J-SON

24 May 2012

Religious remake of the Swedish sensation Let The Right One In

Religious remake of the Swedish sensation "Let The Right One In"follows the original so closely that it is more likely for mainstreamEnglish speaking audience who is new to the story. A couple of minornotches below the standard set by the original, nevertheless this willbe a new (and much better) genre rendition to try out for those whothought The Twilight Saga is the only romantic vampire genre around.Director Matt Reeves has paid faithful homage to Tomas Alfredson'sversion not because he had a lack of creativity, but simply becausethis remake is meant to reach out to a wider audience who've yet to seeit in order to spread the love. Hopefully with an English speaking castand language, it will be widely appreciated by more people with themass distribution of the film.That said, we shouldn't really criticise Reeves' take for the homageeffort.Given a choice, I believe the film-makers will want to produce uniqueworks of their own. While the fans of the Swedish original may beranting on how the US version is trying to regurgitate and ruin thereputation that the original upheld with somewhat less subtlety andslightly commercialised elements, we need to remember that they areexperiencing these sentiments because they've already seen theoriginal.What first time audience will need is a fair and just objective opinionof the film instead of negatively-charged subjectivity.Following the success of the original, the film tackles the disturbingissue of the state of our younger ones in the society who are facingdanger when left alone without care. Broken families and adult neglectoften lead to these youth finding no one to go to for resolving woes.Under repression without guidance, some begin to harbour twistedintentions and often end up sporting vicious violence as Owen is seenwielding a kitchen knife in front of his dressing mirror mimickingdemeaning taunts of his school bullies."Are you scared, little girl?"Owen suffers from severe bullying by three boys in his school, which isescalated to a heavier dosage than the original to stir more ragingsentiments within the audience. Reeves also offers a great opening thatworks to get the audience unsettled with an urgent ambulance scene anda nerve-teasing hospital ward flashback. Just for these, I tend to feelthat more is more as it induces a higher level of emotions.Otherwise, less should be more as in the original.Music and sound are a tad bit overly handled as the upbeat nature ofthe audio reduces the subtlety feel that is a trademark of theoriginal. Visuals also took on a punchier style with more blatant bloodattacks achieved via CG animation. With these, it allows the remake tofeel brisker in pace to get the heart pumping a little.Chilling subtle horror amidst warm tender love.Owen is a 12 year old boy who is left alone by the adults in his life,his mother is an alcoholic Catholic settling a divorce with his fatherwhile the teachers in school often do not go beyond their line of dutyand mind their own business outside academic syllabus. With such, he isoften spotted sitting in the playground within his residentialcourtyard silently singing peculiar tunes that go:"Eat some now, save some for later"Abby is a blood thirsty "thing" who has been 12 years old for ages, itis also unsure if Abby is a boy as highlighted in the original that hasbeen left out in this remake. Abby also verbally repeats in the filmthat she is not a girl. In the novel, there's a brief flash-backmention of the possibility of Abby being a boy who's been castrated bya vampire a long time ago. Since Reeves' version has chosen to leavethe question of Abby's gender out to keep affairs simple by implyinginstead that she is not a girl (not human) but a vampire, let's notdwell astray.Moretz and Smit-McPhee's performance has been wonderful in this film,not to forget Richard Jenkins' great role rendition as Abby's"guardian" who stumbles every time he hunts for blood to feed Abby. Hisposition as an elderly guardian will be challenged during the laterpart of the film to instill a surprising and satisfying twist to thosewho're unfamiliar with the story (so no spoilers).An artful portrayal of a chilling romance story between a vampire and amortal boy, this brings the new genre that used to be dominated byEdward and Bella to a whole new level. That said, you'll not want tomiss the Swedish original after watching this remake.Maybe it is a better routine to watch the remake and then the original.

ra_foxlv

24 May 2012

Very pleasant surprise.

I didn't know anything about the movie, never saw any trailer or reviewbefore watching it.Everything happening was a discovery for me, every little detail feltspecial and growing on me. As much as the story unfolds in the movie,there are many things left to wonder and I like that.People are discussing comparison between both movies. Original andremake. I say it doesn't matter which one you watch if you want thegeneral idea of the book (though changed for movies, obviously).Yet, there are small things which define preference for one or theother. Like music, little differences in script, cinematography and ofcourse actors themselves.I have to say I liked the remake a lot more. Mainly because of thelittle preferences I named above. Music is deeply emotional, coveredand somehow unnoticeable at first, yet very brooding and even scarywhen you start paying attention to it. Acting is plainly fantastic.It's been a long time since I felt something like this, I want to watchthe movie again and again just to see some scenes purely of the actingthere. Fantastic! Pacing is great as well, I really like the director'sapproach. Somehow even toying with you, yet if you pay attention toevery little detail you understand the whole picture.I guess the main affection thing in the movie is the story, for me. Howtragic it is, cruel, yet honest. Pure evil with pure love. It makes itmore realistic than anything, because life is like that - a doublesided coin.I strongly recommend the movie for it's atmosphere and acting. THIS isthe real vampire movie.

Bill Anderson

23 May 2012

Excellent remake

This is my first movie review on IMDb. I felt compelled to write afterreading the many reviews comparing this film to Let the Right One In.It was easier for me to see Let Me In so I saw it first. I wasenthralled by the film in all of its aspects. The actors were great,the attention to detail fantastic, the music incredible. I had seenChloe Moretz in Kick Ass and I think she does a great job in thismovie. She seems so wise for her age with, it seems, an uncannyawareness of her characters. All the other actors were also very good.I have to say that I love foreign movies and subtitles are always finewith me so I looked forward to seeing Let the Right One In. I was verydisappointed. Compared to Let Me In it seemed like a B movie. Thecharacters were not as developed, there were many holes in the plot,the acting just not that great. I could go point by point comparison ofthe two movies but that is just a little too involved for what I wantto say here.I hope you will watch both movies and make up your own mind as to thequalities of each. In my opinion this "Hollywood remake" is one of thebest I have ever seen.

23 May 2012

Harrowing but oddly beautiful

The vampire mythology is as old as the hills. Hollywood has spent nearly a century cataloguing all of the different facets of the crypt-sleeping, fanged beasts of the night. From Nosferatu to John Carpenter's Vampires to Twilight, the gamut has been run...and run...and run. In fact, this film is just a remake of a foreign success. So does it stand on its own two feet? Yes. Thanks to its deft production and characters. LET ME IN is a dazzling, morbid little picture with two stellar young leads at its center and while it does occasionally wallow in bucket-loads of gore, it has something of a real heart as well. That's not to say that it isn't dark as dark can be. It is. The visuals are stark and haunting. From the opening frame of a cavalcade of police cars and an ambulance jouncing through snowy hills at night, to the violent finale, this is a film that positively immersed viewers in its grim world. This is not a film for children. It contains overwhelmingly graphic blood-letting sequences and one very nasty facial burn. There is also a cycle-of-abuse subplot that doesn't end in what one might call a "healthy" fashion. Overall, there is a lot of tension to be had in the film. Several scenes are stand-alone and amazing, begging for repeat viewing. One encounter at a gas station is rewind-right-away and re-watch good. The lead characters are amazing. Chloe (Hit-Girl) Mortiz knocks this one out of the park. She is believable, graceful, and just plain captivating. The boy keeps up. The old detective and the father are also very convincing. Their shopworn character-action vibes suited the tone of the film. Though their relationship is the definition of unnatural, the two young kids will have most audience members feeling for their plight by the time the credits roll. It is amazing that they are as young as they are and able to convey such adult emotion. This is a very dreary but paradoxically energetic film with a lot of surprises and an excellent score. The production values rock. The story is rather fresh and engaging. If you have the stomach for some very mean-spirited and occasionally view-through-your-fingers gore, you'll experience the most unconventional "love"/coming of age story of the past decade, even if it is a remake.

omemharanha

17 May 2012

Cat Copy

This is simply a copy of a Swedish movie. It's embarrassing to readStephen King in the box of the movie saying that is is the bestAmerican horror movie of the last 20 years when it is a shameless copyof a good film made by the poor Swedish film industry.The story is simple and similar to many movies that have been releasedrecently. We wait all movie for something exciting to happen but itdoesn't. At last in the end of the movie we don't have a clue about thefaith/future of the characters, so, whats the point of all movie? Gosee the movie, you may like it but don't expect a 7 or more ratingmovie, Its just entertaining.

Troy_Campbell

16 May 2012

A remake that defies the odds and stands tall alongside its foreign predecessor.

Tomas Alfredson's Let the Right One In was loved by almost everyone whosaw it two years ago. No-one was impressed when they heard the newsthere was going to be a remake – why would we be? We've become soaccustomed to shoddy, dumbed-down versions of films we adore –especially in the broader horror genre – that the word "remake" canonly be met with a scoff of disgust. I'm ecstatic to report thatdirector Matt Reeves has achieved the impossible. Not only is thisAmerican revamp not shoddy or dumbed-down, but it effectively matchesthe Swedish original in almost every way.Reeves creates an imposingly ominous mood from the very outset.Employing Greig Fraser's sombre cinematography, Reeves washes away anysign of sunshine or brightness which visually encapsulates Owen's lifeto tremendous effect. The haunting score and intelligent sound designalso serve to enhance the gloomy ambiance. Reeves last helmedCloverfield, a film which was known for its dizzying hand-held cameratechniques. Conversely, in Let Me In he frequently – and wisely – optsfor lingering, static shots that enable the viewer to take in thebigger picture whilst cementing the unnerving atmosphere.The intelligent script (also by Reeves) finds a satisfying balancebetween staying close to the original and adding new elements where itfeels beneficial to the story. As mentioned previously, there's been nosimplification of the content to accommodate the lowest commondenominator, it remains ambiguous without being pretentious andcontemplates many things. It credits the audience with maturity (eventhough some of the moronic people in the session I attended didn'tdeserve it) and as such layers the film to allow multiple standpoints.All of the above wouldn't have worked so successfully had it not beenfor the perfect casting of the two young protagonists. Australian actorKodi Smit-McPhee evokes our sympathy whole-heartedly without everhaving to milk it, his Owen is immediately recognisable and easy toassociate with. Chloe Grace Moretz (the awesome Hit Girl from Kick-Ass)nails the wise-beyond-her-years Abby, instilling her with a scarycombination of volatility and kindness. Together they share an innocentyet complex chemistry on screen.A remake that defies the odds and stands tall alongside its foreignpredecessor.4.5 out of 5 (1 - Rubbish, 2 - Ordinary, 3 - Good, 4 - Excellent, 5 -Classic)

16 May 2012

Romance is for the young.

This review is from: Let Me In (DVD) Introduction: This is a film essay that is intended for only those people who have already seen the movie. There are some spoilers, so if you haven't seen the film yet, I suggest you quit reading this essay at once. My intentions where to write something in the style of my all time favorite film commentary track, which exists in The Criterion addition of The Sam Pekinpah film Straw Dogs 1971. A scholar named Stephen Prince who specializes in violence in film gives what is in essence a master class on the subject while pointing out thousands of little subtleties playing beneath the narrative, the effect is simply brilliant. I feel that my film watching strengths also lie in observing such subtleties, and Let Me In is chock-full of them. The reason is that director Matt Reeves does not insult the intelligence of the viewer by trying to explain every little thing to them. At the same time he uses visual and character behavior to tell the story. This makes Let Me In a joy for the sophisticated movie watcher. For those of you who feel that my essay is self indulgent, I must remind you that self indulgence is simply self expression, and all I am really doing is working on sharpening my writing skills. I had submitted this review about three weeks ago without this introduction, but I noticed that some people didn't really understand what I was actually intending. I also removed two paragraphs that in hind sight where kind of like boulders in the flow of the stream. One was about the camera work in the scenes of violence, the other was about what a great expressive face Kodi Smit-McPhee has. Hopefully people will find this version of the film essay to be a bit easier to read. Regardless of how this is accepted, at least I will always know that I am proud of it. In the end that is what really matters, but I still secretly hope some of you enjoy this film essay anyway. Thank you. Virginal Footprints in the snow, Left there by a mysterious vision.Came out of that black shape,Like a black cape,In answer to my invitation...He might as well be on the moon.The main character in Let Me In is a 12 year old by named Owen who lives alone with his mother in a low rent apartment complex. Since Owen is only a child, he lacks the developed ability to express the many levels of suffering and confusion he is currently feeling. Like Owen, the film hides most of its meaning beneath its narrative, suggesting many dark ideas without ever explaining any of them to the audience. Owen is a frail middle school student without a single friend in the world. He is a timid boy that is being systematically bullied by the toughest guys in his grade. Owen is often shown wearing this puffy metallic silver jacket that gives him the look of an astonaut, while in his bedroom, an entire wall is given over to a giant mural of the lunar surface. The implication is obvious, Owen might as well be on the moon himself. Even God and country have turned their backs on Owen. There is a rather subversive use of a Ronald Reagan speech in the opening section of the film in which the president is glorifying the supposed righteousness of all Americans simply for being born an American. This fallacy is echoed a few scenes later when Owen is shown reciting The Pledge of Allegiance in class. While the entire class is saying 'One nation under God' in unison, Owen is struck on the right arm by a giant spit ball right on th word 'God'. In a later scene, Owen tells his mother that he cut his face during a fall in the school playground, when in reality the alpha male bully Ken had whipped Owen across the cheek with a broken off radio antenna. Rather then do the parental work necessary to fully uncover the reality of her sons painful situation, his mother just tells Owen to be more careful next time and then immediately launches into the dinner prayer. In Owen's bleak world, God and country have become perverted insults that only further alienate him. Even when we do see his mother up close her face is all out of focus, the rest of the time she is always shown from a distance. This visual depiction matches her near nonexistent parenting. Even Owen's father is nothing more then a voice on the other end of the phone that fails miserably to listen to what Owen is so desperately trying to tell him. Though none of these institutional and parental failing are ever being discussed anywhere in the dialogue itself, the audience still picks up on them through these various clues. The sad truth that is being revealed to us shows that like every other institution in Owen's life, his parents have done nothing for him at all, except to continually let him down.Owen with Abby colored eyes.Despite his ineffectuality, Owen has still managed to get himself into some disturbingly unsavory activities. In an act of transference Owen is shown bullying his own reflection at knife point in his bedroom mirror while wearing a clear plastic old man mask. It is a wonderfully ambiguous visual choice that suggest a number of intriguing possibilities. By wearing this mask over his face, is Owen being something that he is not, or is he being something that he might become in the future? This moment is immediately fallowed by the creepy business of spying on his various neighbors with his bedroom telescope. Since Owen is both interested and overwhelmed by the mysteries of sex, he quickly focuses his spying upon his sultry neighbor Virginia who is in the very beginning of make up sex with her boyfriend. Virginia is a strikingly beautiful woman in her mid 20's and is clearly the object of most of Owen's sexual fantasies. These various elements are laid bare without any narrative explanation, but beyond this, an even more curios visual effect takes place. The light shining back into Owen's eyes through the elongated telescope almost matches Abby's ghastly white vampire irises when she is in the throws of a feeding frenzy. This is a most ingenious visual cue, because it is at this point that Abby makes her first appearance in the film. From his bedroom window, Owen watches Abby get out of the passanger side of a moving van, at first she appears to be nothing more then a black silhouette. Then from out of this darkness emerges this cloaked angelic figure who proceeds to lead the way through the snow in her bare feet, looking for all the world like a homeless squatter. She is being fallowed by a 60 year old man who is struggling mightily with an oversized trunk held awkwardly in both arms. Through Owen's eyes we see much that is not revealed within the narrative itself, the most striking of which is that this barefooted child vagabond appears to be in charge of the old man.Abby, the enternal adolescent.It becomes clear when you watch the interaction between Abby and the 60 year old man, that the old man is still very much in love with her. He hates to disappoint Abby and is clearly jealous of her seeing 'that boy'. Abby and this old man have been a couple for a very long time, and their scenes together eerily answer the eternal quesion of how long Abby remains passionate with her human provider. Though their current situation seems to be that of a passive aggressive marriage rather then a fervid love affair, one gets the feeling that they have remained actively affectionate with one another a lot longer then one would care to think. What is clear is that Abby no longer seems physically attracted to her current boyfriend. Just how long Abby has been a vampire is never really answered in the film, but we do know that she has been with the old man since he was a preteen himself, which is close to 50 years. Yet despite being possibly houndreds of years old, Abby still acts like a 12 year old kid, for one thing, she seems either unable or unwilling to provide for herself independently. This would all be fine if it wasn't for the fact that people keep dying around Abby at such an alarming rate. From the clues I gathered from watching both versions of this story, I have come to the conclusion that on average 10 people have to die each month for Abby to live. It is also clear that it is her human provider who has to do all of the dirty work for her. This means that in all the years he has been with Abby, the old man has had to either kill or dispose of the bodies of roughly 6000 people.Richard Jenkins who plays the old man in Let Me In is the person who came up with the idea of wearing a dark colored plastic trash bag over his head with cut out eye slits when he captures his victims. The visual effect is as horrifying as it is wickedly subversive. Whether aware of it or not, Richard Jenkins had made this character look exactly like a KKK member, only with an opposing color for the hood. The subversion digs even deeper in that Richard Jenkins is only shown killing white people in this film. Even his method of killing matches a KKK lynching exactly, except that much like the opposing color of his hood, his victims are strung up to a tree upside down by their ankles rather then right side up by their necks. From here he sets a large plastic jug with a funnel in its top underneath his strung up victim and then cuts their jugular to drain their life blood into this crude take home receptacle.Seeing a Rubix Cube become the catalyst of Abby and Owen's courtship was a deeply satisfying moment for me, because I am someone who is able to solve the cube in under three mintues. It is in this scene that Abby decides to pursue Owen, yet even this apparent innocent budding romance can be looked at in a more sinister level. Abby just had a nasty fight with the old man who had returned home with an appetizer rather then a meal. During the arguement, the old man tells Abby that he has grown tired of killing and might be getting sloppy on purpose in order to get caught. This leaves the door wide open for debate as to whether Abby has really fallen in love with Owen, or whether this is just a set of calculated moves to manipulate Owen into thaking the old mans place on 'the day shift'.Leopards can not change their spots.If Owen's beautiful neighbor Virginia is his sex siren, then Abby is Owen's otherworldly virginal Goddess. Abby represents everything that is meaningful, eternal, nurturing, and magical in Owen's deficient existence. The contrast between these two feminine influences in Owen's life is greater emphasized by constantly showing Virginia in an ornamental subservient roll to her rugged boyfriend Larry. Not for one second do we ever see Abby in a subservient roll to anyone in this film. There is something ultimately twisted about Abby's attack on Virginia. Virginia is after all the object of Owen's lust. It is not just that The Madonna is killing The Whore in this scene, it is that Owen's Madonna is killing Owen's Whore. It only took being in close proximity of a few drops of Owen's blood for Abby to attack Virginia in such a state of uncontrollable animalistic bloodlust, that it makes her vampirism seem like some kind of unstoppable hormonal reaction to puberty. Like everything else in this film, the visceral nature of Virginia's attack also effects the viewer on a subconscious level due to its underlying symbolism. Abby leaps on Virginia from the top of a tree, and then bites into her throat immediately. This is the exact same method that a leopard utilizes when attacking an antelope in the wild. Virginia is also wearing a fur coat at the time of the attack which further depicts her as being a jungle cats prey. These visual choices makes the attack look just like something one would see on Wild Kingdom. When Abby talks to Owen, her words carry the same kind of symbolic connotations. Everything Abby says can be taken as literal prophetic truth. When they first meet, Owen points at his bedroom window and nervously tells Abby where he lives. You can clearly see all the flustered emotion on his face. Owen is so instantaneously attracted to this mysterious cloaked little girl that he nearly falls apart in her presence. Instead of reciprocating his longing, Abby tells Owen that she can not be his friend. This is actually a much truer statement then we could have ever realized. When she tells Owen that if it comes down to it she will help him fight the bullies, she backs this statement up with all the force of an army. What this implies about her constant insistence to Owen that 'she is not a girl' and is in fact 'nothing', staggers the imagination. Was she making these statements simply because she is a vampire, or is she in fact implying that she has no sexual organs at all? If there is one thing we do know for sure about Abby, when she says something she generally more then means it.Home is where you're currently living at the time.There is a curios line of dialogue that forced me to examine whether it was a cinematic flaw that went unnoticed by the director. After Abby scales the outside of the hospital building, she taps on the window and asks her human provider if she can enter his hospital room. The old man is unable to speak due to the self inflicted acid burns on his face, so Abby has to remain outside in the cold. There is a scene a little later in this movie in which Abby proves her devotion to Owen by showing him what will happen to her if she enters his home uninvited. The scene sets a clear timeline for how long it takes for Abby to reveal her vampire nature involuntarily to an outsider. Within just 15 seconds, Abby begins to shake uncontrollably, then by half a minute blood starts to gush from all parts of her body at once. Owen ultimately proves his love for Abby by frantically granting her permission to be in his house. Owen then runs over and cradles Abby in his arms and asks if she would of died had he not of said anything. She replies."I knew you wouldn't let me."Though this scene is remarkable for managing to be both moving and alarming at the same time, the problem with it is, is that we see Abby enter four other buildings uninvited. One location was the front reception desk of the hospital, another was a convenience store, then there was the apartment complex recreation room, and finally the indoor pool at the middle school in which she entered through the skylight to save Owen during the films climax. This paradox is one I am willing to concede with the simple excuse of 'home is where you are currently living at the time'. By being hospitalized in intensive care, that hospital room had become the surrogate home for the old man. Abby was now unable to enter this 'living space' without his permission.Another potential problem was Owen's discovery of the photo booth pictures that showed Abby and the old man when he was a 12 year old boy himself. Since the events depicted in this film are shown to be taking place in 1983, this would mean that those photo booth pictures where taken some time in the mid 1930's. The question is, did photo booths even exist in 1935? What I found was that the photo booth was invented in 1889 by a man named Matthew Stiffens, and where later mass produced throughout America on March 27th 1927 by The Photomation Company. The discovery of the photo booth pictures not only checks out, but is astoundingly accurate. Due to the relative freshness of this national phenomena, taking a phto booth picture would have been a very popular thing to do in 1935.If there is one clear error in the film that I am not willing to concede for any reason, it's the lack of proper police procedure demonstrated by the police sergeant. He had been finding bloodless bodies for several weeks, and had even witnessed Virginia burst into flames in her hospital bed when she was hit by the morning sunlight. Even his one and only suspect had fallen ten floors to his death after mysteriously being drained of blood himself. About the only clue he had left to go on was that a 12 year old girl was somehow tied to all this murder and death. The problem occurs when he hears the floorboards creak from inside of Abby's apartment. He quickly draws his fire arm, yells police, kicks down the door, stalks through the house for a good three minutes finding evidence of the murder victims, before eventually finding Abby sleeping in the bottom of the bath tub. Yet in all this time, he never does the one thing that any real cop would have done first thing before doing anything else...Call for back up. I really wish that the film would of shown the sergeant lose or break his police radio during the raid to fix this one trouble spot in the film, because the rest of the movie is damn near perfect.Evil needs love too.Once Abby decides to pursue Owen you will notice that she never takes her eyes off of him, unless it's to coyly look down in alluring shyness when the conversation borders on what makes her tick. In their very first scene together the audience becomes fully invested in seeing them end up as a couple. Yet as captivatingly beautiful as their romance is, Owen is eventually going to have to provide blood for Abby, and we already know what that entails. It is equally disturbing that she enters Owen's bedroom window like a succubus mere moments after she drained the blood out of her last long term partner. How subversive is it that thier bedroom conversation seems so tender and innocent when considering all the other implications? Out of the two movies, I definitely prefer how this moment was covered in Let The Right One In. I really miss the 'Bulleri bulleri bock' Swedish children's guessing game thing in which Eli has Oskar guess how many fingers she is tapping him with. I also wish that Abby would of caressed Owen's shoulder and arm the way that Eli caressed Oskar's in Let The Right One In. I find it weak that Owen was wearing a shirt in this scene, unlike Oskar who was shirtless and quit possibly naked. There is something ultimately dementedly satisfying about watching Eli indulge herself on touching the silky skin of her prey. The consolation for me is that there are two fantastic versions of the same tale, and I just happen to be wise enough to love both of them equally for the different strengths that they bring to the table. Even though the viewer can interpret the subtleties in this film many different ways, I still believe that Abby has ultimately fallen in love with Owen. Why else would she have offered to eat his human candy when she knew it would make her choke? There is a real attraction that Abby feels for Owen that goes far beyond necessity. However, it is still so disastrously sad that Abby isn't going to turn Owen into a vampire and stay with him forever. The real tragedy of this story is that Owen is going to grow old on Abby and eventually outlive his usefulness. Maybe that is how her evil really works. For unlike Owen's parents, school, God, or country, Abby is never going to let Owen down. This is the whole essence of the story. For once in his miserable little life, someone is actaully willing to do what ever it takes to make him feel like he actually matters. Unfortunately for Owen, that someone just happens to be a living dead monster. But in the end, who could really blame Owen for loving Abby? When you really consider the amazing way in which she rescues him at the end of the film, there really is no Earthly reason for him to look back at all. As for Abby, who could blame her for loving Owen?...After all, romance is for the young, and evil needs love too.

dazworthy

15 May 2012

A quality (if very similar) remake

When I heard that a Hollywood would be remaking the brilliant Swedishfilm, Let the Right One In, I was a little concerned. Hollywood has along history of re-imagining (and ruining) foreign films by simplifyingthe stories and characters, and adding in irrelevant effects and cornyplot devices. But to his credit director Matt Reeves (Cloverfield) hasshown great restraint and remained quite faithful to the original movieand novel, so that the American version Let Me In is in itself quite agood film. Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee )is a 12 year old boy living infrost-bitten Los Alamos, New Mexico. He is himself isolated - theproduct of a broken home, and the victim of vicious bullying in school.An escape arrives in the form of a mysterious girl of the same age,Abbey (Chloe Moretz) who moves in next door to Owen. The two lonelycharacters quickly form a bond. Meanwhile the town experiences somemysterious murders and attacks, and it's not long before Owen realizesthat these crimes and the arrival of his new friend are no coincidence.It would be grossly unfair to simply call this a vampire or horrorfilm, because it is so much more than that. In actual fact it'sprobably more of a love story/drama with some horror themes. But it'sthe clever story, complex characters and great performances from theleads that raise this film above the standard Hollywood vampire fare.It's kind of what Twilight hoped to be, but never was. If there is onecriticism of Let Me In, it is that it's perhaps too similar to theoriginal. Some scenes are almost shot-for-shot copies. Having saidthat, the Swedish version Let the Right One In is still far superior.It is one of the most beautifully photographed and directed films Ihave seen in a long time. It has an ethereal atmosphere to it thatmakes it an impossible film to forget. So if you don't mind thesubtitles, I would recommend the original on DVD rather than Let Me In.But despite having that such a daunting original to live up to, Let MeIn is still an acceptable alternative.

15 May 2012

A haunting remake of a slightly better film

Customer review from the Amazon Vine™ Program (What's this?) I am a big fan of "Let the Right One In," the original Swedish movie, but I thoroughly enjoyed this English language remake. Both films are beautifully made and well-acted, both are horrifying, and both are tragic with (as one reviewer said) the saddest happy ending ever. The traditional vampire is a bloodsucking demon who is living out his eternal death through murder. If you like the newer, prettier version of vampirism, you may be disappointed by Abby. She is feral and freaky, compelling and repellent at the same time. Her foulness makes the question of who she ensnares that much more fascinating; who can find beauty in something so horrific? For answers, watch Owen, the spindly little boy at the heart of this dark and hopeless love story. He is lost, afraid and isolated, and at heart he is absolutely furious. Other reviewers have pointed out that the movies are more about alienation and desperation than anything else, and they are right. Both movies have their strengths, and their areas in which they are truer to the orginal book. You don't have to choose. Watch them both.

kershmey_baker

14 May 2012

Not bad, but completely pointless.

This was a decent movie, but it was a decent movie because it almostcompletely mirrored the far superior 'Let The Right One In.' Thescripts were borderline identical, and the deviations were not goodones... the plots were exactly the same but for different settings,only this one made obvious and waved in the face of the audience whatthe first film was subtle about and only hinted at in regards to her'father figure', apparently assuming the American audience is lesscapable of figuring things out on their own. I can't say this is a badmovie, because its not. What it is however is a cheap(in terms ofquality, I'm sure Hollywood spent more on theirs) knock off of a muchbetter movie. If you have a choice between 'Let Me In' and 'Let TheRight One In', the titles themselves make the choice pretty damnobvious. Seeing the original (with subtitles, not dubbing.. the dubtrack is pretty awful) is the only way to go with this one.

Larry Stauch

13 May 2012

This movie casts a spell that endures

A life as a companion and living on the run is better than livingwithout love. This is a film for the bullied and unwanted children inour world. The roles portrayed were executed with honesty by all actorsinvolved. The director was clever in not showing the mother's face forvery long and we never see the father. The poor lad is left pretty muchalone to face the cold, wintry world without a single friend. Thencomes the new girl. She seems as utterly sad and alone as he..... andshe is. It was refreshing to see how their chemistry blended andbloomed. The only fault I found was the CG attack scenes. That wasunbelievable for me. I would have portrayed a vampire as having totalcontrol and with slow, deliberate moves. Imagine a fiend that wouldregard his next meal with detached urgency. That would be much morescary. After all is said I believe that this film will be regarded onit's own as a good love story although with some mayhem and gore thatmakes a fine cocktail to patiently consider as a film thats heads'sabove many other horror films .

Fred Edwords

12 May 2012

Plot problems

Though "Let Me In" is an enjoyably eerie little film made with somefinesse, which causes it to border on art house fare, its problems withpremise and plot are so severe that only a moment's thought, during orafter viewing, is enough to expose the entire edifice as faulty fromconcept to execution. (To demonstrate this, however, requires giving the whole story away. Soread no further if that isn't what you want.)Here we have a vampire girl, Abby, who has been twelve "for a very longtime," living with her guardian, who we at first think is her fatherbut later learn is her previous twelve-year-old boyfriend grown old. Heis a non-vampire, tired of the nightly grind of killing for her, whofinally fails in that task and is replaced by a new twelve-year-oldboyfriend, the protagonist Owen.Although we primarily follow the troubles of schoolboy Owen, theproduct of a broken home, as he is too easily preyed upon by bulliesand ultimately rescued by Abby, we don't find enough there to make usbelieve he has it within him to, in the end, run away from home andtake up the life of a serial killer so as to keep his preteen crush,Abby, fed.And what did Abby's previous serial-killer feeder do for a living sothe rent could be paid? What will twelve-year-old Owen do for a livingas her new feeder and primary contact with the outside world? How manyordinary and socially-connected people can this pair of drifters murderand drain of blood, night after night, without ever getting caught?Even with a few missed meals, that's hundreds of victims per year. Doesthis girl really drink over a gallon of blood every night? If she'struly older than twelve, why isn't she more worldly wise? (Evenwatching one channel of nighttime television would give her morecultural literacy than she displays in this film.) Beyond getting hernightly feedings and playing with puzzles, what sort of life does sucha recluse have that would make her want to go on living? And what sortof life does her feeder have--keeping the little monstersatisfied--that would keep him at it? Finally, she is just too easy to kill: sunlight will burn her right up.Which means, during daylight, she's always at the complete mercy of theloyalty of her feeder, who at any time could rip open the window coversand roast her to cinders. So why was she abusive to her older feederand why was he loyal to the end when he always had such an easy wayout--especially for a guy grown so used to killing, and so weary of it? One could go on. But it should be clear that nothing in this filmworks.

Colin Hosten

10 May 2012

So close to the original, its tragic

Sometimes an *interpretation* is actually a lie. Thats when its adirect copy, and thats what this was. As others have said, it is copiedalmost exactly from scene to scene. Yes, its a good film, but honestly,the original with subtitles is better. Its even closer than El Mariachiwas to Desperado, and that was a remake with Hollywood money thrown atit - same story, and same writer/director for both. Movies like Let TheRight One In, and Old Boy (Korean) do need to be seen as the originalbefore money gets thrown at it, for those that finding subtitlesdifficult to manage. Its a very good film, but in this case, not asgood as the original, and its also a shameful copy. There has never, asfar as I know, been a closer copy of one whole film to another. Its notart, its a photocopy (a Xerox).

10 May 2012

Enjoyed it!

Customer review from the Amazon Vine™ Program (What's this?) I am usually not a fan of vampire movies, but I really enjoyed Let Me In. More than just a vampire movie, Let Me In explores many awkward adolescent moments and tribulations. I was both horrified and moved by both Owen and Abby as their relationship emerged over the course of the movie. Dark and troubling, make no mistake: this is a horror film...yet oddly it contains some tender moments. The casting was spot on in my opinion - the actors portraying Owen and Abby were downright creepy to watch. They engrossed me and I vicariously watched as the plot unfolded.I would recommend this movie to anyone who likes vampire tales or those who just want to watch a creepy, dark movie.

08 May 2012

5 Stars Isnt Enough!

This review is from: Let Me In (DVD) I've seen the U.S. and Swedish versions of this film a total of 5 times in a very short time. I've NEVER given any film that much attention. I usually consider watching films multiple times to be a waste of precious hours of my life. Saw it, cataloged it, move on. But John Lindqvist's novel affected me like nothing I've read in a very long time. And in my opinion both films are shining tributes to that book. I've been trying to decide which film is superior and upon viewing Matt Reeve's classic for the 3rd time it hit me. Who cares?! I'll build a shrine to both of them. There are film snobs who will be unable to make one positive comment about the American version. U.S. films never measure up, right? Let them rant. I'm not saying I think Let Me In is perfect. Johan Soderqvist's score to the Swedish version captures the beauty and heartbreak of this love story in a way that Giacchino's does not. In places the U.S. film's score becomes an unnecessary distraction. I'm not a big fan of the use of CGI in the U.S. version either. Matt Reeves in some places makes use of plot devices and in others omits elements that alter the story and deny us some of it's full impact. He sacrificed a bit more of what could have been our complete understanding of Abby's history and who she really is (Read the book, people!). To be fair, neither film has the time to fully introduce Eli/Abby to us, but perhaps this adds to her mystique, at least where the movies are concerned. I consider mine to be minor critcisms. Mr. Reeves didn't set out to make a carbon-copy of Alfredson's classic. To those who claim this is a scene-for-scene duplicate I say you know that's ridiculous. Reeves tells the story from a slightly different point of view and gives prominence to different characters than Alfredson did. Different character emphasis, alternate narrative, different scenes. if he hadn't maintianed the important (and therefore similar) elements, his film's connection to the book would be weak. Was this remake necessary? Go ahead and argue it if you like. Is it a worthy and worthwhile contribution to American cinema? I say absolutely! In the long history of the "horror" genre there are very, very few films that can really be considered classics and far fewer still that transcend the genre in a way that allows them to be taken seriously. Let Me In can take it's place among those rate creations. And given the unfortunate aversion of many Americans to dubbed or sub-titled foreign movies, Let Me In delivers the story in a more palatable format. This film is a must-see however, if for no other reason than to catch a glimpse of two phenomenal young actors in action. Chloe and Kodi, I'll happily declare myself your No.1 fan (not counting parents and other immediate family members of course). Their performances are (sorry) Kick-A**!One last thought. For those who found this film "boring", I'll give you my definition. Boring is watching the same splatter film you've seen fifty times, only with a different title and different actors, hoping maybe you'll be treated to some as yet unthought of approach to dismemberment, not a ghost of a chance the movie will give you as much to think about as Let Me In does. Take if from someone who has been watching horror films for a very long time and felt I should have given up years ago. That is until Alfredson and Reeves rescued horror from Halloween (Zombie) oblivion. Thank you gentlemen.

gavin6942

08 May 2012

Lesser of the Two Versions

A young boy (Kodi Smit-McPhee) who has been bullied at school makesfriends with a young girl (Chloe Moretz), who may not be merely a girlat all. Soon they form a bond that is unbreakable, but possible deadly.From Hammer Films.Chloe Moretz is the only child actress today who could have playedAbby, so I cannot even begin to express how elated I am that she waschosen. Without her, I think the entire film would have collapsed.The character of Abby is not the same as Eli. When Abby is called weak,she says, "I'm stronger than you think I am" and after saying "I'm nota girl", she follows it up with "I'm nothing", playing down --practically removing -- any of the gender ambiguity subplot. Abby hasmore of a violent streak than Eli, more of a temper. She does not havequite the level of innocence that Eli exudes. The music is darker andthere is more reliance on CG and animation (the original kept it prettyminimal besides the cat scene).Richard Jenkins has a much larger role as the keeper than his Swedishcounterpart. I think this is a strength, because not only is Jenkins avastly underrated actor, but the role he plays is mysterious and itdoes not hurt to give us more hints to his existence (though the use ofan unclear background is nice, too).The setting has moved from Sweden to New Mexico, but kept the early1980s (now with Reagan rather than a Soviet political landscape). Thecamera moves and shakes more, blurs more, which may not be a surprisegiven that the director's last picture was "Cloverfield". Although bothfilms are dark, the original is grittier. And Oskar is a bigger wussthan Owen. What is up with Owen's mask? The hospital fire scene is muchmore intense, which is great because it is a highlight of the film.Although this film is not the powerful film that "Let the Right One In"is, it is still a decent film in its own right. If it was not boggeddown by comparisons, it would probably get even higher praise from meand from others. As of this writing, they have submitted the film forOscar considerations. I do not expect them to get any nominations, butone never knows... Moretz deserves a chance sooner or later.

06 May 2012

Poor Production Quality Hurts this Movie

This review is from: Let Me In (DVD) It's a shame when an otherwise good movie is spoiled by poor production quality. Watching this movie, you just want to yell at somebody to turn the lights on! Everything is bathed in black: the night scenes, the interiors, the actors' facial expressions. You just simply can't see what's going on. Lurking in the shadows of this movie is an intriguing, often frightening and really quite simply a beautiful story. But, those shadows are so dark, it makes the experience of watching it just about impenetrable.

realgonerocket

05 May 2012

Perfection from a personal connection.....

From Wikipedia: Acclaimed horror author Stephen King wrote "Let Me Inis a genre-busting triumph. Not just a horror film, but the bestAmerican horror film in the last 20 years." Personally, how can I top the master writer himself with my own praise?This is the best horror film I have seen since "The Shining." Therelationship between Owen and Abby was beautiful and complex, and wasmasterfully done by the two young actors. So masterful for their age Iwas immersed immediately! The story was superb and their chemistry wasperfection. The acting by Richard Jenkins and Elias Koteas was spot onand authentic, as could be expected and cannot be overlooked. The cinematography and musical soundtrack were a perfect combination tocreate atmosphere and feeling. The orchestral music furthered theintensity and seriousness of Abby's need to feed, and protect, but theclassic rock tunes from the era echoed the universal teenage experienceof social rebellion and awkward sexual curiosity. I was personallyfurther drawn in because of being bullied at that same age, with nofriends to rely on. The solitude and emotional pain are immense. Icould only dream as most…of having an mature and loyal friend likeAbbey to help me through that tough time..The strength that Abby provides, and ultimately uses to rid thisproblem for Owen is enormous and addictive. (much like this film!) Thusit is easy to see why he would leave with her immediately and forgo theaverage life. I am addicted to this beautiful work. Very few thingsinspire or move me anymore. But this film captures a powerful moment inthe human condition even with it's fictional elements. Though arealist, I am currently in fantasia. Though cynical, I am currentlyinspired by greatness. In a time when horror films pretty much suck, Itwas a privilege to see this masterfully done work of art.

04 May 2012

Surpasses the original version.

Many remakes, to which we have all been witness to in the last decade, have always been criticized even before it hit theaters; the main reason for that: If it's good then there's no reason to make another one, especially for classic movies or favorites by fans.`Let Me In' is the American version of `Let The Right One In' which is the Swedish version and obviously the original as well. The mood is identical to both movies, something in which director Matt Reeves does a great job keeping up with the same pace as the original film, and the acting was very well pulled off even though there was no need for overacting. If I was to be asked who could play the part of Oskar (Kåre Hedebrant, the boy from the original version) I would of named the kid from `The Road', Kodi Smit-McPhee, who does a perfect portrayal of the youngster who gets bullied pitiless and befriends with the vampire girl. One thing one can expect from this movie, being a remake of a foreign flick, is that the special effects will be better and gorier, in which both categories exceeded. A soon to become a cult vampire classic in my opinion, that not many remakes can be considered better than its predecessor.

04 May 2012

One of the best movies Ive ever seen different than the original

My review is going to be rather disorganized only because this movie is so different from most movies I've seen. "Let Me In" left me speechless. After seeing the trailer and hearing so much negative buzz about how it was just a simple American remake of a breathtaking foreign film, I wasn't too excited to see this one. In fact, it was only by chance that I ended up with a Blu-Ray copy in my hands. I'd originally tried to watch the original several times, and have only made it all the way through once... I wasn't impressed. I didn't see the hype. I might not have had the patience, or something, but I typically have quite good taste in movies and watch hundreds of good movies, foreign and Hollywood, every year.Let me just sum up Let Me In using a few choice, but exquisitely fitting words: Atmospheric... dark... intense... ambient... even nostalgic at times... Endearing... Entrancing... boundary-free.The soundtrack was perfect. Extremely intense and sad, but soft enough to accentuate the movie itself.The cinematography was also indescribably good. Greig Fraser's skill was impressive. It could not have been shot any better, and the actual diversity of the camera shots should be appreciated as much as the seamlessness with which they're used. This movie is also much darker than the original. MUCH darker. Everything about it emphasizes this difference, from the facial expressions to the events with "The Father".Many criticize Let Me In's similarity to the Swedish original, but I can't help but disagree. While some scenes are very similar, they remain completely different. Let Me In actually stays more faithful to the book than the Swedish version, and even when the scenes are, dialogue-wise, identical, the acting and the all-around ambiance are incomparable. I can't put into words how much this movie pulled at my heartstrings and touched me. I'm 16 years old now. Even though I've never thought much of McPhee as an actor, the quality he brought to his role as Owen was unbeatable. He reminded me of... me. I'm sure there's some part of every guy that can relate to Owen, and part of every female viewer that relates to someone like him... I was a shrimp when I was 12; I was treated like an insect. I would have given anything to simply be protected, and to have someone like Abby in my life; god knows I didn't have the confidence to make friends with much of anyone when I was Owen's age. I'm a 6'5" rugby player now, but I still feel like that little kid sometimes.In a nutshell, this movie sends me back to the emotions and the intensity of loneliness and life when I was Owen's age.The movie, all in all, has a very sad story. The ending brings good closure to it, but when you start to think deeper into how it ended, you can only think of how truly cold and lonely it would be to be Owen. I can't comment anymore on those implications so as to not give it away.