “Hell House,” which shows the event itself, is truly scary. It’s one thing to hear the scenes described, but quite another to actually watch them and see attendees react. To me (and, I suspect, many other viewers), it wasn’t scary in the way the church meant it to be. It was scary to come face-to-face with a form of theology that tries to scare people into conversion. Ratliff does show some rowdy dissenters arguing with a church member, but neither the angry attendees nor the Hell House representative they speak with provide an intelligent argument for or against the scenes on display.

In fact, if “Hell House” lacks anything, it’s a reaction from non-Trinity members. It being a verite film, I’m sure this wasn’t the goal, but for non-Christian viewers, the film simply reinforces an unfortunate stereotype that all Christians are right-wing nutjobs whose good intentions are undermined by fanaticism and narrow-mindedness.  “Hell House” proves that this type of Christianity does exist, but it’s certainly not the only kind out there. It would have been nice to know if there were any members of local religious groups who didn’t approve of Trinity’s Hell House, as I’m sure there must be. After all, a church that thinks it’s okay to re-enact the Columbine shooting as a means to get people right with God is just begging for controversy.

Some related links:

Film Web site

An interview with George Ratliff in the Austin Chronicle

Review of “Hell House” in The Village Voice

A satirical celebrity Hell House in L.A.

For additional reference, I really do recommend that you check out the “This American Life” story I linked above. Like everything Ira Glass and co. do, it’s top-notch.

“That Guy” File #1: Clancy Brown

Where you’ve seen him: The Shawshank Redemption, Carnivale, Highlander, The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension, A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010), Lost, The Guardian and Starship Troopers, among many others. You’ve also heard his voice on a number of cartoons, including Spongebob Squarepants.

As I’ve mentioned a couple of times now, I did a top ten list in August of “That Guy” character actors for Scene Stealers. It was a list that I’d been mulling over for quite some time, and took my time writing and editing before I sent it in. For two days after the list was posted to the site, I was proud of myself. For once, I thought, I’d gotten a list right. I hadn’t skipped over any obvious choices, and I’d made sure to create a diverse list of recognizable actors.

Then, an astute commenter brought up a glaring oversight, one that was so obvious that it frustrated me for the rest of the day: Clancy Brown was not on my list. I couldn’t believe I’d made such a dumb mistake. It was doubly frustrating, considering that in my personal list of favorite “That Guys,” Brown is my number 1. So, as a means to atone for my faux pas, he’s going to be the first actor we look at here.

If you’ve watched any movies or television at all since 1984, the chances are pretty good that, at some point, you’ve seen Clancy Brown in something. The man is all over the place. Like most good “That Guys,” Brown’s unmistakable. He’s got a big, serious face, and a deep, serious voice. Both features lend themselves well to threatening characters, which is what he’s best known for. In “The Shawshank Redemption,” he’s Captain Hadley, the warden’s cruel lackey who seems to enjoy disciplining wayward prisoners a little too much. On “Carnivale,” he was Brother Justin Crowe, a Methodist minister with disturbing supernatural powers and a penchant for destruction. And, of course, if you’ve seen “Highlander,” you’ll remember him this way:

It’s a ridiculous, scene-chewing role in a movie that’s notable only for how awful it is, but you get the sense that Brown must have been having a lot of fun with it. After all, what other way is there to deliver a closing line like the scene above than to just play it up?

In fact, Brown’s the reason I started getting enthusiastic about character actors. He was my first recognizable “that guy,” since he kept popping up in just about everything I saw. He lends a solid presence to the movies he’s in, but is particularly noticeable in genre movies, where he gets to use his somber face and creepy voice to their fullest extents.

For my money, the strongest example of Brown’s acting is on HBO’s short-lived (and lamented) “Carnivale.” It’s really hard to imagine any actor other than Brown playing the confused, sinister Brother Justin Crowe. For illustration, I’ll direct you to the following clip:

In his role as Justin, Brown’s got the intimidating thing down pretty well, but over the course of the series, he brings out the character’s conflicted nature too, as Justin slowly comes to realize the antagonistic role he’s destined to play in the events to come. His attempts at doing good works are met with heartbreaking disaster, and the soul-searching that follows leads Justin to use his powerful supernatural gifts to manipulate the people who get in his way. It’s not necessarily a shocking transformation, given the way the character’s introduced, but it’s one that’s riveting to watch, mostly because of Brown’s clear ability to embody the character.

Clancy Brown is a That Guy’s That Guy. He’s a hardworking actor who’s made a good career out of small but memorable roles. Perhaps the man’s most impressive achievement is that over the course of a career that’s stretched for 20 plus years, he’s remained consistent in the roles he’s gotten. He’s talented and prolific, which certainly counts for something. And if you’re looking for a good, threatening authority figure, you can’t do much better.

Shot-For-Shot: Let The Right One In/Let Me In

Here is the first in a series of regular columns that I’ll be posting each Wednesday here on the blog. To find out more information and see what other topics I’ll be covering, check out last week’s post.

Generally speaking, remakes occupy a difficult space. They live in a kind of cinematic Catch-22 filled no-man’s land. The problem is this: for a remake to be considered a good film in its own right, it has to vary somewhat from the source material and establish fresh territory on familiar ground. But in order to cater to the fans of the original film, the filmmakers (as with beloved literary adaptations) have to be true to the source material. It’s a tough line to walk. To my mind, the best approach is to re-make movies that are well respected, but don’t have a wide modern audience, because it provides a kind of pedigree while also introducing an old concept to new audiences, as with James Mangold’s remake of “3:10 to Yuma.”  Or, as was the case for Michael Haneke’s shot-for-shot remake of “Funny Games,” justify the remake by bringing the original movie’s message to the audience it was really meant for.

All of this is to say that while it is possible for a remake to be good, it’s not easy. There are just so many potential pitfalls. Some remakes are made too soon after the original film’s release. Some take too many liberties with the material. But most are just plain unnecessary. “Let Me In” falls squarely into the first and third categories. It’s an English-language remake of a Swedish movie, “Let the Right One In,” released in 2008 that has an established (and still growing) cult following. “Let Me In” does a make a few interesting diversions from its source film, and novel of the same name, but is so concerned with keeping “Let the Right One In’s” subtle tone that it neglects to develop these changes in interesting ways.

The plot of the original film is as follows: Oskar, a 12-year-old kid with divorced parents, is constantly bullied at school. He harbors disturbing violent fantasies about getting back at the nasty kids who torment him. One day, in the courtyard of his apartment complex, he meets Eli, a girl his own age who has recently moved in along with an older man who appears to be her father. Oskar and Eli become friends and begin a sweet and awkward relationship. Then, Oskar finds out what the audience has known all along: Eli is a vampire. Her “father” kills people to drain them of blood to feed her. Surprisingly, Oskar isn’t bothered by any of this. His relationship with Eli continues to grow until Eli accidentally turns a neighbor into a vampire, and the consequences threaten to drive the two kids apart.

“Let Me In” follows the same plot, with a few changes. It adds a local policeman, played by Elias Koteas, who’s trying to solve a series of violent murders (no guesses as to who’s responsible). The vampire girl (here called Abby…That’s right, Abby) also has a slightly more competent guardian, played by Richard Jenkins. His character is sloppy, like his Swedish counterpart, but he’s less comedic and more disturbing. The scenes of Jenkins attacking drivers in their cars, his head covered by a black plastic trash bag, are tense and creepy as all get-out. The apartment complex neighbors are also a lot younger and better looking than the depressed, late middle-aged band of losers portrayed in “Let the Right One In.”

Barring the changes made to Jenkins’ character, the additions made in the American film are the most disappointing thing about it. Not because the film’s writer/director Matt Reeves took liberties with the source material (in fact, the addition of Koteas’ character is closer to the novel), but because he failed to fully explore them. Koteas, for example, seems like a decent cop just trying to do his job, confused about everything that’s happening around him. Because of the way his character was introduced (he’s the first one we meet), I constantly found myself wondering what he thought of everything over the course of the film. Yet the audience never gets his side of the story. We know nothing about him. He merely shows up from time to time as a vague background presence. Abby and Owen’s (Oskar’s) neighbors in the apartment complex are never explored much either. In “Let the Right One In,” they were, and their presence added another interesting and gloomy layer of atmosphere to the film.

This isn’t to say that “Let Me In” is a terrible film. It’s not. Technically speaking, there’s very little wrong with it. After seeing the movie with my friend Dan, he told me, “If I hadn’t already seen ‘Let the Right One In,’ I’d have thought this was the best movie I’d ever seen.” I’m inclined to agree. “Let Me In” is smart, creepy, and builds to an epically satisfying climax. It does well all the things that “Let the Right One In” did, with one or two small-ish exceptions. But, when it comes down to it, this movie is about as original as an English-language dub of its Swedish source. What’s more, the original film is not hard to find, nor is it hard to understand (I’m of the mind that if you aren’t willing to read subtitles, you just shouldn’t bother watching movies, because you’ll miss out on most of what’s good. Sorry). There’s no real reason it needed to be made. It is, as Scott Tobias puts it in his review on the A.V. Club, “a beautiful redundancy.”