プライム無料体験をお試しいただけます
プライム無料体験で、この注文から無料配送特典をご利用いただけます。
非会員 | プライム会員 | |
---|---|---|
通常配送 | ¥410 - ¥450* | 無料 |
お急ぎ便 | ¥510 - ¥550 | |
お届け日時指定便 | ¥510 - ¥650 |
*Amazon.co.jp発送商品の注文額 ¥3,500以上は非会員も無料
無料体験はいつでもキャンセルできます。30日のプライム無料体験をぜひお試しください。
モールス [DVD]
購入オプションとあわせ買い
フォーマット | 色, ドルビー, 吹き替え, DTS Stereo, 字幕付き, ワイドスクリーン |
コントリビュータ | コディ・スミット=マクフィー, イライアス・コティーズ, リチャード・ジェンキンス, クロエ・グレース・モレッツ, マット・リーヴス |
言語 | 英語 |
稼働時間 | 1 時間 56 分 |
この商品をチェックした人はこんな商品もチェックしています
商品の説明
『クローバーフィールド/HAKAISHA』 マット・リーヴス監督
『キック・アス』 クロエ・グレース・モレッツ 主演
“切なさ”と“恐怖”が心を揺さぶり、いまだかつてない余韻が残る傑作が誕生!
雪に閉ざされた町。隣に越してきた裸足の少女。残酷な連続猟奇殺人。
最も切なくて、最も怖ろしい、イノセントスリラー。
【ストーリー】
「私のこと好き?たとえ、普通の女の子じゃなくても?」
孤独な12歳の少年オーウェン。謎の少女アビー。 全ての秘密が明らかになったとき、衝撃の決断が・・・・。
雪に閉ざされた町。オーウェンは母親と二人きりで暮らし、学校ではイジメられている孤独な少年。ある日、隣にアビーという少女が越してくる。彼女は雪の上でも裸足で、自分の誕生日も知らない、謎めいた少女だった。何度も会ううちに、孤独を抱える二人は徐々に惹かれあい、お互いにしか分からない壁越しのモールス信号で絆を日に日に強くさせていく。やがて、オーウェンはアビーの隠された哀しく怖ろしい秘密を知ることになる。
時を同じくして、町では残酷な連続猟奇殺人が起こり始める。事件を捜査する刑事は、真相を追い続けるうちに二人の住む団地へとたどり着く――。
そして、全てが明らかになったとき、オーウェンが下す衝撃の決断とは・・・。
【キャスト】
クロエ・グレース・モレッツ、コディ・スミット=マクフィー、リチャード・ジェンキンス、イライアス・コティーズ
【スタッフ】
監督・脚本:マット・リーヴス、原作:ヨン・アイヴィデ・リンドクヴィスト「MORSE-モールス-」(ハヤカワ文庫刊)、撮影:グレッグ・フレイザー、音楽:マイケル・ジアッキノ
【映像特典】
■未公開シーン
セルDVD&ブルーレイでしか知りえない!アビーの衝撃の過去!
(本編では一切触れていない、あまりに残酷なアビーの過去が明かされる!このシーンの撮影中はアビー役のクロエ・グレース・モレッツの母親もその過激さゆえにセットを離れた。)
■マット・リーヴス監督オーディオ・コメンタリー
■予告編集
■クロエ・グレース・モレッツ インタビュー(日本版セルDVD&ブルーレイ限定収録!)
■メイキング
■特殊効果の技術
【外装・封入特典】(予定・仮名)
■フォトブックレット
登録情報
- 言語 : 英語
- 製品サイズ : 25 x 2.2 x 18 cm; 83.16 g
- EAN : 4907953042209
- 監督 : マット・リーヴス
- メディア形式 : 色, ドルビー, 吹き替え, DTS Stereo, 字幕付き, ワイドスクリーン
- 時間 : 1 時間 56 分
- 発売日 : 2012/1/7
- 出演 : クロエ・グレース・モレッツ, コディ・スミット=マクフィー, リチャード・ジェンキンス, イライアス・コティーズ
- 字幕: : 日本語
- 言語 : 日本語 (Dolby Digital 5.1), 英語 (Dolby Digital 5.1)
- 販売元 : Happinet(SB)(D)
- ASIN : B005MNAYGU
- ディスク枚数 : 1
- Amazon 売れ筋ランキング: - 31,088位DVD (DVDの売れ筋ランキングを見る)
- - 1,075位外国のミステリー・サスペンス映画
- カスタマーレビュー:
-
トップレビュー
上位レビュー、対象国: 日本
レビューのフィルタリング中に問題が発生しました。後でもう一度試してください。
最近primeでキックアスを見るまでクロエ・グレース・モレッツの存在の大きさをあまり意識してなかったのですが、この作品でも4回も見ている辺り虜になっている自分がいるのが分かります。
子供から大人へと成長していく過程での初恋。
その初恋相手の為にまだ幼さ残る自分が出来る事と出来ない事の葛藤。
乗り越える壁が物凄く高い事、そして・・・。
この映画は余韻も味わえるのでオススメです。
多少のグロさはありますが、血が苦手な人以外は見れると思います。
あぁ、こんな出会いが有ったらなぁ・・・。
初めて泣きました。
この映画は🎞
もはや、スリラーでは!無い。
ラストで。泣きました。
何とも切なくて、どう言えば表現出来るのか。
とてもいい表す事の出来ない、綺麗な映画ですね。ヒロイン役のクロエ・グレース・モレッツさんが、劇中では12歳でしょうが、ほんとは13歳ぐらいかな?凄い演技でビックリ虜になっちゃいました笑
劇中は80年代ということなので、当時流行っていたカルチャー・クラブのTIME、君は素敵さが流れます。
歌詞は
時間を与えてほしい 自分の罪を振り返るために 君を愛し、奪ってしまったものを 君の瞳の中で踊っていた僕は 現実のものとなるのだろうか…
そんなに僕を傷つけたいの? 僕に涙を流させたいの? 素敵なキスと言葉が僕を焦がす 愛し合ってる者は“何故?”なんて問わないよ 僕の心の炎は今も燃えている 星のようにきらめく 僕の綺麗な“色”を見てほしい 親しい人は言うんだ ただの一歩だけど それは、果てしなく遠いと…
多くを伝えることができなかったけれど 君のためなら千年だって費やそう 悲しみに覆われ 言葉など虚しいだけ 僕の心へ戻って零れる涙を受けてほしい 言いたいこともあるだろう… でも、信じてほしい 君はわかってないだけ 僕はただ、君が好きなだけなんだ でも、君を縛ったりはしない…
こんな感じ。知ると知らないでは見方も変わるのではと思いました。とにかくおすすめな映画ですね。
気に入らないというか、ちょと気になる点は日本語題名
のモールス。原題はLet Me In。作中のふたりはほんとに
モールス信号使ってましたっけ?ただ壁を叩いているよう
にしか見えなかったw
スウェーデン版は知ってる俳優さん誰もいないのもあって
少女とも少年ともつかないあの子たちの出会いに秒速で引きこまれました
もっと血みどろアクション満載なリメイクになるのかと思ったけど
寒さも、いやーな閉塞感のある街や学校の感じも、ふたりには結局他に誰もいないのも
とてもよく作られたもう一つのぼくのエリの世界に感じました
暴れ始めるとハリウッド的ハイスピード感が出ちゃうのや
この頃のクロエ・グレース・モレッツのヘルシーな可愛さを通すと
オリジナルにあった飢えや渇きが、少し欲望に変化して見えてくるのが
とてもおもしろかったです
比べても、比べなくても
どう作り変えても物語の持つ力がすごいので絶対楽しめると思います
あのおじさんのやばさとかがよりアップしてる原作もめっちゃ傑作なので
ぜひぜひ!
かなり高評価だったので楽しみにして観たんだけど、
内容は普通でした。
そして期待が大きかった分、作品の良さよりも酷さの方が
目立ったので、
「控えめに言ってクソ映画」という評価になりました。
全体的に暗すぎ、ダラダラしすぎ。
ストーリーも展開も一辺倒。
極めつけは「モールス」という邦題の酷さ。
モールス信号を使ってピンチを乗り切ったり、
心温まるコミュニケーションをとったりする
ような印象を題名で与えているけど、
実際にはストーリーの中ほとんど出てこない。
原題の「LET ME IN」のほうが遥かにマシ。
ここまでいいところが見当たらない作品も珍しい。
タイトルで中身が察せるのも含めて良い部分だと思うんだけど、
解っちゃうとつまらなくなるとでも判断したのかなぁ。センス無いわー。
中身は純情恋愛ホラー。ただ「怖い物が観たい!」って方には薦めない。
怖くない。むしろホッコリする。寂しさや切なさもある。
『これ系』のバリエーションの1つとして、観ておいて良かったと思う。
謎タイトル改変で2点減点。★3つ。
もう少し上手くまとめられなかったのかと?
内容的にはヴァンプの話なんだけど、、、
肝心なことが描かれていない、現在の状態になるまでの過程とか。
色々と細かい設定ですが、ヴァンパイアを知ってないとよくわからないかもしれない?
(招かれないと家に入れないとか)
イジメが陰湿だったのでやりかえしたところは割と爽快でしたね
教師は無能でしたが。。。
とくになにも解決しないで終わったのは残念でした、、、
モールスとはモールス信号のことだろうけど、言うほど使われてないような・・
邦題は他になかったのかな
他の国からのトップレビュー

Beide Filme sehenswert und gut - das Original kümmert sich mehr um Mobbing etc.
Bei Let me in ist die Polizei etwas mehr dabei.
Hoffe es gibt eine Fortsetzung -

Ce n'est pas qu'un film de vampire, c'est l'histoire d'une gentille jeune fille qui a 12 ans depuis longtemps mais qui connait quelques problèmes d'alimentation... un régime assez particulier qui lui est imposé par sa nature... laquelle ne lui pose pas que ce souci.
C'est parfois dur et contraignant la vie de vampire.
Elle vient d'emménager avec son 'père' dans un triste quartier et rencontre - tard le soir, bien entendu - un garçon de son âge, victime de tous les petits caîds de son lycée et du quartier.
C'est excellent, étonnant, tendre, le tout agrémenté d'un soupçon dhorreur et d'émoglobine.
J'ai apprécié le dénouement comme le film, en toute sincérité et je le retrouverai avec plaisir.
Ceci dit, je me suis probablement posé la question de trop : et après ?
J'ai bien envisagé une hypothèse, mais comme elle ne me plait guère, je vais étudier la question...
En conclusion, je vous le recommande vraiment.


I'm going to help you decide whether you want to get this DVD, regardless of what I think of it. I will do so without telling you what happens.
I recommended this to a friend at church in passing. Later he saw my wife and asked her what it was about. She said "It's a vampire movie." He said "That's all I need to know."
This guy is a college professor, so he's pretty smart--and statistically he'd probably be right, given what most "vampire movies" are like. And yes, it is a vampire movie. But it's so different from most other vampire movies that leaving it at that is really misleading.
For one thing, most vampire movies are either romantic PG-13 Romeo and Julietty things aimed at 15 year old girls (of all ages), or blood-drenched R-rated splatterfests aimed at teenaged boys (of all ages).
This is neither. Hence the disgusted one-star reviews here by folks looking for one or the other--and who always assume the director was trying to make one or the other but was just too dumb to do so. Pretty funny, really--the arrogance of the mediocre.
Another source of misleadingment is the fact that this stars the same actress who played Hit Girl in " Kick-Ass (Three-Disc Blu-ray/DVD Combo + Digital Copy) ", Chloë Grace Moretz. In that film she plays an ultraviolent vigilante psycho killer (and does most of her own stunts BTW). But in "Hugo," which came out recently, she plays a bookish, sunny, nonviolent girl. It's called acting. And Moretz has no interest in being typecast, so you can't use her being in a movie to conclude anything about a movie except that it will probably be different from the normal fare in some way. You can expect her to do her own stunts mostly--she trained for six months for her role in "Kickass" and now may be physically the strongest, most agile actress in her age range.
She is one reason to see "Let me in." She and Hailee Steinfeld ( True Grit are both serious about acting. And both, in their early teens, are doing mostly adult-oriented movies. Moretz has the added advantage of being destined to be the next Scarlett Johansson in a number of ways--looks, intelligence, gravitas and an arresting appearance--not just pretty.
I think Moretz wanted this role because it gave her the opportunity to do a layered performance. There's a scene where her character says "I'm stronger than you think I am." The other teen actresses who auditioned for the role said it as a brag, smiling smugly as they did so. Moretz stated it matter-of-factly, as a piece of information Owen needed to know, but with a whiff of great sadness, since that strength is part and parcel of what's different about her that means she will never be able to have a normal life. To grow up. To have a family. To not have to live on the run forever. So she's not bragging about her strength, because she's hundreds of years past thinking it was Kool--if she ever did.
Moretz put something into the character all those other beautiful, trained, skilled actresses didn't. She had a 360° view of Abby, while the others did not.
You'll like this movie if you like what Moretz liked about the script, the project. It's almost like a cross between one of those Sundance Festival movies and a Hollywood movie. It has the feel of a European art film with just a tad more vividness--a bit sparklier special effects, music, high-voltage talent (like the great character actor Richard Jenkins as Abby's gofer).
That's no surprise because it's adapted from the Swedish novel " Let the Right One In: A Novel (Paperback) and the Swedish movie Let The Right One In .
So why not just see the original movie? Well, as it happens, I did see it first--and loved it. And not just me. The Rottentomatoes website aggregates critics' reviews and ratings, and the average of the 166 reviews it lists was a whopping 98%, while 44,000 viewers rated it an average of 90%. For "Let Me In" 205 critics gave it an average rating of a still very respectable 89% while 55,000 site viewers gave it 74%.
I think the lower average audience rating for "Let Me In" stemmed from misplaced loyalty to "Let the right One In." As if you have to choose one or the other. Team Abby or Team Eli. I don't know why this is, though. I've seen at least a dozen versions of Hamlet, and many bring something unique to the original play. Same here. An expert film critic could list a dozen aspects to each film that are better than the way the same aspect is executed in the other one.
And of course some people are strongly biased towards or against Hollywood. If you have a strong bias, you already know which you'll want to see. If you're like me you'll want to see both. I own both movies, and both have stuck with me, while most movies don't. Each, in its own way, is truly haunting.
Both films are vampire films that make most other vampire films seem juvenile, which is ironic, since the characters in "Let me in"/"Let the right one in" are juveniles.
In some ways the films are meditations on what it would be like to be a vampire, both for better and for worse; and metaphorically, for what it's like to be different from others in ways that make you superior in some ways, yet doomed to never get to experience the humble delights of ordinary human existence, and in that sense it's a study of normal human existence by seeing what it would be like to not have that.
"Let Me In" definitely has a Hollywood flavor compared to the Swedish model. The vampire is prettier, the music more pervasive, the violence violenter, the landscape even bleaker (though not in all respects). Some find these differences extremely annoying. But I showed "Let Me In" to a pair of Russian intellectuals I know who had not seen the Swedish film or read the book, and they loved it. I don't know how they would have reacted if they'd seen "Let the Right One In" first, but I think it's significant that without that comparison they found "Let Me In" to be a real quality film.
There's a plus to seeing both versions--it's like seeing a story from the viewpoints of different characters, though both movies take third party Point of View.
But the emphases are distinct. Even where both films show the same scene it feels different. Don't believe reviewers here who say this is a shot for shot remake of the Swedish original. That just means they weren't looking closely enough.
One kind of person who won't like either movie is Good Guys vs. Bad Guys kind of people--people who think if you show the human side of the villain you're somehow excusing the villain's villainy. People like the fictional Inspector Javert in Les Miserables: The 10th Anniversary Dream Cast in Concert at London's Royal Albert Hall --who was so unhinged by the escaped prisoner Jean Valjean's sparing his life that he committed suicide.
The vampires in these movies didn't ask to be vampires, don't want to be vampires, and would stop being vampires if there was a way out other than self-annihilation. And even if you don't normally watch vampire movies or horror movies you may want to watch this one. It's really more suspense than horror--a bit like Alfred Hitchcock.
Bottom line: this is a serious movie in a genre that's rarely serious. To put it another way, it's a serious take on a non-serious genre. It doesn't ask you to believe in vampires--only that if they existed, their existences would be as fraught and painful and unromantic as they're portrayed here.
SPOILERS FOLLOW--DON'T READ ON IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN OR READ THE BOOK OR ONE OF THE FILMS
Suppose you've seen "Let the Right One In" or read the book, which the Swedish movie hews to more closely.
If you expect the movie to copy the book, neither movie will please you, but the Swedish version will displease you less.
The critics generally agree that "Let Me In" is a fine movie, while "Let the Right One In" verges on greatness.
I love both and I see why the critics rate the Swedish version a tad higher--but there's one plot essential where the Swedish version is truer to the novel but falser to the audience. In the book and the Swedish movie, Eli is actually a castrated boy in drag, basically. In the American version Abby is a girl period. I think the Swedish original is trying to have it both ways, though, by casting a girl (Lina Leandersson) in the part--and not just a girl, but a girl who looks very much like a girl, and who acts like a girl. So while the Swedish version is technically truer to the novel, (a) I'm not seeing the movie as a visualization of the novel, and (b) the American version is more honest. It has a girl play a girl at least. If the Swedish movie had cast a boy to play Eli(as), that would have been true to the book, though it would have had far fewer viewers, including me. I'm glad neither movie was true to the book, frankly.
I wouldn't have disapproved of Eli being a boy in the movie, but I probably wouldn't have chosen to watch it either. And Eli/Abby's social isolation and disinterest in sex have nothing to do with Eli/Abby's gender, but rather by her age (12) and need to be an unwilling serial killer, which can be quite a buzz kill. So the rest of the story doesn't need this character to be a boy for the rest of the story to make sense.
And apart from this element, there are parts of the American movie that are better than the Swedish original, even though I grant that the reverse is also true (especially how the woman dies in the Swedish version, and how Eli spares the life of one kid in the pool scene, the visual of Eli scaling the side of the hospital, and the visual of what happens to Eli when (s)he enters a home without permission). But when Owen asks Abby what is she if she's not a girl, Abby says "I'm nothing," while Eli just stares at him with those Japanese anime character huge eyes. Abby's response is more profound, and her being a girl makes the reason for her saying "I'm nothing" deeper--you don't need gender bending to feel isolated if you're a vampire. Honest. Being a vampire is plenty!
Also, it's absolutely fascinating to see Chloë Grace Moretz' rendition of Abby/Eli. She didn't see the Swedish movie or read the novel before making the movie, so this is her independent interpretation (ditto the boy). It's really different from Leandersson's, yet both performances are deep--truly impressive from actors so young. And the difference in their appearances contribute to making the role different.
So instead of trying to decide which is better--which here is like asking if a pear is better than bacon--I love having two unique interpretations of a fine story to watch.
The negative reviews of "Let Me In" by "Let the Right One In" fans--and vice versa--show that there's a Team Abby and a Team Eli...and Team Can't We All Just Get Along? which I belong to. You probably won't enjoy "Let me in" if you regard every difference as automatically inferior, and every similarity as automatically a needless copy, and if you feel superior to Hollywood movies in general.
I should point out that both films end the same way, so it's not like they tacked one of those happy Hollywood fantasy endings onto this story. And I should add that the author of the book has endorsed both versions. That doesn't prove both versions are good, but it does cast an interesting light on those who disparage "Let Me In" because they think it betrays the book.
I haven't addressed the subtitle issue because dubbing is unacceptable to me in all circumstances (except when used for humorous effect), and anyone who has the sensitivity to enjoy "Let the Right One In" must be able to deal with subtitles.
You'll like "Let Me In" alongside "Let the Right One In" especially if you're a serious filmgoer and like to see, for example, different versions of Shakespeare plays.
Lastly, I think people on Team Eli believe that the American version is stealing sales from the Swedish original. Personally I'd argue that the exact opposite is true. "Let Me In" will garner viewers who wouldn't see the Swedish original anyway because they don't like subtitles and dubbing, and/or because they prefer more American production values and style, as I described in the first part of this review. At the same time a certain % of "Let Me In" viewers will then want to see how the Swedish version did it, because it's a good enough story to justify multiple interpretations.
Wouldn't it be interesting to see how Hayao Miyazaki would interpret this story as an animated film? I think it would be magnificent, given how wonderful Spirited Away is...