Cloverfield Director To Remake Let The Right One In

[Aesop Rocks]

Did you watch their video review?

 

[Project862006]

he obviously did'nt because he is looking really ignorant right now

 

[dark_b]

i am ignorant .................................

 

[Aesop Rocks]

Well, that settles that.

 

[DACrowe]

I'd just like to say that I will most likely see this film because I am a fan of the talent involved. While I thought Cloverfield was gimmicky, Matt Reeves is very talented and I would like to see him expand on his potential and leave his own stamp on the story. The musical score seems very unique and intriguing. And while Chloe Moretz has the hardest part--it pretty much impossible to top the original Eli--between 500 Days of Summer and particularly Kick-Ass, I am reminded of Dakota Fanning or even Jodie Foster and think she will be a great up-and-comer.

With that said, I mainly wanted to post to the amounts of vile movie geek hate for this. I like Let the Right One In, particularly Lina's performance in that. It is a great movie. But it is not a masterpiece. So, I assume the general hatred is supposedly stemming from the fact that it should never exist as it is unoriginal.

I just wonder how many of these people loved The Departed, which was Martin Scorsese remaking a great set of films--Infernal Affairs. Now, The Departed was a longer, more character driven, rich drama rooted in Boston culture. But at the end of the day it was still a remake.

More importantly, I wonder how many of these complaining are going to go see the Coen Brothers' remake of True Grit? Because I've got news...Let the Right One In is no True Grit. But movie geeks seem to be fawning themselves over it, as it is the Coens and Jeff Bridges. I can understand that somewhat, but if they are okay with a remake of one of the best westerns ever made with John Wayne's signature role (well that and The Quiet Man, Stagecoach, The Searchers, and Red River), then surely they cannot oppose a remake of a foreign vampire film?

And if they are offended that it's just because it is in English, why are they hyping over Fincher's Girl with the Dragon Tattoo adaptations/remakes? The originals are great and all Fincher is doing is shooting in English where his actors will be "using" Swedish accents.

It is rather funny that as LTROI is a great genre movie, movie geeks (generally genre geeks) feel more protective of this than others, sadly.

 

[flickchick85]

It is rather funny that as LTROI is a great genre movie, movie geeks (generally genre geeks) feel more protective of this than others, sadly.

I pretty much agree with everything you said, but especially this part. As I've said on this board, I thought LTROI was a great movie, but not perfect or as "untouchable" as some folks are making it out to be. I really feel you hit the nail on the head as to where all this bile is coming from - unlike other remakes, this one is a genre film, so those who love the original and are offended by the very thought of a remake just happen to be genre geeks, and therefore louder internet voices than the rest.

 

[flickchick85]

The reviews are flowing in now....The Hollywood Reporter, First Showing, Hitfix and The Playlist are all extremely positive:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/film-reviews/let-me-in-film-review%20-1004114041.story

http://www.firstshowing.net/2010/09/11/toronto-review-video-matt-reeves-incredible-let-me-in/

http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/motion-captured/posts/tiff-let-me-in-review

http://theplaylist.blogspot.com/2010/09/tiff-10-review-let-me-in-is-rare-remake.html


And Rope of Silicon is the lone Debbie Downer of this batch:

http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/article/movie-review-let-me-in-2010

 

[dark_b]

Well, that settles that.

that maybe you are an idiot ?

 

[dark_b]

I'd just like to say that I will most likely see this film because I am a fan of the talent involved. While I thought Cloverfield was gimmicky, Matt Reeves is very talented and I would like to see him expand on his potential and leave his own stamp on the story. The musical score seems very unique and intriguing. And while Chloe Moretz has the hardest part--it pretty much impossible to top the original Eli--between 500 Days of Summer and particularly Kick-Ass, I am reminded of Dakota Fanning or even Jodie Foster and think she will be a great up-and-comer.

With that said, I mainly wanted to post to the amounts of vile movie geek hate for this. I like Let the Right One In, particularly Lina's performance in that. It is a great movie. But it is not a masterpiece. So, I assume the general hatred is supposedly stemming from the fact that it should never exist as it is unoriginal.

I just wonder how many of these people loved The Departed, which was Martin Scorsese remaking a great set of films--Infernal Affairs. Now, The Departed was a longer, more character driven, rich drama rooted in Boston culture. But at the end of the day it was still a remake.

More importantly, I wonder how many of these complaining are going to go see the Coen Brothers' remake of True Grit? Because I've got news...Let the Right One In is no True Grit. But movie geeks seem to be fawning themselves over it, as it is the Coens and Jeff Bridges. I can understand that somewhat, but if they are okay with a remake of one of the best westerns ever made with John Wayne's signature role (well that and The Quiet Man, Stagecoach, The Searchers, and Red River), then surely they cannot oppose a remake of a foreign vampire film?

And if they are offended that it's just because it is in English, why are they hyping over Fincher's Girl with the Dragon Tattoo adaptations/remakes? The originals are great and all Fincher is doing is shooting in English where his actors will be "using" Swedish accents.

It is rather funny that as LTROI is a great genre movie, movie geeks (generally genre geeks) feel more protective of this than others, sadly .

because they are hypocrites.

 

[Project862006]

dark b cant take that the fact that this may be a great movie

 

[dark_b]

of course it could or will be a great movie since the material from the book is great. and since they are copying a lot of shots.

its the fact that they started 1 year aftr the original was realesed.

 

[redhawk23]

of course it could or will be a great movie since the material from the book is great. and since they are copying a lot of shots.

its the fact that they started 1 year aftr the original was realesed.

And the difference that makes is what? there are tons of people that have sought out the original or know of the original in the first place only from the news and hype around the remake. Also I think there will be more original shots and differences than you give it credit for, and if it has the CG cats, I can also bet they won't be so horrible. The young actors in this film have both shown themselves to be pretty capable. I liked the original very much, but this has the potential to be very good in its own right what difference does it make that they didn't wait 20 years to make it? I mean foreign markets remake our movies all the time.

 

[Nightmare]

Nice, I liked cloverfield cant wait to see matt reeves version of this. The trailer looks great. I was a fan of hit girl's work. So Ill definitely check this out.

 

[redhawk23]

what really impressed me was Reeves' focus on characters and the way they interact. Cloverfield was very gimmicky but he inserted as much of that as he could. If you listen to the commentary track on cloverfield thats actually pretty much all he talks about, not the actual challenges of framing the action or anything like that. I'm excited to see what he does on a film that the characters are the main and basically only focus.

 

[flickchick85]

More reviews.

Cinemablend's is quite positive, but still contends that the movie might be a little too faithful for its own good:

..."How dare he!" we all screamed in unison, assuming a hack American director who last made a monster moviehttp://www.cinemablend.com/new/TIFF...ttle-Too-Faithful-To-The-Original-20602.html# would take this delicate, supernaturally tinged childhood love story and make something crass and obvious and stupidly American.

If anything, Reeves has erred in the other direction-- the quiet and often lovely Let Me In so faithfully based on Alfredson's film that some scenes are recreated shot-for-shot, and the film is paced so identically you can't help but refer back to the original in your mind. The ideal viewer for this film is someone who never saw the first film and is willing to accept their vampire love stories much darker and sadder than Twilight; and yet, with its R-rating and somewhat uncomfortable truths about pre-adolescent sexual urges and violence, Let Me In may not reach that many more audiences than the Swedish original. But even though Reeves doggedly mimics the feel and pace of Alfredson's film, he adds his own Spielbergian touches throughout (he's a J.J. Abrams protege for a reason).

...The movie is well-acted down the line-- Smit-McPhee and Moretz are as wide open and natural as their Swedish counterparts, and Jenkins, as ever, is a marvel-- and the movie never shies away from its more violent, disturbing elements, which in some ways makes it a very un-American movie. You've got to admire the efforts and intentions of everyone involved here, but it's hard not to wish Reeves had gone a little bolder, giving us something truly different around the framework of this remarkable, touching story.

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/TIFF...ittle-Too-Faithful-To-The-Original-20602.html


Variety's take is pretty much the same:

Fans of "Let the Right One In" can relax. "Cloverfield" director Matt Reeves hasn't ruined the elegant Swedish vampire story by remaking it. If anything, he's made some improvements, including the addition of a tense action-horror sequence in the middle of the film. While all that is artful about "Let Me In" comes straight from the original, the Hollywood version commands respect for not dumbing things down, offering classy, "Sixth Sense"-style crossover potential as it lures both genre suckers and fresh blood, curious to see how a remake starring "Kick-Ass'" Hit Girl and that kid from "The Road" stacks up.

...The tone feels slightly less self-consciously arty, and some subtle touches have been added to make things clearer, but overall, with everyone from d.p. Greig Fraser to composer Michael Giacchino offering same-but-different contributions, "Let Me In" is so similar as to leave some wondering, "Why bother?"

Reeves' remake seems to exist solely on the assumption that a large, subtitle-averse aud somehow wasn't served by Alfredson's original (the R rating seems a bigger obstacle, though this new version subtracts only the disconcerting full-frontal shot). Certainly the Swedish film, which ranks among the strongest horror entries of the last decade, deserved to find a wider base in the U.S., though in a game of "let the right version win," back-from-the-grave horror shingle Hammer Films is clearly gambling they've got the goods.

http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117943509.html


And Twitchfilm's review is pretty much a rave:

First, and most strikingly, it boasts striking performances from the entire cast. While supporting players Elias Koteas and Richard Jenkins both bring surprising depth to their relatively brief screen time the weight of the film rests on the shoulders of young stars Chloe Moretz and Kodi Smit-McPhee and both are absolutely stellar. At least one of the two young performers are on screen for better than eighty percent of the running time, meaning strong performances were necessary if the film was to hang together and both deliver in a big way with subtle, restrained performances.

Second, it is remarkable for its skillful manipulation of mood and tone. Owen's life is a quiet tragedy, that of a sensitive boy collapsing in on himself emotionally and retreating into fantasies of violence against those who have hurt him when he meets Abby, someone who is - ironically - more than capable of the type of violence Owen dreams of but who seems to dream of the life she lost long ago. Why they're drawn to each other seems obvious, why they should stay far apart seems even moreso. The roots of their tragic relationship inform the entire film with a sort of muted-palette sadness, but Reeves and company find shades of meaning within that base level emotion while also punctuating it with sequences of building tension and shocking bursts of violence.

And, finally, it is remarkable for the way it manages to be both faithful and true to the earlier versions of the story while also giving the film a distinct feel of its own. It is a pleasant surprise how easily Reeves is able to make this feel like an inherently American story - one that plays on the inner rot of the Regan years, the hysteria of the Satanic Panic years and the rise of the Religious Right - rather than a thinly veneered copy of a foreign original. Though specific moments and shots will feel familiar to fans of the earlier film, the overall picture feels very much like Reeves' own.

http://twitchfilm.net/reviews/2010/09/tiff-2010-let-me-in-review.php

 

[DACrowe]

From what I can tell it is genuinely conceived from Reeves' own style and vision. He remakes certain key shots from what we hear from the original. But quite frankly the ones he remakes are the ones we would all cry foul as inferior if he had done it differently--i.e. the victim hanging like a deer being skinned in the woods by the older protector/guardian; Abbey revealing herself to e a vampire by entering his apartment without an invitation; and the iconic swimming pool scene.

These sound not like a shot-for-shot remake, so much as he is replicating what are considered the definitive images of the original. I respect that, but Reeves is in a catch-22.

I mean in the end, this film probably doesn't necessarily need to exist, but sometimes multiple versions aren't a bad thing. I thoroughly enjoyed/was terrified of The Ring remake and thought the Departed, remake of Infernal Affairs trilogy, was superior to the original. Most suck, but I'll give this a chance.

For one thing, I am very intrigued that all the reviews say while the locales have been downplayed and pushed to the background of this film (which I don't mind as I thought most of their scenes were dull and distracting in the original, and far too long of a slow burn for the payoff in the hospital--pardon the pun), what is being pushed in the foreground is Abbey's relationship with the older guardian.

That I think sounds great, because Eli's relationship with him in the original was merely hinted at and I wanted to spend more time with them before he died. I mean this was Oskar's fate, after all.

So that, along with Reeves' own style and what sounds like his and Moretz's extreme reinterpretation of Eli, should differentiate the two films enough for this one to have something validly different to say. I hope so, at least.

In short, the Gus Van Sant remake of Psycho, this is not, I do think.

 

[Figs]

I don't feel like reading all the reviews being released since I would prefer to see this remake with an open mind since I love the original so much. What I do want to know though, is if the movie is as slow-paced as the original?

If it is, I see that being a big problem with a fair amount of the GA possibly.

 

[dark_b]

since a hollywood studio knows that a slow paced movie doesnt work with the masses i have a feeling that it will be a little faster then the original.
as you all said this movie is made for the US crowd. so changes will be made so that it fits with them.
on the other hand its still a very low budget movie. so who knows.



p.s.:
i just find it funny that swedish kids dont have a problem acting at -20 in thin clothes. in hollywood its a problem to have a pijama on at -5 to -8. but hey lets ignore the fact how it was important what Eli had on.

 

[MAN O STEEL]

I love how if a movie is to faithful to the original, it's crap & pointless & if it strays to much & tries to tell the story in a unique way, it's still crap & strays to much from what made the original good. It's a no win situation, haters gonna hate. this post is also not directed at any one person here, just haters of remakes period.




Steve

 

[dark_b]

hey thats me. i have a problem when the only reason a movie is made is because US people dont like to read subtitles.

 

[danoyse]

that maybe you are an idiot ?

Knock off the name calling.

 

[chaseter]

hey thats me. i have a problem when the only reason a movie is made is because US people dont like to read subtitles.

It could be better than the original...

It has two fantastic child actors in it so I have nothing but high hopes. This also puts the original movie in a new light for many people that may have never heard about it and watched it. Now people will be curious and will check out the original.

 

[kickass]

Just saw it in Toronto. LOVED IT. It took what was already great in the original and gave it a clearer dipiction. It was still slow and quiet like the first one, just with more heightened suspence and a little more gore. Great performances all around.

I liked it better than the original.

 

[dark_b]

chaseter

remaking S:TM could give us a better movie.remaking any movie could give us a better movie.lets remake TDK because i think the action in the finale was not clear enough

 

[Kurosawa]

I'm much more concerned that HAMMER has a good comeback than devoting myself to the piety of the original version. If they can be an active and important production company again then there can more literate, classy horror movies that focus on cinematography, mood and acting and it can only be good for all genre fans.