Cloverfield Director To Remake Let The Right One In

[Crook]

I agree. I mean, I personally just off-the-top-of-my-head can think of multiple Radiohead songs that haven't been used ad nauseum in film/tv before, which would fit this particular sequence just as well if not better than that one. And that's just me, someone who doesn't even listen to the radio - and just one example. I'm sure it wouldn't have been hard for them to think of something else. But keep in mind, a lot of these songs that are specified in screenplays never make it into the final product, so maybe, hopefully, they did end up finding something else, and that was just a "placeholder song" 'till they did.

And Aesop, about that scene you were worried about in the original: [blackout]It's still there in the draft I read. I was pretty surprised they kept it. I still have doubts it will make it into the final cut, though.[/blackout]


Also, apparently they had a test-screening:
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Early-Review-Of-Let-Me-In-18873.html

Sounds a little plant-ish, but I think they definitely saw the movie, at least. And the biggest change I see from the draft I read is the setting. The final film is apparently set in [blackout]New Mexico, while the one I read was set in Littleton, Colorado. A little less anvil-ish, no?[/blackout] I guess that's a good thing.

I just wanna know if the pool scene is still in tact. That shot was orgasm-worthy.

 

[The Apatow Crew]

I just wanna know if the pool scene is still in tact. That shot was orgasm-worthy.

Spoiler

From the script it is.

 

[flickchick85]

I just wanna know if the pool scene is still in tact. That shot was orgasm-worthy.

Spoiler

Yeah, if the script is any indication, I think they know that scene is a favorite and wouldn't dare touch it. Though, as beautifully shot as it is in the original, I hope Reeves finds a way to put his own visual touch on it...without making it more boring. That will be tough to pull off.

 

[:eek:]

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/45610

 

[Figs]

Not surprised at all...


If his review is accurate then this could be a renter. I'll wait until reviews of the finished film come out before I make up my mind though.

 

[flickchick85]

Well, at least it sounds like the song choice from the script I didn't like at the end may have been changed...but not to something better (unless they're referring to a song from a different point in the film).

 

[Boom]

If it's just a shot-by-shot remake of the original, then I won't bother with the film. The original was borderline flawless. No sense throwing a new coat of paint on a gem.

 

[Aesop Rocks]

flickchick said it's not shot-by-shot

 

[Figs]

Just curious...

Anyone here know if they released the Blu-ray for Let The Right One In with the proper subtitles in your area?

 

[Spade]

I agree with Tomas Alfredson. This undermines the work of many talented people for the promise of money. It's fine that Reeves digs the premise, but I'd enjoy more original work from him.

 

[Aesop Rocks]

Just curious...

Anyone here know if they released the Blu-ray for Let The Right One In with the proper subtitles in your area?

I dunno, I watched it on Netflix!

 

[Boom]

Just curious...

Anyone here know if they released the Blu-ray for Let The Right One In with the proper subtitles in your area?

Have no clue. I almost bought it on Blu-Ray the other day, and remembered to check the back of the box as I was walking up to the check-out counter.

I still need to buy the corrected version - Blu-Ray or not. This film is remarkable.

 

[flickchick85]

flickchick said it's not shot-by-shot

Well, here's what I said:

I don't think it adds anything new to the story - at most, it cuts out any ambiguity and runs with Matt Reeves' own interpretation of those points left ambiguous (ie, [blackout]Abby's guardian was a kid just like Owen once, not a pedophile as it was with the most common interpretation - not to mention the author's original intent, I believe[/blackout]). And yes, it's very "Americanized," complete with a montage set to a moody song ([blackout]Gary Jules' "Mad World"[/blackout]) toward the end and random flashbacks and "premonitions" to keep the ADD crowd's attention.

That said, aside from those changes and a couple of narrative shifts, it DOES stay very faithful to the original, with many scenes as carbon copies. And imo, it does keep the best scenes of the original while cutting out a couple I didn't care for.

So aside from the structural and narrative detail changes, I could see how a lot of scenes would have turned about to be shot-by-shot copies.

And regarding Blu-ray subtitles, I just bought one straight from the US distributor through my place of work (I work at a theater that sells DVD's/Blu-rays), and while I haven't watched it yet, it DOES say on the back of the case: "Subtitles: English (Theatrical)." So I think Magnolia Pictures have sorted out their Blu-ray subtitles issue now. If you're getting it in a store in the US, you just have to make sure that they don't have an old copy. Look for the "(Theatrical)" notation on the back.

 

[matrix_ghost]

HAs the trailer been posted yet ?




[YT]qjavOLdPk1c[/YT]

 

[Sentinel X]

The cinematography looks good. But doesn't seem as good as the original. Also don't like the rock music in the trailer, I hope they're not trying to appeal to mtv generation. Other than that...it could've been worse, a lot worse

 

[matrix_ghost]

Let Me In vs. Let the Right One In Comparison

 

[KenK]

I agree with Tomas Alfredson. This undermines the work of many talented people for the promise of money. It's fine that Reeves digs the premise, but I'd enjoy more original work from him.

You mean like, uh . . .Cloverfield?

 

[PWN3R]

You mean like, uh . . .Cloverfield?

I'd take a Cloverfield 2 any day over this unnecessary sequel.

That said, the trailer was actually, surprise surprise, not that bad.

 

[flickchick85]

The cinematography looks good. But doesn't seem as good as the original. Also don't like the rock music in the trailer, I hope they're not trying to appeal to mtv generation. Other than that...it could've been worse, a lot worse

Of COURSE they're trying to appeal to the MTV crowd...with the trailer, at least. If they didn't want to find a broader audience than the original had, they wouldn't have bothered with a remake. And this trailer is attached to Twilight, so that's their audience here.

I had the weirdest reaction to this trailer. Because at first it just made me RAGE, because there's a difference between hearing that they're "Americanizing" a story I love and actually seeing the results. So seeing that made the knee-jerk reaction I had when I first heard about this remake just boil back to the surface more intensely than before, and I was all rage. But then watching it again, I realized that despite those feelings, and looking past the rock-music-MTV-editing of the trailer it actually looks better than I expected. The cinematography and acting look good so far. And all of the scenes I can pick out look faithful. Like Sentinel said, it could've been a lot worse.

I remain cautious - not cautiously optimistic or pessimistic - just...cautious. I wait for legitimate reviews of the final product before I decide if I'll be seeing it.

 

[Carmine Falcone]

Why, why, why?

Yeah, it doesn't look bad, but that's because it looks exactly like the original. Which, again begs the question:

Why?

 

[Doctor Jones]

Yeah, it shouldn't be a shot for shot remake. There is no point in doing so.

When you do a remake, respect and use what made the original film work and you know ti can't be changed. Go ahead with ideas that you think might be improved or add different ones. Just make sure it feels right. Respecting the original film means giving your remake space and not doing the exact same thing.

King Kong is a good example. Jackson expanded on a concept that you shouldn't change, but he added and changed some things to make it different. And it turned out fine. It had some cool winks to the original, but the execution was right and it didn't get in the way. The Thing is on the other end of the spectrum. Carptentor radically changed it, because he knew what he was doing and was confident and went forward with it.

 

[Crook]

There were plenty of shots in the trailer that weren't in the original. We should save the "what was the point" critiques for when the film is actually seen.

My faith remains the same. Trailers can be manipulated any which way they want, so I'm not particularly concerned with what is obviously a third-party soundtrack. I can only judge the cinematography and the (little) direction I saw. The colorless palette is retained with a bit more of that bleached post-processed feel. I like it. It definitely looks like it'll amp up the pace, which isn't necessarily a bad thing so as long as it doesn't interfere with the intimacy. Moretz is one fine performance away from undoubtedly being the best kid actor this generation, I'm convinced this will solidify it. Dare I say it I think she'll turn in the better performance.

 

[Aesop Rocks]

Is it bad that I completely love the trailer?

 

[CrimsonMist]

Yea, it doesn't look shot for shot at all to me. Some scenes are similar, but nothing makes me accuse it of being shot for shot. I like what I see thus far, but perhaps when we see something better, probably in August, I can come to a better conclusion.


and using Carpenter's version of The Thing to illustrate how to remake a movie isn't that good an example as Carpenter doesn't even acknowledge the original film and goes straight for the short story that the original film strayed from radically. A better example would be Cronenberg's remake of The Fly.

 

[Wolfwood]

What's up with the morse code that spells "Help me" at the end?