Elijah Wood is a Maniac (2012)

Most people who have know me for a while, know that I hate remakes.  In fact i think I have started a few movie reviews with that same line. I have even said that there is never a reason to remake a movie. I have really been rethinking that belief a lot lately, especially after watching the remake of Maniac with Elijah Wood. Of course if you remake every film ever made over and over, eventually you are going to stumble and make a good film. The old hundred monkeys typing Shakespeare thing. I still think there are far too many original projects out there that never see the light for Hollywood to be remaking so many films.  Maybe if Hollywood were to concentrate on taking bad or so-so movies and making them better, better acting, better filming quality, better directing instead of just cashing in on the popularity of good films, I would feel better about remakes.  I think the Maniac remake fits into the former category.

OK at the risk of angering fans everywhere, I was never all that crazy about the original Maniac. I didn't hate the original, come on how can you hate a movie with Caroline Munro in it and featuring special effects from the master Tom Savini?  I just was never a huge fan. So, at least in my eyes, this would be a film that could be redone. Which it was. With Elijah Wood as a serial killer.

The film got a lot of buzz for casting Elijah against type, and a lot of people wondered if he could pull it off. A lot of those people apparently forgot about his chilling turn in Sin City as the cannibal Kevin. Frank from Maniac is an entirely different monster than Kevin, and this plays more to Elijah's strengths. While Kevin was a silent vicious killing machine, Frank is a deeply disturbed and almost timid character most of the time. Much more akin to Frodo Baggins than a psycho killer.  But Frank can be vicious and when the switch flips, Elijah doesn't disappoint.

Visually the film is a real treat for someone who grew up in the late 70s and 80s. The movie is dark, not just in theme, but visually and atmospherically. Watching the opening took me back to those late nights watching sleazy crime dramas on HBO with the lights out. Back to the first time I watched the original.  Once again I got that feeling of watching something I shouldn't be watching.The sound too was reminiscent of those forbidden films that seemed so taboo in my early teen years.

Maniac is filmed mostly in a first person/ POV style. I wasn't sure how I would like this as it first seemed way to close the the shaky cam, found footage film that is the flavor of the month.  However watching the film (mostly) through the eyes of a killer is a new and disturbing prospective.  Although the film does abandon the POV in a few key scenes, mostly we only see Elijah Woods character when he is reflected off a mirror, or other reflective surface.  While changing perspectives may seem corny or  even sloppy, in Maniac it is done skillfully, and adds a dizzying intensity to those scenes.  I know there will be some complaints that the POV style with feed the voyeuristic urges of some.  That it might be too close to the real thing.  While that might be a danger, art is dangerous, and this is horror. Horror should be disturbing, it should be horror.

While the overall gore factor of Maniac isn't that high, it doesn't skimp from the bloodiness of the murders. The killers motive here isn't to disembowel people but to kill them, or at least mutilate them in a certain way.  Some die fast, some die slow, but the camera doesn't turn away to spare us.  I don't want to give away any spoilers for those who haven't seen it, or the original, but the killing is secondary to his trophy taking. Part of Frank's twisted psyche doesn't even realize he is killing them.

The film manages to pay homage to at least two horror films that I noticed.  I'm not going to spoil this, but one is guaranteed to make you laugh, the other may send a chill down your spine. As for laughing, even though this is a dark film, there are a few laughs.  It never, in my view crosses over into a comedy, but there are moments of humor, some darker than others.

The ending of Maniac, like the original leaves you unsure of what is happening and possibly doubting everything you have seen.  It's a brilliant but confusing ending that will leave some in awe, and some confused.  I'm kind of in the middle of that scale.

The only real complaint I have is the lack of cameos from the original Maniac.  Come on you couldn't find a spot for a quick scene with Caroline Munro.  And what about the man himself, the man who should be the governor, Tom Savini?  Would the original film have the cult following that it does today if not for the involvement of Savini?  I really doubt it.

For the ratings, there is very little strong profanity that I remember. Not saying it's all clean talk but there wasn't enough over the top profanity (IE Devil's Rejects or Boondock Saints) to register.  There
is a couple of scenes of nudity, but nothing extreme , and some light sex scenes. The ratings kicker here will be the violence, most, but not all, directed at women.  Most of these scenes are fairly realistic, and disturbing and I can see Maniac having a hard time getting an "R" rating for theatrical release.

So my verdict? This film is awesome with no reservations. Eljah Wood gives another performance of a lifetime.  Find a way to see Maniac, if it's showing at a convention or festival near you, GO. Pass up on karaoke or the VIP party and see Maniac instead.  Hopefully it will get a release soon on DVD at least, if so it's a buy. It's the film that has softened me on remakes more than any other.  Whether you are a fan of the original Maniac or not, if you love horror, you need to see this film.

Hellraiser:Revelations aka Victor Garcia laid a stinker

  Hellraiser: Revelations

AKA, I tried to replace Doug Bradley in an iconic film role and all I got was this...Hey, where' my T-shirt?

So against even my own misgivings, last week I watched Hellraiser:Revelations. Now I start almost every review with reminding my readers how much I hate remakes. Call it remake, reboot, or re imagining, an Irish rose by any other name still smells like shit.

Hellraiser:Revelations was originally pitched as a reboot, but was later changed to a continuation of the series or so we were lead to believe. However the film comes off just as remakey as remakes can be, so remake it is in my mind.

Beyond being a remake, what inspired the most ire in horror and Hellraiser fans was the decision to recast the lead cenobite. Pinhead as he was affectionately dubbed by his legion of fans (he goes unnamed in the films), has been played in the past by Doug Bradley. Indeed Bradley so personifies Pinhead that fans near revolted when he was replaced. Pinhead was no silent masked serial killer, he was a distinguished, erudite, disciple of the void. And his face and voice was that of Doug Bradley.

The luckless guy to take the job, well I don't remember his name and don't feel like looking it up. While I can't blame him for taking the job, I'm sure plenty of Bradley fans can, but I hope he at least knew what he was getting into to. It would take a near Oscar performance to make fans accept him, and well he didn't make it.

Still the faux pinhead wasn't the worst thing about the film. Hiss actual delivery of his lines was pretty good. That's about all I can say good about him, or the film. First off he was completely physically wrong for the part. At times he looked like a chubby kid dressing as Pinhead at Comicon, other times he looked he was headed to a rave complete with silver face paint.

His body language was laughable, serious he looked like a mime school dropout. With the horrible direction elsewhere I'll blame that on the director. As mentioned above the make up was silly. Add to that the stupidity of the dialogue and it was a loosing battle. Sorry bro, you sucked and the best thing you can hope for is that no one remembers your name from this.

The writing was even throughout, evenly bad. The plot was horrible, and just made no sense. It was like someone read the crib notes from Hellraiser as a guide, but never understood what he was reading. A lot of the elements of the original movie was there, but there was no real connection, no reason for them to be there. Not to mention the ludicrous elements like the cennobites stealing cars, and no one in the film having a cell phone.

Acting was non existent. there is much better acting in small films that never get a studio release, and that's a shame. Seriously there was not a believable line delivered by any character the entire movie. And I'm being charitable in saying that. My advice to the cast, blame the director and don't put this on your resume.

Probably the best thing about Hellraiser:Revelations was the special effects. The bad thing is that there were very few effects in the movie. The standard chain ripping effect was OK, the skinless man effect was OK. The Pinhead(s) makeup (did I mention there were actually two Pinheads?) was shitty as I mentioned before, but otherwise the effects were passable. Passable just isn't nearly enough to save this stinker. Hellraiser fan or not, Doug Bradley fan or not avoid this piece of shit at all costs. It's not even worth a slot on your Netflix Que.

The Thing (2011) review

I hate remakes.  Really I do.  Yet I keep going to see them.  Not all of them but still I see a lot.  So as much as John Carpenter’s The Thing is a classic.  As much as it is one of the best horror films of the 80’s, and as much as I hated on the remake, where was I this weekend.  Now there are a lot of ways to justify this.  Carpenter’s 1982 classic was in itself a remake.  The 2011 version of The Thing is technically not a remake but a prequel.  The trailers looked good, the director tied it in directly to the original, etc., etc.  Still I felt a little dirty sitting in the theater waiting for it to start.

Now story wise it is indeed a prequel, as it takes place in the Norwegian camp visited briefly in the original.  Still a large part of the film is a shot for every other shot remake.  SO prequel or remake, you make the call.  After all as a wise man said “you can call a horse a monkey all day long, doesn’t mean it will be swinging from a tree the next time you see it.”  I’m going to attempt to refer to it as a prequel but if I slip up and refer to The Thing as a remake, please forgive me.  There will be spoilers so leave now if you want to avoid them.

I have heard both good and bad for The Thing, but most of my friends seem to like it so I was expecting at least a good movie.  On that point The Thing (2011) did not disappoint. 

The Thing opens in Antarctica on the Norwegian base as they discover what turns out to be an alien spaceship.  Fans of the original The Thing know that this is the ship of the first films protagonist.  Then we shift away from Antarctica to meet our story’s hero, Kate Llyod, played my Mary Elizabeth Winstead .  Winstead is one of the highlights of The Thing.  Just as tough and strong willed as McCready from the 81 version, but not as bitter or world weary. Lloyd accompanies a group of scientists back to help remove the alien from the ice.

On the base, as usually happens in good horror/sci-fi, greed overcomes good sense and the creature is freed.  Violence, bloodshed, and body absorption occurs in rapid succession.  Lloyd, like McCready in the 1982 The Thing, quickly realizes that not everyone on the base is who they seem.  Attempts to test for the creature meet with sabotage, and people vanish.  There is a flamethrower standoff, ala The Thing 1982 which culminates in a battle between the humans and the CGI Thing.  Ultimately it ends up being a battle inside the alien spaceship, as Lloyd and Carter, played by Joel Edgerton, attempt to prevent The Thing from blasting off to warmer climes.  This leads to a pre-credits ending that is probably the best part of the film.  Then as the credits roll, we see a scene that directly ties in with the opening of the 1982 version of The Thing.

So on to the good and the bad.  Let’s start with the opening, well not actually the opening but near the opening where we first meet Winstead’s character.  It takes place off Antarctica.  Right away we lose that feeling of claustrophobia that Carpenter cultivated throughout the original The Thing.  In Carpenter’s The Thing, we never leave Antarctica and seldom leave the base.  To the viewer the snow and wind are all that exist.  The base is a claustrophobic sanctum against the elements.  To go outside is to die of exposure, to stay inside is to die at the hands of The Thing.  It’s a small thing but seeing the outside world, let me know it existed in the world of The Thing.  I would have much preferred to have met Lloyd on the base.  Have her fly in, see her torturous acclimation to the cold.

The cinematography of The Thing (2011) was absolutely beautiful.  It would be a highlight of the film except the beauty once again takes away from that feeling of desperation in the first film.  I think the director’s intention was to show “the call before the storm” and he did succeed in that but it detracts from the horror.  Once again, there is beauty out there, there is hope.  Try to find that same feeling of hope in Carpenter’s The Thing.  It’s not there.

The CGI, the big bad wolf of modern horror, The Thing 2011 was pretty heavy with CGI, especially in the last half.  It wasn’t horrible and there was probably no realistic way to show a walking talking Thing with practical effects.  Blame the great practical effects that created the Thing’s corpse in the first film.  Still the creature kind of looked silly and didn’t inspire and horror or terror while watching it.  In the final confrontation inside the Thing’s spaceship, it looked more like a fairy tale troll than a murderous alien.  The transformation scenes themselves were ok, but the camera just stayed on the monster way too long.  It’s ok to show the monster but the longer you linger, the easier it is to see the zipper.

There were some silly little things that bother me in film, there always are.  Scenes like Lars sudden disappearance, only to reappear unhurt at the end.  Made for a great tie in with the first, but WTF?  He just suddenly jumped to the side as if he had been grabbed, then hides through all the mayhem till the end.  Also what is up with the Thing’s spaceship?  It’s huge, as befits a huge ass alien critter, yet all of the hallways appear to be built to the scale of Kate Moss.  Sure the creature can morph but it appears to favor big ass bodies so why not have a ship where he doesn’t have to bend over and squeeze through if he needs to chase someone.  Then there was the scene where it waits for Winstead to step out into the hallway before attacking.  Even though it knows where she is. And when it attacks it breaks through the wall of the ship instead of just grabbing her in the tunnel.  I guess it was tired of forcing itself through those tiny tunnels.  There is another scene that irked me but it is a pretty major spoiler so I won’t go into it.  It sets up a situation that is probably the best scene in the movie, so while I don’t totally buy it, it is worth it for the payoff.

There are a few transformation scenes that seem almost duplicates from the first film.  There is also the flamethrower standoff which is taken almost directly from the 1982 The Thing.  You decide homage, or rip off.  I groaned during the transformation, and at the beginning of the standoff, although the ending sort of redeemed it for me

I’m sure at this point a lot of you are saying “Jesus Christ dude, nitpick it to death” or wondering why I am not demanding my money back.  Well it’s because I liked it.  Yeah I said it, I liked it.  It will never be the classic that Carpenter’s 1982 masterpiece will be but The Thing 2011 is a good movie.    So why did I like it?

First off Mary Elizabeth WInstead, as Kate Lloyd was one of the most impressive and well written female characters in a recent horror film.  Lloyd was smart, tough, and when it came down to it downright brutal.  As beautiful as she was to look at, you never saw her behave as a typical female movie character.  While she showed some sympathy toward the suspected alien inhabited American’s she was resolute in her decision to isolate them.  She would quickly turn that flame thrower on anyone infected.  To me she was every bit as strong a hero as McCready, but not as anti-social.

The final scene that ties in The Thing 2011 with the 1982 The Thing is Brilliant!  So many films don’t even try to connect, or if they do they create ludicrous situations.  This took the ending straight from the first, and added an intro.  It worked to perfection.

The scenery and cinematography were beautiful as I mentioned above, but also took away from that feeling of being cut off, of desperation.

The best scene of the movie, for me, was the pre-credit ending.  I’ll try not to completely spoil it, but it was wonderful.  That last confrontation was so well acted and written that I wasn’t sure which way it was going to play out.  I knew something was up, but I wasn’t sure how it would end.  Then the final scene with Winstead, look at her face. It’s filled with desperation, fear, and possibly uncertainty.  Is she wondering if she just made a huge mistake?  She knows she is more than likely going to freeze to death.  So many emotions were on her face, unlike in the typical horror film hero’s face, unlike the typical jubilant heroes of most film.

Edgerton’s role in the final scene was also well done and acted.  Never once did he break and give us a clue as to his true nature.  Was he human, or was he The Thing?  Did we hear the Thing screaming or was that Carter?  The director makes it just ambiguous to make me a bit uneasy.  It was stated in The Thing 1982, that if someone were a perfect copy, would even they know they weren’t human?  If that’s true do we really know who the Thing was at the end.  If it was anyone at all, was it all paranoia?  We will hopefully never know.

So yeah I liked The Thing 2011, the remake, err, prequel, whatever.  It’s a good movie, not great, but it has some great scenes.  It’s not perfect, but it has some damn near perfect scenes.  The acting is strong throughout.  There are some characters we grow attached to and then see die horribly.  It’s not great, but (heresy!) it’s worth the cost of a ticket, and hell even popcorn, but sneak in your own cola.

Straw Dogs (2011)

Alexander Skarsgard all wet

Bare chested Alexander Skarsgard

It seems as much as I say I hate remakes, I still end up seeing them. True I usually avoid them at theaters but eventually I end up watching them. Even the God awful Day of the Dead remake I have sat through on cable. Even free it totally sucked ass. So with nothing else at the theater and me bored I went to see Straw Dogs.



Straw Dogs is a remake of a film by Sam Peckinpaw starring Dustin Hoffman and Susan George. I wasn’t expecting much, but was hoping to be surprised. While true The original was directed by one of my favorite directors of all time and starred one of the greatest living actors and the smoking hot Susan George. Still I was never a huge fan of Straw Dogs. I have only seen it once, and it just never took root like The Wild Bunch or Billy the Kid. SO I had no real emotional attachment to the original Straw Dogs to make me hate the remake off hand.



Still, it’s a remake and I just generally hate remakes on principle alone. There is never a real need for a remake. There are too many original projects that never get funded, never get made, never get released. Even if a remake turns out good, what original script never sees the light. Remakes are nothing but a cheap grab at profits off someone else’s work. Ok that’s a rant for another story. Back to Straw dogs.



So I went into Straw Dogs with no extra animosity. It was a remake but it wasn’t destroying the memory of a cherished film from my childhood (Hello Candyman remake). I was prepared to give it a shot.



On the positive side it starred red hot Alexander Skarsgard from True Blood. Now I’m not gay but if I were ever tempted it would be by Alexander. The rest of the first billed cast did little for me, and really Alexander was the main reason I ended up at the theater.



One big positive that was missed was Walton Groggins. It was great seeing him on the big screen. What wasn’t great was how little screen time he actually got. Blink once you’re ok, twice maybe, three time, see you missed him. Walton steals the small screen in what ever role he is in. Check him out on The Shield or Justified. Attention Hollywood it’s time he got either a lead role or a big ass role in a major film.



The big negative was that it was a remake. Sorry but with a remake there is always that feeling of “seen it before.” Porting the film from England to the deep south was a nice change and worked fairly well in and off itself, but it was just a really close remake. Even though I had only seen the original Straw Dogs once I pretty much knew what was up all the way through. Sorry but that is a negative when I bust out ten bucks a ticket for a film.



Being from the south I recognized a lot of the characters. While some were a bit stereotyped I never really felt insulted. I didn’t feel wronged because even though they were sometimes stretched, they were real. I grew up with those people.



I did feel the sub plot with the high school ingénue and the over muscled “slow” man came off as fake. Sorry I see what they were shooting at but never bought it. It came off as too much like Of Mice and Men. Once again I haven’t seen the original Straw Dogs in years so this could be almost exactly what happened in the original. Still it didn’t quite work for me.



James Marsden really stood out as the fish out of water Hollywood writer.  I'm not a huge fan of Marsden but I really bought into his character and felt for him. Maybe he was a bit stereotypical liberal, but he did manage to offend my southern sensibilities, not with his actions, but with his attitude at times. His character for the most part felt he was better than the locals. At times he seemed to want to fit in, but mostly he seemed to just want to avoid the locals and their customs. Still he proved to be heroic and at the end WAS better than the locals. More on that later.



Kate Bosworth was just there. No offense to her but I found her character unlikable in the first Straw Dogs. I pretty much felt the same in the remake. Her character instigates many of the conflicts in Straw Dogs. I’m not taking the position that a woman should “cover up” to avoid unwanted male attention, but she did stir the sexual pot. At times she was actually provoking the tension. It’s not her fault it’s the way she was written and without her the story takes on a deeper, darker tone. I have always seen her character as just as much the villain as Skarsgard’s locals.



The magnet that draws and holds you to Straw Dogs is Alexander Skarsgard though. He exudes southern charm while channeling Eric Northman every time he scowls at the camera. Till near the end he almost comes off as a sympathetic character. In love with the woman he can never have. The woman who detests the life he leaves, and the life she left behind.



One big fault to me was how the lovable, mild Charlie at the beginning could become the violent killer at the end. Maybe there was always some psychosis behind his smile but I didn’t see it. The rape scene mid way through seemed more in character. We know he loves Amy. He is also deluded that Amy still has feelings for him. A delusion that Amy does nothing to disperse, and at times seems to encourage.



The final assault on the Sumner homestead, lead by a maniacal James Woods is violent and bloody. Pacifist David defends his wife, home and the slow Jeremy from the angry mob while Amy cowers in the room, urging him to capitulate every chance she gets. It does get bloody folks. One of the more violent segments in a non horror film. That last battle might not make Peckinpaw proud, but it wouldn’t embarrass him either. Much of the final fight is taken directly from the original Straw Dogs.



So what’s the verdict. Overall it’s not a bad film. Decent acting, decent story, lots of violence. I never had to stretch my disbelief to thin although I did feel it wanting to slip at times. It will never go down as a classic. More likely it will end up in the bargain bin at Wal-Mart, but hey they are some decent flicks in there (Ernest Scared Straight FTW!). Still it’s worth a watch even at theater prices, especially if you have never seen the original.



True blue Peckinpaw fans might pan it but there have been much worse remakes made. Day of the Dead. There’s enough action and violence to keep you entertained and the ending is explosive. SO for a remake I will give Straw Dogs a passing score. Not an A+ but a solid B. So if you are bored, or if you are an Alexander Skarsgard (or Eric Northman) fan check it out. Then go and rent or buy everything with Walton Goggins in it and see a real under appreciated actor.

Peace

Links you might like hombre!
 
Nearly Naked Alexander Skarsgard
 
Eliza Jayne, hottest up and coming model on the net

An open letter to Bradley Cooper: Say no to the Crow remake

http://cinemaroll.com/cinemarolling/an-open-letter-to-bradley-cooper-say-no-to-the-crow-remake/




You had to be expecting a Crow remake. Hollywood has no interest in producing original work anymore. No tinsel town is content to churn out cheap remakes for the sure profit. Nothing is sacred anymore. We have already seen Nightmare on Elm Street and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre redone in sub par fashion and even as I type the Arthur remake is showing in theaters. there is no reluctance to dig up childhood treasures and spit all over them for the almighty dollar. No remakes are sadly here to stay for the foreseeable future.



So I’m not really shocked that a Crow remake is being fast tracked. The original was a great film, dark, stylish and with a leading man who was bound for big screen superstardom. Tragically Brandon Lee didn’t live to finish The Crow. His death during filming shocked his fans as well as fans of J.O. Barr’s comic book antihero. As much as The Crow is a great film in itself it is impossible to separate from Brandon’s death. The Crow, Eric Draven and Brandon are forever linked by the sad circumstances of the film. It is utter folly for anyone else to take on the role of Eric Draven, the role was, is and ever will be Brandon’s.



No I wasn’t shocked about the remake, but I was shocked to hear that Bradley Cooper was seriously considering the role. I like Bradley, I really do. He is a great actor and can take on dark roles. I loved him in Tell Tale, and he seems a genuinely nice guy. But I can’t like him if he tries to replace Brandon.



I know other actors have taken the role of the crow and even of Eric in sequels. I didn’t like it, but mostly these were people I didn’t know, young actors who needed a big role. Plus they were not doing the original story. You don’t need this role Bradley. It wont catapult you to the next level, it will just alienate fans of Brandon Lee and The Crow. It will hurt your career more than help it. There is very little chance it will be done properly. Most remakes now are horrendous, especially when they are “fast tracked” as I understand is happening with The Crow.



The Crow is a very important film to me and a lot of other people. You see I’m old enough to remember Brandon’s father. When I was a kid Bruce Lee was the man. He was who you compared everyone else too. He was the Sylvester Stallone, the Arnold of his generation only bigger. He died way too soon. He died before I ever actually seen any of his films, but I still knew who he was. When Rapid Fire was released in 1992 it was like the second coming.



Brandon had the moves, he had the charisma, he was going to be our generations Bruce Lee. When he signed to do The Crow comic geeks everywhere went crazy. Then the unthinkable happened. It seemed like a bad joke. A stunt went wrong and Brandon died on the set from a gunshot wound. You all know the story. They finished the film with doubles and shooting around Brandon. The Crow was our good bye from Brandon Lee. An epitaph to life that ended way too soon. That film belongs to Brandon and his fans, not to a studio that only sees an easy profit. Not to a director who promise to respect it, but in truth doesn’t care.



This movie does not need to be made, and you don’t need to star in it Bradley. It’s probably a lost cause to try and fight the inevitable. The Crow will be remade, I am sure of that. But you don’t have to be a part of it. Don’t legitimize this travesty by adding your star power to it. Don’t draw your fans, those who go to every Bradley Cooper movie in to see this.



You may be a fan of The Crow. I hope you are. I can understand that feeling, to want to be a part of something you love and respect. However you can’t be a part of The Crow, not the real Crow. I might be a fan of the Mona Lisa but I could never be a part of creating it, no matter how talented I am. That like The Crow is a part of history. No one in their mind would even think of repainting the Mona Lisa but with cinema art, everyone wants to redo, to improve on it. It can’t be done. Not with a classic, not with a film that is as special as The Crow.



Please if you are a fan, step away. Say you will have no part of it. Let the project die, or be relegated to the discount bin, where it can be forgotten. Don’t trample on our memories. If you aren’t a fan of The Crow, then I beg you accept that this is a special film. You will only lose fans by doing this. I’m trusting you will do the right thing. Just say no to the crow remake.


If you really don't want Bradley Cooper to star in the Crow remake, let him no.  Go to his Facebook page and state your opinion, also to any fan pages for Bradley, Brandon and The Crow.

Bradley Coopers Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Bradley-Cooper/75308920437

Piranha Hottie Kelly Brook

You can see more of the delicious Kelly Brook in the upcoming Piranha remake and even in the leaked trailer .  Here are a few pics of Kelly Brook to hold you over between the time the leaked trailer is removed and the film opens in August.  This remake is actually starting to intrigue me and the scenes of the delectable naked Kelly Brook are definitely not hurting the film.

Let me in Trailer

Well I hate remakes and this one looks to stink up the memory of the excellent original film but here is the trailer for Let Me In