Let Me In (Matt Reeves, 2010)

[Ezee E]

http://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Let-Me-In-2.jpg


Overall, Reeves wants the look of the film to have a startling naturalism, to evoke a stylized reality, and so he chose to work with the young Australian cinematographer Greig Fraser, who previously worked on Jane Campion’s evocative period drama “Bright Star.” Although there are some 300 visual effects shots in the film, Reeves instructed visual effects supervisor Brad Parker that he doesn’t want people to notice.

“In the same sense I want the photography to have this kind of messy realism, to be beautiful but gritty,” said Reeves, “I want the effects to feel believable. I want people to think back later and say, ‘I don’t even know if that’s an effect.’ I don’t want anything that pulls you out.


Reeves penned the new adaptation himself, but kept in touch with Lindqvist to stay focused on “the film’s stillness, as well as the patient and exacting mood” that he hoped to create.

“I think because of ‘Cloverfield,’ people have an assumption, which is, ‘Oh, crazy handicam, he’s going to jazz it up,’ ” Reeves said. “And I think that’s probably what a lot of people were afraid of when they thought of the most cynical version. And that’s the last thing we tried to do. We tried to create the approaching, foreboding dread of movies like ‘The Shining,’ where you feel like something wicked is unraveling and it’s not going to end well. That’s what I responded to about the original, the juxtaposition of those tones, this very disturbing story but at the center of it there are these very tender emotions. That’s a very unusual mix, and that’s what drew me in and dug into me.”

Reeves started out as series producer and writer for dozens of episodes for Felicity, tracing the path of teenage angst in the adventures of a slightly less bloodthirsy heroine. So he’s as comfortable with elusive inner demons as he is with more grotesque monstrosities.

“One of the fun things about doing genre is you can kind of smuggle in real stuff, so it kind of charges the metaphor. It’s a giant monster coming down the street, but it’s really about anxiety. This is a vampire movie, but really it’s about the pain of adolescence. And that kind of thing is really exciting to me.”

When shooting his version of the scene in which the boy and girl first meet, in the courtyard of their apartment complex, Reeves captures much of what inspired such loyalty to the original — the emerging desire and confusion of early romantic feelings underscored by the tension of a horror tale. If there is something more, it will come in no small part from the assured performances by Kody Smit-McPhee and Chloe Moretz.

[Says Reeves:] “It’s not going to feel like a movie with a crazy number of effects. It’s, hopefully, going to feel like an intimate coming-of-age story.”

[MadMan]

So far, despite what I've just read, the only good thing I can think of coming from this remake is that maybe people will actually watch the very good original. Chloe Moretz seems to be a solid young actress, though.

[Dukefrukem]

international trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjavOLdPk1c)

[[ETM]]

*cue KF's rant about Rubik's cube in 3... 2... 1...*

[Kurosawa Fan]

Nah, Spinal informed me that the Rubik's cube scene was in the novel, so I understand the filmmakers adapting it into the film. All blame has shifted to the author.

[Watashi]

Trailer (http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/07/26/movie-trailer-2-let-me-in/).

I'm looking forward to this more than the original.

[Wryan]

What's with the NM in this thread's title? Or is that A Joke?

[Kurosawa Fan]

That looks like everything the original was not. And that certainly isn't a compliment. Consider me officially dissuaded from ever wasting my time.

[number8]

The sad thing is that if Let the Right One In never existed, the two scenes we saw at Comic-Con would have had me anticipating this rabidly.

[Wryan]

The sad thing is that if Let the Right One In never existed, the two scenes we saw at Comic-Con would have had me anticipating this rabidly.

I get this feeling a lot. We need to name it. I felt like that watching the Sucker Punch trailer. If it were Zach Snyder's first, we'd probably be peeing ourselves wondering what the hell was about to be unleashed on us. As it is, we just sorta know.

We should name this feeling.

[Spinal]

What's with the NM in this thread's title? Or is that A Joke?

I think it's a reference to the thread title for the original film (http://www.match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=1367).

[Raiders]

I get this feeling a lot. We need to name it. I felt like that watching the Sucker Punch trailer. If it were Zach Snyder's first, we'd probably be peeing ourselves wondering what the hell was about to be unleashed on us. As it is, we just sorta know.

We should name this feeling.

Disillusionment.

[number8]

So I asked a girl out for a date on Friday, and she likes horror movies, so I thought I'd take her to this, and I go to Fandango to buy tickets, and I saw these three top comments on the film's page, and now I'm reconsidering.


SERIOUSLY PEOPLE!
by Kelcle
I don't understand why people are so angry this is a remake of a foreign film. Like that's never been done before! It'll probably be good, so calm down!...

RIPOFF!
by amaztastic
Holy crap. This movie is just a rip-off of Let the Right One in, which was an awesome movie. This probably will suck. NOT gonna see it. If you are going to see this crappy cheap knockoff, please...

NO Thank you!
by jennicc1
If I wanted to go see a vampire movie, I will just stick with Edward Cullen from The Twilight Saga! Go Team Edward !!!!!...

[Grouchy]

Eh... But that just looks like a stupid version of Let the Right One In. It even mimics some of the same shots. It's really depressing.

[MadMan]

Let The Right One In was quite good, but I still don't see why people think its so goddamn amazing. And its not the best vampire movie, either-that would be both versions of Nosferatu. After seeing the trailer for this, I think only a few things seemed to have been changed-I'll know more once I actually view it, which will probably be on DVD.

[Grouchy]

Let The Right One In was quite good, but I still don't see why people think its so goddamn amazing.
It has become one of my favorite movies in the three times I've seen it. I just feel strongly moved by the story, the characters and the bleak tone of the film. I also think the restraint showed by the director is perfect.

[MadMan]

It has become one of my favorite movies in the three times I've seen it. I just feel strongly moved by the story, the characters and the bleak tone of the film. I also think the restraint showed by the director is perfect.Okay, makes sense. Perhaps it demands another viewing.

[Philosophe_rouge]

I've seen it, I think it's great. I love the original as well.

Review if you're interested;

http://www.soundonsight.org/let-me-in/

[megladon8]

I've seen it, I think it's great. I love the original as well.

Review if you're interested;

http://www.soundonsight.org/let-me-in/


That was a fantastic review, Philosophe. I may just have to give this one a chance.

[transmogrifier]

Original was blah. From the reviews, this sounds like nothing more than a cosmetic make-over. Pass.

[Morris Schæffer]

The reviews so far are all fucking raves. Fine, so then the only legitimate complaint that can be leveled at the remake is that it's redundant, but even then there are a bunch of critics who feel that reeves and crew have subtly altered the dynamics of the story to feel fresh, different than the original. Hell, they even talk about fucking improvements. So let's hear it for that rare thing, a remake that actually justifies its existence!

Let's not be too cynical and wary this time guys.

[transmogrifier]

The reviews so far are all fucking raves. Fine, so then the only legitimate complaint that can be leveled at the remake is that it's redundant, but even then there are a bunch of critics who feel that reeves and crew have subtly altered the dynamics of the story to feel fresh, different than the original. Hell, they even talk about fucking improvements. So let's hear it for that rare thing, a remake that actually justifies its existence!

Let's not be too cynical and wary this time guys.

This film has whipped you up into such a state of emotional ecstasy, you probably don't even need to see it. Two hours saved right there. Score!

[Ezee E]

Different setting, different time. Sure, I'll see it. I liked the original enough to where I wouldn't mind rewatching it anyway....

[MadMan]

This film has whipped you up into such a state of emotional ecstasy, you probably don't even need to see it. Two hours saved right there. Score!trans I like your sarcasm. More, I say. More.

[balmakboor]

I've seen it, I think it's great. I love the original as well.

Review if you're interested;

http://www.soundonsight.org/let-me-in/

Damn. Nice review. I'm really going to have to pull my first two-movies-in-the-theater weekend in over a year. I loved the original btw. It's probably in my top 20 or so of all time.

[Henry Gale]

Despite it being on the shelf for almost four years now and having little to no marketing or press whatsoever, Case 39 will probably open with half a million less than this this weekend. (End of weekend edit: Wow... Let Me In actually made less in the end.)

As a huge fan of the original, many of the filmmakers, crew and cast members behind this, as well as my general anticipation of it, I will defintely do my part before the week's end. Sad to see it do so poorly, though.

[Ivan Drago]

I told myself I wanted to see the original before the remake. Now that I just finished watching the original, I have to say the remake has to do a lot to top it.

[balmakboor]

I wouldn't exactly say Let Me In topped Let the Right One In, but I enjoyed it immensely anyway. The original was one of my favorite films of 2008 and the remake seems likely to be one of my favorites of this year. The original did a better job of developing the character of her outgoing handler. The remake is a more bravura visceral experience. There is one scene in particular that made me quietly applaud. The remake also took the one moment in the original that didn’t really work and the one scene that would’ve probably been considered laughable and ditched them. I thought the big pool scene at the end though was better executed in the original and the final scene on the train left me asking the same question as it originally did: How are two 12-year-olds going to get by on their own until he ages enough to make people think he’s her father? Are they going to live under a bridge somewhere?

[Fezzik]

Never saw the original in its entirety, so I went into this one kinda cold.

I'm damned impressed. One reason I never stuck with the original was everyone's insistence that it was a horror film.

What drug were they smoking? Just because there's a vampire in it doesn't make it a horror film.

Great drama, and very well realized locales. The relationship between Abby and Owen had surprising substance and depth.

And Moretz was fantastic. You can't convince me the girl's only 12 or 13. I refuse to believe it. She's far too mature an actress.

Only downside: Spotty and obvious CGI. Other than that...wow.

[balmakboor]

I just read this opened in 8th with something like 5.6 million. That sucks.

I agree with Fezzik. Moretz is an amazing young actress.

[Mysterious Dude]

Never saw the original in its entirety, so I went into this one kinda cold.

I'm damned impressed. One reason I never stuck with the original was everyone's insistence that it was a horror film.
That is a strange reason not to stick with a movie.

[Fezzik]

That is a strange reason not to stick with a movie.


I cant handle horror films.

[Sycophant]

Both this and Let the Right One In are pretty good. I like them both about equally, though the things I like about them aren't necessarily the same.

This one could've used much better effects work. It was real bad.

[Mysterious Dude]

I cant handle horror films.Ah. Fair enough.

[Skitch]

This reminded me of REC/Quarantine. When the remake is close to the original, what is the point of remaking? I lean to the original, but its splitting hairs. Both are good.

The real highlight was The Warrior's Way trailer. Holy moley!

[endingcredits]

I found that it overstated everything, and butchered the delicate dialogue of the original. There were a few stylistic embellishments on the original but they seemed to consist of added gore, drama, and CGI all culminating in gimmicky end product.

[Sxottlan]

I liked this about as much as I liked the first one. Which was quite a bit. This is about just as entrancing and beautiful. I usually snack on Skittles at the movies and despite it being a two hour movie, when it was done I still had several left. I guess I was so fixated on the screen that I wasn't even thinking about eating.

I loved the scene in her apartment with the old pictures of her with her "father" and the old puzzles she's picked up over the years. One looked to be from the 1930's, another from perhaps the 19th century. Any one else note the similarity between the old puzzle, the Rubik's cube and the jungle gym?

I don't know if I recall some major logic gaps towards the end of the first one. I seem to recall the guy who went in to Abby's apartment at the end was not a cop. Here though, there's no reason for the cop to go in without backup after the girl just viciously attacked someone. And why wouldn't cops be all over that place after the assault to begin with?

The CGI was unfortunate. I understand they're going for the ferocity of an animal attack, but it came off looking cartoonishly fast. Like the zombies in I am Legend, I don't see why they couldn't have been live action stunt doubles.


The remake also took the one moment in the original that didn’t really work and the one scene that would’ve probably been considered laughable and ditched them.

Which ones?

[Ezee E]

I'm guessing cats.... Stupid, stupid cats.

[Fezzik]

I'm guessing cats.... Stupid, stupid cats.

There are indeed no cats in this one.

[balmakboor]

The two scenes I referred to:

Yes. The CGI cats scene was what I meant by a laughable one.

The shot that was supposed to reveal her to be a castrated boy was the one that didn't quite work in the original.

[Ezee E]

I seriously think a lot of people forget about that awful cat scene when discussing how great the original is. I'm a big fan myself, but that is an awful, awful scene.

[endingcredits]

I seriously think a lot of people forget about that awful cat scene when discussing how great the original is.

Guilty.

[Sxottlan]

I seriously think a lot of people forget about that awful cat scene when discussing how great the original is.

Yeah I'm not even remembering this scene.

[Sxottlan]

The two scenes I referred to:

The shot that was supposed to reveal her to be a castrated boy was the one that didn't quite work in the original.

I'm not remembering this either!

Then again, I only saw the movie once. But I think I'd remember something like that. However, if the shot didn't work, maybe that's why.

[balmakboor]

I'm not remembering this either!

Then again, I only saw the movie once. But I think I'd remember something like that. However, if the shot didn't work, maybe that's why.

I didn't even know that was what the shot was trying to communicate until someone here at match-cut explained it to me. Apparently it's straight out of the novel though, which I haven't read.

[ciaoelor]

This one hit me a lot harder emotionally. I was in pieces during the pool scene.

[Henry Gale]

I loved it, just as I loved the original. The most enjoyable thing about it, especially if/when I ever rewatch either film again, is how well Reeves has constructed his own film, despite keeping the basic guidelines of the plot mostly the same.

It strangely feels a lot more fast paced and shorter than Right One despite being almost the same length. I don't think it's so much the editing but the general pace and mood the original had compared to what's here. Also, allowing the other people living in the apartment complex to be given less screentime as well as having them linked by the Koteas character was a very smart creation. And even though we get to know those side characters a little less, it's that sort of thing that gives a lot more time to building more important things like Owen and Abby's relationship as well as the film's isolation of most other people from them.

It's hard to really put either this or the original above the other in terms of quality for me. Reeves has really molded something great and unique with its own tone and identity here. With the general atmosphere it builds (from the American 80s setting, to Giacchino's score to the look DP Greig Fraser has helped given it) as well as the performances allowing each character to be something new here; all of it justifies itself as a welcome remake many times over.

Let The Right One In was my #2 of 2008, which puts in nicely in the mix of my favourite films of the previous decade. I like Let Me In just about as much, so in its own way, it's in a similar place for me right now for 2010. I was very impressed.

[Pop Trash]

In theory I should have a knee-jerk reaction to this and decry 'goddamn Hollywood remakes' but if this weren't a remake, it would easily be considered not only one of the best horror movies in years, but one of the best films of the year period.

The cinematography and set-pieces were fantastic. I especially love the one kill of the guy in the car and how the camera was basically locked down in the back of the car and shot in one take as the car flips over and over.

Moretz and the other kid did wonderful jobs. She is off the hook for the awful Kick-Ass.

I was also reading in to the setting/time period. The use of Reagan's speech in the beginning about 'evil in the world' was a nice touch. This is echoed again in the scene with the kid asking his father if he believes in evil. I also wondered why Reeves chose Los Alamos for the setting and if it had anything to do with the nuclear bomb being developed there (ie an inherently 'evil' town).

Also, anyone notice the mom's face is never shown?

Good stuff.

[Henry Gale]

People have seemed to talk a lot about the mother's face not being shown clearly, and I think Reeves just did that to make Abby appear that much more important as the female presence in Owen's life. There's the woman that lives in the apartment across from him, but he doesn't have any real interraction with her... or at least one that kindly acknowledges him in return.

Not to say most people don't read it that way, but I've seen some that just write it off as an overly self-aware and pointless idea. I think it's a nice touch.

[Ivan Drago]

I told myself I wanted to see the original before the remake. Now that I just finished watching the original, I have to say the remake has to do a lot to top it.

Holy shit, it actually did. New #1 of the year.

[balmakboor]

Holy shit, it actually did. New #1 of the year.

Fans of Let Me In make me smile.

[Morris Schæffer]

I really wanna see this. I suspect I'll really like it as much as the original. Or certainly close.

[Pop Trash]

This is a good read. Esp. since Emerson was just as skeptical as I was before he watched it.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/scanners/2010/10/let_me_in_the_role_of_evil_in. html

[soitgoes...]

This was pretty good. It isn't as good as the original. Inherently watching an almost identical film less than two years after seeing the first is going to hurt the viewing; knowing what's going to happen, comparing throughout, etc. Still the two kids did a great job. I did love how Owen's parents aren't really there, the mom's face is always blocked out and the dad is only heard. Bad effects. I was also wondering why Los Alamos was chosen as the setting. There had to have been a reason. The randomness isn't really there when you choose a town with a history attached to it. I guess the guardian's age would put him as being born around WWII, but still that doesn't really answer the question.

[TripZone]

Oooh, 720p rip.

[Ezee E]

Ooh... I liked this a ton. Matt Reeves directed the hell out of this. We were wondering about up and coming directors. Well, he created an entirely different atmosphere, and definitely increased the drama of the relationships of just about everyone in this movie to a more satisfying end. Let The Right One still has the better atmosphere, use of effects, and has a more effective ending, but this is definitely a worthy remake.

Great stuff here by the two young actors.

Consider me surprised.

[Winston*]

The whole Richard Jenkins murder scene in this is really great.

[Ezee E]

The whole Richard Jenkins murder scene in this is really great.
I'll definitely say that Let Me In really gives that character a lot more to work with in this movie. Lots of mystery behind him, and more interesting all around. Jenkins does some good stuff with him.

[StanleyK]

I was pretty impressed by the restraint in Reeves' direction here. He lets the camera linger on when needed, conveys a lot of information through subtle visual cues, and instead of adding filler (which is what you'd expect a Hollywood remake to do), he actually made the film leaner and more economical. This remarkable patience, however, also makes stand out like a sore thumb the moments in which the movie does exceed, like the silly CGI pyrotechnics in Abby's attacks, or the bombastic, mood-dictating score. Overall a satisfying experience, but hurt by a few blemishes.

[Ezee E]

Didn't have a problem with the score. I was surprised it was done by Giacchino.

[Morris Schæffer]

By American horror movie standards of the past 5 years, it's a great movie, but having seen the original, it never struck me as a necessary movie. I was dissapointed with just how unsurprising and redundant it ultimately felt. I was thinking of the Psycho remake - which I've never seen - and how much flak that one got for being a shot-by-shot remake. Let Me In isn't quite such a copycat I guess, but it sure felt awfully, shamelessly similar. Nevertheless, I was engaged enough and understand that those who missed the original may get a lot more out of this than me.

[EyesWideOpen]

By American horror movie standards of the past 5 years, it's a great movie, but having seen the original, it never struck me as a necessary movie. I was dissapointed with just how unsurprising and redundant it ultimately felt. I was thinking of the Psycho remake - which I've never seen - and how much flak that one got for being a shot-by-shot remake. Let Me In isn't quite such a copycat I guess, but it sure felt awfully, shamelessly similar. Nevertheless, I was engaged enough and understand that those who missed the original may get a lot more out of this than me.

My thoughts also. Unless someone was just absolutely against subtitles I would tell them just to watch the better original film.

[Pop Trash]

I'm curious what you thought was better about the original, other than the fact that it came out first. The only scene that stands out as better to me is the finale in the pool. I felt like that was shot more formal and restrained in the original.

[Morris Schæffer]

I'm curious what you thought was better about the original, other than the fact that it came out first. The only scene that stands out as better to me is the finale in the pool. I felt like that was shot more formal and restrained in the original.

I personally don't think the difference was that big. One little thing that sort of distracted me were the attacks in the American version which were far more vicious and bombastic. They looked a bit dubious frankly from a visual standpoint, what with Moretz' body going bonkers in that tunnel. Looked kinda funny compared to the more subdued original.

[Ezee E]

I personally don't think the difference was that big. One little thing that sort of distracted me were the attacks in the American version which were far more vicious and bombastic. They looked a bit dubious frankly from a visual standpoint, what with Moretz' body going bonkers in that tunnel. Looked kinda funny compared to the more subdued original.
I'll agree with that.

[Raiders]

In the spirit of year-end lists and awards, I will be watching this right now before the foosball game. I still haven't seen the original, but nuts to proper viewing order.

[soitgoes...]

In the spirit of year-end lists and awards, I will be watching this right now before the foosball game. I still haven't seen the original, but nuts to proper viewing order.:eek:

This surprises me.

[Raiders]

:eek:

This surprises me.

Yeah, but I'm doubly interested in seeing the original now.

[Raiders]

I'm upping this to the tip-top of the rating scale. I'll refrain from saying too much as I fear most of what I compliment will just be met with "see the original" comments. I will say that it is one of the most interesting and tender love stories, yes love story, that I have ever seen. I know that there was much made in the original (and novel?) about the female vampire being perhaps a boy, or used to be a boy, or whatever... but Reeves' early-film focus on the androgyny (Moretz with the hood) was a beautifully balanced view of the true absence of sexuality from this story (though pointedly she is much more feminine once Owen and her become friends). Obviously in the literal sense because the characters are 12, but also because the film separates itself so well from other love stories by making the bond never at all based on a physical attraction. The film further creates a lack of gender identification through the great casting of Smit-McPhee, a very--dare I say--beautifully feminine boy, and blurring/blocking of his mother, separating us from any real form of male/female relations (only the neighbors deviate from this, but then they are seen primarily from a voyeuristic distance--their physicality non-interactive with the film and an object of confusion to McPhee). I also love the Reagan-era and religious grace notes that underlay the film's insinuation of the lack of any true understanding for the potential "evil."

Just a gorgeously rendered story and film. I do agree that the attack effects should have been removed.

[Raiders]

I also found the ending very conflicting. In the moment, it seems freeing and relatively happy. But naturally, the first half of the film has fully shown us what the future holds and it becomes very chilling after a moment's thought.

[soitgoes...]

I'm upping this to the tip-top of the rating scale. I'll refrain from saying too much as I fear most of what I compliment will just be met with "see the original" comments. I will say that it is one of the most interesting and tender love stories, yes love story, that I have ever seen. I know that there was much made in the original (and novel?) about the female vampire being perhaps a boy, or used to be a boy, or whatever... but Reeves' early-film focus on the androgyny (Moretz with the hood) was a beautifully balanced view of the true absence of sexuality from this story (though pointedly she is much more feminine once Owen and her become friends). Obviously in the literal sense because the characters are 12, but also because the film separates itself so well from other love stories by making the bond never at all based on a physical attraction. The film further creates a lack of gender identification through the great casting of Smit-McPhee, a very--dare I say--beautifully feminine boy, and blurring/blocking of his mother, separating us from any real form of male/female relations (only the neighbors deviate from this, but then they are seen primarily from a voyeuristic distance--their physicality non-interactive with the film and an object of confusion to McPhee). I also love the Reagan-era and religious grace notes that underlay the film's insinuation of the lack of any true understanding for the potential "evil."

Just a gorgeously rendered story and film. I do agree that the attack effects should have been removed.I can't wait to see what you think of the original, and how your reverse viewing affects your views on both.

I have very little doubt I would have thought Reeves' film would have been outstanding were I to see it first.

[balmakboor]

By American horror movie standards of the past 5 years, it's a great movie, but having seen the original, it never struck me as a necessary movie. I was dissapointed with just how unsurprising and redundant it ultimately felt. I was thinking of the Psycho remake - which I've never seen - and how much flak that one got for being a shot-by-shot remake. Let Me In isn't quite such a copycat I guess, but it sure felt awfully, shamelessly similar. Nevertheless, I was engaged enough and understand that those who missed the original may get a lot more out of this than me.

I guess I'm not quite feeling this. I actually thought there were significant differences between the two films. Differences of style, of character development (the boy seemed richer to me in Let Me In as did his relationship with the girl/vampire), and of course of use of setting and time period. My favorite things in Let Me In really don't have a counterpart in the original like the De Palma-like scenes of the boy playing Peeping Tom, the references to Reaganite '80s America, and that fantastic car crash. I thought the old man was more effectively created in the original and it also did a better job of the pool scene at the end. But Let Me In smartly got rid of the cats.

Yeah. I love both.

[balmakboor]

I also found the ending very conflicting. In the moment, it seems freeing and relatively happy. But naturally, the first half of the film has fully shown us what the future holds and it becomes very chilling after a moment's thought.

It's a very chilling, even perverse story when you think about it. I ended my review of the original with this:

"In the final scene, with Oskar and Eli on a train to somewhere, we reflect back on the true nature of their relationship. We realize that Oskar is one of many in a long line of loves for Eli. He is her new Håkan.

"And that realization turns Eli’s past relationship with Håkan and future relationship with Oskar into a poignant meditation on what it must be like to live forever, on what it must be like to love if you’re ageless. Or, put another way, it is like watching the end of Oskar’s affair with Eli through Håkan and the beginning of Håkan’s through Oskar simultaneously while time for Eli stands still.

"After Let the Right One In, there will be more Håkans and there will be more Oskars. And on and on it will go, forever."

[Ezee E]

Yeah, if I choose to watch either one again, I may go with Let Me In, but no major preference either way. Both are great.

[soitgoes...]

I guess I'm not quite feeling this. I actually thought there were significant differences between the two films. Differences of style, of character development (the boy seemed richer to me in Let Me In as did his relationship with the girl/vampire), and of course of use of setting and time period. My favorite things in Let Me In really don't have a counterpart in the original like the De Palma-like scenes of the boy playing Peeping Tom, the references to Reaganite '80s America, and that fantastic car crash. I thought the old man was more effectively created in the original and it also did a better job of the pool scene at the end. But Let Me In smartly got rid of the cats.

Yeah. I love both.Adding spoiler tags. The spoilers are mild, and only highlight differences between the two films.

Both films take place in the early 80's. The biggest difference between the two is in tone. Starting Let Me In with Jenkins' character's death casts a much darker tone to the film. Added with the darkened cinematography, and Reeves' film is much closer to horror in look and feel. The car crash (wonderfully filmed BTW), Abby's CGi killing, the addition of a police detective in place of the locals all add to this tone. What elevated Let the Right One In is that it was a drama first. Yes, there were horror elements, but those weren't at the forefront. Little things like why Eli chose Oskar, Eli's ambiguous relationship to Håkan (this is explained clearly in Let Me In), Oskar's alienation not only in school, but around his family, all add a beautiful subtleness. Even the Virginia subplot has a level of subtleness that is touching. Yes, there are those cats, but she chooses to die instead of having death just happen by way of an arbitrary act.

I do enjoy both. I just think the original attained something special, and yes it does have the benefit of being first. From a story standpoint, both films follow the same path, the same main events happen. Also, props to both Alfredson and Reeves for getting four wonderful child actors for their films.

[Spinal]

Reeves makes a competent transferral of the story to American film, but for anyone who watched and loved the original, this is not really a journey that adds much to that initial experience. It is well acted and well shot, but it lacks the delicate touch and restraint that made the first so singular an experience. Reeves, by comparison, is blunt, excising most of the villagers that gave the original environment character and transforming them into a single 'cop on the trail of a killer'. The dialogue lacks much of the ambiguity that made the original so fun to talk and think about. Any changes he makes are merely lateral moves at best. And somehow, despite using many of the same camera angles and blocking, he manages to botch the power of the film's climax with questionable editing choices.

Perhaps this is not a film for me. Perhaps this is a film for an audience that would never have sought out the original. Perhaps I should compare it to typical American horror films rather than with one of the great, complicated coming of age films of recent memory. But, for me, I have little use for this remake.

[Pop Trash]

You need to watch this two more times Spinal, just to nudge your rating up a full star.

[Spinal]

You need to watch this two more times Spinal, just to nudge your rating up a full star.

Some films leave you with more to ponder. This one I feel like I pretty much understand.

[Spinal]

Just watched the deleted scenes. Very interesting that they shot the scene from the novel where they touch and he experiences a painful flashback from her past. I was actually hoping to see more from the novel that wasn't explored in the first film, because there was enough there to make a completely different film, though one that would be extremely difficult to shoot with child actors due to the violence and sexuality involved.

[Raiders]

I don't think I need to have seen the first film to state that this is not really a horror film. It's a unique and very touching love story, and as such I am thankful that Reeves leaves the village out of the equation. In his vision, there is no need for them.

In retrospect, I'm glad I haven't seen the first film. It seems many find it impossible to truly appreciate what this film achieves and does. I hope to not have this issue when going in reverse.

[Spinal]

I don't think I need to have seen the first film to state that this is not really a horror film.

Yeah, I know. But that's clearly the audience this remake is trying to capture. Moreso than the original.

[Raiders]

Yeah, I know. But that's clearly the audience this remake is trying to capture.

I don't know how to gauge that. The end result is a chilling but equally touching love story with flashes of grotesque attacks. I found probably more suspense in Owen's school bullying than I did in much of the rest of the film. Certainly it was marketed as a horror film and yeah, if you're going to have to categorize it, that's the genre you would probably choose. Doesn't necessarily make the core of the film in any way a horror film.


Moreso than the original.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to make it top priority so I can stop feeling left out of the total discussion. It seems most points of contention revolve around ways in which people find it inferior. I must admit I can't see myself finding it inferior in many ways since I don't think it falters hardly at all. But I will wipe all preconceptions out of my mind best I can.

[Spinal]

Doesn't necessarily make the core of the film in any way a horror film.



I think you're missing the crux of my point. I wasn't calling it a horror film. I was speculating that if I had never seen the first film, I might have a different reaction to it. I might have thought, hey, this was not the predictable horror movie I expected. I was acknowledging that I wasn't coming to it fresh and contextulizing my lukewarm reaction.

[Dukefrukem]

So... if she's older than 12 in terms of years, but has been in a 12 year old's body... why would she be attracted to another 12 year old? Wouldn't her mind be matured into an adult?

[number8]

So... if she's older than 12 in terms of years, but has been in a 12 year old's body... why would she be attracted to another 12 year old? Wouldn't her mind be matured into an adult?

You can ask the same about every vampire movie ever, I think.

[Dead & Messed Up]

You can ask the same about every vampire movie ever, I think.

Yeah. This specific question (about pre-pubescent vampires) was also explored to some degree in Near Dark and Interview With the Vampire.

[Rowland]

That very question and its inherent ambiguity is also given a great deal more emphasis in the original film.

[Dukefrukem]

That very question and its inherent ambiguity is also given a great deal more emphasis in the original film.

How about: How else would a 12 year old boy react to a naked girl lying next to him? If I remember correctly, when I was 12 I was in 7th grade. Pretty sure I wanted to hump my pillow every single night.

[Yxklyx]

I have to admit, I liked the remake more than the original but I'm pretty lukewarm on both movies. I think the campy gore is what did it for me in the remake.

Lukas Moodysson should remake this again - the subject matter is right up his alley except for the supernatural bits.:)