So this is a few months after the movie came out, but I'm curious as to what the reactions were of the DLP'ers that watched it. Its the first horror movie I felt was...beautiful, at the same time that it freaked the hell out of me. I'd rather not spoil the movie, but its the first genuinely terrifying and creepy creature film I've seen in a long time, especially of the vampire genre.

Spoiler

The acting of the girl who plays Abby, the vampire girl, is especially good, as is the acting of her companion. There's a degree of horror from the vampiric aspects of the film, but also from the growing history that's revealed of the relationship between Abby and the companion. There are some genuinely creepy moments with her and the guy. Owen and Abby's developing crush/affection for each other, in contrast to her "dad"'s relationship with her, is almost sweet, until the lengths that Owen is willing to go to for her are revealed. Its just a scary, creepy, haunting, beautiful movie.

So yeah, just thought I'd provoke discussion about the movie.

 

Chloe Moretz is awesome. I mean she played hit-girl so well. She did something like 90% of the stunts herself

 

nnn. I watched it. But I've also seen the original film that they remade this into. It ... left me more less than impressed this time around.

That said, did it annoy anyone else that you never see the mother's face? D:

 

Never see the mothers face? Whats with that?

I haven't actually seen this version. I watched the original last year and I absolutely loved it. Exceptionally creepy (the pool scene, where you can only see what drops in the water) but also strangely heartwarming at the same time. The slow, almost empty scenes created a sort of tension that is missing very often in horror these days.

Is the new version really that great? I don't know if I want to taint my enjoyment of the original, is it better or worse?

 

The remake wasn't bad, but the original was fantastic. I was worried this would be yet another in a slew of Americanised remakes that seem to be sucking the soul out of decent foreign cinema, somewhat, but this was a little more tasteful than most.

Swedish film is growing exponentially (they're only really finding their feet, despite a good few decades of 'real money' filmmaking) and other markets are finally starting to pay attention, so if you're going to buy a DVD of the film get the original - not a lot of that price goes to Sweden, but the more foreign distributors make off of the film the more they'll pay attention to future Swedish releases, and there's some very interesting stuff in the works over there. Having a few decent novellists do well overseas (excluding John A Lindqvist, who wrote this, but including for example Stieg Larson) obviously doesn't hurt and they're starting to look more seriously at 'surer' adaptations. Some interesting work will come from it (and after Arn it can only get better).

The film, though: what the original did better but this managed to capture at least a little of was one of the cleverest things I've seen in any film like this - they didn't make a 'vampire movie' that happened to have kids in it, they made a 'kids movie' that happened to have vampires in it. The darkness and horror played beneath a very simple, very touching story about two child outcasts who make friends. It's this extremely human, sympathetic story which is driven along by the horror subplot, and not the other way around, making those moments of horror (where it's hard to really make people squirm anymore) all the more brutal. It's a little weaker in the remake, but if you haven't seen the first one you'll not notice.

What Let Me In does hold over the original is purely in production - it's a better made film. In a younger legion of filmmakers, the tendency to experiment and even to cut corners is rife, whereas Hollywood has less of an issue with a film that some care is taken in. They essentially have a lot more practice at what they're doing, in all aspects of above-the-line and line budgeting and execution, and I include in that the performances. The remake, therefore, loses some of the awkward moments (due to bad post-/performance/craft) that the original stumbled with and tried to pass off as artistic flair, making it a bit of a smoother ride and - ironically - more stomachable.

So... yes. It's worth a watch, but if you have to choose, go for the original (Let the Right One in / Låt den rätte komma in) over the remake.

 

I haven't seen the original, but I'm planning on it.
Also, like what GL said, the contrast of the romance/friendship plot with the horror plot really enhanced both of the plots. The scene that really jumped out at me was the hospital scene in which Abby kills her caretaker. Its a poignant scene, but it also freaked the hell out of me. I also the like the scene in which Owen chooses to help hide Abby and affirm his loyalty to her. That scene really got to me.

 

Nah it wasn't bad, but compared to the original it doesn't really hold up. A lot like Last House on the Left.

But where that remake was just disappointing for changing it so much, this was kind of disappointing for the exact opposite reason, to me.

Its like Rowling "remaking" Ender's Game. But you read it and its just the old book, word for word, with her name and a new cover. True Americanising it would have probably killed a lot of what made it a good movie, but it just feels lazy.

 

Truth. Considering further, it did feel a lot like they were simply 'repairing' it, technically, rather than 'remaking'. Looking at sloppy cuts and one or two unconvincing performance moments and simply thinking that those bits 'fixed', in English, would sell. It worked better for Let Me In than it did for The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, though, because there they took an average adaptation and adapted it into another average adaptation. Here the source material was stronger.

Despite non-literary source material, a better film example of this process would probably be Funny Games, even though I wasn't a particular fan of the original or the remake. It was the same film, shot for shot, but in a different language. Same director, everything. It depends on how you define Americanisation, I guess, and I tend to look at it as 'making it palatable for Western audiences'. I'm torn as to whether changing a film into something almost unrecognisable but giving it its own excellence (Infernal Affairs/The Departed) is better or worse than simply rehashing it in a different language. I suppose a lot depends on the original - but if it's a truly great film in its original format, the only reason to change it is financial. /rageface

 

Thanks for the response - I think I'll just rewatch the original and keep my loving memories. Also,

WHAT. THE. FUCK. >_>