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

This man has seen LET ME IN, ya know, that remake of the utterly brilliant LET THE RIGHT ONE IN on Netflix Instant now!

Hey folks, Harry here... with a really anticipated film here. I really enjoy the hell out of CLOVERFIELD, really admire how it was put together and what it did. And I think LET THE RIGHT ONE IN is just fucking flat out brilliant. So I am really curious to see how this all comes out in the end. At this point there's still a lot of time of changes. Edits, reshoots, ya know, finishing the movie kinda things like score, color timing, full on sound mix. All that. The following review has spoilers, but the author of it meant the review for the filmmakers. He really liked the movie, but felt it had problems that could be answered. And so he's firing back at the filmmakers in hopes of fulfilling his duty in watching and giving feedback to the filmmakers. The rest of us, let's respect that exchange and hope for the best, ok?

Harry and Co., As a long time viewer/reader of your site I am always hopeful that one day I will be able to post an advanced review of a film that is eagerly anticipated by my fellow Ain’t it Cool fans. Tonight is my chance. The Film: “Let me In” As a fan of both the book and the original film, “Let the Right One In”, I feel compelled to say that there will be plenty of spoilers laced throughout this review, so read on with warning. We were told that we were one of the first few audiences given the chance to see this film and that it was not finished. Music, effects, color, etc were not finished and please take that into account. I am going to keep this short and simple. The movie starts off with a title card announcing the location of a city( I cannot remember the name) in New Mexico, 1983. We see an ambulance, police cars lights a blazing and hear sirens and EMTs talking about the poor schmuck that they are rushing to the hospital. We see them struggling with the guy. We next see a detective asking to talk to the guy who has received severe acid burns, so severe that they do not allow him to speak according to the nurse on duty. The detective goes into the room and begins to try to get the guy to confess by putting down a pad of paper and a pen. Suddenly the detective is called away by nurse to talk on the phone to the nurse downstairs. Apparently the guy had a daughter come to visit and then she disappeared. Unfortunately the next thing we hear is a scream. The guy has jumped and is now street pizza. He did leave one message however, “Abby forgive me”. To me this was a very different way to start the film and I have a feeling that anyone coming into this fresh was a tad confused. I was hopeful for a few minutes. From there however the film pretty much follows the 2008 film with very little to add. The Good – The acting is superb and I cannot think of two better actors than Kodi Smit McPhee( The Road) as Owen and Chloe Moretz( Kick Ass) as Abby. The intimate moments of their characters feels real and innocent. The setting of New Mexico in the 80’s does not feel hammered in. You get the feeling that this is not exactly the right side of the tracks. This is outside suburbia and anyone who does not get out is going to stay there and rot. The days are peaceful but nights offer just a hint of things that lurk in shadows. The Bad – I really did enjoy this film but have nothing but criticism in hopes they will fix stuff that was left out and possibly even go back and add to this film to bring out its’ full potential. Let’s start with beef “numero uno”! Why the name changes? Are Oscar and Eli so foreign that the name change had to happen? Owen and Abby just seem tacked on. The beginning scenes establishing Owens’ character with a nod to Hitchcock’s “Rear Window” are interesting. You have “the body”, and “the lovers” but that’s it. Unlike the books’/movies’ characters of the bar flies you really don’t get much chance to totally sympathize with these three characters that ultimately become Abby’s victims. The pacing is very staggered and the script is kind of all over the place. We never really understand why Owen is acting out and stabbing with a knife in the dark until slightly later. We never get Abby’s back story, which according to the cast list of IMDB I have a feeling was at least considered if not filmed. The bullying of Owen seems fresh and not something that has been going on for too long. In fact all the characters in this film, except for Owen and Abby when they do connect, seem isolated from each other. “The father’s” killing technique is so implausible. In this respect they should have mirrored the book and previous film. To have him hide in the cars of his victims is ridiculous? These scenes got far more laughs than cringes of fear from the audience. The Musical score is great, but the choice of using “Do you want to Hurt Me” brought more laughs. There are tons of great moody 80’s or even late 70’s music they could have used and yet they did not. Finally this leads us to.. The Elephants in the room. The decision to first make “The father” one of possibly, many of Abby’s paramours and not a pedophile driven to murder is an interesting choice. The scene where Owen sees an old photo booth set of photos with what is clearly Abby and “The Father” as a child is one of the better scenes. However this seems like a way around a touchy subject. The violence is just not there. Few shocks and leap out of your seat moments. I know this story is really at its’ heart an odd duck of a love story, but the book offers so much that could have been added in regards to actual creepy, check behind you as you leave the theater horror. Eveni the ending which could have been a gore fest was in my opinion toned down. I leave out all the book has to offer in hopes all who read this will pick up the book and save money by not going to this movie in October. Next and this is my final beef. HUGE SPOILER!!!!!! The decision to not clarify that Abby is really a castrated young male vampire leads me to ask if this was again to make this film more digestible to the movie going public. Was Matt Reeves just afraid to make a truly brave film? I had high hopes after reading the interview with him on this very site. It seems he was just content with making an almost shot for shot re-make of the original that “Twihards” would go to. I am sure there will be more reviews about this and I know mine will be the least articulate, but if you use it please call me NAMSNAD.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • June 29, 2010, 3:27 a.m. CST

    first

    by Droogie Alex

  • June 29, 2010, 3:28 a.m. CST

    Harry, go to bed!

    by Droogie Alex

  • June 29, 2010, 3:33 a.m. CST

    Hate to sound like a typical internet troll, but...

    by RedEgiraahgnal

    ...Let The Right One In is maybe the most overrated film of the last 10 years. Beautiful cinematography, good kid actors, but a flat and boring mix between a typical "my first love"-story and a tacked on vampire tale. No dramatic punch, no magic, seriously forgettable. In terms of supernatural dramas about kids, I prefer The Devil's Backbone by far.

  • June 29, 2010, 3:49 a.m. CST

    I agree RedEgiraahgnal...

    by Ronald Raygun

    Perhaps if I had just discovered the film on my own and hadn't been expecting much, I would've liked it more. But I went into this film hearing a chorus of "This is the best foreign film of the year PERIOD!" I feel like the film got a huge boost simply because it was seen as an antidote to Twilight.

  • June 29, 2010, 3:53 a.m. CST

    remakes a year after the original?

    by tibbar

    i said it before, and i will say it again... this movie had to reason to be remade. the original was incredible.

  • June 29, 2010, 3:53 a.m. CST

    fuck the original.

    by ranma627

    It's an overrated film that is, tonally, all over the damn place. Nothing special about it at all aside from the two lead performances which were good.

  • June 29, 2010, 4 a.m. CST

    This reviewer . . .

    by Fletch F. Fletch

    . . . seems to know little about the American film industry. Basically, this is vaporware. The only thing that this review really tells us is that the film exists. The lack of creative insight from the author doesn't allow for much more. Worse, he/she puts out some pretty big spoilers without offering any kind of substantial insight or context. This is not unlike someone blowing the Keyser Soze reveal, but only opining that Chaz Palmentieri's accent wasn't very accurate. This is worse than journalism, and I'm embarrassed for everyone involved in its reporting.

  • June 29, 2010, 4:02 a.m. CST

    RedEgiraahgnal....

    by sirdroftardis

    Totally agree that it's overated. Also agree that The Devils Backbone is the better film. I think i'll watch that again tonight

  • June 29, 2010, 4:04 a.m. CST

    Wow DANSMAN, get a girlfriend.

    by DOGSOUP

  • June 29, 2010, 4:13 a.m. CST

    Toned down for the Twilight crowd

    by MontyPigeon

    Add fluffy bunnies instead of decapitations. Nobody can make horror any more and when somebody does come close they push it to the side for the sake of the box office receipts.

  • June 29, 2010, 4:14 a.m. CST

    I KNEW IT!!!!!!!! ANOTHER PIECE-OF-SHIT REMAKE

    by JonChambers

    There's enough stuff in the book that didn't make it into the original movie --- that could have been shot & put into the remake. AND it was GOOD material! Why they had to do a remake basically of the 1st film (without really pulling out the Unused material in the novel) is a mystery to me. OH WELL, guess it's just going to be a piece-of-crap American remake of a Japanese (oops! I mean Swedish) horror film. I know Matt had his heart in the right place, but he was stupid & should have made a different movie after CLOVERFIELD. All you can say is: "Matt, you're an asshole."

  • June 29, 2010, 4:20 a.m. CST

    Most people predicted that they would pussy out

    by V'Shael

    and not have Chloe portray a castrated boy vampire.<br /><br />It would make all the pedo's who lust after the young girl, recoil in horror that they might be "teh gay" or something.<br /><br />

  • June 29, 2010, 4:24 a.m. CST

    Depressing...

    by indy ravenwood

    I'm sincere when I ask why the original movie needed to be re-made? I liked Cloverfield as well. And if "Let Me In" was being made to add something powerful to the story, then I could get behind it. But Matt Reeves really hasn't articulated a reason for it. This review makes me think this is a pointless exercise: it seems that the filmmakers chose to copy the original film when they should have tried to bring something new to the table and diverged from the story when they should have remained faithful. The original movie was haunting, provocative and chilling. What the reviewer conveys here makes me think that we're in for something extremely diluted with this remake.

  • June 29, 2010, 4:27 a.m. CST

    helping the film-makers????!!!!!

    by max404

    a sad sign that 1) Harry mentions reshoots as something normal/usual in the American film-making process 2) this talentless writer has the delusion he can 'help the makers' with his suggestions. the best way to help film-makers is to let them make their own film and not have it watered down to the typical colorless Hollywood diarrhea by focus groups, preview tests, suggestions, rewrites, etc... That's the reason why the original is such a great film and this remake won't

  • June 29, 2010, 4:32 a.m. CST

    meh to the people who found it overated

    by danielma

    To each their own...for me Let the Right One In was the fresh of breath air long waited for in the Vampire genre and I loved every moment of it...The 3 best things to happen to the genre in the last decade. True Blood, Thirst and Let the Right One In

  • June 29, 2010, 4:44 a.m. CST

    He watched this one Netflix Instant??

    by D.Vader

    Harry you need to seriously think about rewriting that title so its less confusing. And make it look less like you're shilling for Netflix.

  • June 29, 2010, 4:53 a.m. CST

    Will the sequel be....

    by CoCKMaSTERSmELLYMeL

    Let the wrong one out, the story of a loving fart that slips away?

  • June 29, 2010, 4:54 a.m. CST

    father???

    by max404

    and another thing: 'the father'???? has this guy slept through the original? it's very much implied that the old man is the previous Oscar (probably in a long line of Oscar's). Which is what his realizing he's going to be replaced + the ending makes so poignant

  • June 29, 2010, 5:01 a.m. CST

    How was the swimming pool scene?

    by IndyJonze

    The original is probably my favorite scene in the last ten years. Just dazzlingly executed. I am in awe of the execution of that scene. Filmmaking at its finest. Which leads me to wonder how Reeves has handled it in the remake.

  • June 29, 2010, 5:08 a.m. CST

    danielma...

    by sirdroftardis

    I found it overrated mostly because I saw it a long time after release, by then the film just couldn't stand up to the hype

  • June 29, 2010, 5:17 a.m. CST

    sirdroftardis

    by danielma

    I'm okay with that...like I said, to each their own...I know many people who thought the film was overrated and that's okay I don't care. I personally found it to be one of the better Vampire films I've seen...others don't agree, I'm cool with that

  • June 29, 2010, 5:28 a.m. CST

    Why no more discussion of the fact that he

    by gotilk

    watched this on Netflix anywhere else except the headline? That's as big news as the review itself.

  • June 29, 2010, 5:32 a.m. CST

    That's just Harry's iffy syntax

    by palimpsest

    He means LET THE RIGHT ONE IN is on Netflix.

  • June 29, 2010, 5:41 a.m. CST

    MAX404

    by double_ball_hanger

    Beat me to it. I completely understood "the father" to be an old Oscar. It was one of my favorite nuances of the untold backstory. In fact, I find it hard to believe this reviewer thought the movie was so awesome without knowing this tidbit.

  • June 29, 2010, 5:44 a.m. CST

    Ain't nothing "iffy" about that syntax...

    by Uga

    That implies it could be correct.

  • June 29, 2010, 5:49 a.m. CST

    Please tell me I'm not the only one...

    by Happyfat73

    ... who failed to pick up that Eli was a castrated boy in the original film. "The reveal" was very brief, with no context - I just thought it was some kind of funky vampire genitals or something.</p> Anyway, I know a lot of people knew this fact from reading the book, but I didn't even know Eli was a boy until I read it on the interwebs. Does this make me irredeemably dumb? Is there any hope for me?

  • June 29, 2010, 5:51 a.m. CST

    Does it Snow In New Mexico

    by MegaStiffy

    The cold atmosphere is what really made the original movie.

  • June 29, 2010, 6:12 a.m. CST

    @MegaStiffy

    by digital_soul

    I didnt really get it either the first time I saw it. it was too quick that i didnt really have chance to process what it was I was looking at. Then after reading the book it was clear, but the book was a lot clearer on Elis back story than the film. Personally I felt it was a detail that could have just been left out of the film as it wasn't really eplored and just confused most people I spoke to.

  • June 29, 2010, 6:12 a.m. CST

    The Elephants in the room

    by MorganLeafy

    Sorry but that wasn't an elephant. I haven't read the book but it was pretty obvious that in the original movie the father was not a pedophile, but someone who had been with Eli for a very long time. That's exactly what makes it so tragic, because you realize at the end that history will repeat itself.

  • June 29, 2010, 6:13 a.m. CST

    Morgan - no the dude in the original was a pedophile.

    by JuanSanchez

  • June 29, 2010, 6:16 a.m. CST

    I wont be seeing this

    by digital_soul

    I would love to see another adaptation of the novel that kept in the full Hakken plot thread. I get that it would have felt out of place in the Swedish film, but a more literal adaptation would make for a great horror film.

  • June 29, 2010, 6:16 a.m. CST

    I don't feel like reading the book, but I really do wonder...

    by JuanSanchez

    how her backstory is handled and how it changes things. That SPECIFIC shot in the movie went right over my head. Then someone told me what it meant and I was like WTF!?!

  • June 29, 2010, 6:17 a.m. CST

    @MorganLeafy

    by digital_soul

    I personally also came out the film withy that interpretation and was quite dissapointed when reading the book to disciver that in it Hakken was just a pedophile. I thought my interpretation from the film was darker.

  • June 29, 2010, 6:19 a.m. CST

    @JuanSanchez

    by digital_soul

    The book goes into some detail about Eli's back story as a child and exactly why he was castrated. I personally never found it soemthing that sat comfortably with the rest of the book and certainly not when applied to the film

  • June 29, 2010, 6:20 a.m. CST

    @JuanSanchez

    by digital_soul

    That said. I really really reccomend anyone who enjoyed the film, or just enjoys horror, to read the book. One of the best horror novels I have read in years. I tried reading handling the undead after that, but it wasn't as good.

  • June 29, 2010, 6:21 a.m. CST

    Eli not a castrated boy = nipples on batsuit

    by ricarleite2

    = jett breaking character

  • June 29, 2010, 6:31 a.m. CST

    We don't need this one to succeed...

    by LaneMyersClassic

    because we already have, "Let The Right One In" and we can watch it at our leisure. Just like we have the original "Insomnia" and the original "Vanished." The part about the "father" being a pedofile was not clear in the FILM, in fact, I thought it was they way they are presenting in this film. BIG DIFFERENCE is they didn't force feed me that info in the original - it was my personal conclusion, not having read the book.

  • June 29, 2010, 6:36 a.m. CST

    Pedo or not pedo

    by Human Tornado

    I'm on the not-a-pedo field here. I got the impression that Oskar would become "that guy" in the future. Haven't read the book, though.

  • June 29, 2010, 6:39 a.m. CST

    In the film, pedo is left to interpretation

    by Pop_aristocrat

    ... take it as you like it.

  • June 29, 2010, 6:40 a.m. CST

    Wait he calls the movie great but his criticisms says otherwise!

    by HollywoodHellraiser

    He clearly didn't like the movie so I'm not seeing the love from the guy!

  • June 29, 2010, 6:54 a.m. CST

    I'm sorry, this film has NO SHOT with me.

    by dr sauch

    Matt Reeves should be ashamed of himself. There aren't other projects out there?

  • June 29, 2010, 7:03 a.m. CST

    Safe Generic Disposable Bullshit

    by DangerDave

    No one in modern Hollywood would back a film for wide release that has the following issues: <P> Castrated boy vampire who looks like a girl. <P> A love story between 2 boys. <P> Pedo love story between the "father" and said caatrated boy vamp. <P> Why does it surprise us that they would not include these things? Take a chance and make something that is really has teeth and that will get the moral minority screaming with vengence.

  • June 29, 2010, 7:03 a.m. CST

    Sanitized for an Amurkan audience.

    by Rhuragh

    Just as expected. I have to admit, the chances of me going to see this originally were pretty low, but this review is the proverbial nail in that piece of shit coffin. Fuck Matt Reeves. Fuck Cloverfield. And fuck this piece of shit remake.

  • June 29, 2010, 7:04 a.m. CST

    Harry....GET WELL AND GET AN EDIT BUTTON HERE

    by DangerDave

    STAT!

  • June 29, 2010, 7:04 a.m. CST

    Harry....GET WELL AND GET AN EDIT BUTTON HERE

    by DangerDave

    STAT!

  • June 29, 2010, 7:05 a.m. CST

    So it's exactly what we thought

    by Bass Ackwards

    Just a simple remake that adds nothing to the story, and in fact mutes the impact of the original in order to make it more palpable to a broader audience. Basically the sane deal we got with Nolan's Insomnia, as much as I love Nolan, ultimately it was a remake that added nothing, and was a bit less brave then the original. Well acted, well crafted remakes that are completely unnecessary. They're echoes of another, better film, rather than unique visions that stand on their own.

  • June 29, 2010, 7:05 a.m. CST

    Case in Point^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    by DangerDave

  • June 29, 2010, 7:06 a.m. CST

    it seems now we have three ways....

    by RockLobster800

    to look at Hakan's relationship with Eli, and they all shift the tone of the story quite a bit. From the book we do get that Hakan is definately just a pedo doing Eli a favour in the hope of getting something sexual from her (which he never gets if I recall correctly). I think this makes Eli almost more of an innocent, acting out of weakness and desperation. At the end when she is forced to become Oskars protector her feelings for him are very genuinely loving and it seems she is going to take care of him from now on (she has the strength to kill a fit young man, and has learned from the mistakes with Hakan). In the original film I think its very vague what Hakan is-he could be an adult Oscar ,yes, though its never cleared up. And I think this aspect makes Eli all the more sinister, as unlike the book where we are privy to her inner monologue, film wise we have no idea what shes actually up to. She may be a manipulator,and a vampire in more ways than one as shes actively being sucking the life out of young boys for years as they are dedicated to her, and by the end she leaves them an empty husk before moving on to the next (like Palpatine with his apprentices). This possibility made the Swedish flick more sinister, in that we are never sure what Oskar has gotten himself into. The ending is poignant as HIS emotions are real, its difficult to assertain what the future holds for the two. From this review it seems that Reeves has chosen to define this darker idea that Hakan IS Oskar (so to speak), which, unless we see some genuine affection or reform from Eli, leads us to the darker conclusion that Oskar may be doomed to Hakans fate. Then again I could complain about how Reeves has ruined the mystery and narrative richness an yadda yadda yadda, but Ill wait until I see it. At least it doesnt sound like hes made Twilight for Tweens. The one aspect Im surprised he hasnt brought in, seeng as the guy is famous for making a massive monster movie, was the melted faced Hakan being brought back as an undead mound searching for Eli to have his way...I dunno, I assumed that would be right up this guys alley.Maybe an undead pedo zombie with no face is just too damn dark to pull off?

  • June 29, 2010, 7:06 a.m. CST

    Yes you are fucking LOSERS and TROLLS

    by quantize

    ...if you are so fucking totally bereft of any taste that you call the original film 'overated'. Get some fucking idea you jerkoffs.

  • June 29, 2010, 7:09 a.m. CST

    Hakan...

    by skellngtn

    from what I remember in the book was older when he met Eli, and was in a shitload of trouble- didn't folks burn his house down or something? Plus, his fate after the fall would be a major "this one's not a shot for shot remake".

  • June 29, 2010, 7:17 a.m. CST

    by benizdead

    referring to Abby/Eli's companion as 'the father' is perfectly sensible. That's the character's role in the story, to protect, provide and give the illusion of normality to the outside world. It also isolates his role from the 'paedophile' question, which in my opinion, is absolutely fucking immaterial. Same goes for the castration issue. Who gives a shit if Eli/Abby is a castrated boy or not? What difference does it make if she/he is or isn't? it doesn't change the central concept of a mis-matched 'love' story (WOW! not only is she a vampire, but she's ALSO a boy??) what? being an undead 200-year-old child isn't enough to emphasise the differences between the characters? including it would just add another unnecessary layer to the story and really over-do the whole thing. both of these differences just seem like excuses for more 'version 1.0' fanboy wanking

  • June 29, 2010, 7:37 a.m. CST

    Never read the book

    by Monolith_Jones

    This is strictly film talk <br> this is how I see Hakken. A pedo who relatively recently got roped into service for Eli. His jealousy and reaction to the slightest touch from Eli is evidence of this. It's very Humbert Humbert. I say he's new to this because he's simply bad at the killing aspect of the job. I can't believe this guy, who never successfully procures blood for Eli during the course of the film, could survive doing this for the past 50 or so years.

  • June 29, 2010, 7:39 a.m. CST

    Stop calling it a remake!!!

    by EWR3378

    This movie is not a remake! It is simply another adaptation of the original book. While I don't agree with them doing it so soon after the excellent Let The Right One In, it is not a remake.

  • June 29, 2010, 7:47 a.m. CST

    And I am fucking done

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Will definitely not be seeing this piece of trash under any foreseeable circumstance whatsoever. Omitting the castration, omitting the pedophile, changing the killing method, keeping the hospital window death (when that most assuredly AIN'T the death of the character in the book).<p>Benizdead, omitting the castration/tiny "boy" vampire omits a large portion of what the original movie and the book were about. It wasn't JUST that Eli was a hundreds year old vamp. Oskar pretty quickly is cool with that and finds himself "falling" for Eli. It's the realization that Eli is NOT a girl that repulses him. And if you had a modicum of intellect you'd know that. The movie and the book were not JUST about an odd duck love story - but a very specific kind - a gay one. Now, I ain't gay, but I've a brother who is and plenty of gay friends and it seems crystal clear to me that the story was "about" that. In fact, I came out of the movie specifically thinking, "How fuckin' weird is it that, in pop culture, we're so blase about vampires - who they are and what they do - that the thing that freaks us out the most is that she's a boy, not that she kills people and drinks their fuckin' blood."<p>The pedophile question also plays into this as well. Again, it's part of the "horror" and "revulsion" factor of this movie. Although, in this case, it really is horrible - a pedophile who takes care of a child-vampire. Eli was both captive and captor of this vile man. And his ending in the book is definitely not the regretful hospital sacrifice that you see in the movie. He truly becomes an extremely horrific character and him in the basement with the detective's son is, perhaps, the most horrified and terrified I've EVER been while reading a book.<p>So, while your "fanboy wanking" was incipient, one hopes that it's merely a knee-jerk reaction and not your considered opinion. Of course, the changes still "work," but they remove part of the heart of what the original book and movie were about, despite their removal. Francis Ford Coppola's "Dracula" retained the structure and events of Bram Stoker's original novel. But he added that inane and unnecessary love story which completely changed the purpose and message of that tale - from one of outside, eastern European evil invades (both physically and sexually) Victorian England to some trite, "love never dies" claptrap. Surely, even you see that in the "Dracula" case, this addition completely changes part of the point of the movie. The removal of the pedophilia and making Eli/Abby "just a girl" do the same thing with "Let Me In."

  • June 29, 2010, 7:49 a.m. CST

    Monolith Jones

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Even Hakan has a backstory in the book. He hasn't been helping Eli for fifty or sixty years, but he's also not brand new. Four or five years (and some moving around) is what I seem to recall.

  • June 29, 2010, 7:51 a.m. CST

    so no big surprise. the usual suck remake.

    by alice133

    next: martyrs with kstew!!!!!

  • June 29, 2010, 7:56 a.m. CST

    @EWR3378

    by Microwave_Jellyfish

    It is a remake indeed. Matt Reeves stated that it's going to be a re-adaptation only to impress the original author during their discussions via mail, but in fact the whole project was handled by the producers as a remake of LTROI. There was A LOT of things in the book they could've add into the new film, but just like the leaked draft of the script, this review makes it painfully obvious that in 90% Let Me In is going to be a scene-to-scene carbon copy of the original.

  • June 29, 2010, 7:57 a.m. CST

    EWR3378

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    It's a remake. You've obviously not read the book and fallen for whatever shit Matt Reeves dishes out. This movie was STARTED by Hollywood studios because of the cult success of the MOVIE. Matt Reeves was then brought in, supposedly 'cause he was a fan of the movie AND the book. But upon reading this review, it's painfully obvious that it's based on the MOVIE, not the book. Too many things (omitting the peripheral movie characters - who were in fact MANY in the book - and including the death of the pedophile/father-figure at the hospital in the snow) mirror the movie in aspects that are quite distinct from the book itself. Three exclamation points notwithstanding, you're quite wrong. It IS a remake of the movie and NOT an adaptation of the book, unless you're fool enough to believe that an "adaptation" of the book just HAPPENS to have the EXACT SAME TWEAKS which are quite distinct from the book.

  • June 29, 2010, 7:59 a.m. CST

    Man Boy Love members angered over missing

    by parissun

    castrated boy. It adds nothing to the story but boy lovers are still angered that Eli/Abby is not portrayed with no ambiguity as a castrated boy. It obvious that complainers tingle over the thought off little nude boys on screen.

  • June 29, 2010, 8 a.m. CST

    The Pedo is Oscar 20 years later

    by thatfilmlover

    I got the impression he fell in love with Eli when he was younger like Oscar, but has grown old with Eli and become her slave, she is aware of it, and so is looking for a new "helper" in Oscar. I like this interpretation, because it adds a sinister edge to the Eli character.

  • June 29, 2010, 8:02 a.m. CST

    benizdead

    by Monolith_Jones

    You can remove Eli being a boy and Hakan being a pedo out of the film relatively easily, but saying that those aspects add nothing is preposterous.

  • June 29, 2010, 8:05 a.m. CST

    @EWR3378

    by digital_soul

    Its not another adaptaion of the source novel. In early posters for the film it clearly stated 'Based on the film Let The Right One in'

  • June 29, 2010, 8:08 a.m. CST

    Skellngtn

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    He was an older man who got caught trying to hook up with kids and was drummed out of his teaching job as well as his neighborhood. His fate after the fall is one of the aspects of the book that I loved so much that I wished they'd found a way to include in the original movie. And pedo is NOT left to "interpretation" in the film. It's not stressed as much as in the book, but I definitely recall some dialogue between him and Eli in which he's begging her to let him touch her and she insists that he go get her some food first. That's how/when he fucks up with the kid in the school and gets caught. At least, I'm pretty sure that's right. I'll watch again today to be sure.

  • June 29, 2010, 8:10 a.m. CST

    The Original Sucked Balls

    by BilboRing

    Sorry. It was dull and not interesting at all. I love foreign films. I love slower stories too. But that crapfest was not good. I get all that happened but it was just too damn dull and dragged on and on and on.

  • June 29, 2010, 8:12 a.m. CST

    People with brains angered...

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    That one was wasted on ParisSun. Again, just 'cause you're stupid and need it, I'll repeat -<p> Omitting the castration/tiny "boy" vampire omits a large portion of what the original movie and the book were about. It wasn't JUST that Eli was a hundreds year old vamp. Oskar pretty quickly is cool with that and finds himself "falling" for Eli. It's the realization that Eli is NOT a girl that repulses him. And if you had a modicum of intellect you'd know that. The movie and the book were not JUST about an odd duck love story - but a very specific kind - a gay one. Now, I ain't gay, but I've a brother who is and plenty of gay friends and it seems crystal clear to me that the story was "about" that. In fact, I came out of the movie very specifically thinking, "How fuckin' weird is it that, in pop culture, we're so blase about vampires - who they are and what they do - that the thing that freaks us out the most is that she's a boy, not that she kills people and drinks their fuckin' blood."<p>You're SUPPOSED to be shocked and repulsed and horrified by the realization that she's a boy. And THEN you're supposed to think about that, genius.

  • June 29, 2010, 8:15 a.m. CST

    It's made for American audiences...

    by JayLenoTookMyJob

    ...or course they neutered it. Ironically by NOT neutering the protagonist.

  • June 29, 2010, 8:16 a.m. CST

    Happyfat73

    by BilboRing

    When I saw the crotch scene I thought it was just telling me that the girl is just not human. No sexual organs or something like that so she can never truly love someone or be loved. When I found out that there was a scar (I did not see that when I watched the movie) and she was a he, it did little to change my mind about the film. BORING AND SLOW AND TEDIOUS. Good acting but a bad film.

  • June 29, 2010, 8:18 a.m. CST

    An okay remake of an okay film.

    by WarrenSmooth

    You can't spit-shine a turd.

  • June 29, 2010, 8:20 a.m. CST

    bicycle sharer

    by Monolith_Jones

    Yeah I know that the book goes into the backstory, but I prefer the vagueness of the film to whatever details the book may reveal.

  • June 29, 2010, 8:20 a.m. CST

    Clearly

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Those who are comfortable with the removal of the pedophilia and Eli as a castrated vampire BOY did not understand what the original was about at all. Why not make with "New Moon" again and wank it in expectation of "Eclipse" for the rest of the day? It's one thing to not like the movie at all (see BilboRing) - that's well and good. But to like the original, obviously feel uncomfortable about the pedophilia and gay love story and NOT understand that that is exactly how you're supposed to feel (that that is the PURPOSE of those things) simply reveals your own lack of discernment.

  • June 29, 2010, 8:25 a.m. CST

    Monolitth

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    I like 'em both. A lot. Seriously. Probably, I guess, 'cause I came to the movie first so it's definitely kinda the first love. I mean, it's been a while (for me) since someone (the author or Alfredson) in a horror film made me THINK about what I was feeling. The author accomplishes the standard horror aspects with his pedophile character and what happened with him in the book quite nicely and then includes the "pitiful" vampire aspect with Eli while making you think about why you felt the most horror (with Eli) in the revelation of his sex and castration. I don't know. I liked that about both the book and the movie quite a bit.

  • June 29, 2010, 8:25 a.m. CST

    Surprised this is also on Netflix...

    by BangoSkank

    ...I thought it was going to be a theatrical release. <p> Oh wait, no, that's just AICN again with their fucked up headlines.

  • June 29, 2010, 8:31 a.m. CST

    @The Bicycle Sharer

    by digital_soul

    I personally felt that Eli being a boy was not explored sufficiently in the film and it lacked the impact that you suggest was intended as a result. The fact is that Eli's origins and gender are not made implicit in the film. If it was the directors intention to leave this plot point open to interpretation then I would argue that different interpretations are possible and valid. The same goes for Hakkens pedophilia and origin, never implicit and very much open to individual interpretation.

  • June 29, 2010, 8:31 a.m. CST

    The Morgan Leafy thesis is correct (and better)

    by Mostholy

    Honestly, if Hakan is just some random pedophile that ruins the entire story arc of the movie for me. The whole idea is the spring of Oskar and Eli's romance will eventually be the winter of Eli and Hakan. It's an endless, disastrous loop, which is why you shouldn't be really be hanging around with hermaphroditic vampires.

  • June 29, 2010, 8:33 a.m. CST

    I haven't put near enough time...

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Thinking about what the author intended to say with this story (vis-a-vis the sexual love aspects) with the statements at the first of the novel about how this can all be blamed/linked to the fact that this town is "new"/prefab and contains no churches and, therefore, no religion. It's more than just the town's inability to cope with or discern vampirism, I think. Is he blaming a lack of religion on homosexuality and pedophilia or is he blaming the bullying on this?

  • June 29, 2010, 8:35 a.m. CST

    Let The Right One In overrated because

    by johnnyangelheart

    THE VAMPIRE DIDN'T SPARKLE! Folks, get a grip. Let the Right One In is an awesome movie, and if you don't see that I condemn you to watching Twilight sequels for the rest of your mortal life.

  • June 29, 2010, 8:37 a.m. CST

    NOTHING suggests the guy is a pedophile in the flick.

    by RedHorseVector

    i understand that the book may spell it out explicitly, but movies are different than books. did you know that hooper got eaten in peter benchly's jaws novel?

  • June 29, 2010, 8:37 a.m. CST

    Digital Soul

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    I agree on the openness to interpretation, but I think it'll take a rewatching to convince me that the pedophilia wasn't a LITTLE more specific in the movie than some have suggested. Again, maybe I'm conflating the book and the movie (as I watched the flick three times in a row and then read the book twice in a row over the course of like two days), but I seem to remember that it's Hakan's desperation to sleep with Eli in the movie that compels his rash actions that lead to his capture and the acid bath. Although, like you, I, too, liked the ambiguity of supposing another vicious circle with Oskar. I definitely remember considering that at the end.

  • June 29, 2010, 8:38 a.m. CST

    One of the major reasons that robs me of interest...

    by AsimovLives

    ... for this remakes that it's being directed by one of Jar Jar Abrams' accolites. And it looks the finger of Jar Jar is in this movie. Opening the movie in media res and with a bang-bang scene to hjolt the audiences? Where i have seen that before? Oh yeah, in TONNES AND TONNES OF ALIAS EPISODES!! One trick ponnies, this guys are!<br><br>The reviewer sounds too desperate to try to play cool and level headed. I ssupect somebody who would had read the book and loved the movie would be a bit more critical.

  • June 29, 2010, 8:39 a.m. CST

    & they don't explain because THAT MAKES IT BETTER.

    by RedHorseVector

    if they were explicit about pedophilia or about eli's castration, the story becomes vampire lolita (or the crying game with vampires, take your pick).

  • June 29, 2010, 8:40 a.m. CST

    The whole pedo question

    by johnnyangelheart

    First off, I haven't read the book but in the movie there was nothing that indicated to me that the "father" was a pedo, or the two had any kind of sexual relationship. Second, philosophically speaking, would the "father" be a pedo if he fell in love with the "girl" when he himself was just a boy?

  • June 29, 2010, 8:40 a.m. CST

    Nothing to see here

    by CarmillaVonDoom

    in the most literal sense

  • June 29, 2010, 8:41 a.m. CST

    RedHorseVector

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    I'll check it out again today to verify it. Regarding Hooper in "Jaws," yes, I knew that. In fact, Hooper in the book is a young, "richie" who sleeps with Brody's wife. Brody and Hooper actually fight about this on the boat, much to the amusement of Quint. Also, the sleazy mayor in the book is in bed with the mob - he took a loan from them to pay for his wife's medical treatments - and that is why he's so damned desperate to keep the beaches open and the money flowing - so he can pay back the loan sharks.

  • June 29, 2010, 8:41 a.m. CST

    Eli

    by digital_soul

    What most got me about the film was not so much whether she was a boy or girl in relation to Oskar's feelings for her, but rather was she human or animal. The scene where she licks the blood up from the basement floor and appears to transform into someone/thing else, ancient, wild and very dangerous sent the biggest shiver up my spine.

  • June 29, 2010, 8:45 a.m. CST

    I understand that books and movies are different

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    And I admit that I may be merging the two in my mind 'cause I watched and read them both very closely together. I also admit that the pedophilia wasn't stressed in the movie to the extent that it was in the book, but I'll definitely re-watch it today or tonight to verify whether or not it was truly excluded or if it was so quickly mentioned that it might have escaped notice. Again, I could swear that it was Hakan's desperation for Eli to "be" with him in the movie that compelled him to try to capture that boy at the school/gym. Pretty sure I even remember Eli guilting him into it and agreeing to "snuggle up" when he got back. But I will check and get back here.

  • June 29, 2010, 8:46 a.m. CST

    Digital Soul

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    That floor scene was what got me to read the book. I was all, "What the fuck was that shit?!?!? That looks like an old woman/beast! Is that what that was?!?!?" It's no clearer in the book, if memory serves.

  • June 29, 2010, 8:47 a.m. CST

    To each their own indeed...

    by AsimovLives

    ... but to see somebody claim they love THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE and detest or put down LET THE RIGHT ONE IN as overrated is puzzling, not to mention suspect. Those two movies are potatos from the same sack. How can one love one of those and not the other is just so weird and strange if begs belief.<br><br>And what hype was there about LET THE RIGHT ONE IN? Was there a massive national campaign to promote the movie? Or was all just coments from a geek forum? Since when that's hype? And one cannot complain about hype and not criticise himself for falling for it. We make choices, and falling for hype is a choice.

  • June 29, 2010, 8:50 a.m. CST

    MorganLeafy

    by AsimovLives

    It was very obvious in the movie that the guy who lived with eli is a paedophile. And it's also pretty obvious that Eli is a castrated boy.<br><br>I'm starting to think that eating popcorn and watching movies are not compatible activities.

  • June 29, 2010, 8:53 a.m. CST

    New Mexico? Really?

    by v3d

    To me that is the biggest blunder in the remake. So, you're a hundreds years old vampire who is vulnerable to sunlight and you relocate to one of the sunniest places on earth. Really? Even the Twilight films, whatever else you think of them, had the common sense to set their vampires in the dark and rainy Northwest.

  • June 29, 2010, 8:53 a.m. CST

    New Mexico? Really?

    by v3d

    To me that is the biggest blunder in the remake. So, you're a hundreds years old vampire who is vulnerable to sunlight and you relocate to one of the sunniest places on earth. Really? Even the Twilight films, whatever else you think of them, had the common sense to set their vampires in the dark and rainy Northwest.

  • June 29, 2010, 8:53 a.m. CST

    Book Vs the film

    by digital_soul

    I really enjoyed the film and have since seen it twice more, but its quite a different beast to the book. The whole Hakken narrative from when Eli visits him in hospital that was removed from the film was great and gave the book a much more straight down the line horror hook. Whilst I think it probably wouldn't have quite fit with the film I would love to see an adaptation that went with it.

  • June 29, 2010, 8:57 a.m. CST

    Digital Soul

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Agreed again. In spades. Fuck, this must be a red-letter, banner day at AICN. ;-)

  • June 29, 2010, 9:07 a.m. CST

    castration and the paedophilia

    by AsimovLives

    Do you find those two things unconfortable and revolting? If the answer is yes, then allow me to point out that LET THE RIGHT ONE IN is a horror story. It stands to reason that you should feel unconfortable, disgusted, scared and horrified in a horror movie. Or else why even call it horror? Or else why even bothering to invoke such feelings? Might as well call it something else. The castration and the paedophilia is some of the elements that make LET THE RIGHT ONE IN an horror film, a horror story. But the story and the movie, bless them, not contented with just providing horror, also provides one of the most touching love story about two very troubled characters.<br><br>The movie never makes it easy, and most of it's strenghs cames from that. We have to be participants in the story to be drag in. But the rewards are immense.<br><br>I'm sure when the time came to marketing this movie, they will claim it's an edgy movie a nd take on vampyre horror genre because it's not as pussy-assed as Twilight. As if two wrongs would make a right.

  • June 29, 2010, 9:07 a.m. CST

    FUCK THIS BULLSHIT! WATCH THE ORIGINAL!

    by LaserPants

    This sounds FUCKING TERRIBLE. Why are Americans SO FUCKING STUPID they can't just watch a movie with subtitles? Oh, that's right, literacy is "elitist," and being a dumbass is "patriotic." I fucking HATE the lowest common denominator.

  • June 29, 2010, 9:10 a.m. CST

    The Bicycle Sharer

    by digital_soul

    Did you read his other book, Handling the Undead? I started reading it, but it never grabbed me like Let the Right One In Did and gave up about a third of the way through. On a totally unrelated topic Im torn as to whether I should buy the second chapter in Guillermo del Toro / Chuck hogan vampire trilogy. Read the first one, but found it very dissapointing overall. ANyone read the new one?

  • June 29, 2010, 9:12 a.m. CST

    Abby?

    by Sulla

    What happened to Ellie? Already an epic fail.

  • June 29, 2010, 9:13 a.m. CST

    Digital Soul

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Never read it. Will try to do so. I read about five books a week. Will try the del Toro/Chuck Hogan one, too.

  • June 29, 2010, 9:13 a.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Well said. Hear, hear!

  • June 29, 2010, 9:14 a.m. CST

    Sulla

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Fail is right. I should've known when I say the character's name where they were going with this.

  • June 29, 2010, 9:15 a.m. CST

    Vamp novels

    by digital_soul

    Whilst we are on the subject, Ive just ordered The Passage by Justin Cronin. Anyone read that? Vampires and post apocolypse! Got to be worth a go I thought.

  • June 29, 2010, 9:15 a.m. CST

    This will be for LET THE RIGHT ONE IN...

    by AsimovLives

    ... as what Jar Jar Abrams's latest movie is for Star Trek: a pussified dumbed down retard version of a good property. Small wonder, it cames from the same pool of "creativity".

  • June 29, 2010, 9:16 a.m. CST

    Boring/ Slow as Hell

    by The E

    Agree w/ others in the talkback, COMPLETELY OVERRATED and one of the slowest, most boring movies to date. Brought nothing new based on the themes presented (bully, moving and loneliness, etc). Also, really creepy seeing these really small kids "in love".

  • June 29, 2010, 9:18 a.m. CST

    Confirms just about everything I've feared about this remake

    by TheFlyingWasp

    Matt Reeves is a great director but the decision to remake this film was a tragedy. If the studio really wanted to make money off this thing, they should have just marketed the original stronger. But because it was a foreign film with subtitles, they decided to Americanize it, shorten the title, change the names of the characters, and tone it down because that's what makes it so much better and more marketable than the original in their minds probably. I read the interview AICN did with Matt Reeves and I want to believe that this movie is going to be everything that he said it would be but I highly doubt that will happen.

  • June 29, 2010, 9:20 a.m. CST

    @ bicycle

    by Monolith_Jones

    I believe you are confusing book and film. The only hint of Hakan being a pedo is when he asks Eli to stop seeing Oskar and she puts her hand on his cheek and he gets a creepy ecstatic look on his face. That's enough for me to conclude that this isn't a paternal relationship. <br> <br> By the way Oskar had a similarly creepy look on his face when he got slashed across the face and later after he fights back. He enjoys violence on his own way, maybe even a masochist.

  • June 29, 2010, 9:24 a.m. CST

    Monolith_Jones

    by Sulla

    I picked up the masochist vibe myself concerning Oskar, so you're not alone in that. I haven't read the book tough, so I can only speak for the film.

  • June 29, 2010, 9:25 a.m. CST

    The Bicycle Sharer

    by AsimovLives

    Thanks.

  • June 29, 2010, 9:27 a.m. CST

    TheFlyingWasp

    by AsimovLives

    You classify him as a great director just from CLOVERFIELD? Maybe you ment to say a great Tv director, and you might make an argument for that. but a great director? As in, a great film director? CLOVERFIELD wouldn't suffice for that.

  • June 29, 2010, 9:30 a.m. CST

    The E

    by AsimovLives

    There's something about the concept of "horror film" that you have failed to grasped. The original made you feel uneasy? Welcome to the horror genre!

  • June 29, 2010, 9:37 a.m. CST

    The E

    by LaserPants

    No offense, but I just get the feeling that you're either a) REALLY dumb, b) REALLY young, or C) an Obese Middle Aged Virgin who has never, nor will ever, have a romantic relationship with ANY member of the human species whether it girl, boy, or castrated, manipulative, boy-girl vampire with tragic, heartbreaking past. Otherwise, you wouldn't have criticized this absolutely AMAZING, beautiful film as being "slow" and "boring." What, not enough strobe-lights and 'splosions for you or something?

  • June 29, 2010, 9:38 a.m. CST

    LaserPants

    by AsimovLives

    It's not that the americans are stupid. They aren't. There is no stupid people. Americans might be mostly unaware from stuff from aborad, but that doesn't make them stupid. The stupidity, if you will, came form the studios and the people who make movies and think that americna people can't handle the same subjects that foreigns seem to can. The is no stupidity in the american people, but a presumption of stupidity about the american people from the people who make and distribute movies. This continous perception, based merely on commercialism, helps create a movie culture that alienates the audiences from movies which make honest atempts to tell an original story. I'm very certain many, many americans would love to watch the original LET THE RIGHT ONE IN with all the "uncomfortable" stuff it has, and they would appreciate it immensely.

  • June 29, 2010, 9:40 a.m. CST

    Glad they left out the castrated male thing

    by ShiftyEyedDog2

    It's fucking stupid. Of course, the entire original is slow, boring, and highly overrated, so I dont really care. <br><br>...and I'm sure you fanboys will start getting defensive and attacking me, but I won't be back on this talkback, so dont bother.

  • June 29, 2010, 9:50 a.m. CST

    Castrated Male?

    by Hipshot

  • June 29, 2010, 9:53 a.m. CST

    Castrated Male?

    by Hipshot

    Interesting. I saw a sewn-up vagina. Was there any other indication that this was formerly a male? I mean, a vampire would heal rapidly--stitches wouldn't be necessary to promote healing or staunch bleeding for long. But if you were trying to remove a sexual doorway, the stitches would form a physical barrier. I mean this sincerely--was there another clue to gender that I missed?

  • June 29, 2010, 9:58 a.m. CST

    ShiftyEyedDog2

    by AsimovLives

    There's something about the concept of "horror film" that you have failed to grasped. The original made you feel uneasy? Welcome to the horror genre!

  • June 29, 2010, 9:58 a.m. CST

    Bicycle Sharer

    by parissun

    Blurring lines between the book and movie. Everything you say only holds true for the book. The movie left issues of Hakan's pedophilia totally ambiguous. Please provide proof where Hakan is shown to be a pedophile. There is none. The issue of Eli being a castrated boy was also left ambiguous unless you actually read the book before the seeing the movie. In the movie Eli tells Oskar, in bed, that he is not a girl. If you have not read the book or heard about this online, your first thought would be that she means that she's a vampire/monster. The movie then does not touch the subject until the pubic reveal. The flash is so fast you don't know what you saw unless you pause your dvd on the shot. So blame the orignal movie for not having the balls (no pun intended) to go there and not the audience. Also the issue of it being a gay love story is nothing cutting edge and most likely doesn't have the effect that you think it does. This movie was originally made for a European audience. The gay love story doesn't even register as being a part of what makes people uncomfortable. It's been done to death in European cinema. Maybe here in the states butI'm sure no one else cares. It's just fun picking at those who are so invested in a gay love story between kids. Who cares, the movie was still good even if it didn't go all the way with that particular subject. At the end of the day two young people found each other in their isolation. The true horror is Eli's manipulation of Oskar. Because I do believe that the movie makes it clear that Oskar will be a future Hakan.

  • June 29, 2010, 10:02 a.m. CST

    Hipshot

    by vanchimera

    In the movie there was no mention, no... but in the book, however...

  • June 29, 2010, 10:03 a.m. CST

    there was no pedophilia in the fucking movie.

    by RedHorseVector

    i'm not saying it wasn't a possibility, but i don't believe it was even IMPLIED in the movie. anyone who sees an adult with a young girl and instantly assumes that he has to be sexually abusing her is suspect to me. are you guys kid touchers, or what?

  • June 29, 2010, 10:17 a.m. CST

    I like the Swedish film.

    by the new transported man

    It's a fairly unambiguous story, but there's just enough mystery surrounding the relationship b/w Hakan & Eli's, Eli's castration, & the overall backstory to leave you with some questions, such that I appreciate. The film left me to wonder how Hakan & Eli came to be, whether Oskar really understands or even cares about Eli's true gender, etc.

  • June 29, 2010, 10:19 a.m. CST

    People overreacting

    by parissun

    I don't think they should do a remake but it's not like the review was bad. I'll watch it and see what they do. The kid from The Road is a really good young actor and the stuff this guy mentions about a film that not complete is really minor. He didn't like that the names were changed. So what. In reality this is not a remake but another adaptation of the book. See Dune movie and Dune mini-series. As a book adaptation they could have changed the names, made Oskar a girl, Hakan a woman and set it in 2091. It's not like we haven't seen this done before. Quit bitching about everything, especially something you haven't seen.

  • June 29, 2010, 10:24 a.m. CST

    It felt like the old guy was once her little boy....

    by thecomedian

    In the Swedish film too. I had to Wiki the book to find out the whole pedo-former teacher backstory. Honestly the whole time I was watching the original film it felt like the father character was probably once a kid just like Oscar. For me it's what makes the "love story" so creepy cause you just know Oscar's gonna end up just like the guy who burns his face with acid. For me "Let The Right One In" is NOT a story about love anymore than "500 Days of Summer" is. It's a story about SEDUCTION. There's a huge difference. I hope this remake brings that aspect out.

  • June 29, 2010, 10:27 a.m. CST

    redhorse

    by Monolith_Jones

    Hakan's reaction to Eli touching his face was entirely appropriate? Nothing creepy? If you had a child this would be an appropriate interaction with an adult male?

  • June 29, 2010, 10:57 a.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by TheFlyingWasp

    Maybe it is jumping the gun a bit by calling him a great director just because of Cloverfield but I am a fan of that film. Perhaps I should have said a film director with great potential.

  • June 29, 2010, 11:01 a.m. CST

    RedHorseVector

    by AsimovLives

    There is fucking pedophilia in the movie. The thing is subtle but it's not ambiguous. The movie just doesn't hammer the point to the head like it's some Michael Bay fucking movie. The movie is made of filmmakers that believe the auciences are made of people with normal average intelligence, and the story is presented accordingly. It's there, and you ou chose not to see it, IT'S YOUR OWN CHOICE, due to your own personal sensebilities. But again, let me point this fact to you, the movie is an HORROR MOVIE. The pedophilia is part of what it makes an horror movie. To make you feel horrified. Get it? and obviously, it did a one hell of a job on you, because you are refusing to admit it is in the movie, you are in denial. You couldn't give the movie a higher praise.

  • June 29, 2010, 11:05 a.m. CST

    hipshot

    by Monolith_Jones

    I find it interesting that you saw a sewed up vagina. The scar was above where the vagina would be. As for other hints a major one is Eli saying on more than one occasion "I'm not a girl".

  • June 29, 2010, 11:07 a.m. CST

    TheFlyingWasp

    by AsimovLives

    "Perhaps I should have said a film director with great potential"<br><br>Sounds more like it. Contrary to many here, i din't hate CLOVERFIELD, even though it was made by one of Jar Jar Abrams' slaveboys. Still, i don't think he has the minerals to tackle such a complex and sophisticated story as LET THE RIGHT ONE IN and make a sucessful studio remake on it that could even begin to compare to the original movie or do justice to the book. CLOVERFIELD, Felicity and Alias do not belong to the same ballpark as LET THE RIGHT ONE IN plays on. It's the Jar Jar Abrams Effect, the pussification of potentially cool stuff.

  • June 29, 2010, 11:14 a.m. CST

    Monolith_Jones

    by AsimovLives

    It's interesting to notice that on the one thing the movie decides to not go subtle, and yet many chose to akcnowledge it. It says more about them as people then what the movie is like.

  • June 29, 2010, 11:16 a.m. CST

    corrrection:

    by AsimovLives

    "yet many chose to akcnowledge it" = "yet many chose to not acknowledge it"

  • June 29, 2010, 11:18 a.m. CST

    "if this was to make this film more digestible to the movie goin

    by IAmLegolas

    Was that rhetorical? I think we all know the answer.

  • June 29, 2010, 11:23 a.m. CST

    IAmLegolas

    by AsimovLives

    As i said above, i find it so disgusting that so many filmmakers and studio executives, and also, sad to say, so many movie geeks, keep on presuming to guess what audiences can take or can't. As if they are some mighty well of sapeince on human nature. I fucking hate this people, this presumptious bastards thinking themselves so superior to the hoi polloi, the purveyors of the people's tastes. They could go fuck themselves up in their fucking asses, the fucks!

  • June 29, 2010, 11:26 a.m. CST

    yeah I dont get it

    by Monolith_Jones

    It's not like real life where things can happen that have no connection to anything else. In film, especially this film, everything is there for a reason. Someone had to choose what to include and what to leave out. If the "doubters" dont believe that Eli is a boy and that Hakan is not a pedofile then they have to justify why those scenes were included.

  • June 29, 2010, 11:28 a.m. CST

    I must have missed the castration angle...

    by visceralgristle

    In the original movie. Maybe it's cause I don't have a hi def tv. There was that 1 second crotch shot.. Were there stitches or something down there? The only other thing I recall was her saying "even if I'm not a girl", which I took to mean she's not alive, or human.

  • June 29, 2010, 11:34 a.m. CST

    Monolith

    by Hipshot

    You're right about the size of the stitches. If it had been a medical text, I would have questioned. As it was, I thought they were just exaggerating for the sake of visual effect. Never occurred to me that it was a castration! Duh! Thanks!

  • June 29, 2010, 11:37 a.m. CST

    We all knew Reeves was wussing out...

    by Arch_Stanton

    from Capone's interview: <br> 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!

  • June 29, 2010, 11:43 a.m. CST

    The

    by Behemoth

  • June 29, 2010, 11:46 a.m. CST

    But are there CGI cats?

    by theBigE

    The CGI cats in the original were really out of place.

  • June 29, 2010, 11:48 a.m. CST

    Watered Down For Stupid Americans.

    by venvariants

    The first thing out of every Talkbackers' mouths was that they were going to tiptoe around the Pedo 'father' and castration topics, and apparently the did. Good work, you nerveless pedestrian filmmakers. We called it the minute it was announced...

  • June 29, 2010, 11:48 a.m. CST

    The "Castrated Male" conceit ruins it for me.

    by Behemoth

    Was this explicitly mentioned in the book? What I loved so much about the film was that it completely captured the feelings of young love, the depths of that new and overwhelming emotion. I had a wonderful experience like that when I was a kid, literally with the "girl next door." The original brought those feelings back. How is this portrayed in the book? Is there a reason ever given for this castration?

  • June 29, 2010, 11:49 a.m. CST

    Did I completely miss...

    by jimmy_009

    ...that the little girl in Let the Right One In was supposed to be a castrated young male vampire? Because, uh...I totally missed that part. Anyone clarify, because that comes from out of no where for me.

  • June 29, 2010, 11:50 a.m. CST

    Coming up - American cinema repaints the Sistine Chapel.

    by BiggusDickus

    Because, like, it's too European for our, like, cultred tastes, you know? <p>Fucking wankers.

  • June 29, 2010, 11:51 a.m. CST

    Yea, if that's in the book...

    by jimmy_009

    ... then they made a fantastic decision in leaving it out of the movie(s). That adds nothing to the story other than a distraction.

  • June 29, 2010, 11:52 a.m. CST

    And yeah, I spelt 'cultured' incorrectly...

    by BiggusDickus

    Not as bad as constantly butchering 'Coloured' and 'Aluminium' though, eh?

  • June 29, 2010, 11:53 a.m. CST

    Uh, the castration element....

    by Fah-Cue

    ... was a cheap "shock" moment. And, yes, the film is, for me, WAY overrated. I AM NOT A TROLL. I don't agree with remakes, especially of recent movies and songs. The original film at most made me go "Meh".

  • June 29, 2010, 11:54 a.m. CST

    It's as if...

    by Fah-Cue

    someone remade a recent Coldplay song. Very "meh".

  • June 29, 2010, 11:57 a.m. CST

    ParisSun

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Dude, are you retarded or just illiterate? I mean, I can repeat again -- <p>"I also admit that the pedophilia wasn't stressed in the movie to the extent that it was in the book, but I'll definitely re-watch it today or tonight to verify whether or not it was truly excluded or if it was so quickly mentioned that it might have escaped notice."<p>No offense (yeah, I know - too late with the "retarded or illiterate", but if you couldn't read that the first time what makes me think you'll read it this time?<p>Just to be clear (a-fuckin'-gain), the castration shit is ambiguous (had to read the book for that), but the pedophilia I'm not sure on. Again... <p>"I could swear that it was Hakan's desperation for Eli to "be" with him in the movie that compelled him to try to capture that boy at the school/gym. Pretty sure I even remember Eli guilting him into it and agreeing to "snuggle up" when he got back. But I will check and get back here." So, when you argue against my position and ask for "proof," please be so kind as to actually READ what I've said. I'm NOT the one who declares unequivocally that the pedophilia was unambiguous.<p>One more time, for the cheap seats (or the "hard of READING") -- <p> "I'm pretty sure that's right. I'll watch again today to be sure."<p>What the fuck is definitive about that? To say that it wasn't even IMPLIED (while saying that the concept that Hakan was once her "child"/protector in the vein of Oskar) is ridiculous. How can one of these be IMPLIED more than the other? It's simply one's interpretation at that point. Honest to God, seeing a mirror in Hakan, is WAAAAAAY more "audience reading into it" than it is "implication."

  • June 29, 2010, noon CST

    Now, one may SAY...

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    That if Hakan insisted on the Eli-snuggles prior to his ill-conceived and rash attempt to get Eli some food, it IMPLIED "love" and that he was once her "child"/protector like Oskar will be in the end is simply YOUR interpretation. Even on the face of it, if Hakan WAS once her "child"/protector, he's now a grown man trying to sleep with a child. But, again, I AM NOT SURE ABOUT THIS!!! I WILL WATCH IT AGAIN TODAY OR TONIGHT TO VERIFY!!! NOT SURE -- WILL VERIFY!! ;-)

  • June 29, 2010, 12:04 p.m. CST

    If you haven't read the book...

    by kilbride

    ...it is clear that Oskar is not the new Hakan (or Father). There background is very different and how Eli finds Hakan, it is very clear that he is looking for a "helper". If this movie implies that Hakan was found as a child it takes away not only from his powerful (and creepy) story, but from Oskar and Eli's relationship as something different than what Eli had in the past. Sad that such a small scene made only to make this story palatable to American audiences can completely change the tone of the story...

  • June 29, 2010, 12:05 p.m. CST

    Ask around --- check with Revenge of Fett

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    I'll gladly, willingly, and easily admit if I'm wrong here. Glad to do it, in fact. I'm not a fucking twelve year old clinging to any assertion that I make 'cause I can't stand to be wrong. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. As far as I'm concerned it really all comes down to that seen where Hakan and Eli argue and he goes to grab her some dinner. The hanging around outside Eli's door shit *IS* ambiguous and could go either way, but the scene that I'm thinking of (if it's there - AGAIN, I could be mistaken 'cause I saw it thrice and read the book twice within, like, a few days) seemed to ME to drive the point home. I will happily admit that the pedophilia WAS DEFINITELY NOT as explicit as in the book (and the director mentioned as much), but, if the scene I remember is correct, it was there at least enough to make me consider it.

  • June 29, 2010, 12:09 p.m. CST

    I won't be butt-hurt if the pedophilia is lost...

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    In the remake, but, taken with other things (the castration stuff), it certainly implies a ridiculous pussing out by Reeves, leading me to avoid this one. If you're gonna remake something, ADD to it; don't take away from it. (Again, this is the gay/castration shit I'm talking about.) Would have like to have seen the castration scene itself (horrific in the extreme) as well as some more on Hakan as vamp that was in the book. That shit had me on the edge of my seat while reading a fucking book!

  • June 29, 2010, 12:11 p.m. CST

    Kilbride nails it, too

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Removing that simply makes the Eli-Oskar thing a mirror (something I don't object to, per se), but removes the "sweetness" of Eli having found a true "partner" NOT someone who's using him/her. This, of course, goes back to the homosexual aspects of the novel itself.

  • June 29, 2010, 12:11 p.m. CST

    Asimov and Monolith pushing agenda

    by parissun

    Asimov has yet to provide any evidence where the movies shows even in a subtle way that Hakan is a pedophile. There is nothing in words or actions that will prove that Hakan had sexual attraction to Eli in the MOVIE. Your cursing and action like people didn't "get it" will not change that. Is Hakan overprotective and jealous of Oskar? Sure. But by definition, that still does not suggest that he is a pedophile. It's simple, the director chose not to explore this aspect of the book. All you are doing is extrapolating from book to movie. Stop filling in the blanks for the movie and look at the movie stand on its own merit. Let's move to the point of Eli being a castrated boy. This is not the Crying Game. Lena Leandersson is not a boy who looks girlish and Lena doesn't look a girlish boy. So if you never read the book and she says, "I'm not a girl", there is nothing that would make you jump to the conclusion that she's a boy. We do know at that point in the movie that she is a vampire, so the logical conclusion for most is that she's referring to being a monster/vampire. And that was in one scene and it was not followed up on by Oskar. Now looking back, it makes sense especially if you have gone online or have read the book. The castration shot itself was so fast that many didn't catch it until rewinding back to the shot. Many people still don't know what they saw because the shot was so badly done. A castration scar should be much lower. To try to act like people should see the man/boy gay love story you and Monolith champion is silly and ridiculous based on the information provided by the film.

  • June 29, 2010, 12:17 p.m. CST

    Jimmy_009

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Yes, you missed it. It's in the book and implied in the original movie with the "flashing" scene. What the fuck else were they doing there - showing you the scarred vagina of a little girl?!?!? WTF?!??! It's also implied (a double implication, I'll admit and open to audience interpretation) with Eli's refrain, "Would you love me if I wasn't a girl?" For the uninformed, she's talking about being a vampire. For the informed, she's talking about being a boy. THAT is the double meaning of novel - it's not TOTALLY a vampire love story (how many fucking times have we seen that shit?) - it's about the unimportance of who you are or were on the outside when love comes to town.<p>It adds nothing to the story? Well, for those who've read the book, it certainly adds the horror/shock factor with Eli's castration scene and it adds a thematic level when it's about something more than just the same old "vampire love" tripe and it adds an intellectual level when, as the audience/reader, you realize that you are FAR more horrified by the fact that Eli is a boy than the fact that s/he's a murderous vampire. But, of course, horror, theme, and intellect may mean little or nothing to you and that aspect WOULD add nothing to the story.

  • June 29, 2010, 12:22 p.m. CST

    ParisSun

    by AsimovLives

    Don't be daft! You know, it's people like you which discourage filmamkers and studio executives from making smarter movies and just stick to the dumb ones. So you fail to see the obvious? How the hell can i teach you to be able to see that? How do i teach you to see the obvious? Subtlery is not your game, is it? Or is this something else, you being in denial about soemthign that troubles you about the movie? I know many people have very limited views of what entertaiment should belike, and they can't conceive the notion that a movie can show unpleasantleness, specially the type they have a lot of strong feelings against. It's the same old "movies are supposed to be 'TEH FUN'" bullshit fanatial approach. LET THE RIGHT ONE IN has those elements in, to help make it a strong impact horror movie, and it has castation and pedophilia. Stop being a pussy about it and deal with it. Or then give up about the movie and go watch something safer, like Twilight or something.

  • June 29, 2010, 12:23 p.m. CST

    Bicycle Sharer

    by parissun

    Why are you horrified that Eli is a boy. We've seen this type of love story a million times in non American cinema. The real horror of Eli is in her youthful appearance and that she can be so vicious and manipulative.

  • June 29, 2010, 12:26 p.m. CST

    The Bicycle Sharer

    by AsimovLives

    I hacven't read the book, and i don't need to to get the importance of the castration and the pedophilia elements to the story. The movie makes a very good show in portaiting them, while also being elegant in it's showing and intelligent in it's subtle approach. Those who cannot see it do it by their own volition. It's there, and the movie makes no mystery or secret about it. It doesn't hammer the point to the head like a sledgehammer (thank godoness for that) but it's there. Those who don't see it, they do it because of their own agenda or their how personal fragilities in dealing with the theme and subject.

  • June 29, 2010, 12:26 p.m. CST

    Lots of pedo in the film

    by gcodori

    Remember that Eli is 200 years old and is in love with a 12 year old. This of course opens door of discussion on whether being stuck at age 12 that she does not comprehend love or even her situation.

  • June 29, 2010, 12:28 p.m. CST

    "If you never read the book...

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    "And she says, 'I'm not a girl,' there is nothing that would make you jump to the conclusion that she's a boy." I agree wholeheartedly. 100%. The director stated he left that ambiguous on purpose, I believe.<p>The castrated shot WAS fast. Not really gonna linger on a pre-pubescent girl's twat, right? And the scar wasn't necessarily well-done. But it WAS done. Watch the behind the scenes stuff on the DVD. The actress specifically talks about this (as do some of the behind the scenes people).<p>And, ParisSun, since we're asking for proof, where did I "act like people should see the man/boy gay love story?" For the billionth time, most of that shit is quick and vague. Oh, wait - I mean the pedophilia shit. That, again again again and fucking again, was some vague shit (hanging and haranguing), but it's that ONE scene that made me think it was there. I'll most assuredly watch that scene again today to verify it.<p>When I talk about the necessity of some of the aspects (and what it means to the story), I'm talking about the book, not the movie. I think it's fantastic for the story that was told in the book and I appreciate that enough "shout outs" were left in the original film to reference this. If one watched the movie without having read the book and didn't get it (my wife is one of you), then no big deal. It's an interesting facet that you (and she) learned.<p>My beef is with removing even the minor implications that were there in favor of a more sanitized version. I don't demand that we spend 120 minutes delving into the homo- or pedophilic aspects of the story, but I sure cringe at the cowardice of their removal. I feel that this just dumbs down the story into yet another teen-love-with-a-vampire tale.

  • June 29, 2010, 12:30 p.m. CST

    LET THE RIGHT ONE IN is not a movie for pussies

    by AsimovLives

    The movie is harsh. don't let yourselves be illuded by the elegant and poetic way the movie is presented. The movie is harsh and dark and doesn't pull punches. It's a tough movie. It's great, it's beautiful, it's poetic, it's heartbreaking, it's soul touching, and it's horrific and harsh and tough. In short, it's masterpiece. It's the kind of movie that puts a capital C in Cinema and turns cinema into something more then just the expedient of unscrupulous con-men to extract easy money from an unsuspecting audience.

  • June 29, 2010, 12:31 p.m. CST

    You know what I thought?

    by Hipshot

    Vampires live a LONG time. I assumed that Oskar had loved Eli when Oskar was A LITTLE BOY, the same age as the current protagonist. Who went away with her. And grew up, and became her "adult" familiar. Clearly, the filmmakers reveled in the ambiguity, as it would have taken nothing to clear it up. I suggest that it could be interpreted multiple ways, as good stories often can.

  • June 29, 2010, 12:34 p.m. CST

    gcodori

    by AsimovLives

    The idea behind the character of Eli is that he/she is a 12 years old boy/girl who's 12 years old for 200 years. It's not like Kristen Dinst in INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPYRE where she is an adult in a child's body, no, Eli is still a 12 years old child who has lived for 200 years already. Eli has not grown, neither in body or in soul/mind. The closest thing we can compare eli is to those children of war, who are still children by age and even in mind, but saw so much things, experienced so many things, terrible things, they stoped acting openly as children due to trauma, but inside they still have the though process of a children.

  • June 29, 2010, 12:34 p.m. CST

    Yawn. Asimov, "blah blah blah, hear me talk."

    by parissun

    The more BS you spout on about "not getting it", the more you prove yourself to be a psuedo intellectual film snob. You lack the ability to understand various interpretations of a subject and why someone would interpret what's on the screen in a different way. I think they call that adolescent narcissist behavior. It's simple you believe that the film did a great job in subtlely showing the acts of a pedophile in Hakan and the beginnings of a gay love story between a castrated vampire boy and a misfit. I'm telling you that the film didn't do a good job in that and in actuality the director and European version chickened out on those elements. I could care less if those elements are shown either blantantly or in a subtle manner but they're not. So I really wonder if you just don't get it Asimov.

  • June 29, 2010, 12:35 p.m. CST

    Paris Sun

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    'Cause I guess, despite my brother and my gay friends, I'm a closet homophobe?<p> Why am I horrified?<p>1) It's unexpected. You think Eli is a girl, by design, in both the movie and the book. Western literature for years has linked the vampire tale with sexuality. See Dracula, Lord Ruthven, and Camilla. We've even done the vampire as homosexual. See Anne Rice. What we haven't done is "straight boy" in love with "vamp girl" who discovers she's a castrated "vamp boy." It's shocking and meant to be so.<p>2) The castration shit is fucking horrific. Go read the book.<p>3) Going through life castrated is horrific.<p>4) Oskar is horrified, too. When he learns this in the book (it's mirrored and linked with the vampirism - it all comes out at the same time), he abandons Eli. In the book, it's quite clear that he suspects she's a vampire, but when she reveals that she's a vampire AND that she's a boy - he runs the fuck away and won't talk to her.<p>So, that's why.

  • June 29, 2010, 12:37 p.m. CST

    Eli and Oskar ARE the current protagonists

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Hakan is the old man. Do you mean you thought that Hakan was her former "child" lover, Hakan? Read some interviews with the director who plainly stated that he wanted to leave the pedophilia and castration there, but so mild as to not be noticed if one wasn't familiar with the book. Leaving it ambiguous, while still including some shout-outs, was quite smart, I agree.

  • June 29, 2010, 12:38 p.m. CST

    The Bicycle Sharer

    by AsimovLives

    You dismiss the movie too much. Many of tyhe things that are in the book, as you say, are in the movie, but shown in a more subtle or elliptical fashion. It's the thing a movie can do that it's hard or impossible to do in a book. But truly, much of the stuff you say, it's there either stated, infered or implicited in the actions and dialogue of the characters. Don't seel the movie too short, believe me, the stuff is there, just presented in a different fashion.

  • June 29, 2010, 12:40 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Glad you caught that stuff, but, honestly, I can't be absolutely sure that I did. I was so enamored of the flick that I watched it back-to-back-to-back then read the wiki stuff then read the book twice in the span of just a few days. So, it's all kinda mashed up in my mind. I've got no beef with those who didn't see it - I admit that it wasn't discussed or explicit in the movie. I just find those who say it adds NOTHING kinda odd. It was definitely, clearly in the book and it added TONS! Gave one a whole perspective on what was going on. It wasn't like they threw in a scene with eating a dog or something.

  • June 29, 2010, 12:43 p.m. CST

    Asimov

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    I don't dismiss the movie AT ALL. I LOVE the movie. It's one of my all-time top twenty. I dismiss people's ability to "get it." I think it's there (as much as the pseudo-sexual references in Dracula). ;-)<p>Speaking of Dracula and sex, anybody re-read that one lately? Wrote a thesis on that in college - "Sexual Symbolism in Dracula: Going Down for the Count" - that was used by my English teacher as an example for future literary analysis classes. I'm no trailblazer, but I'm pretty proud of that one.<p>Anyway, I love the "staking of Lucy" scene in Dracula. It's practically pornographic.

  • June 29, 2010, 12:43 p.m. CST

    ParisSun

    by AsimovLives

    You didnt not get it, deal with it. The narcissism is from you. Youhave problem dealing withthe fact you didn't got the movie, that so much stuff escaped your attention. And you have issues with the implications of the story. That's your problem. Deal with it. The narcissism is yours, acting like a child who was made to see he made a mistake and can't deal withn it, can't accept it. Your problem. Again, deal with it. Some movies, like LET THE RIGHT ONE IN, are not Michael Bay type of movies where stuff is made simple and over-stated to the point of nausea. Deal with the fact that there ar emovies that demand audience participation. Deal with it. And put your narcisism in rest.

  • June 29, 2010, 12:46 p.m. CST

    The Bicycle Sharer

    by AsimovLives

    I re-read DRACULA a year ago. The book i9s compeltly different form what many people think it is, it's epistolary nature does suprise many people, who must think of it as a straight adventure/horror story. As for the psycho-sexual implications, i think the victorians were all too aware of it even back in the day. One reason why the book terrified them so.

  • June 29, 2010, 12:48 p.m. CST

    No disdain for those...

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Who didn't see it or get it. I'm sure that I miss shit all the time 'cause I ain't that smart. My disdain is for a director who, at the behest of a studio's desire for a hoped for, broader appeal, explicitly eliminates even minor shout-outs to what was in the book. Those elements in the book were what set it apart in my eyes.

  • June 29, 2010, 12:52 p.m. CST

    I also watched the movie many times

    by AsimovLives

    about 5 tiems already, 3 of them with the audio comentary. Which i advise people to do so. It's a very informative, and even at times very funny, audio comentary, one of the ebst. The only thing the guys said which did go against a notion i got from themvoie is that Oskar's dad is not gay. It did look like it in the movie, because of the way the neighbour act, but the directors denied they intended to portait the father as gay, he's just an alcchoolic, and the scene with the neighbour is just from a common habit among swedidh people, to go visit some friend or neightbour just to go drink licour. It was a pity that was denied, though, because had the dad been gay (and a drunk) it would give an extra dimention to the story, as in why Oskar's parents are divorced and alienated from ane another, and a sort of "son folling his father's footsets" in Oskar decision to go with Eli, no matter who Eli really is, vampyre and boy. To give the filmamkers credit, they don't stress the point too much, they welcome the ambiguity of that interpretation, but it just didn't came by deliberate intention on their part.

  • June 29, 2010, 12:52 p.m. CST

    Asimov

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    I agree on the Victorians and Dracula, though I think it might've been more subliminal to them. They "get it," but just on a much more subconscious level. Dude, how can you NOT get three or four men standing around a "bride" as her "husband" jams his stake into her while she writhes and moans? LOL! Plus, Lucy was kinda super-sexualized anyway (in a Victorian sense) with her three suitors.<p>And then there's the Dracula's brides stuff with Jonathan Harker. That's one thing that Coppola got right in his version. I wish somebody would do a "fan edit" of Coppola's Dracula with all the "love is forever" shit removed.

  • June 29, 2010, 12:53 p.m. CST

    Watched the behind the scenes

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    As well as with audio commentary on. So, I saw it once regular then behind the scenes then with audio commentary and, finally, again, just "as is."

  • June 29, 2010, 12:54 p.m. CST

    The Bicycle Sharer

    by AsimovLives

    Your disdain should go for the director of the remake, i'm certain. And really, when i heard of this movie, i knew right away this was going to be a direct remake of the swedish movie, and not a new adaptation of the book. That much was clear.

  • June 29, 2010, 12:54 p.m. CST

    TBS, aren't we talking about the film.

    by parissun

    What you say is correct, when taking the book into account and obviously some behind the scene dvd commentary. Without knowing anything about the book, dvd commentary or internet discussions, does the film illicit the same reaction? Without any foreknowledge of the fact, what would make you believe Eli was a castrated boy? So, I believe that's where the movie begins to lose many of the effects you mention. If we follow Oskar, we get a very small reaction from him from the castration shot. Are we then to expect the audience who know nothing about Eli being a castrated boy to have the same visceral reaction that you have? In really bringing it all the way back home, I think LTROI chickened out as much as this new movie seems like it will. I still believe LTROI is a great movie but the criticism of LMI based on these elements is unjust at the moment.

  • June 29, 2010, 12:55 p.m. CST

    The Bicycle Sharer

    by AsimovLives

    Well, of course Coppola got right with the Dracuila's brides. He was helped by the factone of the brides was played by a then 25 years old Monica Bellucci.

  • June 29, 2010, 12:58 p.m. CST

    ParisSun

    by AsimovLives

    "Without knowing anything about the book, dvd commentary or internet discussions, does the film illicit the same reaction?"<br><br>Yes, if you pay attention. It's there, it's not even hidden. It's subtle and ellyptic in presentation, but it's there and it's not hidden or obscured. Just pay attention to the damn movie when you watch it. It's all the movie asks from the audiences. Like all good movies do.

  • June 29, 2010, 1:04 p.m. CST

    Asimov will you shut the hell up

    by parissun

    It's obvious that people didn't see the movie the way you saw it. I explaining why and it doesn't have to do with people being idiots. There was clear controversy over the European version not following the book, so stop acting like the movie clearly covered the castration and pedophilia when it obviously didn't. Of course in rewatching the movie and going through commentary, which I have done, you can fill in the gaps the movie missed from the book. Although I belive LTROI is one of the best (not just vampire)movies of our time, it is not perfect. Many of the story elements that TBS points out are not as bold as they obviously could have been.

  • June 29, 2010, 1:16 p.m. CST

    ambiguity and open for interpretation

    by mrgray

    are the two reasons why I'm getting pretty pissed reading this talkback. There are an awful lot of unnecessary calls of variations on "idiot" and the tried-and-true "you're so stupid, watch the movie 100 times to get the context". Everybody fucking RELAX. The film WAS very open to interpretation. I can easily see the pedo argument, though I didn't get that feeling myself. But I'm not going to call someone an asshole or stupid for not getting that. Or for supporting that claim with well-thought-out arguments. And I'm certainly not going to be a dick and shout about how many times I've read the book and how stupid Americans are because they need their movies "watered down" or "pussified" or whatever. Get a life and take a Euro-pill, dude.

  • June 29, 2010, 1:22 p.m. CST

    The only thing castrated...

    by film11

    ...apparently is this remake! "sigh" Guess it's back to SAW #whatever in October.

  • June 29, 2010, 1:28 p.m. CST

    HitGirl as a Vampire... Sign me up

    by JeanGrey_X23_lesboSex

    http://tinyurl.com/yf9jboc

  • June 29, 2010, 1:33 p.m. CST

    Never read the book, had a different interpretation of the film.

    by david_boreanez_cunt_hairz

    1. It was in my mind that Eli might be a boy and that was a scar in the "flash" scene. Finally I brought some chicks over to verify for me. We were all convinced it was a young girl twat. To me Oskar just freaked out because it was his first time seeing one and the real life moments are just as amazing as the supernatural ones. 2. I never called the old guy "The Father" like I've heard in this talkback, I just thought he was a "Protector/Helper/Day Servant" of sorts. Didn't feel that he was a PEDO, just an old guy who was once a young boy like Oskar that fell in love and would follow her forever. I also thought history was repeating itself as Oskar chose to follow Eli at the end. That was my interpretation of it, still one of the best vampire movies I've ever seen. I don't feel ignorant for not picking up on other things. It's art, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Pass the Bailey's & coffee please.

  • June 29, 2010, 1:47 p.m. CST

    ParisSun

    by AsimovLives

    You didn't say please.

  • June 29, 2010, 1:49 p.m. CST

    Let's get this straight

    by D o o d

    Do NOT expect something like Let the Right One In to be done with any kind of justice in Hollywood. If you want to see a great version of Let The Right One In then rent Let The Right One!

  • June 29, 2010, 1:51 p.m. CST

    david_boreanez_cunt_hairz

    by AsimovLives

    Sorry, but as fast as that shot was, the implicatiosn are crystal clear: it's the ugly scar of a castration. That much is clear. I don't need to watch the movie many times to get that.<br><br>Or maybe i'm just trained to deal with subtle and ellyptical movies because not only i like that kind of filmmaking, but i have watched a good many of them. Training and habit does it, i guess.

  • June 29, 2010, 1:51 p.m. CST

    Agree with Fletch

    by Lord Bullingdon

    I smiled in particular when the author complained, "We didn't understand why...until later." Wow, this was like reading studio notes.

  • June 29, 2010, 2:12 p.m. CST

    To be fair,

    by kolchak

    It's not like the Swedish version did a good job explaining that Eli was (at least at one point) male. <p> Everyone I know who hadn't read the book before seeing the film was VERY confused by the quick shot of Eli's scar, and it happened so fast most of them thought it was a vagina. <p> That said, these arbitrary changes sound like shit.

  • June 29, 2010, 2:20 p.m. CST

    I think Warren is onto something...

    by SunTzu77

    "An okay remake of an okay film." After I viewed the original... I thought... meh. This sounds like the director of the re-make is channeling Gus Van Sant's "Psycho."

  • June 29, 2010, 2:21 p.m. CST

    ParisSun, Darth Vader is also Luke's father...

    by MattmanReturns

    I know it's hard to catch it when you're stoned, but it's there.

  • June 29, 2010, 2:21 p.m. CST

    Goddamn, ParisSun, do you TRY to be this dense?

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    For the trillionth fucking time, NOT FUCKING SURE IF IT'S THERE, YOU RAGING FUCKING IDIOT! WILL FUCKING WATCH AGAIN TO BE SURE/FIND OUT!!!<p>Who or what the fuck is LMI?!?!? I haven't fucking criticized ANYONE but the GODDAMNED director and I've done so clearly to anyone who is a goddamned fucking retard IN REGARDS TO THE BOOK and the IMPLIED SHIT IN THE MOVIE (IF INDEED IT'S IN THE FUCKING MOVIE --- I WILL FUCKING WATCH AGAIN TO BE SURE, MORON!!!)<P>Aren't we talking about the movie? No, idiot! We're talking about the remake, the movie, AND THE FUCKING BOOK! Can you not read? There's like fifty fucking posts that discuss each and every one of these!<p>The FILM doesn't "illicit the same reaction" 'cause the castrated BOY shit is only IMPLIED, not fucking explicit.<p>Did your progenitors fuck their siblings so fucking often that YOU are the result? My criticism, you inbred retard, has been quite explicit about the things IN THE BOOK, implied IN THE MOVIE (possibly in the movie - I'M GOING TO WATCH AGAIN TO VERIFY!!!), and what's EXPLICITLY said about this remake.<p>Just 'cause you're a goddamned troglodyte doesn't mean that nobody else reads English.<p>And for the TRILLIONTH-AND-FIRST TIME, I believe those aspects jettisoned from the book to the first movie would have ADDED something to the already great movie! And for the TRILLIONTH-AND-SECOND TIME I believe that leaving out even the implications (as the review quite fucking clearly states to anyone who's not a motherfucking halfwit) diminish the remake.<p>What the goddamned hell is unclear about that? I've literally stated this time and time and time and time again.<p>You think you "win," you cocksucking lunatic, by "proving" that it ain't in the movie? What the fuck does -- "When I talk about the necessity of some of the aspects (and what it means to the story), I'm talking about the book, not the movie." -- mean to you?!?!? And what does -- ""I'm pretty sure [the implied pedophilia]'s right. I'll watch again today to be sure." - mean to a moron?

  • June 29, 2010, 2:22 p.m. CST

    Asimov you pretentious ass.

    by parissun

    No one cares about your "training" to understand movies that deal with "subtle and elliptical" subject matter any more than we care about your love for Brazillian lady boys. Your inability to see that people view this movie from a different points is a simple display of your small mind. If it was important to the story that Eli be perceived as a castrated boy then the director should have made it as clear as the book. In looking at the full content and context of the story, it's obvious that hedged his bets for the audience that didn't read the book and for the audience that knows nothing about the material. To after the fact, come no and act like you knew right away without reading the book that Eli was a boy is BS. I'm done with you Man/boy lover, because we are indeed going in circles.

  • June 29, 2010, 2:25 p.m. CST

    Are these "beefs" coming from the book?

    by gambit7025

    The beefs this reviewer had with the movie seem to be coming from factual details that are from the book but to which are not specifically clarified in the movie. I for one always thought that the "father" was a past childhood love of Ellie who then grew to be her much older, supplier of fresh blood victims. Also, in the film, Ellie's androgynous appearance is never addressed although we do see the appearance of female genitalia. Therefore, the issues the reviewer has seem to stem from someone who has read the book. I for one enjoyed the mystery of not knowing the exact backstories of the characters which I felt added to the allure of the film over all.

  • June 29, 2010, 2:26 p.m. CST

    ParisSun overdosed on fucking stupid pills

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Outside of being the union of siblings, that's the only thing that explains him. Until THIS, I had no criticism for HIM, but now...<p>Fuck me, this guy's a dimwitted douche.<p>Nobody gives a rat's ass if you "got it," ParisSun. I sure the fuck don't, you paint chip eating motherfucker. I give a shit that someone can say an INTEGRAL part of the book that MIGHT have been implied in the movie but that's dropped from the remake says that the INTEGRAL parts of the book "don't add anything" when obviously they do, if you give a shit about some of the horror and the theme and message of the book. I also give a shit that a director drops these same elements for a watered down, Americanized broader appeal.

  • June 29, 2010, 2:28 p.m. CST

    LMI=Let Me In. Seriously?

    by parissun

    But thanks for missing the point again. Toot toot.

  • June 29, 2010, 2:30 p.m. CST

    Gambit7025

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    That's cool and completely understandable. You didn't read it, didn't pick up on the stuff in the movie (IF IT'S FUCKING THERE, PARISSUN, YOU FUCKING IMBECILE), and are ambivalent on whether it's included or not. To each his own and the movie works for you, as is. As it does for me. You certainly aren't attempting to "prove wrong" those of us who have read the book and bemoan the missing material. Some people regret the deletions and some never picked up on or knew about the source material stuff. No big deal and that's cool. But ParisSun is a fucking chowder head par excellence.

  • June 29, 2010, 2:31 p.m. CST

    Oh, I got the point, ParisSun

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Your grandfather fucked his own sister and produced two children, a brother and a sister. They continued the fine family tradition of intra-family fucking and produced you. What's not to get?

  • June 29, 2010, 2:33 p.m. CST

    The Bicycle Sharer

    by parissun

    Are you having a difficult time following this talkback? You are having a difficult time understaning when I referencing Asimov and not you and when I'm referencing the film. That's your fault. Deal with it. Simple point. The things you say an unfished product has dropped was clearly dropped from the European version. Now, I think I'll call you a Eurofag lady boy because nothing says American like retaliation. Bye.

  • June 29, 2010, 2:34 p.m. CST

    LMAO!

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    So, ParisSun is so fucking retarded that he continues to belabor a point that I never made. In his retarded belaborings, he includes the acronym "LMI" which I miss. Therefore, I've "missed his point again," despite the fact that he continues to point out something that *I* fucking never said. Yeah, I missed the point. Right. ParisSun's sibling parents used his fucking head as a meat tenderizer when he was child apparently.

  • June 29, 2010, 2:34 p.m. CST

    "Do NOT expect something like...

    by AsimovLives

    ... Let the Right One In to be done with any kind of justice in Hollywood."<br><br>It's stating the obvious, and yet so true. Oh so true!

  • June 29, 2010, 2:36 p.m. CST

    an unfinished product

    by parissun

    edit.

  • June 29, 2010, 2:37 p.m. CST

    kolchak

    by AsimovLives

    How more did you wanted the swedish movie to show that Eli was male? To have him show his cut off genitalia in a jar filled with formaldehyde and say "this once was mine"?<br><br>Sometime si just don't udnerstand what it needs for you guys to understand something obvious in a movie. Small wonder the Michael Bays and Jar Jar Abrams of this world have succeed so much.

  • June 29, 2010, 2:37 p.m. CST

    ParisDumb

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    "TBS, aren't we talking about the film by ParisSun!" You donkey jizz guzzling idiot, I don't even READ the shit you post to Asimov. Everything I wrote above was ONLY about what YOU posted in the aforementioned "TBS, aren't we talking about the film by ParisSun." I haven't the faintest clue what you and Asimov are talking about. I scanned some posts, saw yours addressed to me (unless of course by "TBS" you mean "AsimovLives"), and responded ONLY to that. Again, 'cause I know you're stupid and you need shit repeated, I have NOOOOOOOO fucking idea what you and Asimov are going on about, love-fest, hate-fest, or you extolling the virtues of sibling sex.

  • June 29, 2010, 2:39 p.m. CST

    ParisSun

    by AsimovLives

    See, you called me pretentious, proof, if need be, that you really ar enot getting any of this at all. It's all flying by your head, and you are catching none. And you think anybody cares about your obtuse ways of not seeing the obvious in a movie? You think peple are exploding in gay delight at your posts? You think you are Elvis or something? Narcisistic much, friend?

  • June 29, 2010, 2:41 p.m. CST

    ParisDumb, you win the award for moron of the month

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    I *AM* a fucking American, you patriarchal penis chugger.<p>"The things you say an unfished product has dropped was clearly dropped from the European version" is not clear to me. See, I can't take the word of a fucking moron like yourself, one who misses, even in that assertion, my point that those things added something to the book and would have added something to the movie. I'll watch the movie again to determine for myself. You go back to tracing that never-branching family tree of yours.

  • June 29, 2010, 2:44 p.m. CST

    And whether or not it was "clearly" dropped...

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    From the movie, in no way diminishes my point that those aspects were horrific, interesting, and thought-provoking in the book and SHOULD have been included in the remake, at least in so much as certain portions were dropped from the remake (Abby for Eli and pedophile guy). Futher-fucking-more, there's a shit load more in the book that really don't ADD to the film, but which I'd like to have seen, including the pedophile becoming a monstrous vampire himself and a horrific scene of that same vampire being bludgeoned to death in a basement.

  • June 29, 2010, 2:46 p.m. CST

    European version? What european version?

    by AsimovLives

    There is a swedish movie called LET THE RIGHT ONE IN based on a swedish book caleld LET THE RIGHT ONE IN. The american movie is called LET ME IN. If anything, what is there is an american version. THr swedidh movie came first, it's the original, the american movie is the version, the american version.

  • June 29, 2010, 2:48 p.m. CST

    Oh and the detective father was kinda cool

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    He's the dad of one of the kids (one of the bullies?) investigating the murders. It's his son who gets trapped in the apartment basement with the pedophile vamp. His son has to beat the vampire to "death" with a fucking club or some shit IN THE FUCKING DARK!!! See, the pedo-vamp is blinded, I seem to remember, by the acid in the face shit, but he's still a vampire. He and that boy duke it out in the dark basement each of them trying to find or avoid the other. It is motherfucking scary as shit.

  • June 29, 2010, 2:50 p.m. CST

    Pedo Hakan

    by Atropos

    He was a Pedophile in the book, but it was changed for the Swedish movie; the change was made by the original author John Ajvide Lindquist, as he thought it confused the film and allowed him to work on the "latest-in-a-long-line"-angle. So the book is not the same as the movie, but they are both right.

  • June 29, 2010, 2:52 p.m. CST

    Listen Slingblade...

    by parissun

    see that would have been better TBS. But ParisDumb? Really. I guess I should expect as much. You obviously have difficulty in understanding that I agreed with your assessment of the book. But the blasting of a "Hollywood version", that I'm also apperhensive about, is prematurely unfair since those elements you praised in the book are imo missing from the original film as well. I'm not the only one pointing this out, many critics and fans of the book have also commented on this. Now that's my general contribution to this talkback. If you take acception to this then that's your business. Now back to name calling. I will from now on refer to you as Dick Tickler, which also works as a cowboy name btw. And Asimov will be referred to a One Cup.

  • June 29, 2010, 2:58 p.m. CST

    The Bicycle Sharer

    by AsimovLives

    The name changes in the characters in the american version does provide some insight to the approach the filmmakers took. In the swedidh original, the vampyre is called Eli, which gave it an interesting ambiguity, this seemly girl looking person and has a traditionally male name. Though it's not too uncommon in nordic countries to see females with male names (George is also a female name and Emilie is a male name too, for instance) and thus gives a wonmderful ambiguisity to when Eli says "I'm not a girl". What is he talking about, girl as mean to say human because he's a vampyre, or that he's not, literally, a girl but a real boy.<br><br>That they have named Eli as Abby is a real effort to remove that inicial ambiguity and "uncorfortable" element to the story, and thus make it more mundane, even, i dare say, banal. It's as if the filmmakers of LET ME IN, had read this talkbacks and noticed how uncorfortable, perturbed and disquieted the notion of Eli as a boy makes them and thus removed it to please and make the movie easier and palatable for the audiences. And by this, it means, middlewest biblebelt religious hysterical easily upset audiences.

  • June 29, 2010, 2:58 p.m. CST

    It's on DVD already?

    by RPLocke

    No theaters for this one?

  • What!? An English-language remake of an artsy foreign film which plays down controversy to be more palatable to mass audiences? I'm shocked, SHOCKED!

  • June 29, 2010, 3:03 p.m. CST

    ParisSun

    by AsimovLives

    Oh cute, slingblade, hem? If anything, it's you who sounds like some hillybilly redneck who missed too many school classes because you had to tender the moonshine distiller while your mother was too busy memorising the bible and having erotic dreams about your local preacher and your dad was too busy putting the pointed hood shooting and lynching the "damn niggers".<br><br>Get a grip, fool, you are not as smart as you think you are. Not by half. The Bicycle Sharer is unto something about you.

  • June 29, 2010, 3:05 p.m. CST

    The Bicycle Sharer, spare a though for our friend ParisSun

    by AsimovLives

    It's obvious that LET ME IN is a movie made specifically for people like him. He's the market. Me, i rather stick to the original, if you know what i mean.

  • June 29, 2010, 3:06 p.m. CST

    Subtlety

    by AsimovLives

    Why you call LET THE RIGHT ONE IN arty? Me, i call it a DAMN GOOD MOVIE! Arty-smarshy! It's just a very good movie, that's all there is to it. Very good movie.

  • June 29, 2010, 3:12 p.m. CST

    Atropos

    by AsimovLives

    That's not what the audio comentar,y with the director and the writer of the book and the movie say about it. They say that they continued the notion of Hakkan as a paedophile on the employ of Eli, but they never ram the point home, they let the action of the characters and the circunstances of the story tell that ellyptically. They do coment, however, the notion that Hakkn might had been a long time companion of Eli, an older version of Oskar, and while they welcome that interpretation, it was not their intent as they filmed the movie, and how they were presenting the character as they filmed the movie.<br><br>The great thign about those two filmmakers is that they do welcome the many interpretations about the movie, which they partically couted by makingthe movie so subtle and ellytical, and even if those interpretations clash with their own intentions.<br><br>I'm sure the american rmake LET ME IN will have no ambiguities whatsoever and everything will be presented very directly and without room for interpretations, and they will call ambiguous to stuff that they haven't repeated 10 times already.

  • June 29, 2010, 3:14 p.m. CST

    Fuck, the opening of the movie is pissing me off already!

    by AsimovLives

    Typical media res cold opening bullshit that they abused to the point of nausea in ALIAS! One trick pony fools!

  • June 29, 2010, 3:24 p.m. CST

    Matt Reeves Said...

    by Karuma

    ...he was going to make Elli a girl in this movie so that's not so big a shock and I'm not even sure if it is a castrated boy in the original movie. I've only seen it once, not read the book and to me Elli was a girl. I never bought that her "father" was a pedophile either. Didn't make sense, since pedophilia and a penchant for murder seldom inhabit the same persona. As to your criticisms, 1. Hiding is cars is "ludicrous"? It's been scary in every movie I've ever seen it in. 2. Musical score is "great" yet you criticize the use of one song? Depends on the context. 3. The "violence is just not there"? What do you want, a bloodbath? This is always my complaint with vampire movies. Maybe if they are just turned or uncouth, they slop their food around and spill blood all over the place, but it seems to me and has always seemed to me that the sophisticated vampire would not waste a good meal by letting it spill on the ground or be running down their shirt or blouse. The sophisticated vampire who is older would savor every drop of blood because they wouldn't know where the next meal is coming from, unless they had a harem from which to choose. To me, a vampire movie, and every other movie, for that matter, should be character and plot driven, not dependent on buckets of blood for "personality" or "effect."

  • June 29, 2010, 3:43 p.m. CST

    If Eli is not a castrated boy...

    by Monolith_Jones

    Then what does that scene mean? why does Eli repeat twice "I'm not a girl"? not "I'm no like you", or "We can't be together", very specifically "I'm not a girl"? <Br> <br> If Hakan is not a Pedo, then why does the scene play the way it does? ? Once again pay attention to how and what is said. It's not " I'm afraid for your safety", or "be careful" it's " Please don't see that boy tonight" just like a jealous lover would say. <Br> <br> So the burden is on those doubters to come up with a reason why those scenes are there, instead of just saying what those scenes DON'T mean.

  • June 29, 2010, 3:49 p.m. CST

    Subtlety

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    You understand that "shock" and "indignation" are two different emotions, right? Two that aren't necessarily linked. One may still expect something and still be indignant upon its arrival.<p>For instance, ParisDumb's mother probably wasn't shocked to see her brother climb into bed with her again. She'd probably come to expect it. That, in no way, should allay her indignation when he pulled out his shriveled little pecker and went to town on her again.<p>Furthermore, pregnancy is often the result of fucking. Therefore, she shouldn't have been "shocked" to find that she was "with 'tard," but that doesn't mean that she shouldn't be indignant that her brother knocked her up.<p>I was already leery when I heard Hollywood was remaking a fantastic movie that I thought needed no remaking (fuck, what is it - two years later?). I wasn't shocked that Whorey-wood would water down the book elements even more than the original had.<p>Hell, I wouldn't even call myself "indignant." I'd just say disappointed and in absolutely no need to see "Let Me In."

  • June 29, 2010, 3:55 p.m. CST

    Karuma, I disagree

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    1. Hiding is cars IS "ludicrous." That shit is "scary in every movie" but it's usually just shock and surprise. And it really makes no sense. 2. The reviewer clearly stated the context of the song and the song itself. He said the score was great, but that the use of THAT song at THAT moment elicited laughs. 3. This is the one of your criticisms of the review that I find the most perplexing. In #2, you mention context, but here it's YOU who has no context. I guess you're just riffing on a general gripe and the reviewer is drawing your fire. Fair enough, I guess, but I suppose we'll have to see the movie to really understand what he's talking about. I certainly see a difference between the use of levels of violence and the old black-and-white vampire movies. Not that I don't love 'em, but they certainly don't up the fear factor by studiously adhering to their lack of violence. But violence simply for the sake of graphic violence and blood is ridiculous.

  • June 29, 2010, 3:57 p.m. CST

    by Monolith_Jones

    This is the scene with Hakan and Eli I was referring to. What does the look on Hakan's face when Eli touches his cheek mean to everyone here? <br> Starts at about 2:09 <br> http://tiny.cc/p4452

  • June 29, 2010, 3:58 p.m. CST

    Monolith_Jones

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    You are correct about that scene. Those who didn't get it (and I can't swear that I did - I don't remember), but that scene means nothing other than a gratuitous jailbait twat shot if Eli ain't a boy. Otherwise, "would you love me if I wasn't a girl? Here, let me show you my scarred pussy." WTF?!?!

  • June 29, 2010, 4:02 p.m. CST

    Remakes of European (or indeed any non-English langauge) Movies

    by Shuggy Boy

    Just don't (OK remaking 7 Samurai and Yojimbo are exceptions but they're not direct remakes) Have you seen Quarantine? - I'll stick with REC thanks. And there is absolutely no need to remake The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. I'm sure Fincher will have a good stab at it but there really is no point. The original is amazingly good. It's already got 2 sequels (not seen them yet unfortunately) By all means remake old movies - actually npow that I think about it don't unless it's The Thing! I mean would, A Prophet really be any better if it was remade in English and set in San Quentin. I doubt it!!!

  • June 29, 2010, 4:03 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives... that kind of opening fits for Alias at least

    by MattmanReturns

    Won't work for Let Myself In, or whatever they're calling this shit. It just strikes me as gimmicky.

  • June 29, 2010, 4:04 p.m. CST

    Monolith, that cheek stroking

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Yeah, that was a clue. Of course, I'm sure plenty of dudes on here get little girls to stroke their cheeks while they close their eyes and picture fucking her so it's probably not real obvious. ;-)<p>I *KNOW* there's a scene somewhere (part 4/11) where Hakan argues with Eli and she guilts him into going out. But maybe it's just in the book. Fuck, this is annoying.

  • June 29, 2010, 4:07 p.m. CST

    Remaking a foreign flick (or an old flick)

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Is just ridiculous to me unless you're gonna ADD something to the original. Especially fucking "The Thing." That can go nowhere but wrong. Seriously, I showed that shit to my wife recently and she was scared shitless. That movie is twenty-eight years old and it still scared the shit out of her.

  • June 29, 2010, 4:09 p.m. CST

    Bicycle Sharer

    by Monolith_Jones

    That's just in the book I assume, because that's not in the movie, unless there's deleted scenes on the DVD. The only other scene with Hakan before the hospital is when she's yelling at him after he botches the first blood run.

  • June 29, 2010, 4:16 p.m. CST

    I was wrong

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    The fight (in the movie) isn't about her guilting him into going hunting for her. It's after she killed that dude in the alley and it's completely indecipherable. Oskar just hears it through the wall. The argument I remember is probably in the book, I guess, 'cause I have a very clear memory of it. So, I stand corrected regarding the fight, feel vindicated on the weird-ass cheek stroking, and maintain that the shit in the book added a facet to the movie and would have to the remake.<p>See, look at me! As I said, I admit when I'm mistaken.

  • June 29, 2010, 4:18 p.m. CST

    You are correct, Monolith

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Not in the movie. In the book. He uses his "hunting" for her to encourage her to lay next to him.

  • June 29, 2010, 4:20 p.m. CST

    MattmanReturns

    by AsimovLives

    It is a gimmickry indeed. It bacame one too in ALIAS, after they repeated it for the 2000 time! It's cute when you do it once in a long while, but all the time, it reeks of dramatic desperation.

  • June 29, 2010, 4:21 p.m. CST

    Like I said...

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    My memories of the two are jumbled because I watched it two times then downloaded the ebook and read it immediately after - still on the fucking couch. Then, the next day, when I finished the book, I rewatched the movie again. But I was definitely wrong. There was no argument about sleeping next to him if he'll go get blood in the movie.

  • June 29, 2010, 4:24 p.m. CST

    Karuma

    by AsimovLives

    Yiou will notice that in the movie LET THE RIGHT ONE IN, Hakkan is a pretty terrible killer. He never suceeds once, so much so that eli is forced to do her own killing for herself to fed, since Hakkan is proving to be so useless. In the wholwe movie, Hakkan fucks ups his atempts at killing, and he is even caught red-handed. As a killer, he's pretty inept.<br><br>And Hakkan kills not because he's inner motivated, but because if he does so he can be with Eli. They have a contract, this much is certain, adn though the movie never points it out directly what's about, it's infered quite heavily to the point of near obviousness. Why you think many of us call him the paedophile? And even those who have not read the book, i might add.

  • June 29, 2010, 4:29 p.m. CST

    Wow there's a lot of tension in this TB....

    by D o o d

    Let me in...!<p><p>sorry! :o)

  • June 29, 2010, 4:32 p.m. CST

    The Bicycle Sharer

    by AsimovLives

    I'll watch the movie again, but if memory serves, Eli has that fight with Hakkan before she does her first attack in the movie and kills one of the barflies. She kills because Hakkan fucked up. Hakkan is so gutted by the putdown Eli gives, he asks for a second chance. Which he also blows, and is when he pours acid down his face. After Hakkan's demise, is when the romance between Oskar and Eli really kicks in.

  • June 29, 2010, 4:35 p.m. CST

    The problem with the american movie title is that...

    by AsimovLives

    ... inevitably people will do the obvious pornographic joke about it. It's pratically begging it. And the title will also be fertile ground for puns from the reviewers who will hate it ("Let me out!!").

  • June 29, 2010, 4:36 p.m. CST

    The whole "castrated young male vampire" angle...

    by StarWarsRedux

    ...always struck me as frankly rather cheap and gaudy. Shock for the sake of shock alone. The premise and the story may very well work better if the vampire girl is really just a vampire girl and not a castrati. It's just more open that way.

  • June 29, 2010, 4:41 p.m. CST

    StarWarsRedux

    by AsimovLives

    "cheap and gaudy"??? "Shock for the sake of shock alone"??? You're kidding? It's so part of the story! It's one of the things that makes the movie so unique with the genre.<br><br>You puritans, it's obvious that there's movies you should never watch. Just admit it, you don't have the stomach for a movie like LET THE RIGHT ONE IN. But don't fret, there's the sanitized (but with the porn title) LET ME IN movie coming your way, i'm sure you will find it much more palatable to your sensebilities and taste.

  • June 29, 2010, 4:54 p.m. CST

    As for those who say LET THE RIGHT ONE IN is boring...

    by AsimovLives

    ... this is why God took a shit and gave Michael Bay just for you.

  • June 29, 2010, 6:08 p.m. CST

    I will always have the fantastic original

    by MJDeViant

    Beautifully cold, quiet and dark. Hints instead of bludgeoning you over the head and an oddness that is just interesting to watch. I love that movie. I don't know how you can think it is overrated other then you wanted some action horror movie like Daybreakers (which to me was dull and overrated). Let the Right One In was a perfect film IMO. Pace, music, acting....all spot on. The only thing that confused me in the movie was the hint that Eli was a boy. I hadn't read the book and it just seemed unnecessary to the film as a whole. I guess if Oscar saw "her" scar and knew she was a he and he STILL loved her that it was supposed to emphasize that love. It just didn't really seem like it perplexed him or anything.

  • June 29, 2010, 6:14 p.m. CST

    A lot of tension in this TB?

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    That statement made me do a fuckin' spit take with my diet Dr. Pepper!<p>I had no tension, though, until the fifth time I got accused of saying something and criticizing something (and someone) that I never did. I'm not twelve anymore. I don't need for someone else to like something I like to validate my own opinion of it. Some people like "Let the Right One In"; some people don't. C'est la vie! But taking me to task for criticizing someone else's personal likes and dislikes when I wasn't doing that? Well, that makes ME, at least, a bit tense.

  • June 29, 2010, 6:17 p.m. CST

    Asimov

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Gonna watch it again with my wife tonight and I'll check it out. I *DID* watch the segmented Youtube video of the flick and couldn't find it there, but I'll be able to watch the whole thing the way God intended (in church?) and verify it (again?!?!?) tomorrow. ;-)<p>If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. If I'm right, I'm right. Still ain't gonna change my opinion on the book, the movie, or the remake.

  • June 29, 2010, 7 p.m. CST

    Sounds like a Johnny Cash song.

    by RPLocke

  • June 29, 2010, 8:12 p.m. CST

    killik

    by Monolith_Jones

    If Oskar is sexually attracted to Eli when he's an adult then yes. But Oskar was probably on his way to being a serial killer ot something without meeting Eli anyway.

  • June 29, 2010, 8:19 p.m. CST

    Sounds like watered down shit.

    by TheWaqman

    I'll just stick to the original I guess.

  • June 29, 2010, 8:41 p.m. CST

    Fuck America

    by PTSDPete

  • June 29, 2010, 8:55 p.m. CST

    I always thought that was a sideways vagina

    by glennonwill

    really. But I only watched it once. Great film

  • June 29, 2010, 9:11 p.m. CST

    ** SPOILERS ** -- for those who have NOT read the book

    by tritium

    Spoiler alert<p><p><p><p> Sounds like this remake has left out a great scene from the book. I don't know why they didn't use it in the original film, either.<p>Anyways, in the book, Hakan falls to his death from the Hospital window...but becomes an Undead, mindless Vampire. He starts stalking Eli, and catches up with her when she is in a cellar underneath one of Oskar's friends housing block. I can't remember the name of his friend, but he is in the cellar with Eli, because he and Eli have come to an agreement in which he supplies Eli with some of his blood (which he withdrew from himself...Eli didn't bite him).<P> So...Hakan ends up appearing, and in the ensuing struggle between Eli and Hakan, Eli pushes Hakan down into a sub-cellar, and bolts the door behind him. As some time had transpired before Hakan appeared, Eli didn't realize that Oskar's friend was still there and chillin' out in the sub-cellar (at least I don't think she knew). And that is where all the fun begins.<p>The kid is trapped in the dark with Hakan the Vampire, who has half his face melted away. What ensues is shocking and suspensful. THEY NEED TO HAVE THIS SCENE IN THE RE-MAKE!

  • June 29, 2010, 9:15 p.m. CST

    You could have a contest

    by RPLocke

    Which movie is worse.

  • June 29, 2010, 9:17 p.m. CST

    tritium

    by Bouncy X

    that sounds like the first Blade, when that girl is stuck in that basement like room with her boyfriend who's now a demented and disfigured vampire. NEW LINE SHOULD SUE!!! :P

  • June 29, 2010, 9:41 p.m. CST

    So obviously screwed up.

    by AnnoyYou

    This was probably greenlighted because it's a "trendy vampire movie" but the suits had no idea what it is really all about. There's no violence in this remake?! DUH - that's what made the Swedish film so horrifying and unsettling. The violence was always oblique and often done in dark long shots or with edits which implied the violence. But it was always there. Actually, I have no idea why anyone would want to see this version when the original is so great.

  • June 29, 2010, 10:11 p.m. CST

    I can't and won"t judge the remake yet

    by Monolith_Jones

    I liked Cloverfield. It could be a good film in it's own right, we don't know. I'm not expecting a replacement for the original, just a different perspective. <br> <br> Besides it's sure to draw attention to the original.Like how Zack Snyder called his Watchmen film a long commercial for the book.

  • June 29, 2010, 10:31 p.m. CST

    The Bicycle Sharer... AsimovLives... ParisSun

    by Fleet

    Jesus, you guys care waaaay too much about this shit... Get a room and fuck it out already! Your arguing back and forth is goddamn ridiculous...

  • June 29, 2010, 10:41 p.m. CST

    I was at the screening.

    by irrelevntelefant

    it was really good. the original is still better. any decent director could have made this film. while it's true to the original - much more than I thought going in- there are a few changes will be interesting to see what gets tweaked before it's released. people that have no idea of LTROI should love .

  • June 29, 2010, 10:43 p.m. CST

    what is all this shit about castrated male vampires?

    by Cap'n Jack

    that's not how the original film was.

  • June 29, 2010, 11:46 p.m. CST

    ranmmagrandma67

    by dagwood

    Get a hobby.

  • June 30, 2010, 12:04 a.m. CST

    ok so one of the topics in the story is a young girl/boy stuck a

    by fat_rancor_keeper

    ....which should make us think about his/her ability to love? Didnt we already sorta see that in Interview with a Vampire???

  • June 30, 2010, 12:05 a.m. CST

    ...stuck at a young age

    by fat_rancor_keeper

    edit

  • June 30, 2010, 12:08 a.m. CST

    Castrated boy aspect

    by Kaitain

    "Benizdead, omitting the castration/tiny "boy" vampire omits a large portion of what the original movie and the book were about." <p> I disagree. The movie skirted that plot point almost entirely. You need to be REALLY paying attention to see it. It's barely hinted at, and no real attention is drawn to it. Sure, Eli says, "I'm not a girl" but that could easily be taken to mean "I'm not a normal human girl". And the character is clearly PLAYED by a girl.

  • June 30, 2010, 12:14 a.m. CST

    Remakes...

    by SunTzu77

    I usually look to see who's directing and dping and make a decision upon that. I have no problem with remakes if they're handled with care. A Fistful of Dollars -- Yojimbo, The Departed - Infernal Affairs, Cape Fear (91) - Cape Fear (62), The Magnificent Seven and Seven Samurai, The Man Who Knew too Much ('56 and '34), The Thing ('82 and '52), 3:10 to Yuma ('07 and '57), Dangerous Liaisons ('88 and '59), The Maltese Falcon ('41 and '31), and Heat which was just a remake of LA Takedown. <br> <br> Then you have the recent atrocities... which are numerous... Swept Away, Psycho, Nightmare on Elm Street, Pulse, Poseidon, Godzilla, The Pink Panther, Planet of the Apes, City of Angels, The Wicker Man...

  • June 30, 2010, 12:14 a.m. CST

    by CAPTAIN_AMERICAS_COCK_SHAPED_HELMET

  • June 30, 2010, 12:14 a.m. CST

    I'm shocked that this sucks

    by CAPTAIN_AMERICAS_COCK_SHAPED_HELMET

    That's all I got.

  • June 30, 2010, 12:28 a.m. CST

    yea not all remakes are bad

    by fat_rancor_keeper

    but it seems like most are pretty pointless cash-grabs. I think the worst offender are those Rob Zombie Halloween abortions. Those fucking films made me want to smash my fist against mirror in a dramatic fashion.

  • June 30, 2010, 1:56 a.m. CST

    I'll jump in here with my 2 cents

    by Fuzzyjefe

    I've seen the film about 5 times, haven't read the book. I'm in the camp that came away feeling that Haken had been Eli's 'Renfield' for a looong time, and was getting sloppy in his old age. I felt that he loved Eli deeply, and had for a long time (and really, if he had been killing for her for years, he wouldn't really have ANYONE else in his life, would he?). Of course he would be jealous of Oskar. Of course he would long for affection from Eli. S/he is all he's known. <p> I caught the castration the first viewing, but there's a second confirmation of Eli's maleness. When Oskar cuts himself & Eli starts licking it off the floor, she looks up and tells him to leave...and you see her real, male face. I just took it to mean that Eli has a 'glamour' that makes her appear more appealing to her prospective 'Renfields', because males would be more physically capable to handle the wetwork. <p> I'm totally onboard that it is a homosexual love story/revelation for Oskar, but Eli never really comes out and tells him s/he is a boy. She drops the hints, certainly, but nothing leads me to believe s/he even KNOWS that Oskar saw the scar. <p> There you go. If I'm an idiot because I saw the movie as a very disturbing account of a monster seducing/grooming its new errand-boy, then so be it. Apparently the filmakers themselves left it open (at least, according to what I've read here. Never listened to the commentary nor watched any making-of docs. Just the film.)

  • June 30, 2010, 2:20 a.m. CST

    KilliK

    by AsimovLives

    You are correct, because Eli will never grow up, he/she will never be anything other then a 12 years old, in body and mind.<br><br>This is the beauty about this movie, ther's nothing easy and cozy about it, there's always soemthing disturbing about the consequences of the situations presented in the movie. It's a true horror movie.

  • June 30, 2010, 2:23 a.m. CST

    Monolith_Jones

    by AsimovLives

    I also share your opinion that Orkar was on his way into becoming a serial killer. However, in that scene in the bathroom, we see that Oskar can't bring hismelf to kill even the person who is directly threatnign his beloved one. Even as a killer he fails. Or at least, as a young killer. Oskar, poor Oskar, he's noo cut out for the killer business. At least, he's not a natural. He has the urge but not the drive.

  • June 30, 2010, 2:26 a.m. CST

    tritium

    by AsimovLives

    The reason that scene and everythign about Hakkan as vampyre didn't made into the swedish movie is because the filmmakers (including the writer of the book who is the movie's scriptwriter), decides to focus the movie only on Oskar and Eli, and reduce everything else to the less amount possible or even cut out althogether. And it soulds like it was a good decision. The movie as it is, is very focused and knows what is the story it wants to tell and doesn't deviate. The subplots that remain all work for and support the main plot about Oskar and Eli.

  • June 30, 2010, 2:28 a.m. CST

    Cap'n Jack

    by AsimovLives

    Wrong.

  • June 30, 2010, 2:30 a.m. CST

    fat_rancor_keeper

    by AsimovLives

    In INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPYRE, Claudia is an adult in a child's body. She grew up mentally. In LET THE RIGHT ONE IN, Eli never grew up and stayed a 12 years old child, body and mind.

  • June 30, 2010, 2:35 a.m. CST

    Kaitain

    by AsimovLives

    The movie didn't skirted the issue. It presents it subtly and ellyptically, but it presents it and it's there. It deals with it elegantly, instead of a blunt "IT'S THERE, SEE IT DAMMIT" approach. Unlike msot Holylwood mvoies which press the same issue again and again every fucking 10 minutes of screentime, LET THE RIGHT ONE IN presents the stuff one or twice and never very directly. But if pay attention, it's there. The movie does demand audience participation, you can't watch it passivelly as if you were watching some Tom Cruise blockbuster action movie.<br><br>The reason why Eli is played by a young girl is to help serve better the ambiguity of Eli at the begining of the story. Notice they even used an older person's voice for her character (it's not the actress' real voice). and also, because there is a kissing scene later on in the story. you wanted to have two pre-adolescent male kids kiss? That was one problem the production of the movie didn't wanted to have to deal with, for obvious reasons. That shit would be extremely problemantic even in Sweden.

  • June 30, 2010, 2:54 a.m. CST

    I didn't think this movie was all that amazing

    by CAPTAIN_AMERICAS_COCK_SHAPED_HELMET

    It was just good. Does that mean that I'm a low-brow mouth breather Asimov?

  • June 30, 2010, 3:11 a.m. CST

    Asimov Lives

    by tritium

    But that doesn't mean the re-make can't add the Hakan turned vampire, Haken / cellar scene. After all, the new Director has stated he wants to create his own vision and re-telling, and perhaps use more of the source material.<p>Yes, I agree the original is just about perfect in it's own right...but that doesn't mean the re-make can't draw more directly from the novel, and blaze it's own identity.

  • June 30, 2010, 3:36 a.m. CST

    CAPTAIN_AMERICAS_COCK_SHAPED_HEL MET

    by AsimovLives

    It means you didn't payed attention, or you have seen too many Michael Bay movies and dulled your taste for other style of filmmaking.

  • June 30, 2010, 3:41 a.m. CST

    tritium

    by AsimovLives

    If you ask me, Hakkan as a vampyre is the type of thing the remake WOULD DO. Because it's an oportunity to provides for "action" stuff and a full out and out villain you wouldn't had conflict about, unlike the original movie where the vilalins, so to speak, are just a bunch of stupid young bullies kids which get a comeuppence many would feel uncorfortable seeing happen to an adult much less pre-teens. Also, Hakkan as a vampyre helps make Abby more sympathetic, because she will no longer be the monster of the story, but a tragic hero, wiht the monster duties befalling Hakkan. Unlike the original movie, in which Eli is the movie's monster through and through.<br><br>Hakkan as a vampyre is the thing to expect in the remake, and i'll be very suprised if it doesn't happen.

  • June 30, 2010, 3:44 a.m. CST

    hERE WA

    by BlueLando

    (We never really understand why Owen is acting out and stabbing with a knife in the dark until slightly later.) Huh? This is called an arc, dude. Set-up and pay-off. If they tell us upfront, it loses any value it has. You have to build to these things. <p> As for the bitching... I didn't see the original. But surely the point of them adapting it is NOT to copy what the original did. That went down the 'boy-vampire' route, so what could this film have done with that? The shock is out.

  • June 30, 2010, 3:48 a.m. CST

    I've heard

    by DonnieDorko

    That in this version, when Eli is hunting and feeding off the drunks, it will be in highspeed with Benny Hill music playing. I think that was a bad choice.

  • June 30, 2010, 3:59 a.m. CST

    just start remaking foreign films before they even come out

    by tibbar

    since americans can't stand to read subtitles

  • June 30, 2010, 4:09 a.m. CST

    BlueLando

    by AsimovLives

    The shock is not out because basically no american saw the original movie besides some very few geeks who aren't allergic to subtitles, which means, a very small minority indeed.

  • June 30, 2010, 4:15 a.m. CST

    And the bulling now will involve fist-fighting

    by AsimovLives

    I really doubt that in the remake, the bulling of Owen will be like in the origujnal, which was more a case of constant humiliation with a mean harsh physical attack by flogging. I'm certain in the remake, the bulling will consist of punchings and fightings and all that clichéd shit.<br><br>Also, i don't udnerstand the change of the name of Oskar to Owen. Does Owen sounds more manly to americans's ears? If so, then it misses the point, kids can be bullied is they have the "wrong" name, and a kid called Oskar could be bullied by stupid kids just because of such a stupid reason as that. Kids do very stupid shit like that.

  • June 30, 2010, 4:18 a.m. CST

    correction

    by AsimovLives

    "kids can be bullied is they have the "wrong" name" = "kids can be bullied because they have the "wrong" name"

  • June 30, 2010, 4:18 a.m. CST

    Ok, first...

    by kilbride

    The whole point is that Oskar is not the new Hakan. Its subtle in the movie because they tone down (but don't omit) the pediophilic nature of Hakan's character but is very clear in the book. Even Oskar's understanding of his attraction to Eli after knowing he is a boy is very spelled out (he questions his sexuality and asks a teacher about being gay). Second, if they include the story of Hakan after he falls, there is a very disturbing aspect about what he tries to do to Eli in the cellar...something which would NEVER fly in the U.S. not to mention Sweden probably.

  • June 30, 2010, 4:38 a.m. CST

    read this talkback from beginning to end.

    by RedHorseVector

    it's complete drivel.

  • June 30, 2010, 4:40 a.m. CST

    kilbride

    by AsimovLives

    They could retain the Hakkan as vampyre but omit the more unpleasant psycho-sexual stuff, basically just turneing Hakkan into an even bigger monster which wants to kill Abby as revenge for the putdowns he suffered while still human. There's many ways to waterdown the story by still mantaining Hakkan as a vampyre. Of cours,e it wil make him petty instead of really disturbing, as he is in the original, but there you have it, welcome to Holywood filmmaking.

  • June 30, 2010, 4:42 a.m. CST

    OK ASI MAYBE ILL WATCH IT AGAIN

    by CAPTAIN_AMERICAS_COCK_SHAPED_HELMET

    BUT THE REAL QUESTION IS, IS IT BETTER THAN PHANTOM MENACE? BECAUSE YOU LIKED pHANTOM MENACE

  • June 30, 2010, 4:44 a.m. CST

    THIS IS AN ASIMOV QUOTE

    by CAPTAIN_AMERICAS_COCK_SHAPED_HELMET

    "JJ ABRAMS CANNOT HOLD A CANDLES TO GEORGE LUCAS, THIS STAR TRECK ABORTION PALES IN COMPARISONS TO THE FAR SUPERIOR PHANTOM MENACE"

  • June 30, 2010, 4:44 a.m. CST

    RedHorseVector

    by AsimovLives

    You didn't payed attention. Or are you very much in support of the remake?

  • June 30, 2010, 5:05 a.m. CST

    CAPTAIN_AMERICAS_COCK_SHAPED_HEL MET

    by AsimovLives

    Provide a link to prove your bullshit, you lying fuck. You Jar Jar Abrams's asskisser, you cannot help themselves, but constantly lying, can't you? Pathetic!

  • June 30, 2010, 5:06 a.m. CST

    Gays for JayJay are already pre-emptive striking

    by AsimovLives

    Because they have to support a movie that is directed by one of Jar Jar Abram's ass-slaves. Regardless if the movie is good or fucking terrible.

  • June 30, 2010, 5:09 a.m. CST

    RedHorseVector

    by Fuzzyjefe

    I believe you may be confusing this talkback with the writing of Stephenie Meyer. It's okay. They both deal with vampires, but this talkback is much more romantic.

  • June 30, 2010, 6:19 a.m. CST

    Fuzzyjefe

    by AsimovLives

    And more literary too, even with the typos.

  • June 30, 2010, 6:43 a.m. CST

    Amen AsimovLives

    by Fuzzyjefe

    So say we all, ya'll

  • June 30, 2010, 7:11 a.m. CST

    Well, this is an easy fix.

    by Knuckleduster

    Just don't watch it when it comes out. I know we're all curious, but fuck it, you can wait until it hits DVD. See, if it performs well at cinemas, these idiots might be tempted to make sequels and spin-offs and a TV series and God knows what else. And I don't want my money to be responsible for shit like that. <p> Stay at home. Read a book. Read Let The Right One In.

  • June 30, 2010, 7:34 a.m. CST

    Re. Paedophilia and castration references

    by DannyOcean01

    Loving the tantrums from the fans of the book who are using their knowledge to prompt the 'obvious' references in the original film. Is there anyone in this TB who saw the references, but haven't read the book? It certainly wasn't obvious to me. Even if Haakan was just a past suitor, his advances at a later age are going to look paedophilic.

  • June 30, 2010, 8:58 a.m. CST

    Asimov

    by Kaitain

    "It presents it subtly and ellyptically, but it presents it and it's there. It deals with it elegantly, instead of a blunt "IT'S THERE, SEE IT DAMMIT" " <p> Whilst I agree that a plot point doesn't always have to be bludgeoned home, having rewatched several scenes from the movie last night I cannot see that the film "deals" with the castration angle at all. I cannot see that it plays any role in the story. <p> Certainly, it doesn't (for me) operate as some kind of missing piece in the jigsaw, some plot point that makes a set of other things fit together better. Does the story (as presented in the film, not the book) clearly make more sense with Eli as a boy rather than a girl? If so, how? <p> Let's leave aside the "I'm not a girl" dialogue, as appealing to that begs the question somewhat (given that the viewer is not compelled to interpret this as the literal truth, for reasons discussed elsewhere on this board). <p> Are there many other clear signs that Eli must be male? Having rewatched the "glimpsed nakedness" scene I would maintain that the hypothesis "this is a castrated male" is not the first one that leaps to mind. The scene might operate as a piece of box-ticking for those who have read the book, but it doesn't seem to carry any narrative authority of its own. The text as presented (the theatrical cut of the movie) simply doesn't seem to put the pointers in for a viewer to make a rational deduction that Eli is a castrated male. <p> (And it should be noted that castration usually involves the removal of the testes only. Total removal of the whole shooting match isn't an hypothesis that leaps to mind very readily.)

  • June 30, 2010, 9:01 a.m. CST

    And my reading of Hakan

    by Kaitain

    Was also that he was once a young boy of Oskar's age who had stayed with Eli for decades, she having tired of him while he stayed dedicated (getting slowly crazier and more pathetic), and that Oskar may now be heading for a similar life.

  • June 30, 2010, 9:08 a.m. CST

    just one

    by alcester

    Would someone make a groundbreaking horror film one last time before i die!

  • June 30, 2010, 9:08 a.m. CST

    This is why I stay out of TB's so much

    by rogueleader66

    No one knows how to have civil discussions anymore. There always has to be an immature insult fest taking place at some point in a TB where opinions vary. I don't care who does it or why, sometimes you need to take the high road and NOT stoop down to someone else's level. Because once someone responds to a childish insult with another, it just snowballs from there. I am not even going to comment on anything else, because I refuse to get into a debate about this. It's just sad that even intelligent people can get sucked into this immature bullshit.<P> I pretty much read these TB's for amusement now, because I cannot remember the last time there was a civil discussion in one, at least where opinions are varied.<P>When someone is being a jackass or pissing you off, how about this...ignore them, and maybe they will go away, or if you must respond, respond n a mature civil manner, either approach is bound to make the discussion short.<P>Won't happen though, sadly, people are too easily sucked in to this shit.

  • June 30, 2010, 9:12 a.m. CST

    Anyways, regarding the actual subject of this TB

    by rogueleader66

    I will not see the American version before I see the original. I did that with The Grudge some years back, and while I liked both versions, the original was a bit better.

  • June 30, 2010, 9:18 a.m. CST

    rogueleader66

    by CAPTAIN_AMERICAS_COCK_SHAPED_HELMET

    my sister would fit right in here, she's a real cunt! that's good advice, I should just ignore her stupid bitch ass!

  • June 30, 2010, 9:19 a.m. CST

    I thought the American Grudge was actually better

    by CAPTAIN_AMERICAS_COCK_SHAPED_HELMET

    lol wow I can't believe I just said that

  • June 30, 2010, 9:21 a.m. CST

    CAPTAIN

    by rogueleader66

    I thought the American Grudge was just slightly below the original, not by much, but there was just something about the original I liked better

  • June 30, 2010, 9:49 a.m. CST

    DannyOcean01

    by AsimovLives

    "Is there anyone in this TB who saw the references, but haven't read the book?"<br><br>Yes, me. The movie makes no secret about it, it just doesn't hammer the point to the head of the audiences, like it's some Mickey Bay or Jar Jar Abrams movie. The swedish movie knows the meaning of elegant filmmaking and subtlery.

  • June 30, 2010, 9:58 a.m. CST

    Asimov

    by rogueleader66

    good morning sir

  • June 30, 2010, 10:17 a.m. CST

    Asimov

    by Kaitain

    Can you talk me through the mental processes and deductions that led you to realize that Eli was a castrated boy without having read the book or heard anything about that plot point? <p> I'm not trying to be facetious or take the piss; I'm always intrigued by different points of view and different analyses and like to drill down into them to see if a clear point of diversion can be identified.

  • June 30, 2010, 10:23 a.m. CST

    yeah well since they basically copied every single scene

    by CAPTAIN_AMERICAS_COCK_SHAPED_HELMET

    watching the original after seeing the American version was boring.

  • June 30, 2010, 10:25 a.m. CST

    I hardly remember the film

    by CAPTAIN_AMERICAS_COCK_SHAPED_HELMET

    but I do remember seeing some hints that she was actually a dude, but it was pretty ambiguous.

  • June 30, 2010, 10:38 a.m. CST

    @danny ocean

    by Monolith_Jones

    I never read the book. Everything I've discussed comes from the film. As I've said the doubters keep saying what those scenes aren't, but can give no suitable answer as to what they are. There is a scarred crotch shown. There is no disputing this. Eli specifically says "I'm not a girl" twice. There is no disputing this.

  • June 30, 2010, 10:39 a.m. CST

    rogueleader66

    by AsimovLives

    And how are you, my good friend? Fan of LET THE RIGHT ONE IN too?

  • June 30, 2010, 10:45 a.m. CST

    Kaitain

    by AsimovLives

    Well, ther'es no major mental process going on. The beauty of the movie is that when Eli first said "i'm not a girl", we take it as she refering to she being "not human", a vampyre. She does repeate that twice. i think that builds a small unsettling feeling t the viewer. It's a subtle work. Then, we see the scar. And that scar is a removal scar, it's an amputation scar. It's even sideways. It's not a sewed vagina, or a burned vagina, it's a sideways mutilation scar. So, you add the notion of eli saying "i'm not a girl" and you see an obvious castration scar, and you can add 2 polus 2 equal four. And to help it, Eli is a male name. It's 2 plus 2 plus 2 making six. There's no big mental process here, it's just common sense.<br><br>I thinlk the people who do not partkae in this notion is because they hate that notion, maybe for moral or sensitive reasons. It's an uncorfortable and gross notion. Which, fgiven that this is an horror movie, is the point of the whole thing. Horror movies should unsettle and horrify us, or else what's the point? Why even call them horror?

  • June 30, 2010, 10:45 a.m. CST

    Should have been a more faithful adaption of the book

    by Rob0729

    We don't need a remake of the Swedish film. The book is very different from that movie though. The only way I could be interested in the American film was to be more faithful to the original. Make Oskar (or Owen) a sick little fuck who may be a killer in training. Make Hakan ("The father") a disgraced pedophile teacher who is driven to kill because of his demons. <br><br> Seriously who needs a watered down remake of a movie that just came out a few years back. The book is far different in tone and story from the original movie.

  • June 30, 2010, 10:48 a.m. CST

    CAPTAIN_AMERICAS_COCK_SHAPED_HEL MET

    by AsimovLives

    I's say it's more subtle then really ambiguous.<<br><br>And sorry for the harsher words before, but you really tasked me with your little lie above. But as our friend rogueleader66 said above, why can't we all be a bit more gentlemanly about this?

  • June 30, 2010, 10:49 a.m. CST

    CAPTAIN_AMERICAS_COCK_SHAPED_HEL MET

    by AsimovLives

    And sorry for the harsher words before, but you really tasked me with your little lie above. But as our friend rogueleader66 said above, why can't we all be a bit more gentlemanly about this?

  • June 30, 2010, 10:53 a.m. CST

    Rob0729

    by AsimovLives

    Aren't you asking too much from the american movie? Or from holywood, for that matter? Do you really think that Holywood would ever make a movie like LET THE RIGHT ONE IN? Don't you think that Holywood would consider that movie a bit too "unreleasable"? And you expect that with the remake they could make it even edgier and harsher? Forget it, man! It will never happen. What the remake might have is a bit more scenes of violence, but evne those will not have the same emotional impact, they will be more watered down.<br><br>Actually, i'm dying to listne to the audio comentary when the remake gets released in DVD. Should be quite interesting to know what the filmamkers have to say about their movie.

  • June 30, 2010, 10:56 a.m. CST

    Asimov

    by rogueleader66

    Doing well my friend, going to see Toy Story 3 this weekend and without my kids as they have seen it already, and then to a cookout on Sunday<P>Well I have not seen the film, but have been dying to ever since it came out, may have to d/l a copy and check it out, and like I said, i refuse to see the Americanized version before I see the original.<P>From what I have heard so far, the remake probably won't measure up to the original, they hardly ever do. All of the American remakes of Japanese horror have paled, with only the Grudge remake coming close and even though this is a Swedish film, still the track record of foreign remakes in America is not good. I will see the remake for comparison, but I will venture a guess and say it probably wont be as good as the original. Reeves is a decent director, but there is a big difference between Cloverfield (which I enjoyed) and a remake of a highly regarded foreign film.

  • June 30, 2010, 10:57 a.m. CST

    And even in the american watered down version...

    by AsimovLives

    ... the marketing departments will have a hell of a time figuring out how to distribute it according to american studios marketing strategies. They will have trouble figuring out who will be their target audiences, is this a movie for kids, for teens, for adult,s what? This is the problem of an insdustry that took too much important on the sales side of things to the deteriment of everything else.

  • June 30, 2010, 11:05 a.m. CST

    rogueleader66

    by AsimovLives

    And you pointed to a very important thing, Matt Reeves the director. The dude did well in CLOVERFIELD. I see no major jump form him as a TV director and CLOVERFIELD. For all it's epic size, CLOVERFIELD is a TV-like movie, it's a video-cam movie, and Reeves as a Tv director was in is element.<br><br>But if you watch LET THE RIGHT ONE IN, you will see how cinematic that film is. It's shot in a very classic style, with extremely detailed shot compositions which reminds the style of shooting in those anamorphic movies from the 70s. In fat, if not for the extreme clarify of the night photography, you could be foled to think the movie was shot in 1983, when the story is set.<br><br>Even though the movie ws set in early 80s Sweden, i found many thing in it that spoke to me even as a once kid of that age at those times. The way the movie captures the mood of the times is impecable. I can't identify myself with anybody in the movie, but yet the movie does present the tiems as they were, and it seems there was this melancolic way of life that was as true in my country as was in Sweden. And i think that LET THE RIGHT ONE IN will also resonate to many americans. It might help if you had been at that age back then, which means, people today aged 38-40, but i think that one doesn't need that to feel for the movie, and the story, and how it's presented.<br><br>For me, LET THE RIGHT ONE IN is one of those movies that reminds me why i fell inlove with cinema in the first place.

  • June 30, 2010, 11:06 a.m. CST

    In fat = In fact

    by AsimovLives

  • June 30, 2010, 11:25 a.m. CST

    In 1983

    by rogueleader66

    I was 17, so I will identify with the time period, and I love when movies take places in times that i can remember, now I really cant wait to see it.

  • June 30, 2010, 11:26 a.m. CST

    Asimov- the remake is 90-95% same as original

    by irrelevntelefant

    really, any halfway decent director could have made this film. Reeves does some funky stuff with depth of field and focusing, but that's pretty much it. the color pallette is basically the same<p> there are definitely some cinematically great shots in the remake and they really do a great job of capturing the look of 1983 (I was 15 in 83, so yes I remember). It does feel like it could have been made in the 80's <p> and as for being watered down, it's really not very much at all. again 90-95% of what's in the original is in here<p> there's no crotch shot like the first, and there are a few minor changes, but quite honestly it's basically the Swedish version done in English <p> if the original LTROI never existed and this was the first movie made from the book, the only people complaining would be the fans of the book- they would have the same complaints they had with the original <p>

  • June 30, 2010, 11:30 a.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by Rob0729

    I know it is a lot to expect although certain studios or directors would and could do something like this. But this movie is clearly a cash grab move and movies with pedophiles and pissballs will not draw in the crowd. <br><br> I was talking about how to make the remake interesting, not how to make it popular. An independent film company would be able to do it since there have been some rather mainstream indies that have tackled similiar or harsher subjects (for example Todd Solondz's Happiness). But a mainstream indy like this will still only gross about $5-10 million. They want that to be the opening Friday's gross.

  • June 30, 2010, 11:31 a.m. CST

    as for why it was remade

    by irrelevntelefant

    it was probably cheaper to remake it than to spend marketing $ trying to get people into the theaters for subtitles. <P> hating subtitles isn't a "literacy" or "intellegence" thing, it is an American thing. <p> in Europe and other countries, kids learn other languages at a very young age, but here in America we just expect everyone to learn English..

  • June 30, 2010, 11:40 a.m. CST

    irrelevntelefant

    by AsimovLives

    Colour me skeptical, friend, but for me, seeing is believing about this movie. I have seen some other american remakes which claim and on the surface are very close to the origjnal movies, and yet, there's something lakcing in them that makes them souless, lacking, and less interesting, even though they have much better production values. Really, seeing is believing for me.

  • June 30, 2010, 11:45 a.m. CST

    As for the languages learning in europe...

    by AsimovLives

    ... i'm portuguese and i had to learn 3 different languages in school: english, french and german. The later was optiinal, it was either german or latin. I chosed german, for what good it did to me. Well, it kinda did, because now i can tell when somebody is a native german speaker or a foreigner trying to speak german.<br><br>As for this attitude in many americans talking for granted that everybody else in the world have to know their language, it pisses me off. I'm sorry, but it pisses me off. It bothers on arrogance. They cna see a foreigner struggling with english, seeing a foreigner trying their best to speak english to americans, and what most do is to mock instead of showing some goddam respect. It really pisses me off like hell! But it's not just the americans who act like this, though, the french do the same shit too!

  • June 30, 2010, 11:47 a.m. CST

    bothers = border

    by AsimovLives

    I'm sure somebody will have a laugh at this!

  • June 30, 2010, 11:47 a.m. CST

    bothers = borders

    by AsimovLives

    I'm sure somebody will have a laugh at this!

  • June 30, 2010, 11:47 a.m. CST

    Subtitles

    by rogueleader66

    Don't bother me and I am an American. Granted I have not seen very many subtitled films, but I have seen both Crouching Tiger and Brotherhood Of The Wolf in the theaters, with subtitles.<P>Anyone who complains about them must either have a short attention span or just doesn't like movies very much....or they are 13 years old LOL

  • June 30, 2010, 11:50 a.m. CST

    Rob0729

    by AsimovLives

    Sure, an american indie movie without aspirations to mega-bucks commercial sucess might tackle the subject with all the harshness of the book and the original movie. however, even many of the indie outfits in America today are directly or indirectly owned by major studios or corporations. And then there's the fact of the MPAA ratings, which can castrate any movie that wants to be daring.<br><br>In fact, this is something we haven't spoken about, the MPAA's reaction to the story, and how it will influence the final version of the movie.

  • June 30, 2010, 11:54 a.m. CST

    asimov- I get that.

    by irrelevntelefant

    the original is still better, but the casting and acting in the remake is pretty much spot on. <p> I liken it to this - I love Led Zeppelin, but I also dig when Train does covers of Zeppelin songs. <p> They will never have the same connection with me as the original songs, but they are still really good covers that I enjoy listening to <p> Let Me In is basically a really good cover of the LTROI... <p> I think the kid in the remake, McPhee (Owen), was actually better than the original kid. <p> hit-girl is great as well, she just doesn't have the same creepy vibe as the original girl. <p> I was hoping for more with the Richard Jenkins character, but again, they didn't stray far at all from the original.<p> I'll see it again when it is released theatrically to see if any changes were made, but I already have LTROI on blu-ray, so I have no need to get this when it comes out.

  • June 30, 2010, 11:56 a.m. CST

    the remake still has an art-house feel to it

    by irrelevntelefant

    very "focus feature"-ish. <p> they are going to have difficult time marketing it for the multiplex audience

  • June 30, 2010, 12:39 p.m. CST

    very "focus feature"-ish

    by AsimovLives

    Wow, that's good! We should turn that as a new meme here. "focus feature"-ish, i think everybody will know what it means. If you could get british DVDs, you cousl also say very "momentum feature"-ish. The brits will know what i mean by that.

  • June 30, 2010, 12:41 p.m. CST

    irrelevntelefant

    by AsimovLives

    And if LET ME IN does indeed have a art-house-like feel to it, then brownie points to the movie and the filmmakers for that. But truly, the movie is going to be subjected to audience testings, and to the MPAA, and god only knows how much the movie might get changed from that. I wouldn't be not at all suprised to know if soon enough reshots of the movie were underway to make it more "audience and MPAA friendly".

  • June 30, 2010, 12:45 p.m. CST

    hear it from the author

    by old_man_and_the_sea

    you guy's should read this site more carefully. If you want to know what the author of the book and screenplay intended just go to http://www.aintitcool.com/node/38839

  • June 30, 2010, 12:49 p.m. CST

    As for the kid in the original movie....

    by AsimovLives

    ... the kid did a type of acting that almost no kid can achieve, because it's extremely hard evne for adults, and professional adult actors, much less children: subtle low key naturalistic acting. And the kid in the original is suberb at it. In fact, one never fells he's acting, but that he IS Oskar. And the girl is suberb as well, how she one minute can look angelical and a pretty nice girl and then turn into a cold blooded monster, even in the same unbroken take. Small wonder they took a year finding the right kids for the roles.

  • June 30, 2010, 12:51 p.m. CST

    asimov- there's no pedo angle or crotch shot...

    by irrelevntelefant

    the violence is about the same as the original <p> the main complaint I was hearing in the lobby afterwards was people (who obviously never saw or heard of the original) were thinking it was going to be a full on horror film with a much higher body count and more violence.

  • June 30, 2010, 12:52 p.m. CST

    old_man_and_the_sea

    by AsimovLives

    If you have the DVD, in the audio comentary he's quite informative about the differences between the movie and the novel. And since he is who wrote the script, well, i guess he's pretty OK with the changes.

  • June 30, 2010, 12:58 p.m. CST

    irrelevntelefant

    by AsimovLives

    "there's no pedo angle or crotch shot"<br><br>Yeah, it proves my point, it is a watered down version of the movie, no matter how else it's faithful otherwise. Many already accused the original movie of light-footing on the book, and how it skip so much harsh stuff found in the novel. I only imagine how even more pissed off they will be with the remake.

  • June 30, 2010, 1:08 p.m. CST

    MPAA would never allow a crotch shot

    by irrelevntelefant

    sealed up barbie-like or otherwise. <p> there are a few pedo-vibes in the film, but Reeves clearly establishes later in the film that the father figure has been with her since he was Owen/Oskar's age.<p> again, it's about 90% true to the original. <p>

  • June 30, 2010, 1:12 p.m. CST

    Monolith_Jones and AsimovLives

    by DannyOcean01

    Fair enough. One effect this TB has had is made me want to watch the original again. Been a while so I'll take this opportunity to pick up the Blu-ray. Maybe I just preferred the Haakan as previous suitor. Maybe that's why I missed the references. Nice to see material that can be picked over in a number of ways. Can't remember at what point Eli says, 'I'm not a girl', but unless it was clear she was referring to sexuality, I probably just assumed it was referring to her long-life.

  • June 30, 2010, 1:14 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by kolchak

    I don't think they should have explained it. In fact, I prefer to just think of Eli as a girl in the film version. It's just simpler. <p> Going into that whole backstory would have derailed the picture and caused a shitload of pacing issues. <p> What I'm saying is that it's unfair to criticize the remake for not explaining it when the Swedish one made a completely half assed attempt and failed at it.

  • June 30, 2010, 1:24 p.m. CST

    kolchak

    by AsimovLives

    The swedish movie didn't made any half-assed atempt at it. The swedish movie showed it, and subtly. You must be terribly misremembering the movie, given your coments. What the swedish movie did, and how it did, was brilalnt. The beauty of the swedish movie is that it can present the stuff without "explaining" or go for exposition. It's there, it's shown, but it's not hammered to the head, it's subtle and ellyptic in approach.

  • June 30, 2010, 1:32 p.m. CST

    irrelevntelefant

    by AsimovLives

    The original movie portaits Hakkan as a paedophile who is in Eli's company and works for her/him to get some paedo satisfaction. So, no, the american movie is not like the original in that regard.<br><br>There has been quite many people who have come up with the notion that Hakkan wa a longtime companion of Eli, since a very early age,a dn while it's a good and interesting, and even smart interpretation, and there are moment sin the movie that seems to help give weight to that notion, in the end, and if one pays attention, the truth is that Hakkan is a paedophile that Eli is exploiting to get his/her needs satisfied without exposing him/herself. When Hakkan fails his duty and Eli has to do the job herself, she gets exposed, and is eventually marked by one of the drunks, who then tries to kill her, and almost suceeds. This is why Eli got blood by proxy mostly, to save her being exposed.<br><br>The filmmakers do coment on the notion of Hakkan as an older Oskar. But they reject the idea, they say it was not their intentions, and the movie was made not to follow that notion either. What the filmmakers do say, is that Oskar, whenhe grows olde,r he could turn into an Hakkan. So, it's the other way around, it's not that Hakan was once an Oskar, but that Oskar might became an Hakkan in the future.<br><br>As such, no, the american rename is not like the original in that regard either.<br><br>And the MPAA are the death of american cinema. they are already the major reason of the pussification of the vast majority of american movies made by studios and their affiliated movie production companies. Those moralistic fucks are a desease, and they are and act like true censorship. How a democracy like USA allows such bullshit as the MPAA to exist boggles the mind. It's just wrong!

  • June 30, 2010, 1:53 p.m. CST

    Asimov- I didn't get the pedo angle the first time around

    by irrelevntelefant

    it was subtle. I thought he had been with her for a long time as well. <p> as for the MPAA, it's a fucking joke. You can violently maim and kill at will in a movie and still pull a pg-13, but say "fuck" more than once or show a tittie and they slap it with an "R"<p>

  • June 30, 2010, 1:59 p.m. CST

    Musings

    by Kaitain

    "In fact, one never fells he's acting, but that he IS Oskar. " <p> I find it pretty hard to tell whether somebody is acting well or poorly if they're in a foreign language movie. I don't know the subtleties of what a natural inflection should sound like in Swedish, or Korean, or Spanish. I don't know how much gesticulating is over the top in that culture. So I suspect that I give a pass to the acting in foreign movies far more than I do to English language movies. <p> Re: castration. I certainly didn't see the "crotch shot" and think, "hmmm...that looks like a surgical scar". Even on subsequent viewings that doesn't leap out at me at all. And I cannot believe that it was the director's intention for the audience to think that.

  • June 30, 2010, 2:12 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by kolchak

    There's nothing subtle about showing 3 seconds of what appeared to maybe be a castration scar, cutting away, and then never going anywhere else with it. There's no "misremembering" going on there. That's just what happened. <p> Ambiguity was the right way to go. That's why the original is so good. But that's the thing- it was ambiguous. <p> The above reviewer says "The decision to not clarify that Abby is really a castrated young male vampire" pissed him off. What I'm saying is that was never really CLARIFIED in the original film. It was suggested and hinted at, never clarified. So I don't think it's completely valid to attack the remake (which I'm not defending) on that particular point.

  • June 30, 2010, 2:51 p.m. CST

    After seeing the original, I had an inkling

    by rbatty024

    that the vampire was a castrated boy, but I wasn't exactly sure. It wasn't until I talked to someone who had read the book that it all came together.

  • June 30, 2010, 3:47 p.m. CST

    Kaitain

    by kolchak

    That's a really acute point about foreign actors. I watched "Dogtooth" last night and was stuck for the first 30 minutes deciding if the two lead girls were phenomenal actresses or just really clumsy ones.

  • June 30, 2010, 4:15 p.m. CST

    Kaitain

    by AsimovLives

    Let me just say that castration is not a cirurgical scar, if you know what i mean. And if Eli is 200 years old, it means she got it in the early 19th century. That's during the Napoleonic Wars, before the events of the movie MASTER AND COMMANDER. Think about it. Then the concept of a bad scar as a result of castration deosn't lok that implausible anymore. Castration was a bad business, man, specially if it was done by mutilation.<br><br>And really, just think about it: what would be the point of that shot, anyway, if it was notto show precisely that, that Eli was castraated? Otherwise, what is the point of that shot? You can't get off of it with a just "i don't know". No, that shot as a very specific porpose, like al shots in this movie, to show something, to tell something. That shot, it has a precise intention, to show, finally, what Eli ment when he said "i'm not a girl". The point is finally brough home with full force. It is the answer.

  • June 30, 2010, 4:19 p.m. CST

    kolchak

    by AsimovLives

    The castration shot was not ambiguous. There's many things ambiguous in the movie, but that was not one of those. The reason the shot is so short, 3 seconds as you say, is simple: to not be in bad taste. To linger on it would had been in bad taste, and in complete contrast to the elegant and classic style the movie presents itself. Because it's not just in USA that people have issues of taste and what's appropriate to show and what's not. The filmmakers, in their wisdom, decided that a short shot of a castration scar was enough to ram the point home. Narrative-wise, it did suffice quite well. The point was made, and the answer provided about who is Eli.

  • June 30, 2010, 4:22 p.m. CST

    rbatty024

    by AsimovLives

    I didn't need tot alk about anybody who read a book to figure out eli was a castrated boy. The movie provided all the asnwers right there. I'm still bewildered and amazed that so many cplaim they didn't get it, or were in doubt. I'm really puzzled! I though it was obvious enough. I don't get the doubts and denials, really, i don't get it.

  • June 30, 2010, 4:27 p.m. CST

    Wow

    by badmojojojo

    Sometimes I am both repulsed and attracted by the replies to these reviews/interviews. When I first heard that they were *Amerikanizing* LTROI I shuddered. NOw that I read the interview its confirmed. Will I go see this? Yeah, I will, to see how sanitized they try to make it. I love the original film adaptation of the novel and like many here I dont really see the point/need to hybridize it even further. I just read these comments and am blown away by the sheer close-mindedness vitriolic replies, and yet by how articulate and reasonable others are.

  • June 30, 2010, 4:28 p.m. CST

    I think it's quite telling about LET THE RIGHT ONE IN...

    by AsimovLives

    ... that it can cause such passionate debate and defense from the people who liked it. I think it's quite telling.

  • June 30, 2010, 4:29 p.m. CST

    badmojojojo

    by AsimovLives

    And where i seat among those, friend?

  • June 30, 2010, 5:12 p.m. CST

    "I prefer to just think of Eli as a girl in the film version. It

    by Dead_Kate_Moss

    It's your preference I guess, but if simplicity is to your taste, this wasn't the film's intent.It's full of mystery and ambiguity.<p> When I saw it, I was puzzled by the crotch-shot as it obviously had some meaning, and researched it online. After learning what it implied, and realising I missed the multiple meanings of 'I'm not a girl' I was not angry at the movie for not spelling it out. It made me respect the movie MORE because they put in clues so subtle that they are respecting my intelligence to pick up on them.<p> Some people here seem really angry that they didn't pick up on the clues - don't worry about it, they were meant to be really subtle and Eli's motivations and true feelings are never spelt out. That is one of the movies strengths. And it doesn't make you an idiot for not figuring it all out, ok?

  • June 30, 2010, 5:30 p.m. CST

    Dead_Kate_Moss

    by AsimovLives

    LET THE RIGHT ONE IN does indeed treat audiences as intelligent people, and for me, that's the greatest quality a movie can have.

  • June 30, 2010, 6:41 p.m. CST

    Interestingly...

    by Kaitain

    ...I asked one of my friends this afternoon whether or not she had entertained the "Eli as eunuch" interpretation. <p> She said that she had not, but she noted that throughout the film, she had thought Eli was androgynous and had wondered whether or not it might turn out to be a plot point that Eli was a boy. It was the crotch shot that DISSUADED her from this hypothesis: at that point, she thought that the director was assuring us, through a very brief shot, that Eli was indeed female. <p> I think the castration interpretation is just too far outside the range of normal experience and expectations for most people to latch onto it during that brief shot.

  • June 30, 2010, 7:48 p.m. CST

    Expectations

    by HoichiTheEarless

    Before I saw "Let The Right One In" I hadn't heard anything about it, and found it to be an exceptionally well staged and nicely paced film (I tend to appreciate films willing to slow things down a little... there's way too much ADD/MTV/Michael Bay style freneticism in most films these days). I especially appreciated how composition was used for story telling, often with stationary shots with something in the foreground and information being revealed in the background. <br><br> I wonder if those who find this to be the most overrated film ever made had the movie spoiled by expectations from hearing how good the film was. It's not the greatest film ever made, nor is it even necessarily one of the finest films of last year. It's just a very good film. Which is pretty well good enough in my book.<br><br> No interest in this remake though based on Reeves previous work "Cloverfield". Can't really give the guy a pass for subjecting innocent bystanders to 90 minutes of a guy screaming incessantly "OH MY GOD!!! OH MY GOD!!! ARE YOU SEEING THIS??? OH MY GOD!!!" In fact, if I could, I would break his nose for subjecting me to that. And I'm really not a violent person.

  • June 30, 2010, 7:49 p.m. CST

    liked the original, but...

    by electronegativity

    I think it needed to be tightened up with a little editing here and there. There were moments here it felt like the cameras it was pretty good.were rolling before the director yelled action, and were cut into the movie. It created an awkward sense off timing that bugged me. Other than that I thought

  • June 30, 2010, 7:55 p.m. CST

    kaitain

    by Monolith_Jones

    If castration is not what people think then what is? The scene is there, it cant be dismissed, so what other conclusion is there? Eli repeating the phrase " I'm not a girl", not a more vague " I'm not like you" or something. In my mind its a secret hidden in plain sight. <br> <br> What did your friend think the scar meant?

  • June 30, 2010, 9:30 p.m. CST

    Like I said,

    by kolchak

    having read the book I knew Eli was a boy going in. I think they do a good job of insinuating as much through dialogue. But clearly a number of people don't pick up on it within the first viewing.

  • June 30, 2010, 9:59 p.m. CST

    I got no pedophile nor castration from the movie

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    I loved the movie and I really don't care too much but there was no indication of pedophilia that I can recall, nor that the "she" was really a castrated "he"

  • June 30, 2010, 10:05 p.m. CST

    question regarding castration

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    In the novel, what is the significance of this? (I haven't read it). I don't quite see the point of it in the movie, what it adds. And frankly seeing as how it's obviously a girl up there on screen, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense and is kind of distracting to even consider.

  • June 30, 2010, 10:23 p.m. CST

    Let the right one in is not over-rated.

    by darwinmayflower

    it fucking rules. deal with it. who cares about this remake? not me. the original is perfection. the shot of the chainsaw cutting thru the ice, along with the pool scene in the end are both so kick-ass. he-he.

  • June 30, 2010, 10:29 p.m. CST

    thunderbolt ross

    by Monolith_Jones

    It adds something just by being there. <Br> <br> As a someone who has avoided the book I don't feel comfortable telling people how to interpret what they see, I think the magic of the film is all the unspoken implications in the "negative space " surrounding the main narrative.

  • June 30, 2010, 10:35 p.m. CST

    Thunderbolt

    by kolchak

    It's more or less a flashback showing how Eli was tortured, castrated, and torn from his family.

  • June 30, 2010, 11:39 p.m. CST

    I didn't get the castration the first time.

    by irrelevntelefant

    I actually thought maybe she had been 12 for so long, she had purposely mutilated herself at some point.

  • July 1, 2010, 1:59 a.m. CST

    Kaitain

    by AsimovLives

    You friend had the very opposite opinion of the point of the shot. If you ask me, people just can't handle the notion that eli is castrated. They just hate the ideaand block it, make any excuses whatsoever to not face and deal with the revelation. It's very strange, and quite interesting.

  • July 1, 2010, 2:02 a.m. CST

    electronegativity

    by AsimovLives

    The ackward sens eof timmingis one of the tools of the trade that the movie uses to be unsettling. All because the filmmakers were making an horror movie, and unsettling is one of the feelings you want to create in the audiences. It's curious that with a criticism you ended up actually doing a praise for the movie.

  • July 1, 2010, 2:09 a.m. CST

    kolchak and Thunderbolt Ross

    by AsimovLives

    I think that people not seeing the castration and paedophilia elements in the movie tells more about them then the movie proper. The mopvie uses those elements to add to the horror aspect to the movie. That people do not se them sounds, to me, more like a deliberate choice, a protection they do to themselves to avoid to deal with a very uncorfortable issue which, most probably, is the type of thing they don't expect to see in a movie (even horror) and is more the province of the news or documentaries. Certainly, they don't expect to see it in a vampyre movie, which they might just take it simple as the story of a blood-sucking monster sucking blood, and not a psyco-drama. LET THE RIGHT ONE IN builds elements to turn the story into a truly horror movie, and two of those elemements are paedophilia and castration. If they make people uneasy, that's the whole point. It is an horror movie, it should make people uneasy. If people decide to dismiss or ignore that, they do it by their own volition, deliberatly or unconsciously.

  • July 1, 2010, 7:42 a.m. CST

    What about the 'remake' title?

    by DannyOcean01

    I understand - at least this is what I'm getting from the filmmakers - that the new title is closer to the book? Fair enough, if true, but I liked how the original film referenced both the vampire requesting entry and how when dealing with young love, or, really, love of any kind, it's important to 'let the right one in'. If you don't it can end up destroying you. 'Let Me In' loses some of that resonance.

  • July 1, 2010, 8:55 a.m. CST

    danny

    by Monolith_Jones

    The American version of the book was titled Let Me In because the publishers thought the original title Let The Right One In was too long.

  • July 1, 2010, 9:17 a.m. CST

    Trailer is here

    by Monolith_Jones

    http://tiny.cc/mk4yw <br> <br> mightbe ok after all... They're definitely seem to be playing up the Oskar is disturbed even before Eli aspect. <br> <br> I'm a little more optimistic now.

  • July 1, 2010, 10:06 a.m. CST

    DannyOcean01

    by AsimovLives

    The title of the american remake begs all kind of pornographic jokes. And there will be.

  • July 1, 2010, 10:08 a.m. CST

    Monolith_Jones

    by AsimovLives

    Good trailers for bad movies, i have seen too man of them. I tell you, in truth, i'm very wary of trailers.

  • July 5, 2010, 10:20 p.m. CST

    AsimovLives

    by kolchak

    It's not a horror picture, it's a coming of age/ love story. Also, the title of the American film is the title of the novel.

  • July 6, 2010, 6:16 a.m. CST

    I am not convinced.

    by Cinema_architecture

    I am still not convinced about the casting of Chloe Moretz as Abby/Eli. She may be a brilliant actress, I am not denying it, but she is too much of a well fed life fulfilled all American girl, and too much of a female, even at her young age. The androgynous nature of the character is totally lost.