Let Me In Post Release

I liked it, too. Didn't like the non-stop music and the dodgy CGI, but everything else was on point. Both of those kids were terrific.

It doesn't eclipse the fantastic original, but it's a very watchable Bizarro World version.

Loved it. Of course, loved the original too, but this one had enough going for it on its own, mainly the performances, all around. Either way it wasn't the crotch punch most were expecting when it was announced, and there's enough to be said for that, I think.

If you look at this movie's parts you'd think they'd add up to something greater. They don't though.

Wow, only 5 million for the entire weekend. It deserved a better fate.

http://stevemasonsmog.typepad.com/st...-21m-openi.htm

I think it's at least as good as the original, although I think the swimming pool scene was done better in the original than the remake. But Richard Jenkins and Chloe Moretz really trump the original actors' performances in almost every way. Jenkins, especially: the look on his acid-scarred face as Abby feeds from him in the hospital window may be my favorite acting moment of the year.

My theater was only about half full, which was unfortunate. I think as remakes go it's a pretty terrific job. The scene in the car where it rolls over was thrilling. Could have used less of CGI Abby but that's okay - they made up for it with the shot of her scaling the hospital wall, which I really loved because it made you look for her instead of being showy about it.

Dunno why people are saying the gender ambiguity was dropped. It's there if you look for it. Or at least there's nothing in the film that contradicts it.

"Owen, I'm not a girl."
"What are you?"
"I'm nothing."

And then later, when Abby is putting on the dress and Owen spies on him/her, you see just a flicker of incomprehension. He probably hasn't seen a vagina before, for all he knows that's what they look like.

I take it Matt Reeves has been saying they dropped that aspect. I also think Matt Reeves is full of shit. Or trying not to freak out the mass audience.

To those who've seen the original, it's all there if you want it. Obviously no American film is going to show a pre-teen's nakedness, so it had to be suggested.

Well, yeah. If you know to look for it, it's there. If you don't, it's just Owen sneaking a peek. I just wonder why Reeves has apparently denied it. Then again, I have only heard about that, and would be happy to be directed to a link that either confirms it or proves me wrong.

I'm pretty sure my audience last night was a lot more uncomfortable with the moment between Abby and her older human helper (Jenkins). Even knowing she's not a regular 12 year old, it's still a really queasy moment. It probably should be, but Americans don't always deal with that well or maturely.

You mean just like the approach the director of the original took?


(Sorry, had to).

I bought a ticket for this last night, and about 30min before showtime, I got a refund. My desire to see Moretz and Jenkins was cancelled out by my own incredulity regarding this film's existence. I just couldn't commit. Maybe another time.

One of Reeves' changes to the script is for the bullies to constantly refer to Owen as a girl. In the original it's a pig. It's like Reeves wanted to have that Eli crotch shot but couldn't so he tried to approach the androgynous aspects from a different angle. The problem with just implying it as they do here is that it could all be a supernatural misdirect. The "not a girl" scene, the deeper vamp voice... As American audiences, we're primed to infer that stuff as being supernatural in origin, not necessarily eunuch business.

Smart change given the audience, but it does change the characters in small but significant ways. Owen's no longer a serial-killer-in-making, just a skinny, detached loser with bad hair. They're no longer a couple because one's a vamp and the other will have solid bloodletting skills one day. They're more victims of circumstance that wind up with each other in this version.

Oh for God's sake. This doesn't have to be an either/or, people. Loving Mommy doesn't mean you have to kill Daddy.

It's not that. Not really. A good bit of what I've heard infers that I have already seen this movie and nothing of what I've heard suggests that it's different enough to stand as its own entity. If there's maybe a 10% difference, that's not enough to get me excited. If I heard that they leaned more heavily on the novel, and played with concepts ignored by the original film, then yeah, I would be interested.

True enough, but I also saw the movie underscoring this by implying the tragedy will simply keep playing itself out; Owen will grow older and someday die or get caught (or both), while Abby remains perpetually 12 and alone. That really brought home the awfulness of Abby's existence, and Owen's.

I fully expected Owen to ask to be bitten and transformed, and was surprised he wasn't at film's end. (I have not seen the original, FWIW.)

Bit the bullet and saw this last night. Outside of employing some very talented actors, this film never justifies its existence. It's the original film, only cranked up (the music, the violence, etc.) and more obvious (the picture of "The Father" as a boy).

Moretz, McPhee, and Jenkins are all good, but they never threaten to be "better" than the original actors, just different based on acting style and direction.

It really is only a "good" film because it's a xerox of a great one, and that's the truth. A waste of time.

Ironically, if this had been the movie we were all dreading when this project was first announced, it probably would've made a lot more money.

Fantastic. As much as I find myself surprised for saying this, I actually thought that it improved upon the original in some areas (the car crash scene from the backseat perspective, a much more compelling representation of Abby's "father" by Jenkins, etc), and, to justify its existence as a creative endeavor, Matt Reeves was able to place the concept in a distinctly American environment without it ever feeling distractingly gimmicky. Best of all, it didn't insist on its 1980s setting, but in a way the little inclusion of things like a KISS concert shirt and the Now and Laters were innocent, rosey throwbacks to the past that fit the feeling of Abby and Owen's relationship well.

There are differences between both versions, and some of them are so subtle that repeated viewings are rewarded, while others are not: the perspective of the American remake is undoubtedly more minimal, focusing instead on Owen and having the other characters that we encounter more in the Swedish version only appear in service of his character growth. Really great stuff (and no, there aren't any CGI cats, thank god).

Memorable performances all around elevate it beyond generic American remake fare, without a doubt. This is one Western horror film that isn't afraid to demonstrate its brains, and not only in a literal, violent way.

Also, if anyone's interested, Matt Reeves was interviewed by Slashfilm on the first of October and screened a deleted scene that didn't make it into the film for them. With his permission, Slashfilm has confirmed that the scene will be posted on their website today in HD. Here's how Reeves himself describes the scene:

The above excerpt was from an earlier MTV interview, which describes the scene that SF will exclusively submit online.

Better when Fincher did it 11 years ago in Fight Club.

Soundtrack full of recognizable (on the nose, even) 80's hits, ample use of Reagan's address to the nation, etc.

No, but plenty of CGI Spider-Monkey Abby

It's brains were manufactured in Sweden.

No offense, JacknifeJohnny, but I think you're applying your opinion a bit too strongly here. For example, you object to my praise of how Reeves integrated the time period into the storytelling as if there's an absolute, factual way to view it, and if anyone strays too far, they are automatically wrong.

After having seen numerous posts that decried the use of CGI in the film, I was surprised by how non-intrusive I found it to be, especially since the attacks weren't filmed closely enough and in sufficient light for it to be obvious. *shrug* I liked it enough. It was effective, in my opinion.

Anyway, here's an interesting article that I found on Collider during a bit of browsing. Its source is MTV, and it contains an excerpt from a letter addressed to Matt Reeves that they exclusively obtained in which Lindqvist effusively praises Let Me In. I know that he's favorably viewed the project before, but this is post-viewing.

http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2010/10/04...e-matt-reeves/

You know, a friend here at work who saw the film pointed something out to me, who grew up in New Mexico. It's set in Los Alamos, 1982. It's the Reagan years, and the Cold War's going something fierce. I remember my thoughts on the whole nuclear arms race at the time, and I remember thinking with some degree of fear that we were going to get bombed some day. It was just the way kids thought back then, although it's not like it dominated our thinking, it was more, "Well, if there's a war, I hope we don't get blowed up." But a 10 year old kid, living in Los Alamos in the early 80s, a place that's probably the first on someone's list to burn in nuclear fire? He must have felt he was already living on borrowed time, and the movie doesn't touch any of that. Contextually, that should have been a gold mine, but other than the location, it's not stated at all. That seems an opportunity for the filmmakers to really offer something genuinely different from the original film (although the idea of communism banging at the door of Sweden's definitely touched on in the novel) and they failed to do so.

I think LET THE RIGHT ONE IN's the better film, obviously, but I stand by the acting of Jenkins and Moretz. Leandersson's acting might be better, it's hard to tell, but Moretz is definitely equal, except for the CGI stuff that wasn't necessary.

The film is littered with strong signifiers of the decade (including songs w/ lyrical content that line up w/ the narrative), whether one finds them intrusive is one thing, but you were factually incorrect.

If CGI Spider-Monkey Abby wasn't obvious, I wouldn't have called it obvious.

And finally, what the hell does it matter what Lindqvist says? I'm not basing my view of this film on how he feels about it, never even crossed my mind.

If I'm not mistaken, Reeves said that he wanted the vampires to metaphorically represent the political realities of the Cold War. I think that allusions to the time are certainly there and open to interpretation, such as the focus on the overt religiosity of Owen's mother as a representation of how people were turning to answers, even fanatically, in such tense times. Certainly, if nothing else, the atmosphere that the film establishes and maintains with its parallels to the original fits the Cold War well.

Other than the Reagan bit at the beginning, it's never referenced in the slightest, and that Reagan bit doesn't really mention it either. If you didn't grow up during the time, you would have no idea that this was looming over their heads. Why set it in Los Alamos if you didn't want that context? You may as well set it in Alaska, if you want all that snow.

I now have to see the first one. I thought it was loneliness that brought Abby and Owen together.

Oh, come on! Everybody did that as a kid! I still remember my mom making me come out of the front yard if I was going to wear my dime store Jason mask and wave a plastic cleaver at people who passed by our house. Good times....

McPhee is quite good, despite my distaste for the film as a whole, but his Owen character doesn't have the "macabre" interest in crime articles, nor does he seem to be as emotionally withdrawn as Oskar, so I can see people sort of seeing him as missing that "homicidal bent".

He struck me more as a kid with no outlet for his frustrations and felt helpless, so he mimed through revenge fantasies though we all knew he wouldn't go through with them, because he had no outside support as well. Heck, I've ranted through whole arguments by myself. As for spying on people, kid's alone. He just wanted to see other people. Plus, he got to glance a little fooling around by the neighbors, and with the added budding sexuality angle, seems to fit right in.

As promised, SlashFilm just posted the first deleted scene from Let Me In, accompanied by a video explanation on why it was cut, with the permission of Matt Reeves and Overture:

http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/10/05/...uence-was-cut/

Such a shame it was cut, though. Moretz's acting in this clip...incredible. Beautiful music too.

Whoah.

Holy crap, but even out of context of the film, the scene was heartbreaking, though I kind of almost resent it for how manipulative it is. Nothing like seeing a little kid in danger to make your blood boil.

Almost need to suppress an urge to go find a dark robed-big nosed-dude with The Manderin-rings and smack him upside the head.

I was thinking about the CGI in the movie today. Its not great, but since she is in the distance and its dark it doesn't bother me. The movie is more about Abby and Owen's relationship, so I don't feel the need to nit pick CGI.

It really can't be mentioned enough how awful the score is here. Take the moments leading up to the pool massacre, for example. Having seen the original, I knew what was about to transpire and could semi-understand the Inception-level horn blasting, but for someone new to the story? It completely overshadows what's going on and makes little sense until the bullies act.

Other than that, throw me in the camp that found this to be a very well made, extremely well acted (loved the quiet scene between Moretz and Jenkins before his last outing) film that's ulimtately redundant.

The movie makes really curious about Reeves next project. I loved the film and really respected how he was able to take a movie with a lot of the same scenes as the original yet still put a personal stamp and change it in very small but smart ways. Beautifully filmed and the acting was fantastic.

Having seen the original and loved it, I agree. The key moments are all there, but the pacing is way off. It's almost like they're in the wrong order. ETA: Scratch "almost"-- what's the point of the "Two Weeks Earlier" opening?

For one thing, Abby dresses like a girl from the start. In the original, the whole point of Oskar offering Eli a dress from his mother's wardrobe is that he thinks Eli is a girl-- and in his innocence he doesn't get that Eli is beyond caring about appearances. It's the only time we see the character in feminine garb. The scene is in the remake, but the significance is lost.

It's what all the cool kids are doing? I liked that the Caretaker (Jenkins) was a bit more fleshed out in this version, but adding in the investigation coupled with that just distracted me from the burgeoning Abby/Owen relationship.

Except for it all leading up to the backseat of the car and the crash (which was probably the only standout part of the movie for me [BECAUSE IT WAS NEW]).

As people have said, it's difficult to judge on it's own merits having seen the original. Like I said originally, I tried to do so, and the whole was not greater than the sum of it's parts. Oh well. Doesn't knock me off of being interested in Reeves' next flick.

It's a story technique.

It's an action opening with a story question, to drop the audience right into the drama, like a smash action teaser before the opening credits of a TV show, like CSI or Law and Order, to get you to stick around.

Many mystery novels do this too; they start with discovery of a dead body and then work up to it.

I get what they did, but not why. With this particular story, the most important thing is to get to know the boy, not to establish that we're watching a murder mystery.

I thought having the "two weeks earlier" opening was unnecessary. This is a movie, not a TV show. You don't need to entice the audience to stay in the theater. No one is going to get up and leave saying, "When do people die?!" And structurally I'm never a fan of flashing back from the middle of the film, so when we catch up with the opening, there is still a ton of story left. I feel like it just shows a lack of confidence in your own narrative.

That said, I thought this film was excellent. If it wasn't a remake we'd all be putting it on our year-end Best Of 2010 lists. Not as special as the original, but I'm still amazed by how close they actually came - poor box office and all! Actually, I think the film's general box office failure will serve it well; cause people to champion it more. By not giving it the Platinum Dunes treatment they ultimately wound up with a product the stupid general public doesn't want. You know someone at the studio said after the opening weekend "I told you we should've made the film with sexy teenagers!"

I feel like the whole flashback/flashforward thing has been played to death in the last decade. It peaked with Lost and Christopher Nolan and now it's just a tool for lazy writers to jazz up mediocre scripts.

I would totally recommend this to someone who would never watch the original, tasteless dipshits that they are. This is one of the most frustrating viewing experiences in recent memory.

The problem with the "2 weeks earlier" opening is that there doesn't seem to be much of a reason for it. There isn't a whole lot that's new about that scene other than Abby's offscreen presence, which doesn't really change the way one reads the scenes in the hospital. Also, there is so much that we still don't know in the cold open that there isn't a lot of emotional investment in the characters. its just a clue as to where the story might go, but considering the audience probably knows this is avampire story, people will get hurt. That scene just confirms that shit will happen. As such, it comes off as kinda hacky.

I think the '2 weeks' device is more a by-product/influence of Matt Reeve's past in TV production sneaking into a big screen film. It's used on nearly every TV thriller/mystery.

Just came back from this. It's too much like the original, but I did think the three main characters gave terrific performances. The original is better.

Yeah, I've seen enough Bad Robot shows to have seen the device used over and over. And I even was okay with in M:I3. But regardless of where it became popular, for it to be applied here without much reason isn't a dick in the punchbowl, but it is kinda pointless.

If this were any other film I'd be irritated by the blather concerning the 2 weeks earlier nonsense, but it only serves to show that any story discussion can be and already has been discussed in the post-release for the original.

How the fuck do people like this movie? Compare it to the original and it fails tremendously in every aspect. The best part of the movie is "Burnin for You" because I forgot how awesome that song is.

There are notable differences. I don't recall the boy's mother being alcoholic in the original, and we don't get enough of the dad to tell if he is too. There are also the references to Christianity and (presumed) satanism, while if memory serves the original doesn't mention religion at all.

Yeah, but what do those differences add up to? Not much. None of that adds to the film in any meaningful way.