"Let Me In" - Discussion & Grading
- Thread starter Daneel
- Start date
I saw this last night (and the original a few weeks ago.)
While they don't show the scar, in the analogous scene here Owen does peek in on her while she's getting dressed and he gets a surprised look on his face. They never elaborate on it but at least the hint is there to pick up on.
Yeah, it's kind of open to interpretation. I think I read somewhere, though, that it wasn't the filmmakers' intention to have her be a castrated male in this version; of course, the final product doesn't really tell us one way or another.
Eh, I'm fine with her actually being female. I could believe the "former boy" thing in the original, but Moretz, I think, looks more traditionally feminine than the Swedish actress did in the original, so it's a little harder to buy into.
Eh, I'm fine with her actually being female. I could believe the "former boy" thing in the original, but Moretz, I think, looks more traditionally feminine than the Swedish actress did in the original, so it's a little harder to buy into.
Well, I posted the thread before the movie opened, so I thought spoiler boxes might be appropriate.
Yes, I thought that was an interesting aspect; and then the cycle begins anew with Owen. I wondered if that was the case with her guardian in the original film, but it didn't really provide an answer as to the nature of their relationship.
Apparently, in the original novel, however, her guardian was simply a pedophile that she picked up fairly recently.
Yeah, I understand what your saying -- I think that was part of the problem I had while watching it. I saw the original less than two years ago, and it's still pretty fresh in my mind. As such, this one probably lost a bit of its impact for me.
Oh, and don't forget to grade the film in the poll if you've seen it!
Her protector in the film may not have been her first protector. Who knows how long the cycle's been repeating? I haven't read the novel either, so the speculation intrigued. If she truly can't remember when she was born or how old she really is--how old is she? The entire film intrigued. I didn't realize what a mind fuck it was until it was over and I realized that I'd watched a little boy consign himself to a lonely, horrific fate and he was smiling--completely unaware of the loneliness and emptiness in store once he becomes a teen, a young man and finally a middle aged man whose whole life is consumed by the care of his "charge" whom he's outgrown, at least physically. No chance to get married or have a family of his own. He thinks he's escaped the loneliness and isolation of his life, but he's only traded one form of loneliness for another.
Total manipulation on her part. Why "leave" and then come back to save him?
Total manipulation on her part. Why "leave" and then come back to save him?
Yeah, that's just the kind of story it is. It seems sweet and romantic on the surface but she has completely doomed him and he is happy about it. She prodded him to fight back to find out if he had violence in him. And now she's killed for him, so he is indebted to do the same for her. It all seems like expert manipulation on her part, belied by her childlike appearance.
I feel the same way - I was a big fan of the original, and for me part of what made it so spooky was the foreign setting, language I didn't understand, and totally unknown (to me) cast.
I'll probably check out the new one eventually, because as you say Moretz was great in Kick Ass, but I'm worried it will slightly spoil the story having that added 'alieness' taken away.
So little activity in this thread... Did no one go see the movie over the weekend?
>Checks box office results<
Huh, I guess not.
It's kind of a shame that it bombed, though. Despite my issues with it being too similar to the original, I thought it was a very strong film overall. Besides, a lot of North Americans aren't going to bother watching a foreign film with subtitles, which is too bad, but this version is essentially the same story in English, and as such, it's a reasonably decent substitute.
>Checks box office results<
Huh, I guess not.
It's kind of a shame that it bombed, though. Despite my issues with it being too similar to the original, I thought it was a very strong film overall. Besides, a lot of North Americans aren't going to bother watching a foreign film with subtitles, which is too bad, but this version is essentially the same story in English, and as such, it's a reasonably decent substitute.
I saw and loved the original movie (to the point where I made sure and waited to buy the DVD with the original theatrical subtitles) and I saw the remake over the weekend, as well. Let Me In was great. It was a great story then, and it's a great story now. In fact I'm curious to see it again with a fresh mind. I kept being remided of scenes or lines of dialogue (or shots) from the original and comparing the two in my head like it was a test.
While Chloe Moretz couldn't shake my memory her predecessor, Leana Leanderssson, she did an excellent job (as usual). Kodi Smit-McPhee as Owen is tremedous, and I would argue, an improvement over the original (gasp! outrage!). Richard Jenkin's as Abby's "Father" is (predictably) amazing. Matt Reeves makes notable changes and additions to the film that up the suspense and horror while still following emotional beats of the original. It makes me look forward to his future directing work for sure.
While Chloe Moretz couldn't shake my memory her predecessor, Leana Leanderssson, she did an excellent job (as usual). Kodi Smit-McPhee as Owen is tremedous, and I would argue, an improvement over the original (gasp! outrage!). Richard Jenkin's as Abby's "Father" is (predictably) amazing. Matt Reeves makes notable changes and additions to the film that up the suspense and horror while still following emotional beats of the original. It makes me look forward to his future directing work for sure.
Here's a deleted scene from Let Me In via /Film that includes additional commentary from director Matt Reeves explaining why he had to cut it.
Interesting, the scene contains two blink-and-you'll-miss-it shots from the trailer that weren't in the movie: An evil face looking straight at the camera's POV and a close-up of Chloe Moretz screaming while pinned to the floor. It's quite haunting and beautiful shot, like the rest of the movie.
"Be me... for a little while."
Interesting, the scene contains two blink-and-you'll-miss-it shots from the trailer that weren't in the movie: An evil face looking straight at the camera's POV and a close-up of Chloe Moretz screaming while pinned to the floor. It's quite haunting and beautiful shot, like the rest of the movie.
"Be me... for a little while."
^^ I really love how enthusiastic the director is in the interview about that scene.
Haven't seen this yet but probably will.
The Swedish movie is essential viewing, but don't forget the real source material, the novel. The first movie is quite faithful, but inevitably a lot gets left out when a novel is turned into a movie. It's well worth reading.
One point that I understand the American version changes... I gather it makes the main character more of a normal kid. That would mesh with the idea that he's an innocent being manipulated by the vampire, but the thing is, he's a disturbed and creepy kid in the original before she comes along. No manipulation necessary.
The Swedish movie is essential viewing, but don't forget the real source material, the novel. The first movie is quite faithful, but inevitably a lot gets left out when a novel is turned into a movie. It's well worth reading.
One point that I understand the American version changes... I gather it makes the main character more of a normal kid. That would mesh with the idea that he's an innocent being manipulated by the vampire, but the thing is, he's a disturbed and creepy kid in the original before she comes along. No manipulation necessary.
He's disturbed and creepy in the remake too.
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS
I didn't get any feeling of Oscar from Let the Right One In being creepy, exept in the way that *all* children are creepy. In fact, the boy who played him seemed very sweet and innocent, at first. He had a caring (if oblivious) mom, and a dad who he could rely on if he was sober (which is better than nothing). He collected newspaper articles about serial killers and played out revenge fantasies in the court yard with a knife, but these, to me, seemed like normal adolescent habits and behavior. If not for Eli, eventually he would grow out of it (once puberty kicks in).
While Kodi Smit-McPhee's Owen in Let Me In seemed like he was already at a cross-roads, even before Abby gives him the extra push over the edge. The bullies are much worse, his parents' divorce is way messier, his *mother* is an alcoholic and the only thing his father is good at is picking fights with his mother. Owen states at one point that someday he'll leave and 'never come back.' The movie paints a portrait of a kid who is trapped in a steadily worsening situation who will not survive his childhood intact. He'll either run away from home, or kill himself. Which all builds into the idea that Abby is his guardian angel.
I didn't get any feeling of Oscar from Let the Right One In being creepy, exept in the way that *all* children are creepy. In fact, the boy who played him seemed very sweet and innocent, at first. He had a caring (if oblivious) mom, and a dad who he could rely on if he was sober (which is better than nothing). He collected newspaper articles about serial killers and played out revenge fantasies in the court yard with a knife, but these, to me, seemed like normal adolescent habits and behavior. If not for Eli, eventually he would grow out of it (once puberty kicks in).
While Kodi Smit-McPhee's Owen in Let Me In seemed like he was already at a cross-roads, even before Abby gives him the extra push over the edge. The bullies are much worse, his parents' divorce is way messier, his *mother* is an alcoholic and the only thing his father is good at is picking fights with his mother. Owen states at one point that someday he'll leave and 'never come back.' The movie paints a portrait of a kid who is trapped in a steadily worsening situation who will not survive his childhood intact. He'll either run away from home, or kill himself. Which all builds into the idea that Abby is his guardian angel.
I saw the remake last night. I thought it was really well-done. I was a big fan of the original but I think complaints leveled toward Reeves' version, that it didn't have its own identity, I don't think I agree with those points. I think the film establishes its own identity and its own mood, which is darker and a bit more sinister than the original. However, the innocence of the original and the book is still present in this adaptation, which makes it so compelling and complex.
It was fascinating to see a different side to director Matt Reeves here, who did the choppily edited and shakily shot Cloverfield and Let Me In is the exact opposite. He really creates this world of loneliness, alienation and silent, building sense of dread. The film is gorgeously shot with a beautiful sense of shot composition. I was also really impressed by Michael Giacchino's dark, pulsating score. It really helped create a darker, creepier mood that worked really well.
It's a fantastically slow-paced film, with tender moments filled with scenes of slow approaching dread and menace. The performances all across the board are very solid, and I agree that Chloe Moretz gives the role of Abby a much more feminine touch than the actress in the original, and in that sense, the ambiguity over her orientation is a bit lost but that's only a minor quibble. We still have enough ambiguity to suggest different scenarios, and I think cutting the sequence where we find out how she became a vampire was a good idea. I like that we get hints at the cycle of her manipulating a new guardian, and the fact that we know little about Abby's origins gives her that much more mysterious allure that only adds to the innocent menace of her character.
I think I might like the original more, however the more I think about this film the more I think I'm undecided. The original was much more innocent and minimalist, and Reeves' version is much darker and more overt in its menacing nature. However, like others have said, the remake flows a lot better thanks to the exclusion of unnecessary sub-plots involving the other minor supporting characters of the building. I remember Let the Right One In taking its time to really get going, however I feel like even with its slow pace, Let Me In flows much better and consequently as a result feels like a much more confident film.
Still, Let Me In is one of the better remakes that I've seen and instills in me confidence in Matt Reeves as a director. I'll definitely look forward to whatever he does next. I'll probably see Let Me In again, if anything because for some reason it makes me want to explore the film more and more. I'll have to check out the original again as well, and compare and contrast and finalize my thoughts on the original and the remake. If anything, it only proves the strength of the original story and just how powerful and ultimately, much like Abby herself, just how seductive and sweetly manipulative this story really is.
It was fascinating to see a different side to director Matt Reeves here, who did the choppily edited and shakily shot Cloverfield and Let Me In is the exact opposite. He really creates this world of loneliness, alienation and silent, building sense of dread. The film is gorgeously shot with a beautiful sense of shot composition. I was also really impressed by Michael Giacchino's dark, pulsating score. It really helped create a darker, creepier mood that worked really well.
It's a fantastically slow-paced film, with tender moments filled with scenes of slow approaching dread and menace. The performances all across the board are very solid, and I agree that Chloe Moretz gives the role of Abby a much more feminine touch than the actress in the original, and in that sense, the ambiguity over her orientation is a bit lost but that's only a minor quibble. We still have enough ambiguity to suggest different scenarios, and I think cutting the sequence where we find out how she became a vampire was a good idea. I like that we get hints at the cycle of her manipulating a new guardian, and the fact that we know little about Abby's origins gives her that much more mysterious allure that only adds to the innocent menace of her character.
I think I might like the original more, however the more I think about this film the more I think I'm undecided. The original was much more innocent and minimalist, and Reeves' version is much darker and more overt in its menacing nature. However, like others have said, the remake flows a lot better thanks to the exclusion of unnecessary sub-plots involving the other minor supporting characters of the building. I remember Let the Right One In taking its time to really get going, however I feel like even with its slow pace, Let Me In flows much better and consequently as a result feels like a much more confident film.
Still, Let Me In is one of the better remakes that I've seen and instills in me confidence in Matt Reeves as a director. I'll definitely look forward to whatever he does next. I'll probably see Let Me In again, if anything because for some reason it makes me want to explore the film more and more. I'll have to check out the original again as well, and compare and contrast and finalize my thoughts on the original and the remake. If anything, it only proves the strength of the original story and just how powerful and ultimately, much like Abby herself, just how seductive and sweetly manipulative this story really is.
Similar threads
