tylergfoster

It also relates to Oskar's understanding of his relationship with Eli, although frankly since their relationship is non-sexual and can never be, my opinion is that their relationship is neither gay nor straight.

Indy Jones Fan

I do believe the director has stated that Oskar's dad is NOT gay but rather a hopeless alcoholic.

EdTheRipper

Hell yeah. I geeked out when I saw that at the beginning.

I agree with droidguy, this was a great movie. The original was better but I don't think that should take anything away from this one. Smit-McPhee and Moretz were both really solid.

TwineTime

This.

I thought he was gay too until I read this interview.

http://www.latinoreview.com/news/exc...ht-one-in-5566

hanshotfirst1138

I came away from the original with the same impression about the father's sexuality. That's intriguing.

I thought they were both quite excellent.

I'm not sure if I quite buy into this or not. There are clear suggestions about curiosity about sexuality, but perhaps the film is suggesting something about slightly more transcendental about love.

Freaking figures I was at the bathroom. Great to see them back!

If you don't know Hammer, get off of the Internet. You have no place among geeks.

"Ah, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now."
Bob Dylan

"Everybody needs a place to rest, everybody wants to have a home. It don't make no difference what nobody says, aint nobody like to be alone"
Bruce Springsteen

Arriving at a time when remakes are in major vogue in Hollywood and after having had to suffer through one of the worst "re-imaginings," and indeed one of the worst films in recent memory with the truly appalling Nightmare on Elm Street redux recently, it's with some trepidation that critics approached Cloverfield director Matt Revees re-whatever of the massively acclaimed Let the Right One In. Moved from a a snowy Stockholm suburb to an icy New Mexican town in 1980s, the film's story (and indeed everything else about it) is pretty similar to the original: a lonely, bullied young boy meets his new neighbor Abby, a mysterious, mature-for-her-age girl who's a lot stronger than she looks, has an odd presence, doesn't seem to be bothered by the piercing cold, and only seems to come out at night. Discovering a dark secret about her, he decides that as love is blind, and that he'll follow through with her even if it leads into places has inexperienced young mind couldn't imagine.

In all honesty, we should all be grateful that film isn't a terrible mockery of it's predecessor. That it's actually quite good is icing on the cake. The film's biggest problem is that as many have pointed out, it's fidelity to it's predecessor has the effect of rendering it somewhat pointless. The few new ideas introduced in the film-it's Regan-era 80s setting and religious themes-could have been taken in fascinating new directions, but Reeves leaves them frustratingly unexplored, instead opting largely to reiterate the original. That's not to say that what's on display here isn't good as it's very good-the rich hues and sometimes warm color schemes as opposed to the original almost impossibly blue pallet are often gorgeous. I find it a slightly less emotionally distancing film that it's forefather, and one that I found easier to connection with as a result. It's easy to see why Guillermo del Toro threw his weight behind a film about just how horrible it is to be innocent. In the end, like Pan's Labyrinth, it hardly matters if you deal with the supernatural or not; the world is an ugly place. It's to Reeves' credit that in a world of happy endings and love defined by Taylor Swift songs, he's willing to look at something so dark, though I question just how well audiences will take to it, Mortez is a wonderful actress, and Kodi Smit-McPhee is nice lead with plenty of presence and little of the annoyance that accompanies so many child actors, and the two give the film a very solid emotional core. Reeves' clearly has his heart in the right place, but it's easy to see why he's been accused of hitting all the notes but missing the music. In reality, it's largely the same tune with a few slightly different chords. But in the end, my own rather confused reaction to the original film carries over anyway. At once a tender love story and a tale of an innocent embracing evil, I was never entirely sure how to take the film or exactly what it's message was. The finale suggests that Owen is on the road to becoming Abby's new familiar, but the simultaneous suggestion of somehow tender love and that living forever doesn't much matter if you don't have something worth living for ultimately feels confusing. The film jettisons the original film ambiguity about Abby's gender (an issue further expounded upon in the novel I have not read, apparently). It's further complicated by the suggestions of the lead's budding sexual curiousity (another idea expounded upon slightly but not fully explored by Reeves) I was never sure how to take the the tender but uncomfortable look at prepubescent sexuality anyways, so it further confused the issue for me anyway. Indeed, the film's double meaning title about being careful just what you let into your heart, its subtle but brilliant stroke. But in the end, perhaps Lindqvist, by removing one of the key components of the vampire mythology, suggests that maybe we don't see our reflection because once we embrace our true nature, it's something too terrible to behold.

MoviePage

I thought this too, before I saw it.

I was wrong.

GenPion

I still haven't seen the original yet (foolish, perhaps, I know.)

Yet I saw Let Me In and LOVED it. The special effects were a bit weak (the films biggest drawback) but everything else about the film was absolutely great. I'd say it was one of the best films I've seen this year.

Sessa17

Well, I saw it last night, and my initial assessment was spot on. The movie certainly wasn't bad but it had nothing to offer. By staying so close in style in tone, it offers no substantial creativity or growth or unique voice. The remake was made for superficial reasons and it shows. What few changes Let Me In brought to the table, only work because they have to, whereas in the original everything builds to compliment everything else. The intruding score was a step backwards as was the increase in CGI (yet again) & some of the hamfisted effects. It just felt like what it was, a watered-down dilluted, Americanized version of a classic-contemporary film because American audiences won't bother to seek out original material unless Hollywood makes it more digestable. Hence, the need for the characters in the remake to constantly and annoyingly tell you what they are thinking and feeling. I can't stand when scripts do that, but I understand that most need & enjoy it.

GenPion

New Avatar! Very cool.

By the way, I completely disagree about the music in Let Me In. Especially during the second half of the film when it hit a lot of great emotional depth, IMHO.

I'm going to watch Let the Right One In tonight or tomorrow so I can finally compare the two.

Sessa17

Just felt like changing it.


The film had two of my asbolute biggest turn-offs in modern American cinema. In what should be an intimate character piece, the score should take a backseat and the dialogue and performance should create the emotional depth, not the music.


Post what you think, I'd love to hear it. But usually when someone sees a remake before an original & likes it, they then think the original is inferior.

asianxcore

Saw it yesterday with my girlfriend. She loved the original and also loved the remake.

I was sort of 50/50 about this version. I really enjoyed it and it's easily one of the better remakes I've seen, but I didn't like Kodi Smit-McPhee's performance and I felt the film was too much like a "Greatest Hits" album to me.

I loved the script slightly fleshing out the relationship between Abby and The Father, which was probably my favorite thing about this version.

I also enjoyed the change in:



I do recommend everyone checking out because it still stands well on it's own.

GenPion

I don't know if I agree about the statement that someone generally prefers a remake more if they see if before the original. If that was the case then the same statement would be true for someone seeing the original, or "first" version of a film as well. As an example of how I wouldn't consider this necessarily true: I saw the remake of The Ring prior to seeing the original and LOVED it. I then proceeded to see the original which I also loved, and even more so than the remake. In fact Hideo Nakata is now one of my all time favorite Horror film-makers period.

As for Let the Right One In... I saw it today. I was disappointed. It's not without merits but I found so much about Let Me In much more involving. Also, as for your comments regarding the music, I find this surprising as the music I felt was very complimentary to great performances. The original had a good score too, but it wasn't nearly as involving and the performances from the two leads were rather poor in comparison, IMHO.

In the end, I'm sure a lot of it comes down to personal preference.

Sessa17

.

'nuff said.

QuikSilver

I saw this film the other night and was completely blown away by it. What a fantastic film! It had everything you want in a film. I was even a bit scared and sitting at the edge of my seat in some scenes. This is definitely one of my favorite films of the year. I never knew a Swedish version existed.

FinkPish

"Let Me In" had the #1 best scene on Salon's Best Scenes of the year list: http://www.salon.com/entertainment/m..._in/index.html

OldBoy

really liked this adaptation. very similar to Swedish version and thus the surprise was taken out and even though the latter is far superior, this still had me glued and tense throughout. very well done and pleasantly surprised.

RichC2

Yeah, people can hate on the fact it's a remake all they want, but honestly Reeves did a fantastic job with it.

Timber

Saw this last night and loved it. Not really a fan of horror movies and the fact that this was marketed as a "horror" movie turned me off. Didn't really have much of a horror feel at all.

I went away with one question though.

GenPion

Timber: That is an excellent series of questions and appropriately observational of the film's nuanced storytelling and performances. I have no doubt that those questions were intended for audience members upon the closing moments. I walked away from my experience with Let Me In having the same kind of thoughts as you have expressed. In other words -- it's open to interpretation.

Daytripper

Finally saw this last night. I can understand why so many people were upset the original had a U.S. remake so quickly (and I loved the original), but you have to give this movie a chance. Because it's fantastic. And I was really surprised it wasn't a scene by scene/paint by numbers replica of the first film. In fact, the majority of the scenes were different and a new take on the original. But with the same impact. I was very impressed with this adaption. Thumbs way up.

JumpCutz

Reeves is two for two.

Mr. Salty

Let's also remember "Let Me In" is as much a different take on the source novel as it was a remake of the Swedish film. The American film has stuff from the book that was missing from the Swedish film, and vice versa. That's one of the things that makes both movies so worth watching.

d2cheer

Did you get that impression from the first one as well? I thought the first one was pretty much spelled out. I have not seen the one yet but wonder if I will feel the same way.

Timber

Haven't seen the original but how was it spelled out in that one?

d2cheer

Maybe spelled out isn't best way to say it but the impression I got was



That is what I took away from it. I could be wrong but I thought that is what the general consensus was.