Review: Star Trek

Risky is most definitely the best word to describe the choice that television wunderkid JJ Abrams (Felicity, Alias, Lost and Fringe) made when he decided to sign on to direct a reboot of the Star Trek franchise. Trekkies are infamous for knowing exactly what they want, rigid and stubborn when it comes to a re-imagining of their beloved franchise. Even riskier was the decision that he and screenwriters Roberto Orci (Transformers and The Legend of Zorro) and Alex Kurtzman (Transformers and The Island) made when they concluded that this reboot would be a complete makeover, excluding many of the things that have given Star Trek its name. In fact, if you are to take away the over-extended Leonard Nimoy cameo and certain original series traits evident, this is hard to distinguish as an addition to the Star Trek series. I think it is fair to say that Abrams bloke has a lot of balls. And it works perfectly.

Not that the plot in a Star Trek film is that important but basically Captain Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood) challenges the rebellious James Tiberius Kirk (Chris Pine) to emulate the heroic acts of his father (Chris Hemsworth, the new Thor) on the Enterprise and convinces him to join Starfleet. In his third year at the Academy, Kirk is accused of cheating on the Kobayashi Maru test by its programmer, Commander Spock (Zachary Quinto from Heroes). At the resultant hearing, Starfleet receives a distress signal from Vulcan that indicates the appearance of a lightning storm in space, and the cadets are mobilized to help crew the ships in orbit. Friend Leonard McCoy (Karl Urban) smuggles the grounded Kirk aboard the Enterprise as a patient under his care and the rest is history.

Abrams makes his intentions perfectly clear with the first scene of the film as we see Kirk senior forced to take the helm of the Enterprise in a flashback scene. Also on board the ship is his wife, currently pregnant with Kirk junior and despite some soppy dialogue between husband and wife this is an excellent pre-credits sequence. Relentless and exhilarating it introduces us to the film's villain, Romulun citizen Nero as played by an almost unrecognizable Eric Bana, and sets everything up expertly. The panic felt at the prospect of quickly evacuating the Enterprise feels authentic and character motives for the rest of the film have been well introduced.

Post-credits we come to find that Kirk junior has grown up to be an intelligent, though reckless and cynical, young man. He steals a motorbike and evades the police to the tune of the Beastie Boys and then later on gets involved in a rather unnecessary bar brawl. We don't really see in these few scenes much of the heroism and bravery of his father but Captain Pike seems to believe in him, seems to believe that he could one day evoke the spirit and actions of Kirk senior. Director and script come together really nicely in the first 30-40 minutes to create a nice balance of smallish action sequences and exposition. It is not so much that Abrams wants to provide an extensive introduction to Kirk and Spock more that he wants to establish their backgrounds and make sure the non-trekkies in the audience are completely sure who is who and what is what before moving on to the main bulk of the story and the action.

And the action scenes are really what make Star Trek such a satisfying experience. Abrams managed to surprise some people with Mission Impossible III because he made sure it was insanely enjoyable throughout and that thirst for an unrelenting amount of fights and destruction is evident here. An orbital skydive onto a drilling platform to destroy it by some members of the Enterprise is particularly impressive as there is a constant danger to the characters and the visuals are spot on. The interior segments on board the ship are also handled effectively as the tension between Spock and Kirk grows over time. The film never really gets bogged down in large amounts of dialogue or any kind of dodgy subplot and that is why it is so pleasing to watch.

Among those many risks that Abrams has taken the one that pays off the most is the cast. Chris Pine came into this role as a relative unknown to the general public and at the moment he is no Shatner or Stewart in the role of Kirk but his pure charm is enough to make him seem impressive on first inspection. Quinto is often the best part of Heroes as the creepy Sylar and he is equally good here as Sylar, reluctant yet determined to do the best he can on the ship. The supporting cast is also pleasing, John Cho and Anton Yelchin as Sulu and Chekov respectively serviceable enough to make you think they would be welcome for the next film and Karl Urban putting in a really surprisingly funny and solid performance.

The criticisms that I would make of Star Trek - that the previously mentioned Leonard Nimoy cameo seems pointless, out of place and a little too long (although it is nice to see him back) and the motivations of Nero seem confused and therefore aren't really very believable or realistic - didn't bother me while I was watching it because Abrams makes you forget the flaws and makes you just sit back, relax and enjoy the ride. Overall, this is a welcome addition to the Star Trek film franchise and a whole lot better than Nemesis. The action and cast are brilliantly supported by a great script and the work of Abrams and I would definitely like to see him back for the further installments.
****

Top 5 Films Of The Year (So Far)

We are roughly half way through 2009 and as I have nothing better to do I thought I would run down my top 5 films of the year so far. The year in film started off brilliantly for me in January and February and despite it being a little dry in the last couple of months it has been easy to find some treasures amongst the tosh and the rest of the summer looks like being a real treat:

5) Synecdoche, New York - I doubt Charlie Kaufman will ever create a truly accessible film as over the past 10 years he has made quite a name for himself writing such brilliant cinema like Being John Malkovich and Adaption and his first attempt at directing is equally fascinating. Troubled and misunderstood Caden Cotard, as portrayed by the rarely bettered Philip Seymour Hoffman, perfectly reflects Kaufman himself and that goes a long way to explaining some of the critical reaction to this film. It is definitely his most personal work to date and the mind bending final third is simply amazing.

4) Slumdog Millionaire - I did have some problems with the runaway success that is this Oscar dominating story of one Mumbai boy's unexpected achievements on the Indian version of 'Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?' and the reason that I forgot about those reservations and began to join the world in enjoying this film was the strength of director Danny Boyle's storytelling. He makes the audience care about the characters on show despite the film showing many different actors playing them over the years and clearly worked well with cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle to show an authentic and beautiful Mumbai.

3) Let The Right One In - Is it a horror? Is it a romance? Is it a vampire story? Is it all of the above? The fact that Tomas Alfredson's adaptation of John Ajvide Lindqvist's cult 2004 book of the same name is so hard to categorize is what makes it such a brilliant masterpiece. The two young actors are powerful and stunning in challenging roles and the general mysterious atmosphere is kept up throughout the running time. It is quite hard to find fault with this film and the final scene around a swimming pool is both inventive and frightening.

2) The Wrestler - It did not surprise me that Darren Aronofsky's fourth film was undervalued in this years Oscars. It is far too honest and brash for the Academy, far too rough for their enjoyment but just because it was not appreciated there does not mean it is in any way less excellent. Referred to by some as Mickey Rourke's resurrection there is no denying that he is entirely watchable and carries the film on his shoulders and never lets go but I also see it as resurrection of sorts for Aronofsky who, after the ambitious yet disappointing The Fountain, is back on form here showing us exactly what it was that we saw in him in the first place.

1) The Class - An undeniably deserved winner of Palme d'Or at Cannes last year Lauren Cantet's film is as gripping as it is fascinating. It is basically a number of classes that literature teacher François Bégaudeau has to endure in an inner city middle school in Paris strung together but that description does not really do the film justice. Attention to detail and realistic class discussions aside Cantet's film has something really interesting to say about the French education system and the many flaws within it. It will take a lot to beat this come the proper end of 2009 year list for myself and I leave the last word with critic Wesley Morris: "Its richness resides in its apparent objectivity. Without sacrificing a sense of hope, Cantet suggests that the school system is just like a certain vexing grammatical tense: imperfect but still fighting against irrelevance."

Honourable Mentions: Star Trek (I will eventually post a review), Rachel Getting Married, Milk, Il Divo, Gran Torino and Che.

Preview: Funny People

It is amazing to see how Judd Apatow has risen over the past few years in Hollywood. Apatow was hired to re-write Lou Holtz' script for the movie The Cable Guy, which was released in 1996. He expected the film to be a huge success, but it ultimately had a mediocre box office success and poor reviews. Fast forward 10-12 years and Apatow has now become the go to guy for studio comedy in America, his name so recognizable now that whenever a new trailer arises for a new comedy the question is always 'is Apatow involved?' Most of his work has been on producing and writing these films but he has had success with directing, firstly in 2005 with the brilliant 40-Year-Old Virgin and then in 2007 with Knocked Up.

His next venture into directing comes this summer with Funny People. George Simmons (Adam Sandler) is a very successful yet self-involved stand-up comedian who learns that he has an inoperable blood disorder and is given less than a year to live. Ira Wright (Seth Rogen) is a struggling up-and-coming stand-up comedian who works at a deli and has yet to figure out his onstage persona. One night, George takes notice of Ira when they perform at the same club and he hires him to be his semi-personal assistant and opening act at his performances.

Considering his recent acting choices (see I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry and Bedtime Stories) it seems odd at first that such a prominent director like Apatow would pick Sandler to be the lead in the film. I do enjoy some of Sandler's early comedies that had a light touch, however, so he could surprise and, while he can often be more than irritating, Rogen seems to work well under the guise of Apatow so the cast looks like it will actually end up being very solid.

The early trailer is where my fears with Apatow's third film come in. It looks funny but something about the tone/atmosphere that he has created with the music and general conversation feels a little off. To doubt that Apatow will produce and end result that is anything less than fantastic and hilarious is a risky choice but until I see the film certain doubts will still remain in my mind. Funny People comes to the US on July 31 and the UK on August 28.
Anticipation: 3/5

Review: Synecdoche, New York

Caden Cotard (Philip Seymour Hoffman) is obsessed with death. The first thing he does every morning is to check the obituaries page in the local paper (seeing at one point that Harold Pinter has passed away.) When his inquisitive young daughter Olive asks about his numerous physical ailments he does not shy away from the truth, letting a 8,9 year-old know the brutal reality of growing old. Cotard, working as a theatre director in his home town of Schenectady, even makes the decision to stage the death of Willie Loman, the protagonist of the Death Of A Salesman version he is currently producing, on stage. The conventional idea is that scene is meant to be held off-stage.

Cotard, the main character and focus of Charlie Kaufman's directorial debut, is most definitely a fascinating figure. Kaufman has spent a decade ironing out a position as one of the most inventive and creative screenwriters working at the moment, producing fare that is miles ahead of the usual Hollywood studio films. He has worked closely with directors Michel Gondry and Spike Jonze to adapt these mind bending and often bizarre scripts to the screen and only now decides to take the plunge into directing. This could be because it is his most personal film yet and he didn't feel comfortable letting Jonze or Gondry handle that kind of material. While Adaptation was personal in the sense of portraying his trials and tribulations as a writer Synecdoche is about Kaufman's life as a whole, his fears of death and growing old alone.

It is not long after the film begins before Cotard's artist wife Adele (the always superb Catherine Keener) leaves for Berlin with Olive and leaves the director behind. Countless phone calls and presents for his daughter are rejected, an ill-advised trip to find them resulting in a big argument with family friend, Maria (Jennifer Jason Leigh). Caden becomes more and more interested in Hazel (Samantha Morton), the woman who works in the box office of the theatre. At this point, Caden unexpectedly receives a Macarthur genius grant that gives him unlimited wealth to pursue his artistic interests. He is determined to use the money to create a piece of brutal realism and honesty, something into which he can pour his whole self. Gathering an ensemble cast into a large warehouse in Manhattan's theater district, he directs them in a celebration of the mundane, instructing each to live out their constructed lives.

It is quite interesting to look at the film as one man's troubles with women among many other things in his life. The supporting cast (excluding Tom Noonan, really effective as Sammy, a man who stalks Cotard for many years and then is chosen to play him in this vast project) is made up of the women in Cotard's life. Morton is extremely good, her American accent more than holding up against the other actors, as Hazel who becomes interested in Cotard despite the fact that seem more than odd as a couple. A recurring issue of the play is the house that she buys, eternally on fire and leading to many number of outcomes and consequences. Cotard comes to see her at one point in the play and she is seen casually walking up to a house that is inflamed, a bizarre scene to watch. Michelle Williams is equally fine as Claire, an aspiring actress in Cotard's Death Of... cast who is then drafted in to work on the project and ultimately gets involved with the director. Williams is slowly but surely establishing herself as a heavyweight independent film actress and her and Morton show two actors at the top of their games.

It is most definitely the second half of the film, set in motion once Cotard receives his grant, that has divided critics and audiences alike. The first hour is much easier to understand and, despite a few typical Kaufman instances like a hospital that looks like it is situated down a back-alley and a sink randomly exploding as Cotard shaves, seems almost tame in comparison to some of his other films. The second hour is surreal to say the least. Cotard shows signs of ageing as he works on the project, walking around the warehouse and watching people reenacting scenes from his life, for 17 years and still feels it is unfit to be put before an audience. For example (and this is a mild spoiler), at one point Claire is acting in a scene showing the apartment she and Caden share with Sammy, who is playing Cotard. It is a scene we recognize the real couple having earlier in the film and Claire breaks out of character to tell Caden (the real one) that it is over and she wants him out the apartment before the next morning. "I mean the real apartment, not this one." Confused? You are meant to be.

Listen, I am not going to sit here and pretend that I knew exactly what was going on for the whole running time of Synecdoche, New York. I am also not going to, however, sit here and say that the film is rubbish and indiscernible. I may not have known what I was watching at points but I still loved it. We already knew that Kaufman is unequalled in creativeness in scriptwriting in the world of film but now we see that he is also a very competent director as well. He handles the mammoth ambition of the second hour of the film with good grace and interacts with his actors to great effect. I haven't really mentioned the performance of Philip Seymour Hoffman but that is because he is consistently brilliant and reliable and his depiction of Cotard is no different. I think Roger Ebert's beautiful review puts into words best how I feel about Kaufman's film: "it's not that you have to understand it. It's that you have to realize how fine it really is. The surface may daunt you. The depths enfold you. The whole reveals itself, and then you may return to it like a talisman." UPDATE: My trusted friend Wikipedia tells me that Spike Jonze was indeed intended to direct this but scheduling conflicts with Where The Wild Things Are prevented him from doing so. I still feel that Kaufman sort of wanted to try his hand at directing all along and a film this personal was the perfect place to start.
****

Review: I Love You, Man

On the Daily Show late last year to promote his new film, Role Models, actor Paul Rudd came across as effortlessly funny. He came out all dressed in clothes (including a baseball cap) that all brandished the film's title and even did a spectacular dance for Jon Stewart. Whenever he is interviewed he seems like the most likable and charming man so it struck me that there is a strange theme in the roles he has been playing recently. The recurring joke here is that his character, Peter Klaven, is awkward around other men. He can't seem to succeed on a social level with them and therein ensues a number of jokes about this issue. But why is Rudd, with his off-screen persona being so appealing, choosing to play role after role where he plays the hopeless lead character? I think it is because he is that good an actor and that his presence is why this film works so well on a comedic level.

However the reasons that some critics and bloggers have disliked writer-director John Hamburg's film are actually clear to see within the first 30-40 minutes of the running time. It relies a lot on recurring jokes and themes. Along with the aforementioned observations of Klaven's continuing social failings there is the fact that (old Hulk television actor) Lou Ferrigno plays himself in the film. This is referenced to a couple of times at the start of the film and is very funny but when it is mentioned over and over again to the point where Hamburg is clearly relying on these jokes to get big laughs out of the audience. This did not particularly irritate me but I can easily see why some people have been turned off from the film because of it.

Having said this, the fact that there are enough good and proper laughs in the script in the first place left me entertained for the entire running time as Klaven attempts to impress his soon-to-be-wife Zooey (Rashida Jones from The Office) by finding a best man for their wedding. This proves harder than it sounds, however, as Peter is introduced to crazy person after crazy person. With all these failed attempts, Peter decides to give up, but during an open house at Lou Ferrigno's, he meets Sydney Fife (Jason Segel from How I Met Your Mother and last year's hilarious Forgetting Sarah Marshall.) They instantly hit it off when Sydney correctly gives a play-by-play of a potential buyer farting (extremely funny, if just for Segel's delivery of the commentary.) The two strike up a friendship and the film's plot follows from there.

I could relay a list of the many things that made me chuckle in I Love You, Man but that would just be boring so I will mention only a couple. Every scene that takes place in Sydney's "man cave," a space in his garage where he keeps a big-screen TV and his collection of rock instruments and Rush paraphernalia, was a lot of fun. None of the comedy was that original, from the two very badly attempting to play some Rush songs to Fife's grumpy faced dog, wonderfully named after former Egyptain prime minister Anwar Sadat for the uncanny resemblance, but none of that matters when the jokes are funny and made the audience in my screening laugh a lot. The second mention has to be for Jon Favreau, who only plays a small part in the film but is simply glorious in everything he does and says. I know he is now concentrating on directing now that Iron Man has become such a hit but I would love to see him do some more acting because he is one of the best things about the film.

It was also pleasing to see that, although none of them play that prominent a part, the female characters are not objectified or badly developed. Both Rashida Jones and Jaime Pressly are given good roles to work with and that was great to see. One of the things that I disliked about Greg Mottola's Superbad was the way in which none of the three female leads were given much development or any funny lines and jokes to say. This was fine considering that the male leads were so brilliant at keeping the film running well but when the script called for these badly thought out women characters to play a more significant role it just did not have a successful outcome. Hamburg makes sure that mistake does not arise here by leaving Jones and Pressly as side characters who play a small but necessary part in the plot.

Ultimately it is Rudd's performance that separates I Love You, Man from the throwaway, insignificant comedy that many people are seeing it as and the extremely funny and well thought out film that I am saying it is. Rudd makes those recurring awkward jokes turn from irritating way to keep the film coming a long into actually worthwhile and amusing bits of comedy. I certainly would come to the conclusion that, even if people did not enjoy the film in the slightest, that they give Hamburg a second chance when he inevitably releases another comedy because he is a clear talent and could develop nicely into a prominent member of the current crew at the forefront of American comedy.
****

Review: Fast & Furious

The Fast and Furious franchise has always fascinated me in that the films are fairly entertaining action movies with many a car chase but would seem fairly forgettable and only really worth one or two watches. However people seem to really love this series of films: over $700M worldwide when you consider this latest entry, which brings back the two stars of the first (and by far the best) film, Vin Diesel and Paul Walker. Made for around $85M, Fast & Furious has already made over $200M worldwide and could still make a significant improvement on that in the weeks to come. But why has this installment and the series as whole been so successful? Is it the pulsating and extremely well made action scenes composed of car chases across Los Angeles and Mexico? Or is it the star presence of Vin Diesel and Paul Walker? This question was constantly in my head as I watched the film and stayed there long after I left the cinema.

The plot is not particularly relevant but basically sees Dominic Toretto (Diesel) hi-jacking the most stereotypical South American truck drivers you will see on film in the Dominican Republic with his girlfriend Letty (Michelle Rodriguez - that one who was also in the first film then on Lost and then was killed off before being arrested as the cast of Lost decided it would be nice to get a load of driving offences.) She is killed off (gets third billing and then is killed off in the first 10 minutes, what the hell is up with that) and then Vin decides to go to L.A. to track down the people behind her murder. He encounters Brian O'Conner (Walker), now an FBI agent, and the two go on many a car journey in order to track down Mexican gangsters and their associates.

See, the reason that I describe the plot in such a flippant fashion is that it really does only act as something to string together the 4 or 5 big action scenes that form the source of entertainment in the film. And, to give credit to director Justin Lin (also directed the previous entry into the franchise, Tokyo Drift) and the clearly talented second unit working on this piece, the action scenes are entertaining. They are ridiculous - the opening one finds Diesel driving his car under a truck that is rolling down a hill - but good fun to watch. Both O'Conner and Toretto attempt to infiltrate a gang by winning a race that will see them initiated and this involves them having GPS trackers in their cars and then racing to the finish line. This was a lot of fun and the audience in the cinema I saw the film in clearly loved it.

However the action scenes also lead nicely into the biggest problem with Fast & Furious. People are coming to see it knowing that the plot will be pointless, the script will be dire and the acting will be fairly sub-par (why on earth is Jordanna Brewster still getting big roles like this?) The audience is coming to see a Fast and Furious film for the cars and the big action set-pieces. So when two or three of these scenes are not even working on that brainless entertainment level, you know the film is in trouble. There is one scene where a number of cars race under the Mexican border that is serviceable but when the exact same thing is repeated as the final set-piece at the end of the film flaws begin to arise. The final scene in an action film like this is meant to be the massive pay off: stupid, irrelevant but entertaining. Here it is not only repeated but also ended up boring me. I can excuse the bad plot (I honestly cannot say anything more about it as it is that extraneous) and the poor acting but when an action film does not deliver on the action well enough it cannot be justified.

The franchise seems to be sold on the basis that it will deliver 'pulsating action' and exhilarating car chases so I really don't buy into some people's assertion that this particular installment is doing so well because Vin Diesel has returned. Both him and Paul Walkers' presences are largely unnecessary. So that must mean that the answer to the question in the first paragraph is that this franchise has succeeded thanks to the cars and action scenes? Probably, but I feel sorry for those who think that this fourth film is adequate at delivering that kind of stuff. Hollywood should be able to better. A brainless but diverting piece of escapism was what I was hoping for but Fast & Furious did not even give me that. Shame on you, Diesel and Lin.
**

Review: Let The Right One In

There is this wonderfully absurd moment in Tomas Alfredson's Swedish romantic horror film Låt den rätte komma in (Let The Right One In to us), adapted from John Ajvide Lindqvist's equally brilliant book of the same name, where the moments following a murder are interrupted by none other than a poodle. The dog does not bark or start to act wildly, instead choosing to just sit there and watch. The murderer, Håkan (Per Ragnar), attempts to ward off the poodle by throwing some snow at it however the dog stays unflinched. This moment was significant for me in the context of the film because it represented one of a few moments of comedy within the piece. Alfredson is probably now bored of people saying his film has 'transcended' the horror/vampire genre but this particular moment does show that. There are many terrifying moments in Let The Right One In but that is not what makes it such a thrilling, exhilarating watch.

A big success with critics in America (not just your Ebert's and Scott's, bloggers and podcasts were going crazy over this film) Let The Right One in sticks fairly close to the plot of the book. Some elements, including more development of the character of Håkan and other scenes, have been cut but the main story still revolves around Oskar (Kåre Hedebrant), 12-year-old boy living in the Stockholm suburb of Blackeberg in the early 1980s. He is regularly bullied by his classmates and imagines revenge on them each evening. One night, he meets Eli (Lina Leandersson), who appears to be a pale, androgynous girl his own age. Eli has recently moved in next door and offers friendship to Oskar, but he initially declines any friendship with her. However, over time, they begin to share their lonely existence together before Oskar starts to question exactly who Eli is.

Shot in the north of Sweden to ensure enough snow and cold weather, the film is strikingly well photographed. The shot of the sky as the snow falls which bookends the film and can be found in one scene is a perfect example of cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema's work. Alfredson and him give in to the stereotype of gloomy Scandinavian landscapes, showing the set of apartment blocks in which Oskar and his mother reside in a negative light yet at the same time celebrating this weather. It never seems to stop snowing in this film and no character goes outside with less than 3 or 4 layers on. There is one beautiful scene where children from the school go skating on some ice near a forest and although it plays second fiddle to the main plots driving the scene, Oskar confronting his bully nemesis and the unearthing of a dead body, the landscape is stunning to look at and all credit to both director and cinematographer for that.

Another aspect of filming that Alfredson gets spot on is how he deals with the child actors who are the main focus of the plot. After the screening that I saw of the film Alfredson was there to give a Q&A and, when asked about Leandersson and Hedebrant, said that he would wait until just before the take and then tell the children to imagine they were getting told off by their parents or had an itch that they could not reach before starting the scene. This sensible way of working with them has paid off as they are both extremely watchable, even when dealing with matters well beyond their understanding. There are moments where little is said that are so brilliantly acted that you can easily believe the characters and their emotions.

This then ties into what I was attempting to say in the first paragraph of the review. You can see many instances of horror as Håkan and Eli stalk their prey (one scene where a victim is caught and strung up in the changing room at a gym is particularly terrifying, Håkan's decision to pour acid on his eyes coming across as a gruesome choice) yet as the film progresses these moments seem to take a side role as the burgeoning friendship/romance (depends upon how you want to look at it, Oskar at one time asking Eli if she wants to 'go steady' in a hilarious but touching scene late at night, at others acting strangely around her after finding out her true identity) between the two children takes centre stage. And it is a worthy story to tell, their chemistry easy to see thanks to the wonderful acting and direction. It is a special film that manages to frighten you at once, the community around Blackeberg becoming more and more scared as the death toll begins to rise, and then suddenly change to make you almost tear up at an ordinary boy making friends with a vampire. However it is an even more special film that does that without any blatant tonal changes, moving along smoothly as it flirts with different genres.

There is nothing really negative to say about Let The Right One In. The sub-plot involving local woman Virginia may seem unnecessary and the final scene could be conceived as a tad too graphic (despite a magnificently shot overview of the local swimming pool that shows what exactly has happened in the scene) but for the most part it is one of my personal favourites of the year so far. Alfredson said at that Q&A that he was originally apprehensive about the American remake that had been announced before the film was even released there but now has to accept that he can do nothing about it. Hopefully Cloverfield director Matt Reeves won't do too much to ruin the effect that this beautiful and striking film has had at home in Sweden and across the pond.
*****