No because True Grit didn't come out 2 years ago and I've never seen the original before.
I'm going to end up watching Let Me In on DVD and I will rate it fairly when I see it. Still doesn't change my feelings about the quick remake trend because people don't like to read subtitles. It's funny because I think if they an American studio gave the original just as much advertising and as wide a release it wouldn't have done much worse than this movie is.
So, remaking a masterpiece is O.K. as long as it is 35 years old? A masterpiece is a masterpiece, no matter when it came out. Whether you saw it or not.
I agree Hollywood remakes films usually because "people don't like subtitles" and to me that is almost as bad as when they remake films because "people don't like black and white movies," or in True Grit's case, "people don't like or see old movies."
With that said, Let Me In was really good and I will see True Grit's remake as the extended trailer was impressive and these two seem to be the exceptions instead of the rule given the directors' interests. More The Departed, 3:10 to Yuma, King Kong and The Thing than Quarantine, The Day The Earth Stood Still, Psycho, Disturbia, Godzilla or All The Kings Men.
Still at the end of the day, Jeff Bridges will never be a better Rooster than the Duke.
Excellent review. I agree with most of it, especially your views on the locals and Oskar vs. Owen. This film is a companion piece to the original that can stand on its own. It is not a poor film and I am upset it bombed.
Thank you. I'm not too upset that it bombed, because I loved the film and will definitely buy it on DVD. I really can't stand this idea that if a movie doesn't do well at the box office, it means the film isn't any good. That's perhaps the biggest downside in this post-Jaws/Star Wars world of cinema. Quality is determined by money. Unfortunate.
I actually also love Hammer is back and look forward to The Woman In Black. i saw it on stage in London many years ago and it was the creepiest, most unnerving and finally hauntingly scary play I've ever seen. However, period pieces just don't sell in horror anymore it seems.
Im trying to track down a copy of the TV movie made a few years back. I've heard many good things about it. However, it's my understanding that the DVD is out of print and hard to fine. It's probably available for download though. But something I found interesting: The TV movie was written by Nigel Kneale, who created Quatermass, of which Hammer adapted the three TV serials. These ties are pretty interesting.
It is sad. I mean look at Universal's attempt of the Wolfman remake. That film had a great cast, visual style (cinematography, costumes, make-up, setting, etc.) and everything...except a script. The screenplay was terrible. But I doubt that is the reason it bombed. It bombed because it was a restrained old school period piece horror movie.
I think The Wolfman's biggest problem was all the behind the scenes nonsense. As such, i felt the film really lacked any atmosphere and tension. I mean, it just wasn't scary. It had the look, but it felt like there wasn't any time spent into making the look come alive. And yes, the screenplay was terrible, and upon viewing the director's cut, they should have just remade the original story, only set in Victorian times. I think it bombed simply because it wasn't a good movie. It was fun, sure. But it wasn't a good movie, per se. It being a period piece had nothing to do with it, I feel. Maybe because I'm a geek for this stuff, but the Wolfman remake was the step in the direction that I'd like to see horror go back to: supernatural horror. I love how it teases the imagination. Jigsaw has become, and perhaps always was in retrospect atleast, incredibly banal and mundane. The supernatural is metaphorical. The realistic horror is boring.
The most amazing thing about this movie was how it was almost exactly the same as the original, but ended up being a totally different movie experience.
The original was far creepier, using the same scenes and words. The relationship between the "father" and the vampire seemed more like a pervert obsessed with an eternally young girl. In the remake, he seems like an exhausted father who wants to help his daughter but wants out of his rut. This perverse mood continues with the "twist". In the remake, the twist doesn't happen, and so the setup scenes for the twist lose their meaning, and creepiness.
This is not a plot issue...merely a secondary mood that infiltrates the mind of the viewer.
In the new version, they Americanized the style. Gone is the creepiness, and in is more of a standard "is there true evil" story. They did a very good job with it actually...showing how America is falling into it just as the people are, and how even the bad guys are victims etc. Again, it isnt a plot issue, but the concept of good or evil kind of works its way into your mind.
This style change continues through to the ending. In the original, you realize that the boy is doomed to a miserable fate. This is his destiny...it is all he has that is worthwhile. Everyone and everything in his life was wrong...until he met the right one, and let her into his heart. This gives meaning to his life...but at the same time, you are aware that he is just another in a long line of people that were being used by her. She may care for him, but she is using him and manipulating him. In the new version, this aspect is gone. While they do point out that he is basically a replacement, it is shown as a necessary part of their friendship...but not that he is a pawn or anything. It is a much happier ending because of this.
Which is better really depends on what you want out of the movie. I prefer the style of the original, but appreciate what the film makers attempted with this one as well. To me though, it did not have the same overwhelming sadness and unease that the original had.
The acting was great. No problems there. The CGI was GOD-AWFUL. Every time it switched to CGI I groaned.
Interesting interpretation. Most fans of the original view Hakan as a pervert (I prefer the interpretation I took of him as a little boy she knew--perhaps intimately once--who had grown up) and Eli with Oskar as true love found. They take it as a very happy ending.
By Matt Reeves choosing to say that Hakan was indeed like Owen at one point and Owen is on the same path, that he makes it more depressing. But like you, I see no other real interpretation of that relationship.
I wouldn't say Let Me In is happier because of that. I think it is more upfront about what will happen to Owen while LTROI left it more ambiguously. But you can derive a happier ending out of LTROI if you choose. I do not think that is the case with Let Me In.
Interesting interpretation. Most fans of the original view Hakan as a pervert (I prefer the interpretation I took of him as a little boy she knew--perhaps intimately once--who had grown up) and Eli with Oskar as true love found. They take it as a very happy ending.
By Matt Reeves choosing to say that Hakan was indeed like Owen at one point and Owen is on the same path, that he makes it more depressing. But like you, I see no other real interpretation of that relationship.
I wouldn't say Let Me In is happier because of that. I think it is more upfront about what will happen to Owen while LTROI left it more ambiguously. But you can derive a happier ending out of LTROI if you choose. I do not think that is the case with Let Me In.
ITA with this. It's funny, because Hakan being a former Oskar was how I interpreted LTROI when I saw it (and subsequently saw the ending to be more tragic), and I was surprised to discover afterward that in the book, he was a pervert, and the movie didn't invalidate that in any way. It was definitely a "choose your own Hakan backstory" kind of thing. This one certainly loses that ambiguity, but maybe one of the reasons it didn't bother me is because Reeves chose MY interpretation to go with, lol. So it didn't even seem like much of a change to me, and therefore didn't change my view of the story. If I had read the book first and assumed Hakan was a pedophile while watching LTROI, I probably wouldn't have appreciated Let Me In as much I did.
I saw it the weekend it came in my neck of the woods and I gave it a 9 out of 10.
Anyway like I said in The Social Network thread it doesn't matter what it makes overall because it was never getting a sequel anyway. Ofcourse you hope and like people seeing a movie that you like but it's not like there was some hope of it putting up 300mil domestically or anything. Thats my two cents to people who love the movie and are bummed about it's boxoffice numbers. Just don't act like the niche comicbook movie fans and endlessly cry about how awful people are for not seeing a movie that they just were never going to see. Just enjoy the flick.
It's not about a sequel, it's more about the revival of Hammer being a success and it hopefully leading to more good intelligent horror films that are based in story, style and acting.
To all the people who repeatedly state this movie should not have been made...are you going to see the Coen Brothers' True Grit (aka John Wayne's OSCAR WINNING film)? If so that is called hypocrisy.
Anyway, I'm sad it flopped because it means crap like Saw VII and horror remakes like Friday the 13th win. This is sad news for us--the audience.
im surprised everyone hates the cg scenes..... i think that was amazing and amplified the vampire sequences. The original film was a bit too tame in the matter. To each his own i guess.
I think people are holding the original a little higher than it deserves to be. happens far too often with these genre foreign films. Just like the Ring... how does Ringu have 97% and gore verbinsky's The Ring have only 71%? its either foreign movie pity or hollywood hate. I think its clear now american critics/audiences will never acknowledge that a hollywood remake made it as good or especially better. Or maybe critics just deal in extremes... "if its not better than the original then its inferior".. maybe that would explain it.
im surprised everyone hates the cg scenes..... i think that was amazing and amplified the vampire sequences. The original film was a bit too tame in the matter. To each his own i guess.
Well, as I said, I liked the idea behind it, and I liked that the attacks were more intense. And I loved what they did to her face and eyes. But her herky-jerky movements in a couple of the wideshots just looked SO fake to me.
im surprised everyone hates the cg scenes..... i think that was amazing and amplified the vampire sequences. The original film was a bit too tame in the matter. To each his own i guess.
I think people are holding the original a little higher than it deserves to be. happens far too often with these genre foreign films. Just like the Ring... how does Ringu have 97% and gore verbinsky's The Ring have only 71%? its either foreign movie pity or hollywood hate. I think its clear now american critics/audiences will never acknowledge that a hollywood remake made it as good or especially better. Or maybe critics just deal in extremes... "if its not better than the original then its inferior".. maybe that would explain it.
I thought this movie sucked. IMO, it was tedious, slow, and so friggin' boring. I kept finding myself trying to leave but I don't like to walk out on films. But I feel like I wasted my money on this movie. And I hate when ****** cgi is used for no reason whatsoever.
I saw it last night before going to work. I have to say, I like this version better than the original in almost every way except for a couple of small things.
[Blackout]While I like both endings there's something less stated and left to the imagination about the pool scene in the original. In that one, by the time Oskar come up for air the fight is completely over and the bullies are dead. In this one, he comes up and all we see is him trying to catch his breath while we hear the fight still going on. I liked both ways but I prefer the original. And as some have stated, the build up to the neighbor's immolation was more drawn out in the original and I liked that(still hate the cgi cats, though). In this one, it was quicker than I would have prefered but what different things they did with it were super, IMO. Seeing the neighbor sucking her own blood as the cravings hit her and then having not just her die in the fire but also a nurse happens to get too close and the fire is so powerful that even though she runs she still dies after a few steps...I liked those touches very much and I don't recall if they were in the original. If they were, then they didn't leave nearly as much of an impression as the remake did.[/Blackout]
Also regarding the CGI in the remake, I can't say that it ever bothered me once. Virtually all of it is shot either in shadows or at a distinct distance that makes such scrutiny worthless, IMO. So then you have to focus on how she moves and there I liked it as well. She's not human and isn't supposed to move like something natural. I thought it fit very well.
ITA with this. It's funny, because Hakan being a former Oskar was how I interpreted LTROI when I saw it (and subsequently saw the ending to be more tragic), and I was surprised to discover afterward that in the book, he was a pervert, and the movie didn't invalidate that in any way. It was definitely a "choose your own Hakan backstory" kind of thing. This one certainly loses that ambiguity, but maybe one of the reasons it didn't bother me is because Reeves chose MY interpretation to go with, lol. So it didn't even seem like much of a change to me, and therefore didn't change my view of the story. If I had read the book first and assumed Hakan was a pedophile while watching LTROI, I probably wouldn't have appreciated Let Me In as much I did.
I interpreted it the same as well. I read after I watched the movie that Hakan was a pervert and I really didn't like that idea. I think it's much more tragic if he's an older Oskar, showing that Eli has been doing this for a while.
Well, as I said, I liked the idea behind it, and I liked that the attacks were more intense. And I loved what they did to her face and eyes. But her herky-jerky movements in a couple of the wideshots just looked SO fake to me.
yeah very true... i have mixed feelinga about cloverfield because while i really enjoyed the film i will NEVER be watching it again. But this movie shows he's capable of directing a normal film.
Anyway like I said in The Social Network thread it doesn't matter what it makes overall because it was never getting a sequel anyway. Ofcourse you hope and like people seeing a movie that you like but it's not like there was some hope of it putting up 300mil domestically or anything. Thats my two cents to people who love the movie and are bummed about it's boxoffice numbers. Just don't act like the niche comicbook movie fans and endlessly cry about how awful people are for not seeing a movie that they just were never going to see. Just enjoy the flick.
That was my attitude with Watchmen and I was using it here too until someone pointed out that Hammer films was trying make a comeback. Also there is the fact that the two young leads are picking very good material and I would hate to see them get sucked into Michael Bay stuff because of horrible box office numbers. (Though Moretz seems to be continuing to pick good things)
I'm not one of those types, I just was surprised it hit 6th place and not a little higher was all. I love the original and don't get most of the hate in regards to it being boring, according to some of my friends.
Count yourself lucky that you actually know someone who saw it. My brother and I are the only ones in our circle of friends who even know it exists (nice marketing).
This one will age well. The Shining got a lot of "it's boring" when it came out too. Don't forget to remind your friends of this in about 10 years.
No because True Grit didn't come out 2 years ago and I've never seen the original before.
I'm going to end up watching Let Me In on DVD and I will rate it fairly when I see it. Still doesn't change my feelings about the quick remake trend because people don't like to read subtitles. It's funny because I think if they an American studio gave the original just as much advertising and as wide a release it wouldn't have done much worse than this movie is.
If you haven't seen the original True Grit then someone could direct a barb at you along the lines of "I hate that they are remaking the classics because people don't like to watch old movies". True?
It bears repeating that the overwhelming majority of people on the planet would rather watch a movie in their own tongue without subtitles. There is nothing about english speaking people that makes them want this more than other cultures. It's a very logical thing to expect of any culture.
We should be applauding the fact that this director made a version for english speaking audiences and refused to compromise one inch. (and he was urged to do just that) We ended up with a great movie. This great story has a chance to be seen by a larger number of english speaking people than it ever would have before.
This is not something to protest against. A good thing has happened.
Yep, it's not surprising at all that this flopped. For those who had never seen the original, the advertising was obviously trying to sell it as something it's not, and therefore fell flat. And for those who have seen the original, there's the "why bother?" factor.
And I don't particularly care because as ISS said, it's not like we were hoping for a sequel or something.
But for the record, as a huge fan of the original, I just saw and loved this version. It's a damn good film. And I'm struggling with my feelings on it because I actually did enjoy this version more than Let the Right One In, which makes me feel a bit sacrilegious as 90% of what's great about it is completely owed to the original. But it made several slight adjustments and additions that I felt were almost all improvements.
But that's pretty much it. Other than those few drawbacks, I have to say I'm thoroughly shocked at how much I loved this film. It's just a great story, period. And hey, even if it only makes $4 million this weekend, that still means it's already been seen in theaters by more Americans than LTROI was, which means more people have been exposed to this lovely story already, some of whom will now seek out the original film and book. Can't complain too much about that.
I should mention at this point that my brother just told me today that he wants to see the original now.
This will be the first time ever that he will watch a movie with sub-titles. That's an amazing thing if you knew my brother. (I tried without success to get him to watch it before) I'm finding the case for this movie being a bad idea to be weaker and weaker.
He also wants to go see Let Me In again this week. I can't walk into the room with him without the subject coming up. We just had a long conversation about the fact that
This style change continues through to the ending. In the original, you realize that the boy is doomed to a miserable fate. This is his destiny...it is all he has that is worthwhile. Everyone and everything in his life was wrong...until he met the right one, and let her into his heart. This gives meaning to his life...but at the same time, you are aware that he is just another in a long line of people that were being used by her. She may care for him, but she is using him and manipulating him.
The acting was great. No problems there. The CGI was GOD-AWFUL. Every time it switched to CGI I groaned.
Very interesting take! I'm a bit surprised though because that ending you describe is exactly the way I describe the ending to Let Me In. Owen's future is probably going to turn exactly the way her former caretaker's did. He ages...she doesn't. There is no avoiding it. Happy today is tragic tomorrow.
My brother also found the CGI to be the one flaw in the movie. I myself didn't have a problem with it.
ITA with this. It's funny, because Hakan being a former Oskar was how I interpreted LTROI when I saw it (and subsequently saw the ending to be more tragic), and I was surprised to discover afterward that in the book, he was a pervert, and the movie didn't invalidate that in any way. It was definitely a "choose your own Hakan backstory" kind of thing. This one certainly loses that ambiguity, but maybe one of the reasons it didn't bother me is because Reeves chose MY interpretation to go with, lol. So it didn't even seem like much of a change to me, and therefore didn't change my view of the story. If I had read the book first and assumed Hakan was a pedophile while watching LTROI, I probably wouldn't have appreciated Let Me In as much I did.
I guess I need to read the book...because Hakan being a pedophile doesn't make any sense. If Oskar, like Owen, met her when he was also 12....and was with her ever since...how could that be possible? Was he planning ahead knowing that he would someday become a pedophile? It seems evident that there was a different reason for him staying with her.
Well, as I said, I liked the idea behind it, and I liked that the attacks were more intense. And I loved what they did to her face and eyes. But her herky-jerky movements in a couple of the wideshots just looked SO fake to me.
Also regarding the CGI in the remake, I can't say that it ever bothered me once. Virtually all of it is shot either in shadows or at a distinct distance that makes such scrutiny worthless, IMO. So then you have to focus on how she moves and there I liked it as well. She's not human and isn't supposed to move like something natural. I thought it fit very well.
Agreed. Reeves also took cues from Hitchcock. You may notice a "Rear Window" vibe if you pay attention. Also, the lead-up to the bathroom scene is pure Hitchcockian "make the audience suffer" if I've ever seen it.
I think that the reason why the manipulation/boy is doomed to be a repeat and be replaced angle is less effective in the remake is because of the setup process. She does seem to care more for him in the new version than she did in the original. They have all the pieces there, it just didnt come through as much for me. The original seems much more tragic.
I think that the reason why the manipulation/boy is doomed to be a repeat and be replaced angle is less effective in the remake is because of the setup process. She does seem to care more for him in the new version than she did in the original. They have all the pieces there, it just didnt come through as much for me. The original seems much more tragic.
I had high hopes from the trailer. I still prefer the original in a lot of ways but this film had a better main lead playing the boy and Jenkins was great. The cgi was terrible but the close up's of Abby's turned face were cool. I thought the original was creepier also .
I'm going to have to watch it (the original) again sometime this week. There were a couple things I liked in the remake better ( Abby and "the father" in the hospital) . It was worthy effort
I guess I need to read the book...because Hakan being a pedophile doesn't make any sense. If Oskar, like Owen, met her when he was also 12....and was with her ever since...how could that be possible? Was he planning ahead knowing that he would someday become a pedophile? It seems evident that there was a different reason for him staying with her.
Well, in the book, Hakan hasn't known Eli since he was 12. That's something Reeves specifically added (which is why we were saying he removed the ambiguity from the 1st film and chose his own interpretation, because the original didn't specify and allowed for either backstory to work). Hakan was a teacher who was a pedophile, and he chose this life with Eli because he latched on to the idea of an eternal 12-year-old. And Eli made him happy because he/she needed him. So in the book (and the original movie if you read it that way), Eli finding Oskar was "true love" and an escape from that existence...making the ending much happier than the interpretation that this is all just part of a tragic circle for Eli/Abby.
Anyway, I'm glad your brother has decided to brave the subtitles to watch the original. Hope he likes it!
Also, maybe I'm reading too much into this, but I'm wondering if that change in interpretation might not have something to do with Reeves changing the title? I mean, Let the Right One In suggests that this is the "The One" for Eli and Oskar, whereas Let Me In does seem more fitting with this being part of a tragic cycle for Abby. I know Reeves has said that he changed the title because that was the American title of the book, but I can't help but think there may be more to it than that, and he just didn't want to upset fans of the original film/book (even more) before the film's release. Just a thought.
I was wondering if I was the only person that noticed that. Having one of the first scenes be Owen looking around the apartment courtyard at all the different lives was definitely a nod to Rear Window's opening scene.
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie and would even say it's equal to the original. Some of my friends didn't even know it was a vampire movie from the advertising but they became very interested as soon as I told them that it had the girl from Kick-Ass. There were some minor problems I had with the movie but they simply feel like nit-picking. I give it an A
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
It seems evident that there was a different reason for him staying with her.
