Cloverfield Director To Remake Let The Right One In

[Infinity9999x]

The fact that this is damn near a shot for shot remake completely disqualifies it. If this had been an original film I would inclined to agree, but it isn't. I'd put Clive Barker's Dread ahead of this.

Really? Because nearly every review I've read completely disagrees with you on this point.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

Really? Because nearly every review I've read completely disagrees with you on this point.

The only major differences are Elias Koteas' character, some laughably atrocious CGI and none of subplots are there, its the same movie. Matt Reeves is a hack, Cloverfeild taught of this.

 

[flickchick85]

The only major differences are Elias Koteas' character, some laughably atrocious CGI and none of subplots are there, its the same movie. Matt Reeves is a hack, Cloverfeild taught of this.

I disagree. The only thing he added that I didn't like was that CGI, but let's face it, the original had some notoriously bad CGI as well, there was just less of it. Otherwise, I think he kept almost everything that worked in the original, cut a couple of things that didn't, and added some interesting new aspects of his own.

One of my favorites is the social context he added in Americanizing it - the 80's in America was an interesting time, and the way this movie made the story something of a commentary on a society characterized by the rise of the Religious Right, the growing fear of Satanism, and Reagan's "Evil Empire" made it feel like a distinctly American story and an eerie portrait of a moment in our culture when we went, well...wrong, for lack of a better word, imo. And that wasn't just some superfluous political commentary, it actually fueled the character of Owen and his sense of alienation. Due to that, this one, even more than Let the Right One In, felt like a sympathetic origin of a serial killer, who would be born out the society, not just the home environment, that he was raised in.

Reeves also dramatically changed the character of Eli/Abby and her relationship with her caretaker, imo. Not to mention the little flourishes he added and changed, like Hakan's new method of taking victims, which built up to that spectacularly executed car crash sequence. So while the film may have several scene-for-scene (NOT shot-for-shot) duplications from the original, Reeves made the story his own, imo, and he is FAR from a hack (and this is from someone who is not remotely a fan of Cloverfield, btw).

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Also, Reeves tweeted a new quote from Stephen King:

http://mattreeves.posterous.com/full-lmi-quote-from-the-amazing-stephen-king

Just read that. Pretty awesome praise. I gotta agree with King for the most part.

The only major differences are Elias Koteas' character, some laughably atrocious CGI and none of subplots are there, its the same movie. Matt Reeves is a hack, Cloverfeild taught of this.

To add to what FlickChick wrote, the Caretaker character was completely different. Reeves did this with a simple shot of a decades-old picture and a couple lines of dialog (after his botched kill attempt). In the original, you don't care about him at all. His death does not mean as much. In Let Me In, he is more sympathetic and his death is poignant. Summing up, he goes from a pedophile to a lifelong companion. That's a big difference.

Reeves also added several Hitchcock type elements to the movie. The Rear Window stuff is pretty obvious...but also the scene with the Caretaker in the backseat of the car and the scene when the cop breaks into Abby's apartment are worthy of the Master of Suspense.

Then there is the fact that Reeves changed the gender of the vampire character. Hard to change a character more than that.

Reeves dropped several characters completely. (And you don't miss them...so that tells you how important they were in the first place)

The Owen character is more sympathetic too due to his desire to be a serial killer being downplayed.

Due to many of these changes, the ending felt different for me. Less happy, but more to think about. Was Owen fated to follow the same path as his predecessor? Or is he going to be different? The reason being that Oskar and Hakan are very dissimilar characters while the Caretaker and Owen could possibly be the same boys separated by 4 decades.

The "shot for shot" case...well...that is disproved with...the first shot of the movie. t:

Two great movies that each bring something different to the table.

 

[DACrowe]

The only major differences are Elias Koteas' character, some laughably atrocious CGI and none of subplots are there, its the same movie. Matt Reeves is a hack, Cloverfeild taught of this.

You didn't see this movie did you? It is far, far from a shot-by-shot remake. It has scenes not in the original and it visualizes entire sequences differently.

It is based on the original film, but it has its own atmosphere, tone and style. The American version is more of an emotionally charged horror film that has a bleaker outlook but a more romantic sensibility. The original is intentionally very cold and distant, putting more emphasis on isolation than emotion. The remake is more interested in Abby's relationship with Hakan and both's backstories, as well as the aspect of bullying--while the original is more interested in recreating adolescent loneliness and displaying maturity in youth.

They're the same story, but the execution is different. Even the writer of the book said this and stated he liked both and thought they both created emotional responses in different scenes.

A hater's gonna' hate. But don't make up stuff about the writer's opinions or the actual film's execution. It just not true.

 

[childeroland]

Lovely film. Chloe Moretz and Richard Jenkins deserve Oscar nods.

Is the book more like this film in tone, or more like the Swedish film?

Why did Abby

Spoiler

not want Owen to look at her when she entered his room for the first time? Is that part of vampire lore, or was it only because she was getting undressed?

 

[dark_b]

Reeves is in no way a hack.

look i have a big problem that this movie was made. but after watching every interview possible from Reeves about this movie i just dont see him as a hack. in nooooooooo way

 

[kedrell]

Wasn't she already undressed? I think she still had some of Jenkin's blood on her as well, and she might not have wanted Owen to see that at that point.

 

[childeroland]

She took off her clothes when she came in through the window, but yeah I forgot about her having just drank from Jenkins. I was hoping the don't-look-at-me thing was some vampire rule I hadn't known about.

 

[kedrell]

Not to my knowledge it wasn't.

 

[CrimsonMist]

Here's something that I just realized, after thinking about it. The ending has an INCREDIBLY bleak undercurrent, set by one thing: Owen singing the "Now & Later" jingle. I mean, you think he goes with Abby simply because he, literally, has no one else to turn to. This ending has an added emphasis when one thinks back to when Owen closes the door on the cop, which essentially seals Owen's fate for the rest of his life. One could assume, with Owen singing "Eat some now, save some for later", that Owen has gone off the deep end, and would perhaps have no problem at all in aiding Abby regardless of the cost. Absolutely chilling.

 

[Joe Von Zombie]

You didn't see this movie did you? It is far, far from a shot-by-shot remake. It has scenes not in the original and it visualizes entire sequences differently.

It is based on the original film, but it has its own atmosphere, tone and style. The American version is more of an emotionally charged horror film that has a bleaker outlook but a more romantic sensibility. The original is intentionally very cold and distant, putting more emphasis on isolation than emotion. The remake is more interested in Abby's relationship with Hakan and both's backstories, as well as the aspect of bullying--while the original is more interested in recreating adolescent loneliness and displaying maturity in youth.

They're the same story, but the execution is different. Even the writer of the book said this and stated he liked both and thought they both created emotional responses in different scenes.

A hater's gonna' hate. But don't make up stuff about the writer's opinions or the actual film's execution. It just not true.

Yes I saw the film and you're right, its not exactly Gus Van Sant's Psycho. I just view the changes as minute and cosmetic. I confused the writer's opinion with the original's Directors opinion, I apologize for this. To clear things up, I didn't hate this film. I just feel it was unnecessary. Are american movie goers too lazy to read subtitles? I feel the same way about Fincher's "Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" remake.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

wait til you see My Soul To Take....

on second thought please dont

If it's worse that Case39, I'm going to kill myself.

 

[Heretic]

Just an aside...

I KNOW that I MUST be wrong...

But...in the beginning of the film, when Reagan is speaking...it shows a reflection of his speech in the glass door of the hospital. Reagan is speaking about how America is a good country...the door opens and swings back, and catches a reflection of the video right as Reagan says "if America were ever to turn to evil" or something like that...and I SWEAR I thought I saw George W Bush's reflection in that brief shot.

I'm sure I'm wrong about that, as the movie wouldn't bother making that political point, but in the moment, I was convinced that it did and chuckled, then realized I was being stupid.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Here's something that I just realized, after thinking about it. The ending has an INCREDIBLY bleak undercurrent, set by one thing: Owen singing the "Now & Later" jingle. I mean, you think he goes with Abby simply because he, literally, has no one else to turn to. This ending has an added emphasis when one thinks back to when Owen closes the door on the cop, which essentially seals Owen's fate for the rest of his life. One could assume, with Owen singing "Eat some now, save some for later", that Owen has gone off the deep end, and would perhaps have no problem at all in aiding Abby regardless of the cost. Absolutely chilling.

That jingle was eerie, wasn't it? The ending can be seen in a lot of ways. We are given the option by the change in the caretakers character. I kinda like thinking Owen will turn out different...but...what are his odds?

To clear things up, I didn't hate this film. I just feel it was unnecessary. Are american movie goers too lazy to read subtitles? I feel the same way about Fincher's "Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" remake.

Well...was the first movie necessary? Are people too lazy to read books? As a fan of the book, I'm outraged that people needed someone to make a movie before they would bother with the story!!!

Maybe Gone With the Wind wasn't necessary?

We probably should quit pretending that just people in the US prefer movies in their own language.

Just an aside...

I KNOW that I MUST be wrong...

But...in the beginning of the film, when Reagan is speaking...it shows a reflection of his speech in the glass door of the hospital. Reagan is speaking about how America is a good country...the door opens and swings back, and catches a reflection of the video right as Reagan says "if America were ever to turn to evil" or something like that...and I SWEAR I thought I saw George W Bush's reflection in that brief shot.

I'm sure I'm wrong about that, as the movie wouldn't bother making that political point, but in the moment, I was convinced that it did and chuckled, then realized I was being stupid.

That would actually be funny. And I'm no big democrat either (or republican). A lot of reviewers seemed to pick up on that as some kind of political statement...but when I was watching it, it seemed like the normal background stuff you get in any movie to set the time period. Most of the time, you are too busy with what is going on to actually listen to Regan.

 

[Heretic]

The Reagan speech is absolutely vital to setting a different tone for this version. The film (although similar in it's main story) eliminates the thematic elements that are "foreign" and replaced them with a more American theme of evil and good. That speech in the beginning sets the tone for everything and everyone that follows.

 

[Kurosawa]

Here's something that I just realized, after thinking about it. The ending has an INCREDIBLY bleak undercurrent, set by one thing: Owen singing the "Now & Later" jingle. I mean, you think he goes with Abby simply because he, literally, has no one else to turn to. This ending has an added emphasis when one thinks back to when Owen closes the door on the cop, which essentially seals Owen's fate for the rest of his life. One could assume, with Owen singing "Eat some now, save some for later", that Owen has gone off the deep end, and would perhaps have no problem at all in aiding Abby regardless of the cost. Absolutely chilling.

To me the ending is very bleak and completely fitting and yes, it works because the caretaker's character is changed so that Owen is his successor...the latest in a long line. It also makes Abby even more sinister despite whatever sympathies you can feel for her because you know one day Owen will grow old and be replaced.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

To me the ending is very bleak and completely fitting and yes, it works because the caretaker's character is changed so that Owen is his successor...the latest in a long line. It also makes Abby even more sinister despite whatever sympathies you can feel for her because you know one day Owen will grow old and be replaced.

That's a valid take on her character. I actually feel even more sympathy for her due to the changes.

Despite our romantic notions, "love" is a very selfish emotion in real life. If the object of our affections...our "true love"...finds another that would make them happier than we could...do we celebrate the happiness of the one we "love"? ...Or do we get angry?

This is how adults act. Abby, despite her age, is still a child emotionally. So imagine how selfish a child would be. Though she cares for Owen, that wouldn't mean she could leave him alone any more than the rest of us could. That "romantic" stuff we cover our love with....she'll do the same. She'll surely be thinking, "It will be different with Owen". Heck....I was thinking that! (I'm a hopeless romantic at times)

So she seems quite normal to me. Not really "sinister". It makes it more poignant to me because I feel she is hoping against hope in a more desperate way than the rest of us ever do.

 

[Midnyte_Sun]

I enjoyed the original and don't see why a remake was necessary.

If I enjoyed the original, what differences are there in this Hollywood remake?

 

[flickchick85]

I enjoyed the original and don't see why a remake was necessary.

If I enjoyed the original, what differences are there in this Hollywood remake?

Since we were just having this discussion further up the page, I'll just quote my own and others' responses:

The only thing [Reeves] added that I didn't like was that CGI, but let's face it, the original had some notoriously bad CGI as well, there was just less of it. Otherwise, I think he kept almost everything that worked in the original, cut a couple of things that didn't, and added some interesting new aspects of his own.

One of my favorites is the social context he added in Americanizing it - the 80's in America was an interesting time, and the way this movie made the story something of a commentary on a society characterized by the rise of the Religious Right, the growing fear of Satanism, and Reagan's "Evil Empire" made it feel like a distinctly American story and an eerie portrait of a moment in our culture when we went, well...wrong, for lack of a better word, imo. And that wasn't just some superfluous political commentary, it actually fueled the character of Owen and his sense of alienation. Due to that, this one, even more than Let the Right One In, felt like a sympathetic origin of a serial killer, who would be born out the society, not just the home environment, that he was raised in.

Reeves also dramatically changed the character of Eli/Abby and her relationship with her caretaker, imo. Not to mention the little flourishes he added and changed, like Hakan's new method of taking victims, which built up to that spectacularly executed car crash sequence. So while the film may have several scene-for-scene (NOT shot-for-shot) duplications from the original, Reeves made the story his own, imo.

To add to what FlickChick wrote, the Caretaker character was completely different. Reeves did this with a simple shot of a decades-old picture and a couple lines of dialog (after his botched kill attempt). In the original, you don't care about him at all. His death does not mean as much. In Let Me In, he is more sympathetic and his death is poignant. Summing up, he goes from a pedophile to a lifelong companion. That's a big difference.

Reeves also added several Hitchcock type elements to the movie. The Rear Window stuff is pretty obvious...but also the scene with the Caretaker in the backseat of the car and the scene when the cop breaks into Abby's apartment are worthy of the Master of Suspense.

Then there is the fact that Reeves changed the gender of the vampire character. Hard to change a character more than that.

Reeves dropped several characters completely. (And you don't miss them...so that tells you how important they were in the first place)

The Owen character is more sympathetic too due to his desire to be a serial killer being downplayed.

Due to many of these changes, the ending felt different for me. Less happy, but more to think about. Was Owen fated to follow the same path as his predecessor? Or is he going to be different? The reason being that Oskar and Hakan are very dissimilar characters while the Caretaker and Owen could possibly be the same boys separated by 4 decades.

The "shot for shot" case...well...that is disproved with...the first shot of the movie. t:

Two great movies that each bring something different to the table.

...It is far, far from a shot-by-shot remake. It has scenes not in the original and it visualizes entire sequences differently.

It is based on the original film, but it has its own atmosphere, tone and style. The American version is more of an emotionally charged horror film that has a bleaker outlook but a more romantic sensibility. The original is intentionally very cold and distant, putting more emphasis on isolation than emotion. The remake is more interested in Abby's relationship with Hakan and both's backstories, as well as the aspect of bullying--while the original is more interested in recreating adolescent loneliness and displaying maturity in youth.

They're the same story, but the execution is different. Even the writer of the book said this and stated he liked both and thought they both created emotional responses in different scenes.

And for the record, I'll add that the original was probably my favorite "vampire movie" ever and easily one of my favorite films of 2008, but I thought this was one of the best remakes I've ever seen. It's one that, in many ways, I actually preferred over the original, which is saying a lot considering how against the very idea of it I was when it was first announced. It's definitely a worthwhile effort, imo.

 

[co2]

Never saw the original, but saw this movie last night and thought it was terrific.

 

[Thundarr]

I've never seen the original either, and when I saw this movie last week I gave it a solid 7/10. It might even be worthy of an 8. A very enjoyable vampire flick, WITH NO SPARKLY VAMPIRES.

While the ending was kinda chilling in that Owen may in fact become a serial killer in order to feed Abby, it was also a little hopeful. Since Abby killed Owens tormentors at school, maybe he'll convince her to become a vampire vigilante. Feed on the killers, rapists, and pedophiles of the world. Keep her fed and make the world a better/safer place while they're at it. Maybe get the idea by reading some Punisher comics together or something. Just a thought.

 

[HighFivingMF]

The movie hasn't been out for 2 weeks. I think you might wanna put that in spoiler tags for those who haven't seen it.

 

[Thundarr]

Lovely film. Chloe Moretz and Richard Jenkins deserve Oscar nods.

Is the book more like this film in tone, or more like the Swedish film?

Why did Abby

Spoiler

not want Owen to look at her when she entered his room for the first time? Is that part of vampire lore, or was it only because she was getting undressed?

I'm pretty sure the fact that she was covered in the blood of her latest victim had a lot to do with it.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

I saw this movie last week I gave it a solid 7/10. It might even be worthy of an 8. A very enjoyable vampire flick, WITH NO SPARKLY VAMPIRES.

Its grade keeps getting higher for me. I'm becoming a little obsessed with it. I've seen it twice and watched the original twice. This movie is threatening to challenge Toy Story 3 for my #1 of the year and fast becoming my favorite "vampire" type flick ever.

I'm pretty sure the fact that she was covered in the blood of her latest victim had a lot to do with it.

That was my thought. Also explains why she would get undressed in the first place.