chaseter
Esteemed Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2006
- Messages
- 45,862
- Reaction score
- 51
- Points
- 73
Yes, yes it is and I am glad to hear this. The original is very slow but that was the point.
Cloverfield Director To Remake Let The Right One In
- Thread starter Hunter Rider
- Start date
Yes, yes it is and I am glad to hear this. The original is very slow but that was the point.
Sentinel X
optical illusion
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 10,347
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 56
Am I the only one that didn't feel like LTROI was slow? I mean its obviously not packed with action but still...I felt the entire movie was really fresh and unique so I never felt it dragged on or wasn't fast enough. Also I was kept at the edge of my seat whenever the guardian would murder someone or Eli would brutally kill people
Figs
Avenger
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2006
- Messages
- 26,630
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 31
It was slow for me the first time but on repeated viewings I think the pacing is great and it doesn't feel slow anymore. I think it's a first viewing kind of thing, especially since the film is so different from your average action/gore vampire films.
Heffer Wolf
going for the bronze...
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 1,023
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 58
Seeing this at midnight tonight, so freaking excited.
xwolverine2
Arkham Assassin
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2004
- Messages
- 36,464
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
not sure whether to watch this or Social Network tomorrow...
i loved the original... but this seems like ive already seen it, social network doesnt look as good but its getting phenomenal reviews
i loved the original... but this seems like ive already seen it, social network doesnt look as good but its getting phenomenal reviews
LegendaryCaleb
Superhero
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 9,933
- Reaction score
- 12
- Points
- 58
I saw The Social Network...Its gonna be hard to top that...but I'm going to see this tomorrow to decide...I love how this looks so I'm very excited
Finally a good couple of movies in the same week!
Finally a good couple of movies in the same week!
Heffer Wolf
going for the bronze...
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 1,023
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 58
Just got back from seeing this. Basicly exactly the same as the swedish one, and it was still just as amazing. They changed some things, some for the better, some for the worse. My buddy who saw the old one thought it was super good as well.
Then their was my third friend who wanted the bullies to murder the main kid because he said Owen was, "a whiny little *****, super annoying, and peed himself. They should have killed him." He hated it because it was so slow. He said the only reason he stayed awake was to see if the kids would do it, then he fell asleep when [BLACKOUT]the bullies started drowning Owen because it was good enough that the kid was going to die and didn't want to see him make it out alive[/BLACKOUT].
But yeah, it was really good.
Then their was my third friend who wanted the bullies to murder the main kid because he said Owen was, "a whiny little *****, super annoying, and peed himself. They should have killed him." He hated it because it was so slow. He said the only reason he stayed awake was to see if the kids would do it, then he fell asleep when [BLACKOUT]the bullies started drowning Owen because it was good enough that the kid was going to die and didn't want to see him make it out alive[/BLACKOUT].
But yeah, it was really good.
Heffer Wolf
going for the bronze...
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2007
- Messages
- 1,023
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 58
Its hard to say which one I liked better, because they both had good parts and bad parts, a lot of it was pretty much the same, but the differences
What I thought was better in LET ME IN:
-LMI starts with the ambulences bringing [Hakan] to the hospital after pouring the acid on himself, and the way they play out that whole scen of him falling out the window was a good set up.
-the adult friends were replaced with 3 neighbors and Casey Jones as a cop and didn't have a lot of screen time.
-The way [Hakan] killed the boys for their blood was much scarier and I thought better. Breaking into peoples cars he knows are alone and then waiting just seemed WAY creepier then waiting on a path more some kid to walk by.
- Speaking of, the second kill he makes where he pours the acid on himself was so good. The car crash from inside the car was a TON better then him just kind of creeping around a gym.
-They didn't have (Owen) go to his dad's, but replaced that with a simple phone call. His dad is still kind of a dick.
-NO CGI CATS!
-The way (Abby) changed a little bit while she was in Vampire mode was cool. It wasn't too much, but it wasn't too little. it was good.
What I thought was better in LET THE RIGHT ON IN:
-When (Eli) bites Virginia and she starts to change into a vampire and burns to death. In the remake, since they don't really have those characters, it was kind of faster I guess. I liked how in LTROI they kind of built up to that.
-Also, the fire looked cooler in the original. It looked more... real.
-The pool scene at the end might have been better in the original just because of the hand holding (Oskar) under coming off and sinking. Other then that its basicly the same but different (if that makes any sense)
-Heres the big one, in LTROI (Oskar) gets scared of (Eli) pretty much because she is a murdering vampire, in LMI they show (Owen) finding a really old photobooth picture of (Abby) and what LOOKS like a 12 year old (Hakan), and he just kind of takes off. Now it still had the same "is she just using him to be her next care taker or does she really care about him" vibe as LTROI, but not even close to as subtle.
-LMI starts with the ambulences bringing [Hakan] to the hospital after pouring the acid on himself, and the way they play out that whole scen of him falling out the window was a good set up.
-the adult friends were replaced with 3 neighbors and Casey Jones as a cop and didn't have a lot of screen time.
-The way [Hakan] killed the boys for their blood was much scarier and I thought better. Breaking into peoples cars he knows are alone and then waiting just seemed WAY creepier then waiting on a path more some kid to walk by.
- Speaking of, the second kill he makes where he pours the acid on himself was so good. The car crash from inside the car was a TON better then him just kind of creeping around a gym.
-They didn't have (Owen) go to his dad's, but replaced that with a simple phone call. His dad is still kind of a dick.
-NO CGI CATS!
-The way (Abby) changed a little bit while she was in Vampire mode was cool. It wasn't too much, but it wasn't too little. it was good.
What I thought was better in LET THE RIGHT ON IN:
-When (Eli) bites Virginia and she starts to change into a vampire and burns to death. In the remake, since they don't really have those characters, it was kind of faster I guess. I liked how in LTROI they kind of built up to that.
-Also, the fire looked cooler in the original. It looked more... real.
-The pool scene at the end might have been better in the original just because of the hand holding (Oskar) under coming off and sinking. Other then that its basicly the same but different (if that makes any sense)
-Heres the big one, in LTROI (Oskar) gets scared of (Eli) pretty much because she is a murdering vampire, in LMI they show (Owen) finding a really old photobooth picture of (Abby) and what LOOKS like a 12 year old (Hakan), and he just kind of takes off. Now it still had the same "is she just using him to be her next care taker or does she really care about him" vibe as LTROI, but not even close to as subtle.
Hopefully that all made sense. I want to watch Let the Right One in again, but I let a friend borrow it so he could compare the 2. I guess I might read the book until he gives it back.
DACrowe
Avenger
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2000
- Messages
- 30,765
- Reaction score
- 625
- Points
- 78
Well I saw it this afternoon.
I quite liked it.
I will preface this by saying I liked the original film a great deal, but I only saw it once in theaters in 2008. So, my memory of it is a little fuzzy and I intend to rent it and watch it again next week before I decide which I preferred.
There were elements of both I liked over the other. With that said, this is a fine film that stands surprisingly well on its own. Matt Reeves did leave his fingers all over it thematically and it Americanizes the story, giving its view of vampirism and the violence (which is closer to Hammer's depiction of Medieval Europe) a uniquely American feeling. I feel that was essential for the movie to be able to justify itself at all.
For those who have seen the original, if they have an open mind, I imagine they'll be pleasantly surprised and enjoy this film. If you haven't seen the original. You are in for a real treat. This will knock your socks off.
I must first and foremost tip my hat to other actors, most especially the very young Kodi Scot-McPhee and Chloe Grace Moretz. One thing I will say is this Owen is far more likable and empathetic than Oskar, at least IMO. Oskar was just a little too creepy for me to fully get behind him and his descent into future serial killer was to me like--well yeah, that makes sense. Here despite being a voyeur and dealing with some dark fantasies, the young actor makes it seem perfectly natural and you really root for him to get his revenge.
Ms. Moretz I thought had taller shoes to fill. And honestly, I liked her equally as Lina Leandersson. They had two very different approaches. While on paper, I"d say Reeves's Abby is far more manipulative and malevolent than Eli, there is something tragically innocent about Abby. She seems to care for Owen, genuinely. And she seems truly innocent who deals with her problems more like a drug addict or drunk who when the craving kicks in, she loses herself. She has a world weary maturity to her. But she still seems like a child to me. In contrast, Eli seemed like a much older woman who has seen many, many things; however, she is just trapped in 12-year-old's body. Oskar allowed Eli to reclaim her childhood and reminded her of what she had lost. Abby seems to know exactly what is happening between her and Owen, but her childish perspective does not allow her to rationalize it. She simply needs someone and does like Owen, even if she is inadvertantly manipulating him. It is more of an afterthought for her. Which adds to the tragedy in its own way.
There is much of this that is Reeves. How he chooses to begin the film is truly creepy and leaves a lasting impression. There are many different flourishes like the much-lauded car crash. AS a whole I think he makes the "Father" far more sympathetic and interesting as a character. In the original film, I was rather indifferent to him. And his murders were shot with such indifference to create a sense of realism, they lost any sense of real horror or suspense. In Reeves's version, the Father's murders are brilliantly conceived and visually haunting moments. He also pushes the envelope further in implying a sexual relationship between her and Abby that was not in the original film (or at least it was no more than left to the audience's imagination). I thought it was a bold and necessary inclusion.
However, there are things that I felt were mistakes. I actually liked the vocal mutation of Abbey as well as the make-up job Moretz went through to appear monstrous. It again added to the drug addict hiding inside her angle. However, the use of CGI for her murders was totally unnecessary and unwarranted. It did not look real and ruined scenes that were already incredibly suspenseful and rife with tension. I understand using it for her ascent of the hospital wall, but beyond that--it was a mistake and hurt her scenes of carnage that were far more brutal in the original film due to their realism. This applies to the swimming pool scene. I understand why Reeves felt the need to do it a little differently and try to one-up the original. But, it was still better as a one-shot. Though his take is incredibly satisfying due to the bullies being so hatable.
I also am unsure about the story pacing. They're both slow, but Let the Right One In moved like art house and Let Me In feels more like a really twisted, ****ed up Amblin movie that Speilberg may have produced in the 1980s. It does not feel like a Hollywood change, but a creative one. I"m unsure which I prefer, but for the early moments between Oskar and Eli, I thought it worked better. AS a whole I'm not sure.
Other things worth mentioning is the setting in 1980s America (before "Morning in America") with the sound of Ronald Reagan stoking the flames of fear and paranoia about the Cold War and the inclusion of religious symbolism (particularly in the music) was a really interesting touch that let's this one stand on its own. Very American and a bit of a mirror of some of the fears growing in the US today.
As for the detective vs. the locals. I thought the locals were other than the two payoffs in the hospital and bathroom at the end a distraction and a pace killer in the original film. One of the reasons why I was not as blown away by that film as most of the Internet film community was. But I admit I didn't see that subplot ending like that in the bathroom until that scene came. The nosey police detective trying to get into Abby's apartment throughout the movie obviously was only going to end one way. However, Koteas was certainly terrific in playing that role and I understand he was in the book. Plus I saw the original already, so that may have affected my lack of suspense I had in that sequence as opposed to when I saw the original.
And that is the thing. As good as Let Me In is, I did see the original first so that will affect my opinion on it. But it is a fine film that is worth watching if only for the performances and the new take on the Father (as well as the 1980s American setting).
8/10.
Certainly worth watching, even if you have seen the original. If you have not. See it now.
I quite liked it.
I will preface this by saying I liked the original film a great deal, but I only saw it once in theaters in 2008. So, my memory of it is a little fuzzy and I intend to rent it and watch it again next week before I decide which I preferred.
There were elements of both I liked over the other. With that said, this is a fine film that stands surprisingly well on its own. Matt Reeves did leave his fingers all over it thematically and it Americanizes the story, giving its view of vampirism and the violence (which is closer to Hammer's depiction of Medieval Europe) a uniquely American feeling. I feel that was essential for the movie to be able to justify itself at all.
For those who have seen the original, if they have an open mind, I imagine they'll be pleasantly surprised and enjoy this film. If you haven't seen the original. You are in for a real treat. This will knock your socks off.
I must first and foremost tip my hat to other actors, most especially the very young Kodi Scot-McPhee and Chloe Grace Moretz. One thing I will say is this Owen is far more likable and empathetic than Oskar, at least IMO. Oskar was just a little too creepy for me to fully get behind him and his descent into future serial killer was to me like--well yeah, that makes sense. Here despite being a voyeur and dealing with some dark fantasies, the young actor makes it seem perfectly natural and you really root for him to get his revenge.
Ms. Moretz I thought had taller shoes to fill. And honestly, I liked her equally as Lina Leandersson. They had two very different approaches. While on paper, I"d say Reeves's Abby is far more manipulative and malevolent than Eli, there is something tragically innocent about Abby. She seems to care for Owen, genuinely. And she seems truly innocent who deals with her problems more like a drug addict or drunk who when the craving kicks in, she loses herself. She has a world weary maturity to her. But she still seems like a child to me. In contrast, Eli seemed like a much older woman who has seen many, many things; however, she is just trapped in 12-year-old's body. Oskar allowed Eli to reclaim her childhood and reminded her of what she had lost. Abby seems to know exactly what is happening between her and Owen, but her childish perspective does not allow her to rationalize it. She simply needs someone and does like Owen, even if she is inadvertantly manipulating him. It is more of an afterthought for her. Which adds to the tragedy in its own way.
There is much of this that is Reeves. How he chooses to begin the film is truly creepy and leaves a lasting impression. There are many different flourishes like the much-lauded car crash. AS a whole I think he makes the "Father" far more sympathetic and interesting as a character. In the original film, I was rather indifferent to him. And his murders were shot with such indifference to create a sense of realism, they lost any sense of real horror or suspense. In Reeves's version, the Father's murders are brilliantly conceived and visually haunting moments. He also pushes the envelope further in implying a sexual relationship between her and Abby that was not in the original film (or at least it was no more than left to the audience's imagination). I thought it was a bold and necessary inclusion.
However, there are things that I felt were mistakes. I actually liked the vocal mutation of Abbey as well as the make-up job Moretz went through to appear monstrous. It again added to the drug addict hiding inside her angle. However, the use of CGI for her murders was totally unnecessary and unwarranted. It did not look real and ruined scenes that were already incredibly suspenseful and rife with tension. I understand using it for her ascent of the hospital wall, but beyond that--it was a mistake and hurt her scenes of carnage that were far more brutal in the original film due to their realism. This applies to the swimming pool scene. I understand why Reeves felt the need to do it a little differently and try to one-up the original. But, it was still better as a one-shot. Though his take is incredibly satisfying due to the bullies being so hatable.
I also am unsure about the story pacing. They're both slow, but Let the Right One In moved like art house and Let Me In feels more like a really twisted, ****ed up Amblin movie that Speilberg may have produced in the 1980s. It does not feel like a Hollywood change, but a creative one. I"m unsure which I prefer, but for the early moments between Oskar and Eli, I thought it worked better. AS a whole I'm not sure.
Other things worth mentioning is the setting in 1980s America (before "Morning in America") with the sound of Ronald Reagan stoking the flames of fear and paranoia about the Cold War and the inclusion of religious symbolism (particularly in the music) was a really interesting touch that let's this one stand on its own. Very American and a bit of a mirror of some of the fears growing in the US today.
As for the detective vs. the locals. I thought the locals were other than the two payoffs in the hospital and bathroom at the end a distraction and a pace killer in the original film. One of the reasons why I was not as blown away by that film as most of the Internet film community was. But I admit I didn't see that subplot ending like that in the bathroom until that scene came. The nosey police detective trying to get into Abby's apartment throughout the movie obviously was only going to end one way. However, Koteas was certainly terrific in playing that role and I understand he was in the book. Plus I saw the original already, so that may have affected my lack of suspense I had in that sequence as opposed to when I saw the original.
And that is the thing. As good as Let Me In is, I did see the original first so that will affect my opinion on it. But it is a fine film that is worth watching if only for the performances and the new take on the Father (as well as the 1980s American setting).
8/10.
Certainly worth watching, even if you have seen the original. If you have not. See it now.
JeetKuneDo
Guitarist
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2006
- Messages
- 2,408
- Reaction score
- 15
- Points
- 33
This movie is "kick ass" (snicker...chortle..)
Seriously, it's really good. But fans of Kick Ass don't go in expecting "Hit Girl does Dracula". Moretz is great, but in a totally different way. She's sad, creepy, compelling, and downright scary.
I enjoyed the entire cast, Kodi Smit-McPhee was also very good as Abby's human "friend". Richard Jenkins didn't have as much screen time as I thought he would but was good as usual.
Some great shots too. One in particular was a car crash done from an unusual perspective. Also some effective use of music in several scenes. Loved the pacing and how the violence wasn't the focus. You spend more time waiting for it to happen...which is what I loved about Hitchcock movies. ("There is no terror in the bang, only in the anticipation of it"~Alfred Hitchcock)
This kind of vampire situation is one that I've wondered about since seeing Interview with a Vampire. The "child vampire" is a story left unexplored for the most part. Let Me In gets into what that would be like and still lets you use your imagination...a good balance between the two.
(possible spoilers?)
Abby does not have a good life. There is nothing cool about it and she doesn't get to sparkle in the sun or wear goth outfits to school. As you would imagine, she is a lonely creature who does long for companionship and seems to need caring for. She's an "old soul" obviously (we are never told exactly how old) but seems to have retained quite a bit of her childlike needs. We are repulsed by her at times and feel great sympathy for her at other times. Several moments will tug at your heartstrings. The simple act of eating a piece of candy or a tentative attempt at human contact. The end is a bittersweet resolution. A kind of "the cycle continues" type thing. You can see the whole thing playing out again years into the future (which would be today). A somewhat satisfying ending leading to a bleak future.
(end possible spoilers)
Understandable that fans of the original would be upset about this one. I myself wonder how I'll be able to forget John Wayne while watching the new True Grit. But this really is a good movie and the story deserves to be seen by English audiences. Like every society on earth, English speaking audiences are going to enjoy a movie made in their own language more than a dubbed or sub-titled one. I have no problem with sub-titles myself, but I don't see why it's a sin to not like them. I wonder if Indian movie watchers are made to feel guilty if they don't like English movies with sub-titles? Some of the negative reviews I read seemed more concerned with protesting the making of the movie than how good it is. Pity for them.
In the end, this movie is helping this to be a good year in movies for me personally and will be one of the ones I list when I talk about this year in the future. It's also a reminder of why I became such a fan of movies in the first place. Sitting in the theater with the credits rolling after watching a movie you enjoyed very much....you just can't get that feeling anywhere else.
9/10
Seriously, it's really good. But fans of Kick Ass don't go in expecting "Hit Girl does Dracula". Moretz is great, but in a totally different way. She's sad, creepy, compelling, and downright scary.
I enjoyed the entire cast, Kodi Smit-McPhee was also very good as Abby's human "friend". Richard Jenkins didn't have as much screen time as I thought he would but was good as usual.
Some great shots too. One in particular was a car crash done from an unusual perspective. Also some effective use of music in several scenes. Loved the pacing and how the violence wasn't the focus. You spend more time waiting for it to happen...which is what I loved about Hitchcock movies. ("There is no terror in the bang, only in the anticipation of it"~Alfred Hitchcock)
This kind of vampire situation is one that I've wondered about since seeing Interview with a Vampire. The "child vampire" is a story left unexplored for the most part. Let Me In gets into what that would be like and still lets you use your imagination...a good balance between the two.
(possible spoilers?)
Abby does not have a good life. There is nothing cool about it and she doesn't get to sparkle in the sun or wear goth outfits to school. As you would imagine, she is a lonely creature who does long for companionship and seems to need caring for. She's an "old soul" obviously (we are never told exactly how old) but seems to have retained quite a bit of her childlike needs. We are repulsed by her at times and feel great sympathy for her at other times. Several moments will tug at your heartstrings. The simple act of eating a piece of candy or a tentative attempt at human contact. The end is a bittersweet resolution. A kind of "the cycle continues" type thing. You can see the whole thing playing out again years into the future (which would be today). A somewhat satisfying ending leading to a bleak future.
(end possible spoilers)
Understandable that fans of the original would be upset about this one. I myself wonder how I'll be able to forget John Wayne while watching the new True Grit. But this really is a good movie and the story deserves to be seen by English audiences. Like every society on earth, English speaking audiences are going to enjoy a movie made in their own language more than a dubbed or sub-titled one. I have no problem with sub-titles myself, but I don't see why it's a sin to not like them. I wonder if Indian movie watchers are made to feel guilty if they don't like English movies with sub-titles? Some of the negative reviews I read seemed more concerned with protesting the making of the movie than how good it is. Pity for them.
In the end, this movie is helping this to be a good year in movies for me personally and will be one of the ones I list when I talk about this year in the future. It's also a reminder of why I became such a fan of movies in the first place. Sitting in the theater with the credits rolling after watching a movie you enjoyed very much....you just can't get that feeling anywhere else.
9/10
JeetKuneDo
Guitarist
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2006
- Messages
- 2,408
- Reaction score
- 15
- Points
- 33
Great write-up.
The Regan stuff I barely noticed to be honest. I read so much about that I was expecting it to be more prominent. Seemed like just the usual background stuff that filmmakers use to set a time period.
JeetKuneDo
Guitarist
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2006
- Messages
- 2,408
- Reaction score
- 15
- Points
- 33
Saw the 11:30am showing today. Small town during a work/school day...so about 6 people in the theater.
Very irritating moment when I was buying tickets. They guy ahead of me in line says, "Case 39 please".
Come on man...I had to bite my tongue. I wanted to grab him and shake him..."Dude! Are you kidding me?"
guitarsingerguy
Who am I?
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2003
- Messages
- 12,438
- Reaction score
- 36
- Points
- 33
I'll be going on Sunday night. I can't wait.
HighFivingMF
Welp.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2009
- Messages
- 15,351
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
Going to see this and Social Network Tuesday. Hope I love 'em both.
CrimsonMist
Sidekick
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2004
- Messages
- 3,966
- Reaction score
- 412
- Points
- 73
Saw it tonight and I thought it was excellent. I'm not this rabid fan of the original. I do like it. But I don't rank it as the greatest thing since sliced bread. I went with a friend who loves the hell out of the original. I think he's watched it 8 times and actually went it assuming the worst. He came out pleasantly surprised. The things he didn't like and the things I didn't like were essentially the same things, which was nice. There are probably SPOILERS ahead, so watch out.
I was incredibly satisfied with LET ME IN. Truly, I enjoyed this movie very much. I liked the fact that Owen wasn't as...i suppose you could say psychotic...as Oskar. Owen was more relatable to me. He seemed abit more desperate for companionship, more desperate for someone to just talk to, just to vent. Wheras, with Oskar, he had this opportunity but never used it. Which, in LET ME IN, handled better, I think. I LOVED how they never showed Owen's Mom's face. I love how her face was always from a distant and over-saturated with light, or unclearly reflected in a window or just off screen. Making her a religious nut only added to that isolation that Owen had. He has a dad he never sees, and has a Mom whose either asleep or in a world of her own. The fact that we as an audience never see her just shows how gone she is from Owen's world, and shows just how lonely Owen really is.
I though the relationship between Abby and Owen was more downbeat than in the original. And i liked that, but it may have to do with the fact that I'm kind of a pessimist. Heffer Wolf pointed out how he didn't like how unsubtle it was when Owen found those photos of Abby and, presumably, a young version of her "father". I loved it, as it gave more of an idea into Abby's motives. But I still felt that the ending could be interpreted differently. Abby manipulates Owen into being her keeper, which is bleak, but Owen has no one else anyway. In both films, that scene that dictates how Owen/Oskar should spend the rest of his life is the scene when he closes the door on Abby/Eli's victim in the bathroom. That was my favorite scene.
Another thing I really liked was how they eliminated completely the bar patrons. I'm not a fan by any means of the book. In fact, i HATED the book. And one of the reasons was because of the bar patrons. In the novel, they were whiny and obnoxious and in no way were they sympathetic. In LET THE RIGHT ONE IN, they were toned down a bit, but still obnoxious. I loved how Matt Reeves decided to scrap them all. I liked how Reeves incorporated the cop from the book into the film and really gave him something to do. And the reference to Tommy, Oskar's friend in the book, along with that basement room Owen hangs out in, were nice nods to the book as well. Ironically, in the book, the cop is Tommy's step-dad.
The things I didn't like were as follows: Too much music/score. What made the original much more haunting was the silence. The score here, on it's own was good, very Bernard Hermann. And it added a lot of suspense to some of the scenes, but sometimes it felt a little burdensome. The rest were just the way certain scenes were filmed. Owen whacking the bully in the face with the pole, while satisfying, was filmed better as that one wide, silent, shot. I didn't care too much for this one, but my friend didn't like the change. I didn't like the "hospital fire" scene, not so much because how it was shot, but because the build-up was too quick. This, perhaps, is a result of scrapping the bar patrons. I liked how in the original, there was this build-up of her becoming a vampire, with the cats attacking, and her need for blood. Here it's just, BAM! vampire. EXPLODE! In LET THE RIGHT ONE IN, it had a lingering effect to it, because we see this character more and more before it happens. In LET ME IN it's effective only for that one moment. However, if this means scrapping the bar patrons, I'll take it. And then the pool scene. The original did it better. That single, solitary shot of Oskar underwater was perfect. All the cutting in Reeves' version kind of ruined the impact. It's still a satisfying scene though, because, as DaCrowe said, the bullies are absolute scumbags.
Moving on, the cinematography was absolutely gorgeous. The opening scene was beautiful to look at. All of the warm amber colors outside(at night...perhaps showing the warming relationship between Abby and Owen), mixed with the cold, desolate grays and light blues of day, at home and in school were used to wonderful effect. The performances here were absolutely great. Chloe Moretz was wonderful in this. That undercurrent of dread, evil and manipulation in her movement and speech made her performance all the more sinister.
And Kodi Scot-McPhee did a wonderful job as well. As I said earlier, I prefer him to the kid who played Oskar, as he was just more relatable to me. Not as psychotic. Kody Scot-McPhee gave the role more of a tragic feel to it. You really feel for the character than you do in the original. Their dynamic together was stellar. That awkwardness and that undercurrent of dread was just wonderful to see.
I've seen elsewhere that the film is being called a carbon copy, which to me, is ludicrous. I've already stated my dislike of the book, which leads me to say this. LET THE RIGHT ONE IN, written by the same man who wrote the book, really streamlined ALOT of crap out of the novel. Matt Reeves does the same thing, and whatever he took out, he added some other, though small, things from the book. That said, these films are going to be similar. The story being told here is INCREDIBLY simple, and there's NOTHING, i repeat NOTHING that calls for LET ME IN to be drastically different in narrative and structure. Nothing called for LET ME IN to be as drastically different as say, Cronenberg's THE FLY was to the original. Cronenberg really changed up the story, making the transformation of man into fly into a slower, more terrifying and more tragic process and really amped up the emotion that really lacked in the original short story and the original film with Vincent Price that followed incredibly closely the short story. There's nothing in LET THE RIGHT ONE IN's story that calls for things like that. This is a story about a child who has no one and a child that needs someone. It's not that complicated.
Anyways, I'm not sure yet which version is better just yet. Both films were outstanding, and both have their ups and downs. However, I really need to see LET ME IN again, most likely on DVD where I can easily watch LET THE RIGHT ONE IN immediately and compare. My theatrical experience for LET ME IN was awful. Behind me sat this one real ******* fat guy, who laughed(the loudest, mind you) when Abby said "What would you do if I wasn't a girl?", at the scene when Abby kissed Owen and left a blood smear on his face and when Abby lies in bed with Owen and he asks her out. I asked him to shut up, and it didn't happen. Asked again, nope. And his equally obnoxious and equally gargantuan girlfriend kept calling the bullies "Jerks" and kept going "Aaw!" during the quieter moments between Abby and Owen. It really took me out of the movie, so I need to see it again.
and lastly, and no one, except DaCrowe, has really mentioned this, but this is HAMMER FILMS, man! Hammer films is back! And in a huge way, with LET ME IN. Remember, Hammer films got popular by remaking the Universal Horror films of the 30's, upping the violence abit more, doing better or equal jobs at it, too. For my first theatrical HAMMER experience, i couldn't go wrong with this. After having seen the behind the scenes pictures of Daniel Radcliffe in "The Woman In Black" and completely geeking out over the fact that it's taking place in the 19th/early 20th century, I'm almost positive that we're all gonna be seeing what made Hammer Films great all over again. Hammer excelled at making GREAT period piece horror films, and if they don't go down the route of decadence that ruined them in the 70's and don't go down this route of current horror trends, with gratuitous sex and violence, on top of the lack of intelligence, I except great things.
I was incredibly satisfied with LET ME IN. Truly, I enjoyed this movie very much. I liked the fact that Owen wasn't as...i suppose you could say psychotic...as Oskar. Owen was more relatable to me. He seemed abit more desperate for companionship, more desperate for someone to just talk to, just to vent. Wheras, with Oskar, he had this opportunity but never used it. Which, in LET ME IN, handled better, I think. I LOVED how they never showed Owen's Mom's face. I love how her face was always from a distant and over-saturated with light, or unclearly reflected in a window or just off screen. Making her a religious nut only added to that isolation that Owen had. He has a dad he never sees, and has a Mom whose either asleep or in a world of her own. The fact that we as an audience never see her just shows how gone she is from Owen's world, and shows just how lonely Owen really is.
I though the relationship between Abby and Owen was more downbeat than in the original. And i liked that, but it may have to do with the fact that I'm kind of a pessimist. Heffer Wolf pointed out how he didn't like how unsubtle it was when Owen found those photos of Abby and, presumably, a young version of her "father". I loved it, as it gave more of an idea into Abby's motives. But I still felt that the ending could be interpreted differently. Abby manipulates Owen into being her keeper, which is bleak, but Owen has no one else anyway. In both films, that scene that dictates how Owen/Oskar should spend the rest of his life is the scene when he closes the door on Abby/Eli's victim in the bathroom. That was my favorite scene.
Another thing I really liked was how they eliminated completely the bar patrons. I'm not a fan by any means of the book. In fact, i HATED the book. And one of the reasons was because of the bar patrons. In the novel, they were whiny and obnoxious and in no way were they sympathetic. In LET THE RIGHT ONE IN, they were toned down a bit, but still obnoxious. I loved how Matt Reeves decided to scrap them all. I liked how Reeves incorporated the cop from the book into the film and really gave him something to do. And the reference to Tommy, Oskar's friend in the book, along with that basement room Owen hangs out in, were nice nods to the book as well. Ironically, in the book, the cop is Tommy's step-dad.
The things I didn't like were as follows: Too much music/score. What made the original much more haunting was the silence. The score here, on it's own was good, very Bernard Hermann. And it added a lot of suspense to some of the scenes, but sometimes it felt a little burdensome. The rest were just the way certain scenes were filmed. Owen whacking the bully in the face with the pole, while satisfying, was filmed better as that one wide, silent, shot. I didn't care too much for this one, but my friend didn't like the change. I didn't like the "hospital fire" scene, not so much because how it was shot, but because the build-up was too quick. This, perhaps, is a result of scrapping the bar patrons. I liked how in the original, there was this build-up of her becoming a vampire, with the cats attacking, and her need for blood. Here it's just, BAM! vampire. EXPLODE! In LET THE RIGHT ONE IN, it had a lingering effect to it, because we see this character more and more before it happens. In LET ME IN it's effective only for that one moment. However, if this means scrapping the bar patrons, I'll take it. And then the pool scene. The original did it better. That single, solitary shot of Oskar underwater was perfect. All the cutting in Reeves' version kind of ruined the impact. It's still a satisfying scene though, because, as DaCrowe said, the bullies are absolute scumbags.
Moving on, the cinematography was absolutely gorgeous. The opening scene was beautiful to look at. All of the warm amber colors outside(at night...perhaps showing the warming relationship between Abby and Owen), mixed with the cold, desolate grays and light blues of day, at home and in school were used to wonderful effect. The performances here were absolutely great. Chloe Moretz was wonderful in this. That undercurrent of dread, evil and manipulation in her movement and speech made her performance all the more sinister.
And Kodi Scot-McPhee did a wonderful job as well. As I said earlier, I prefer him to the kid who played Oskar, as he was just more relatable to me. Not as psychotic. Kody Scot-McPhee gave the role more of a tragic feel to it. You really feel for the character than you do in the original. Their dynamic together was stellar. That awkwardness and that undercurrent of dread was just wonderful to see.
I've seen elsewhere that the film is being called a carbon copy, which to me, is ludicrous. I've already stated my dislike of the book, which leads me to say this. LET THE RIGHT ONE IN, written by the same man who wrote the book, really streamlined ALOT of crap out of the novel. Matt Reeves does the same thing, and whatever he took out, he added some other, though small, things from the book. That said, these films are going to be similar. The story being told here is INCREDIBLY simple, and there's NOTHING, i repeat NOTHING that calls for LET ME IN to be drastically different in narrative and structure. Nothing called for LET ME IN to be as drastically different as say, Cronenberg's THE FLY was to the original. Cronenberg really changed up the story, making the transformation of man into fly into a slower, more terrifying and more tragic process and really amped up the emotion that really lacked in the original short story and the original film with Vincent Price that followed incredibly closely the short story. There's nothing in LET THE RIGHT ONE IN's story that calls for things like that. This is a story about a child who has no one and a child that needs someone. It's not that complicated.
Anyways, I'm not sure yet which version is better just yet. Both films were outstanding, and both have their ups and downs. However, I really need to see LET ME IN again, most likely on DVD where I can easily watch LET THE RIGHT ONE IN immediately and compare. My theatrical experience for LET ME IN was awful. Behind me sat this one real ******* fat guy, who laughed(the loudest, mind you) when Abby said "What would you do if I wasn't a girl?", at the scene when Abby kissed Owen and left a blood smear on his face and when Abby lies in bed with Owen and he asks her out. I asked him to shut up, and it didn't happen. Asked again, nope. And his equally obnoxious and equally gargantuan girlfriend kept calling the bullies "Jerks" and kept going "Aaw!" during the quieter moments between Abby and Owen. It really took me out of the movie, so I need to see it again.
and lastly, and no one, except DaCrowe, has really mentioned this, but this is HAMMER FILMS, man! Hammer films is back! And in a huge way, with LET ME IN. Remember, Hammer films got popular by remaking the Universal Horror films of the 30's, upping the violence abit more, doing better or equal jobs at it, too. For my first theatrical HAMMER experience, i couldn't go wrong with this. After having seen the behind the scenes pictures of Daniel Radcliffe in "The Woman In Black" and completely geeking out over the fact that it's taking place in the 19th/early 20th century, I'm almost positive that we're all gonna be seeing what made Hammer Films great all over again. Hammer excelled at making GREAT period piece horror films, and if they don't go down the route of decadence that ruined them in the 70's and don't go down this route of current horror trends, with gratuitous sex and violence, on top of the lack of intelligence, I except great things.
Project862006
Avenger
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 21,197
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
Let Me In came in at #6 on Friday Box Office
this gonna flop?
this gonna flop?
LegendaryCaleb
Superhero
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 9,933
- Reaction score
- 12
- Points
- 58
Wow...I need to go see this still...I dont want this to flop 
matrix_ghost
movie fan
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2004
- Messages
- 5,585
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 58
Depends on the budget , the weekend holdovers .
These early numbers are underwhelming though. I'm not saying that this will happen but should the academy notice Let Me In , a couple of solid nominations could really help this movie at the boxoffice.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
Staff online
-
SwordOfMorningSuper Moderator
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Strange New Worlds Star Trek: Strange New Worlds - General Discussion Thread (6 Viewers)- Latest: Sithborg