Let Me In Post Release - Page 2

They don't, and I didn't say they did. But you seem to be insisting that we discuss only the details specific to the remake and let alone the material carried over from the original.

I'm not insisting anything, I was simply making a point about the redundancy of Reeves' film.

This movie's existence is really bothering you.

No, not really. I've seen it, it's over with. This is a film discussion board and in this case, there's not much more to discuss.

It's a discussion thread. Participation is optional.

And I have optioned to participate, and will continue to if any post inspires me to do so.

wow I guess I'm definitely in the minority here. I loved both(and almost but not quite equally) but for very different reasons. Also while the differences are small they still add to some really interesting things at least for me.

I felt a lot more emotion watching the original film. This is not that film. As a remake its not bad and I thought it was good.

Its amazing a studio ever bankrolled this remake with the Saw and Twilight shit burning up cinema's this movie even in its remake'd American sensibilities is way too heady for this time.

I think its a well done horror film but the original is the special piece of work that will endure for me over time.

Matt Reeves really needs to go more original in his next film because Cloverfield and Let Me In have not really touched down mainstream wise. His talents deserve something unique.

It's a good film. I appreciate the differences, especially some of the staging (the car accident was great). But ultimately LET THE RIGHT ONE IN is the superior version.

I preferred the Swedish take in many ways, but ultimately I think the biggest thing the American version lost out on was the Swedish locale. Sweden was a character in the original film. I didn't feel the same way about New Mexico. It could have been any wintery North American locale. The film tries to over compensate with all the 80's references, but ultimately I didn't think it added much. The American version didn't need to take place in the 80's at all. It just felt forced in there for atmosphere.

The performances were good, with Smitt-McPhee being the real standout, but again, I preferred the Swedish kids.

Did anyone else notice that Owen's creepy plastic mask looked like Richard Jenkins? I wonder if it was a mold of his face to lend foreshadowing.

Oh, and the CGI Abby stuff was bad. Done better in the lower budget original. Why is that?

A good movie on its own, and much more of a "proper" horror movie. But the original kicks its ass.

Yeah, I noticed the mask. Interesting touch sort of neutered by the photograph I think.

Yeah, I think the photograph may have been spelling things out too much. I basically agree with your opinion, but I do think this film has a value. As far as an attempt at communicating a great story to an American audience goes, I think LET ME IN succeeds.

Interesting that Let Me In makes Owen more confrontational than his Swedish counterpart. You'd think an American remake would soften him, but it's just the opposite. Let The Right One In's character, outside of his stabbing fantasies, is pretty much terrified the rest of the time. Not that Owen isn't too mostly, but he's also angrier. I think this is to Let Me In's credit -- it helps sell the idea of Owen getting off on Abby's violence.

What's interesting is that the remake literalizes a number of the preconceptions viewers unfamiliar with the book have when watching the original for the first time. Again, advantage to the original, with its unsettling ambiguities.

I just remembered something about this film that I did sort of enjoy, even if it wasn't part of the film itself: Marvel/DC style HAMMER films logo. Obviously this film's performance does not bode well for their resurrection, but as an enthusiastic fan of classic HAMMER (particularly the films of the great Terrence Fisher), I have to say that put a grin on my face.

Yeah, I loved the logo. I hope they get a chance. The quality of LET ME IN was a good sign of things to come.

Since we're nitpicking somewhat, did anyone else think it was a weird choice to have Owen humming the "Now or Later" theme over the end shot? Was the jingle supposed to have some metaphorical significance? 'Cause that's a real stretch.

I thought the same thing about the jingle. If it was there, any sort of logical thematic bond went right over my head.

Hammer logo was a joy. Despite the unneeded anger over how "necessary" this remake was, it was an awesome first outting for Hammer. Very sad the film isn't performing for them (and sad for horror movies in general). Hopefully the goodwill from critics will mean Hammer won't die in the crib.

I think Owen was also humming (or singing) the Now or Later tune in his opening shot also.

Yeah, he was. But the question is WHY they book-ended the film with the jingle. Did it have thematic significance of some kind? Or was it just a period tack-on? Why the pimping of Now and Laters?

Now his relationship with Abby seems like a match made in heaven.

Later his relationship will be a sad spiral to Richard Jenkinsville.

Oh, I see. He ate them throughout the movie. Abby got sick from one. The tune does go "eat some now, save some for later". Kinda vampirish I guess?

ETA: I like that Ratty.

Truly Hemmingway level symbolism! It's like OLD MAN AND THE SEA up in the house.

I suspect it had no true relevance. Everyone in the JJ Abrams camp seems to love under-cooked metaphors and allusions.

I suspect your suspection is correct.

I may have totally made up a word.

I don't think you can help but view this film in the context of comparison with the original given that it's so heavily reliant on the original and that they were made within 2 years of each other. I normally want to judge a film on its own terms but I don't have those compunctions this time around.

If you compare the two, there are only really three things the remake does that add anything: 1. Jenkins' performance, 2. Car crash sequence, and 3. Owen's pubescent sexual development as a motivator.

The rest is, if not redundant, just bad. From the intrusive, ridiculous score to the spider-monkey (awesome call) CG effects to the one-dimensional plot device secondary characters. I mean, why have Elias Koteas in this at all? The original tied the climactic threat to Eli with the people who actually live in the apartment, and everything is nicely connected with people having motivations for doing what they do. In this remake, the threat comes from a cop with no better motivation or characterization than being a cop. The couple is barely there and the drama of the hospital combustion is totally removed. If they'd REPLACED more than REDUCED, we'd have a much better film.

The focus on streamlining the ambiguities of the original was sooo misguided. It made me think of the inclusion of "does it answer questions?" in the cultural discourse of entertainment media post-Lost. The assumption is that people aren't interested in complexity if it comes with ambiguity, and no spot-on interpretation of what's going on in Let Me In is going to be derived from anywhere else but being told and being able to connect thematic threads. Congratulations, audience, feel good about doing what kids are taught to do in elementary English classes. Reeves' version makes no bones about not trusting the audience and it's vaguely insulting.

Aside from that it's well-acted, beautifully shot, and technically well done. But so is the original. This would have made Let Me In very good film outside of the context of being a remake. Unfortunately, it is one of the best illustrations of why remaking foreign films to try and capitalize on cult status or cool concepts can be such a pointless gesture.

I wrote a more thorough review for my blog, if anyone's interested in that. It's highly comparative, which some might say is an unfair critical approach. I think I'm pretty clear about why I think it's totally fair, though.

Review: http://thunderclam.wordpress.com/201...you-a-vampire/

Nice essay Xion. The only thing I would disagree with you on is that Owen behaves like less of a burgeoning serial killer than Oskar. He's more violent with the knife, more violent in his retaliation and has the creepy voyeuristic tendencies... I don't know if that's more or less than someone collecting clippings about murders; I don't really think there's a way to quantify serial killer behavior outside of killing animals, which neither characters do.

Another weird detail: Elias Koteas's obsession with satanists. I get that there was satanist hysteria in the late 70's and early 80's, but it was another detail that felt a little forced.

I touched on this earlier-- I don't recall Oskar's mother being excessively religious (to the point that his dad remarks on it) either. The Swedish film struck me as essentially atheist-- perhaps someone decided that you just can't have an American vampire film without a crucifix in there somewhere.

Is it an essay and not a review because it doesn't have a numerical score?

Thanks for reading it. I think that Oskar's bullies are quite a bit less vicious than Owen's. Oskar's chief tormentor is spoiled and bored and has a dick for an older brother and a couple of follower friends. The situation only gets truly dangerous when Oskar goes overboard retaliating. This isn't to say the kid didn't deserve it, especially if they really were gonna throw him in the drink. The issue is that Owen seems more justified in his eventual rebuke. The other thing is that Oskar seems to eventually begin to somewhat get off on the violence. When he is whipped for example. Owen never seems comfortable with violence. I think Oskar's moral and psychological development estranges him from the audience to a degree that Owen's does not.

All aspects of Elias Koteas' character are forced and undercooked.

I called it an essay because it was more of a comparative study of the differences between the two films. But calling it a review works too. Either way, I liked it.

Just saw this today.

It's a fantastic little cover tune, I thought, one that wears its heart on its sleeve a lot prouder than the original, which is the one area I thought the new one excels. I was worried Abby's gender not playing the role it does in the original would hurt the story, but Reeves lets Abby's femininity breathe a bit more, and its much more of an older woman getting to start over vibe with her. It steals a bit of the danger involved with her character (the shitty CG didn't help), but it does make for some amazing, heartbreaking character moments.

The rest? Different, but rarely outshining the original. It mostly ends up being solidly on par.

Also, I have no idea where the fuck the hatred for the score is coming from. It's a more emotional score for a much more emotional film, and even then, Giacchino still plays it understated for most of the time (he slips during the scene where Koteas bursts into Abby's apartment, though).

Lastly, I have to say, not surprised it failed. Vampires aren't actually "in". Melodrama is. Vampires being part of it all of a sudden is mostly incidental.

Just came back from seeing this in the only theater in town still showing it. I don't get the hate. The original is better, but like Justin Clark is saying, its a great cover. I liked the character moments here better. Same way I like Bobby Hebb's "Sunny," but I love Wilson Pickett's version.

As for Los Alamos, I kept pondering that as well. There is a Russian gym teacher at a high school in Los Alamos! Middle of the cold war. In towns like that, you either work at the Lab or don't, and if you don't, you don't count. Kind of like a mill town, except your parents are scientists and admin, and anyone else is just service workers. I live in Los Alamos's sister city, Oak Ridge, and the same holds true here. I think it just serves to further isolate him.

I think most in this thread are dumping on it, when, if it wasn't for this film, we would never have seen the original on sell at Target for 10 bucks. (I know, cause I just bought it.)

I thought the reason for the alcoholic mother and distant father was to make Owen more alone. He had no friends, was bullied, and his parents could both be fuck ups.* You could see why Owen would ran away with Abby.

I did watch the pool scene from LTROI, and it was better. I liked the action goes on behind Oskar. He doesn't know what is happening. The feet twitching in the water, then stopping was a cool visual.

*The scene were Owen's mother calls her ex and another woman answers the phone implied to me they split up because he was cheating on her.

Saw this yesterday in a nearly empty theater. Wondering why nobody is seeing this. Sure it isn't the original, but it still carries all the same beats confidently.

Both Abby and, more importantly, her victims move in a very exaggerated manner. The way they were animated was jarring and didn't look at all how you would expect someone to behave if they were being savaged by a little girl monster. She's got to weigh a good 50 pounds at least and both Jogger Neighbor and Detective Guy threw her around like nothing (briefly, then she'd bounce off a wall and jump right back on, but you get my point.) That's the root of the CGI effects problems; letting the audience see too much in parts where their imaginations would be much more effective, and cheaper.

The hate for the score is a comparative thing. The original's score is super restrained when it's even there. Having this oppressively loud score in the remake just seems like "Hollywood" thing, ie: the score coaxes you into whatever emotional/mental state the movie wants you to be in and telegraphs suspense and emotional beats to the movies detriment.

I love me some Giacchino but his score just doesn't fit and sticks out like a sore thumb from what should have been a quieter film. The score is just too big for the movie.

Well, I finally went and saw this a few days ago. I wanted to see it on the big screen but it never happened. I dun goofed, I know.

 

While the movie in comparison to the great original looks like an inferior copy, not all of the changes they made were so bad. Sure, I could have done without the XM/Sirius 80's Channel soundtrack and constant reminders of the decade it was set in, and the CGI made me wish to see those attacking cats from LTROI, some of it was interesting, like focusing on Owen's budding sexuality, or that cool car crash that will make me view Burnin' For You in a different light for the rest of time. Plus, as many have agreed with already, there are a lot of nice performances throughout the movie.

 

Point is, it could have been a LOT worse than how it turned out. If they had to do a remake, then this was a nice attempt at trying to almost be exactly like the original. I definitely prefer LTROI to this, but as I rate the '08 movie extremely highly, that shouldn't be taken as much of an insult.

I finally watched this on Netflix Instant, and I have to say that the comparisons between this and Let the Right One In ring somewhat hollow to me. This might be because, after seeing Let the Right One In, I also read the book, so I tend to view the three works as three different stories told over the same basic plot-line. In particular, I don't think that Reeves' film attempts to tell the same story as  Alfredson's -- it seems to me that the protagonist of Let Me In is Owen, while the protagonist of Let the Right One In is Eli. Everything in Let the Right One In is specifically about and in reaction to Eli's existence. This is evident in the scenes involving her and Hakan, and implicit in the scenes of Oscar. In the Swedish film we either see Oscar in a familial setting, which contrast strongly with the lonesome and fairly miserable existence of Eli (in fact, in the book 

 

 

 

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 

), or we see scenes of Oscar being bullied, whose resonance is given by Eli telling him to "hit back" (as is her way), that she would help him, and the final pool scene where she (unexpectedly) does return to help him. In Let Me In, however, it is Abby who acts as a foil to Owen. Owen is the explicitly lonesome one, who lives in a broken home and faces daily cruelty (the bullying in LTROI is mean, but nowhere near as cruel and vicious as the bullying in LMI). His distant mother (compare to the closeness of the tooth-brushing scene in LTROI), the religious conflict between his father and her that prevents his father from listening to him (compare to the joy of the snow-mobile scene; I must mention that his crying on the phone with his father is a truly poignant moment) -- these really focus the narrative on Owen rather than Abby (who it feels is significantly less present in this movie than she is in the Swedish one where Eli's presence looms constantly).

 

The treatment of the neighbors also contributes to this different focus: they are Owen's neighbors -- he watches them, he knows them, while in LTROI the neighbors seem to be complete strangers to Oscar and function more as Eli's victims. Similarly, Thomas in LMI is more explicitly written as a potential future version of Owen (notice that Owen sees a lot more of him than Oscar does of Hakan), rather

than Hakan who exists only as Eli's helper (it seems to me we see less of the fight between Abby and Thomas, and hear more of it from Owen's perspective, than we do between Eli and Oscar).

 

Finally, a subtle aspect of the Swedish film that I've come to appreciate only after seeing the American one is how open and expansive the shots in it are -- the world feels significantly more lived in and real -- in comparison, the shots in the American film feel almost claustrophobic and opressed, and they do so without Abby's presence (whereas, I maintain, the vivid life in the Swedish film serves in juxtaposition to Eli's unlife). 

 

The question then is whether Let Me In tells Owen's story well, and I would wager that it does, for the most part. I wish that the camera-work didn't have so much of the screen out of focus for as much time as it did, and I wish that neighbors' distance from Owen was conveyed more concretely than by having them completely undeveloped as characters. I also think that the pool scene really does not fit well with the rest of the film -- I'm not sure why: it is perhaps too short, the stakes are perhaps too low (as Abby has been established as Owen's savior, in a way, the scene of her leaving is nowhere near as effective...), the struggle, though more dynamic, is paradoxically less dramatic? Something's off, I feel. Naturally, the policeman also doesn't quite work, and I think for the same reason that the neighbors don't -- distance and alienation from Owen is mistaken with lack of development or depth.

Very nice, Vlad.  A terrific exploration of the three.