Movie News

Capone grills CLOVERFIELD director Matt Reeves about LET ME IN, the LET THE RIGHT ONE IN remake!!!

Published at: June 7, 2010, 7:20 a.m. CST by Capone

Hey everyone. Capone in Chicago here. Outside of convention settings, I'm not a big fan of interviewing any actor or director without having first seen the film we're there to focus on, but for reasons I can't quite explain, I have now interviewed director Matt Reeves twice, both times about films I hadn't seen at the time. Actually, I can explain why. The first time was because he was the director of CLOVERFIELD, a film with one of the most mysterious marketing campaigns in recent memory and all of geekdom was clawing for details on the film. More recently at the SXSW Film Festival in March, I elected to talk to Reeves for a very simple reason: he's a great conversationalist. Plus, his latest work LET ME IN--the remake of the Swedish vampire masterpiece LET THE RIGHT ONE IN--was at the center of a major controversy before Reeves had shot a single frame of the work. Most of the controversy revolved around the need for a remake in the first place, let alone on the heels of the original film's release. Before anyone jumps on the Talkbacks with knee-jerk negativity, I want you to read what Reeves says about the process that went into making the film, the timing, and his justification for making this film in the first place. For all of its critical praise, LET THE RIGHT ONE IN was not seen by a whole lot of Americans (probably because of all those scary subtitles). A recent report of a secret test screening of the film seems to indicate Reeves (who also wrote the adaptation) is mostly faithful to the original's structure and plot--a wise choice. I'm also crazy about the cast of Chloe Moretz (Hit Girl in KICK-ASS) as the vampire, THE ROAD's Kodi Smit-McPhee as the boy, and Richard Jenkins as the vampire's "father." But in the end, I--like many of you--am immensely protective of LET THE RIGHT ONE IN, and any attempt at recapturing the atmosphere and intensity of that movie seems ill-advised at best. Reeves had only recently finished shoot LET ME IN when we spoke, but I was determined to get a few things straight about his approach to this material. I'm in no way vouching for the final product, but his words put me in a much better frame of mind about what we will see on October 1, when the film is set for release. I also love his enthusiasm for the source material (meaning the book the original film was based on). At the very least, Matt Reeves convinced me this material means as much to him as anyone else who might have made this remake. But don't take my word for it; let's let Mat Reeves speak for himself. Enjoy…
Capone: I don't know if you remember, but we spoke on the phone when you were doing your first round of interviews shortly before CLOVERFIELD was released. Matt Reeves: Of course I do. That was a crazy time! Capone: It was, and I was just saying to someone that technically this is the second time I’ve talked to you movie unseen. MR: Right, exactly! That’s true. And I basically gave you no answers at that time. Capone: Actually I re-read it last night, there’s actually more information there than I originally remembered. MR: Were there some answers? Okay, good. Capone: There was some good stuff in there, yeah. But this time, you have to promise me that once I see LET ME IN that we can talk again. MR: Absolutely, of course. Capone: I’m sure I’ll have lots of very different questions. MR: Absolutely. Capone: I’m sure this isn’t the first and won't be the last time you will get this question, but let’s start with: In your head, how do you justify the existence of this film. Going through this process, what was the thinking? And I understand that motivation where you see a great foreign film and want Americans to see it as well. So tell me just what your thinking was. MR: Sure, the thing about it is is that when I first finished CLOVERFIELD, just right after it got released I started…There’s a movie that I’ve been passionate about making called INVISIBLE WOMAN, and there’s all of this stuff that I’ve been trying to do. I was trying to figure out my next project, and somebody said “We’d love to do a movie with you” and they said, “Take a look at this film. We are pursuing the rights for it.” And this was around the time of CLOVERFIELD, so that was January 2008. The movie [LET THE RIGHT ONE IN] didn’t come out until long after that, almost a year later. I think it was October of that year, and so I didn’t know anything about the movie, and they gave it to me and they said, “It’s a fantastic story. It’s a terrific movie; you might want to make the kids older. Who knows what you will want to do, but we think you might really respond to it.” I’m watching the movie and the thing about it is is that part of INVISIBLE WOMAN is that it started as this story that I had done that was a pilot when I was doing "Felicity" with J.J. Abrams [the two were co-creators of "Felicity"], and we both sort of had these overall deals. And J.J.’s pilot was "Alias," and of course we all know what happened there. I did a pilot that didn’t get made, but it was a family story and it was a coming-of-age story told from the point of view of this 11-year-old boy--sort of a dark story--who lived in this apartment courtyard, and there was this girl next door, and they had these halting encounters in the courtyard and it was all about the pain of that age. So I’m watching the movie and I’m like “Oh my God, I love this movie.” That tone was so what I had been wanting to do ,and then when it became this brilliant vampire story, I was like “This is genius!” So I was like “Okay, I’m going to read the book” and I thought the book was incredible, so I went to the person who had given me the film and I said “I have two things to say: Number one if you make these kids older, you literally destroy the story, so if you do that, please don’t make this film. Number two, to that point; I’m not sure you should do a remake of this film. This film is brilliant.” I thought it was brilliant, but it couldn’t sort of leave my imagination. I was going “If somebody is going to do this film, it’s so great” and I so responded to it personally and I read the book and was like “This is such a beautiful story.” So I wrote to [book and screenplay writer John Ajvide] Lindqvist (novel). I wrote him a thing, I said “I know that you know they are talking about a remake”--and he wrote the screenplay as well to the story--and I thought what Tomas Alfredson had done was so brilliant with the way it was directed. It was so beautifully restrained, and the kids were so great, and it was this aching, beautiful, melancholy story and I was saying to him in my e-mail, “I just want to tell you that I’m so drawn to this story, but let me tell you why. I respond to it, not just because it’s just a great genre story--which it is--but because it’s such a beautiful coming-of-age story.” I said, “I’m really sort of grappling with this and I just wanted to write to you to tell you how much I admire what you did, because I think it’s so beautiful.” I talked about the fact that I had been bullied when I was young and just the idea of the pain of that, of going through the family separation, the idea of going through a divorce at that age and feeling helpless and “Who do you turn to?” Just such a vivid story. So he wrote back to me and he said first of all that he was a big fan of CLOVERFIELD, which got me very excited. I was like “That’s cool,” but then he said what he liked about it was that it took an old story and did it with a fresh take, and he said “That’s really what we tried to do and what I tried to do with the novel” and I was like “Boy did you do that…” He said, “But I’m much more excited to find out about your personal reaction, because this is my autobiography.” And the thing about it is is that I have had trepidation about that aspect of it all along. I kept thinking that there are going to be so many people who are going to say "This is a beautiful film," but the [original] film hadn’t even come out yet, so I didn’t even know how many people would have seen the film. Capone: Right. MR: At that point, it’s sort of like you get on a train and it starts going and you are kind of like “Oh here’s were we are going.” And the thing that I knew was that I was just so drawn to that story and to try and find a way to do it in an American context and in a way that nothing will ever change the fact that that is a brilliant film, and it’s a beautiful novel. That film and novel, they will always exist, and people will always be able to say “Wow, that was such a great film.” And I was interested in finding a way to use the personal aspect of the story to explore that same story in an American context, and when I first started saying that, people were saying “Oh an Americanization, he’s going to take the movie and make it a big stupid movie with explosions!” Really what I was talking about and the thing about the book--there’s this great chapter, which is the opening of the book where he talks about Blackeberg, which is where he grew up and he talks about Blackeberg as being this community that essentially was a planned community that sprouted out, which sounds like a very American sort of thing with the Levittowns, post-World War II and all of the tracked housing kind of communities like "Spielbergia," and he talked about how these communities would sprout up and that this community sprouted up and they built it and you can imagine one day that everybody just moved in, and they all came in one day. But what he said at the end of the chapter--and this is the thing that got me hooked in the book right from the very first chapter--was he said “But there wasn’t a single church in this place, which is probably why they were so unprepared for what was about to happen.” Then you are like “What?! I have to read this. This is brilliant.” The thing about it is is that I related to that idea of the sort of suburban thing. It had a perfect analogy… Capone: The Godless suburbia? [Laughs] MR: But the thing is, it wasn’t a Godless suburbia, and so that was the idea of the kind of things that I meant with “Americanization.” The Swedish story is set in the '80s and I wanted to set this story in the '80s as well. I wanted to honor it as much as possible and translate it into an American context, and our America of the '80s of course was Reagan America and the idea of the Evil Empire and the idea of being a 12-year-old boy who is so mercilessly bullied, who is basically disconnected from his family, because there is this painful thing that’s going on with the parents getting divorced and feeling so lost and helpless and what that would feel like to be having these dark fantasies in a place where the world is telling you that “Evil is other. Evil is outside of us. It’s over there. The Evil Empire. The Russians, they are evil, but we are not.” The idea of not a Godless America, but an America that is steeped in religion. The idea of saying that those feelings are basically evil. To grapple with the evil within him, I think was one of the things I was interested in, the idea of “So what does that mean?” In that context, I get it and that’s an amazing story, but it’s an interesting story in this context too, which is “What does it mean to be a 12-year-old boy who doesn’t understand these feelings that probably terrify him and then to meet this person who is this manifestation of those things and who can enact in a blinding second basically every dark thought that he ever had?” That’s a scary idea, and so that was what I meant. I meant that I wanted to find a way to translate the experience of being a 12 year old at that time in that kind of context in an American world, which relates in certain ways to the Swedish story, but in other ways, through specificity, is different and that’s all I really wanted to do. Through specificity try and make it as honest and real as possible, which is what they had done in the Swedish context. It’s what made the film so brilliant.” Capone: Where have you set the film, geographically? MR: We actually set it in Los Alamos, [New Mexico] because that’s also an iconic place with a very interesting history as well. Capone: Is snow be a part of your version? I can’t imagine this story without it. Snow is a character. MR: The snow is a character, and it’s so funny, because when somebody first suggested to me that I look in New Mexico, I had actually set it in Colorado, and somebody said “If you are setting it in Colorado, you might consider shooting in New Mexico” and I was like “New Mexico? Isn’t that like desert? I’m confused.” They are at a very high elevation and obviously they are connected to the Colorado, they are very… They have really snowy areas, and actually Los Alamos in particular… It’s very funny, because Drew Goddard, who wrote CLOVERFIELD, he and I were talking about it, and he was very excited and the idea of me doing this film, because he just knows me and knows the kind of things I’m interested in and he was like “No, I’m telling you this is very exciting.” And of course, I was terrified at various points, because again, like I said, this was way before the film came out. Once the film came out, then a whole new life started coming, and by that point I was so committed to what we were doing and I still really believe in it, but there’s this part of me going “Look what’s happening. Oh my God, people are going to come and murder us.” Capone: People were saying, “It’s the best vampire movie ever.” MR: Exactly and you know what, if I were in that crowd who had just seen the movie and heard this was going on, I would have exactly the same cynical thought. I would think, “What are you guys doing? You're doing whatever you can to quickly jump in, make a buck, take a great story, and basically bastardize it.” That’s why from the beginning I tried to do basically as much as possible before I even knew that there would be that sort of thought, it was just like that’s how I felt about the story. I thought “This story needs to be honored,” and that has really been my approach from the beginning. It’s the reason why we didn’t age the kids, why we got Kodi [Smit-Mcphee], why we got Chloe [Moretz], why we got Richard Jenkins, like the idea was “Let’s try and do this.” So I wanted to set it in Colorado, and Drew had gone to college in Colorado and he goes “Perfect place.” And then when New Mexico came up, I went on the internet and I started looking up Los Alamos just so I could understand more about it, because I love the idea of Los Alamos, just because of what it meant again in an American context of war and what that place grew out of and the idea of the atomic bomb. And then I looked at it and I found Los Alamos High School, and it said “Famous Alums” and it said “Drew” and I called up Drew and I was like “Not only did you go to school in Colorado, you’re from Los Alamos?” He goes “Oh yeah, I’m from Los Alamos.” I’m like “Can you imagine this story there?” He goes, “Oh, yeah.” He said ,“It’s basically my childhood.” I was like “Yeah…” That was sort of how it happened and it’s totally snowy, remote, suburban living. It’s actually a really interesting and great place, but you could totally see the story taking place there. And, yes, snow is definitely an aspect of the film, but it’s a desert-in-New Mexico snow, so the landscape is quite different, but it’s snowing. Capone: What are some of the fundamental differences between the two versions? For example, I’m curious about some of the secondary characters, the bar patrons. What you have done with them? MR: Again, because I’m just starting the editing and how things end up. My intention, and the thing about it is is, that I’m very driven in filmmaking with the idea of point of view. Obviously CLOVERFIELD is the extreme example of it, but I grew up Spielbergian and also Hitchcockian kind of films that really… and actually Polanski, and all of those films that were very driven by the point of view of the character who is at the center of it. And one of the things that I really wanted to do was to take this story and find the way, because the thing that really resonated with me was the coming-of-age story, to filter it as much through his point of view as possible, so that the secondary characters would be characters… It’s interesting, because like I said when you read the book, if you were to truly make every aspect of the book, you would have a 10-hour miniseries. Just between Virginia and Lacke alone, they have a story that is it’s own. The bar patrons have all of this stuff that happens and the same thing with what happens with Hakan. He goes on, and the things that go on after what happens in the movie, I mean he’s not dead in the book, it continues. If you were to truly do every single one of those aspects, the thing would be sprawling. It would be amazing, but it would be a 10-hour miniseries, and I wouldn’t be surprised if that didn’t happen someday. But the essence of this story was the coming-of-age aspect. It’s what Lindqvst had chosen to smartly focus on, and to me that "Romeo and Juliet" story is so powerful. So what I wanted to do was to take the boy’s experience and have it be as point-of-view driven as possible, so you meet those secondary characters through his world. The idea of his eyes and looking out, the idea of that courtyard experience. It’s interesting, because it’s not quite as clear in the film, but it’s very clear in the book that they actually all live in this same sort of grouping of buildings in the courtyard, and I just thought that was such and interesting opportunity for him to introduce us to those characters through his watchfulness, through the idea of a kid who is trying to understand the world around him. A lot of coming-of-age stories have that aspect of the kid looking out into the adult world, and the adult world being both alluring and terrifying and confusing, and that’s very much what the coming-of-age experience is, so my idea in trying to adapt it was to take as much of the story and filter it as much as I could through his point of view, so we are introduced to those characters through him and so that’s different. Capone: So probably not as much time spent in the bar bar? MR: He doesn’t spend a lot of time in a bar. Long-winded answer for the bar story. Capone: Yea, but I understand what you are saying--he's meeting them as part of his day-to-day routine. MR: Yeah, meeting them differently and following them differently. It’s a more distanced approach, because it’s him not even necessarily knowing that much about them and watching them and having encounters with them and not necessarily being “Okay, let’s break point of view and let’s follow their story.” It’s the idea of trying to tell their story through his point of view and primarily how if effects his story. What’s so brilliant about the "Romeo and Juliet" aspect of the story is it is truly on one level and impossible romance and it comes up obviously with a very interesting ending, which is both fantastic and also disturbing, if you think about it. Capone: You don’t realize it until the ending that the whole story has been building to that ending. You don’t realize it until the final scene. MR: Exactly and then you are like “Oh my God!” And that’s the thing, the idea of trying to tell the story in that way and how those pieces all inexorably move in one direction. That was what I wanted to honor and also find a way to do in this version, to make it as much through his point of view as could happen. There’s not everything that’s totally his point of view, but it’s as much as I could find a way to do. And the story has certain aspects of it that in order to tell it, you might have to break point of view for a moment here and there, but I tried to be as vigilant about keeping it in his point of view as possible. Capone: I think it's fair to say that the original film was not afraid of long periods of silence; it embraced it. CLOVERFIELD is like a Chatty Cathy doll compared to it. MR: [laughs] It sure is! Capone: Are you willing to let that breathing room happen? MR: That’s the whole thing. It’s interesting, because until I did CLOVERFIELD, I had never done anything like CLOVERFIELD. In fact the restraint of the film is something that I really responded to and something that I love. The thing about CLOVERFIELD was it was true to the form in which it was. It was meant to be a Handicam movie in the midst of a monster disaster in essence, and there’s not a lot of quiet time in that and that’s madness. The idea of the kind of creeping dread of this film and of the story is something that absolutely… There’s going to be quite a bit of silence in the story. Really what it comes down to is the approach, which is one of restraint. The reason I mention like THE EXORCIST or THE SHINING as well is to me…the thing about CLOVERFIELD is, it wasn’t about the manic-ness of it, it was to take a ridiculous genre idea--this giant monster movie, which is such a fun concept--and try to do it in as realistic a way as possible and the reality of that situation is very chaotic, very frenetic. It’s the Handicam point of view, but it was an attempt to create a reality in something that could on the face of it be ridiculous, but if you took it seriously, it would hopefully be this disturbing event that would be very kinetic. This story--if you imagine the reality of this story--it’s obviously quite different. It isn’t a kinetic kind of story, it’s a much more slow burn creeping dread kind of thing and THE EXORCIST and THE SHINING and those kinds of movies, they use that approach as well. It’s funny, because the director of photography and I watched THE EXORCIST during the prep, and I said to him beforehand “I just don’t want you to lose respect for me.” He said, “What are you talking about?” “This movie frightens me, so you should know if I make any outbursts…” He was like “Oh, okay whatever” and he kept getting up and going out to the bathroom and I thought “He’s not into this movie at all, what’s going on?” Then finally there’s the scene were she starts flopping on the bed and he literally had an outburst “I forgot how much this movie terrifies me!” That’s why he kept getting up and going to the bathroom. I was like “Oh good, so at least I didn’t embarrass myself.” The thing about the approach to that film that [William] Friedkin did that’s so amazing is that it’s very very real and naturalistic, and it creates a kind of dread and it’s about the silences. If you think about the beginning of that film, all of that stuff in Iraq is absolutely haunting, and a lot of it is totally without dialog, and that kind of tone is part of what gives the movie a kind of authenticity that makes it horrifying. To me, it makes it much scarier. If that movie had been very in your face, as much as people do think the movie is in your face, the approach is actually quite restrained and that was what Tomas had done and what I think is the right thing to do with a story like this, which is to allow there to be restraint, so when those things happen, it feels totally real and that’s what makes it scary. Capone: Two quick rapid-fire questions, because they are giving me the wrap up. MR: I’m sorry. I know and everything I say is like six minutes long. Capone: Oh no, I love it. At least it’s not the opposite of that. [Both Laugh] Is the film anatomically correct? MR: Oh, interesting… Well, you know the thing about it is… I don’t want to give anything away just yet. You will see when you see the movie, but I have tried to remain as true to the story as possible, but you guys will tell me! [Laughs] “Anatomically correct,” that’s great! Capone: I’ve heard some horribly scary rumor that maybe this wouldn't be R rated? MR: No. Capone: It is? MR: Oh yeah. Well, let’s put it this way, because it’s very funny. I think the reason this came up is because KICK-ASS… That’s funny, because I use the word “Americanization” what I was talking about was context, but it had nothing to do with big and dumb and PG-13. I don’t know what the rating will be. I would be shocked if it wasn’t an R, because the very content of what the story is, which we haven’t watered down, is an R. But someone said “Well KICK-ASS actually got a 12 in the UK” and I said, “That’s amazing. That’s crazy.” I haven’t seen it. Capone: Someone told me it actually got a 15. I read that, but I think the person that said that was wrong. MR: You think he was wrong? Okay, because I wouldn’t be surprised, because we are all sitting there and I said “If that turns out to be the case, I think it just means that there’s a different cultural response to it, because in the United States, I cannot imagine the film as we have done it getting anything other than an R.” I just can’t imagine it. Now if it does, I’ll be surprised. Let’s put it this way, there was no attempt to try and soften it to make PG-13. Capone: Well some other teenage vampire movies of late have been PG-13, so maybe they were thinking you were trying to tap into that audience. MR: That’s true, but that story is so different. It is much more of a lighter fantasy, and this one is dark. Capone: All right, thank you so much. MR: My pleasure. Capone: It was great to meet you. MR: Great to meet you, and thank you so much! I'm sure we'll talk again after you see the film.
-- Capone capone@aintitcool.com Follow Me On Twitter



Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • June 7, 2010, 7:23 a.m. CST

    its a lion!!!

    by ORIONgods

  • June 7, 2010, 7:35 a.m. CST

    cue the haters...

    by BennyL

    I for one am interested in seeing Reeves interpretation of an amazing story.

  • June 7, 2010, 7:39 a.m. CST

    "So not as much time spent in the bar?"

    by CreasyBear

    Good job, Capone, of cutting to the quick there. I was thinking the same thing after all that cautious explanation on his part.

  • June 7, 2010, 7:40 a.m. CST

    Kick Ass was a 15 in the UK

    by thatfilmlover

    and Matt Reeves failed to convince me this film needs to exist for any reason.

  • June 7, 2010, 7:42 a.m. CST

    Well, there's one shot at least

    by MorganLeafy

    that won't be in the remake.

  • June 7, 2010, 7:46 a.m. CST

    Reeves is Michael Bay's arthouse nom de plume

    by Those_arent_pillows

  • June 7, 2010, 8:03 a.m. CST

    I'm willing to give it a go

    by Talkbacker with no name

    He certainly seems to have his heart and head in the right place. To be honest, I never really had a problem with this remake. It's funny how it being a book first kinda gives it a pass as a movie (to me anyway). Thy can make 100 versions in different countries for all I care. As long as they are good and stay true to the source, I don't see a problem. All the best, Matt! Looking forward to your version.

  • June 7, 2010, 8:03 a.m. CST

    When you say original plot...

    by V'Shael

    that's really bad writing, because it's not clear whether you mean the original MOVIE, or the original BOOK. And since both plots differed in certain key areas, you should have made yourself about one metric fuckload unit clearer.

  • June 7, 2010, 8:04 a.m. CST

    Kick Ass was MA15+ in Aus

    by TBYITBSITBH

    which means nobody under 15 except accompanied by an adult (or someone over 15 I suppose). In the preview screening I saw there was at least one kid who looked about ten...but anyway <P> I don't mind them making this flick, as I kind of feel that the original is over-rated anyway...it's very GOOD, but the amount of hype leading up to my seeing it - and since - sort of dampened my response to it. I'd already read the book, so the changes to the film were annoying to me, and some elements didn't work tonally (the film festival audience I saw it with actually laughed during one of the early scenes where Hakan was draining a body of blood, and I myself couldn't tell whether it was supposed to be chilling or actually darkly humorous or what, though I'd found NOTHING funny about it in the book, so that annoyed me.) <P> Then there's shit like the CGI cats. And I don't know if anyone else has mentioned, but it made NO sense to me how the climactic scene at the pool worked...*SPOILERS* Eli chooses to dispatch all the other bullies while the main one continues to hold Oskar underwater, about to drown..wtf? made no sense to me when I saw that <P> and of course the infamous crotch shot which simple cannot possibly make any sense whatsoever to someone who hasn't read the book, I don't know how to explain that more people didn't find come out going "WTF?!" except that it's so quick their brain must just immediately discount it and forget about it.. <P> I just wish then though that this new one was gonna stick more to the book, but doesn't sound like it will

  • June 7, 2010, 8:05 a.m. CST

    "anatomically correct" heh...

    by Cotsos

    if it is "anatomically correct" it definitely gets an R rating. And since there's even a discussion about rating, I don't think it is..

  • June 7, 2010, 8:07 a.m. CST

    thatfilmlover, so a great book or story...

    by Talkbacker with no name

    should only be told once in film ever?

  • June 7, 2010, 8:11 a.m. CST

    Was the cat scene meant to be funny?

    by Talkbacker with no name

    It totally took me out of what was up until that point a fucking amazing film. I got back into it pretty quickly after, but man that scene was jarring and laugh out loud stupid.

  • June 7, 2010, 8:17 a.m. CST

    Any truth to the rumour...

    by windomearle39

    That the name of the film was inspired by the Morrissey song "Let The Right One Slip In"?

  • June 7, 2010, 8:17 a.m. CST

    Still not convinced

    by Lemure_v2

    I'm reading The Green Mile at the moment, but that doesn't mean I want to remake Darabont's version. Why doesn't he just admit it's yet ANOTHER case of America remaking a popular foregin film to get some green off it for themselves. And the odds on it being weaker than the original...?

  • June 7, 2010, 8:24 a.m. CST

    Questions That Should Have Been Asked

    by LaserPants

    Why do you suck so much?<br><br> Cloverfield blew, did you do that intentionally?<br><br> Where the f*ck do you get off attempting to remake a movie that you have NO ABILITY WHATSOEVER to improve upon?<br><br>Why are you remaking a movie that came out, like, 3 years ago and is one of the best of the decade?<br><br>When will you commit ritual suicide for our enjoyment you talentless hack?

  • June 7, 2010, 8:24 a.m. CST

    R-rated in America is easy. A shot of boob or a swear word.

    by V'Shael

    PG-13 is also easy. Blood, gore, violence, murder, torture, etc.. These are PG-13.

  • June 7, 2010, 8:25 a.m. CST

    early review on cinemablend

    by lalo_3d

    read the early review on http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Early-Review-Of-Let-Me-In-18873.html i thinks it's gonna be a good movie

  • June 7, 2010, 8:26 a.m. CST

    A remake of Let the Right One In is for...

    by Charlie & Tex

    ...fucking idiots who can't read.

  • June 7, 2010, 8:31 a.m. CST

    Reminds me of McG

    by The Ringwraith

    Don't get me wrong, I think Reeve's is the right guy for the job and a talented director, but he sounds just like McG when talking about Terminator Salvation with the "Oh, no, don't worry, I'm a fan too, I know you think its going to be some soulless money-grab and think that too if I were in your position but no no no I'm the right guy for the job" while going through a checklist of "things the fans would like to hear"

  • June 7, 2010, 8:38 a.m. CST

    Impossible to improve on the original girl. Her face...

    by FlickaPoo

    ...is somehow pretty and ugly, young and old, innocent and wise at the same time.

  • June 7, 2010, 8:41 a.m. CST

    I'd be very surprised

    by Punch Man

    If this was anatomically correct

  • June 7, 2010, 8:45 a.m. CST

    So much more in the book than the movie

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    But my love for that movie knows no bounds. Fucking watched it four times in a row the day I got it then went and got the book and read that. A truly creepy-weird-touching-scary story. Man, I really wish they'd put the scene of the kid in the basement with the baseball bat (?) and the blind vampire, but you just know they won't based on the whole "perspective" thing or whatever.

  • June 7, 2010, 8:48 a.m. CST

    Actually, I was pretty shocked...

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    That the old child molester didn't die in the book and what happened with him. Damn. Gonna have to read that one again.<p>Chloe Moretz is great and all, but she's got some big shoes to fill in that role. Fucking adore the little girl in the original - she did a fantastic job.

  • June 7, 2010, 8:52 a.m. CST

    Awwww, shit!

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Wiki has some stuff up on "Let Me In." They're saying that the Eli's name has been changed to Abby and that the castration stuff is gone "to make it more palatable for American audiences." Arrrrrrrgh! You fucking idiots think that shit was palatable to Europeans?!?!? That they somehow dig castration for some fucking reason?!?!? IDIOTS!!! The castration was one of the parts that made that shit so creepy weirdly awesome! You're SUPPOSED to be disturbed by this. Fucking morons!!!

  • June 7, 2010, 8:57 a.m. CST

    No story on the Harry Potter trailer?

    by D.Vader

    Not putting the blame on you, Capone, just AICN in general and you're the newest story.

  • June 7, 2010, 9:03 a.m. CST

    Polanski does not exist in this dojo

    by Cobra--Kai

    Reeves claiming to be a big Polanski fan and casting Chloe Moretz in his movie... hmm dangerous ground dude.

  • June 7, 2010, 9:09 a.m. CST

    I would say the catration "stuff" . . .

    by Nice Marmot

    . . . was BARELY featured in the first film, Bicycle Sharer. We got one quick flash of her crotch and that was it. No other mention of it. Half the viewers, who knew nothing about the book, wer uncertain what exactly they were seeing. If its left out of the American version its because it really adds nothing vital to the story and would just waist time. I think its cooler to see a little girl vampire destroy a gang of bullies than a castrated boy vampire do it.

  • June 7, 2010, 9:09 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Ah well, it's a bit of a 'no lose' situation for a director when no one expects it to better the original. If it's okay then all the reviews will proclaim it as 'suprisingly good'.<p> Even if it is a decent flick I can't see it making big box office, hopefully the budget is low enough to turn a reasonable profit.

  • June 7, 2010, 9:12 a.m. CST

    @windomearle39

    by TBYITBSITBH

    Not a rumour, the book is prefaced with a quote from the Morrissey lyrics, so yeah... Which makes the title change to "Let Me In" a bit mindless, but I think versions of the book have been titled that in some countries already also, for some reason <P> do people know that the chick in the original - the actress who played Eli - was dubbed over by another girl who they thought had a deeper, more suitable voice? just curious <P> I guess since Eli - 'Abby' - aint really a boy in the american version, that won't be necessary ;) haha

  • June 7, 2010, 9:15 a.m. CST

    yeah, this will pretty much...

    by dagwood

    suck. And I won't see it in the theater or on dvd, lest it somehow tarnish the original. Also - the whole "more palatable" argument for American audiences makes me physically sick.

  • June 7, 2010, 9:18 a.m. CST

    bicycle sharer

    by Punch Man

    It's funny but I've been actively avoiding the boom precisely because its goes into much more detail. I love how small and intimate the movie is. <br > Nice Marmot- I agree that the castration theme was barely in the original, but that scene is there, and too subtle or not, there's no other reason for it

  • June 7, 2010, 9:23 a.m. CST

    Why would anyone want to do this?

    by Behemoth

    It's such a waste of time if you're talking about a remake purely for artistic reasons. The original was absolute perfection and so utterly amazing and beautiful and inspired. I will probably see this out of curiosity, and it may in fact be good, but ... I can't imagine it'll compete with the original.

  • June 7, 2010, 9:26 a.m. CST

    Unlike Americans ...

    by The StarWolf

    "LET THE RIGHT ONE IN was not seen by a whole lot of Americans (probably because of all those scary subtitles)" Some of us ARE literate, aren't scared by subtitled and have no use for a typically inferior remake sullying the good name of a masterpiece.

  • June 7, 2010, 9:28 a.m. CST

    The real crime?

    by Punch Man

    No Swedish rock music.

  • June 7, 2010, 9:28 a.m. CST

    I was really bored with Let the Right One In

    by BilboRing

    I was expecting something great from everyone's reviews but after I saw it I was very disapointed. I thought it was boring as hell, not creepy at all, not scary, not anything. The only part that got me weirded out was her lack of crotch. I don't know. I thought it was a bad movie.

  • June 7, 2010, 9:29 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    "Why would anyone want to do this?"<p> Capone asks the director that specific question and in his 1000 word reply I don't read an answer. Just a very long unfocused ramble to bore the reader and make them forget that the question had even been asked. This motherfucker ought to be a politician.

  • June 7, 2010, 9:33 a.m. CST

    LTR1I wasn't seen b/c the DVD was CRAP

    by Squashua

    The DVD translation was completely broken. Word got around about that fairly quickly and no one in their right mind bought any copies.

  • June 7, 2010, 9:35 a.m. CST

    TBYITBSITBH

    by windomearle39

    Cheers top man.

  • June 7, 2010, 9:39 a.m. CST

    squasha

    by Punch Man

    I heard that there were some subtitle issues. I wonder which I saw on netflix. Amazon has the correct version now, I returned it though because there's no commentary on the dvd.

  • June 7, 2010, 9:42 a.m. CST

    Whenever anyone in Hollywood mentions Ronald Reagan

    by SmokingRobot

    They have some weird axe to grind. We shall see about this.

  • June 7, 2010, 9:43 a.m. CST

    DVD with Theatrical Subtitles NOW AVAILABLE!!!

    by Squashua

    I just did some research and they did release a version with Theatrical Subtitles recently; you have to make sure you buy the correct version. I'm done with sitting through commentaries, so this could be for me. :)

  • June 7, 2010, 9:46 a.m. CST

    agreed, Squashua

    by jackknifed_juggernaut

    i've been praising LTROI to everyone within earshot since i saw it in the theater, but it shames me that i can't get a DVD with decent subtitles to show them... because if they view the product that's currently on shelves, i'd look like a damned fool.

  • June 7, 2010, 9:47 a.m. CST

    oh, and Reeves totally McG'd this interview. fuck off.

    by jackknifed_juggernaut

  • June 7, 2010, 9:49 a.m. CST

    In your head, how do you justify the existence of this film?

    by CRISPIN_GLOVERS_ACID_FLASHBACK

    Capone, you need to do more interviews. Talk to the Videodrome remake ad wizards next.

  • June 7, 2010, 9:50 a.m. CST

    re: theatrical subtitles now available

    by jackknifed_juggernaut

    good stuff. thanks for the heads up!

  • June 7, 2010, 9:54 a.m. CST

    The real reason many Americans didn't see the original-

    by Playkins

    IT WAS IN TWO FUCKING THEATERS HERE! I'd been looking for it's release since I heard about it and I still somehow missed seeing it in theaters here. It played in (I believe) ONE theater in Los Angeles for like a weekend. Even when it came out on video, there was basically zero promotion. I searched for it on netflix at some point and was shocked to see that it had been out for six months on video. It was treated like an art house movie in the states- that beeing the only reason mainstream audiences never got a chance to view it.<P> So, for the love of God, STFU about it being over the heads of most Americans. Bullshit.

  • June 7, 2010, 9:55 a.m. CST

    TBYITBSITBH: Yes

    by Playkins

    There's that trivia thing on IMDB that basically everyone here probably reads.

  • June 7, 2010, 10:05 a.m. CST

    best vampire movie ever?

    by yourSTEPDADDY

    FROM DUSK TIL DAWN

  • June 7, 2010, 10:08 a.m. CST

    Get ready for the fucktards who found the orig 'boring'

    by quantize

    you know they're coming.. btw this is the fucking dumbest way to relaunch a modern 'Hammer' studios...doomed to dismal failure. Cloverfield was easily one of the dumbest films ever made. Yes i loathe AssholeSlime and enjoyed Star Trek, but Cloverfield was utterly vacuous.

  • June 7, 2010, 10:09 a.m. CST

    The subtitles fuckup

    by medicinaluser

    Was that done on purpose to stop folks from purchasing it and thus give the remake a better chance of being seen. I honestly think it should have been a much bigger cult film had more folks brought it on Dvd and passed it around. Shame whatever the reason is,it should have been a Shawshank Redemption (noone saw it in the cinema but a fuckload of peeps brought the Dvd's).

  • June 7, 2010, 10:12 a.m. CST

    Ok here's my non knee-jerk reaction

    by quantize

  • June 7, 2010, 10:12 a.m. CST

    Knee Jerk Negativity

    by HapaPapa72

    I always thought the negativity in the TBs was more in the bloodstream, constantly pumping throughout AICN, not just a simple reflex. STEPDADDY--- It may be,thanks to the action,humor, and wall to wall T&A.

  • June 7, 2010, 10:13 a.m. CST

    Ok here's my non knee-jerk reaction

    by quantize

    He gets the original and his will still suck enormous mountains of shit..

  • June 7, 2010, 10:14 a.m. CST

    Step 1 : just that it required 'translation'

    by quantize

    confirms in the minds of the rest of the planet that a large part of the American population are drooling retards who think they're the centre of the universe. It happens to not be true..shock horror.

  • June 7, 2010, 10:15 a.m. CST

    Only one thing spoiled the original for me.

    by PornKing

    *spoilers* The 'girl' who was really a boy and it was supposed to be inferred from a 1 sec crotch shot which didn't go low enough to show if there was a vag or a dick, it just showed pubes. But somehow we were supposed to see a scar there and believe that the wang was chopped off? Definitely didn't make sense. Plus the girl in the movie definitely looked like a girl, not a boy.

  • June 7, 2010, 10:16 a.m. CST

    Step 2....

    by quantize

    watch this stoop to Twilight Level buffoonery. Solid Prediction. I'll eat a cupboard full of hats if he manages to pull off the slightest convincing contemporary friendship.

  • June 7, 2010, 10:17 a.m. CST

    The Over-The-Top Reverence For The Original...

    by Rebeck2

    Is out of fucking control. Seriously. The superlatives and hyperbole never stop, or cease to amaze me. It was a great concept whose execution disappointed me again and again - from the oddly flat tone and static feel, to the incredibly stupid vampire helper/serial killer (who was supposed to have been doing this for a long time??), to the drunks that are never fully taken on as characters, to a climax that is cool but telegraphed to the point that it loses it's thrill factor. Don't get me wrong: there are some great moments. I think what makes it frustrating to me is how CLOSE it comes to being a great movie. But for me, it just didn't get there. And before the flaming comes, I am a huge foreign film fan and subtitles are second nature to me. I also love movies that take it slow and build a real story, real tenstion - so rare these days. It just doesn't work for me. So these ridiculous declarations that a remake is the End Of Days, the end of all that is holy on this earth...it just seems a bit much. I have no idea if it will be any good, and I'm sure it will be panned no matter what, but I'm looking for the remake to take the CONCEPT and execute it in a way that satisfies. We'll see. Oh, and the obsession with the girl actually being a castrated boy... What the fuck???? I have yet to understand how that makes any real difference in the storyline - other than it was in the book. Call me homophobic, but I like it being a girl. To me the brilliance of the concept is a twist on the old archetype of a puberty romance with The Girl Next Door. As if Winnie Cooper was a vampire - now THAT'S a twist. Not with the boy who looks and acts like a girl because he had his junk cut off a hundred years ago and is essentially a drag queen fooling our hero. That kind of takes the archetype out of it. Please someone enlighten me. I don't get this fanboy love of this story element. I'd rather it be a real (albeit sexless) romance between boy and girl - call me crazy. Save the crossdressing eunuch for another story. "By the way, I'm not just a vampire, I'm actually gay...and you're gay too". LOL. "I know it's a lot to take in all at once". I repeat, for effect: What. The. Fuck? Anyone else mystified as I am for the enthusiasm on this story point? Anyway, have at me now like a group of rabid CGI cats.

  • June 7, 2010, 10:21 a.m. CST

    I thought it was decently alright . . .

    by adiehardfanwithalethalweapon

    It held my interest throughout but I didn't find it to be some spectacular oh my god kind of movie. I definently wouldn't call it the best vampire movie ever, sorry.

  • June 7, 2010, 10:25 a.m. CST

    And PS, Motherfuckers

    by Rebeck2

    All the assholes who time after time love to come on this AMERICAN FUCKING MOVIE SITE and tell us Yanks what fucking idiots we are, do us all a favor... Stand by your hatred for us and our country and BOYCOTT THIS SITE and all US-made movies. Okay? Just refuse to play a part in our idiocy anymore. Show your true conviction and European superiority by refusing to play with the Americans again. That will show us once and for all. We'll be very upset for a while, but we'll get over it. We're stupid that way.

  • June 7, 2010, 10:38 a.m. CST

    It Wasn't HandiCam, It Was ShakyCam

    by WriteFromLeft

    HandiCam is when an average person photographs a scene using a handheld camera; Reeves apparently believes that having an epileptic photograph his movies is a better idea. I can't watch the trailers for Cloverfield, let alone the movie, and have no intention of seeing any of his films as a result.

  • June 7, 2010, 10:43 a.m. CST

    Rebeck

    by Punch Man

    Eli being a boy makes their bond that much stronger and pure. If you really dug a girl and she turned out to be a vampire it would suck(har har) but it wouldn't be insurmountable,she's a girl and youre still attracted. <br> Eli being a boy means that all sexuality is truly stripped from the realtionship even more so than simply because Eli is stuck in a pre pubescent state. That is until Oskar grows up. It's the unspoken tragic implications like these that make the movie work so well for me

  • June 7, 2010, 10:47 a.m. CST

    Don't let it get to you, Rebeck2 . . .

    by Nice Marmot

    They just like to try to push buttons, knowing full well that the mouth-breathers they really hate don't populate this site at all.

  • June 7, 2010, 10:49 a.m. CST

    "As if Winnie Cooper was a vampire - now THAT'S a twist."

    by TBYITBSITBH

    fuckin reboot the wonder years as that, stat! <P> Playkins: yeaaah, ok heh. I dont always read those for every movie, I didn't expect everyone would; I think I read that detail on Twitch or something. Anyway, because everybody was proclaiming the two original leads as so incredible, I thought it was worth noting that 'Eli' was essentially played by not one but two people. And I can't imagine them ever doing THAT in the US version (I wonder if it is noticeable/weird for people who speak Swedish) <P> Rebeck2: Oscar shlda considered that approach when it came to the bullies; "if you hate me so much why don't you fucking BOYCOTT me!" ;)

  • June 7, 2010, 10:50 a.m. CST

    I'm sorry, Punch Man . . .

    by Nice Marmot

    . . . you are giving a fantastic BOOK report, but that isn't what we got in the film adaptation. If the castration element is such an important part of the story, then the first film comletely failed at incorporating it properly.

  • June 7, 2010, 10:56 a.m. CST

    Best vampire movie ever: MARTIN

    by palimpsest

    Worst? VAMPIRE IN BROOKLYN.

  • June 7, 2010, 10:58 a.m. CST

    Nike Air Force Ones Shoes, Cheap Nike Air Force Ones 1 Low,Whole

    by huangxiaohan

    P90X Extreme Fitness System ONLY ONLY 42$$$$$$$ Hello, summer, good place for shopping, fashion, sexy, personality, maturity, from here to begin. Are you ready? =============http://www.okayfashions.com============= New era cap $15 P90X ONLY $40 Bose in ear headphone ONLY 20usd Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25 Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini)$16 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Handbags(Coach,ed hardy,lv,d&g) $35 Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30 =============http://www.okayfashions.com============= FREE sHIPPING yreyqery5y

  • June 7, 2010, 10:58 a.m. CST

    Nike Air Force Ones Shoes, Cheap Nike Air Force Ones 1 Low,Whole

    by huangxiaohan

  • June 7, 2010, 11:01 a.m. CST

    Anyone know where I can get some cheap nike shoes?

    by chibnut

  • June 7, 2010, 11:02 a.m. CST

    AND THE CREATIVE DESERT CONTINUES

    by rben

    just sayin.

  • June 7, 2010, 11:02 a.m. CST

    The Girls Was Supposed to be a Boy?

    by BilboRing

    Meh. There were pubes down there? I just thought that it was showing us that vampires have no sexual organs or something like that. Like she was not a she but just a creature that could never have true love or something like that. A tortured soul. The movie was boring. Sorry. I love foreign films too and never watch one without having the subtitles on. This movie was just blah. It never went anywhere. Nothing happened. I don't get the love. It was okay. I guess the pool scene was good. To each his own.

  • June 7, 2010, 11:02 a.m. CST

    Also...

    by chibnut

    I think the original was a good movie. However the cat scene was really stupid. I mean seriously?

  • June 7, 2010, 11:02 a.m. CST

    Cloverfield is still the stupidest title for a monster movie in

    by UltraTron

    And the area formally known as central park is now what? And we still know nothing about the monster and nobody on earth EVER gave 2 fucks for any of the human characters. And the monster couldn't fight king gidorrah with those stupid appendages. And why have we seen no movies about hot chicks that walk at the end of leashes attached to huge demons,robots and monsters? And where is a movie where the giant monster eats somebody and we see them fall all the way down the monster's throat and jump into a falling taxicab and close the door just as the taxi hits the digestive acid rapids. Then a rapids/ride through the monster as acids begin to flow into the taxi- holy shit there's a rocket launcher in the back seat- maybe this guy will make it.

  • June 7, 2010, 11:04 a.m. CST

    This will suck

    by ennio

    Every time there's a remake we hear the same shit, that the project "spoke" to the director, blah blah blah, as they take their barrels of $$ to the bank and unleash repetitive horseshit.

  • June 7, 2010, 11:06 a.m. CST

    Ultratron

    by D.Vader

    What the fuck man.

  • June 7, 2010, 11:06 a.m. CST

    Marmot

    by Punch Man

    I never read the book, I do agree that scene was a little too subtle. I also believe I've read somewhere that the director wishes it was more clear

  • June 7, 2010, 11:06 a.m. CST

    Marmot

    by Punch Man

    I never read the book, I do agree that scene was a little too subtle. I also believe I've read somewhere that the director wishes it was more clear

  • June 7, 2010, 11:12 a.m. CST

    I nominate Ultratron...

    by JayLenoTookMyJob

    ...for the next Neil Cumpston!

  • June 7, 2010, 11:15 a.m. CST

    Cue the Sheeps

    by Shub-Wankalot

    They will dish out all manner of superlatives on their god-king-emperor Matt Reeves, choking on his every word and work. A remake or reboot is no longer a dirty word when Matt Reeves gallops into the scene. All detractors must go. Awesome.

  • June 7, 2010, 11:21 a.m. CST

    Rebeck2...

    by JayLenoTookMyJob

    ...Uh... because emos are big vampire fans and emos are gay?

  • June 7, 2010, 11:30 a.m. CST

    You sure grilled him good Capone...

    by peter_dickinson

    He seemed to take it well considering he let you suck his cock for the duration of the interview.

  • June 7, 2010, 11:41 a.m. CST

    Palimpsest... with you on 'Martin'.

    by workshed

    I'm still not sure... Is he? Isn't he? I'm a massive fan of LTROI and still not sure if it's advisable to see 'Let Me In' though Mr.Reeves intentions sound, at least, honourable.

  • June 7, 2010, 11:43 a.m. CST

    best vampire movie ever is...

    by Cyan09

    ...John Carpenter's Vampires. You know it to be true.

  • June 7, 2010, 11:50 a.m. CST

    Polanski: The final word. Vogue magazine

    by UltraTron

    is now on trial for knowingly sending polanski to photograph a young girl naked.Said Polanski-"I just thought she was a regular naked girl like all the others I bang while photographing them.It didn't occur to me to ask her age because why would a reputable magazine like Vogue want nude pictures of a child? Anyway, she came on to me; and that bush?! Like a forrest!"

  • June 7, 2010, 12:08 p.m. CST

    the original had annoying subtitles

    by Bouncy X

    i mean it was different i'll give them that but they were all over the place. i'm surprised none appeared written sideways on the left and right of the screen. but anyway all the bitching is utterly pointless because the original will always exist. i know many of you feel the need to make/have everyone love what you love but its ok...you're allowed to be a minority.

  • June 7, 2010, 12:10 p.m. CST

    So he was castrated?

    by BobParr

    I replayed the pube scene like a fucking pedophile several times trying to figure out what was going on. I thought Eli was lying about being a boy since a romance was impossible.

  • June 7, 2010, 12:10 p.m. CST

    best vampire movie ever

    by quintana007

    Still Near Dark, fact

  • June 7, 2010, 12:19 p.m. CST

    Hmmm.

    by TheComedian77

    I love the original but I want to see this despite the interview. Despite? Yeah, because this guy talks an awful lot and somehow manages to say nothing. He needs to learn how to be concise. I haven't seen Cloverfield so I don't know what to expect from him. By the way, anyone who was bored by Let The Right One In, line up at the back of the class for your Ritalin prescription please!

  • June 7, 2010, 12:21 p.m. CST

    Just saw a couple of production slides

    by BobParr

    The vampire looks too healthy. The original was gaunt and sickly looking. She looked like she was starving. This vampire has full, rosey cheeks.

  • June 7, 2010, 12:31 p.m. CST

    Really not concerned about this remake...

    by Guy Grand

    Sounds like Matt's got it under control. The real fuck-up to a great Scandinavian flick lies ahead when they bastardize the nuance, the feel, and the adult sensibilities of "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" and its subsequent sequels for the Hollywood remakes. The Swedish film of the first novel is near-perfect. Any American version will be amped up in flash-cuts, some sort of Katie Holmes actress, and probably fucking 3D. Hollywood cocksuckers!!

  • June 7, 2010, 12:36 p.m. CST

    Omit the pleasantries at the end of the interview

    by jawsfan

    No one needs to read the "thank you" or "no, thank YOU" pleasantries at the end of these interviews. It is amateurish to include them. Just the meat itself is fine.

  • June 7, 2010, 12:43 p.m. CST

    Bella Swan from TWILIGHT is actually a dude...

    by BurnHollywood

    I hate to ruin the giant twist at the end of the series that actually makes all the simpering romantic bullshit that preceded it justifiable, but there it is.<p> Her dad blew his/her willy off hunting, which is why he puts up with her whining and shit, and why she's such a basket case who gravitates towards vampires and wolfboys.<p> And man, you simply CANNOT keep a wolfboy away from a shemale. They're worse than Eddie Murphy that way...

  • June 7, 2010, 12:58 p.m. CST

    Guy Grand

    by Koyaanisqatsi

    David Fincher is on The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo remake. Don't think we need to worry about that one, friend.

  • June 7, 2010, 12:59 p.m. CST

    what's the point of the "castrated boy" reveal?

    by Argentino

    I see some people already made this point, but nobody has given a good answer so far. I really liked the original movie, haven't read the book thou. Why is that point so important? The movie only glimpsed it, so as to say "look, we didn't chicken out", but they don't develop nor explain the concept. I had to read some forum in order to confirm my interpretation of the "pubes shot", but found no explanation regarding the significance of that element in the story. I'm not bashing the book or the movie, I just want a serious answer from the guys that are saying "they better make this 'anatomically correct'"

  • June 7, 2010, 1:12 p.m. CST

    Dreyer's Vampyre is still the creepiest shit ever...

    by workshed

    ...and 'Let The Right One In' captures some of the dreamy tone of that film.

  • June 7, 2010, 1:16 p.m. CST

    Who cares!

    by Faggoteer

    Let The Right One In, was not a good movie!

  • June 7, 2010, 1:28 p.m. CST

    Here's what Reeves was trying to get through re: "Why a remake?"

    by DivisionPost

    He loves the movie, he loves the original book, he couldn't get it out of his mind, and when asked to consider how he would remake it, he put his mind to it and comes up with making it more culturally relevant to America. Not in the "sex and violence" sense, but in the sense that Reagan-era America was deeply religious and conservative, with a heavy "everything we do is right and everything else is wrong" mentality. Meanwhile, the Swedish community in the original source material didn't even see the need for a church. Evidently, Reeves found that angle interesting enough to build off of to do his own take.<p>Now I don't know if that's a necessarily unique take (Flashdance comes to mind), but there's a difference between rambling on, trying to get at an answer but having trouble expressing it, and calculated double-speak that sounds like more than what's actually being said.

  • June 7, 2010, 1:37 p.m. CST

    I understand the pubes scene!!

    by BilboRing

    It is letting the audience know that the movie is so boring and dull that you would rather castrate yourself than watch it ever again.

  • June 7, 2010, 1:42 p.m. CST

    "Castration" is the "Tom Bombadil" of LTROI...

    by BurnHollywood

    Something the inevitable completist contingent that crops up around any movie adaptation starts demanding, regardless of time or plot constraints. Cut the "crotch shot" out of LTROI and it takes away nothing, same as the book's subplot doesn't particularly add anything. A boy with a murderous vampire girlfriend isn't weird enough?!

  • June 7, 2010, 1:44 p.m. CST

    BilboRing

    by BurnHollywood

    http://tinyurl.com/oplzstp

  • June 7, 2010, 1:59 p.m. CST

    You rock, BurnHollywood. Laughing out loud.

    by Nice Marmot

    How does 'The Scouring of the Pubes' sound . . .

  • June 7, 2010, 2:08 p.m. CST

    i like this director

    by thesmilingpsycho

    he can jingle my bells anyday

  • June 7, 2010, 2:26 p.m. CST

    Hrmmm....

    by SunTzu77

    I'm extremely weary about this film.

  • June 7, 2010, 2:43 p.m. CST

    Better do a good job or I'll do this to him!

    by pomophobe

    http://pomophobe.com/2010/06/monkey-fucker/

  • June 7, 2010, 2:54 p.m. CST

    Best vampire?

    by SunTzu77

    Severen in "Near Dark." "Howdy. I'm gonna separate your head from your shoulders. Hope you don't mind none."

  • June 7, 2010, 3:07 p.m. CST

    Matt Reeves: the guy who said Cloverfield was like Kubrick

    by drturing

    I read the script to let me in, reeves. It fucking sucked. there's no connection to the 80s political subtext you're implying, either.

  • June 7, 2010, 3:48 p.m. CST

    This movie will be a big boost to Let the Right One In sales

    by smackfu

    as people race to get their friends to watch it before this abortion of a remake comes out and ruins it for them, forever.

  • June 7, 2010, 3:56 p.m. CST

    Why the 'crotch shot' is crucial

    by smackfu

    it lets you clearly see the lengths that this thing has gone to, and how slyly it manipulates men into becoming it's protector. The true genius of Let the Right One In is the moment when you realize you aren't really watching a coming of age romance between a boy and a vampire girl, but a disturbing courting ritual as a withered old ghoul replaces it's 'Renfield'.

  • June 7, 2010, 4:13 p.m. CST

    Psst, Eli Is A Boy

    by LaserPants

    Read the book.

  • June 7, 2010, 4:16 p.m. CST

    "a disturbing courting ritual as a withered old ghoul replaces i

    by LaserPants

    EXACTLY! It's a brilliant film. The book is decent too, but the movie actually does a better (and more economical) job of telling the story and presenting the theme. <br><br>This remake drivel is going to be a dumbed down, cutesy-pied up coming of age tale for tweens and Twilight fans.

  • June 7, 2010, 4:16 p.m. CST

    replaces it's 'Renfield'."

    by LaserPants

  • June 7, 2010, 5 p.m. CST

    This remake is still a stupid idea, but I'll give it a chance

    by Mr. Pricklepants

  • June 7, 2010, 5:07 p.m. CST

    Waiting for the prequel

    by NippleEffect

    it's the money thing to do

  • June 7, 2010, 5:17 p.m. CST

    Laser,Smackfu- is that all?

    by Punch Man

    Watching the film three times has made me believe that Eli has genuine affection for Oskar. I'm not dismissing the implications about Oskar's future, it's a vital point of the film, but do you believe that Eli/the film is manipulation Oskar/us?

  • June 7, 2010, 5:31 p.m. CST

    "Let the Right One In"

    by Karuma

    Was good but ssssssssssssssssssllllllllllllllllllllllllllllooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. I guess I am more used to Americanized versions where more stuff happens instead of long pregnant pauses. That being said, the gender switch makes sense since Eli said more than once, that she was "not a girl". I had not read the book but I assumed, wrongly I guess, that she meant she was old enough in her vampirism to be a woman, an old one at that, not a castrated boy. My own personal opinion is that the movie works better if Eli is a girl because of the prepubescent love story involved. One thing that has always been a point of contention with me is the amount of blood shown in vampire movies. It's not necessary. Vampires have a craving for it, yes, but please, it's just like people having a craving for cheeseburgers. You don't see them wasting it all over their face and the floor, do you? It would seem to me, if I were a vampire, I could be a little more meticulous in my sucking habits. Why would you waste a perfectly good meal by dripping it all over the place? You wouldn't. If you were that hungry, you would make sure every last drop got into your stomach.

  • June 7, 2010, 5:40 p.m. CST

    The P-word

    by Skraggo

    I actually winced when Matt Reeves dropped that Roman Polanski chip of Ice-9 into the TalkBack ocean. BUT, so far so good. I'm proud of you TalkBack! <p> Still, it feels like it's just kind of sitting there like an unexploded mortar shell. Like one of Wile E. Coyote's roadrunner traps that didn't spring properly. Nobody's going to go up to it and kick it and jump up and down on it are they?

  • June 7, 2010, 5:53 p.m. CST

    @ smackfu & LaserPants

    by Argentino

    Yes, but she being female doesn't take anything away from the "courting ritual as a withered old ghoul replaces it's 'Renfield'" idea. The ancient (female) vampire is still an old ghoul. She being a castrated boy just makes it more fucked up for shock value. It doesn't mean anything.

  • June 7, 2010, 6:25 p.m. CST

    Subtitles on dvd & blu-ray

    by badmojojojo

    For those interested, there is indeed a newer version of the DVD with the corrected subtitles. Look for the back of the DVD in the bottom where the credits are. It will be listed as "Subtitles: English (Theatrical), Spanish" For those who can do Netflix streaming video, the version is the theatrical (accurate) version. Word is that the DVD with the corrected subtitles is not widely available except for some retailers on the East coast. Amazon even has a blurb that warns that they are selling both and that they dont make distinction on which one you get (but you can return for refund).

  • June 7, 2010, 7:52 p.m. CST

    Argentino

    by Punch Man

    It definitely adds something , I'm not saying it was necessary, but it being there absolutely adds a layer to the relationship.

  • June 7, 2010, 8:31 p.m. CST

    I never picked up that Eli was a castrated boy until reading thi

    by Happyfat73

    Not sure if it's because I'm slow on the uptake, or if it was so subtle tht it was obtuse. Are there any other clues to this apparently important plot point?</p> I've only seen the film once, and that's a damn quick shot. I thought it was just weird vampire genitals.</p> Well, there you go. I guess I'll have to watch it again and view it through the prism of this knowledge. Although, like Argentino said above, even without picking up the castration bit, the idea of Eli manipulating Oskar to be her new lackey was apparent.

  • June 7, 2010, 8:51 p.m. CST

    The crotch shot

    by abacadaeafag

    , as I read, was (among other things) to prove the purity of the love between the two characters. While it's true that she is simply replacing her guardian, we are led to believe that she makes a special connection to her friend and the lack of genitals indicates the sexless, sincere connection they have.

  • June 7, 2010, 9:04 p.m. CST

    people were excited for Vanilla Sky, too

    by BadMrWonka

    that was virtually the same situation as this. and look how horrible and de-balled that turned out to be.<p> if a movie is really great, the only reason to remake it a couple years later in English, is that a suit somewhere knows it'll make some money. that's it. the artists behind it can justify it however they want, ("I know, I know, but at least I love the original!" is the usual go-to cop out) but the reality is, it's a cash grab, pure and simple.<p>the movie was made, it was great. it has subtitles, so only like 30 people in america saw it. and that's a shame, but remaking it a couple years later is not going to produce anything but a pale comparison (no pun intended).<p>it's happened before, many times, and I can't think of a single exception.

  • http://www.ecartshopping.biz ==== Jame shoes $40 Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Jordan Spizike shoes $35 Jordan 2010 shoes $40 air max 2010,2009 shoes $37 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35 Tshirts (ed hardy,lacoste) $16 AF tshirt $25 Jean(True Religion,VERSACE,coogi) $30 Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $16 New era cap $15 FREE sHIPPING http://www.ecartshopping.biz

  • June 7, 2010, 10:03 p.m. CST

    Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35

    by fghfggdfgd

    === http://www.dearsales.com === Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30 Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $16 New era cap $15 Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25 FREE sHIPPING ==== http://www.dearsales.com ====

  • June 7, 2010, 10:03 p.m. CST

    Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35

    by fghfggdfgd

    === http://www.dearsales.com === Air jordan(1-24)shoes $33 Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30 Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $16 New era cap $15 Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $25 FREE sHIPPING ==== http://www.dearsales.com ====

  • June 7, 2010, 10:48 p.m. CST

    Pointless because horror fans are smart

    by drturing

    Despite the ghettoization of the genre, horror fans will watch subtitled films if they're good. they're true film lovers. if the company financing reeves' plagarism had put a tenth of that money behind marketing and distributing the original it would've connected with the audience who wanted it. that audience has sought the film out already, further making this remake pointless.

  • June 7, 2010, 11:48 p.m. CST

    I guess the whole "It's a boy!"

    by adiehardfanwithalethalweapon

    thing passed me by. The lack of girly parts wasn't even noticable to me. I saw the scene as a boy peeking in on a girl that he liked. I agree that it's obvious by the end that the vampire is replacing it's guardian but it's not an ah-ha moment. Like I said above, I thought it was alright.

  • June 8, 2010, 12:08 a.m. CST

    q: why does the film need to exist?

    by WickedJacob

    a: because I had already started making it.

  • June 8, 2010, 12:27 a.m. CST

    LaserPants, um..duh!

    by Talkbacker with no name

    What do you think people are talking about when they say "castration" and "anatomically correct"?. Don't tell me, he's also a vampire? Idiot.

  • June 8, 2010, 12:47 a.m. CST

    Matt Reeves to Capon

    by Miyamoto_Musashi

    On essentially why would you remake this, Reeves gave a very long answer without really answering it, kind of like a politician. I think a more honest answer would have been either: <p> This work will be good for my career, or <p> The pay is great, and I want a Lambourghini, or <p> To get a chance at my dream project, I need to do this first. <p> Something like the above is more likely the answer

  • June 8, 2010, 1:19 a.m. CST

    I'm having trouble with this

    by Scoob1978

    I'm very much against the massive amount of hate on this site. We enjoy what we enjoy because it's fun and escapism. That being said I am having trouble talking myself into this. My parents are from Europe and I've been there many times. The illusions to the folklore, especially with the concept of the European vampire, was totally flawless in the film. The message that we are all born innocent and love is love, thing was incredible. I don't see any way to 'improve' on this. However as a hopeless optimist I hope I'm wrong and I will see the film. To me its not about americanizing anything. Anytime you take something as cerebral as a book and translate it well to film without narration; it's incredible. The level of difficulty is such that I do not have faith in this project. But I root for it.

  • June 8, 2010, 1:20 a.m. CST

    I hadn't read the novel...

    by SunTzu77

    ...and when "the scene" happened in the film... I didn't get it. It wasn't until I read the novel that I got why they stuck it in the film... so to be honest... the shot doesn't add anything to the film. As far as the subject of a vampire being an eternal child... that was already somewhat explored with Claudia in the "Interview with the Vampire" novel (1976). I also don't see a need or demand for an Americanized version of this film.

  • June 8, 2010, 1:27 a.m. CST

    eternal child...

    by SunTzu77

    eternal child being that Claudia is a mature woman stuck in a child's body... etc etc. But, whatever... they've already shot this... I might catch it on tv.

  • June 8, 2010, 1:32 a.m. CST

    He gave a very valid reason, Miyamoto_Musashi

    by Talkbacker with no name

    He watched the original that they were already going to remake before it was given to him. He responded to the film and the book before even knowing what a hit it was going to be and by that time they were into pre production. He wants to make a movie out of the story he feels very connected with, not to mention he had a similar idea without the vampire element in his head for a while. Who the fuck are you to say if he can remake it or not? The author is happy with his take it seems. It's between Matt, Lindqvist and the Studio.<p>If you had your way we wouldn't live in a world where we had A Fistful of Dollars, The Shining, Twelve Monkeys, The Thing, The Fly, Scarface, The Departed, The Magnificent Seven and even Ben-Hur! The list goes on and on. Watch it or don't watch it, but don't make out you have any claim over this material, you righteous little pricks.

  • June 8, 2010, 2:30 a.m. CST

    Talkbacker with no name

    by BadMrWonka

    I don't know if I'm one of the "righteous little pricks" you're referring to, but anyways.<p>all of those movies you mention are not as good as the original, but that's beside the point.<p>using a formula but making the movie your own (Magnificent Seven) is one thing. keeping the title and premise, but changing most everything else (The Fly) is one thing. Using basically the one-line synopsis of the original but changing EVERYTHING else (Twelve Monkeys) is one thing...but when you remake a movie a couple years later, virtually identical but in English, it's a cash grab, pure and simple.<p>I don't care, personally, all that much about this film. I was MUCH more pissed off about Vanilla Sky/Abre los Ojos.<p>oh, and The Shining? are you implying that we should be thankful for the Steven Weber version?

  • June 8, 2010, 2:54 a.m. CST

    I dunno

    by Happyfat73

    I'm not going to make a judgment call on the quality of this remake without first seeing it, but quality remakes made soon after the original are not without precedent.</p> Personally, I thought The Departed was better than Infernal Affairs, and Verbinski's The Ring was better than the Japanese original. But that's just me...

  • June 8, 2010, 5:52 a.m. CST

    Talkbacker with no name, What's Your Fucking Problem?

    by LaserPants

    I didn't read anyone mentioning anything about castration, I just dropped that detail in case people weren't aware what that shot was about you fucking jackass.

  • June 8, 2010, 5:56 a.m. CST

    Argento, Who Said The Castration Had Any Deeper Meaning?

    by LaserPants

    I just said "she" is actually a he. "Her" cruel manipulation of Oskar as "her" New Renfeld doesn't hinge on "her" mutilation, and nobody said it did. BUT, she is a cruel, monstrous manipulator -- made that way by fate and severe abuse (documented in the book), of course, in order to survive -- but a monstrous manipulator nonetheless.

  • June 8, 2010, 6:02 a.m. CST

    From the co-creator of FELICITY...

    by AsimovLives

    ... yeah, this one will turn out good, yeah! Yeah, right!

  • June 8, 2010, 6:02 a.m. CST

    BadMrWonka, nah I think you are alright

    by Talkbacker with no name

    and pretty level headed. I think you know who I was referring to. <p>I disagree though, man. I think The Fly, The Thing and Ben Hur are all better than the original's, but that's cool right? <p>The jury is still out on weather this is identical and/or a cash grab. Let's not forget it's yet to be even seen. <p>As for the Shining, I was more reffing it to being a book transferred to film and that other version can and will exist. I wasn't very clear on that. <p>Don't mind me, man. I'm just getting a bit pissed at morons like Laserpants always jumping the gun and saying fucking dumbshit to get some sort of attention.

  • June 8, 2010, 6:16 a.m. CST

    You, LaserPants. you are my fucking problem!

    by Talkbacker with no name

    You are a fucking dickhead. <p>"Why do you suck so much?" yeah good question that. "Cloverfield blew, did you do that intentionally?". Classic stuff, man. How is he a hack? That went right over my head considering he has done just one movie (and decent one at that). I am looking forward to his career and what he comes up with. So what if he ends up making a version not as good as the book or original movie. How is that going to effect your hateful little life? I'd say Reeves has far more at stake making this movie than anyone. It's a brave move and one he is taking on with a lot of respect for the material and previous version. You prance around like you owned the rights or something.

  • June 8, 2010, 6:28 a.m. CST

    BadMrWonka, just want to add

    by Talkbacker with no name

    ok yeah from the studio's point of view it is very much a cash grab, I'll agree with that on second thought, but would you say that is the same for Reeves? I think the guy seems genuine and I fucking loved Cloverfield. Anything with the author's backing is alright with me. It's coming out no matter what anyone thinks. I'm not going to hack on it. It will be what it will be.

  • June 8, 2010, 6:51 a.m. CST

    The castration thing is not meaningless.

    by Punch Man

    It's there. The author of the book wrote the screenplay and he put that scene as well as Eli specifically saying " I'm not a girl" on more than one occasion. Necessary? No but its there and to dismiss it as meaningless is like throwing away a piece of a puzzle.

  • June 8, 2010, 7:18 a.m. CST

    workshed

    by AsimovLives

    You know Carl Dryer's VAMPYRE? Kudos to you, my friend, kudos. Bravo! Do you have it in DVD? I know that Criterion released it, and i almost bought that, but then i learned that there was an european DVd edition that had the same extras as Criterion, but it also had an aditional feature, a second audio comentary by none other then Guilhermo Del Toro. And its an excelent audio comentary, he offers a lot ofinsights into the movie and it's imagery that are absent in the scholar's comentary. Del Toro really loves the movie and it shows in his comentary. You should check it out, since you really dig the movie.

  • June 8, 2010, 7:35 a.m. CST

    Rebeck2, you should change your nick to Redneck

    by AsimovLives

  • June 8, 2010, 7:46 a.m. CST

    The castration shot is not meaningless

    by AsimovLives

    Jesus, how can people evne say that? What's the matter, too used to watch Mickey Bayaa and Jar Jar Abrams' movies, where there's no need for brain use, have cloggled your ability to understand even the most basic things shown in a movie? Give me a break!<br><br>I bet all this "need brain to watch movie" stuff will be remedied in the remake, since the movie is being directed by one of JarJar's most devoted acolyties. No brains necessary, just dumb it up and pay it up and reward hacks by making them get richer.

  • June 8, 2010, 12:26 p.m. CST

    Yeah, AsimovSucks

    by Rebeck2

    Because responding to the constant insulting of your country and your fellow countymen automatically makes you a crazy right-wing hayseed, right? Wrong. I'm a proud urban Liberal who has never voted Republican in my life, motherfucker. You don't know me, you anonymous piece of shit. My guess is 85% of the Americans on here feel the same way I do. We're tired of being told we're "stupid". Period. Explain to me how that makes me a redneck. Oh no, you can't - that's why you just wrote what you thought was a clever title, with no actual message. Dude, you're a dick AND a coward.

  • And was generally a boring heap of shit. I think people like it because it was vague, but I can't understand why fools are so quick to self-suck over the whole thing. While we're at it, the book was pretty retarded, too (though at least it had the knarly semi-zombie pedophile wandering around the village with a woodie). Horrible pacing, far too many characters, a jumbled narrative. The initial story --alienated kid befriended by pint-size vampire-- is pretty rad. But everything that follows in both the book AND the first movie is shite. Maybe Cloverfield dude can improve upon it and actually make an interesting movie. But I'm guessing it will be a triumpherant of SHIT.

  • June 8, 2010, 4:04 p.m. CST

    And PS, the castration?

    by blue_dog

    Doesn't make any sense in the context of the book, either. Why is the boy castrated? is the castration somehow related to him being a vampire? Just an unfortunate coincidence? Why do I give a fuck (other than for perved out reasons)? The cat scene is maximum retardation. The drunks in the bar are stupid, boring, and ultimately unrelated to the story. The kid gets saved from bullies by the vampire? BIG FUCKING SHOCKER. Seriously, fuck this retarded tripe.

  • June 8, 2010, 4:52 p.m. CST

    'Blue_dog'

    by TheComedian77

    What's your major malfunction? Everything is 'retarded' with you, or it's a 'boring pile of shit'. You're like a foul mouthed ten year old who just learned how to swear. Then again this is a talkbacker here. By the way, it's TRIUMVIRATE, not 'triumpherant'. Or are you into inventing words as well? But as I said before, anyone who finds the film 'boring' is in serious need of ritalin anyway.

  • June 8, 2010, 5:44 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by Happyfat73

    The castration shot - while I'm sure is not meaningless - is hardly "one of the most basic things shown in a movie." It's incredibly vague and is pretty much unreferenced - and the allusions that are made (eg "I'm not a girl") - can very easily be consrued in other ways.</p> From what I gather, most of the people who picked up the castration bit are the people who've also read the book.</p> It's a great little flick, and works just as well even without "getting" the castration reference, but it's pretty lame to pretend that the castration is some blatantly obvious thing that anyone with an ounce of grey matter should have picked up. Plenty of smart people missed it.