PDA

View Full Version : Let Me In



sailor
09-18-2010, 06:45 AM
Let Me In is the american remake of the swedish film Let the Right One in. In an earlier post I was not looking forward to the remake with the idea that it couldn't be anything near the original. Let Me In was at the Toronto International Film Festival and reviews I've read so far are that it is a solid adaptation of the book. There are some elements from the original movie that didn't make the new one. Apparently, Matt Reeves, the director, fell in love with the original and wanted to do the film justice.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/

It is one that I will be checking out.

LGwenn
09-18-2010, 07:15 AM
I really liked Let the Right One In. I'm so leery of this version, but I'll probably give it a shot.

Grrarrgh
09-18-2010, 04:49 PM
I really loved the book and the original movie, so I've been pretty worried about this one. The trailers don't look too bad, though, so I have a little faith. I'll probably wait for the DVD, but I'll give it a chance.

seun
09-18-2010, 05:18 PM
Shock. Another pointless remake of a great film. God forbid people have to read subtitles.

ceenindee
09-18-2010, 05:57 PM
I'm looking forward to it. I liked the original, and the book, but this looks different enough to be enjoyable.

sailor
09-18-2010, 06:07 PM
The user comments from imdb said something similar to all the posters. They were leery of remakes and how it would be treated but were pleasantly surprised about the result. Hopefully they are right.

Toothpaste
09-18-2010, 08:53 PM
Shock. Another pointless remake of a great film. God forbid people have to read subtitles.

Except what's interesting is that evidently this director in some ways was truer to the book than the Swedish version. That things were included in the American film that the Swedes left out. Just because something is adapted in another country doesn't mean that that film will automatically be better than something adapted in the States. It would be one thing if this was a remake of another film. But this is another adaptation of a book. What's so wrong with that?

seun
09-19-2010, 02:40 PM
I'm not saying it's better or worse because it's a remake. I'm saying I don't see the point of remaking it.

sailor
09-19-2010, 05:29 PM
I'm not saying it's better or worse because it's a remake. I'm saying I don't see the point of remaking it.

From checking out comments on several reviews, that seems to be the question. Even some critiques have stated that it is too soon from the first film to have a remake. One the other side, some have said that this new film will reach a greater audience than the original. A couple of comments were that those seeing this film without comparing it to the previous one or the book would get the full effect because they wouldn't be comparing it as they were watching. Sometimes remakes are excellent, often they are not. In this case, maybe too soon. But it seems the deal was in place before the first one hit the screens.

ceenindee
09-19-2010, 08:58 PM
Even if it's not as good as the first film, it'll at least bring attention to the first film. I can't imagine they're too upset.

kuwisdelu
09-19-2010, 09:24 PM
Except what's interesting is that evidently this director in some ways was truer to the book than the Swedish version. That things were included in the American film that the Swedes left out. Just because something is adapted in another country doesn't mean that that film will automatically be better than something adapted in the States. It would be one thing if this was a remake of another film. But this is another adaptation of a book. What's so wrong with that?

A good point. It's not actually a "remake." It's a second adaptation of the source material. The director seems interested, although considers the first film definitive.


The Northlander: And Iíve also got to ask you, Matt Reeves is shooting the American version of LET THE RIGHT ONE IN. How do you feel about that, or Hollywood remakes in general? Especially since this is such a personal story.

JAL: Yeah well, itís hard for me to... Tomasí film is the definitive film, it is, I canít imagine how anything would be better. BUT, that said, I was very happy when I heard it would be Matt Reeves when I knew there would be a Hollywood production, I thought it was cool that it was him. It had nothing to do with this, but I watched Cloverfield a year ago and thought it was really good. Or, I thought it was a worn out theme that was done in a completely new way, a cool way. So I liked it. And heís also emailed me and expressed how much he likes the actual story and could identify with it and that he really would treat it with respect and he looks forward to doing this, itís not something theyíve just tossed at him. íYouíre gonna make this movie, Matt! Chop-chop!í. He really wants to make this film. I think thatís a really cool place to start.

The Northlander: So heís read the book and everything?

JAL: Heís read the book, and he very much likes the book, and I also like very much that from what I hear heís writing the screenplay himself. Itís really a re-adaptation.

The first film was great as a movie, but I was less impressed with it after I read the book. I missed some of the plot threads, but that always happens with movie adaptations, so I don't know if the new one will have more.

The thing that worries me more is the new child actors'. The new girl looks a bit too feminine, IMO.

DavidZahir
09-19-2010, 10:57 PM
The first film version of Richard III was excellent. Why make another?

Millions of fans adored the first Dracula. Why make another?

Murder on the Orient Express was fine film. Why make another?

Persuasion was such a good movie. Why make another adaptation of the same book?

Yet all of the above have been remade into very fine films. The reason remakes are made are twofold--to explore some other aspect of the work, and to make money from a source material that has a proven audience. Both seem totally legitimate to me. This particular film/remake has a very good cast & crew. Each of the trailers and clips released indicated quality. As one who loved both first film and the novel, I'm looking forward to this movie very much.

dragonjax
09-22-2010, 04:00 PM
The first film was great as a movie, but I was less impressed with it after I read the book. I missed some of the plot threads, but that always happens with movie adaptations, so I don't know if the new one will have more.

This. I just read the book, and it was phenomenal -- I enjoyed it so much more than the movie adaptation. I'm looking forward to the American remake, if only to see what they do with Eli's and Hakan's histories.


The thing that worries me more is the new child actors'. The new girl looks a bit too feminine, IMO.

Also concerned about this...but I'm hopeful.

WackAMole
09-22-2010, 04:08 PM
Shock. Another pointless remake of a great film. God forbid people have to read subtitles.

LOL I totally get what you mean. Since I moved here to Sweden, I have tried and tried to convince my mom to watch some great films but she just has a thing about having to read a subtitle. I will probably watch the remake just to compare notes.

Another remake coming out is a remake of 'Mšn som hatar kvinnor'. This was based on the book 'The girl with the dragon tattoo' not sure what the swedish spelling of the title was. Excellent movie and Noomi Rapace was awesome as Salander. I think hollywood is going to be hard pressed to replace her perfomance in the original.

seun
09-22-2010, 04:39 PM
The first film version of Richard III was excellent. Why make another?

Millions of fans adored the first Dracula. Why make another?

Murder on the Orient Express was fine film. Why make another?

Persuasion was such a good movie. Why make another adaptation of the same book?


To be fair, the examples you've given aren't really comparable to Let The Right One In. It's a great film and book but I don't think it has the layers that can be explored in remakes as those examples have.

It'll take a lot to convince me this isn't just a case of remaking it for people who wouldn't watch a film with subtitles. And because Hollywood horror has, let's face it, been shite for a fair while.

kaitiepaige17
09-22-2010, 04:48 PM
They're remaking it because that seems to be all filmmakers can do these days. Remake, and take their stories from books.

sailor
09-22-2010, 06:57 PM
They're remaking it because that seems to be all filmmakers can do these days. Remake, and take their stories from books.

Remakes are done for many reasons. Sometimes the producer/director has a different interpretation, other times it's to bring a foreign film into english. But looking at what's coming out these days there is a severe lack of original material available. Or, a lack of willingness to gamble on something original. Old television shows coming out as movies (Starsky & Hutch, Dukes of Hazzard, etc), comic books and any popular book are safe and familiar. If there is any chance it might make money, in the case of a foreign film, expect a remake. If it does make some, expect a sequel.

Camilla Delvalle
09-22-2010, 07:27 PM
Let's put this into perspective. Shakespeare plays are set up again and again with different settings. Works of classical music are played again and again by different orchestras, and they make new CD:s on old songs all the time. Before writing, many stories were remembered and told from generation to generation. Repetition and retelling is a common cultural practice.

LGwenn
09-22-2010, 07:44 PM
I guess I'm leery because if it is made for the express purpose of making a quick buck...that stinks. Also because I've gushed over the original to my horror fan friends and I fear they will see this new version (which I haven't seen and don't know the quality of) and it will suck and I'll look dumb.

This is all about me. :)

DavidZahir
09-24-2010, 10:44 PM
Movie studios are in the business of making money. That doesn't mean the movies they make are bad. Or good. It is simply a fact of life right now.

Re-adapting a novel into a film for a different audience is fine, IMHO. What matters is the result. I really liked Ringu but also loved The Ring--a retelling of the same story but through a different cultural lens. Just as I've no problem with a Japanese Macbeth (i.e. Throne of Blood) or an American Kingdom (i.e. The Kingdom) or a Russian Ten Little Indians (actually I'd argue that was the best version made so far).

More to the point, I'm judging this flick by facts other than the one some people get all hyped up about--namely, that it is an American adaptation of a Swedish novel and film. In and of itself, that says absolutely nothing about the quality of the film in question. Not one thing. I look at the director and what he says about the story. I look at the overall quality of the cast. I look at the trailers and clips. On the basis of those facts I'm hopeful and looking forward to the flick.

BTW, it will be playing at The Grove in Los Angeles. There's a Barnes & Noble almost next door and on 10/3/10 Guillermo del Toro will be signing/discussing his new vampire novel The Fall at 7pm. Me and some friends are going to make a day of it. Heh heh.

ceenindee
10-02-2010, 02:10 AM
I just came back from seeing it. I enjoyed it, and thought it was even better than the original in some ways. It was more streamlined, and scarier. The first one was a better adaptation of the book (makes sense, since the author wrote the screenplay), and it certainly looked better, but this American version totally did it justice.

sailor
10-02-2010, 02:13 AM
I just came back from seeing it. I enjoyed it, and thought it was even better than the original in some ways. It was more streamlined, and scarier. The first one was a better adaptation of the book (makes sense, since the author wrote the screenplay), and it certainly looked better, but this American version totally did it justice.

That is great to hear.

Gale Haut
10-02-2010, 03:24 AM
I just saw the original and was thoroughly creeped out. I was surprised by the ending too. It was more subtle than I'm used to, especially for a horror film. I really hope they didn't change to much plot-wise.

kuwisdelu
10-02-2010, 03:34 AM
I'll probably be seeing this on Monday. I hope I won't be disappointed.

My worry is less about with the fact that it's a remake — from the interviews I read, they sound pretty respective of the source material (i.e., it's not a remake, it's a second adaptation of the same novel) despite the changes — than the new actors. The trailer didn't convince me of the girl playing Eli — the Swedish actress did great — but maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.

DavidZahir
10-03-2010, 05:21 AM
Okay, I saw it. My full review will be up on my blog very late tonight, but in a nutshell I loved it. Was it a shot-by-shot remake? both films feel subtly but clearly different. Quite nicely, I was able to dive into Let Me In without constantly comparing it to the first film. The three leads--Kodi Smit-McPhee, Chloe Grace Moretz and Richard Atkins--gave wonderfully nuanced performances. At the same time, Writer/Director Matt Reeves managed not to simply take the Swedish story and place it against an American landscape. No, the cultural setting changed, while the heart of the tale remained--sad, happy, beautiful, horrifying, disturbing yet somehow sweet all simultaneously.

Spoilers follow:
This movie focuses upon the boy Owen (Oscar in the original), with most of the subplots in which he is not involved falling by the wayside. More than in the first film, Owen seems to be at the dawn of sexuality, as does Abby (Eli). One idea that haunts as the film ends is that Owen will go forward, at least physically, yet Abby won't. Right this second they are in perfect sync. It brings a terrible poignancy to her line "Can't things stay the same?"

Religion is a part of this film's background in a way it simply isn't in the original. Likewise alcoholism (Owen's never-quite-seen mother numbs herself with religion and wine) takes an American turn. The woman infected by Abby doesn't get anywhere near as much time, but what she does get is more memorable by far--the moment when she starts drinking her own blood is from the novel, btw. Likewise current events are more front and center, as it was in the novel.

Generally, the plot is more concentrated and telescoped. Honestly I thought the flick (at 1 hour, 55 minutes) was just a tiny bit rushed. I also felt the music (generally beautiful) intruded a few moments here and there. At the very start, though, the music did much to set the mood, echoing this strangely barren landscape.

Reminds me--that one wall of Owen's room is a vista of the Earth as seen from the Moon was a cool touch. He is an achingly lonely little human being, lonely in a crowd which is in some ways the worst way of being alone.

Until he meets Abby. Strange, lonely, unhappy Abby. A little girl and yet not. Reeves made the point that Abby is not simply an old woman in a twelve-year-old girl's body. I saw that interview earlier today but totally got that before. Moretz as Abby is in some fundamental way stuck a child. A child with decade after decade of experience, a child who has seen things no child should ever see--but her mind and emotions and flesh all trapped at the level of a little girl who knows she'll never be anything else.

Owen in the end chooses to be with her, but does so without realizing the full consequences of that choice. How could he? He's still a child. Just like Abby. The ending brings that into sharp relief.
END SPOILERS.

I will be seeing this film again at least twice in theaters. I haven't felt like that since LOTR.

kuwisdelu
10-03-2010, 05:27 AM
Is it still hinted that Eli/Abby is male? Or did they cut that part?

DavidZahir
10-03-2010, 06:18 AM
Answer: It is left out.My own reaction? I don't much care. But that is just me.

kuwisdelu
10-03-2010, 06:27 AM
Thanks.

I try to view different adaptations of things on their own merits. After all, not all the subplots can be fit in there. So in the long run, I don't mind most omissions either, but I like going in knowing a little about which parts to expect to be there.

Smileycat
10-03-2010, 09:23 PM
I read a review that said it was worth watching, so I will, eventually.

OneWriter
10-03-2010, 09:36 PM
It was shot in my town, in our local high school. The kids were SO excited!

sailor
10-03-2010, 09:54 PM
So far, the consensus seems that it is a worthy film, a new variation of the source material rather than a remake. Reviews have been favourable for the most part. Thank you to those who have seen it and posted here.

I bet the kids were excited. Seeing a film being made, their school being used. Something to remember.

DavidZahir
10-07-2010, 03:38 PM
Less than $6 million on opening weekend. Not a disaster for a $20 million dollar movie--the final domestic box office coupled with foreign box office, DVD sales, etc. means it should make a profit. But as things stand now, this discourages others from making really good vampire movies. I quite enjoyed Twilight but dislike the thought of it becoming a template for the genre, the way Lugosi's Dracula and later Anne Rice's works did.

Diana Hignutt
10-08-2010, 02:48 PM
Okay...it's a good movie...the kids did a great job. It is still more similar to the Swedish film than it is to the book. It's a lot more Americanized, with some wise editing choices, but I liked the Swedish film better. Though, as David pointed out the Policeman character's motivations are more obvious and better developed (simply by having him be a policeman) than the unemployed drunk in the Swedish film. I enjoyed thoroughly it.

I didn't realize it was from the reborn Hammer Films though.

Jcomp
10-08-2010, 05:10 PM
I liked it about the same as the Swedish film, even though in some respects it's almost shot-for-shot matching up with the predecessor. I do hope this helps mark a nice resurgence for the Hammer Horror studio. Looking at some of the other horror flicks & thrillers they have on the production slate, I think they might bring some quality genre films to theaters...

DavidZahir
10-08-2010, 07:42 PM
Methinks this film clicks more easily with an American audience, which is neither good nor bad. For example, the presence of religion in LMI as opposed to LTROI. Very American. So too is the sheer viciousness of the bullies, the greater violence and the way Americans say things that in European movies go unsaid. We're like that.

Yeah, it gives a little thrill to some of us to see Hammer return to making horror movies. I've a feeling the movie might do very well in the UK. Hope so, anyway.

One interesting change, albeit subtle, was the nature of vampirism in the two films. The Swedish film portrayed Eli as pretty much being a vampire all the time, sometimes overwhelmed with her instincts. My impression was that she enjoyed forgetting that part of herself in spending time with Oskar. Abby on the other hand seemed possessed by a vampire, which she had to obey sometimes but was in many ways removed from her (whether this was a natural aspect of her condition or a psychological defense, I couldn't say and don't see how it much matters).

Likewise Eli seemed caught between being this ancient being and a twelve year old. Abby seems like a permanent twelve year old, frozen and unable to move forward (which really added another layer of pathos to the end, at least for me).

I'll admit one bit I really wish had made its way into the film from the book--when she asks him if he'd like to be like her. And he says "I want to be with you, but I don't want to be like you." My impression was that she both understood completely yet was also just a little sorry.

Diana Hignutt
10-08-2010, 07:45 PM
I'll admit one bit I really wish had made its way into the film from the book--when she asks him if he'd like to be like her. And he says "I want to be with you, but I don't want to be like you." My impression was that she both understood completely yet was also just a little sorry.

Agreed. I found the old picture of Abby and the then young old man a very powerful image...

kuwisdelu
10-08-2010, 10:01 PM
A worthy second adaption, IMO.

But two things I really preferred in the first was a) the more subtle soundtrack and b) the girl who played Eli. Not saying the girl in this one wasn't good... I just thought the Swedish actress was much better.


Agreed. I found the old picture of Abby and the then young old man a very powerful image...

It's a departure from the book's backstory, but since there wasn't time for that anyway, I really loved this detail.

I really wish at least one of the adaptations had included the pedophile after he becomes a vampire, instead of just killing him off at the hospital.

Diana Hignutt
10-08-2010, 10:05 PM
I really wish at least one of the adaptations had included.

Yeah, I was really hoping for that too.

DavidZahir
10-09-2010, 12:22 AM
I'd like to see that as well, but the movie came in at just under two hours already.

BeatrixKiddo
10-12-2010, 07:54 AM
I can't decide if I want to see this American remake or not. The original version was so completely perfect and understated, it didn't need us to remake it. I don't mind remakes but Hollywood seems to be running out of ideas.

It reminds me of The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo movies. They're talking about making American versions of those as well. Why? The originals were fine. We don't need every single thing on the planet Americanized.

Yeesh.

ceenindee
10-12-2010, 08:36 AM
^I'll agree that LTROI didn't need a remake, but I can't take away from the quality of this new version. It stands alone as its own piece of art. I think you'll enjoy it--or at least respect it--if you go.

maestrowork
10-13-2010, 04:52 AM
The original is creepier, but the remake is worthy. Am I the only one who pity the boy for being manipulated by the vampire? GREAT STUFF as we already know how he will turn out (thanks to Richard Jenkin's character).

Diana Hignutt
10-13-2010, 02:44 PM
The original is creepier, but the remake is worthy. Am I the only one who pity the boy for being manipulated by the vampire? GREAT STUFF as we already know how he will turn out (thanks to Richard Jenkin's character).

In the book, it's not as clear cut. Spoiler: For example Eli offers Oscar a chance to become a vampire too.

BeatrixKiddo
10-16-2010, 08:16 AM
The original is creepier, but the remake is worthy. Am I the only one who pity the boy for being manipulated by the vampire? GREAT STUFF as we already know how he will turn out (thanks to Richard Jenkin's character).

Possible spoiler, yadda, yadda, yadda...

Actually, no. At the end of the (original) movie, I felt a bit bad for the boy too, even though a part of me wanted to see him go with her. I was torn, I tellz ya, torn! (but in a good way)

I seriously need to read the book.

DavidZahir
10-23-2010, 10:18 PM
A deleted scene has become available (http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1190862908144&ref=mf), showing how Abby became a vampire.