Cool News
The New Posters & Trailer For LET ME IN Don't Suck!!
Merrick here...
At Comic-Con, two new posters for LET ME IN (the LET THE RIGHT ONE IN
redux from CLOVERFIELD director Matt Reeves) were released.
Mike over at JoBlo was kind enough to put them online for all to enjoy. Here's the first...an image I really love. Click on it to jump to the second.
A new trailer for the film is also being circulated...
For a remake that didn't need to happen...this one's looking promising.
--- Follow Merrick on Twitter! ---
-
+ Expand All
-
Who has a bloody ankle?
-
. . . in the poster for a change.
-
a remake of the original. Seriously think folks need to just get the original, and tell the fuckers who won't leave a good story alone you wont support their lazy bullshit film making any more :(
-
STOP FUCKING USING TRAJAN PRO!
I'm so sick of that fucking hacky font. It's EVERYFUCKINGWHERE! -
This will be just another inferior American re-make, made for people who's brains can't handle subtitles. i.e. You're already aiming at a dumber crowd. Can you dumb the movie down some more? Sure, let's remove the weird uncomfortable sex revelation. Don't want to confuse the anti-reading brigade, do we?
-
...that came up with this one?
-
Jul 26, 2010 10:50:14 AM CDT
No mention of Matt Reeves possibly directing wolverine 2?
by redbull_werewolf
I thought this site would be all over that rumour due to Reeves connection to AICN blowjon receiver JJ Abrhams. Tony Scott is also said to be a finalist for the Wolvie 2 directors chair. Either way we might get a more solid wolverine movie then the first one
-
I'd rather talk about hacky fonts than watch ANYTHING to do with vampires. Christ, will it ever end?
-
AT LEAST IT'S NOT TIMES OR ARIAL AM I RIGHT?! Or Papyrus, lord help us. But I am biased, in deep love with Wes Anderson's faithful use of Futura. Love that font. I wish more directors attached themselves exclusively to typography.
Poster art is nice. The second poster mentions CLOVERFIELD.Trailer is okay. It's hard for me to overcome my principled disinterest. I think the kids look great, but I have a difficult time believing this film will be hard or brave ('father' pedo, castrato, etc.) Those elements don't make the film, necessarily, but their exclusion would weaken it. -
I hope this one is better. Live with it, bitches. The first one was waaaaaaaaay overrated in here.
-
than some ferrin fucker geting on an American website and trashing Americans time after time. V'Shael = V'FAIL!
-
am i the only one who thought that the original film was unnecessary?
(let alone this remake).
can you say overrated? -
If you haven't read or seen the original swedish version, you already know everything from just that trailer alone...
-
From "Hit Girl" to "Bit Girl"!! The future is bright for this young talent.
-
We are fucking idiots... SWEDISH TALK? I CAN'T WATCH NO MOVIE THAT AIN'T IN AMERICAN!!!!
-
like 3 weeks ago somewhere on-line...
-
Only the assburgers in here love the original.
-
Another quality genre picture brought to you,in part, by New Mexico.
-
I need to start by saying that I am a huge fan of the original and loved it in every way. This take on it at least looks they are not just doing a direct rehash. I think I'll give it a shot.
-
We will have to wait and see with this potential train wreck.
-
. . . now I'll have that song in my head all friggin' day.
-
Now with less freaky-looking vampire!
-
As a big fan of the original, I was skeptical going in, but the footage I saw looks decent. Still not sure about the a couple of the changes to Ellie's character, though.
-
. . . but you haters are making me hope it rules the 2010 box office AND wins best picture. Shut up and quit compaining!
-
Jul 26, 2010 11:22:58 AM CDT
I think it's cool that HAMMER is releasing this.
by the reluctant austinite
The new HAMMER FILMS have one film in the can and another in the works. It'll be a kick to be sitting in a modern theater seeing a new film that opens with HAMMER FILMS PRESENTS---
-
Great example of the subtlety of the original screenplay having to be spelled out for American audiences.
-
...An' kin yoo translate them sissy-talking British fellers intuh reg'lar Mairkin, too? Ah caint unnderstant nuttin' them thar fairy boys iz talkin bout neether, no how.
-
"I'm stronger than you think I am." and "I need blood to live."Not exactly subtle. The original wasn't as in your face, was it?
-
are on the same brainwave. LOL
-
It was called LET THE RIGHT ONE IN and it was REALLY good! But... oh, but, yeah, sorry, you have to be able to read to watch it. Sorry, America! If you just wait a few more months, we'll give you the COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY REMAKE, dumbed down and 'Mericaned up for you and your ease of consumption. There, there, obese, mewling, flatulent, doomed, illiterate 'Merica... there, there... (pats head, throws bucket of deep fried trans fat balls at cheap seats, pigs oink in lustful passion, tearing into it, and each other, like zombies on meth, as the achingly tragic process of de-evolution continues to accelerate inexorably down the spiraling toilet to oblivion...
-
and yes, I did a video compilation for it..one of my favoriteshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oatTt83g_s
-
and not write it off immediately like some people, but my expectations are low and I absolutely hate "Cloverfield".
-
This looks terrible.
-
suck
-
but is it really that bad? By keeping it closer in tone to the original and possibly adding some additional material from the book, Reeves has helped avoid the version that the studio was originally pursuing featuring a sexy teenage Eli and Oskar. We should all be thankful that someone who at least seems to have genuine reverence for and understanding of what makes the original film work is in charge.
-
stuck in my head! FUCK!
-
I'm joining the haters. The original was fantastic - we don't need no dumbed down version. If you can't handle subtitles it's your loss. As for it being FROM THE DIRECTOR OF CLOVERFIELD!!!! That was Abrams' film. Matt Reeves is a studio yes-man, like Rattner and Sena.
BOOOO! to this film. BOOO! I say. And HISSSS! -
it's HAMMER!!!!!!!!!!
-
It is not "slow." I prefer to call its visual style and narrative pace "patient." It might not be for everyone, sure, but I haven't seen a vampire picture that moved me that much in, well, I dunno how long.
-
While there may be more remakes now than usual, there has never been a time in human history that old stories were not re-interpreted. If you guys are just catching on to this, so be it. But Shakespeare never wrote an original story in his life. It was ALL based on earlier stuff. Plays are continuously re-interpreted, as are songs, and myths. New actors, directors, writers, technology...all suggest new possibilities for old stories. And some are good, some bad. If only bad stories should be remade...that's kinda weird, doncha think?
-
they do suck. Big time. This remake is a waste.
-
I think they cast the little boy pretty well. But I can just hear all the mouth-breathing low foreheads on opening night. "Izzat HitGirl?!? Awww shitttt..." And yeah, the spelled-out subtlety cracks me up. Might as well just have the girl just explain she is a vampire and "I hope this sweet little boy (turn to face audience and break fourth wall)Lets Me In." A little sign of hope in Richard Jenkins, though. By the way, I watched 30 Days of Night last night. Despite the presence of Hartnett and an overly dressed Melissa George, it was alright. Fun to actually see some scary vampires for a change.
-
And Let The Right One In was good but wildly overrated by this site.
-
Wow... obviously troll, here. I'm assuming you're just looking for attention, however, there's still a good chance you mean what you say. It is way too fashionable to hate America, and most of the foolish never realize their hypocrisy when their friends and neighbors adhere to the same double standards. I would've figured that in the past few years other nations would have realized that what America struggles with... everyone else eventually does too. It's called a 'global economy', and it DOES exist so you might as well get used to it. But please continue to hate America... all while you watch American movies and television, listen to American music, and troll an American website. All you do is make Americans feel that much more important. So, thanks :). Oh, and by the way... I'm pretty sure 'Let the Right One In' sold more copies in the US than wherever you're from. Maybe you should do some research before you display your ignorance for all the world to see.
-
...is that the American version will add more gore and violence. There was one pretty grotesque shot in the original, but other than that, it was pretty clean, and built the creepiness through location, situation and character. I know it will be virtually impossible to do a remake without visually referencing the original (which was pitch fucking perfect), but Reeves has said his intent is to re-adapt the novel, not to remake the movie. And there was tons of things in the novel that didn't make the original film, so there is definitely room for "Let Me In" to carve out its own little niche.
I don't think it has a chance of surpassing the original, but its even odds that it could stand as a success on its own. -
Razor sharp my friend.
-
If Reeves wanted to re-adapt the novel he wouldn't have removed Eli being a castrated boy or Hakan being a pedophile. Those are big plot points. Huge. And key to the themes of the story.
-
Excellent points, all. I have no problems with the remakes themselves, for the most part. Some turn out very well, even great. How many times has Dracula been made and remade? So why not LET THE RIGHT ONE IN? My only problem is the incessant remaking that's going on in Hollywood these days.
-
Don't go in expecting a new adaptation of Lindqvist's novel. Just don't. I've talked to people who've seen advance screenings...it's 95% a shot-for-shot remake of trhe original film. If you don't believe me, just look at the trailer. It'll be an excellent remake, that's for sure. But don't look for any new revelations drawn from Lindqvist's book. That's fine with me, by the way. I think Lindqvist's screenplay for the original film was far better than his novel, never mind which came first. It's called *revision* when a writer does it with his own material, and its his prerogative.
-
Jump scares and loud soundtrack effects. And, let's add a little Columbine, because, you know, we're obvious.The best parts about the original were its subtlety, ambiguity and thematic depth. It gave its audience room to maneuver and spaces to fill in for themselves. It engaged the mind.This remake will fill all those wide-open spaces with exclamation points. Titillation for tweens.Skipped.And, yeah, it's an American trait, so deal with it, flag-wavers. Your zippers undone, and your insecurity is showing.
-
This is just a big slap in the face of the original team that put this together.
you only need one awesome vampire kid flick and it's call Let the right one in.
friggen yanks -
This is just a big slap in the face of the original team that put this together.
you only need one awesome vampire kid flick and it's call Let the right one in.
friggen yanks -
starts stocking black tees with snowy Rubiks cubes on them. It's only a matter of time.
-
is the same who photographed the beautiful bright star. because alone of that i will have a look into it ... but that said the original was an visual astounding piece of art. the sound design top notch and creative (alone that you could hear every breath and "mouthmovement"), actors and script terrifying ... i can't see one part where the remake can succeed if it doesn't tell the story diffently or takes an other way to approach the source material. but watching the trailer it looks like a shot for shot remake with some different color design and minor changes. reading the interview with mr.reeves some time ago on aicn i had some hopes ... know he looks to me like an uncreative remake bitch. but i will reserve my final judgement ...
-
Hope you're well, mate.
-
I hope all's well with you.
-
Or for the more logophobic among you, there is even the book to get your head around. It's a far more graphic story.
-
one of maybe many errors in my post.
-
you heard it first here
-
Jul 26, 2010 12:29:16 PM CDT
I've been thinking of reading the book. Is it worth it?
by colonelfatheart
-
Definitely. It's not a very long read.
-
Really, why not? Let Me In sounds weird.
-
And there's something that everyone needs to remember (especially if you don't live in in N. America)... 'Let the Right One In' had a theatrical release... AND television commercials announcing its arrival on Blu/DVD. That's a BIG FUCKING DEAL for a foreign film. And after it was released, I spotted it on display almost everywhere that sold movies. The truth is, 'Let the Right One In' received a ton of attention in the US... but now I keep seeing people talk about how Americans refuse to watch foreign films. Really... that shit's getting old.
-
Ordinarily, being a writer myself, I'm of the opinion that 'the book is better than the film.' I've encountered a few exceptions. LTROI is one of them. The author, John Avidje Lindqvist, stated in interviews that the story of LTROI is not first and foremost a horror film, but instead, primarily a love story, about 'a boy lifted out of darkness by love.' The book distorts and distracts from this with a myriad of subplots, nearly every trace of which were wisely eliminated from the film's screenplay *by the author himself*. The novel has beautiful language, and some memorable scenes, but I wouldn't care if I never read it again--and I'm a reader. I'm also an English teacher. I'm not a 'just see the movie' kind of guy. But in this case, the film's all I need. If you do read the book, keep in mind that the movie's script is a *revision* of the events in the novel. It isn't a case of 'oh, but this really happened in the book.' They aren't the same. They shouldn't be compared. They're different drafts of the same work, by the same author.
-
Jul 26, 2010 12:40:56 PM CDT
Why do some weirdos latch on to the whole "castration" thing?
by lance rocke
They get in a huff if that's not revealed? Paging Dr. Freud!
-
"Let Me In" was the title the novel was published under when it was FIRST published in America, before the film. When the film (LTROI) was released, a new edition of the novel titled Let the Right One In (which is what the novel's and film's Swedish title, Lat Den Ratte Komme In, actually translates to) was released.
Undoubtedly, with the new film, a new edition of the novel will be released, returning the book to its original *American* title and confusing the hell out of people who can't keep up ;) -
Thanks for the responses. Kolchak, could you go into more reasons why you liked it, though? I'd like to balance your critique with Clay's take on it.
-
For everyone singing the praises of the "Let the Right One In," I'll bring up a point I made when I first saw it: if the original film had been shot in the U.S., in Montana, with American kid actors, would you have thought it was cool? No, you wouldn't have. You would've thought it was glacially slow, with gaping (and flat-out dumb) plot holes, and moments that made no sense (like the brief "stitched genitalia" reveal.) Sorry, but "Let the Right One In" was very stylish but (sadly) dumb, and ridiculously overrated, IMO. I really *wanted* to like it (I saw it in the theaters), but after 90 minutes, I thought, "Okay, I get it. Show me something new.") Even the genuinely startling Sam Raimi-style swimming pool sequence near the end wasn't enough to redeem it. The main thing it had going for it was a bleak atmosphere, but I wanted more.
And another thing: quit "explaining" plot points in the original film that "went over the heads of dumb audiences" because you read the book, or read online that Eli was supposed to be a castrated boy, and Hakan was a pedophile. That information IS NOT CLEAR IN THE GODDAMN MOVIE. Don't tell me that you can infer these details just from the film -- you can't. If you have to resort to "filling in" the film's missing plot points by saying, "yeah, but in the book, it was like this!", then the film failed to spell them out, period. -
Comparing "Let the Right One In" the novel, to "Let the Right One In" the film is like comparing James Joyce's _Stephen Hero_ to _Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man_, even though both of those were books. One was an earlier draft of the later. They're not the same creature.
-
I'd have thought LTROI was beautiful no matter what language or location it was shot in. I'm sorry your attention span doesn't allow you to enjoy slower-paced films. Yes, I saw it in the theater as well. What 'more' did you want.
My commendations for pointing out that the plot differences between the book and film exist, and are intended to exist. As the 'overrated' judgment--just what were you expecting? ;) LTROI was a fantastic experience, and remains in my list of top favorite films, to this day. And that would have been true if it had been made with American actors, in English--provided the beauty, subtlety, and yes, the pacing--of the original had remained the same. -
Jul 26, 2010 12:57:34 PM CDT
Admiral, even though you outrank me, I still disagree.
by colonelfatheart
I am not making excuses for the original when I call its pace "patient." There are bad slow movies and there are good ones. This is one of the good ones because each moment was heavy with sadness, loneliness, despair, longing, desperation, etc. If the original LET THE RIGHT ONE IN had been made in America instead of Sweden, I'd have heralded it as a bit of a miracle.
-
Just like an American to speak for everybody else as if we've all got the same brain."If you have to fill in ... missing plot points ... then the film failed to spell them out, period."So, I take it, since you have expressed such an inarguably principled and undeniably absolute stand on the subject, you'll call INCEPTION out for being a lot of smoke and mirrors, too?I appreciate your use of "IMO." Next time, don't open with telling me what I would think in which cases I would think them.
-
Some things work very well on paper and not on the screen and vice versa. This isn't anything new. If Spielberg had used Benchley's ending, the shark would have been stabbed by a harpoon and sunk slowly into the water. The sub plots and intricacies of the novel would murder the pacing of the picture, but they work fine on the page.
-
And re-titling it "Let Moi In". And when this kid stabs the tree, he does it for the maple syrup. Because there are no bullies in Canada. And there's free healthcare.
-
This one looks by the Trailer just as good. Glad they are remaking it..it will probably get more to see the original who even saw it in the first place. People seem to forget that Hollywood is a business. Why would I pay as a producer the rights to a movie with limited appeal in a Foreign language and pay for the Marketing & Promotion budget when I can just buy the rights to the book and rake in most likely way more dough. The producers for the going on 8 years of the Office are enjoying bucket loads of cash Ricky Gervais could never dream of. So its very smart from that angle..plus you'll always have the original to go back and fuck.
-
it's still a cash grab. it's Vanilla Sky with vampires. we're attempting to justify it in every way, but no one is really asking why. why make this? is there ANY reason to make this right now other than to make money off of an existing property?I'm asking. honestly, is there ANY other reason other than money?
-
This remake has only one thing going for it: Richard Jenkins. THAT man's an actor!
-
I have no problem whatsoever with slow films (I'm a big Stanley Kubrick fan, and I could sit through Barry Lyndon any day of the week.) I wasn't expecting the original to be a fast-paced action movie, and I'd much rather watch LTROI a second time than watch any Michael Bay piece of shit. But to reiterate, after about 90 minutes, I "got it" -- the film really only had mood and atmosphere going for it at that point, rather than additional plot revelations/complications, and I wanted *more.* Not explosions or car crashes or gunfights, but *new* dramatic consequences that would keep propelling the story along in an interesting fashion. IMO, it didn't have them. Second, my question about the Swedish vs. American film is that the fans of the original wouldn't cut a near-identical American version anywhere near the slack they allowed for the Swedish film. Yes, many Americans expect European films to be slow and/or oblique. However, I can't help feeling that, had LTROI come out as an American indie horror movie, the same fanboys praising the Swedish original would be lambasting the U.S. version as boring, dumb and having gaping plot holes. To reiterate: I really *wanted* to like the film... but I didn't.
-
I won't see it unless I see it at the dollar show.I've heard plenty to know lots of people are twisting themselves into pretzel shapes to figure it out, though, which is why I thought it was acceptable to bring up with reference to the Admiral's statement.
-
I really "*wanted*" to read your post, but ugh....
-
"Let Moi In."But only for French-CANADIENS.That made me laugh.
-
Still, I disagree on LTROI. I happen to be an "American fanboy" of a certain stripe, and I would willingly embrace a movie like that if it were made in America. Take THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD, for example. English-language film, mostly American actors, about a uniquely American subject. Very, very studied, languorous pace. But I found it brilliant and enthralling.
-
Since you edited my original sentence to try to justify your own point, let me quote it again:
If you have to resort to "filling in" the film's missing plot points by saying, "yeah, but in the book, it was like this!", then the film failed to spell them out, period.
Editing someone's original writing and/or putting words in someone's mouth and then attacking them on things they didn't actually say is a cowardly tactic, and I'm calling you on it. Fanboys are trying to explain away non-existent plot points in Let the Right One In by saying, "But in the book, blah-blah-blah!" Well, I don't give a shit what the book had in it; I'm reviewing the film. The information wasn't in the movie, and telling people that they need to know plot details from *outside* the movie in order to understand said film is a failure on the filmmaker's part.
And for the record, I loved Inception, and had no problem following the plot at all, because I was simply paying attention. Do you need a novelization or Cliff's Notes of the film to figure it out? If so, that's your problem, not mine. -
I find it amusing that when a foreign film like LTROI comes out and is widely acclaimed for its various virtues, it's termed 'overrated'--yet when a film like Memento comes out, suddenly its instantaneous genius. I personally thought Inception was a heist narrative grafted onto a science fiction flick, with clearly defined rules that were never deviated from. The ending was the only point of ambiguity there. The fact that Inception is regarded by some as an impenetrable film is proof positive of how fucking stupid some humans are. It's a great film, Inception, but for me, Chris Nolan needs to learn to infuse his films with a little more emotion. LTROI had plenty of that, by the way.
-
BITCHES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Jul 26, 2010 1:27:38 PM CDT
See, The Admiral makes his point much better when he's not posin
by subtitles_off
a challenge, and, I think, that tells us why there had to be a Hollywood remake (is that more acceptable than "American"?). Those pacing "issues" he's calls problems and I call engaging will be corrected by action beats, jump scares and loud noises in the CLOVERFIELDish version.As a result, I'll recognize it as a film that has been "dumbed down," and he may recognize it as more entertaining.As is my right as an arrogant American adult, I'll hold to mine as correct.
-
You're right, I left out the book part. That's because I never read the book, nor have I ever used the argument that the book filled in plot-holes.You didn't, however, mention the book when you typed "glacially slow, with gaping (and flat-out dumb) plot holes, and moments that made no sense" in reference to the movie and your insistence that we'd recognize them if the film weren't Swedish.I probably should not have pulled quotes from one of your statements to address another. Thanks for calling me on it.
-
is an English-language foreign film. Britain's not part of America. We resolved that over 230 years ago.
-
Yes, of course there are other reasons besides money:
1) To the degree that the story is moving and has value, far more Americans will see it in English, thereby gaining whatever value there is to be had.
2) Actors love good roles. LTROI has several.
3) Directors love creating mood and texture with visuals and sound. LTROI would challenge such a director every bit as much as making a movie from a book or play.
4) As a member of an audience, I'd love to see another interpretation of this idea, in the same way I've seen a dozen Hamlet's or a half-dozen Sweeny Todd's.
5) There has never been anything wrong with money as a motivation in the first place. Shakespeare wrote "for money." Money just means people want what you've got, and are willing to pay for it. What's wrong with that? -
they have to explain everything because people don't get it! There is so much explained in that trailer that really is pointless."I'm a lot stronger than you think I am""I need blood to live""She will keep you forever"Anything else you want to make obvious, you morons?!!
-
Hot damn. Thank you, Hammer.
-
You're grabbing at straws. It's like saying you're going to rewrite a Stephen King novel because you want the "challenge" of watering it down, making minor tweaks, and using slightly different prose.
-
Asterisks are used for emphasis, not to denote a quotation. I'm uncertain if the talkbacks allow the use of simple HTML tags for italics or bold type, but asterisks serve as a fast substitution.
-
Would you refer to "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight" as 'English-language foreign films? Same director, much of the same cast and crew...
If you're going to do that, perhaps you'd better not refer to "Let Me In" as an American remake. Because although Matt Reeves is American, Hammer Films, last time I checked, is not an American studio. Consistency, please sir, not sarcasm disguised as cleverness. -
Hamlet? seriously?
-
I did not know that. I thought people used CAPS to add emphasis in the middle of a sentence. I've never seen the asterisks used like that before, at least not in these talkbacks. I guess there's a level of nerd that I haven't experienced...
-
"far more Americans will see it in English, thereby gaining whatever value there is to be had. "that is a very long and awkward way of saying "money".
-
i'd hide in the bushes if i were you..
-
I think this looks pretty good, and I'm a fan of both the original film and the book it's based on. I tend to look at remakes more like one would view a different production of a stage play or musical, the same story told in a slightly different style with new actors. My only concern is whether or not the end product is good in and of itself.On a different note, I find it strange that people seem to be judging Matt Reeves solely by one feature film. Obviously, it's difficult to judge him by anything else, since he's only previously directed a romantic comedy and several episodes of television, and those would obviously be quite different from a film like Let Me In. WriteFromLeft makes a snarky comment about Reeves being given a tripod, but it just sort of illustrate my point. While Cloverfield may be the only other sci-fi/horror film he's done, it has a setup that necessitates the handheld style. Given that Let Me In is a more traditional narrative feature, *of course* it's not going to be shot entirely handheld.
-
Both of Nolan's Batman films are "foreign" compared to the source material and other interpretations, such as Burton's or 60s pop-art.(Even considering much of Burton's Batman was filmed outside of the US.)In Nolan's case, the director's sensibilities make all the difference in the world.The studio's passport never enters into my thinking. I'm probably mistaken, and, for the benefit of all, correct me if I am (since I'm too bored to look it up), but Hammer had something to do with marketing the European original, too, and their credit for this version has more to do with accounting deals than with actual participation.
-
Learn something
new
&zwjevery day. -
FYI; I have no opinion of the yet-to-be-released American remake, nor do I think that putting in jump scares or action beats will "help" it.
To reiterate: when I saw the original film (with great anticipation), and found it lacking, then I read all the high praise being heaped on it (especially by AICN talkbackers), I posited the question: if you'd seen the exact same film with an American cast, shot in the U.S., in English, would you be praising it as much as this Swedish film? I cannot help but think that fanboys would've savaged it -- but they cut the Swedish original a bunch of slack *because* it's in Swedish, and therefore feels more like an "alien" artifact that doesn't need to play by the rules of Hollywood movies. (I *do* understand this sentiment, and I'd be lying if I said that I'd never done it myself with some foreign films.)
However, fair is fair: plot points that make no sense (like how Eli can get away with killing people in the apartment building and have no one really notice, or Hakan killing people in a park in clear view of passing cars) are dumb in any language (IMO), and I'm not going to cut the film slack for these points because it's arty and "European."
I didn't hate the film; I just found it disappointing, and the reactions of its most fervent supporters to be somewhat hypocritical. IMO, if you wouldn't accept these flaws in an American film, you shouldn't accept them in a foreign film just because it's "foreign." Make sense? -
Yes, as I just learned that you can use simple HTML tags other than the line break in these talkbacks. I'm guessing that the use of asterisks for emphasis is on its way out now that people can embolden or italicize things in more and more message boards and comments sections these days.
-
I tried putting the word "can" in italics, but I guess it doesn't recognize that.
-
I've wondered something similar about the French film Inside. People were very quick to praise the crap out of that movie despite the fact that it falls into the trap that so many bad horror movies do; it relies on all the characters to behave like complete idiots in order to stretch out the running time. Then there's the tracheotomy scene that defies all logic. I think that, in that case, the fact that it was foreign (plus the fact that it was so over the top with its violence) made people cut it far more slack than it deserved.
-
I were willing to accept your premise, which I'm not. I don't think there are foreign film "fanboys" who apply different standards to foreign films and American films. There might be "art snobs" who do so, but I don't think they embrace vampire films, anyway.If I understand your point, you didn't like the original because of pacing and other issues with the plot. That's absolutely your right, and nobody's going to try to persuade you otherwise. I happen to like the original, and I guarantee I'd like it just as much if it were exactly the same without subtitles.It's not your opinion of the film which raised my snippiness. It was your insistence that the film's foreign birth earns it any sort of pass from me or anyone else.You can ask your question. You just can't assume the answer or argue when you get an answer that you don't expect.But, I'm glad we're cool. I never meant we shouldn't be.
-
The original had a good idea, but terrible execution. Anything else would be an improvement to that bore fest of a film.
-
I like American, Canadian, Mexican, Italian, and Japanese films that are also "slow"-paced and contemplative.I'm not alone, either.
-
"Nobody saw Hakan killing someone in the woods at night" qualifies as a plot hole. Also, the only people Eli attacked from the apartments were Jocke and Ginia. When the former was killed there was no reason to suspect a little girl. When the latter was attacked there's actually a witness.
-
1) Hamlet. Seriously.
2) If Steven King were a Japanese author (for instance) I might very well contact the publisher and ask if I could translate and reinterpret a fine novel for the American audience.
3) "Value" doesn't mean "Money" although money is a measure of perceived value. Let's say the only value is "pure entertainment." Nothing wrong with that, or providing it to the American audience. Money is one of the factors, but hardly the only one--artists constantly reinterpret themes, images, myths and so forth created by and popularized by other artists. No "grasping at straws" here--just an observation that there has never, ever been a period in human history where artists didn't echo or imitate each other's work.
But what if there is a deeper message? What if someone said: "there is an excellent message here about love, understanding, healing..." whatever. And artists look for this all the time. The urge to reinterpret this for the American audience--therebye conveying those "values" to a new group, would seem to be close to universal--everybody does it. That doesn't mean that these filmmakers had "pure" motivations. I'm quite sure that a big chunk of their motivation WAS money. But only an utter hack really thinks "I'm just doing this for money" and such hacks don't last long--they burn out pretty fast, in fact. You just can't generate the emotional energy to create if your only motivation is cash.
##
So here it is: I've made my living as an artist for over thirty years, and known hundreds of artists, and had hundreds of discussions about the relationship between art, craft, and profit. And while money ranks high, it actually doesn't rank as high as the artist's desperate need to feel that they are SAYING something, that there is some importance to their work and life, that they have made a difference. That someone sees and understands their "specialness." So when people talk about remakes, yes, it is easier to sell one. But do you think that they pull that remake out of a box? Or do they look for material that resonates with them? That has values that flow with their own, that tells a story they wish they'd told. THAT is what I see. People trying to make a difference, a statement, trying to find value in their lives. By the time they're just doing it "for the money" they are pretty much burn-outs. If I was a billionaire movie maker, there would still be lovely stories told in other countries that would be entertaining to reinterpret for my own children or culture. And if I feel that way, there are others who do, too.
-
to all you people complaining about this film's existence, please shove it. I've seen LTROI many, many times and have read the English-translated novel. No, I don't strictly believe this film needs to exist, but yes, I do think there's a lot of value in this story being marketed for an English-speaking audience. Also, whether or not you think the Eli's disturbing backstory is necessary to a film version of this story (hint: it isn't. this is a movie and needs to maintain a focus), you can't argue with Reeve's beefing up Hakan's role. I'll happily go see this; if it sucks, I'll tell everyone in the theater to go see the original. In fact, I'll do one better and invite them over for a screening at my place.
Okay. maybe not everyone. -
Man I bought this movie for $30~whatever, blind, on bluray because of the jizzfest for it on this site. What a waste.I kept waiting for it to get good. It has a few moments, but overall it is completely and utterly overrated.
-
they live in geographically different countries? Which means an english-language foreign movie from lets say Australia is as different as a french-language movie or an iranian-foreign movie.right.that explains why Hollywood have in the leading roles of their movies, apart from the usual anglo-saxon actors,a lot of actors from other different ethnicities:
chinese,black south african,latino,russian,eskimo,and so on.oh wait. -
The makers of "Quarantine" were really trying to shed new light on the intellectual depths that [REC] failed to deliver. "The Wicker Man" remake truly made the emotional connection with American audiences that the original never could have. Tripe.
-
The sequel is called LET THE LEFT ONE IN...
-
LET THE RIGHT ONE OUT.Then the next is LET THE LEFT ONE IN, followed by the crowd-pleasing SHAKE IT ALL ABOUT.The saga will be concluded in the heartfelt TURN YOURSELF AROUND.And that, folks, is what it's all about.
-
Just how goddamn glad I'll be when the kids go back to school.
-
Some effective moments, but the drama was executed with the style and finesse of a Godzilla movie. You know it's true. At times laughably bad. And at times understated to the point of banality. I've wondered about Elle's old guy...early in the film when he commits the first murder...in a wooded area LIT AS BRIGHT AS HIGH NOON - what kind of idiot does this? So many disappointments through the movie. The remake can only be an improvement.
-
Not really caring anymore. I saw the original in the theater, so I'll probably just pass on this, or see it later on the cheap.
-
You may be confusing intent and results. "Wicker Man" was dreadful. "True Lies," a remake of (I believe) a French film, was terrific. "Quarantine" was approximately as effective as the original foreign version. "Magnificent Seven" not the classic "Seven Samurai" is, but a very good movie nevertheless. People's ambition can overreach their ability, but that doesn't mean that everyone who makes a remake is after nothing but cash. That simply isn't true. We might argue about what percentage of remakes are worthwhile, or the best and worst reasons for remaking, and so forth. But if you think money is the only motivation...you need to know more artists. No single motivation moves any group of people, ever.
-
The trailer, while not bad, just made me want to see the original again. I think the original was too widely popular to justify an american remake. I sense a lot of fans will cry foul.
-
I'm guessing next week.
-
I never said everyone who remakes a film is motivated primarily by money, but that's the case the majority of the time. Furthermore, even in those few cases where they're motivated by true artistic integrity and hopes to improve upon the original, they typically fail. Case in point: Rob Zombie's "Halloween". I'm sure he liked Carpenter's efforts, and I'm sure he thought he could add some depth to the characters. But he was wrong. In the end, intention is moot because the results are typically the same.
-
Magnificent Seven and True Lies are not remakes in the sense that they didnt try to recreate the original movies in all their layers and details.They didnt try to update or modernize or americanize them,but instead they took the basic premise of those films,their plot and based on that they did their own versions of the basic story,they made their own stories.there is nothing wrong with that.
On the other hand,movies like Let the right one In are remakes because it doesnt try very hard to differ by its predecessor.Its not a different story following the same plot,its the same fucking story.Ofc someone might argue that this specific movie should be looked as one more movie adaptation of the original film,but i am afraid the american director will be too talentless or too lazy to create his own cinematic vision about his movie version of the film and will copy out what already works in the original film.and this is the definition of a hardcopy remake. -
This almost looks like it might be a hit girl spin off.
-
Jul 26, 2010 5:10:48 PM CDT
Btw i cant wait to see the american remake of the classic french
by killik
satirical comedy Dinner for Idiots,starring Steve Carell.the movie will funnier as another,typical american remake rather than as a comedy film by itself.heh.
-
The type on the posters is NOT Trajan, or Trajan Pro. And yes, I am a typographer. L2TYPOGRAFY.
-
It's called show business for a reason. It's a business. Studios and producers are first and foremost in business to make a profit. What an easier way to do so that remake something that was already succeeded. Of course this didn't have to be remade. Or "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" for that matter.
-
It's called show business for a reason. It's a business. Studios and producers are first and foremost in business to make a profit. What an easier way to do so that remake something that was already succeeded. Of course this didn't have to be remade. Or "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" for that matter.
-
I just watched the trailer. Trajan is definitely used there. My apologies. It aint on the poster though. And yes, Trajan is goddamn overused today, however... it is a beautiful font, with some real history behind it.
-
Remakes suck. I had hopes for this, it looks a bit too 'Mericanised.
-
move along, nothing to see here.
-
the original is stark and fuckin creepy...this will have every shticky Hollywood gag in it to play to the McTastes of a dumb audience..
-
...fucking terrible.
-
I totally agree with you there. I don't understand why a lot of people on here didn't like the original but it is their right and I accept that. However, I don't see where Hollywood get off on remaking foreign films. What an insult!As for the gags, I'm sure there will more than a few gags in a film where there is no room for gags! I really despise this end of Hollywood and I have no respect for directors like Matt Reeves. A quick buck is all they're after!
-
...arguin online is like taking gold at the Special Olympics.Even if you win, you lose.Especially if you argue with me.
-
That trailer shows an awful lot.
-
..it's the Morrissey b-side "Let the Right One In" that gave the book and original movie their name. "Let Me In' is the dumbed down version used in the first American version of the book.
-
Fuck all douche bags who can't read the fuckin' English subtitle of a Swiss vamp film! Send them all to fuckin' Sesame Street for some hard-ass lessons in "ABC"s and torture their eyeballs with Jack and Jill. Yeah, no fuckin' milk and cookies!
-
Let the right one In reminded me of The Sixth Sense. It showcased all the things that made M Night interesting in the beginning of his career. An ambitious film which had a slow pace, a variety of beautifully shot scenes and a Twilight Zone ending.
-
For some reason I really want to see that. In Swedish. Oh, and my font is IMPACT. Always was. Always will be.
-
Jul 26, 2010 6:52:41 PM CDT
Actually, they shoulda filmed the US version in Minnesota
by jaylenotookmyjob
Kepp the Swede influence. Sample dialog: "Yah, I need dah blood ta liff." "Yah?" "Yah!"
-
Maybe this will lure the Twilight fanbase into seeing a REAL vampire. Either that, or re-release Nosferatu.
-
that poster is cool, but there is no need for this movie. Cloverfield was good,but this is a big mistake
-
Original was what a vampire movie should be like..people didn't have to stand there bare-chested for people to go see it and make $$. The persons involved were actually rather ugly and original-looking..like 99% of the population!
-
And that's from someone who hates hollywood remakes and who really liked the original, especially the pale and icy feel of it and the way there were huge empty spaces in every shot.But I like the way that this remake, as an American version, seems to refocus the film as a look at the flawed idealism of teenage first love and the false safety of suburbia, especially with regards to bringing up kids (and check out that mask!). It also looks as if the paedophilia aspect of the book may be more pronounced in this version than in the scandinavian one. Now THAT would be a ballsy move.
-
Not to rain on the pedophile parade, but the people I've talked to (several) who've seen advance screenings say that, on the contrary, the "Hakan" character in this film is made very clearly to be a former boyfriend of Abby's...all grown up now.
-
I find it utterly bizarre how fixated people are on that angle of the story, and the more fixated on it they are, the more right I think Lindqvist was to remove it. And remove it he did. Eli's crotch in the book, when he walks into the living room and graphically shows it to Oskar, saying, 'Just so you know,' is described as 'smooth', NOT scarred. There is no evidence of scarring there whatsoever. And it's not a subtle split-second glimpse. It's NOT in a shower. It's a *display*, in a fully-lit living room. Eli in the film looks like MOST girls do when they have their legs closed, as I graphically pointed out back when people who thought they were going to be elitists because they'd read the book or some internet posting were first bringing this shit up. The shower scene in the film and the reveal of Eli's gender in the novel *are NOT* the same. And both scenes were written by the same man. Come on, idiots, do you not think that if Lindqvist had wanted the scenes to mean the same thing, that Oskar would have asked Eli *something*? He's a smart kid. If he'd thought anything was out of the ordinary down there, he'd have said, 'umm..Eli..wtf?' And you're simply a moron if you think otherwise. Book and film=different. Different=not the same. So sorry.
-
Just to make sure you know how depressing it's supposed to be...
Let the right one in
Let the old dreams die
Let the wrong ones go
They do not
They do not
They do not see what you want them to
Wings? No wai. -
Oskar would have remembered Eli's reaction to a rather small scratch on his face, and her inquiring what had caused it. I'm sure if he thought her *crotch looked torn up*, it would have raised some questions.
-
If you quote the rest of the lyrics..the song isn't really that sad. It's quite romantic really, especially that line that you didn't quote about 'being within your rights to bite the right one and ask, 'what kept you so long?' Very indicative of Oskar and Eli, that song. By the way, Lindqvist has said that if he were to write a sequel to LTROI, it would likely be called "Let the Old Dreams Die."
-
Here you go:
Let the right one in
Let the old dreams die
Let the wrong ones go
They cannot
They cannot
They cannot do what you want them to do
Oh ...
Let the right one in
Let the old dreams die
Let the wrong ones go
They do not
They do not
They do not see what you want them to
Oh ...
Let the right one in
Let the old things fade
Put the tricks and schemes (for good) away
Ah ... I will advise
Ah ... Until my mouth dries
Ah ... I will advise you to ...
Ah ... let the right one slip in
Slip in
Slip in
-
Play LET THE RIGHT ONE SLIP IN
Listen to Morrissey songs for free!
toolbar.inbox.com
Ads by ClickFuse
LET THE RIGHT ONE SLIP IN Lyrics
Artist(Band):Morrissey
Review The Song (1) Print the Lyrics
Send "LET THE RIGHT ONE SLIP IN" Ringtones to Cell
Let the right one in
Let the old dreams die
Let the wrong ones go
They cannot
They cannot
They cannot do what you want them to do
Oh ...
Let the right one in
Let the old dreams die
Let the wrong ones go
They do not
They do not
They do not see what you want them to
Oh ...
Let the right one in
Let the old things fade
Put the tricks and schemes (for good) away
Ah ... I will advise
Ah ... Until my mouth dries
Ah ... I will advise you to ...
Ah ... let the right one slip in
Slip in
Slip in
And when at last it does
I'd say you were within your rights to bite
The right one and say, "what kept you so long ?"
"What kept you so long ?"
Oh ... -
Jul 26, 2010 10:35:46 PM CDT
So in this remake she already spilling the beans?
by hollywoodhellraiser
Wow, way to keep the suspense for those who haven't seen it!Fucking filmmakers dumbing shit down for the retards!
-
That point you raise is exactly what I mean about those people. Who's going to *freeze frame* a scene just to check something like that out, unless they're in an argument with someone who's a moron. I was in a similar argument. To me, it still looks like a scarred feminine crotch, again allowing for the fact that Eli's legs are closed in the scene.
But my real point is, if this is something you wouldn't notice UNLESS you freeze-framed it--something you can't do in a theater, obviously--why are these fuckers making such a big thing of it.
I know I'm not disagreeing with anything you said, really, other than I do think it looks like a little girl with her legs closed and a scratched up crotch--which is NOT how Lindqvist's book describes Eli's crotch, AT ALL.
I'm not really arguing with *you*. Those people just annoy me. -
The castration isn't necessary, but it significantly changes the nature of the story. Sexuality and the exploration of sexuality are prominent themes. Not just for Eli and Oskar, but also Ginia and even Hakan. Lindqvist was smart enough not to dwell on it in the film because, really, that would have hurt things more than helped them. The same with the scene where Hakan meets the boy in the library. He was wise to use discretion. That doesn't mean it's a minor detail. Let's be honest: the angle was axed from the remake most likely out of fear that middle America would throw a hissy fit at two boys falling in love and boycott the movie.
-
That's your opinion, Colonel. It's got nothing to do with 'honesty'. You point out yourself that in the original film, the castration reveal 'would have hurt things, not helped them.' This is quite true. The same is true of the whole angle with Hakan coming back as a horny zombie who wants to assrape Eli. *Love*, NOT sexuality, is the point of LTROI. In many, many interviews, Lindqvist has discussed the fact that the love between Eli and Oskar was meant to be a romantic, but pre-sexual love. Yes, Oskar considers in the book whether or not he might be gay, due to his reaction to Elias. But ultimately, Lindqvist cut out everything that detracted from his stated message of 'a boy lifted from darkness by love'. In the face of this meaning and this message, everything else *is* a minor detail, and this one ridiculous relic of the book's over-complications (the book is far, far inferior to the film in this case) has fueled so much needless debate from fanboys with itchy fingers on pause buttons. Pausing a scene to see a split-second frame of a 12 yr old's crotch? If you've got to do that, it *is* a minor detail. Protest logic if you want, that's your right.
-
I have to ask again...if the castration angle from the novel was meant to be so important..WHY do you yourself say that 'it would have hurt things', even in the *Swedish* version that much of 'middle America' was likely never even to see? I agree, it is important to the story IN THE NOVEL.
Colonel, the novel *is not the film*.
Is this simple point so hard to grasp?
-
Sorry :(
-
Sorry :(
-
It wouldn't have hurt things because it's unnecessary. It would have hurt them because the pacing would have been ruined. When you only have 120 minutes to tell your story, you don't have the luxury of being able to unfold exposition like that. Which is why leaving it ambiguous was the smart thing to do.
-
..and I'm sorry for you. I'm not even the author of the novel, but I could write a screenplay *right now* that could get that backstory about Elias in there. "Be me', Elias tells Oskar, just like in the book. BAM! First flashback scene. Elias in the castle of that vampire lord, strapped down to that table. BAM! The castration/emasculation and the wound being cauterized. BAM! The vampire lord 'biting and drinking, biting and drinking' just as in the novel. It could be done in five minutes. That was left out of the novel because Lindqvist realized it was a *distraction*, just as it's a distraction in the novel. But including it would have had *no* bearing on the pacing, as you would know if you had the tiniest grasp on the writing process.
-
is confusing; even as brief as it is, i knew something was off about it. i took it to imply she was an abused chick. wasn't 'til well after i watched the film that i found out about the gender thing. should have just been left out
-
Point is, you didn't 'find out about the gender thing' from the film. Because it's not there. If you have to look on the internet to get some secret meaning, that secret meaning doesn't exist in the film. It's in the book, true. But the book is not the film.
-
The trailer looks ok and gives the impression that they are staying very true to the original. I hope they spice it up by having Eli's "dad" turn into a zombie after having been thrown out the hospital window just like in the book.
-
but for some reason I really do. Looking forward to seeing it.
-
It's a line from 'The 3 Little Pigs' ! LOL >_<
-
Someone's knockin' at the door
Somebody's ringin' the bell
Someone's knockin' at the door
Somebody's ringin' the bell
Do me a favor,
Open the door and let 'em in(repeat)
Sister Suzie, brother John,
Martin Luther, Phil And Don,
Brother Michael, Auntie Gin,
Open the door,let 'em in.
Sister Suzi, brother John,
Martin Luther, Phil and Don,
Uncle Ernie,Auntie Gin
open the door, let em in
Martin Luther, Phil and Don,
Uncle Ernie,Auntie Gin...
They were all dead
Vampires dude
-
No. It would be completely out of place, throwing off what was a powerful scene between Eli and Oskar. It would drift off into a gruesome and tense territory and then return to a lull, which you'd realize has *everything* to do with pacing if you knew *anything* about film.
-
Between Adamson and Lindqvist, they could have made that scene work. The scene in the book *was* a powerful scene between Eli and Oskar, and it could have been rendered just the same way. I just happen to feel that adding 'castrated/emasculated boy' to the levels of otherness already piled on Eli in the film (AND the novel) already distracts far too much from the story's central point. If *I* could find an easy way to script the scene echoing the lightning pace with which that scene transpires in the book (Oskar sees all that stuff in a flash from Eli's mind during a kiss, remember?)--then it could easily be done. I've got more than thirty years of film-watching under my belt, and I've written novels and screenplays as well. Not that that, OR my basic logic, will work with you, since you're just trying to win an argument.
-
Being intelligent means I have an ego? Sorry about that. Better not see the movie if you want to see a vampire boy. Abby is not a boy, castrated or otherwise.
-
Being intelligent means I have an ego? Sorry about that. Better not see the movie if you want to see a vampire boy. Abby is not a boy, castrated or otherwise.
-
Being intelligent means I have an ego? Sorry about that. Better not see the movie if you want to see a vampire boy. Abby is not a boy, castrated or otherwise.
-
That is all.
-
Does "cash grab" mean that money is the driving and near-sole motivation? Or that movies aren't made unless the makers feel they have a chance of making their money back? If the latter, sure. There are a few cases of films made where they were pretty sure it was gonna bomb. The real question is: if a filmmaker had all the money they needed what films would that person choose to make? I know wealthy writers who write purely for love, and I'm sure there would be filmmakers who do the same. If by "remake" you mean "shot for shot" (sort of like "Psycho" was done a while back) that wasnt' about money at all, really. That was about a director who had the power to create a film school for himself by re-creating Hitchcock's movie. On the other hand, Universal would never have greenlit that thing if they hadn't wanted an ongoing relationship with Gus Van Sant--so money was definitely in the equation. But certainly NOT Van Sant's primary motivation.
-
"I've got more than thirty years of film-watching under my belt, and I've written novels and screenplays as well."
Leggo my ego. -
Of course they could have worked it in. But spending 5 pages on that would have a bizarre and misplaced interlude. Again, you're using prose and screen time interchangeably when they're two separate things. It was a powerful scene in the book because it works well in prose and tied in fluently with everything else. It would have been clunky if it were placed the picture. Your opinion isn't more logical than anyone else's, but feel free to continue beating your chest and screaming about how important you are if that's comforting.
-
I'm with Admiral on most of his points. I was indifferent to the original. There was nothing in LTOI that other writers (ie Ann Rice) haven't addressed. Remove Claudia and add Eli... throw in some 80's music, a rubik's cube, an ambiguous scar, and whallah.
-
Самые убойные секс видео клипы от 3 минут и до 1.5 часов длинной.
Просмотр порно видео онлайн:
http://s51.radikal.ru/i132/0906/56/6a3c8f061de7.jpg
Самая большая коллекция порно видео роликов и секс видео клипов (нажмите для перехода на наш порно сайт)
http://s42.radikal.ru/i098/1007/88/a387e24283a8.gif hard_video2-18.avi ~ 2.18MB
http://s42.radikal.ru/i098/1007/88/a387e24283a8.gif girls_scene8-18.mpg ~ 8.27MB
http://s42.radikal.ru/i098/1007/88/a387e24283a8.gif girls_part4-19.avi ~ 6.26MB
http://s42.radikal.ru/i098/1007/88/a387e24283a8.gif hard_part8-10.mpg ~ 9.13MB
Самые горячие порно видео клипы на любой вкус:
Порно видео клипы по темам: отрезание хуя заказать порно фильм анальный секс страпон найти красивых девушек
внук трахает толстую бабушку фото девственность виталия манского Tramadol Fraud порно фото ануса крупным планом и самые лучшие
видио порно приколы извращения секс картинки секс гиганты скачать коллекции порно фото праститутки ростова а также
tramadol overdose canine фото полового члена порно видео с медсестрой голые мужские попки а также
голый балет лесосибирские сайты знакомств рабыни порно секса люба порно голландский секс порно фото ебля молодых плюс к этому
обнаженная попка основы анального секса госпожа петербург анальный фистинг бутылкой подставляйте попки доставят вам истинное наслаждение от просмотра! -
'Beating my chest and screaming'? Hardly an adequate description of a post with nary an exclamation point in it. But no one is particularly civil to one another in AICN talkback; that's one of its charms. So I'll be willing to get what I give. I suppose it comes down to a difference of opinion, in the end. That scene could have been shot as a three or four frame silent flashback, just images, no clunky and divisive dialogue, and been intercut with the kiss, and a look of widening eyes and shock from Oskar.
Again, five minutes, tops. Lindqvist just didn't *want* it there. Now, if we were discussing the inclusion of the ridiculous bullshit with the zombie Hakan, I'd have to go with your pacing hypothesis, not to mention the fact that a zombie who appeared to have taken Viagra would probably make a film audience laugh. It has a slightly different effect in the book, as some things do, as you pointed out. I think it was a wise thing to excise, just as I do the emasculation angle.
I don't know why you can't see that the flashback scene in the convo between Elias and Oskar that we've been talking about could be rendered on screen with almost no expenditure of time, though. It would literally be only a paragraph or two of script, and with the one-page to one-minute ratio of screenplay to screen time filmmakers usually use, that's less than a minute of screen time.
Not sure why I'm being nice and trying to use logic, again; you'll probably call it more 'beating my chest and screaming.'
That's your choice. And like everything else we've been discussing--on both sides, yours *and* mine--perception doesn't make it true. -
You might not know this, but attempting to offer some kind of credentials when providing evidence as backing for an argument is standard rhetorical form...everywhere, it seems, except in the sandbox (or litterbox, sometimes) of online commentary. It's something we offer to let someone else know we know what we're talking about. If I ask someone for their opinion about brain surgery, I'm going to be asking a neurosurgeon, not a plumber. That neurosurgeon telling me about the two-hundred surgeries he performed in the last month won't be taken by me as a sign of ego--it's an indicator of experience; a sign he might know something of what he's talking about.
That's all that was intended there, and if you've ever studied logic or rhetoric, you might know.
But fine, call it ego if you like. Misrepresentation is a common tactic in sloppy arguments everywhere.
And at least it lets me know the (small) range of tools *you're* working with. -
I love Anne Rice. Loved Interview with the Vampire, the book and the film. The correlation between Eli and Claudia doesn't quite translate, though--and this is actually one of Lindqvist's most unique bits. Claudia is NOT a nine year old child (if we're using the book; eleven or twelve if we're using the movie). She's a two or three hundred year old vampire with the consciousness of a fully grown woman inside her child's body. That's the pathos of Claudia--to have the desires of a woman, and never have more than the body of a child with which to carry them out. Claudia would never tell you she was 'nine.' Eli is a different matter. In the movie, she tells Oskar first that she is 'twelve, more or less', then later, that she is 'twelve, but I've been twelve for a long time.'
I think you can see the difference just from the film. If we're approaching the book--which isn't necessary in a discussion of the movie--the case is even clearer. It's made clear that Eli "never gets any older than twelve", in his/'her' MIND, not just in the body. Eli even says that he/she doesn't understand why this is.
That's an uncommon innovation in a genre filled with vampires who look young on the outside, but are mostly old men or women on the inside. -
You're a well read guy. But the contradictions in your statements seem out of place for someone who claims to have written several screenplays. Standard frame rate is 24 fps. You say you would only use 2 or three frames (which the audience wouldn't be able to see). Then you say this would take five minutes. Then you say it would only be a paragraph long and under a minute of screen time. What I'm saying is that, for varying reasons, audiences would be thrown off. Moving away from Oskar and Eli in that scene would decrease its poignancy (no, it didn't in the book. But it would on screen), and audience members would be left a little jaded. The best part of Lindqvist's screenplay, in my opinion, was the ambiguity, the blank spaces. The spots where audiences can infer and wonder. Also, good call on zombie Hakan. It BARELY worked in the novel, and would have completely derailed the film.
-
I'm a big chicken when it comes to horror movies, but I like the vampire genre. So after a few months of plucking up courage, I watched the original "Let the Right One In". It was terrific! I really hope "Let Me In" is anything as good as the original from Norway. The sight of blood aside, I would recommend it to anyone that it's a psychological scare mixed with tenderness more than gross-out horror. If you have seen the original, the final scene stayed with me long after the movie was over.
-
Old souls trapped in a child's body (Claudia and Eli). Check. Vampires using people to do their bidding (Claudia and Eli). Check. The psychological aspect of this, (age, etc.) to me, was like I said already explored with Anne Rice and various other authors. Eli brought nothing new to the table in the film except he's a eunuch...castrated... (ambiguous quick shot). Of course, rumors say that this element has been completely removed from the American version. So, basically it's going to be an adolescent love story and Eli is gonna kick some butt for a poor bullied kid. But, she's going to end up using him to fetch her food for the rest of his life. The Norwegian version could have explored that aspect (gender identity... relationship to the gender role etc.) more... but it didn't.
We can agree to disagree. Peace mate. -
Did you pay any attention at all to my post, or indeed, to the film? Eli is NOT an 'old soul in a young body.' She's a goddamn 12 yr old in soul AND body, UNLIKE Claudia. It's NOT my perspective. It's a fucking fact. It's a fact in the film, not just the novel. She's a twelve yr old frozen in time. Neither her mind/soul/consciousness OR her body ages, unlike Claudia.
And as for the castration shot in the film--genius, you wouldn't have THOUGHT it was a 'castration shot' if you didn't either a) have someone on the internet tell you that, or b) read the book. Yet you choose to stupidly IGNORE the fact of Eli's 12-yr-old consciousness which is plainly evident IN the film.
No, we can't agree to disagree. I don't agree with morons.
And fuck you, I'm not your 'mate' (yes, I know it means friend..haha. I'm not that either.)
-
It's not a 'rumor'. In 'Let Me In', she's a girl. End of story.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 171 total posts 169 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 157 total posts 111 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 138 total posts 75 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 67 total posts 67 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 479 total posts 62 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 59 total posts 59 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 62 total posts 59 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 48 total posts 45 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 116 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 181 total posts 30 posts