Let Me In (2010)

→ in
Tools    








Let’s forget for now that the Swedish film ever existed. Let Me In as a book adaptation uses the characters loosely, attempting the “best of both worlds” in order to hold the usual American audience while retaining elements from the original piece. Now let’s forget the book exists. Let Me In as a film on its own finds itself pulling in too many directions for any one of its features to be allowed into fruition. It wants to be heartfelt, but can’t take the time to be because it’s also supposed to have horror elements so it would rather give more time to the killing. Or wait, I’m supposed to start with the positives. It was shot very nicely. And I liked the blurring effects. Reeves did the school bully sections right as well.

Anyway, the main issue with this film is the script. Owen is made out to be a kid who’s bullied at school, yet steals from his mom, while the mom is already in hysterics from the divorce-in-motion. Are you supposed to feel bad for him? Really? You could say he doesn’t know how else to handle his own psychological effects from his parents’ relationship, and turns to Now and Laters to throw a fake smile on his face...yeah nevermind. The Now and Laters theme song is so prevalent that it is part of the last shot rather than a reflection of everything he just experienced (I hope for the sake of Matt Reeves the candy has no symbolism...why the hell was this even included anyway?). Either Owen is just acted that poorly, or the script was just adding things here and there just to give him depth, and the introduction of religion was so contrived, trying to make the Dad sound like the metaphorical ******* when Owen asks him about evil in the world.

The relationship between Abby and Owen was intended to be heartfelt, a budding relationship and sign of light in a dark corner, mostly for their own lives. However, the dialogue has no breathing room for its transitions from mundane child talk to the serious stuff for any part of their compassion for each other to be believable, which is really upsetting. This is the part of the film that sets itself apart from any other horror film, yet it didn’t pull it off. And because Let Me In is fractionally a horror film, they contorted Abby’s face when she was under bloodlust. Some may argue that’s what vampires do, some may say it takes away from the realism of the film, but at the end of the day she looks like a Dawn of the Dead zombie. They could have just left it with her veins showing but whatever.

Honestly, going into this trying not to dislike it didn’t matter, because the film did this to itself. Without comparing it to the book or Swedish film, it does not work as an attempt to bring romance into horror or adopting a horror background for a character study. Shoddy rhythm gets character development nowhere, and if you lose the characters, then you just have the gore, which is hardly something to be proud of. It’s disappointing, upsetting, and other unfortunate adjectives. Way to hit the stereotype.


2/10



Bluray Collector!
Interesting, thanks for your review.

It seems that I'm right in wanting to wait for rental on this one. I don't really rate Reeves as a director much so this never really going to be high on my priorities to see.

The book is a fantastic take on vampires and the story is truly great. The fact that this seems to be missing the elements that made the book so successful does not fill me with any hope.
__________________
Bluray/DVD Catlog Social Site - Beta Registration soon!
Blog



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
I seen neither. But if you regard the original so highly...... As for... this... I would say "shame", but is that really appropriate?
__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."



I seen neither. But if you regard the original so highly...... As for... this... I would say "shame", but is that really appropriate?
Shame is appropriate because I just found this:

Producer Simon Oakes has made it clear that the plot of Let Me In will closely resemble that of the original film, except that it will be made "very accessible to a wider audience"



Of course he will. As I said before (in another thread) it's all about making money. The money men couldn't make money from the original, so they remake it. They've got the goodwill and reputation of the first in the bank, so they know they've got something that'll sell, but it needs to be tweaked for a mainstream audience. It doesn't matter if the crowd that liked the first likes it or not because its not been made with them in mind. If they/we like it too, then great, more money and good word of mouth, if not, it doesn't matter because they're looking to make more money than the original made.



Of course he will. As I said before (in another thread) it's all about making money. The money men couldn't make money from the original, so they remake it. They've got the goodwill and reputation of the first in the bank, so they know they've got something that'll sell, but it needs to be tweaked for a mainstream audience. It doesn't matter if the crowd that liked the first likes it or not because its not been made with them in mind. If they/we like it too, then great, more money and good word of mouth, if not, it doesn't matter because they're looking to make more money than the original made.




planet news's Avatar
Registered User
a.k.a. capitalism (and this ain't even the Wall Street II thread!)



Thanks for the review.Yeah m also gonna agree with skaidon as Let Me In is a good example of thriller and i really loved this movie !



I shouldn't make bold statements like: "I will never see this movie." Because sure enough, we took out my Wife's best friend for her Birthday last night and it was either this flick or some other wannabe horror flick that was in 3-D. 3-D make wifey sicky so we skipped that one.

Sigh...

You know, as far as remakes go, they kept it relatively close to the original. There were some changes of course and not in a good way. The appeal of the original to me was how subdued and downright creepy the two children were. This one tried for that but fell well short of that mark.

There was a theory floating around here that now more people would probably see the original because of this flick and I hope that's true because it is superior in every way to this one. Sadly for the original, hardly anyone saw this remake, so I doubt anyone will take the time to see the original too.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...



I want to see this so bad but it was in and out of my local theater. I just recently watched the original film and I have heard this is one Americanization that manages to capture the spirit of the European original.
__________________



RIP www.moviejustice.com 2002-2010
Yes it's very similar to the original, and in fact in some ways it's darker, if in style. I still like the original a bit more, but the fact that I have to struggle (even though I've only seen each one once) to think of the differences between them, shows how faithful it remained. The only problem I have with the remake is that it might make it a bit more obvious that the ending is not necessarily a happy one. Also there's a hint at romance between the girl and the man who gets her blood in the remake, whereas in the original it's purely a relationship of need.

I haven't read the book by the way.
__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below

http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201



Its a 8 rating movie from 10..



Also there's a hint at romance between the girl and the man who gets her blood in the remake, whereas in the original it's purely a relationship of need.
I disagree that the relationship between the older man and girl in the original is just one of need. He loves her and is devoted to her because he is what the boy will become or, if you like, he was once to her what the boy is now.



Just another reviewer
I thought the kid who played Owen in the remake is an upcoming star. He seems to play more dark sided films and is his character's always have that kid sympathy string. He always finds a way to pull it when he cries or is acting in an emotional way. I really enjoyed him in The Road. As for the film I'll probably see it. I don't instantly hate it because its a remake from a recent film, which I enjoyed. I'm kinda enthralled to see it go mainstream so people who have not seen the original can still enjoy the story.

This is my first post and I'll like to say Hello to everybody. I hope I enjoy my time here.
__________________
More on that later...



I disagree that the relationship between the older man and girl in the original is just one of need. He loves her and is devoted to her because he is what the boy will become or, if you like, he was once to her what the boy is now.
totally



I havent seen Let Me In yet, but in the original the relationship between Hakan and Eli has to be more than need. If it was simply need and no love, then what did Eli have that Hakan needed?

WARNING: "" spoilers below
He struggled enough gathering blood as it was, if there wasn't anything in the relationship for him then I find it hard to believe he would have motive to kill for Eli.
__________________
If I had a dollar for every existential crisis I've ever had, does money really even matter?