Cool News
Poster art for the LET THE RIGHT ONE IN remake gives a tiny sliver of hope...
Ahoy, squirts! Quint here. There are multiple categories we can select as editors when posting stories to AICN. Action/Adventure, Comedy, Horror, etc. There's also "Bad Idea." For every single LET ME IN story (the remake of the brilliant LET THE RIGHT ONE IN) I've selected Bad Idea... including this story.
Because it is a horrible idea.
Listen, I didn't hate CLOVERFIELD and I wish Matt Reeves the best as a filmmaker, but he's entering some extremely dangerous waters with this movie. He's not remaking a good foreign film, he's remaking a brilliant film, one that is still fresh on the mind of those who love it.
Now, my headline says there's a glimmer of hope to be had with this story and there is. I was certain the remake was going to feature older kids, 16-17-18 year olds, which completely sexualizes what is at its core an innocent coming of age story. Judging by the art that Slashfilm got the scoop on Reeves might at least be aiming in the right direction with the cast. Those aren't teenagers pictured in the snow, thank the movie gods.
Slashfilm has a whole series of these foreign sales posters. Click on the below image to see the rest.
Image removed due to Cease & Desist.
I still think Reeves is in a no-win situation here, but at least this shows he's not trying to TWILIGHT this film. What do you folks think?
-Quint
quint@aintitcool.com
Follow Me On Twitter
src="http://www.statcounter.com/counter/counter.js">![]()
-Quint
quint@aintitcool.com
Follow Me On Twitter
src="http://www.statcounter.com/counter/counter.js">
-
+ Expand All
-
could just work.
-
Matt Reeves? I bet 99.9% of cinema goers don't know who the fuck he is.
-
Second Part prequel. Third Sequel. There are still stories to be told and I'd really like to see more from Eli and Oscar.
-
This can only become the biggest clusterfuck of the genre in years.
Don't touch the original. Just don't. -
I was one of those who watched the foreign version and you totally could not tell the whole dude looks like a lady thing. I didn't know until I went on IMDB and then I was like......ewww. The way the movie was told was so homophobic. I would really like to see it told the right way. The foreign version is just weird.
-
It really makes no difference how good the poster is, This is the movie equivalent of trying to ice skate uphill......Pointless.
First post by the way. Hey Everyone.
-
...but I don't quite agree with the original being an "innocent" CoA story...especially with the brilliant and suggestive ending. But that is a decent poster to a truly TERRIBLE idea.
-
I expect people will complain that the film exploits children or something.
-
I don't agree that it's homophobic at all. And the foreign version is absolutely flawless, but it's fine if you don't think so.
Point is, the story (from the book) isn't about homosexuality, but pedophilia, so WAY more creepy right there. The movie is (luckily) extremely sensitive about this - book? Not so. -
Jul 14, 2009 4:00:13 AM CDT
this is literally an exercise in pleasing people who dont like s
by voteroslin08
so fucking lame. go watch the original, YOU DOUCHE!
-
...and have already pushed back the release date. Seems like Matt is having the same casting problems as Alfredson did. Because these are concept posters, that sliver of hope you were referring to is now officially gone.
-
I just don't get why a filmmaker of any integrity would legitimize this project by signing on. Let the hacks fuck it up and find a project worth your timeto build your career on. But I don't know much about Reeves one way or the other, so maybe he is one of the hacks I'm thinking of.
-
Jul 14, 2009 4:06:53 AM CDT
This is the first time I heard about the title change
by seppukudkurosawa
I suppose it might deflect some of the expectations from the original, but "Let me in" is just weak. And is this a Hammer Horror film??? If I had to think of a studio to deliver a movie like this, the one that gave us all those corny (but fun) '70s movies about such subjects as nymphomaniacal, Devil-worshipping teen girls wouldn't be the first one to come to mind.
-
What do they think the original title is some bad Swedish translation? Its based on a God damned Morrissey song! What a terrible pointless change. And why is there a poster, it doesn't even have it's lead character yet!
-
Seriously what would possibly make yout hink that. Given that this is a film about character and the last film he did, in which a brilliant concept was handed to him on a silver platter, was destroyed by two dimensional cliches rather than real human beings. Part of what makes this film work is how UN-American it is. It takes it's time, has a brilliant lo-fi and raw atmosphere, and never becomes melodrama or gladhands the audience. Just the overstylized sensibility in this poster is totally contradictory to what makes the original film work.
-
It's two in the morning, Im dead tired, and a little drunk. My point remains.
-
I agree nothing is set in stone, but that art at least shows that's the age he's looking for. Whether he ends up there, I can't say, but it's better than what I had in my mind. We'll see how this develops.
-
Jul 14, 2009 4:17:00 AM CDT
"you totally could not tell the whole dude looks like a lady thi
by seppukudkurosawa
-
SPOILER
Eli is a boy. He had his outer plumbing removed. There was a quick flash scene of it in the movie, but it didn't go into detail about it like the book.
SPOILER -
Sorry about that. I forgot this assbackwards posting board software truncates empty line breaks. Shoot me now.
-
I had seen an article about how they changed the subtitles for the release compared to that which was used for the Oscar screener (with side by side screen captures with the text). So what's the best way to go? Just watch and deal with it?
-
I thought that was just part of the vampire transformation and by "I'm not a girl," Eli meant she's not a HUMAN girl.
And the shame of it is, I saw this in the cinema, so I don't have the dodgy subtitle translation to blame either.
Is the book worth checking out? -
...but I'd stop short of saying it's fantastic; perhaps if I see it again in a couple of years time without the critical hyperbole I might enjoy it more. Can't see the point of the remake - look at [Rec] and look at Quarantine...
-
Nothing to add.
-
Hey let's remake something that is already perfect..! Is there really any point..?
-
If they wanted to read, they'd buy a magazine. Because apparently actual books (without pictures) would be just unthinkable.
-
I agree. And I just reread that great interview from the Northlander (I think), and would enjoy a great adaptation of the book. It would be a very different movie.
-
That is all.
-
The book is every bit as brilliant as the movie and more, but seriously not for the sqeamish or faint of heart. There is some seriously disturbing imagery in there, but by all means, go for it.It's long, but completely worth it.
-
Because the original was the best film of last year. The tone, the pacing, the casting... was perfect.
-
Let the right one in was overrated. Sorry but it was. 3 stars out of 5 max, (add another star if you fall for the "just because its a subtitled forign movie it must be so much better than every english language hollywood movie ever made".
Just to let people know who havn't seen the original to lower your expectations. Its not the masterpiece people make out.(the Cat scene was kinda cool in a strange way though!) -
not as great as many here want you to believe. However, Hollywood should stay away from it.
-
The studio released a second Blu-Ray that has the all important "Theatrical Subtitles" on the back of the cover. I don't know if they did the same for standard def DVD, but I am left with the shitty subtitled Blu-Ray that I'm dragging my feet on replacing. Will have to do it at some point. I love the movie too much not to.
-
What new direction is Matt Reeves going to take this in? Will it deal more with the pedophiliac angle that was exorcised from the first movie? Will it deal with Ellie's caretaker becoming a vampire? Will it come up with something completely new like have the vampire attack Oscar's family? Or will it just steal the best moments from the movie and throw together a "My Best Friend is a Vampire" story line?
I can't see a new fresh angle for this and looking at Reeves track record (including Cloverfield) I don't expect to. I do expect that it will be a typical Hollywood remake where they steal all the obvious trappings of the first movie but skip over or delete the subtle things that made the first one great.
I might be wrong, but I just can't help but feel this will be like the American version of The Vanishing (although funny enough the original director did that one and neutered his own film). -
...released last year, and easily one of the best - if no THE best - horror movie.
-
I haven't seen it yet,so I really can't judge. However better than Milk, Burn after reading, Entre les murs, There will be blood? I find that hard to believe.
-
fucking twinkle! I haven't seen the original yet, in fact I sort of forgot about it up until I discovered this post; horrible idea. I will be watching the original this week... Thank you netflix.
-
is a classic.
the american remake wont be. it will be dumbed down. and a pale imitation of the original. -
Hollywood can you sh*t out a version of your own? The stupid people of the USA can't read subtitles.
-
No one in America is going to like, hell, even understand this film if its true to the source. No one in this country understands or appreciates subtlety or love, just robots fighting and vampires that shimmer in the sun. Not only will this not be as good as the original, but it won't even matter because no one here will see it unless the vampires play baseball in the rain.
-
There Will Be Blood was in 2007 - so you got to take that one off the list (and yes, that is a better film than Let the Right One In).
But personally, I liked Let the Right One In more than the other three on your list. -
I've got to get to work on that.
-
How Reeves is going to make this his own.
The original was shot completely on a tripod and a dolly so everything would look smooth and methodical. Reeves is going to go all Cloverfield and shoot this Shakey-Cam style.
Just watch. There will be lots of handheld. -
I find the swedish film really boring and beyond certain scenes not innovative at all.
And by the way, he's no remaking the film, but doing another story based on the same book as the original film, please try to research a little bit (I understand this is a concept beyond the AICN grasp...but well, I had to try).
If someone wants to see an innovative (not much, but sure more than let the right one in) take on the vampires, take a look at the BBC Series BEING HUMAN. -
My god.
Please stop raping good films. Hollywood doesn't have the sensitivity. -
Its fair game if theres another source material in my books. Its another adaptation of the book, not a remake of the film.
-
Yes, there was a book before that awesome movie, but without that awesome movie, Hollywood would have never considered adapting that story for the US audience. So, in my "book", yes, it's a remake.
-
So if someone decides to adapt "The Godfather" again would that be just another adaptation and not a remake?
-
I think he is hoping to make a name for himself on the back of remaking one of the best fucking movies in recent times.As for Quint getting all wet over the ages of the children being the same as the original..WTF did you expect its a remake.Find better industry sources as the ones who told you the ages might have been older were clearly wrong.I swear to the Gods its one thing he is fucking clueless that he has to film a remake rather than try to tackle something original but if he goes all shaky cam on this then he needs ass raping until he pleads to never do so again.
-
Jul 14, 2009 5:59:55 AM CDT
Still haven't seen all of the original
by christian_bale_trashed_my_lights
Does it get any better after the first thirty minutes or was I write to pursuade my comrade-in-arms who works for my local cinema to let me change my ticket.It's all about who you know, folks! If you have friends at your local cinema, the cinematic world is your oyster!
-
We'll give it a go then shall we. Coincidently it’s coming out this week in the theatres near me.
-
Some of the cinematography and mood-setting is solid and there are a couple good seeds of ideas that provide a wrinkle on the vampire mythology, but a very slow-paced movie. If these ideas are actually executed properly, a remake could be far superior and actually keep the viewers' attention for the duration.
-
I don't want to stray into spoiler territory and I know this is wishful thinking at best, but if Reeves is smart he'll stay as faithful as possible to the book whilst still veering away from the original film. There are certain plot threads that were cut short (putting it lightly) in the original. That said, I didn't miss these plot points from the film and I thought it worked beautifully as it did. This is a terrible and shameless idea, through and through.
-
Boo! That line in the poster sounds like a poor imitation of a title of one of Nick Cave's brilliant older albmns. The title of the Album was Let Love in. Brilliant Albumn in my opinion. sooo... Boo to this title! Firstly for watering down/dumbing down the original film title and secondly for sounding to me like they are ripping off Nick Cave. This poster sucks on two levels. It doen't look promising it looks like they are just ripping off watever they think will trick people into the cinema. Boo!! Booooo!!!
-
A little slow for the ADD generation perhaps, bloody brillaint. Moody and though provoking. Screw it, just get Bayhem to direct it and have downtown Stoclholm get nuked! With vamps!
-
i didnt care for it. The pacing was all fubar and i hated the pain charcter and wanted to just shove a box of tissues up his snot drippping nose
-
I know that's a sin for the most part in these halls, but it's true. I saw the movie after reading the book, and there were pacing issues from the get-go and could have used some scenes that were omitted from the original work. That book felt like a masterpiece by the time I read the last page, that the movie was less than satisfying (but really more like "left me wanting more"). My stance as always, the original movie will always be available to go back to, but I wouldn't mind another stab at the adaptation, just in case they do a better job of it. Not a fan of the name changes tho, I thought Oskar (for fuck's sake it's "Oscar"--that's about as American and fucking Sesame Street as you can get) and Eli (and so is fucking "Ellie").
-
Plus, I have to agree with those who feel it was overated. It was a good little flick but nothing amazing.
-
"Let the Right One In" was beautiful and IKEA-sterile in all the right ways, but it definitely glossed over some of the more controversial parts of the novel; will "Let Me In" tell us about Eli's history and backstory? (Oh, and dumbasses, the original novel was called "Let Me In".)
-
Jul 14, 2009 6:55:47 AM CDT
HOLLYWOOD!!! THE ORIGINAL WAS BASED ON A FUCKING BOOK!!!
by charlesthomasmathews1978
You know, those things in libraries you illiterate fucking retards. So how about, instead of remaking every fucking movie made over the last 30 years and every foreign film that comes out WHY DON’T YOU GO READ SOME GOOD FUCKING BOOKS AND MAKE THEM INTO GOOD FUCKING MOVIES YOU MOTHERFUCKING COCKSUCKERS!!!
-
This poster alone is broadening vampire mythology! Hoorah! (Or I guess the chick can fly like in the Swedish version.)
-
I bet this movie will be remade like REC / quarantine, First Rec was the original and quarantine came along and i can't remember a scene that was in anyway different.
To me thats the worst thing they could do, because it just goes to show they are remaking films just because people can't read subtitles.
Well i know thats not the only reason but you know thats what it feels like. I know there is a market for films but really why does it need to be remade when its already of a high quality ?
-
in parts, you have to admit (well, okay, you don't have to, but . . . ) that the pool sequence at the end was directed and edited brilliantly. I can't imagine any other camera / editing choices improving on the reveals of how the bullies were dispatched.
-
As if any of you yanks watch foreign films anyway. Fuck that shit. Just remake them yourself for brain dead masses!
-
seriously, what a cash-in!
-
.....Focus on the Family will do a big feature on the explotation of children in the making of a homo/vamp movie.
Liberal Drive By Media turning America into a Swedish Ikea Fest of Butt fuckery!!!!!! Suck it. -
I hope the remake is good if only for one reason: the return of Hammer films as a theatrical film releasing company.
-
so sayth the studio, so let it be done.
-
That fucking hack Stephanie Meyers should be castigated for that fucking book she "wrote" which continuously plagiarized countless others.
-
Since I haven't seen the original I might actually go to that one.
-
I respect the studio for wanting to make some easy cash with this movie, but I have no interest in it. The original (that came out a year ago...ahem) can't be topped by these guys.
-
It's amazing that so populous a nation is perfectly alike in every respect, especially considering the diversity here, but there you have it. We ALL love Transformers, whereas the smarter, more erudite peoples of the world see it as the trash it really is. I believe that the UK gross for Transformers 2 only amounts to about 45 tickets sold, right? Those tickets must have been vacationing Americans, who, again, are alike in every conceivable way. College professors, lifeguards, my Vietnamese-American neighbors who don't speak that much English, . . . we're all identical. It almost seems impossible. Almost.
-
DO NOT REMAKE THIS MOVIE. DO NOT! It was beautiful, and brilliant, and amazing, and this just pisses me the fuck off. DON'T DO IT YOU FUCKING HOLLYWOOD FUCKS.
-
why not give it a more appropriate name like PEDO PARADISE
-
But this remake is a very bad idea.
-
...to be remaking this movie. And that's all I'm gonna say 'bout that.
-
I don't think I've ever seen that before. Either it is "From the Director of [movie name]" or "From [director name]". I guess if they put "From Matt Reeves" people would say "who?". And if they put "From the Director of Cloverfield" everyone would say "cool, I love J J Abrams".
-
matt reeves might be a nice guy but he is lining himself up to get killed with this remake. The original is just too good and too new.
-
Look, I was intrigued by this title when I saw it and enjoyed it for the most part. But seriously...it's either too long or seems like it's too long because the pacing sucks. Brilliant concept, mediocre execution.
-
No, that would have to be a movie about the Catholic Church and/or Michael Jackson. There's nothing remotely pedo about LTROI, unless, of course, you are turned on by children, in which case I guess you spend lots of time at playgrounds in a trenchcoat drooling on yourself and writhing in ecstacy.
-
The original "Let The Right One In" by the way.
-
It was AWFUL. Laughably bad. The premise was kinda interesting, but they mucked it up to Epic Levels of BAD. It would have been better if there were no main characters, and the whole thing was assembled as if it were edited from various sources -- hand held cameras, security cameras, celphone cameras, and frantic news broadcasts. As it was, the way it was done -- a bunch of trust fund kids on a Manhattan adventure -- I was ripped right out of the movie. I mean there is NO WAY IN FUCKING HELL that ANYONE would follow some dude around with a camera so he can find his girlfriend, no, wait, not his girlfriend, just some chick he fucked once, and, therefore, walk into their certain doom. It quite literally was one of the dumbest movies I've ever seen in my entire life. There are so many things that were fucking retarded about it, they're too much to mention. The army guys who let the kids run off to find the girl, that they wait for them with a helicopter, that the helicopter plummets 1000s of feet to the ground and they survive, and many, many others. A terrible film. TERRIBLE. You'd have to be 10, or retarded, to like it.
-
And beautifully shot, acted, and edited. Its a brilliant, beautiful movie. Now get ready for it to be assfucked by the "visionaries" that brought us CLOVERFAIL.
-
ApolloCandy on top of those who have already argued the point on remake/new version since it was a book you're overlooking an obvious point. It may have been a book first but the concept poster specifically says "based on the award winning original Let The Right One In" which shows they are not going back to the book, they are not making an American adaptation of the book, they are specifically basing this film on the Swedish film version. As for the ages of the kids we know already that they are keeping the young kids of the original version because the kid from The Road has been cast in the Oskar equivalent role.
-
Jul 14, 2009 8:01:54 AM CDT
How about spending $5m on cgi to re-animate & resync the mouths.
by spikey
How about spending $5m on cgi to re-animate and resync the characters mouths of the original to turn it into english. Why take all the risk and needless expense.
-
a damn thing. It's still a bad idea. I'm not praising anything related to this. What's next? Reusing the composer who did the soundtrack for the original. He's keeping the exposed no penis scene in. Just keep talking trash about this. It's deplorable, no matter what! when do we get paranormal activity? Do we get the original or the remake. When? Also Let the right one in is at blockbuster now. No one has excuses for not seeing it.
-
This poster only makes me want to see the original again.
-
http://newsinfilm.com/?p=18041
-
so boring. After that it's mindless entertainment. They didn't even need a script to make it. I mean they might have had one but they sure as hell didn't need one. Cause it practically told itself. Monster invades, find safety, brother dies, your girls in trouble, find her, cell phone dies, get battery, die off one at a time, get attacked by dingle berry parasites, find girlfriend in twin tower layout, find military safe zone accidentally, girl who was attacked by dingle berry parasites is real sick. Military dudes freak out, say shes been infected- they drag her ass behind a curtain and her head explodes or it was shot off. Get to the chopppppppppppppppppaaa, escape plan fucked monster always had it out for you anyways. The end.
-
I've liked Cloverfield quite a lot (Although I registered the name before seeing it) I didn't like it for the story. That was secondary. I didn't like it for the characters. Those were bloody useless. I liked it for the mood - making a monster attack look and feel real. In spite of the ridiculous story I've found a level of immersion I could never find in these kind of movies before. The week after watching it have seen with my mind's eye the Cloverfield Monster tearing up my city during long train trips. For me it made a monster attack seem like something that could actually happen. I've felt actual dread. I adore the film - especially the fact that an outlandish project like this got made. And I don't consider myself retarded or 10. Now that I think about it, this is not a proper talkback response. FUCK YOU, CLOVERFIELD WAS THE SHIT, YOU PUSSY! WATCH IT AGAIN! THIS STUFF WILL MAKE YOU A GOD DAMNED SEXUAL TYRANNOSAURUS, JUST LIKE ME.
-
It's a VASTLY superior film, presenting a believable monster that feels real AND has a great story, great characters, is funny, touching, and exciting. It's hands down the best giant monster movie ever made. All Cloverfield is is 90 minutes of poorly executed gimmick; the fruition of several months of admittedly clever viral marketing. But, when the viral marketing is better than the thing its trying to sell? Fail.
-
why are people too dumb to handle a film with subtitles? It gives people who enjoy calling americans stupid extra ammunition
-
And I've missed out on most of Cloverfield's marketing. I just remember the hilarious "It's a Lion" theories.
-
FUCK EVERYONE INVOLVED, IT WAS PERFECT THE FIRST TIME.
-
this remake being anywhere near as good as the original. The fact the original is a foreign film is part of what makes it so charming. I'm not going to completely dismiss this, but so far it reeks of BAD IDEA.
-
I always have a "wait and see" attitude with remakes, but the original movie was so flawless in every way, that this is an insult. And usually, I'm trumpeting the "the original is still available" argument, but here, this will bury what is a relative unknown (outside movie geeks). It's a huge disservice to a near flawless film, and it sucks.
-
I don't think I've ever been pissed off about a remake or reimagining of a movie before in my life. I usually just don't pay attention to them. But this makes me furious because of how perfect the original film is, and how fucking unnecessary an Americanized version of it is.
-
I agree with Dr Sauch. Spot on.
I'm also annoyed with Hollywoods trend of remaking films into English.
It's so lazy and really does make cinema qutie insular. -
I've seen similar comments bandied around on message boards - at imdb they seem to view it as that also, but I thought you at least might see through that for the brilliant insidious story presented by that film. It's only superficially a 'coming of age' story, it's actually a vicious little slice of the life of a 200 odd year old manipulative bloodsucker dressed up as something 'sweeter'. Look at the actual actions and motivations of the creature, it's running out of time with it's current 'keeper', so identifies and grooms a potential serial killer as his replacement - something the old guy evidently had been himself. The vamp doesn't have friends, only subservients. It's a fantastic, vicious little story that uses the saccharin cover of the creature befriending a lonely kid as a cover. It may indeed be a coming of age story, but innocent is the last thing it is. The creature is an amoral little beast, and the kid is a future Jeffrey Dahmer. Brilliant film. Not looking forward to the remake.
-
I read the book awhile before seeing the movie (thanks NPR). The movie was one of the best I saw that year. The only thing I didn't like about it was that it left out 2 storylines that added a lot to the overall. How Eli became a vampire and when Eli's first protector gets caught and becomes a "monster" hunting Eli. Very exciting. If these chapters are covered this movie might be worth a look, but they won't be. I agree with the person who said it will probably have vampires fighting robots. Hopefully Fox will get it so we can have Vampires fighting Terminators fighting Predators fighting Aliens then they could all band together to fight Galactus. As the next morning dawns we could have a little girl oick a flower and look skyward while holding hands with a trained Werewolf.
-
which makes it a little less insulting.
-
The movie wasn't homophobic. You didn't understand it. But I suppose, you serve as an example of why bad remakes of good films are necessary. Get money from the retards.
-
No Tweens. I won't see it then. All Vampire films should be centered around teenagers, this sounds stupid.
-
go see that instead.
-
for not watching movies with subtitles.
-
WERE MESSED UP! WAAAAA!!! Why can't subtitled movies try, like they did with Nightwatch and then give up like they did with Daywatch. I'm talking about the actual subtitles, not the movie.
-
The material doesn't belong to them so they don't make the money out of it so what do they do?
Feed of the originals underground success and suck the lifeforce from the movie and leave behind a carcass which had nothing of the goodness it originally had.
Hollywood Vampirism.
Someone pass me a fucking Stake. -
"The title refers to the Morrissey song "Let the Right One Slip In"[1] (featured on the Viva Hate special edition album) but also to the aspect of vampire folk lore which says that vampires cannot enter a house unless invited.
The American version is called Let Me In because the publishers requested that Lindqvist change the title as they believed it was too long.[2] A paperback with the original title was later released to promote the film. -
remakes.
-
I called the company and they have redone the DVD only. Not the Blu-Ray. That's according to th studio. They have no idea when they will do the Blu-Ray, which is just crappers. True fans will have a BD player.
-
You got it! Totally! That's what makes the movie so fucking brilliant. There is one shot, where you see, briefly, what she really looks like -- this hideous, ancient beast, trembling with rage, power, and dread -- but its only quick; quick enough to leave an impression on me that its stayed with me all these months since I've seen it.
I expect this Walmart fuckin' bullshit remake vomit WILL, however, push the "coming of age" nonsense. What else does Hollywood have? Clearly they've run out of ideas like, what, 40, 50 years ago? Its times like these that I hate being an American. -
The original is amazing. Slow but worth it, IMO. I can't believe it is being remade as it JUST CAME OUT like a year ago. If a movie has subtitles or dubbing then it does not need an English remake. I'm not even saying this "remake" will be bad, I'm just saying stop it. It's insanity. And again, as much as I wanna yell at the production company or the director, it's the audience, especially American, that I'm mad at. You keep seeing trash and these remakes and you keep boggling my mind. Everyone always has the defense that "Well, it's an escape, it's brainless entertainment", well, the brainless have got to be entertained enough by now.
-
It was good but not so amazing like everyone says... I dunno, it just didn't feel like it had much appeal to be hailed as an instant classic.... and why in the hell did we need to see that little girl's vampgina?!?!
-
this is so goddamn dumb.the orignal is good-and in less than a year-they are remaking it?!
-
If its not handled properly, say like The Fog or Insomnia. But when its done correctly like The Thing and The Dark Knight, it needs to be noted.
-
They haven't cast anything yet, so this poster is kinda speculative in a lot of ways.
-
Thank you for articulating that for me - saved me some typing. I can't understand how people could see the film any other way. It's like some people just project their own expectations/limitations onto movies sometimes instead of watching and (most importantly) thinking about them.
-
They tried to push SOOO hard on Cloverfield that it was a Matt Reeves joint. What the fuck is up with that? Did he get that in his contract?
-
Jul 14, 2009 10:01:54 AM CDT
Yeah, this is a bad idea, but it's proceeding ahead...
by orbots commander
...so my bitching accomplishes nothing.
*** MAJOR SPOILER BELOW ***
Reeves' best case scenario is if he does a shot for shot remake. I read the book, and the original film took the right road to focus on the two kids.
What was excised from the book was a pedophilia/zombie angle, along with a Law and Order-ish police procedural. And I don't know how you recapture the lightning in the bottle lead performance of the girl who played Eli.
I guess Dakota Fanning is inevitable for this, yeah? Oh, and I'm assuming the fact that...
**** SPOILER ********
...Eli is really a neutered vampire boy is also gone in the U.S. version. -
Just because the poster. The Poster!! has age appropiate actors gives Quint hope for the movie?!!
What kind of logic is that? So let's say a remake of Blade Runner is announced and a teaser poster shows a male who looks to be around Harrison Ford's age during Blade Runner we should be hopeful that the movie would be good? Just stupid. -
why? i mean, seriously. WHY? what's so FUCKING DIFFICULT about reading subtitles? you mean to tell me that the inane cunts here (U.S.) will take the time to read through the entire puerile Twilight saga, yet will not/cannot sit 90min to experience a true work of art? this is getting goddamned ridiculous. the original is FUCKING PERFECT!
-
and to have is name and his cloverfield credit on the poster is just gay. That will drive away more than it will pull in.
-
Jul 14, 2009 10:09:19 AM CDT
So not ONE person has mentioned that this is a HAMMER film???
by hairyandtattooed
So then technically, it's not an "American" remake, right????
-
...that really comes to mind, right now is the western remake of Seven Samurai, The Magnificent Seven. That had the benefit though of Yul Brenner and Steve Mcqueen as gunslingers and Eli Wallach as a villain, so just that is awesome.
-
That has the ORIGINAL film version pic on the cover. I want to make sure I get the full story (I understand the novel fleshes out Eli's backstory -- I get the feeling that the idea that she is a vicious manipulator comes through even more in the novel), with the ORIGINAL films artwork before the publish the Walmart edition with CLOVERFAIL's excrement all over it.
-
Were you at that meeting? 'Cause I believe that your tragically hilarious transcript is EXACTLY how it went down.
-
The story isn't only a coming of age story; that's the surface, and the one this new version is apparently taking.
The original film also shows us the darker, tragic story underneath the surface: that Eli is wooing a replacement 'blood-getter' in Oskar, who is a disturbed serial killer in the making. -
As Yackbacker stated, the kid from THE ROAD appears to be in the running for the lead in this one.Keeping the lead characters young is certainly a plus. However, I'm totally against the remake of this film as well. It just seems like a ploy to cash in on the buzz generated by the original by making it more palatable to the mainstream (i.e. no subtitles). And handing it to someone like Reeves just makes it sound like a practice film; something he can pad his resume with before trying to take on an original idea.
-
Dark Knight is a remake? Of Burton's Batman just because it features The Joker?I've noted before that I think The Ring is much better than Ringu, so American remakes of foriegn films can work. The thing that Reeves has to get just right is the tone. And I don't know if you can replicate the Danish winter look in where, Colorado? Just don't touch Time Crimes, which I enjoyed more than Right One.
-
I have to be honest, the first poster looks pretty nice, but i can't see this movie topping the original.
The renaming is a but stupid considering the title is a reference to the song, which the revision completely obliterates.
Abby.. lol. -
not having a spotter in the thai hotel room whilst hanging in the closet with your balls tied
-
Is The Dark Knight not a remake of Die Hard 3: Die Hard with A Vengeance? I never saw Ringu, I didn't really like the Ring something about Brian Cox just gives me nightmares.
-
Any links or investigate in the least, but on first impression, that poster looks fake. Assuming it is real, someone's half-assing their job.
-
but yes, she's a boy in the book.
-
here's holding out for hope. anything has to be better than twilight right? right???
-
The man is gone. No fucking respect for another human being. The internet breeds assholes.
-
until I see the trailer.
-
Geezus what is wrong with the American movie industry? This brilliant new version has already been dumbed down for ignorant teenage vamp-sluts and is called "Let Me In". And it's from the oh-so-talented director of "Cloverfield".
Yeah.
I want to eat the brains of these morons in Hollyweird, because they'd have zero nutritional value and would be like eating the worst, yet most delicious, junk food. -
Yes, I've finally caught up with a copy of Let The Right One In, and I haven't been able to stop thinking about it since. I definately saw Eli's grooming of Oskar as her next caretaker. I'm a little disheartened regarding a remake/reimaging/whatever, as I agree, it will be hard to capture that emotional connection again.
And as for the subtitles, I had no problem keeping up with the story. I was able to read the text long before the actors stopped talking, so I never missed a beat of what was happening on screen.
My favorite part, when Oskar forces Eli to enter without invitation. -
Why? - It is such a great film
-
Well that explains everything...NOT!
-
Boy Series, you're stretching a plot point, but I get your drift.
-
Jul 14, 2009 11:03:38 AM CDT
i didn't read Eli as a manipulator at all *SPOILER*
by jackknifed_juggernaut
in regards to Oskar. remember, in the novel, Eli actually offers to make Oskar a vampire as well. don't really see how he'd make an efficient meal-ticket seeing as how they'd then keep the same hours, have the same limitations, etc. instead, i believe that Eli really did fall in love with Oskar, and truly viewed him as a companion. of course, that's just me. oh, and fuck this remake.
-
It’s a good film to be sure and I liked it but it hardly treads any new ground and is incredibly predictable throughout. I think I would have enjoyed it more had I not read six months of hype calling it the best vampire film ever made, which is simply hyperbole. Frankly, I’ve grown tired of the whole child-monster thematic in horror films and while this does it better than most, I didn’t find the film either scary or particularly fresh. I know that probably makes me sound like an elitist jack-off but I really love the horror genre and Let the Right One in is hardly the masterpiece some have claimed, though there are certainly a few scenes that elevate them film beyond the typical vampire template.
-
Not at all. The creature is a vicious little survivalist, using successive would-be killers to do its dirty work for it. Oskar is just the latest. You see the real Eli and it's motivations a couple of times, where the older 'keeper' screws up at the start of the film and it doesn't get it's feeding, and later in the movie as well. Everything it does is out of self interest, not affection and that is the brilliance of the movie.
-
James Gandolfini needs the work.
-
Listen, since we all have such huge intellectual dicks, we can enjoy foreign films; but to many people, it's just plain inaccessible. Getting a director who won't hollywood the fuck out of this, and making a version that a broader American audience can enjoy is a GREAT idea.
-
...which is what makes the movie so good; it works on more than one level. On the surface, it's a creepy/sweet coming of age story. On another level it's a story about an old vampire in a child's body, who is recruiting a new 'keeper'/bloodgetter in Oskar. The final shot ending is both a happy ending and tragic at the same time. The kids are together, but the implication is that Oskar is a future serial killer who will collect blood for Eli.
-
.... the people who "don't go to movies to read", laugh at English dubs and are possibly xenophobes.
-
SPOILER is if she had no genitalia, how is she really able to keep a guy around long enough? I could see if she promised sex, but no promise of sex...would you stay?
-
Thank you for the pedantic clarification. That doesn't change the fact that the American title of the novel is "Let Me In", which is a perfectly fine title for the movie itself.
-
I am a stupid American apparently because according to the talkbackers, all Americans love shiny robots and explosions. Somehow in spite of my American handicap, I rented Let The Right One in.
I thought the movie was very well done. However it is not the masterpiece that it was hyped up to be. Now I am realistic to understand when someone dedicates a few million dollars to make a movie, they are doing it to make a profit. Art films, such as Let The Right One In, are generally low budget films that hope to make a profit, but are more concerned about the art contained on the film.
I don't see how a film based on the book could be a popular hit due to the very dark subject matter. For that matter was it that huge of a financial success in Europe? In order for the film to be financially successful, it will have to neuter much of the dark element. Which in effect will make it into a totally different film. -
people didn't realise Eli was a boy. Were you in a diabetic coma when Oskar peeked through the door?
-
Jul 14, 2009 11:37:03 AM CDT
Yes, the movie is brilliant and a quiet near-masterpiece.
by mr. nice gaius
Those who disagree are certainly entitled to their opinions. However, they read like bitter whiners who either spoiled the film by reading all the "hype" beforehand or didn't find it jump-out-of-your-chair scary enough. Their loss, I guess.
-
that detail was left out of the film, but i still think Eli's relationship with Oskar is the same, nonetheless. why did she (and for simplicity's sake, i'm referring to Eli as a girl) put herself at Oskar's mercy by coming into his apartment uninvited? you don't think love was present? or why did she warn Oskar to leave when she first turned in his presence, for fear that she'd kill him? or offer to eat candy, knowing it would make her sick? or take a damn bath for that matter? she wanted to appeal to Oskar. now, i grant you that these actions can just as easily be used to support your viewpoint as well, which is why i don't think that you (and those who share your view) are necessarily wrong. i'm not saying i'm right... just saying this is how *i* view the Eli/Oskar dynamic, so to speak. did i mention fuck this remake?
-
Jul 14, 2009 11:46:32 AM CDT
I have mad respect for Carradine and the way he went out...
by david_carradines_death_spunk
He didn't drug od, he didn't commit suicide, he wasn't brutally murdered- he went out in a very amusing way doing what he loved to do. I hope if I make it to 73 I've still got it in me to knock one out. and if I am found hanging in a Thai hotel closet wearing a wig, womens stockings and my balls tied up, I would be the first one to laugh at how silly a way to go that is. if someone had told Carradine that he would go out that way, he would have thought it was funny as well, so go fuck yourself you self rightous prick...
-
...is the cat-lady-throwing scene. What should have been a frightening, jump in your seat moment was actually pretty frickin' hilarious and out of place in an otherwise fantastic movie. Get rid of the Simpsons throwing cat scene.
-
WTF?!
-
Go watch the movie again. Everything in the movie is about self-preservation on Eli's part, and only on a couple of occasions does the mask slip, showing it's true nature. That you think I'm wrong only shows how wrong you are, which is rather amusing.
-
"there is absolutely no indication that she is a cruel manipulator..."Kinda defines manipulation to me. It can't be open and on the table or it isn't manipulation. I think Eli even manages to manipulate the audience.I ended up thinking that Oskar is in for a horrid life after being charmed by this creature. Basically, she's making another Renfield for herself. In a way, it almost seems like Eli is the pedophile (she's way older) and is grooming the bullied, lonely kid to serve her.
-
Jul 14, 2009 11:54:42 AM CDT
i think this will be unofficailly a MAC and ME remake too
by six demon bag
think of the tie in toys!!!
-
I see where you are coming from and I understand why some people view it as you do. But look at it from this perspective for a moment, and think about what is presented in the film. The creature intimates it is very old (from the book, we know it to be over 200 years old). It has lived therefore for much longer than a normal human being, learning how to stay hidden and to insulate itself from it's needs - it has adopted the method of not exposing itself by using human killers. It indentures these people by doing exactly what you have described, by culturing in them an emotional bond to it. It identifies these would be serial killers whenever it knows it's previous servant is close to coming to the end of it's usefullness, and insinuates itself into their emotionally disturbed state by making them think it's their friend/love interest/whatever. Everything it does in the film can be viewed very simply as a creature that preys on humans in many ways, for food, for protection, and for service. The bits where the mask slips shows it's true nature and how devious it is - it's shown to be a capable hunter in the film, but obviously recognises that going around killing itself will eventually get it caught. So it adds in a layer of redundancy and protection at the same time. It wasn't desperation that drove the mask to slip with the old guy, as the creature can obviously take care of itself - as it proves - but it needs insurance, and in that vein, pardon the pun, is exactly why it 'befriends' Oscar after it sees him practicing serial killer roleplay 101. It's current keeper is fucking up/getting older/about to die whatever, and it needs the newer improved Bundy to take over. Everything it does is grooming and creating that connection. Everything it does is calculated and predatory.
-
Morons who can't read subtitles or stand to watch a 'foreign' movie don't deserve this story.
-
Jul 14, 2009 12:06:53 PM CDT
all I know is its weird to see that "Hammer Presents" up there.
by subtlety
-
Agreed. That's the impression I walked away with too. Well said.
-
With all the time, energy and passion that this community puts into these forum posts, I think its time we unite and bring our strengths together. There has to be a way that we can create some sort of united voice that can reach through to the directors, producers, writers so that we can adequately voice our disdain for the continuous remakes of films that should never be retouched. If it were 40 years ago we could sgtage a sit in. What would the electronic equivalent of that be for today's age?
-
Still hate the idea. I won't bullshit and say I won't see it, but I won't be expecting better than the original. "Based on the Award Winning Original"...sigh. Matt who? By the way, since MTV doesn't show videos anymore, where is Hollywood getting all its new breed of jump-cut experts?
-
Is that he'll set it in a snow, midwestern town and just do it as a shot for shot remake of the original. Much the way Badham made "Point of No Return" from La Femme Nikita. Not a great film, mind you, but watchable. As long as they don't up the character's age, it could be really good.
This being an American remake, they'll be a temptation to play up the story line with the serial killer and have him be more of a villain. Same with the woman who contracts vampirism. The way those stories were handled in the original had such a deft human touch. Hopefully, Matt Reeves won't let that go. He certainly showed himself as a filmmaker to watch with Cloverfield. We'll just have to wait and see whether he can do justice to the material. I'm used to bad remakes. It won't hamper my love of the original, which may be the best vampire film I've ever seen. -
Seems appropriate that the remake for people too retarded to handle subtitles uses the alternate book title for people too retarded to handle "long" (meaning more than 3 words, apparently) book titles.And the name "Matt Reeves" on the poster is supposed to get people to see this? Ha ha ha ha....ah
-
And yes, TalkBack warriors whose fingers are probably already poised above the keyboard, ready to let loose an orgiastic flow of condescension and hate, I've already read the posts that indicate 1) "Let Me In" was the title of the original novel and 2) "Let The Right One In" is the name of a Morrissey song. This is just in response to the people who seem to be getting upset about the makeover. I don't know why Reeves or whoever saw the need to change the title in the first place, but I also don't see what the big deal is. As far as title changes go, you could do a lot worse. It's still relatively close to the original and encapsulates two different themes of the story, so fuck, I don't know. It's kind of like how everybody here was up in arms about the principle of renaming 'Danny the Dog,' even though 'Unleashed' is a much better title. Or, on a larger scale, how certain people seem to freak out at the very idea of a "geek film" being remade even though some of their favorite movies are either remakes or b-flicks from incestuous genres. Hollywood has always been creatively bankrupt (generally speaking), especially when it comes to horror flicks (and especially when it comes to *foreign* horror flicks); it's not like this is a sudden and alarming development. Yet they've managed to turn out some good material by accident. So why don't we see how this develops before we crucify Matt Reeves? Or not. Just a suggestion.
-
please?!?! and whats with all the names on the poster?!?! self centered douchebag
-
He's doing a porject with name recognition and a hot topic. People eat up remakes. People eat up anything about vampires. Americans hate subtitles. This is a great step for his career even if he makes the shittiest film possible because it will make money and keep him working.
-
Anyone else notice how the ending Pool scene didnt make any sense? A. A leg comes swinging between the guy holding the kind under water and the kid..meaning the leg would go THRU his arm? B. The hand holding him underwater is facing the wrong way. C. Why would he continue to hold him underwater while all his other friend are getting tossed around the pool, his arm comes off last...meaning he was killed last...
I loved the movie but that last scene made no sense. -
When its older keeper fucks up the feeding at the start, Listen to the voice. It's not just pissed off or desperate, it's meant to be demonic and angry - it is sure as shit able to feed itself, as it subsequently shows, and it's pique and rage showing, not desperation, that he's fucked up. Later in the movie when it's pissed off, there is a brief cutshot where it's face changes from the little girl to a hideous, ancient vampiric creature. Oskars fate is laid bare right from the very beginning - he is indeed to be the next 'Renfield', and that is the entire thrust of the movie. The 'surface' relationship of 'Awww, how cute, they're becoming friends' is purely that - a surface. It's the demonic legs kicking beneath the surface that actually propel the film. The creature is the demonic equivalent of a pedophile grooming it's conquest, it isn't a friendless little girl in a horrible situation looking for acceptance from a lonely boy it's own 'age', it is a 200 year old demon trying to stay hidden while it survives by using fucked up people to protect it. That's the movie, and I see where you are coming from, but cannot understand anyone missing the broader point. The final scene of Oskar on the train, running away from his family with the creature in the box, happily tapping away to it and blissfully unaware of the creatures actual intentions for ruining his life, is a more horrifying scene than anything I've seen in any horror film in my life. Utter brilliance.
-
I type horribly...hope you get what I meant...
-
"Let The Right One In" plays into the whole plot of the film, and "Let Me In" just doesn't sound like it captures that. Ultimately, this just feels like Quarantine to me: An empty exercise in remaking a great foreign film for Americans who hate to read (as has been mentioned quite a bit already). If Reeves stays faithful to the material, it may be good for bringing the story to a wider audience, but really... the original just should've gotten a wider release.
-
I'd have to see it again but the scene occurs in slow-motion. So, the kid who gets killed last (the arm) was probably watching the others get killed while in shock.I don't remember the details about the leg though.
-
(SPOILERS) Yeah the shock part...I'll buy...but his hand is still facing the wrong way...and the 1st leg goes between the boy and the way...meaning it had to go thru the arm holding him there.
Oh well they'll prolly fix this in the remak. -
wall! dammit!
-
pretty sure it's normal speed.
-
If something like this canmake you hate being an American then please by all means leave, we don't need or want you here. How you make such and absurd statement because of english remakes, they're just movies.
To all those so upset by them remaking this and other foriegn films how about this novel idea, don't watch the remake. I know that is a mind blowing idea. -
Yeeeeaaaaah, okay, except for that fact that she manages to corral this kid to roam around with her, hunting for her, ruining his life (he's basically a runaway now, and this, we assume, is exactly what happened with the other guy whose life she also ruined) until she has to ditch him for a new slave; all so that she can continue to survive by feasting on the blood of mortals. Yep. No monstrous manipulation there. RedHorse, seriously,did you watch the movie? Are you sure? You did understand that the whole time she's looking to find a new slave, right? That the older guy is starting to be less and less useful and she needs to replace him? If you're gonna lamely attempt to speak with authority, do have the good sense to actually understand the films you watch before you sound off. Thanks!
-
Oh! I'm so sorry to offend you! Please feel free to fuck yourself in the ass forever in hell. I'm sure that will make you feel better. AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!
-
But my point is that everybody's an enabler; we're all (especially certain editors on this site) very inconsistent about what we choose to act outraged about. Did anybody on here right a furious missive about how Sony remade the Japanese film 'Shall We Dance?' into a vehicle for Jennifer Lopez and Richard Gere, and oh my god they'll never get the tone of urban isolation right, and the celebrity machinery of Hollywood will iron out all of the interesting facets of the main characters in the original (which, by the way, it fucking did)? No. So why do we act all shocked all of a sudden when the system that we grew up with and that has been doing this shit all our lives finds an excuse to regurgitate another vampire film? Because it's too "special"? Instead of doing as little work as possible to make a successful film, they should only try to remake things that already failed the first time around in a possible futile attempt to make them better? Fuck that; as much as I would love it if studio execs had that attitude, that's not how it works. And it never fails to amaze me how a site where movies like 'The Thing' and 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' are probably universally beloved by the people who run it seems to react so violently (if sporadically) to the very principle of remakes.
-
You just blew my mind. I never got past the aww cute part. Good take on the story! I feel stupid.
-
Jul 14, 2009 1:21:40 PM CDT
StrokerX - that's the brilliance of the movie, I guess
by hint_of_smegma
It uses subtle cues to underline the story as to what is actually going on, as opposed to screaming it from the rooftops. I guess that's why there is even discussion at all about these points, but make no mistake, that is what the film is about. The creature is every bit a vampire, feeding off of everyone - including Oskar. It just doesn't bite him to do it, he has a longer, life-long drawn out fate ahead of him.
-
Keep your filthy hands off this movie, you goddamn motherfuckers.
Trying to remake it is heresy. Especially you, the "Cloverfield" guy. You just DON'T have what it takes to one-up the original. Maybe Kubrick could have improved a little bit. I can name no other director. -
It's not exactly a bad sign for a movie when you have this much analysis and discussion of the characters and the plot.
-
and all who surround it, is that it isn't being remade because the studio thinks they can do a better version - it's being remade because they think Americans are so dumb they won't watch a movie that forces them to read, they need a re-packed version with all the vague subtleties turned into exposition punches to the face. The title alone is the biggest tipoff to this. 'Let the Right One In' is too confusing apparently? 'Let me in' spells it out so much clearer. But let's not stop there, why don't we rename it 'Boy Accidentally Befriends Vampire' so all your dumb as fucking rocks moviegoers won't be scratching their heads in the lobby trying to figure out 'whut the durn tootin dis picture show's all about'.
-
...why couldn't, say, Jonathan Demme helm it? Would have been preferable to the Cloverfield/Matt Reeves/Generic Director Guy.
-
makes me laugh. I guess they are too used and too brainwashed to the Michael Bay's style pacing.
-
A good poster is in no way good news for the remake. It takes more then just that.
-
Matt Reeves is for JJ Abrams as much an ass-slave for JJ Abrams as Bob The Orci is. Matt Reeves gets to make the movies that JJ Abrams can't be bothered to make, but which is still too interested to pick the glories and kudos when they make cash at the box office.In many ways, Matt Reeves is for JJ Abrams what Robert Zemeckis once was for Steven Spielberg. Only, Spielberg was never as mean spirited in steing the credits from Zemeckis as JJ Abrams is at Matt Reeves's expense.
-
You know why Jonathan Demme is not remaking Let The right One In? Because he's not stupid.
-
Might i remind you that the internet is not limited to one single country, but to the whole world? And if you have a problem with foreigners and their ideas and opinions, go suck a lemon. And gyuess what, some americans do agree with some foreigners. And the american flag didn't caught fire because of that. Grow up and open your mind.
-
That movie sucked. And why put his NAME on the poster if you've already stated "the director of Cloverfield?"
What a load of self-serving crap. -
insisting from the corner of their edgy, oh-so-dark psyches that Let the Right One In was about a predatory vampire seeking a new provider of prey. At best, you can say that the film's artful ambiguity left space for this interpretation. But if you did a little searching--this took me two minutes on Google, people---you'd find that in the eyes of both the director and the novel (and screenplay's) author, the film's ending is a happy one. I'll provide two links for you, so you won't just think I'm another twit 'talk-backing' out my ass.
Here's an interview with director Tomas Alfredson, in which he describes the film version of LTROI as 'a romantic story with a hopeful and happy ending':
http://picturehouseblog.co.uk/recommends/let-the-right-one-in/
...and here's a review of the film which reproduces a statement by author and screenwriter John Lindqvist, in which he describes his novel and the screenplay as a story about 'a lonely boy lifted from the darkness' by love:
http://cinefantastiqueonline.com/2008/12/21/supernal-dreams-is-%E2%80%9Clet-the-right-one-in%E2%80%9D-the-year%E2%80%99s-best-vampire-film/
...oh yes. Have fun making the film out to be the sort of dark, cynical mindfuck you all wish it was, now. -
If more effort was put into the actual subtitles maybe people would be more willing to deal with them. Like in the movie Nightwatch they made the subtitles cool and fun. Also is it really that hard to voice overs? Just look at the stuff Pixar has done with Studio Ghibli films.
-
looks like one of those stupid black and white Hallmark cards with little kids in oversized shoes carrying umbrellas. . .
-
Uh, hey, I'm sure this'll blow your mind but *the movie works on more than one level.*
In the DVD extras director Tomas Alfredson has said that the ending of the film is both happy and tragic, as we can envision a future for Oskar akin to that of Eli's former 'guardian'
So put THAT in your pipe and smoke it. -
Jul 14, 2009 2:26:59 PM CDT
American child actors will be crappy, precocious and mannered
by sepulchrave
As usual.
-
Have you seen the subtitles for Nightwatch? The theatrical subtitles.
-
Whats worse, crappy voice over or crappy remake?
-
Very good, young grasshoppa...I, too, have heard the interview. But the link I posted makes clear how *Alfredson* sees the film...or did you not READ the article?
Establishing that authorial/artistic intent leaves room for an audience's interpretation is one thing..and yes, there is space left for that. What I was responding to was the tone of the myriad of posters who see no way to read Eli's love for Oskar as genuine, completely missing what both Lindqvist and Alfredson saw in the story.
And for subtitles_off:
If YOU were a self-serving supernatural monster, would YOU enter someone's home without permission, knowing full well you might easily die?
Would YOU pick as your next provider/guardian a twelve year old kid who might fantasize about violence when he's stabbing a tree, but is too chickenshit to actually DEFEND YOU when he's HOLDING A KNIFE and someone is about to KILL YOU? Oskar clearly loves Eli, but he is a poor candidate for a guardian, people, please.
Finally, after you'd made your clear getaway from a murder scene, would you return, endangering your life once again, just to protect a boy who'd already proven he couldn't protect you?
This is the heart of love, not some creature from the pit. -
As has already been mentioned, the director see's both interpretations in the film. So I'm sorry that my perfectly reasonable take on the film, as supported by it's director, is so upsetting to you....however here's the thing. While I've already stated I understand where people are coming from when they view the movie as a 'friendship', it's when you look at the other cues in the film, and the actual idea itself, it really only lends itself to a darker, more malevolent interpretation. We see Oskars fate in the old man at the start of the movie. The creature feeds on humans and is over 200 years old, but you think it's actions are that of someone wanting to hang around with a 12 year old boy? Sorry, just can't hang with that idea. It's a predator, in more ways than one, and the happy slappy day-glo human-nicevampire relationship you see is just the facade, the mask. The reality is the old man and his fate, which is Oskars fate the minute the vampire says hello.
-
Jul 14, 2009 2:46:10 PM CDT
And if I may interject in your conversation with Orbots
by hint_of_smegma
..all those actions you just mentioned are 'grooming'. Of course at 12 years old he is a poor defender...it is more than capable of defending itself, it just wants to avoid direct exposure of it's actions. In helping Oskar, it cements his emotional debt and protects it's investment - there aren't too many potential serial killers out there, after all - must be a bugger to find one. Everything it does builds up Oskars devotion to it, something that will pay off for it as he grows into his prime. He's damaged goods already, a potential killer and it's obvious from the old man's scenes that is what he is going to become. Or do you think they're going off for a happy train ride to the seaside for a picnic? Nope, they're heading off into a bleak future where he'll be manipulated more and more until he ends up doing it's killing for it, to eventually be discarded for another when he gets too old, or fucks up too much.
-
"LET THE RIGHT ONE IN?! Aw man, that's too many fucking words! I feel like I just read a fucking novel!
"And I don't even fucking read! I just option things like foreign movies, old 80s shows and children's games and turn 'em into movies! CGI MAKES THE MAGIC HAPPEN!!!
"Gawd...why does it have to be so hard to make $12 million a year?!" -
Yes Hint of Smegma she was a manipulator, but not as big as one as you say she is. I believe she actually did have feelings for Oskar as demonstrated in at least two scenes:
When she runs away after he cuts his hand to make a blood bond. Here is a vampire who is dying of thirst and has a easy target/victim right there in front of her, yet she resists killing him. Why? Because she actually had feelings for Oskar.
2) When Oskar doesn't invite her into his apartment. She is willing to undergo such incredibly pain and damage at such a great risk? Maybe Oskar will get so freaked out he won't invite her in upon seeing that, but she still enters. Why? Because she is willing to face pain to she show Oskar what his rejections do to her.
As for her grooming Oskar to be new caretaker/killer, he would actually be a liability for at least the next couple of years. Her original servant was at least an older man, giving them a cover when they lived together and someone to interact in the real world. Two kids living together and not going to school is going to raise suspicions. And Ellie has demonstrated the ability to kill, Oskar has not. No, she wants him for the companionship, not as just a servant. She expresses and implies in several scenes how she feels a similarity between Oskar and herself when she was a young boy (how odd of sentence is that), It is sympathy she has for Oskar. -
The key point is, Alfredson sees both interpretations as *possible* in the film, but if you will read the language of the interview I posted, you'll see that, possibility or not, Alfredson views the film as having a positive ending. And yes, I've heard the commentary. But Alfredson's quote about the film's hopeful and happy ending can be found many more places than that commentary track, including the film's original presskit. Lindqvist is much more definitive about the way *he* sees the story; to him, the ending isn't dark at all.
-
..that people saw their own interpretations of the film.(smegma and co)
That's what's missing from a a lot of movies - subtlety. Nothing worse than when a character summarises the plot points.. -
Hint_of_Smegma on this one. The creature was 200 years old and some of you seem to be interpreting it’s actions as if it was a actually a 12 year old boy/girl
-
...I did see the 'friendship story'. When I rewatched it, I picked up some of the other stuff including: the non-vagina reveal hinting that Eli is a boy, the flash cuts of older Eli's true face, and the way she disposed of the older guy, Hakan, when she dropped him from the window.
-
The creature doing those things is pure grooming. It's establishing 'secrets' and 'need' between them, at least in Oskars mind. By leaving him, then coming back to his rescue it establishes his need for it. Nothing it does is for anything other than grooming him....and the film is frankly more heavy on showing this than any other interpretation. It's a vampire for God's sake, not a little girl/boy. A predator, and it's actions are all in support of manipulating the boy into becoming it's keeper/supplier over the long term.
-
1. The change in the title
The original title is both a warning and a rule of thumb for the vampire. This change loses that.
2. Because that is lost, I believe the remake will lose the subtler, more frightening aspects that older viewers got, but the teens and young adults missed.
It was clear to me the vampire was several hundred years old, yet most teens and young adults (that I talked to) did not get that. They thought (s)he was not much older than the boy she lures into her life. Losing that would make this a simple vampire story not much better than Twilight.
3. Having this set in a foreign country made it easier not to judge the character flaws.
Not having read the book, I only surmise the father may be gay. The mother fears her son may turn out like his father. The vampire is several hundred years old and "her" father is the latest in a long line of troubled boys serving her. Oskar, the boy, strikes me as being someone who could grow up to kill the vampire, Eli. You won't have the scene where the teacher sends two kids off to pee in the snow and discover a body. And the film seemed set in the seventies, but perhaps that is just Sweden.
-
I understand that the book is not the film. However, in Lindqvist's novel, Eli explains to Oskar that although s/he is chronologically 200 yrs old, in his/her head, s/he 'never seems to get any older than 12'. Eli is not Anne Rice's Claudia; an old woman's mind trapped in a young child's body. Eli is, at least according to Lindqvist's book, an eternal, changeless child. I understand, though, that the movie didn't make this point clear, particularly with all those old woman flashes we kept getting.
-
is the name of the original book the movie version Let The Right One in was based on. My girlfriend's reading the book now, and she says it's pretty remarkable...
it's seems incredibly unlikely that Hollywood will do anything but fuck this story up ten ways from Sunday. -
The film, like the novel, was set in the 1980s. If nothing else, the presence of the song "Flash in the Night" on the radio during the pool scene at the end, has been said (by Alfredson) to be meant to indicate this. It was the early 80s though (1983 in the book), so this may account for why it looks like the 1970s. Speaking for myself, 1980 felt a lot the same as 1978 and 1979 to me. (But then I was 7 and 8 in those years, respectively..)
-
I have not read the book. If that is the case and her actions should be considered those of a 12 year old, I really need to rewatch it with that in mind. That for me would change everything I thought of the movie.
-
as stated before, while i gleaned a different message from the film, everything you said makes a strong, reasoned case for your argument. and believe me when i say i understand how you could see/think that. like you mentioned, the fact that we can even have this type of discussion speaks to the film's brillance. and for those out there who have yet to see it, please go out and get a good copy (read: proper subtitles) of the original. pass on this remake dreck at all costs... and if, as stated by a tb'er above, the fact that a film is subtitled makes it 'inaccessible,' and you're over the age of 15, please get on the boat Subtitles_Off described earlier and sail the fuck away from here. you truly are wasting valuable resources.
-
The INTENT of the book was romantic, as is the intent of the film, as has been stated over and over by Lindqvist and Alfredson. However, the book was far, far darker, violent and twisted and full of things they didn't begin to put in the movie--such as a scene where Hakan, having failed to die when Eli fed from him, becomes an undead zombie with a raging erection and tries to assrape Eli...no lie. I'll take the film, thanks, where, despite your misgivings, the romantic intention is far clearer.
-
I'm not saying you can't think that Smeg, but I will say you are stretching it just as much as someone who is saying it is a pure love story.
Oskar is a liability, a huge liability right now. Yes, maybe Ellie is grooming him, but can she really take that chance? Any slip up and she is dead. Oskar is no good in a fight, can't provide for her (in fact, she has to provide for him somehow) and brings attention to her. Also, by having Oskar join her and killing his bullies so obviously she will have brought in the authorities to start investigate her and search for this young boy. She has actually done something that is way against her best interest - made a reason for people to look for her and given them someone to contact her crimes to her.
It would be like Ted Bundy escaping prison and then wandering America killing people with his completely paralyzed brother. If Ted Bundy did this he isn't doing it because he is thinking it will make killing easier, he is doing it because he has such an emotional attachment to his fictional bed-ridden brother. Same with Ellie towards Oskar. -
"such as a scene where Hakan, having failed to die when Eli fed from him, becomes an undead zombie with a raging erection and tries to assrape Eli"
If Rob Zombie was directing this scene would occupy half of the movie's runtime -
Before I get written off as a sappy old man (I probably AM older than most here) just trying to see LTROI through rose-colored glasses (too late, perhaps), I do want to agree that it IS a tribute to the film that it has the sophistication to sustain discussions like this. I guess I tend to feel that because LTROI isn't the sappy, superficial garbage that Twilight is, that many people feel it can't also contain just as sincere a love story. I disagree--I think the film makes space for both real horror *and* real love.
-
is correct, for some time he will be a liability. The creature is much older though, and is evidently thinking in the long term - the boy is, to her, a diamond in the rough - it.s unlikely it comes across many potential Renfields over the years, so any short-term risk to it by having to school the boy in his future 'profession' is worthwile. The book may be somewhat different in the intentions of the character, but as spelled out in the film Eli is a cunning, devious and utterly manipulative predator. I don't see love in this film at all, I see it as a very, very well done horror - and pure horror at that. Everyone is the creatures victim.
-
I can't understand the "Don't remake it, but if you're going to you gotta use the same name" mentality. I hate remakes and other new movies that use unoriginal titles. It irks me to make the distinction. When I say, "Halloween is one of my favorite movies," I shouldn't have to add '77 or say, "No, not Rob Zombie's." So anyway, I don't really see the point of making a second movie version of this right now, but it's a relief that they aren't using the exact same title. I'm a big supporter of subtitles and other creative ways to give films a unique identity.
-
Because Cloverfield was soooooo amazing???!?!!!! Crap.
-
Ellie is a very lonely creature. She is being very selfish, yes, but she has Oskar there for companionship and emotional needs. She might be 200 years old but that doesn't mean she can't get lonely. Sure, he is a kid, but she has never lived the life of an adult or had much human contact at all. This is the first person who wasn't trying to get something from her (like Hakan who obviously was getting sex). In fact, when he asks for them to be going steading she is suspicious at first until she learns it doesn't involve anything other than that. Oskar is the only one who doesn't put demands on their relationship.
As for Oskar being a potential Renfield, I don't see it. He has yet to really demonstrate a killing instinct - he attacks a bully in an act of standing up for himself, not an act of revenge. The older man worked because they had an obvious arrangement - he was a pedophile and got access to Ellie's body in exchange for killing and bringing her victims.
And once again she can't afford to have Oskar around unless he is carrying his weight. If he isn't there for emotional reasons, then he is a potentially huge liability for her. To wait 10 or so years before he is ready is an expenditure of energy she can't afford.
As for why she needed someone else to do the killing - she stands out. A young girl wandering the streets at night brings peoples attention because they might be concerned for her, and people will notice when they see a young girl killing people. It brings attention - Hakan the old man was able to navigate through the city without undo attention. Ellie did two attacks in the movie and both time she was noticed and one time she was identified - a strange looking young girl.
Now she is traveling with another young boy? How bad is that going to stick out? -
That sounded like support, there, but I'm not sure ;) In any case, I still maintain that there's a group of people who will always choose to view things as cynically as possible, if something isn't presented in the most rainbow-colored, snow-white shade it can be. I think *childhood* is the real horror of LTROI; the childhood of the outsider--where bullies can terrorize you, parents don't know much about what's going on in your world (even if they care to), and your whole landscape is bleak and stark. Against the background of such a world, the love of another outsider--even one who is no longer entirely human--would probably seem welcome. I know I would have welcomed Eli when I was twelve. I can relate to much of what Oskar goes through. I can't imagine I'm the only one here who can.
-
Regardless is we agree with the vampyre's intentions or not.One of the cool thing of this movie is that it has such an elliptic nature, that invites all manners of interpretations. and you know what? Maybe all interpretations are correct. As in, this movie really is complex. How about that?
-
That's a movie I'd pay to see.
-
Someone once said "A bad film makes you feel nothing, a good film makes you want feel what the filmmakers want you to feel, and a great film makes you feel what you want to feel." Implying that great films are open to more than one interpretation.
By this standard Let the Right One In is a great film. I might disagree with Smegma, but his view is just as valid as mine.
Ok, not as valid but few people's opinions are. -
Notice that the woman who survived eli's attack wasslowly turning into a vampyre herself. And lok what was her choic,e she comited suicide by asking the nurse to open the windows's drapes. She killed herself rather then being a vampyre.I think this scene helps to put up one dramatic element to the movie: that in this movie's universe, being a vampyre is not easy, it's hard, harsh, depressing, and emotionally draining. Which might help explain why Eli, for all intentts and porposes, does have such a fast connection with Oskar, be it genuine love or commensalism.
-
i really didn't elaborate, so sorry if i was unclear. but yes, you (and Conti) are echoing my sentiments toward the film. and that's not to say that we are clearly right while they are wrong, just that there exists enough evidence to take it either way. except for the book.. i do think it's clear in the book that Eli truly loved Oskar. as i've said earlier, she offers to turn him into a vampire at one point. she obviously saw him as more than just a meal-ticket.
-
You know the scene where it shows Eli's 'old lady face'? In your head movies, take every scene with Eli in it and replace her with the haggard old lady. Now play back those scenes in which you feel Eli was being geniune, and see how that looks in your head. Because the old lady face is the real Eli, at least in the movie, and the little kid face is the illusion.
-
Because the story about the old vampire trapped in the child's body who is grooming his/her new Renfield is 100x creepier and cooler, and profound than a story about a lonely boy and a lonely child vampire falling in love. One is an awesome story, the other is Twilight Babies. Let's just hope Matt Reeves isn't 'remaking' Twilight Babies.
-
Thanks :)
-
Thanks :)
-
My feeling on the scenes where we see Eli as the 'old woman' is that they're just intended to be symbolism, particularly since everywhere in the film she acts like a twelve year old (even the tirade against Hakan when he forgets to bring the blood home is on par with a neglected child's temper tantrum). We're even shown her alone, playing with puzzles in her apartment.
And nothing against you personally, but I fail to see how a love story that reflects the bonding of two horribly marginalized children is less 'cool' than an extremely tired 'vampire as predator' plot. This film is far too realistic and far too violent to be ANY kind of 'Twilight' relative. Nothing 'sparkles' here...except perhaps the snow. -
That's hysterical!!But even if Let The Right One In was "Twilight Babies", it would still be one darn good movie, and a lesson on how to make a romantic movie with vampyres.
-
For Twilight: New Moon. BYOC. See Stuntcock Mike for details.
-
I always saw that as Ellie's repressed vampiric side - the hunger and desire that they all feel and the reason that one lady committed suicide. It is a horrible existence, as Asimov said. But that isn't her true face, it is her hunger and craving taking over. If that was her true face instead of something she tries to fight, she would have eaten Oskar right then and there.
-
Possibly 1981 or 1982. I remember those years, i was about Oskar's age back then. And while i didn't lived in Sweden but in the much sunnier Portugal, still my memories of those years was of very bleak years, things looking devoided of colour, a very sad time. And the movie captures that very well. If you really had lived on those years, and be a late child/young adolescent, the memory one gets from it was this somber and sad times, which is completly unlike this new fashionable 80s nostalgia cool bullshit we are getting this days.
-
What I've said is obviously truth. Watch the film. Watch the scenes again, then come back and tell me it's a sweet friendship and NOT the subversive tale of an evil creature finding it's future mealticket. It's not a sweet tale at all.
-
The difference is that i think for Oskar she feels a connection and love that she might never had for the older guy she was with.Or maybe she once had, but like long marriages, somewhere sometime the love ended and what remained was an old couple going through the motions.When the old companion fell from the tall hospital window, i felt that scene portaited a sort of assisted suicide. The guy certainly was not to be going on this Earth for much longer, and he did his last act of love for Eli, and Eli just let go of his mortal coil in the most expedient fashion available.Maybe, maybe in the past there had been a love relationship between the older guy and Eli which later took a turn for the byzzare and kinky when the guy got much older and their relationship became less of similiar aged lovers and more of aparent paedophily.
-
Is this a civil, thoughtful and courteous discussion about a movie (AND a book)? I'm sorry, I thought I was on an Ain't It Cool News talkback...
-
We're all counting on you.
-
That's the whole point of showing it the way they did to wake you up and make you think "Fuck, that's what it really is." Eating a potential serial killer makes no sense when it can go and chow down on anyone it wants to - he's too valuable as a familiar. A great deal of vampire stories, book and film, have a vampire taken care of by a familiar, a human or lesser creature. This is the ongoing story of how it aquires it's familiars.
-
It is a tale of a sweet friendship AND the subversive tale of an evil creature finding it's future mealticket. And no, it's not told in a sweet way at all. And that's the difference. The sweetness is in the story itself, not in the telling. This movie is not a movie made the Disney fashion, you know what i mean?So, what is Let The Right In? The charming tale of a sweet friedship between a serial killer in training and a murderous vampyre, done in a very dry and matter of fact filmmaking style.
-
It's a testement to the quality of the movie that invited such a intelligent and civil converstion in this talkback. Had this been about some dumb stupid retard movie, like, say, Transformers 2 or JJ's Star Trek, things would had degenerated into much ugliness much earlier. The type of attitudes from the talkbackers is always a reflection of the movie itself, i believe.
-
I agree...for the most part, much civility here.
-
It's the movie, man, it put a spell on us.
-
Are some of you here swedish?
-
...comes at the very end when Eli taps their code from inside her box. Apparently, the taps are supposed to spell out the word "kiss".
-
Lets face it, the original can pretend it's moody and atmospheric but ultimately it was just plain dull.
I'm not expecting car chases or even action, but a 12 year old boy moping about while a vampire does the same next door isn't entertainment, and I love slow films. -
Once again, he might be the new Renfield. But this entire movie is a revisionist vampire movie, so I don't see Renfield in this universe being complete dupes or slaves. To me they are exploring the connection between the vampire and her "servant", not the domination.
Plus once again you are presenting Ellie as this cunning creature with a master plan. I don't see it, her entire personality shows she isn't very good at that. This is the same Ellie who just attacks guys and girls on the street and requires Hakan to clean it up or else she'll get spotted or caught. Ellie doesn't really demonstrate a Machiavellian nature. If she was the type of person who could plan out in the long run that she will need a "familiar", than maybe she would have planned better attacks on her victims instead of just ambushing them in the street. Maybe she would have convinced her first victim to carry her somewhere a little more secluded, or maybe she would have pre-selected victims even after Hakan was caught so she wasn't desperately searching for food.
And as I said earlier, I can't see her setting Oskar up as a serial killer - if that was the case why not show a scene were she instigates him to get back at his tormentors instead of just defending himself? Why not start prepping him for the sadism and cold-bloodedness that the job requires? Oskar doesn't kill anyone; even the man who breaks into Ellie's apartment he doesn't attack but instead just alerts Ellie. Oskar demonstrates loyalty and affection, he doesn't demonstrate the ability to kill for her. And you can say that she is prepping him for that, but that is just your theory, their is no actual scenes in the film that demonstrates that is the case.
Do I see it as a sweet love story? Fuck no. I see it as a fucked up tale about two fucked up people who have deluded themselves into thinking this is some sort of meaningful relationship. Is Ellie manipulating him? Yes, but I think truthfully a lot of manipulation is subconscious and she would never admit it, not even to herself. Obviously having someone who can operate in the sunlight is a big advantage to her, but I see it like the relationships of a lot of dysfunctional people who are in denial with the problems of the relationship and stay together because of some sort of financial or economic need (or in this case need for blood). Both have convinced themselves they like the other person because they need each other. -
Could also be that both Oskar and Eli have this black holes of affection in their hearts that,fro soem ereason, they found in each other their perfect match. The love story of two very damamged people, one a serious case of a serial killer in training, another a murderous vampyre. I mean, love stories don't necessarily have to be about two very nice people, have it?
-
boycott them.
-
The Wikipedia entry indicates the remake may be set in the Reagan years, which is consistent with the original. It may be set in Littleton, Colorado. Littleton is often identified as the location of Columbine High School.
Some of these people need to be slapped, hard. -
Quint, you said the "fixed" Blu-ray has been released? I see nothing on Amazon, link?
-
It's obvious the remake people are reaching. Why don't they even set the story near Brainerd, Minnesota, that place where most of the population living there are direct descendents from swedish emigrants? Why the fuck not, hem?
-
didn't even bother reading all the comments, so if this was mentioned already...whatever. the american film was optioned BEFORE the first movie was released. get a grip fuckheads...its not a remake of the first film, its an american adaption of the original novel that just happens to be coming out after the first movie received critical acclaim.
-
Do the studios pay you for the ass kissing, or you do that on your own?
-
Well in the book Eli actually despised Hakan. Eli's feelings on Hakan are much more clear cut. Maybe it was my knowledge of the book but that scene where Eli gets pissed at Hakan was really her showing her complete dis content for him. I'm going by the book here and to me the book is much more clear cut as to her true feelings about Hakan
now with that said I can totally see where Smeg is coming from and I'm not disagreeing with smeg. I think a big part of why this film is brilliant is that the motivations are never quite clear cut. It felt to me like there were two ways you could approach it one being the way smeg has described and the other being a sweet fable.
I do agree Smeg it is implied that she is intending to use Oscar but on the other hand you can still get from it that there is apart of her that cares for him
that demonic yelling scene is a perfect example she shows no tolerance to hakan screwing up. Yet with Oscar she does show a sense of paitence almost with him
since I'm on an iPhone I'll keep this short I wish I was behind a keyboard to type more here. I don't disagree with smeg. Everything smeg has said is implied but with that said I truthfully don't know what her true motives are. The fact that you can view this film from either side is I think a big part of it's charm
I so wish I was at a pc right now to write more and truly explain what I mean. Forgive if I have typos in this it is a crappy iPhone afterall -
Everything you see as elements of humanity, I see elements of it's devious, evil nature - everything of it is calculated, like a predator with that much experience would. It's all a front, an illusion, I just don't see you're interpretation, but hey ho.
-
...what with all the screaming fundie dumbfucks who'll be screaming "KIDDIE PORN!!!" if it's even 1/100 as edgy as the original. Expect Bill O'Reilly and crazy-ass Nancy Grace to blow their gaskets.
-
I saw LET THE RIGHT ONE IN, and I would hardly call it brilliant. It was just okay. Very understated. More of a fan film, not a mainstream movie. I wouldn't even rate it all that well for a horror movie. I kept watching it waiting for something more. I think a remake could take it to the next level, making it a bit more modern, a bit more edgy.
-
"more modern...more edgy"
Pardon me while I vomit in the corner. "Edgy"? What are you a studio executive? Nobody talks like that. -
Matt Reeves, is that you?
-
then be teenagers 15 minutes into the movie. Because "who's gonna watch little kids for 2 hours?"
-
I was actually going to follow up my last post with something similar to how you followed up my post. Unfortunately, my employers have gotten it into their heads that I should do some work while I'm at work.
-
read the book, Eli never "groomed" Hakan to become her caretaker nor was she ever in love with him. He was a child molester who fell in love with HER and chose to do the killing. As I understand it Eli did feel love for Oskar. Perhaps the filmmaker and novelist chose to make the screenplay ambiguous or perhaps the ambiguity from the audiences was unforseen.
-
Just sayin.
-
Will be first in line at the G.I. Joe premiere.
-
FUCKGEORGELUCAS is right. She hated hakan. He was easily manipulated by her but she hated him and used him for her needs. But with Oskar it was different. Coming into the film with knowledge defiantly will make these touches a little clearer. Still love the film but the book defiantly fills some blanks
iPhone again sorry for typos -
FUCKGEORGELUCAS is right. She hated hakan. He was easily manipulated by her but she hated him and used him for her needs. But with Oskar it was different. Coming into the film with knowledge defiantly will make these touches a little clearer. Still love the film but the book defiantly fills some blanks
iPhone again sorry for typos -
FUCKGEORGELUCAS is right. She hated hakan. He was easily manipulated by her but she hated him and used him for her needs. But with Oskar it was different. Coming into the film with knowledge defiantly will make these touches a little clearer. Still love the film but the book defiantly fills some blanks
iPhone again sorry for typos -
..that's when I want to start lining people up and shooting them. We could use a lot more 'understated' films and a lot fewer movies that spell everything out like we're ALL morons.
-
And say nothing really happens, it makes me wonder if a film like Psycho, The Changeling (with George C. Scott), The Haunting or The Exorcist could happen nowadays. Answer, probably not.
-
Sigh... American audiences are bored, period. If there ain't an explosion or a naked babe every 12 minutes it's boring. Foreign films, which I have started watching more and more, build suspense, tension, etc. Hollywood used to do that until the 80's when suddenly it was all gore, boobs, and explosions. Make a sequel to this movie, not a remake of it.
-
Can't join in this talkback conversation I guess... see you all on the flipside.
-
Let The Right One In isn't flawless, but yeah, dangerous territory. I also hate the fact 'Director Matt Reeves' is a selling point and has his name on the poster. He hasn't earned that privilege yet.
-
you know we all want to speak in dull american accents and blow up anybody who is not american!!! So hurry up and finish americanising the world so we dont have all these stupid foreign languages to dub episodes of everybody loves raymond into. Cmon, we want to not understand irony too?!!!!!!!!! Matt Reeves you are a tool, this will kill your career...drop out and let brett ratner do it!!!
-
It can work.
-
Casting is done here...The boy (we'll presume his name is still Oskar) is being played by Kodi Smit McPhee. Here's the story from darkhorizons.com:
http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/14597/smit-mc-phee-does-right-one-remake-
The vampire girl Abby (not Eli in the remake, leading me to believe that the gender ambiguity of Lindqvist's novel is gone in this film) is being played by 12-yr old Chloe Moretz. Here's the link to the story about her casting on bloodydisgusting.com. You'll also find a link to her audition tape, and you'll notice the new script is almost word for word the old one, with one or two words altered. Here's the link:
http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/32535/exclusive-let-me-audition-tapes
-
And this is the most unnecessary remake since Psycho. I'm not sure if I've even seen a GVZ movie after that... I'm still pissed at that dude.
-
And this is the most unnecessary remake since Psycho. I'm not sure if I've even seen a GVZ movie after that... I'm still pissed at that dude.
-
But some people here are way into dp so there ya go.
-
Grumpy Old Vampires. I am writing the script as u read this.
-
tarf.
-
Let's hope this "director" used the money he made from that dreck cloverfield to buy a TRIPOD. Overused handheld nonsense is sooooooo "film school," circa 1985.
-
it's called the GOP. Break out the stakes.
-
who say that the original is not good or overrated should have your skull washed out with drain-o. Problems with pacing? Too slow? If you don't think that the original was brilliant then you should just stck with "movies" that are more your speed like Transformers 2, Fast and Furious, and Wolverine. You god-damned dim bulbs. Go swallow some antifreeze. Hollywood sucks and it's your fault.
-
Let the Right Jew In
-
Chill out there before you give
yourself a hernia.
I didn't like it, it was dull, badly paced and the script wasn't all it could have been. That's nothing to do with wanting a fast paced action filled retardo-fest. It just means that for some people two twelve years olds moping around a jungle gym for 2 hours isn't all that exciting. Plus it was completely predictable. -
as well as a few others I could mention. Your point = made, but I'm on Redvector's side in this.
"He's basically a runaway now, and this, we assume, is exactly what happened with the other guy whose life she also ruined." You don't know what you yapping about! *SPOILER* Eli picked him up because she CAN'T take care of herself. Being part monster doesn't change that. Do you see a twelve-year-old renting an apartment on their own? The keeper isn't a serial killer as his pathetic efforts clearly show; he's a pedo who only stays put because Eli promised to 'touch' him.*SPOILER* Do your research and you'd know that, as well as the fact that 'she' just does't have 200 consecutive, rational years of wisdom and manupulation in her skull. Her mind doesn't function like that. Yeah, Oskar is a future SK, but he was already going there and he follows her of his own free will. -
with Walter Matthaw and Jack Lemon
-
I almost never see a movie again anymore, but this one was an exception. Loved it. Hope they remake tells this story in a fresh and inventive way and stays as far away from the Suits as possible, because they will destroy it. And how good were the two kids in the original? There was not a speck of self-awarness hollywood brat in either. They were totally believable.
-
' Let the Right One In ', bee-yatch !
-
In an interview with Hammer Films producer Simon Oakes over at Fearnet, he says that the adaptation will stay relatively close to the original, except that it will be made "very accessible to a wider audience." He goes on to add:
"I think the original is fascinating in its exposition, but at the same time there is a DOGGEREL ELEMENT to it in terms of the mood and setting. So I think it takes it out into a more ACCESSIBLE SETTING. I think perhaps there is a little more characterization in terms of the two central characters. To be perfectly frank with you, this is making an astonishing story – which however hard you might try or I might try to get people to go see the original, they're never going to do it – more ACCESSIBLE TO A MUCH LARGER AUDIENCE. I think perhaps, again, the roughness of the original is great – and when I talk about faithful, I don't want to put words in Matt's mouth, because he is the creative filmmaker here, and we very much protect that with our directors – but I think it'll just have perhaps a LITTLE SHEEN to it that makes it a little more accessible I think." (Emphasis are mine).
No comment on if by a "little sheen" he means "glistening skin in the sunlight, or they plan to change the characters to teenagers, have shaky-cam, add an Emo Rock soundtrack or cast a Wayans brother. -
I was going to post the same thing - yeah, it's a good poster, but it's just a poster. A few years ago I saw an astonishing poster online - it was probably here, come to think of it - one of the best posters I've ever seen, really, of a little girl in period dress carrying a candle in the darkness. It was unbelievably evocative and creepy. It was for the Nicolas Cage WICKER MAN, and we all know how that turned out.
-
This so called "sheen" will be the dumbing down for your everyday joes who slaps burgers on their foreheads. And in the end they don't like anything remotely like this.
So expect fast cars with flame paint jobs, somehow FBI or CIA will be involved somewhere and 99% more special effects than the original.
Mr Cloverfield is too commercial for this. We need somebody edgey folk like Bigelow and Fincher. -
Saw the original, absolutely loved the swimming pool finale and raved about it to anyone who cared. I like the look of this poster and I also like that the girl is apparently even smaller than she was in the Swedish version, but I'm not sure exactly how that will play. If they can come up with a way to top the awesome one-shot finale and still be original then I'll be very impressed. Will definitely give this a go as long as early word on the originality of this film is good. Cloverfield was immense and Let Me In should be something special too.
-
Your last post was the nail in the coffin. I will not see this movie.
-
Do you really think, that you can get away with copying an original film? How could you!!! You could have casted Kare and Lina as Oskar, and Eli. What the fuck are you!!! Some kind of idiot?!!! What arrogance you have shown. I hope your movie flopss!!!
-
I can't believe how many people miss this...ok for those who haven't read the book or didn't understand the 'scar' sequence where Elle's mutilated genitalia is displayed: Eli is a castrated BOY. Eli tells Oskar he isn't a girl...some misunderstood this to be an allusion to vampirism but it is in fact the reality. Eli is NOT a girl...if you're going to discuss the movie, try to do so based on its plot and not some misinterpreted interpretation of the story.
-
...for paying attention and understanding the point. Let The Right One In isn't a perfect film.. but it is a good one (the amount of debate truly demonstrates that). Whether you enjoyed it or not is fine...the fact that months later people are still arguing over its merits (and the wisdom of a remake) only speaks to its impact.
-
This will suck.
-
anyone else? I watched the movie and loved it, so I watched it again with my friend who is a bigger horror fan than me and all he did was keep commenting on how fake the snow looked on most of the scenes. I didn't even notice it the first time I watched it and even when he pointed it out repeatedly it still didn't detract at all from the film in my opinion. The one thing he did point out which I agreed with was there were scenes, like in the town, where during one scene there was snow on the ground and then in the next scene there was not snow at all and then it would be back again.
-
Didn't read the book, but the director made the decision, and rightly so in my opinion, to remove most of the references to the fact that Eli is not a girl. I wish he would have removed the crotch shot as well as it was completely unnecessary. The end result being that if you are a fan of the book you can see Eli as a boy and if you never read the book you can see the character as a girl. which is how I choose to see it. Having Eli be a castrated boy adds a whole new disturbing level to the story which turns it from being a somewhat sweet story to being disturbing and homoerotic bringing up issues of child abuse and other things that imo would seriously take away from the film.
-
that made Let the right one in...
Should be allowed to remake Cloverfield,
it's only fair. -
Interesting point and well put. But the fact that Eli is a boy is actually central to the plot...and here's why (in my opinion): the 'romance' / seduction of Oskar is subtle and non-sexual. It isn't one born of longing or sexual attraction; it's about curiosity and how we connect to others who are as isolated as we are. The fact that Eli is a boy both complicates the relationship but also furthers the connection since Eli can relate to Oskar.
-
Jul 15, 2009 10:20:40 AM CDT
CONTINENTALALOP...we may disagree over the movie's theme
by hint_of_smegma
but thanks for posting that info you found on the remake, kind of shows up this site yet again when a TB'r can find more info on a movie than the writers here. Have to say the minute I heard about a remake, I didn't have any good feelings about it. Now it's obvious there is no hope whatsoever for it, they may as well change the director to Stephen Sommers and be done with it.
-
Let The right One In was a pretty good goddamned movie. Was it a masterpiece or even the movie that critics made it out to be? No. It was a good scary vampire movie and had a lot of depth in character development and quiet moments to build upon that development. Basically, it was an Anti-Hollywood horror movie that was told incredibly well, but it didn't live up to all the hyperbole that preceded it. Now, that being said, this is a mistake. I think a Hollywood remake could have worked if handled correctly. I really do and don;t jump all over me for that. Imagine this film in the hands of P.T. Anderson with some Magnolia-esque tension building. Could have worked, not a sure thing, and perhaps even still not a good idea, but it could have worked. BTW, not liking subtitles does not automatically make you a stupid, illiterate, hillbilly American. I detest subtitles, yet I love foreign films and would choose sub-titles any day of the week over dubbing. The fact remains that all time spent reading the bottom of the screen is time spent away from the visuals of the film; sub-titles pull you out of a movie and are a constant reminder that you are indeed watching a movie at a distance and inhibit the ability to get completely absorbed into a film. Now the levels at which they distract could be argued and yes, intelligence can come into play in that argument. However, the argument must remain because by their very nature, they are a distraction and a barrier. Pan's Labyrinth and The orphanage are prime examples. Visually stunning films in which we spend most of our time looking away from a the stunning visuals in order to read dialogue to keep us within the plot. It really upsets me when someone makes a stupid blanket statement about Americans and sub-titles, all nationalities must watch films that are titled, most countries having to sit through American movies with the same format, yet, it always falls on Americans to be the stupid ones who supposedly can't handle it. Of course, that fact is backed up by box office numbers as foreign films don;t make much money here. Personally, I think that has a little bit more to do with the fact that we can;t get a foreign film into a multiplex because TF 2 needs to be on four fucking screens.
-
As a curiosity, does anyone know of any American films being remade overseas in the last 15-20 years? This seems like a purely Hollywood suckacious blowarific phenomenon.
-
I see your points, but I don't think that was totally the direction the director chose to go in. First, he chose a female to play the role of Eli and an eerily cute girl at that. I don't believe the actress was androgynous enough to pull off being a boy. The male lead was much more androgynous than her. Next, the director clearly did add elements of childhood romance with the kissing, the dancing, the sleeping together, the love letter, the boyfriend/girlfriend thing, etc. Like many others I saw the film not knowing about the book and the fact that Eli was originally a castrated boy. And the film totally works in this way. And they consciously made the decision to present the story this way imo. Now, they say that the remake will include the castrated boy element and if so I hope it lives up to your expectations and when and if I see it I will keep an open mind and enjoy the writer's original intent.
-
I haven't read the novel yet, but I have it on order, and I wondered about the oddness of the vampgina. Like, why bother showing it at all? Interesting. So she is actually a castrated boy? Huh. That definitely makes the whole thing creepier and weirder! Can't wait to read the novel!
-
Jul 15, 2009 11:22:54 AM CDT
I love that this film is so complex that it inspires debath like
by col. tigh-fighter
And The Dum Guy, they ARE remaking Near Dark. Its on IMDb pro now. Now personally, Im going for the genuine frendship angle on this, but I do love the fucked-up Familiar -in-waiting idea too. What a great film!
-
dun dun dun dun dun dun dun de dun. Groove is in the heart
-
No, I don;t think so. I think the school of thought that is take the best films made in other countries and completely homogenize them and serve them up to popcorn-munchers as originals is a completely American one. We are fat, lazy, and too bored to come up with ideas of our own, so we always take the path of the least resistance and just regurgitate everyone else's ideas into the mouths of all the baby birds at the multiplex. God Bless America!
-
The reason why the Eli character was played by a girl and not a boy is because, like, there's a kissing scene in the movie. Can you even beging to imagine the huge can of worms that would befall the movuie production if they had casted two boys in the role sof Oskar and Eli and then have both kids kiss onscreen or tug each other in the same bed and doing declarations of love for one another? Can you even beging to imagine the shit storm that would cause?Yes, the actress that plays Eli is fantastic, but there's also to take into consideration what scenes would be in the movie involving the two characters, and there would be no way they would cast a girl as Oskar, so, the logical solution was to cast a girl as Eli, which also helps the ambigous nature of that character.
-
I'm portuguese, and i don't thing the real problem is with the american audiences, really. Sure, many of them are too ready to eat up bulshit movies like Transformers 2, but there's also as many as those who want more quality stuff, as evidenced by trhe sucess of such movies as The Dark Knight. The real problem is really Holylwood, who have bloated the production costs of their movies so much, that even a movie which in any other country in the world would be considered a mega-budget production, in the USA is called a middle-low budget movie. The costs have gone so high up, the executives are always fearful of a gret financial loss, so, they rekon, the solution is to dumb down, inthe hope that both the retards but also the normal inteligent people will be folled to watch the movie at enough quantities to produce a fat opening week, a quick cash-in strategy.Audiences in USA are half-responsible for the sad state of affairs, but Hollywood is wholesome responsbile.
-
I agree with what you say, although as a fan of foreign films much of Europe doesn't have some of the hang ups that America does. But, I'm saying that the director decided not to make Eli a castrated boy. And if that were his intention he could have chosen a more androgynous actress to play the part. Even in the way the actress portrays the character comes off as a girl not a boy.
-
Its brighter then anything in the movie. So I guess they will get away from that. Probably make the movie take place in New Endland or Orange County.
-
I know that was not what you intended to say, but you said soemthing to the effect that "europeans has lowered moral standards2 which is hillarious. No, we have the same standard of morals as the americans, we just don't boast it, or turn them into state laws... mostly! And no, even in old degenerated europe, to cast a boy in Eli's role would be a whole can of worms that the filmmakers would face for the rest of their lives. And i'm talking criminal charges, not just pointing fingers and call them degenerated immoral ogres, you know?
-
I do think it was Hollywood which started the dumbing down of the thing, and the public went along because there was nothing else to see. The dumbing down didn't even started with Star Wars, as many claimed, but later, in the early 80s. In fact, you can even specifically name the movie which kick-started the whole "audiences are morons and we will made movies for that kind of intelelctual deffeciency minds". That movie is Flashdance. It was the first movie which fully used the dumbed down formula, later perfected with Top Gun. Every other dumb stupid dumbed down blockbuster ever made are all sons of Top Gun.
-
Why not Brainerd, Minessota? Lots of swedish descendents living there. In keeping with the original movie swedish-ness, i guess.
-
You notice that Eli is a brunet(tte?). Realise that culturally, the swedish are very attracted to brunets. They are mostly blond with blue eyes, and any brunet with dark eyes stands out. It's like the blonds with blue eyes in my cluntry, they stand out and moast people find them easier on the eye. For example, the famous portuguese footballer Luis Figo married a swedish model, who looks like a prototypical swedish beauty, all tall, blonde with blue eyes. He got quite a catch, and he like fullfileld the average portuguese' dream girl. And i'm sure onher side, she alslo got quite a catch, since he's brunet with brown eyes.I do think that Eli as a character plays on the notion of what most swedish boys and men have of their perfect girl, an "exotic" looking brunette with brown eyes.
-
It's funny, but you're probably right. But, what does that say about our morals. It's ok to have underaged male and female actors kiss, but if it were two boys it would be criminal. Basically, this is saying that homosexuality is immoral. Oh, and as you realize I did not mean that Europe is degenerate. I'm just saying that I've seen stuff in European films that would not fly here. Even if you were to judge these films immoral, which I do not, this does not mean that all of Europe is degenerate based on a few films.
-
The difference between European standards and American all comes down to a single billboard. While we both indulge in probably the same about of dirty sex and degredation of the women. The difference is that America tries to hide it while Europe embraces it. Shit I wish I was not at work so maybe I could find the billboard. But let me describe it. Its just a pair of tits (peired I think as well). I don't remember what it was for, but maybe for skin cancer or sun screen or someshit. No shirt, no head, no stomach, just a straight shot of a great pair of tits. And this billboard was everywhere, every summer. This was Italy...now could you ever see that billboard being displayed in the states?
-
the breast as you want as long as you don't show nipple. Yet, everyone, men and women all have nipples, but it is the rest of the breast that men don't have. Well, at least most.
-
Yeah you can't show nipple in a film unless its rated NC-Double R 17 XXX. But you can show pictures of Chris Browns Punching Bag and Lady Gaga's fun bags as long as they got a pasty on it on the afternoon Entertainment show, or the View, or Jesus Chat with Dick Freely.
-
Did somebody already beat me to that? I didn't care to check.
It just seems very strange to remake a movie that was already so accessible to the American public, it's not like The Ring or The Departed. It'd be more like remaking Pan's Labyrinth.
Jesus would have voted No on 8: http://tiny.cc/qojfR
-
When I blamed the American audiences, I was being sarcastic. Sorry you didn;t pick up on that. The true problem is the studios perception of they THINK we want. That perception is based solely on the what ticket sales reflect, even though studios ensure that ticket sales will never reflect any American audience intelligence because the majority of Americans never get the chance to see any independent or foreign films in a theater because the new Transformers must be on 4 screens.
-
When I lived in Hollywood, I had a friend whose job it was to call people on the phone and ask them any number of combinations of things that they might find entertaining. The company would then compile the data for the movie studios to use for producing films that would have wide appeal. This was in the early 90s, so this shit has been going on for a long time.
-
That's how you got all the great ones last time, remember?
-
It's amusing how film fans who are also readers (like myself) often hold the novel up as some sort of foundational, scriptural text whose meaning supersedes that of the film adaptation.
What a lot of people forget is that, despite a similarity in story, a book and film are two different things. Two different things. Neither is 'the real story' or 'what really happened.' It's also worth noting that writers revise stories. Many times, by the time revisions are complete, characters have different motivations and scenes play out entirely differently than in the first draft. I'm a writer myself; I know this happens. LTROI isn't just any film adaptation. Its screenplay was written by the author of the original novel. The changes were his. The decision to eliminate (yes, eliminate) nearly every trace of the trangendered nature of Eli from the book was his as well. The bathroom scene in the movie does NOT play like the scene in the novel where Elias reveals to Oskar that he/she really has no genitalia, and furthermore, why. Oskar's reaction to what he sees in the film is not one of shock; his expression is merely that of a boy seeing a naked girl for the first time, and the shy smile Eli gives him when she steps out into the hall is light-years removed from the matter-of-fact and revelatory "So now you know" that follows in the scene from the book.
It's a trap to think that the novel's meaning and events can or should be literally mapped onto the movie. Look at other film adaptations, such as that of Winston Groom's Forrest Gump or Kubrick's adaptation of King's The Shining. Both are fine films, but it would be a bad mistake to look to either for an accurate portrayal of what's in the two novels.
LTROI is, as I said,a case different from these because the author chose to make the changes. But don't pretend to yourself the changes aren't there.
As for the shot of Eli's genitals, I find it interesting that the large number of women I've seen the film with since it came out never think the shot looks like anything more than a girl *with her legs closed*. I've been married twice; I know what a vagina looks like--I also know that, with a lot of women, the genitals look pretty non-descript if she's not standing with her legs open. If you know anything about women, and don't have the book to prod your mind into thinking about the Eli/Elias transgendered angle, I can't see how you'd honestly take away the idea that she's anything but a girl.
The novel is one thing. But let it be so. The film is another.
(And yes, I'm aware that they did in early stages plan to include the transgendered aspect in the story, and even that a scene was filmed in flashback. I'm also aware that both Adamson and Lindqvist decided the sequence didn't work, and it was cut. And in my opinion, the revision is the better draft. -
american twats.
learn to read subtitles and this wont ever need to happen again. -
thanks for clarifying that. I never thought anything other than that Eli was a girl when I first watched the film. And even when I found out later that in the novel the character was a castrated boy I still believed that in the film Eli was a girl. As far as the crotch shot, I thought it was completely unnecessary, but it is in the film and so I read it as the fact that Eli is a very old vampire, which is a form of a rotting corpse, at least the traditional European variety vampire and that her genitals were decayed and cracking. I use the fact that Eli smelled "funny" or bad to back up my theory on this.
-
Jul 15, 2009 2:50:10 PM CDT
Clay G - the revelation in the movie was pretty obvious.
by hint_of_smegma
You wrote that you can't understand anyone coming up with the idea from the scene that it's anything other than a girl - I can't understand you coming up with that hypothesis. The scene in question shows a heavily, deeply scarred injury right where a boys genitals would be. Add to that the several references from the creature so far that it's "not a girl" and the actual meaning of that statement couldn't be any clearer if they had a neon sign flashing above the thing's head saying "IT WAS A BOY THAT GOT HIS NARDS CUT OFF". The film is indeed different from the book, but while the writer may have removed more of the obvious references to it being a mutilated pre-teen boy, when the revelation DOES come it's not exactly subtle. It's still the nature of the creature in the film, they just toned down the references - they didn't change it completely. Maybe you should watch the scene again as I think you genuinely believe it isn't.
-
Jul 15, 2009 2:52:25 PM CDT
STABBY - see my above post to Clay. It's definately a boy in the
by hint_of_smegma
Hence the rather large mutilation scars seen in the crotch shot scene. I honestly don't know how people can miss this and think the creature is actually a female, it's a very obvious shot.
-
the book sees Eli as anything but a girl. When she says, "I'm not a girl" that could easily mean that she is a vampire. As far as the gash goes, my friend said it best, "Aw, man, imagine she's your girlfriend and even her vagina is fucked up." I think the writer and director were smart to downplay the castrated boy angle and obviously they were successful in having it both ways since all you guys think that Eli is still a boy in the film. That's just not how I read it.
-
No one else could possibly ever read castration from that brief shot. I agree with ClayG about the writer intentionally leaving out Eli's explanation for the gash. Without the explanation there is no possible way anyone could know Eli was castrated.
-
I get you saying you didn't 'read it' like that, but there is such a thing as misconstruing a scene which you have - no offence intended. We may argue here over whether or not the creature actually likes the boy or is a manipulative predator, but there is NO alternative 'correct' viewpoint for the crotch scene. Just like the infamous scene in Crying Game, it is meant to do nothing other than add the punchline to the creatures several statements of 'I'm not a girl'. Of course before the reveal, those statements could mean it trying to say it was a vampire, that's the point of the misdirection in the film until that moment. The crotch reveal is not handled subtly either, try watching it again and I'm willing to bet your whole take on the movie will swiftly change. They did tone down the mutilated boy angle, but they didn't remove it and that was the whole reason for that entire scene.
-
Subtitles...have you read the novel? If so, then you're an example of what I was talking about in my earlier post. If you hadn't read the novel, I doubt very much that you'd find the revelation so 'obvious'. Here's a question for you, for which I bet you have no answer---why does Oskar not seem shocked?? I assure you, he would be, and Lindqvist portrayed the shocked response in the novel.
Again, I'll bring up the fact that I think girls ought to be able to recognize female genitals. I've watched the film with close to twenty different women between the ages of 18 and 35, and not a one of them registers anything about the scene other than 'it's a boy seeing his girlfriend's' private area.' As for what purpose the scene serves, it's a humorous and humanizing scene that serves to further show the emotion between Eli and Oskar (her shy smile and later, her and Oskar's conspiratorial smuggling her out the window go along this line as well).
I'm sorry that it doesn't fit well with the hypothesis about Eli's villainy, but we can't all be satisfied. -
...before seeing the film, and had no idea of the intent of the creatures character. That scene however made it glaringly obvious and I genuinely can't understand a comment from you or Clay about how no-one but fans of the book could understand the scene. It's also a self defeating argument as the scene exists, it was written into the film by the original author, and it's there for all to see. Stating something pretty heavily crucial to the plot is only there for fans of the novel and no-one else is going to pick up on it is simply an ignorant - and somewhat insane - statement. I'm not trying to insult you, but it genuinely is an absurd comment.
-
Clearly there *are* alternative interpretations, and more logical ones, too. If you've read the book, you know that the castration/emasculation that Elias suffers at the hands of the vampire-nobleman character leaves NO scarring, as the wound was cauterized, and when Oskar sees Elias' crotch, it's described as completely smooth. No scars. Already there's one difference between the book's portrayal and the film (one of many). I think you and several others on this board are trying to fit the plot of the novel into the plot of the film, which can't be done.
Like a vampire and a werewolf, in the case of LTROI, book and film are different creatures, and should be handled differently. -
Okay, but did you read some of the many, many articles on the internet that gave the information about Elias' transgendered nature from the book? If so, you're still trying to map book onto film.
As for your lady friend, she may well be smart, but it's also possible she hasn't seen herself with her legs closed lately ;P -
I'm really not trying to insult either of you but were those 'close to 20 different women aged 18 to 35' blind or something? I frankly can't believe that statement, because I can't believe that out of 20 people of any age or gender there wouldn't be the majority seeing the scar and suddenly twigging what was going on. As to the 'shy smile' and the reaction of Oskar, those can be interpreted in a completely different way to how you have. The actual scene of the crotch injury is not a scene open for debate about though - it is an absolute. It is the point of the scene, and the reveal of the creature's tortured origins. Here's the thing - when something walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are it's a duck. The writer of the screenplay was the writer of the book, and while toning down the castrated angle, he did not remove it. He simply toned it down to make the reveal more of a hit, a rewal 'Luke, I am your father' moment - something that obviously you missed somehow. That reveal exists ON FILM. It's not a debatable point, trying to is frankly showing a stubborn ignorance on your part - I can admit that not everyone will agree in my view of Eli as a calculating fiend, but that is indeed the nature of opinion. A scarred up crotch after constant references from the creature that "I'm not a girl" is not opinion, it's the backbone of the freaking film.
-
I can't help but noticing you didn't respond to my pointing out Oskar's lack of shock at what he sees. In the book, he's not only visibly shocked (which he's not in the film), but his reaction causes a reaction in Eli as well, and there's a whole conversation about it. It's hardly 'seen and done'.
If it were indeed
crucial to the plot--which it absolutely is in the novel--there would be some kind of dealing with it beyond a flash and nothing more.
If you think it's so 'crucial' to the film--and I do mean the film, not the book--how is it crucial? What, in the FILM, does it change?
I can give you a LIST of the things the gender issue in the novel changes, but the film? Not a damn thing. -
Watching that scene on DVD at home you have the benefit of pausing it, rewatching it, analyzing it. Honestly, did you see this in the theater and as soon as that split second scene happened go to yourself, "Oh, now I see, it's a castrated boy"? I know when I saw it at home I said WTF was that and after I finished the movie I re-watched it, because I'm a pervert. Now, maybe I'm not as smart as you and Subtitles, but even after re-watching it and pausing it I could not get the impression that it was a castrated penis. I just knew something was fucked up. that's why I did some research and learned that in the book Eli is a castrated boy. In the film there is no other indication that Eli is a boy other than the fact that she says she is not a girl. It is a female actress portraying a feminine character with girlish/ghoulish actions. I do apologize that I said that no one would pick up the castration thing. What I meant was that most people would not.
-
For something that 'isn't up for debate', not only you and I, but others on the board, are spending a good bit of time doing exactly that. :)
You and I (and others) might neither like nor agree with one another's conclusions, but it's certainly a matter that can be debated.
Quite obviously--we've been doing exactly that. -
I'm portuguese, which means that the vast majority of the movies i see are in a foreign language. And since Portugal doesn't have a policy of dubbing movies other then mvoies specifically designed for a children audience, everything else is subtitled. I have been watching movies with subtitles since i can read. By now, it's second nature, it takes no effort at all. In fact, whenever i watch on DVD a movie spoken in english, i always put the subtitles, be they in portuguese or english, even if it's a movie i find it easy to understand the english dialogue. there's some confort to the subtitles. Also, you understand the dialogue better, specially when the actor does a muffled voice. Case in point, Benicio Del Toro's dialogues in The Usal Suspects. In fact, i always find it funny when people from USa or UK complaisn that they didn't udnerstand what some actor spoke in the movie. With the subtitles, we can get everything he/she says and nothing is left misunderstood. In fact, with the subtitles, it might be so that i get to understand better what the characters say in an american movie then an american himself.
-
...trying to fit it's plot to the film at all. My only experience is the film, and the reveal that Eli is a mutilated boy is OBVIOUS. If in the book there is no scarring, the reason he changed it for the film is quite obvious also - until that scene we don't take the creature's comments of "I'm not a girl" as being literal, we take them as it trying to make him realise it's a vampire. The scene and the scarring exist to hammer the revelation that it's a castrated boy home, without the scar there would be nothing to state it was a boy - rendering the scene entirely pointless, I might point out, beyond being fodder for pedos. Ask yourself this - if they hadn't used the scarring as a device to get the revelation across, if they'd left it unscarred as you say it is in the book, then all that scene is saying is 'here's an unnecessary shot of a pre-teen girl's crotch.' That's a pretty fucked up idea, Clay. The scarring makes the point and is there to be the 'Oh shit, it's a.....' moment, and is the whole point he downplayed the other references from the book that make it more obvious beforehand that we've heard about. I can't believe I even have to point this out.
-
that split second scene is as important as you suggest it is. Also, Eli only mentions once that she is not a girl.
-
and I watched it straight through without rewinding anything. Like I said, I'm not trying to insult anyone so maybe you were distracted or something at the time, but when that shot appeared it was a pretty obvious revelation. I've not read the book, had no idea of what the creatures true nature was meant to be before seeing the movie. That scene made it pretty clear, very quickly and it is after the film I looked up the movie and the book on wikipedia, finding out the more 'fleshed out' history of how the kid was mutilated by a vampire lord. Like I said, maybe you were tired or distracted but I very much doubt I'm some minority who figured it out first go around.
-
But I did however think that scene was incredibly hot. I wouldn't be surprised if it makes Mr. Skins top ten.
-
moment. It was almost a subliminal something's not quite right down there nod to the fans of the novel and Hint and Subtitles of course.
-
Besides some wood. Was that she was really nothing, neither girl nor boy. That or something happens why you become a SWEEEEDISH vampire that your baby making bits get set to off so you can't make baby Ikea sweedish meatballs vamps.
-
as Series mentions.
-
Oskars reasction can be taken in several ways, the injury itself however CANNOT. It is an absolute, and debate about it only exists, forgive my frankness, because some people have misinterpreted it somehow. The scene is an absolute, how they react is the only thing that can be LEGITIMATELY debated. Let me throw in my take. He's a pre-teen boy. He's not really aware of sexuality at this point, he's merely curious at seeing a 'girl part' When he gives that reaction, he doesn't know if what he's looking at is how every girl is or not, he gives a smile of acceptance. Or take it another way - maybe he realises it's an injury, and guesses it's a boy - his smile is an easing of whatever 'tension' he felt due to thinking it was a girl, and being more comfortable realising it was a boy. These are just two takes, I'm sure others could provide more. The crotch injury scene however is not interpretable in any way, except by not understanding it for what it is.
-
That's the whole reason for the reveal, and the reason the elements from the book that apparently made it more obvious beforehand were downplayed, to create that sudden revelation and jaw drop. That you think it isn't is just stating even more you didn't get it at the time. Fair enough, but stating that isn't what it is is like burying your head in the sand, you're just acting stubbornly in the face of having made a mistake. No offence intended. Whatever else in the movie can be interpreted different ways, that scene is OBVIOUS, it is foreshadowed by the creatures own comments, and it doesn't take a genius to understand it first time.
-
that "tiny sliver of hope" JUST WENT OUT THE WINDOW-Harry Knowles
-
For most of the movie, it does plays on the ambiguity of eli's true sexual nature, be a he or a she. Can go both ways. Or it could be a play on the notion that she is not a guirl mean she is a vampyre and therefore, not human, and therefore, not a girl.However...However, there's the bathroom scene and this is where i have to agree that scene does inded exist to point out that Eli is castrated. Eli not being a girl now literally means Eli is a boy. Or was one once.The homosexual nature of Eli and Oskar's relationship is not completly absent in the movie, oreven in the tone of the movie. The movie is subtle about it, doesn't play it out with trumpeths and choirs, but it's there. Also, another hint to it is that Oskar's father clearly is gay. Oskaras inhis own life background that, he has close life experience with homosexuality. This is why he's so non-challant in his rsponse when Eli says "i'm not a girl", and Oskar doesn't even bat an eye-lid, he still pushes for the relationship. And this is way before he ven began to suspect that that his "girlfriend" is something a bit different then a human.The way i see it is that Oskar is so alienated from everybody that when he finds a chance for love, he doesn't even care if it cames form a girl or boy, he is getting some love, and that is what really matters to him.
-
Nobody knows that they saw it, but they did...
-
Why does Eli look like a girl and act like a girl. Is it the lack of testosterone. If you are right that Eli is definitely a boy in the film then the film is a failure and the casting of that actress to portray that character was the worst casting in film history. There are no shortage of androgynous boys and girls at that age. As I said before Oskar is more androgynous than Eli. But, Eli is definitely 100% girl. Forget about the castration thing. Let's assume you're totally right about that. Can you honestly tell me that that actress successfully portrayed a boy in the movie. Forget plot and story, just from a meta/critical perspective.
-
..and he's shocked when people suggest he is. Take a look at this interview:
Here's Alfredson:
http://www.latinoreview.com/news/exclusive-interview-tomas-alfredson-on-let-the-right-one-in-5566 -
Clay..good points but even the Director acknowledged the film also depicts Eli as a boy...it was just done in a subtle manner to not distract from the tone of the film (but was never meant to be left up to the viewer to decide...he has fully stated that the premise in the book was carried into the film - some people have just interpreted differently). Good points and good debate. Thanks.
-
Where they have a little girl playing the part of a boy?
-
...I seem to recall reading somewhere that boys who are castrated before puberty, as Eli is meant to have been, can indeed seem very feminine - whether this is true or not I don't know, but that said there are an awful lot of dudes out there who look like a lady without losing their meat and two veg and having gone through puberty. In film terms, it makes sense anyway but regardless of the true scientific basis, that is the intent of the scene and the nature of Eli's gender.
-
All else aside, I think the value and beauty of the film are twofold--I think it's a story of this real world we live in--a world in which things often are so isolating and depersonalizing that, by contrast, a vampire wouldn't seem so horrible. Eli is about the least horrible thing IN the film, despite her diet--she is much more tender and 'human' than the bullies Oskar deals with, and shows more concern for Oskar, for whatever reason, than Oskar's own parents. THAT's what makes the film interesting; the humanizing of a vampire WITHOUT taking away the horror of what she is.
Answer me this, those of you who think Eli is a manipulative, evil monster, and not a twelve year old child with a blood disease, as Eli describes himself/herself in the novel, and as Lindqvist has also done in interviews--if Eli's so awful, why does she cry after she kills Lacke in the alleyway? She despises what she is, and what she has to do because of it. But she does it because she has to live, a fact she points out to Oskar. -
Gotta go, I see your points and obviously Eli is a castrated boy in the book and for whatever reason they decided to downplay that element in the film. but, I will concede to you that it is there in that split second crotch shot scene. But, I believe that by deciding to downplay that plot point the filmmakers left it open to interpretation. I know, the gash is there, you can't deny it, but it is almost subliminal in the film. All great art is open to interpretation. Obviously, I am not alone in my opinion as neither are you. Later.
-
If we ARE going to keep pretending that's important to the film, as you seem determined to do, then it's important that you know the emasculation wasn't something Eli/Elias did to himself--it was forcibly done to him as a part of the ritual that transformed him into a vampire in the first place (pp. 351-374 of the book, in case you care). Your rather inflexible opinions of Eli's motivations are one thing, but let's not go suggesting that the genital mutilation that happens to Elias in the novel is self-inflicted.
-
...it killing people though. Or using others to do so. A few crocodile tears after the fact makes it worse, in fact - it shows the creature has understanding and some measure of revulsion at what it does. It was human once, and now it's existence is at the expense over the centuries of thousands of other individuals. If it was truly so horrified or remorseful, it would take a walk on a sunny morning. But it doesn't, it's own self interest and desires keep it causing horror to untold numbers of people. And please, don't come back with the argument of 'well, what would you do, when it comes down to it you wouldn't kill yourself', it's a weak argument in the face of the numbers. If my continued existence, an existence of misery I might add, was allowable only if I murdered an innocent person every few nights for potentially hundreds of years, I'd be asking you to pass the cyanide. The fact it goes on with it's monstrous existence, tears regardless, show that it's a monster.
-
One comment before you disappear though - I think 'downplayed' is a somewhat misleading comment, and I'm guilty of it myself. I think rather that the point was re-ordered so there was less foreshadowing in order to make the idea a shocking reveal, as indeed it was, but it most certainly wasn't subliminal, it was pretty heavily stated and shown when it came.
-
I started with the examples from the book because it seemed as though you were one of these 'but the book says Eli's a transgendered boy'type people. If you'll recall, I'm the one who's been insisting the book and the film are very different. The comments from the director ARE relevant to a 'the film as the film' approach, as are the author's comments about his screenplay.
It's called argument and evidence. I teach college English classes, and part of what I'm paid to do is teach students the difference between opinion based on gut observation, and a hypothesis based on evidence. Quotations are part of sound evidence.
Don't dictate terms of argument to me; I didn't do it to you.
-
Getting under someone's skin is fun, when they're weak enough to allow you to :)
-
Let's not break this unprecedented string of relatively polite posts.
-
Let's not break this unprecedented string of relatively polite posts.
-
Stupid double post.
-
A rarity on AICN talkbacks, and I've been enjoying it immensely, talking as we are about such a genuinely interesting film, itself also a rarity these days. Let's try and keep it on the civil side, eh?
-
If you castrate a young boy at the verge of adolescence, they will aquire many female characteristics. Remember the opera singers castrati? Those guys, they were really castrated when they were at the verge of adolescence, and because of that they could achieve very high pitch nottes comparable and even surpassing many women singers.That eli as a castrated boy does have many female features is quite a very accurate thing in the movie. again, the casting of a girl to play Eli was the right decision.
-
He is gay, and the movie, while not hammering the point to the head, is neither too subtle about it either. It's quite clear that the scene at Oskar's dad home, and wghen that other fellow shows up, is to portait the dad as gay, and the newcome is dad's lover. The scene is very clear about that. If the director is denying, i suspect he does that for the sake of the movie's commercial sucess at the american box office. But there's no way that the movie is portaiting Oskar's dad as anything but gay.
-
Did you read the interview? I thought the gay thing came across too, when I saw the film, but if the guy who directed the movie says the movie isn't meant to portray him as gay (which he does say, read the interview), then that's about the end of that, unless you just want to go on opinion. FYI, the director said the same thing when he was interviewed for Swedish publications. And his comments about Oskar's dad's heterosexuality have generally been laced with commentary about the oddity of American film audiences, not something likely to help the film in the US ;)
-
I think I'm being pretty civil, and I find it interesting being counseled on chat etiquette by someone whose chief argumentative tactic has been chiefly to say that the way he sees certain things (i.e., the crotch shot) is the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY to see them. Pretty condescending.
I'm sufficiently entertained though, by the notion of being lectured in chat etiquette by someone with the screenname 'A Hint of Smegma'. ;)
Do carry on. :) -
..then you are intelligent enough to know that what is on the surface doesn't always give away what's underneath. My screenname is only that, not some deep psychological insight into who I am or what I may or may not have to say that has relevance. I'd also like to think I can converse via the internet in an intelligent enough manner to have already proved that. Beyond that, I have only given ONE absolute statement, and that is abouyt THAT shot in THAT scene, which without any possibility of a different take DOES infact state the creature is a boy. Everything else in the movie regarding motivations, who they are as people - is up for debate and I've already admitted that. I may not agree with people viewing the relationship as painted in the film as 'sweet' but I can see how others may, and again I've also pointed that out. There are some times in life we get things wrong though, even those of us who may be somewhat more intelligent than others, and if you see that scene and that shot and take anything away from it other than the creature was a boy - as the director himself has stated, as the writer has written - then you are wrong and it isn't me being condescending to point that out. It's all there onscreen, without equivocation. Condescension, however, is something you are now trying to throw out, and discussion between you and Sub was indeed slipping toward the normal level of debate around here. You'll forgive me if I wanted to carry on a conversation I have been enjoying immensely so far.
-
Oskar does not like his Father's friend as when he comes round they both drink and his Father ends up being a bit of an ass.....nothing more to read into it.He (Father) does not get abusive or anything like that, he does not become a gayer and start having gayer sex with his friend, he just acts like a bit of an ass.A few folks actually thought after watching the filom that perhaps the Father's friend was abusing Oskar...again that is not so.The only person who is a gayer is the guy looking after the vampire child...I think.
-
I think we're the only ones having this conversation anymore. I still disagree with you on the gender issue in the film, despite having seen and read all that you have, and more, if you haven't read the novel.
I'm sure you haven't read the book, since Eli in the book is inarguably NOT manipulative, and I *can* see, I suppose, how people could view it that way. I think it takes cynicism to see that in the film, and I hate cynicism more than I hate most things in the world. (In fact, I don't hate much of anything; I'm a pretty positive guy.)
I dislike tones of absolutism. In my opinion, the moment you say 'never', 'always', or 'the only way that..' you've already lost. There's always another way to look at things, be it my views on Eli's motivations or your views on her gender. Or, a crapload of people's opinions about Oskar's dad's sexuality.
I do think when you say there's NO OTHER WAY to see something, when I'm not the only person to suggest that there is, it's condescending.
And you're right, I responded to condescension with condescension. Intentionally. Guilty as charged. I'm not perfect.
I, furthermore, still think your undertaking the role of the 'civility police' while maintaining an absolutist and, once again, condescending perspective to me, is a little hypocritical, leaving your screenname out of it. I'm intelligent enough that I can poke at someone a bit (as people have been doing to me, and I'm fine with it), without getting all potty-mouthed and personal. I think a little well-placed sarcasm still falls within the bounds of civility, certainly in a world as saturated with cynicism and irony as this one has become. It's even infected me, much more than I would like. -
Hahahaha..*laughs at self*...
I meant to say 'even less seemingly manipulative in the book'. Saying 'inarguably' is as bad as 'always' or 'never.' As I tell my students (and I do teach, though not high school, thank god), as long as you provide evidence, you're welcome to argue anything. -
Jul 15, 2009 6:55:10 PM CDT
Clay. There is a difference between undeserved absolutism..
by hint_of_smegma
..and objective fact. Not everything in life or in art is open for interpretation, and while I've already agreed most in this movie is up for debate, this scene - that one moment - is blatantly there for one purpose only....that you have misinterpreted it is not my fault and while it may sound like it - of course I can see how it would - that is NOT condescension. When I was at school way back when, and added something up incorrectly, it wasn't condescension for someone to point it out and where I went wrong - esoecially if I turned around and refused to believe it and in fact insisted they were wrong for saying so. The scene is in the film, it is entirely visual, it is foreshadowed by some cleverly phrased dialogue, it is stated as such by the director, it was written as such by the original writer on TWO seperate mediums, well, sorry, but that's about as factual as it gets. I've already stated I've never read the book - what I know of it came after the movie and researching more about the story. I went into it without any preconceptions. I am happy to watch a positive movie, but equally I'm happy to watch something with a more negative outlook. By your last post however you're admitting you don't enjoy cynicism or negativity, so I would suggest, perhaps, that your own desire to see things with a more rosy glow has actually led you to make a decision about that scene that makes you feel better, but that is incorrect when it comes down to interpreting the scene itself. I know you know what the director intended, you've already admitted it. You must know the writer meant it too. But you however disagree with it. That's kind of an ostrich mentality. All the facts are in front of you, but you are denying what is blatantly stated in the movie and by the creators. Again, you'll forgive me if I find that a somewhat odd way to see the situation.
-
Ok. Maybe not. But this politeness seems out of place here at Aint it a Bunch of Whiny Nerds News.
-
I don't know if this has been brought up by the actresses playing Ellie was dubbed by a male actor (although an effeminate one).
I personally thought it was obvious that Elle was a guy, but I am not going to hold it against anyone questioning that. You blink or get distracted in a movie and you can easily miss one little hint. -
a gayer? is that a word used by adults?
-
I'm really not doing much more than what you've been doing by insisting that Eli is some kind of dark monster exploiting Oskar, which has been dispelled by the writer and director in many places. Once again, you *are* being an absolutist. I'll even throw you a bone and say that it's possible to still interpret Eli as having been a castrated boy, but without the internet info or the novel, the clearest thing you can really say is she looks like she may have had some sort of pelvic injury, as might result from a rape. And I'll give you that. But I'm sorry, from what's presented in the film, I personally can't take it any further than that. It's not unwillingness; I dislike the novel in many ways, but I'm not going to deny that "Eli" in the novel is really Elias, a mutilated and transgendered boy. There's no ambiguity, and I don't just mean, as you do, that I *think* there isn't any. He says it, and it's more than 'I'm not a girl.'
In a way, I wish you had read the book. I think you'd see, then, on what a thin thread this analysis of yours is really standing. There's just no arguing with what's in the book, at all. But the film is not the book. -
But in the film Eli is still presented as a castrated boy in that scene, you can deny it, you can want it to be something else, but it really isn't. We can debate all the other points in the movie all we may wish, but this is a stated fact and that you want it to be something else doesn't make it so. In terms of arguments with thin threads, you're projecting your own non-existent argument onto me. You know in the book it's a boy. You know the director of the movie states it's a boy, you know the writer states it's a boy, you've seen the scene showing the injury itself. To keep insisting that somehow it could be something else - without anything other than your own desire for it to be so - is not logical thinking. To try and stretch the scene to it being some form of co-incidental pelvic injury due to rape - come on, you're reaching man. I know it's hard to admit we're wrong from time to time, but sometimes we're wrong and that's all there is to it. You have nothing to suggest that in the movie the creature is, after that scene, anything other than a castrated boy/vampire. All the stated facts say it is so. You're putting you're own desire for a less, shall we say, disturbing reality - one agreed upon by all the creators and stated in the film itself - ahead of any sense at this point. Yes, the film is not the book and I don't need to read it to know that - but this point we do know is indeed the same, the reveal of the point was just handled differently for cinematic effect.
-
...seems akin to Ridley Scott's "big reveal" that Deckard is a replicant in 'Blade Runner.' It's one, ambiguous, brief shot, accompanied by a few equally ambiguous hints. Clearly it is not meant to be "obvious" to the average viewer of the film, and it doesn't radically alter the theme, meaning or dramatic thrust of what is, at heart, a dark (and possibly one-sided) love story. It's an Easter Egg.
To those that found it obvious, you are clearly very perspicacious, and should be proud of yourself. But trust me, most viewers will not focus on that one shot and get from it that Eli is a boy. They will get that she suffered some kind of mutilation, and leave it at that. My wife and I didn't get the boy thing, and she's notorious for seeing twists like that coming a mile away. -
Sorry, Hint and I have a history together from the BRUNO TB and I find him and his "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude to the point of ad nauseum, well, quite nauseating. I even tried to agree to disagree with him in a gentlemanly manner in the BRUNO TB and he wouldn't have anything to do with it, kinda like how he's acting here. It's like the Warden says in COOL HAND LUKE, "Some men you just can't reach," not even in the interest of civil debate. For the record, I didn't get that Eli was a boy as the actress playing the part is obviously a pretty, young girl. When you are watching a horror movie about vampires you don't think that when the ACTRESS says, "I'm not a girl," that she means she's a boy, you think she means that she's not human. As for the bathroom scene, I also just took it as something fucked up having to do with her being a vampire. Who has even seen what a botched castration looks like to be able to recognize something as such? Why were there no flashbacks of the Vampire Lord who made her 200 years ago? That would've made the movie better IMHO. I thought the movie was a great idea but kinda slow and not scary at all, more disturbing than scary. I do love the shot where Eli first meets Oskar at the frozen, snow-covered jungle gym and Oskar is bundled head to toe and Eli is in a slip with no shoes and hovering over Oskar on top of the jungle gym like an eerily still bird of prey. THAT was creepy.
-
All of it done in amusing fashion, but you want here to hijack a civil conversation? Sorry, dude, if that's your only intent here this is my only reply to you. Although, I have to say, I'm interested in hearing what exactly you call putting a dvd into reverse....I'm sure a few more people call it rewind than don't, let's put it that way. As to your take on the movie, if you didn't understand the scene as it was presented, hey ho, there have been comments from the director and the original writer who state it is indeed so. So sorry, pally, you're wrong. Sorry if that's too 'you're wrong' for you but there's really no other way to say it. You're wrong, deal with it. As to the depiction of the wound itself, would it have made you happier if they'd taken a real boy and castrated him for real in order to ensure authenticity...? So, we've established so far that YOU don't 'rewind' DVD's, and you quite obviously don't watch them either. Toodles, Zombie. I'll be less pleasant to you again in another TB, here I'd like to keep the tone a bit more civil, so like I said, tata for now.
-
Thanks for showing up here. It's a relief to know that I'm not the only one whom he treats with this kind of condescension, then turns around and acts like it's the OTHER person's fault. All while failing to realize that the tone is *still* generally civil ;)
-
And you already have other posters complaining about your "I'm right , you're wrong- end of discussion" attitude. So much for civil. I'm just letting everyone know that your douchebaggery in this regard regard is your M.O. and they shouldn't waste their time. As for we're "wrong," if we didn't catch it, it is more the failure of the director than the viewer as there are enough of us in here saying we didn't catch that, obviously if the director wanted us to know, the number of us here who didn't get that prove it wasn't made clear enough. And they could've solved the problem by, as a previous poster suggested, casting an androgynous boy rather than a rather pretty, REAL girl. Or as I suggested, actually showing, in flashback, Eli's Vampire Lord backstory which again, would've fleshed out the movie and made it better, IMHO. As for this being your 'only reply' to me, I should be so lucky.
-
respect.
-
As for me, I find the film nearly flawless...I personally need neither another 'evil vampire' film nor another sappy garbagefest like Twilight...for me, LTROI was the middle ground between the two, and I was happy with that.
-
I'm not necessarily saying that the Vampire Lord backstory need necessarily be "evil." Though one would assume if the Vampire Lord castrated a young tween boy, it's not gonna be all that sunny. Nor do I wish it to go Twilight either. Just for me it felt slow and not really scary, disturbing and creepy in some parts yes, but not scary. (For me, a good example of a vampire movie that was fresh, scary, disturbing and creepy was that Willem Dafoe NOSFERATU movie a few years ago, and it was funny in parts! "I will eat the scriptgirl.") Adding the Vampire Lord subplot would've given it another dimension and hey, it's already in the book. Prequel?
-
She turns into an old lady when drinking blood. Clearly.
-
except for the three people on this site.
-
I don't want to cast aspergions on anybody, but i'm starting to suspect that the people's opinions of Eli's gender and Oskar's dad sexuality do reflect a bit how confortable or uncorfortable they are with homosexuality. No, i'm not caling anybody a gay basher, i know from what i have read from the vast majority of people here there is no such beast among us. But i can notice that still a gay element in this story does cause some perturbation. Which i believe was intended by the filmmakers.I find it odd the know that soemof the filmamkers of this movie would retract and deny any eleemnt of homosexuality in their movie, when in fact they are ther,e and quite obvious too. Of the things the movie does and goes for subtlery, Oskar's dad's homosexuality and eli not being a girl are the too most obvious and direct things. and they add up to the stor,y they provide a logical support to the story. and they do help turn it into a odder then usual vampyre story. IIt's as if it was not enough the story's main characters were a 12 years old boy and a murderous vampyre that loolike a 12 years old girl, but then we have those two more elements that spice things up. And the movie puts them deliberatly.As for Oskar's uncorfortable reaction to the presence of Dad's love,r i would say that first of all, the kid who plays Oskar underlays that scene so much that i didn't took it as him reacting against an asshole intruder. If Oskar resents the newcomer presence, is more like how any child would resent the presence of anybody else who robs them of the parent's full attention. It's not just something we can see in kids, it's something we all did when we were kids. It's a natural kids reaction. Oskar resents the other presence the same way a kid visiting one of his divorced parents would react to the presence of the parent's new companion/lover/boy or girlfriend.Of the things the movie leaves ambiguous, Oskar's Dad homosexuality is not one of them. Or that Eli doesn't fit into the classic definition of a girl.
-
Yes it is your Dad taught it me when I was reaming him out whilst your Mum abused his mouth with her strapon, spitroasting FTW.I vote for everyone in the movie being a fucking GAYER...end off.
-
I got sick of everyone - including myself - coming up with theories about what happened. So I decided to go to the source - the director Tomas Alfredson in a number of interviews.
From Twitch
Eli’s voice is overdubbed. Lina (who plays Eli) has a too feminine and soft voice. After a thorough voice-casting we found a girl (her name is Elif!) with the right abrasive and boyish touch.
The film suggests that “Håkan” is an old aged lover to Eli. Maybe Oskar is becoming the same in the future?
From IFC
Lina's voice is beautiful, but I thought it was too high in pitch because Eli is supposed to be a boy, a castrated boy. So I was looking for a more boyish sound to her voice. It was hard work to make that work, but I think it was the right decision.
FILMdetail
It was the love story that is so unsentimental,
Birghtlightsfilm
The story of love. The script is based on the novel by John Ajvide Lindqvist. I worked with a screenwriter: he wrote and I added structure. I cut the novel to only one track: the love story. What makes it unusual is that it is a love story with no sex, with a castrated boy. This is pure love. It's very rare, but I have seen it. Also, when a child, I had dreams about such a love, what it looks like. It is pre-sexual love, total love, a devoted love.
Oskar lives in a society that cannot handle him or respect him. He takes full responsibility for that, and he leaves. He cuts off the bonds, the teachers, the family, and leaves society. And that is quite an interesting movement. I like that he does that. For me, the preceding pool scene is his fantasy. He actually dies here. In reality, he would die. Instead, he leaves. I like my ending scene on the train. The window shot was inspired by a memory from my childhood. As a child, I saw an open curtain in the window. My ending is very bright and promising. Some viewers see Oskar as the new blood provider to the girl. Another idea is that he decides to be a vampire himself so she lets him contaminate himself, and they live happily ever after as a children vampire couple.
From Latino Review
Alfredson: Yes. This came as a surprise to me, but in several screenings people have asked me if the father was a homosexual.
Right. I didn't want to say that, but it does appear like that.
Alfredson: Okay. It never entered my mind, but I think that's a cultural difference between the USA and Sweden. In Sweden we do come over to each other without –
I understand.
Alfredson: So that's a big difference, and if you live in the countryside people will walk over to each other and have a glass of vodka or whiskey or whatever. So that's not a big thing for Swedes. But it was a surprise to me that people though the was a homosexual. His father is an alcoholic and uses the alcohol before his son every time it's attempted. So that's the tragic back story and this is also a portrait of the author's own father who drank himself to death some years ago. It's a very autobiographical story.
From CHUD
It's about the things in your mind, the animal of your mind. You can't say a wolf is a cruel animal. You can say it does cruel things, but it's not cruel. It's the same thing with the vampire, she does things that are necessary for her to live, but she is not a cruel character. That is a very interesting thing to explore. I think if a person is bullied, as in this case Oskar, it doesn't grow as much sorrow as it grows anger. She will be that anger.
She's not a girl in the film, either, but it's not outspoken. She's an androgyne. There is a short image of....
Interviewer: Oh, I did see that, but I was 100% sure what that was.
It's suggested. She's a castrated boy. Somehow in my version that's not important. Whether she's a boy or a girl. It doesn't matter.
From an Video Interview on Collider
Love conquering hatred and hate.. it is about a girl who’s biggest threat is love, this little vampire girl…and although it is her biggest threat she chooses love.
-
Ellie is a castrated boy, but it is ok if you didn't get that.
Oskar's dad is not gay, just a drunk (wow, I missed the boat on that one).
Hakan once was maybe like Oskar.
Oskar might be her new caretaker, but Ellie is not "investing" in him to be a serial killer.
Ellie is not an "evil" serial killer, she is just doing what is in her nature to survive.
And finally it is a love story. Ellie and Oskar are in love - it is just not a sexual love.
I should add I have read an earlier interview where he says the audience should come to their own conclusions. So no one's interpretation is wrong, he intentionally leaves things ambiguous. Anyone who says he knows what really happened or what this film is about is full of shit - the film was intentionally made so it isn't easy to read and decipher. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery wrapped in an enigma with a side order of fries. -
On the dad's sexual issue, i think the director is selling his own movie short. you post did enlight one thing, which i didn't pick up, i admit, that the dad is an alchoolic. In hindsight, yeah, makes sense, but the hints are extremely subtle. The gay hints, however, are not that sutble, in fact, they are clear. And that LOTS of people picked up on that is quite a testement. Now, the most interesting this is, if the director is telling the full truth (and remmeber, filmmakers also lie), then the way he shot the scene and the way the actors acted, it does present a very clear hint and idea of the dad's homosexual leaning. which could mean, by accident, the director provided the movie with an additional layer that was not even in the inical conception. Which makes the movie even richer. and that, i think, is very cool.And i'm sorr,y but however much the director might kick and scream, the thing is, as is in the movuie, Oskar's dad is gay. Gay and alchoolic. Which works even better to point out Orkar's own personality.
-
I admit that while eli's actions are not, for the most part, the stuff of nice people, i alsao never got the idea she is evil. in fac,t i think the movie does make a good cear portait that when Eli is in the grasps of her/his hunger, he/she starts to act more like an animal then a human being. Or maybe like a human being who's an addicted to drugs. We all know of stories of nice people who fall into drug habit and whoc hange completly and became criminals and bastards, all for the sake of filling their cravings. Same deal could be in here with Eli. For the most time, and while Eli is fed, he/she acts reasonably and humanly. It's when the food supply lack that Eli becames more animal-like, less human-like, more feral and unpredictable. And yet, even in that state, he/she cannot bring him/herself to kill and feed on Oskar. This is where the love story kicks in.also, while i'm, well aware that eli is, or was born a boy, i can't help think of Eli as a girl. Certainly, that's how Eli sells him/herself to the world at large when interacts with strangers.
-
Also, her love, which made her decide to expose herself to save the life of Oskar, helped create one of the most kick ass scene in a movie released this year, the now infamous swimming pool scene. Man, that scene is beyond belief!
-
...cancels out it's evil actions. The character of Eli, whichever way you cut it, causes horrific things to be done for it, and by it. It's not an animal, and that is the difference - it is a reasoning creature fully aware of the damage it is doing to other people - the director even shows this by having it cry after making a kill. A lot of us will indeed know people who in general are quite decent but due to circumstances or addictions will have done abominable things - their being nice most of the time does not excuse them from their selfish, dangerous or even 'evil', as in Eli's case, actions. We're responsible for the things we do, and some things, like out and out murder for selfish reasons, is wrong. Animals killing each other for sustenance is not the same thing. The idea of the fictional vampire is of a tragic and/or reprehensible figure, murdering humans for it's continued existence - one that is completely at the expense of innocents. Hence why they're normally not the hero in the movies. We can argue it's 'nature' all we want, but they are portrayed as reasoning, self aware creatures that were once also human. Human nature is to fight and kill, most of us accept that's not the best way to live though and we ignore that side of our nature. As I've said before, if it really was remorseful for the killings, why does it continue on? Because it's own needs are more important to it, even weighed against the horrific fates of potentially thousands more people. I may be a cynic, but even I like to think that when presented with that scenario most ordinary people wouldn't put their own lives ahead of thousands of others if the direct result was horrible deaths for them all. Still, that's my view on the idea of a vampire as a whole, if the director said he intended it to be a 'sweet' story as opposed to my take that it's a vicious story wrapped in clever subterfuge, fair enough. Thanks for posting that info, Continentalop. I am not surprised to see he didn't intend the father to be perceived as homosexual though - seeing it as a cultural issue of people more likely to visit as drinking buddies clears it up quite well. Regardless of everything though, I still think the final scene in the train of Oskar happily tapping away to the thing in the box as he rides off into his miserable, blood soaked future is an absolutely brilliant and utterly horrific end.
-
My job's done here. Nice to see that nearly all of the exact same points that I'd been posting and posting and posting interview quotes and links about, only to be argued with, were accepted when continentalop made a single post.
I'm not egotistical. I don't care who got the point across, so long as it was gotten across.
Really, the most important thing to me about the film isn't the gender thing--in fact, it IS rather beautiful that Eli and Oskar's love transcends gender. What sets LTROI apart for me is that--excluding Twilight, miserable piece of fluff that it is--for once, the vampire is not the main source of horror, and yet, clearly, the vampire's life *is* one of horror and misery. Oskar's life is fairly horrific and miserable as well, and out of this, the two of them find a bond of love (however you want to characterize that love), and some measure of happiness. I've never seen that in any other version of the vampire myth.
Glad to see that you're just as persistent in your view of the ending, in the face of everything, as I am in thinking that the portrayal of Eli as a 'boy' isn't terribly clear in the film.
Neither point really keeps us both from appreciating the fact that the film is extraordinary. I'd take back every bit of 'non-civility' I've been responsible for here, if I thought my attitudes would keep people from seeing the film. It's a great film, and important to the vampire genre, I think.
And look at all this discussion..and somehow we managed not to sound like a bunch of kindergartners in a sandbox :) -
Most of the movie was filmed in Lulea in northern Sweden. Some of the nightime scenes were filmed in temps like -30C. It was so cold during the scene where Hakan hangs the guy upside down in the park that his plastic overcoat cracked. The snow is very real.
A couple of scenes were filmed in Blackeburg, the Stockholm suburb where the movie takes place. Those were the scenes when the snow disappeared. Continuity error, but one I'll forgive in this excellent film. -
Links have been removed from dreadcentral.com
There is one video on youtube with three tryouts, about 8:00 long, at http://tinyurl.com/mna3gv
Two girls have black hair. The girl with brown hair is Chloe Moretz. This is on a message board on her IMDB profile: "Chloë has booked a fantastic role for a film that she will begin shooting in October 2009." -
Is too Old?
youtube.com/watch?v=MCUMpdD5uAE -
That Eli in the movie can be both very humane and loving to Oskar while she also behaves like an hungry animal and a murderous monster to others is part of the marvelous ambiguity of the character shown in the movie, and which makes the movie so much more interesting then if eli had just been a poor nice vampyre or a total creature of darkness. This is why the movie works, and why the movie is so good, that marvelous ambiguity within the same character.And i'm sad to say, i strongly suspect that will be absent in the american remake, where eli will be either a good vampyre or a total creature of darkness that the hero will have to finally defeat. colour me skeptical, but i really believe the american remake will not have 1/10th of the ambiguity and intelligence of the swedish original.
-
oh good, just so we're clear on what you are then it's cool. I prefer the term bumblefuckwit but whatever you think suits you best.
-
Well, Clay, you see your side of things as vindicated for the most part with Continentalops post, yet I see most of mine vindicated there by contrast which of us is right I guess isn't for us to decide as we'll argue our own corners. I never saw his father as a homosexual in the first place, so it's interesting to see the director debunk that myth amongst people. I argued Oskar is to become Eli's new 'keeper'....and it seems the director see's so too. I'm not sure how he doesn't see Oskar as becoming a killer like Hakan, Eli needs that relationship to keep itself removed from the killing - add to that the facts shown in the film that Oskar is deeply troubled, with fantsies about hurting people - an eminent candidate with a few more years under his belt. But hey ho. I also disagree with the whole 'she's not evil' aspect - it's a vampire, a killer, and it's existence is at the expense of others. I can't see it as a pityable figure due to that, and while I can uderstand why others see it as a sweet 'romance' I can't - based on Hakan's existence in the film - see anything but horror and misery in Oskars future - both for himself and him causing it to others to 'keep' Eli. And you're right, that ambiguity that has us seeing the film so differently is pretty great - there aren't many films that get such a civilised and enjoyable discussion on this site. Asimov, I fully agree - the remake has no hope of being as talkworthy, and I have no doubt it will be reduced to a more 'palatable' story for consumption at the cineplex. For those bitching about 'Americans won't watch it otherwise', that's a pile of bull. A lot won't, true enough, but Europeans are hardly blameless when it comes to supporting mindless blockbusters AHEAD of well-thought out and less generic fare. If we were, Let the Right One In would have done better at the box office than Transformers 2 did recently. There's room for both types of films, I just hate to see a quality movie like this remade as popcorn fare.
-
cut off his penis and wear it.
-
You are right about one thing: europeans are indeed as much to blame for the welthy business track records of the big dumb blockbusters as the americans are. but there's one thing i suspect makes the difference: i think most europeans came out of those dumb blockbusters disapointed, instead of what looks to be half of our american bretheren who came oput of said movies jumping around and proclaiming "That kicked ass!!". I really, really, really doubt that at elast in continental europe you can find as much enthusiastic responses to Terminator 4, JJ's Star Trek, Wolverine and Transformers 2 as it's found in USA... or UK, for that matter.
-
that Eli will be a girl in America so that all the crazies don't start protesting and boycotting the movie.
-
I'm a Brit who lives in Canada and has to commute to work in the UK, as such I guess I see both sides of the coin...and I can guarantee you, plenty of my work colleagues lapped up TF 2 like it was honey on Jessica Alba. There are just as many people with less discerning movie inclinations, adjusted for population of course, in the UK as in the American continent....the only difference I would postulate is that for all those lapping up big budget, empty spectacle shit you probably have a higher proportion of those people at least willing to give other kinds of film a go than their American counterparts, whether they get on with those different kinds of film is another matter. The UK is still slightly more open-minded, I would say, but just as dumb and as easily bedazzled by sparkling things. Europe I would like to think has more people with good taste running around...but then again, they do have the French among their number, so who's to say.
-
...that bet. I can't see the 'castrated boy' angle making it to the final cut of the American remake either, but we'll have to wait and see I guess. You never know. Maybe it'll be good......................................................................................................................................................see what I did there?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....the remake might be good....I crack myself up. I'm here all week, folks.
-
There's no doubt about that. i don't think the filmamkers and the studios want to risk seeing the theaters burning down in the midwest if the movie provided the "Eli is a castrateed boy and this is a love story" angle the swedish movie has.
-
My point was that the people in the UK are getting their tastes closer and closer to the americans. I see that quite clearly exemplified in the reviews of mvoies in such british movie magazines such as Empire, Total Film and SFX. I mean, Empire gave Terminator: Salvation 4 stars!! Think about it.
-
UK viewers are indeed losing IQ points by the minute - the success of the dumb blockbusters proves that.
-
Aug 04, 2009 8:39:13 AM CDT
Give this a chance, throw yourself out the window and kill yours
by supersweetguy
I can understand because of people's love of the [original] film that there's this cynicism that I'll come in and trash it, when in fact I have nothing but respect for the film. I'm so drawn to it for personal and not mercenary reasons ... I hope people give us a chance." This is what i will say in tagalog. Gago ka Matt Reeves. What are you thinking, that you can still get the feel of Let the right one in? Fucking idiot!! Hope your movie fails, and it flops big time.
-
Just watched this with my wife, all we knew about it was great vampire movie.
Both of us saw Eli as a girl. In the infamous crotch shot, all we saw was a female's genitals with her legs closed.
Didn't even know about the castration concept until reading this talkback.