Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

It’s A Remake! It’s Huge! Matt Reeves Set To LET THE RIGHT ONE IN!

Hey, everyone. “Moriarty” here. Y’know, I liked CLOVERFIELD. I’ve actually given copies of the film as a gift. I think Matt Reeves is a promising filmmaker, and I’m curious to see what sort of genre fare he’s responsible for in the next few years. But I’ll be goddamned if I’m going to put on a smile and pretend like I’m excited about anyone remaking LET THE RIGHT ONE IN. I think it’s a rotten, corrupt idea, and considering Magnet/Magnolia is getting ready to release the original theatrically this month, it’s just obscene to already be struggling to figure out how to jam this beautiful, unique, brilliant little film into the Hollywood meat machine just so we can turn it into yet another pre-packaged meatball. Why? What is Matt Reeves going to bring to this movie that the original didn’t already manage? “Well, with a larger budget, we can show all the things that are just suggested in the original.” Morons. Fools. One of the many virtues of the original is the way it suggests things. There’s a brilliant scene in a swimming pool that could ONLY work the way it is shown in the original. If you were to do the big-budget version of that sequence and show everything, you’d fuck it up. “Well, if we make the kids a little older we can...” Stop. Seriously. If you make them teenagers, then it’s TWILIGHT, and you have to deal with other issues like sexuality and the sort of PETER PAN idea of freezing on the cusp of adulthood. That’s not the film. These kids being pre-puberty is a big part of what makes their relationship so interesting. “Well... okay... how about this? No one’s going to see it with subtitles on it.” Fuck off. CROUCHING TIGER HIDDEN DRAGON. There is always a way to sell a film if you figure it out. I do not believe or accept the idea that audiences just plain won’t see a subtitled film. This movie has been acclaimed around the world, and it’s more than “just” a genre film. It genuinely is one of the best movies in any language on any subject made this year, and this disrespect, this rush to homogenize, this unnecessary push to remake everything... at some point, it’s got to stop. I find myself disgusted by our government, our financial institutions, and by any number of public figures these days, and I hate that I am increasingly seeing our industry as just another hollow, empty, bankrupt example of how dead innovation is, and how devalued a good idea has become. You’re better than this, Matt Reeves. So why don’t you act like it?


Drew McWeeny, Los Angeles

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Sept. 25, 2008, 5:08 p.m. CST

    uhhh

    by The Amazing G

    you know...

  • Sept. 25, 2008, 5:10 p.m. CST

    Neeeeever heard of it.

    by TooWhippy

  • Sept. 25, 2008, 5:10 p.m. CST

    and yeah

    by The Amazing G

    this sounds lame

  • Sept. 25, 2008, 5:12 p.m. CST

    sickkk

    by TheDark0Knight

  • Sept. 25, 2008, 5:14 p.m. CST

    I was being sarcastic btw

    by TheDark0Knight

  • Sept. 25, 2008, 5:16 p.m. CST

    "Fuck off. CROUCHING TIGER HIDDEN DRAGON."

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Ha! Perfect comeback to that inevitable marketing ploy.<P>Man, I can't believe they're already negotiating a remake of this. Has the original film's negative even dried yet?!

  • Sept. 25, 2008, 5:18 p.m. CST

    Nic Cage's OLDBOY says 'Hello!'

    by Nac

    Hopefully this will join it in development hell.

  • Sept. 25, 2008, 5:30 p.m. CST

    Oh, the high hopes for Cloverfield...

    by worldofwarcraft

    I've got nothing to add but my disappointment. Hearing someone on this sites staff coolly claim to like Cloverfield bugs me, considering all the love being showered on it around here before and after it's release, and nobody really articulating clearly that this was not the 'monster movie' it was dressed up as. I know people liked it, I'm not hating on that. But looking back I think it's be hard to argue that was the kind of movie we expected, a 'monster movie'.

  • Sept. 25, 2008, 5:39 p.m. CST

    Matt Reeves "is better than this"?

    by -guyinthebackrow

    Why? Because he made a vomit inducing, piece-of-shit, filled with unlikeable characters?

  • Sept. 25, 2008, 5:41 p.m. CST

    Let the right one in

    by onefalsemove

    I just saw "let the right one in" on saturday night at the Calgary International Film Festival. What an awesome film. Do not support a remake.

  • Sept. 25, 2008, 5:43 p.m. CST

    Huh?

    by Lloytron

    What? Hollywood rapes another foreign classic?<p> And you only complain about this now? It's almost tradition. Crouching Tiger was the exception. <p>Fuck off yourself - Great non English language films didn't start or end with Ang Lee.

  • Sept. 25, 2008, 5:43 p.m. CST

    welcome to my world

    by palewook

    i love [REC]. its brilliant. but of course hollywood had to remake it, can't release anything with subtitles in the usa. <P> the flame & the lemon. again its brilliant. but won't be shown in the usa. it will be remade for the usa.. etc.

  • Sept. 25, 2008, 5:46 p.m. CST

    Dont people read in the states?

    by Lucidmind

    We have subtitles on everything here in Sweden, and we still go to the movies.

  • Sept. 25, 2008, 6 p.m. CST

    Wow

    by Ironmuskrat

    Admittedly, I have only recently got wind of this movie, but has it even made it to general release in theaters yet? <p> So Hollywood has started to remake movies that haven't even made it past the movie festival stage now?

  • Sept. 25, 2008, 6:06 p.m. CST

    Pusher trilogy has subtitles.

    by worldofwarcraft

    And the characters speak like four or five languages, and it's great and not at all the kind of high minded fare some people associate with 'arty foriegn' movies. Also, can anyone explain to me: in 2406 I'm pretty sure Tony Leung is speaking Cantonese, but Yhang is speaking mandarin. Am I right, and if so, aren't those dialects different from each other? How did they understand each other? Or is that a stylistic choice Wong Kar Wai made? Help me out please.

  • Sept. 25, 2008, 6:07 p.m. CST

    Did anyone actually read the Variety piece?

    by r_number6

    Yes, it is being remade in teh States, but Overture Films and Hammer Spitfire Films? That hardly sounds like it's going to be a big hollywood production. It's not like this is being remade by Fox or Warner, people. The article also says nothing about what they have in mind for this version, so all the "bigger budget" and "older cast" stuff is pure speculation at this point. Cloverfield got a big marketing push, but it was a very low-budget film, and it left about as much to the imagination as a giant monster movie could leave. So can we hold off on the torches & pitchforks, at least for now? <p> <p>Is the Hammer Films the article talks about THE Hammer Films? I seem to remember reading something about Hammer being resurrected. If that's the case, and they are wanting to be true to the original Hammer's legacy, this could have potential.

  • Sept. 25, 2008, 6:15 p.m. CST

    If I was Moriarty I would be pissed too!

    by Alkeoholic77

    Especially for not being in Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes movie.

  • Sept. 25, 2008, 6:57 p.m. CST

    Moriarty

    by hamslime

    All those years of giving remakes a pass has led to this. So I will repeat the same thing you and the other writers on this site have said in the past. I'm not totally against the idea...or This could work...or It's not like the original was a clasic or anything...or It's not like they destroyed every copy of the original...or The Thing, The Fly. Not trying to be a dick, but I don't understand why you're suprised. Maybe in the future you'll be a little harsher on the idea of remakes. If not this WILL happen again. Just be glad Platinum Dunes isn't producing it.

  • Sept. 25, 2008, 7:04 p.m. CST

    Cloverturd...please, anyone with a brain?

    by quantize

    it was dumb shit, of course they will fuck this movie as well.

  • Sept. 25, 2008, 7:09 p.m. CST

    Yes it's true.

    by Christopher3

    Us Mericans cain't reed so good.

  • Sept. 25, 2008, 7:29 p.m. CST

    well said Moriarty.

    by Gungan Slayer

    well said

  • Sept. 25, 2008, 7:37 p.m. CST

    M-O-O-N. That spells hypocrite...

    by Tom Cullen

    So let me get this perfectly clear. You being hired to write remakes is perfectly fine and acceptable and in no way is any kind of artistic compromise, just so long as the check clears. Someone else making a remake for which you have no personal financial stake in however is clearly the devil's work. Right, gotcha.

  • Sept. 25, 2008, 7:55 p.m. CST

    Cullen...

    by drew mcweeny

    ... see LET THE RIGHT ONE IN and then get back to me. <P>And when, pray tell, was I hired to remake a movie that hadn't even played in theaters yet? If you see no difference at all between this and remaking a film that came out in 1974, I don't know what to tell you, man. Call me names if it makes you feel better.

  • Sept. 25, 2008, 9:18 p.m. CST

    Don't just see it - read the book.

    by TheNorthlander

    The book is awesome.

  • Sept. 25, 2008, 9:19 p.m. CST

    Point of No

    by Jollymorphic

    My name for the American version of La Femme Nikita.

  • Sept. 25, 2008, 9:48 p.m. CST

    The worst example of this: "Paranormal Activity"

    by reflecto

    They have literally made this awesome sounding indie horror DISAPPEAR OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH. No Torrents, NOTHING until they get it remade by the studios. Their strongarm tactics regarding [REC] and its shitty remake are equally bad. Disgusting.

  • Sept. 25, 2008, 10:47 p.m. CST

    as always...

    by javery56

    well said Moriarty.

  • Sept. 25, 2008, 10:53 p.m. CST

    Matt Reeves: full of himself

    by drturing

    He equated his work in Cloverfield with Kubrick and Cuaron. Fuck off. He should've been comparing himself to an Urban Outfitters catalog designed and the Blair Witch directors.

  • Sept. 26, 2008, 12:39 a.m. CST

    I ignore remakes

    by the beef

    everyone should join me.

  • Sept. 26, 2008, 12:42 a.m. CST

    FUCK everyone involved in this!!

    by MaxTheSilent

    I haven;t seen the movie, but I read the wonderful novel. And everything I've seen and read indicates that the Swedish film-makers did an exemplary job of putting Lindqvist's book on the screen. So while I desperately wait to see the film, I want to put a great big fist up the ass of the hacks that are remaking it.

  • Sept. 26, 2008, 12:44 a.m. CST

    reflecto: You're sepaking my language.

    by MaxTheSilent

    I've been waiting for PARANORMAL ACTIVITY to 'leak' onto the net for a long time, after hearing what an incredible movie it is. But it's Dreamworks that's remaking it, so like they did with RINGU, they'll bury the original with a nominal DVD release in order to not distract from their bigger-budgeted remake.

  • Sept. 26, 2008, 12:51 a.m. CST

    HERE HERE!

    by Bungion Boy

    I loved this movie and I loved it because it was the exact opposite of every vampire movie I've seen come out of hollywood in the last 10 years. Oh well. It was nice while it lasted.

  • Sept. 26, 2008, 1:13 a.m. CST

    Tom Cullen-0 Moriarty-1

    by deanbarry

  • Sept. 26, 2008, 1:52 a.m. CST

    What on earth are you on about?

    by Brody77

    Never even heard of this.

  • Sept. 26, 2008, 2:02 a.m. CST

    Agree with Drew.

    by wowsah156

    Why does Hollyweird think that American audiences are NOT sophisticated enough to indulge and enjoy foreign language films? Patronising bollocks.

  • Sept. 26, 2008, 2:48 a.m. CST

    Is Universal still remaking THE HOST??

    by unionJACKass.webs.com

    There's another fine example.

  • Sept. 26, 2008, 2:54 a.m. CST

    it's not people around the world

    by axemurder

    that wont watch subtitles it's fucking lazy fat american fucks that won't watch subtitles. If there were more geeks in the US then we wouldn't need these pointless remakes

  • Sept. 26, 2008, 3:07 a.m. CST

    I thought the book was OK

    by BenBraddock

    Not the best thing I ever read but decent enough, and I'm glad they filmed it. Why is it taking so long to release the movie here in its homeland anyway? I guess the book's author can go and buy himself a nice summerhouse or two now when the remake cheque clears, so at least somebody's happy

  • Sept. 26, 2008, 3:08 a.m. CST

    You crazy Americans.

    by DerLanghaarige

    Y'know, I'm usually pretty liberal about remakes. I don't think they rape anybody's childhood and it never happened to me that studio executives broke into my house, destroyed my DVD of the original movie and put a gun to my girlfriend's head, just to make me watch their damn remake.<br> But I seriously HATE it when you are doing a remake of a brandnew foreign movie, just because "nobody reads subtitles" or "the idea is so good that Hollywood should earn money with it".<br> I wonder how long it will take till a studio come up with the idea of doing remakes of foreign animated movies. Y'know, something like "Dreamworks' Persepolis in CGI".

  • Sept. 26, 2008, 3:24 a.m. CST

    Thought you meant the Moz song.

    by Dingbatty

  • Sept. 26, 2008, 3:57 a.m. CST

    Mori, did it ever occur to you....

    by V'Shael

    that Matt Reeves ISN'T better than this? And that you were just plain wrong about Cloverfield?

  • Sept. 26, 2008, 4:17 a.m. CST

    I think the remake rights...

    by Boba Fat

    ...were practically sold with or at the same time as the films international distribution rights and that's pretty common with foreign language films as a way of covering what may be a breakout film and any further cash that can be hoovered up. Not trying to justify the creative bankruptcy of rushing to remake something that hasn't even had it's release but I think it's all part of the package in todays film market.

  • Sept. 26, 2008, 4:37 a.m. CST

    INVENTING quotes of Matt Reeves defending his future film...

    by kiddae

    ...so you can have an imaginary argument about it? Oh lordy.

  • Sept. 26, 2008, 7:50 a.m. CST

    Been waiting on this film so long. Dont make me pirate it.

    by WhinyNegativeBitch

    Like you fucking assholes did with REC. No, thats right, make me fucking wait for a shitty, inferior remake. This is what happens when stories become "Awesome IP's."

  • Sept. 26, 2008, 7:55 a.m. CST

    Matt Reeves? Better?

    by WhinyNegativeBitch

    You mean remaking Blair Witch is such a high place to come down from?

  • Sept. 26, 2008, 8:15 a.m. CST

    Doesn't matter if you like Cloverfield or not...

    by DerLanghaarige

    ...you gotta admit that it takes a very talented director to choreograph a whole movie to make it look like a planless homevideo. (And I don't mean the average episode of BSG, which is supposed to look like a "documentary", but just makes you feel like they had no idea how to use a camera.)

  • Sept. 26, 2008, 8:22 a.m. CST

    Yeah it does. Too bad Cloverfield didn't.

    by WhinyNegativeBitch

    I wouldn't entirely put that on Reeves shoulders though, it was a retardedly contrived idea, and he came close at making it work. And to be fair, that was a film that was doomed from the conceptual stage, rather than through Reeves execution. Although I still think he did pretty bad work with much of the film. That said, I actually like The Pallbearer, for what it is.

  • Sept. 26, 2008, 9:13 a.m. CST

    First REC, now this

    by bingo the clown

    If you want to support original movies, see them in the theaters (if available), buy the DVD, and don't see the remake. Encourage your friends to do the same!

  • Sept. 26, 2008, 9:37 a.m. CST

    Yay!

    by Knuckleduster

    Remakes are awesome! Did you guys see that one where Jessica Alba gets an eye transplant and starts seeing ghosts? <p> Neither did I.

  • Sept. 26, 2008, 10:16 a.m. CST

    Let me see...

    by quicksilver80

    Last time I checked Cloverfield had a fresh rating of 77% on rottentomatoes and 73% from the RT community. It's worldwide box office is $170,533,544, very good numbers considering it's budget and yet I see people saying "it was a doomed idea from the start" or "it was a total failure", or the always witty "CloverTURD". Jeez I guess it never gets old to hate...

  • Sept. 26, 2008, 10:17 a.m. CST

    Real Film Peeps Will Always See Both

    by cowboyone

    I don't see the big deal. Obviously the original film makers SOLD the rights, correct? Having said that, [REC] has proved problematic... I'd really like to see the original prior to seeing Quarantine, but it's impossible to find.

  • Sept. 26, 2008, 10:18 a.m. CST

    Bingo, Where Can I See [REC]?

    by cowboyone

    I've heard GREAT things but I can't find a copy.

  • Sept. 26, 2008, 11:06 a.m. CST

    [rec]

    by palewook

    you'll have to buy an import dvd or google [rec] and one of the unofficial formats. <p> studio wants america to see the remake before the original dvd is released here. which is total f'n bullshit. but thats hollywood.

  • Sept. 26, 2008, 12:15 p.m. CST

    Agree 100% but....

    by Darth Macchio

    It's not people, it's profit. My guess is the suits think a movie with subtitles cannot come near to having the potential market that a movie without subtitles would garner. My second guess is that they're right.<p>I would never defend soulless profit-worshipers but I wonder if this isn't simply the cheesy-stinky side of capitalism? The "tyranny of majority" at work? I don't know the numbers of CT/HD but I think even with numbers, the suits would argue forever that people don't want to read when they see a movie. People who see *films* don't mind reading but people who see *movies* do and thus, anything that looks promising is assjammed through the neo-hollywood profit-grinder and repackaged for the largest possible market share. These 'market shares' aren't TB'ers here on AICN and obviously not even true film/movie enthusiasts. They're the "everyman and everywoman", Joe-six-pack, if you will, and they apparently have a very short attention span and with that logic, watching a movie becomes an explicitly passive concept. Meaning no reading allowed; just sit back and receive.<p>I think it is absolutely true that the manic and seemingly obsessive pursuit of profit renders anything creative soulless by definition. Profit is simply a lovely incidental in the creative world. I create something and hopefully you like it and pay me for more. If you don't like it and I change my creativity to suit you, I've abandoned the organic "muse" and have now forced a square peg into a 'creative' round hole.<p>If you have any creativity in you, try and create something you "know" someone else would like and then compare it to the stuff you've created all for yourself or simply without outside motivation. My guess is, unless you are a supernaturally gifted 'creator' that the stuff you do organically is far superior to the stuff you do specifically to please others. Profit, while a necessary aspect, should not be the overriding motivation.<p>It's just too bad that, whether we like it or not, it absolutely is the sole consideration. Hence, remakes, sequels, reality tv...all mostly safe (theoretical) models to profit. Everything else is unknown and thus a risk.<p>All that said (sorry for rant), I must admit as a huge vampire fan I'm looking forward to seeing this...as is and WITH subtitles!

  • Sept. 26, 2008, 12:49 p.m. CST

    Speaking of subtitles

    by the beef

    What happened to silent films? Some pretty awful films would work great if they had no dialogue and played next to a soundtrack. We should bring this back.

  • Sept. 26, 2008, 1:53 p.m. CST

    Two things...

    by Tom Cullen

    One, I didn't call you names, I called you a hypocrite because I believe that there is no difference at all in remaking something that's a year old or 5 years old or 25 years old. You are still taking other peoples creativity and repackaging it for profit. To say that this film over here is perfectly okay to remake, but that one over there isn't, I find a ridiculous argument, especially coming from someone who has been involved in profiteering from the remake boom. It's not a personal slam, I just don't think you can have it both ways. <p>Two, my whole point is that it's not cool to remake this, with that much I agree with you on, so the whole see the movie and get back to me schtick makes no sense. Even before seeing it I don't think it needs to be remade, in fact I think the constant slew of remakes are destroying hollywood in many ways, but that's another rant... <p>I'm not telling you what to write, I just find it somewhat, shall we say...odd, that someone who will gladly take a job writing a remake themselves will slam someone else for doing the same thing. That, to me, seems hypocritical. Sorry if that offends you, again, not trying to spray shit here, just calling it as I see it. I mean hell, it's not like it matters what some guy on a talkback thinks anyway, at the end of the day the machine will still roll on regardless.

  • Sept. 26, 2008, 6:01 p.m. CST

    Summed up : learn to read subtitles you dumbfucks

    by quantize

    it's really no big deal, unless you are mentally challenged

  • Sept. 26, 2008, 6:04 p.m. CST

    quicksilver80, Let you see..

    by quantize

    yeh and Titanic has a rating of 7.2...IMDB ratings only prove sheep are easily entertained..

  • Sept. 26, 2008, 7:48 p.m. CST

    Can't wait to see this.

    by samsquanch

    Missed it at both film festivals this summer. I'd love to see it if it actually is getting a wide theatrical release, if not, I'll buy it somewhere, I guess... <p> Nicely said, Mori. I completely agree. Maybe the Swedes should remake Cloverfield.

  • Sept. 27, 2008, 1:34 a.m. CST

    summed up

    by shran

    Learn to read a fucking book and stop relying on movies to be your source of reading. I can read fine, thanks. I find subtitles to be distracting and it lessens my enjoyment of a movie. But stop labeling an entire nation as fat or lazy just because you have become accustomed to the fact your country doesn't produce any good movies in your native tongue and you rely on the rest of the world for you entertainment. Can we be done with the stupid generalizations now?

  • Sept. 27, 2008, 5:19 a.m. CST

    For the love of God!

    by Bruce Leroy

    Enough with the remakes! What the hell is wrong with the original? That's Right, nothing! I'll bet you their going to cast those "pretty teenagers" from Gossip girl and the OC or something. Gloss that thing over so badly, it'll hurt the original more then ever. I never understood why they remade [REC]. The U.S. version doesn't bring anything new from what i've seen. It's exactly the same movie! Wast of money in my book! By the way, Here in Holland the 2 disc version of [REC] just came out! I'll be picking that one up real soon! Oh, and Manuela Velasco is HOT!

  • Sept. 28, 2008, 8:54 a.m. CST

    I know tons of people that wont' do subtitles

    by Jarek

    And they are all idiots.

  • Sept. 28, 2008, 1:54 p.m. CST

    just another hollow, empty, bankrupt example of how dead innovat

    by kwisatzhaderach

    Spot on Mori.

  • Sept. 28, 2008, 9:43 p.m. CST

    Jarek

    by shran

    I know tons of people who know where an apostrophe goes. They read books and watch movies.

Top Talkbacks