"If you were up to understanding Let the Right One In, you're not going to be put off by the subtitles. If you're the kind of person who is put off by the subtitles, you're not up to understanding Let the Right One In." Bravo, Mark. Love ya.
I first watched the American version but it didn't really stick with me. I watched Let the Right One In because it was on Shomi, I had assumed it was the one I watched before, I didn't know there were two different films at the time. I was thinking "oh yeah this one was okay, I'll watch it again." WOAH, it was so not the same. I was like a fish blown out of water, it was so amazing. I remember thinking "why don't I remember having these same intense emotions the first time I watched it?!" Did a tiny bit of research, found out I actually watched two different movies. So the American left me with little walking away, the original blew my mind and has become one of my favourite films ever. It's so so so well done and I totally get why people are annoyed it was remade. There is no comparison, this coming from someone who did not even realize there was two different films at the time she thought she was rewatching one but was actually watching the original second.
I've seen I think the original the scene with the cats and women bursting into flames I broke into a laugh maybe nervous god knows but it's all a matter of taste like or dislike it certainly was different genre
I saw this before the original and thought it had a great story. Then i watched the original and really enjoyed the cinematography. I like them both. 2 diff pov
Quite a few people have not bothered to find out how LMI was made. The SWEDISH producers of LTROI were out shopping the rights to the story BEFORE LTROI was released. It was THEM that thought it "needed" to be remade. A British studio (Hammer) finally got the rights...but they weren't even the first in line. The Swedes tried US studios first.
i almost never disagree with him, but i must admit, having seen both, this remake is different but just as good. the direction was excellent, the way it plays out on screen is different from the original but that dose not mean its any worse or better. i wasnt expecting much from this one but it blew me away. best remake ive seen in quite some time.
Simon, if one hasn't seen the original, don't go to the cinema. Go to the store to buy the original. Problem solved. The cinema is not the only place to watch movies.
The point is, its all very well saying "you should have watched the orginal first". But I didnt even know there WAS an original when I saw LMI. Id never heard of it. Ive seen both now, and loved both. Each has subtle differences, some are better in the orginal, some are better in the remake. I agree that LMI did not need to be made, but Ive seen it now and cant unsee it. I still liked it regardless that it's a clone of another film.
I have read so many people say that while Let Me In is very similar to Let the Right One in, it is still a great film on its own. But personally, I think that would be like me rewriting shakespeare, changing every 100th word, and then expecting people to praise me as an amazing author, who has equalled shakespeare in writing ability.
Excellent! He's absolutely right. the very idea of making a remake "Let The Right One In" is completely unnecessary and extremely infuriating!! I love his comparison about painting a new version of the Mona Lisa. Both " Let the Right One In" and the Mona Lisa are masterpieces. I disagree with with him about the cat scene though. I see nothing wrong with it.
I agree; the moments when the english language remake copies the original then it nearly works as well. It is certainly watchable but having seen the original first I honestly kept asking myself; "Why have they done this? This is a very expensive way of virtually dubbing the original and adding a few CGI moments". Mark is right; watch the original and fully feel the strange but touching friendship that develops between the 2 lonely leads.
@Daphuhnuh I don't think Oskar asked her if she "lives off blood". He asked if she was a vampire. She prefaced the answer with "I live off blood", but the "yes" was an answer to his question. According to Alfredson, Eli is "A very old woman in a 12 year old body" while Reeves says Abby is "stuck at 12 years old"....so they are quite different characters. Eli is the more manipulative of the two...ESPECIALLY for a "very old woman". (Alfredson's exact words)
I agree with the reviewer on one point and that's concerning the cgi effects of Chloe as the vampire. The make-up and effects were completely unnecessary, and as the movie continues you see less and less of it, as if the director figured out half-way through that you can make a horror movie without using over the top effects.
Firstly, most popular films in other languages have dubbed versions, so you don't need to remake the film for that. Secondly, your comment suggests that you can only focus your eyes on one thing at a time, which is wrong. Reading subtitles does not hinder me from watching the movie. In any event, this movie does not improve any aspect of the original. And the author’s opinion means nothing; I refer you to Kubrick vs. King with their respective versions of the Shining for evidence of that.
Wow. I've never seen people get so defensive over a Mark Kermode review. Guys.... the man is an intelligent, experienced film critic, and this is just his honest, professional opinion. If you disagree with what he's saying (personally I think he's bang-on), fine. But don't pull an M. Night Shyamalan and act as if you are the God of film and that Kermode's an inexperienced imbecile with no knowledge about film at all. Just my opinion.
Lets face it, if the american one hadn't been made, no one would be talking about the Swedish one today. I had never heard of the original until I saw the second one( which I loved by the way). America is where things get validated, or not. We've got the final say.
"Let Me In" is a re-adaptation of the novel, one which the author praised openly and strongly. If it is not your cup of tea, fine. But much of the complaints of the film consist of whining it is NOT in fact a remake, when you get right down to it. The most common tropes in all the many reviews and comments about LMI consist of two contradictory statements--insisting it is a shot-by-shot remake, and at the same time complaining that it is different from the first film. Like I said, whining.
Your analogy fails because I hold that Seven Samurai and The magnificent Seven were radically different in some respects, however, let's just say they were not. The point is that the average Joe in America wasn't going to see some japanese film released quite a few years back in the fifties, our attitudes to foreign films and subtitles were different. However, today there is no excuse to make the same film, but in a different language unless directing is just way for you to make a quick buck.
He's wrong on this one. I saw Let Me In first and had never heard of Let The Right One In at the time. So all I saw was a damn good horror film. The original is excellent too, but for many people the version you see first is the version you'll like best.
I agree, but i cant help the fact that an original movie was made first when I already liked the remake. If someone told you that The Exorcist was actually a remake of a Norweigian film, would you feel obliged to stop liking the Exorcist?
@BoxyTheSpaceDog There are three distinct versions of each character. The Eli and Oskar from the book are nothing like the Eli and Oskar in LTROI. The Eli in the book is a overt manipulator and Oskar is much smarter. Which one you like best depends entirely on your taste. Just the fact this is true justifies LMI. Everyone shouldn't have to watch a version they don't connect with as well.
The main thrust of Kermode's argument is true: the Swedish film was a coming-of-age story that happened to involve Vampires, whereas the American film was a horror film that happened to involve children. They could have removed the vampire references in the Swedish movie and it still would have been great.
Claudia vibes. Damn good film of you view it through an Anne Rice lens. Even Abby's history is consistent with Claudia's backstory. She's Claudia surviving into modern times.
@traydevon the remakes of The Omen and Psycho might be enjoyable to watch if you haven't seen the originals. If you re-wrote the plot of one of the Harry Potter books from memory, people who hadn't read the original might think it was good. If Let Me In is the same as Let The Right One In apart from the English language why would you watch it when there's a superior version already available?
@Daphuhnuh I guess we'll find out. It already appears that one of them has a full schedule for the next 3 years and was hired by one of the greatest directors of all time. Let's see if Lina is in demand as much as Chloë is in the years to come.
Aye, but, if you've seen both films you'll understand Kermode's argument. I agree with him, although the good doctor is far more passionate than i am. :]
@HarpoSpoke Never said Hammer was - the investors and distributors Overture and Relativity are (which in common usage, fits the term 'studio' as Miramax does). The director, cast, setting and much of the finance are from the US. Even Wikipedia's summary says "American remake". While I was criticising a certain type of mainstream American filmmaking, I also said a wholly British production would destroy the film's inherent Scandinavian character too. Political agenda? You mean, your paranoia.
@HarpoSpoke (1/2) "Ugly colours" was referring to their attitude, when wrecking the original's beautiful cold palette. The new one just looks like generic studio gloss. Warmer makes no sense for this film. That the American money only came in once they'd went ahead and made the first version themselves, essentially using their innovation as a beta tester, emphasises the cynicism at play here. If US studios wanted to help them create the initial vision great but obviously they didn't.
@HarpoSpoke (2/2) I reiterate, the American studios I'm referring to are Relativity and Overture. All that extra American finance is to make it a decidedly more expensive affair than a European production. While I'm sure we can agree it's a good thing Hammer has put its cheap past behind it, Kermode highlights on his blog, the reason why the low key, slow burning quality of the Swedish production is lost in this barely British, over-Americanised, teen-oriented, special-effects laden vision.
HarpoSpoke (2/2) Yes, I knew about Hammer's involvement. Can't say I'd be more encouraged with a full British production, relocating to working class UK with a British director. But that was never gonna happen with the financially motivated American-centredness, intended from the outset. Off the top of my head, Blade Runner, Fight Club and the Bourne series are easily better than the books. I'd also argue Peter Jackson's streamlining of the LotR narrative has many advantages over the novels.
Let The Right One In was incredible, I don't particularly like the horror/vampire genre but I think it was stunning, mostly because it's about children not vampires. Let Me In was a not bad, but wholly unnecessary. It's pretty insulting by the fact that it was so recent to remake it, are we that dumb that we need it? Hollywood think we are. No one would dream of remaking True Grit or King's Speech. Also I agree with Kermode, for once, the lack of subtlety is really to the detriment of LetMeIN
@herd4344 (1/2) That's not missing the point. It's not like they went back to the source text, reinterpreting the book to create something genuinely their own. They're preying on people who haven't seen the original as their principal revenue stream, a deeply sleazy basis for remaking anything. I can admire remakes like Ocean's 11 that are their own animal. But Let Me In is 'Fix the funny language, slow European pacing, ugly colours, lack of explosions, and now it's ours'. That's just wrong.
While I wouldn't discount seeing an American remake over the original off hand, I do think that most American remakes substitute the subtle for the brash and nuanced for the over stated... One of the beauties of the original is that there is ambiguity. That kind of reading trusts the viewer to draw their own conclusions, to devise their own thoughts and in turn encourages them to think about it after the credits have started to roll.
SPOILS reeves completely missed the point of the first because the kid has no choice about whether he gets dunked at the end. in the original he chooses to accept the impossible breath-holding challenge because he's just that strong/transformed by love. i'm shocked that no one has picked up on this MASSIVE difference that effectively blunts everything about the oskar/eli relationship. the remake's not about life-changing love in all its wonder and awfulness. it's just about getting a girlfriend.
@Jimmyduudah Hear, hear. I've been drawing that exact analogy for a long, long time. And in fact, you can even go further and say people such as ourselves outside the production process can lend an objectivity denied to those within it. Okay, I'm not saying that I can go toe-to-toe with a professional critic and academic like Kermode, whose can extract the maximum amount of meaning as possible when viewing a film BUT, the average moviegoer like me is the reason we still have test audiences.
I appreciate that it is quite insulting to simply remake a Swedish film into English with ever so similar camera shots, tone, feel and better effects but it still makes for an enjoyable film. I hadn't seen LTROI when I saw this and I really enjoyed it.
I wasn't trying to say it was all about me. I really like LTROI and that was my opinion. Trust me, though. I'm not the only person who has that opinion. I'm glad you like LMI. Everyone has their own tastes. I just happen to absolutely hate it. Yes, it infuriates me---and many others, as well. You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine.
There are a lot of variables in that question: how long after the Norwegian film was the remake made and how is the stylistic identity of the remake different?? I'm not totally against remakes but they have to have something new. Otherwise, why are they being made??
I loved both versions. The original being my favorite movie that year. Why a re-make? I would ask, Why a film adaptation if you have already read the book? I'm glad it was exposed to those who hadn't seen the original and if it peaked the curiosity to see it, good. The remake was not a vampire movie either and I relished the extended scenes between the main characters which is the core of the film, not the effects, nor the gore. I preferred the original's climax a whole lot better though.
I try to always ignore trolls, but they really piss me off. They love it when ppl get mad at their comments. That's what they want, It's all a game to them.
Let's deal with this on a point-by-point basis if you want a meaningful discussion. Answer my previous question, which was raised in response to your accusation, and I'll clarify my point.
The most stupid thing about this particular review is that Kermode actually knows that Let Me In is a good film but won't except it. Halfway through the review he asks Mark if i see Let Me In but not Let The Right One In does this this mean Let Me In is a good film and if you listen close you'll see that Kermode doesn't actually answer the question becasue he knows that deep down it's not a carbon copy in fact it's totally different and even better than the orginal. Chloe Moretz made the film.
@TheConciseStatement Nice choice of wording: "preying", "deeply sleazy" "Fix the funny language" is actually just making a version in English. "Ugly colors" is actually "different colors". (warmer tones...not "ugly") I'll bet you didn't know the producers of LTROI were AGGRESSIVELY shopping the story to US studios BEFORE LTROI was made, did you? Did you realize they settled with a BRITISH studio for LMI? "slow European pacing" indeed! ;)
@Kretek Are you talking about True Grit? Cause I was talking about the Coens Brother's film "True Grit" when compared to the one John Wayne "True Grit" not LTROI & LMI. Anyone with two eyes who say both LTROI and LMI would know that Reeves copied (well almost) every iconic scene from LTROI.
I hate the current spate of Hollywood remaking foreign movies which are only a year or two old. It's pointless and insulting and Mark is right when he says if you can't be bothered with the subtitles then you basically don't deserve to watch the film...
@Kretek The Alfredson interview is on RUclips. He states very clearly that Eli is a "very old woman in a 12 year old body". And also that Eli is the "dark side of the boy" Go to the 3:15 mark. /watch?v=pqNo5akbMjo&feature=related
@herd4344 Except the original Ocean's 11 wasn't very good. There was a strong case to remake it. There is absolutely no reason to remake Let the Right One In. Its working class Scandinavian setting is so integral to its atmosphere, taking that away removes much of the heart and soul of the film. As for adapting novels, cinema's a different medium and a film should stand on its own. Let Me In does not. It only serves as a cynical exercise by producers with no desire to mass market foreign films.
I can understand that other people like different things. When a movie so blatantly copies the vision of another, however, whilst diluting it down into something more easily digested for the viewer, I am going to say that it's a lesser film.
The fact that you began the sentence in question without punctuation and began it with "and" suggests a direct link of response with my rebuttal that you are projecting. e.g
There is also no such thing as "improving" on anything. It's art...which means every individual makes up their own mind about what is good and bad. LMI fans feel that is the better version....so guess what? ...That means it's the better version for them. Your opinion only applies to you.
@TickleMeElmo55 Yeah...but the True Grit remake followed what the first one did more than LMI followed LTROI. They even took the eye patch from the first movie. They made the story again....hence they remade the story. It's not a dirty word. Not sure why everyone acts like it is. If you do it well, everything is cool. Both True Grit and Let Me In were awesome.
Just so everyone knows, HarpoSpoke and MultiButtface12 are the same user (their writing style is exactly the same). He's registered multiple accounts to downvote/mark as spam anyone he disagrees with.
Jesus, I really wish Mayo would just shut up most of the time. I loved it when he nitpicked about Mark doing English with a French accent when he said 'in French, obviously', and then Mark goes and repeats the whole analogy in perfect French!
@PJDon2503 I know that, I actually got to watch John Wayne's original in a campsite Monument Valley this year. But aside from that I was picking a hollywood blockbuster, the point remains six month's down the line you wouldn't get them remaking Black Swan.
Actually he's right Everything that is good about LMI is so directly copied from LTROI that it leaves you wondering what is the point of remaking this?
I think the most despicable thing about the remake is that Matt Reeves agreed to direct it before Let the Right One In was even released. As someone involved in film-making, surely he understands how disrespectful that is. The film wasn't even out and he thought "I can do that better" and he successfully stole some plaudits that he doesn't deserve.
@Kretek Yes....you were complaining about things LMI did different....right after claiming it was a copy. Which is not surprising considering that's exactly what Kermode does in this video.
An entertaining rant from the good doctor, though the voice he uses to ask the question "If haven't seen the original Mark would you feel differently about it?" was rather annoying
@BoxyTheSpaceDog Like I said, you look at movies in a superficial way. Every scene features changes that alter the way the story is told. Eli answers "yes" to "are you a vampire?"....Abby doesn't. Oskar answer "oh" to "I'm not a girl"...Owen says, "you don't have to make stuff up". Eli points out she lives next door to Oskar, Owen points this out to Abby. I hope you know what all these changes mean. Do you require Abby being a giant robot to notice the difference? ;)
@Daphuhnuh Read interviews with Simon Oakes (British producer of LMI) to find out why there are elements from LTROI in LMI. His goal was to "pay homage to the original movie". Reeves was in love with the book and did alter many things about the story, but he was instructed to "More than anything else, stay true to the imagery and mystique and the mythology of the original" (exact quote)
The film is obliviously not as good as the original Swedish version as the film feels dull in parts, however the film well acted, well casted, stylish, well written & well directed. (79%) (4/5 stars) (positive)
He's broadly stating that everything they changed was unnecessary, and everything they retained, whether that amalgam results in a good film or not, makes it a pointless endeavour. I think the word review is misleading, since these shows always come out after films are released. It's more of a guide/rant.
@TheConciseStatement So that's where Kermode complains about the differences between the two films after claiming they are the same? Being "low key", "slow burning" is not the same thing as "better movie". Some are getting that confused. It CAN be "I like it better that way"...but that's all. All this just happens to be one of the differences I like about LMI....and also additional proof that they are indeed quite different movies.
@Daphuhnuh Chloe was a mis-cast. She's a talented actress but she was sorely mis-casted. I think Aeriel Winters would've been the better choice, but I think the makers of LMI were going for the more up-and-coming actress if you saw the leaked audition tape.
@TheConciseStatement "Warmer" makes no sense for this film....I agree. But it made perfect sense for LMI. I continue to wonder how LTROI fans can claim the two movies are exactly alike....and then go on to a long list of changes that LMI made which they don't like. Gotta either eat that cake or have it guys.
I like Mark's argument about people watching this who haven't seen the original - it's no use saying "imagine if the original had never been made, and Let Me In is the first adaptation" when the fact is, the original HAS been made, Let Me In is NOT the first installment, therefore there's no real reason for the latter to exist and for people to not see the former. Not that I definitely won't enjoy Let Me In when I see it (I think I will), but it's a creatively pointless movie.
@ChristopherDone I cant believe that your comment got so many negative votes. It's oppresion! It seems like every comment supporting LTROI over LMI, is given heaps of negative votes. Quick everyone! Read this comment before it's gone...quick *being dragged through metal doors and out of sight, the last hints of 'read it' echoing down the corridor*
@HarpoSpoke (1/2) There's only so many times we can go round and round this straw man. Everyone knows Hammer is a distinctly British institution famous for their sole ventures, creating the creaky horror subgenre of the 60s and 70s, fondly named 'Hammer horror'. Of all the things one can accuse Let Me In, low production values reminiscent of those old cheesy British horror films of decades past, is not one of them.
@Kretek what does it matter where Lina lives? Don't LTROI fans claim it got worldwide attention? Is there a reason directors would be impressed with her and then not hire her because of where she lives? This is 2011....and LTROI came out in 2008. Shouldn't an actress that impressed everyone be pretty busy by now?
I keep trying to get back to the original point and you keep wanting to change the subject. As I said, there is no work involved in reading subtitles. Calling a person "lazy" for preferring movies without subs is inaccurate.
true we all have different opinions on film. so why we need critics is beyond me. the only opinion that matters is your own. there is no good and bad in art
"If you were up to understanding Let the Right One In, you're not going to be put off by the subtitles. If you're the kind of person who is put off by the subtitles, you're not up to understanding Let the Right One In."
Bravo, Mark. Love ya.
The great direction, great acting, great dialogues and great atmosphere are never discussed in this review.
I first watched the American version but it didn't really stick with me. I watched Let the Right One In because it was on Shomi, I had assumed it was the one I watched before, I didn't know there were two different films at the time. I was thinking "oh yeah this one was okay, I'll watch it again." WOAH, it was so not the same. I was like a fish blown out of water, it was so amazing. I remember thinking "why don't I remember having these same intense emotions the first time I watched it?!" Did a tiny bit of research, found out I actually watched two different movies. So the American left me with little walking away, the original blew my mind and has become one of my favourite films ever. It's so so so well done and I totally get why people are annoyed it was remade. There is no comparison, this coming from someone who did not even realize there was two different films at the time she thought she was rewatching one but was actually watching the original second.
I'd have thought the subtitles would have been a bit of a giveaway :D
I've seen I think the original the scene with the cats and women bursting into flames I broke into a laugh maybe nervous god knows but it's all a matter of taste like or dislike it certainly was different genre
most funniest banter I've heard between you two
lolololol brilliant !! Haven't laughed so much in ages!! Mayo playing devil's advocate and Kermode having none of it lol
I saw this before the original and thought it had a great story. Then i watched the original and really enjoyed the cinematography. I like them both. 2 diff pov
Quite a few people have not bothered to find out how LMI was made. The SWEDISH producers of LTROI were out shopping the rights to the story BEFORE LTROI was released. It was THEM that thought it "needed" to be remade. A British studio (Hammer) finally got the rights...but they weren't even the first in line. The Swedes tried US studios first.
The marketing of Let Me In was misleading. The film's tone and pace was much more eerie and creepy than the trailer's suggested.
i almost never disagree with him, but i must admit, having seen both, this remake is different but just as good. the direction was excellent, the way it plays out on screen is different from the original but that dose not mean its any worse or better. i wasnt expecting much from this one but it blew me away. best remake ive seen in quite some time.
Simon, if one hasn't seen the original, don't go to the cinema. Go to the store to buy the original. Problem solved. The cinema is not the only place to watch movies.
They are both bloody hilarious...like an old couple
The point is, its all very well saying "you should have watched the orginal first". But I didnt even know there WAS an original when I saw LMI. Id never heard of it. Ive seen both now, and loved both. Each has subtle differences, some are better in the orginal, some are better in the remake. I agree that LMI did not need to be made, but Ive seen it now and cant unsee it. I still liked it regardless that it's a clone of another film.
I have read so many people say that while Let Me In is very similar to Let the Right One in, it is still a great film on its own. But personally, I think that would be like me rewriting shakespeare, changing every 100th word, and then expecting people to praise me as an amazing author, who has equalled shakespeare in writing ability.
Excellent! He's absolutely right. the very idea of making a remake "Let The Right One In" is completely unnecessary and extremely infuriating!! I love his comparison about painting a new version of the Mona Lisa. Both " Let the Right One In" and the Mona Lisa are masterpieces. I disagree with with him about the cat scene though. I see nothing wrong with it.
this guy gets it! Swedish version is so much better!
I agree; the moments when the english language remake copies the original then it nearly works as well. It is certainly watchable but having seen the original first I honestly kept asking myself; "Why have they done this? This is a very expensive way of virtually dubbing the original and adding a few CGI moments". Mark is right; watch the original and fully feel the strange but touching friendship that develops between the 2 lonely leads.
@Daphuhnuh I don't think Oskar asked her if she "lives off blood". He asked if she was a vampire. She prefaced the answer with "I live off blood", but the "yes" was an answer to his question.
According to Alfredson, Eli is "A very old woman in a 12 year old body" while Reeves says Abby is "stuck at 12 years old"....so they are quite different characters. Eli is the more manipulative of the two...ESPECIALLY for a "very old woman". (Alfredson's exact words)
I agree with the reviewer on one point and that's concerning the cgi effects of Chloe as the vampire. The make-up and effects were completely unnecessary, and as the movie continues you see less and less of it, as if the director figured out half-way through that you can make a horror movie without using over the top effects.
Firstly, most popular films in other languages have dubbed versions, so you don't need to remake the film for that. Secondly, your comment suggests that you can only focus your eyes on one thing at a time, which is wrong. Reading subtitles does not hinder me from watching the movie. In any event, this movie does not improve any aspect of the original. And the author’s opinion means nothing; I refer you to Kubrick vs. King with their respective versions of the Shining for evidence of that.
Wow. I've never seen people get so defensive over a Mark Kermode review.
Guys.... the man is an intelligent, experienced film critic, and this is just his honest, professional opinion.
If you disagree with what he's saying (personally I think he's bang-on), fine. But don't pull an M. Night Shyamalan and act as if you are the God of film and that Kermode's an inexperienced imbecile with no knowledge about film at all.
Just my opinion.
the original was brilliant the young boy child actor was great you could see so much pain in his face all the way through the movie
Lets face it, if the american one hadn't been made, no one would be talking about the Swedish one today. I had never heard of the original until I saw the second one( which I loved by the way). America is where things get validated, or not. We've got the final say.
Saw the original, loved it. Saw this, loved it. They both work.
"Let Me In" is a re-adaptation of the novel, one which the author praised openly and strongly. If it is not your cup of tea, fine. But much of the complaints of the film consist of whining it is NOT in fact a remake, when you get right down to it. The most common tropes in all the many reviews and comments about LMI consist of two contradictory statements--insisting it is a shot-by-shot remake, and at the same time complaining that it is different from the first film. Like I said, whining.
Excellent! I am 100% in agreement with Mark on this one.
You're right. I hadn't those of it that way. I think the integrity of the story was compromised and the point and metaphors were totally overlooked.
Your analogy fails because I hold that Seven Samurai and The magnificent Seven were radically different in some respects, however, let's just say they were not. The point is that the average Joe in America wasn't going to see some japanese film released quite a few years back in the fifties, our attitudes to foreign films and subtitles were different. However, today there is no excuse to make the same film, but in a different language unless directing is just way for you to make a quick buck.
He's wrong on this one. I saw Let Me In first and had never heard of Let The Right One In at the time. So all I saw was a damn good horror film. The original is excellent too, but for many people the version you see first is the version you'll like best.
"There is no reason to remake a good movie, regardless the remake itself is good or not."
I got the point. And it's invalid.
I missed the first part of this review, I wonder if there will be lots of flappy hand action or not?
'then go and see another film!' Genius
I agree, but i cant help the fact that an original movie was made first when I already liked the remake. If someone told you that The Exorcist was actually a remake of a Norweigian film, would you feel obliged to stop liking the Exorcist?
@Kretek I don't think good reviews falls under "so what?". Good reviews are the lifeblood of the industry and have been since the beginning.
@BoxyTheSpaceDog There are three distinct versions of each character. The Eli and Oskar from the book are nothing like the Eli and Oskar in LTROI. The Eli in the book is a overt manipulator and Oskar is much smarter. Which one you like best depends entirely on your taste. Just the fact this is true justifies LMI. Everyone shouldn't have to watch a version they don't connect with as well.
The main thrust of Kermode's argument is true: the Swedish film was a coming-of-age story that happened to involve Vampires, whereas the American film was a horror film that happened to involve children. They could have removed the vampire references in the Swedish movie and it still would have been great.
Claudia vibes.
Damn good film of you view it through an Anne Rice lens.
Even Abby's history is consistent with Claudia's backstory.
She's Claudia surviving into modern times.
Which I don't intend to achieve anyway. We both got our points across, and I'm satisfied with that.
@traydevon the remakes of The Omen and Psycho might be enjoyable to watch if you haven't seen the originals. If you re-wrote the plot of one of the Harry Potter books from memory, people who hadn't read the original might think it was good. If Let Me In is the same as Let The Right One In apart from the English language why would you watch it when there's a superior version already available?
Loved the remake, haven't seen the original yet.
@Daphuhnuh I guess we'll find out. It already appears that one of them has a full schedule for the next 3 years and was hired by one of the greatest directors of all time. Let's see if Lina is in demand as much as Chloë is in the years to come.
I liked the scene with that cats in the original. But I must agree that Let me in is a well acted Borfest of a movie.
Aye, but, if you've seen both films you'll understand Kermode's argument. I agree with him, although the good doctor is far more passionate than i am. :]
@HarpoSpoke
Never said Hammer was - the investors and distributors Overture and Relativity are (which in common usage, fits the term 'studio' as Miramax does). The director, cast, setting and much of the finance are from the US. Even Wikipedia's summary says "American remake". While I was criticising a certain type of mainstream American filmmaking, I also said a wholly British production would destroy the film's inherent Scandinavian character too. Political agenda? You mean, your paranoia.
@HarpoSpoke (1/2)
"Ugly colours" was referring to their attitude, when wrecking the original's beautiful cold palette. The new one just looks like generic studio gloss. Warmer makes no sense for this film.
That the American money only came in once they'd went ahead and made the first version themselves, essentially using their innovation as a beta tester, emphasises the cynicism at play here. If US studios wanted to help them create the initial vision great but obviously they didn't.
@HarpoSpoke (2/2)
I reiterate, the American studios I'm referring to are Relativity and Overture. All that extra American finance is to make it a decidedly more expensive affair than a European production. While I'm sure we can agree it's a good thing Hammer has put its cheap past behind it, Kermode highlights on his blog, the reason why the low key, slow burning quality of the Swedish production is lost in this barely British, over-Americanised, teen-oriented, special-effects laden vision.
HarpoSpoke (2/2)
Yes, I knew about Hammer's involvement. Can't say I'd be more encouraged with a full British production, relocating to working class UK with a British director. But that was never gonna happen with the financially motivated American-centredness, intended from the outset.
Off the top of my head, Blade Runner, Fight Club and the Bourne series are easily better than the books. I'd also argue Peter Jackson's streamlining of the LotR narrative has many advantages over the novels.
Let The Right One In was incredible, I don't particularly like the horror/vampire genre but I think it was stunning, mostly because it's about children not vampires. Let Me In was a not bad, but wholly unnecessary. It's pretty insulting by the fact that it was so recent to remake it, are we that dumb that we need it? Hollywood think we are. No one would dream of remaking True Grit or King's Speech. Also I agree with Kermode, for once, the lack of subtlety is really to the detriment of LetMeIN
LMI named #6 on MSN's "Top 10 movies of 2010". Grats to Let Me In!
@herd4344 (1/2)
That's not missing the point. It's not like they went back to the source text, reinterpreting the book to create something genuinely their own. They're preying on people who haven't seen the original as their principal revenue stream, a deeply sleazy basis for remaking anything. I can admire remakes like Ocean's 11 that are their own animal. But Let Me In is 'Fix the funny language, slow European pacing, ugly colours, lack of explosions, and now it's ours'. That's just wrong.
While I wouldn't discount seeing an American remake over the original off hand, I do think that most American remakes substitute the subtle for the brash and nuanced for the over stated... One of the beauties of the original is that there is ambiguity. That kind of reading trusts the viewer to draw their own conclusions, to devise their own thoughts and in turn encourages them to think about it after the credits have started to roll.
SPOILS
reeves completely missed the point of the first because the kid has no choice about whether he gets dunked at the end. in the original he chooses to accept the impossible breath-holding challenge because he's just that strong/transformed by love. i'm shocked that no one has picked up on this MASSIVE difference that effectively blunts everything about the oskar/eli relationship. the remake's not about life-changing love in all its wonder and awfulness. it's just about getting a girlfriend.
Mark should've reviewed Let The Right One In. That redundant remake Let Me In doesn't deserve this much air time.
@Jimmyduudah
Hear, hear. I've been drawing that exact analogy for a long, long time. And in fact, you can even go further and say people such as ourselves outside the production process can lend an objectivity denied to those within it. Okay, I'm not saying that I can go toe-to-toe with a professional critic and academic like Kermode, whose can extract the maximum amount of meaning as possible when viewing a film BUT, the average moviegoer like me is the reason we still have test audiences.
I appreciate that it is quite insulting to simply remake a Swedish film into English with ever so similar camera shots, tone, feel and better effects but it still makes for an enjoyable film. I hadn't seen LTROI when I saw this and I really enjoyed it.
I wasn't trying to say it was all about me. I really like LTROI and that was my opinion. Trust me, though. I'm not the only person who has that opinion. I'm glad you like LMI. Everyone has their own tastes. I just happen to absolutely hate it. Yes, it infuriates me---and many others, as well. You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine.
@HarpoSpoke
It's an adaption. If you haven't already I suggest reading the True Grit the novel.
There are a lot of variables in that question: how long after the Norwegian film was the remake made and how is the stylistic identity of the remake different?? I'm not totally against remakes but they have to have something new. Otherwise, why are they being made??
@Kretek
No need for an apology since you're right about LMI & LTROI. Anyone who says other wise is simply wrong. There is no grey in between.
I like Kermode but on this he just keeps on saying remaking is pointless instead of actually reviewing the movie
I loved both versions. The original being my favorite movie that year. Why a re-make? I would ask, Why a film adaptation if you have already read the book? I'm glad it was exposed to those who hadn't seen the original and if it peaked the curiosity to see it, good. The remake was not a vampire movie either and I relished the extended scenes between the main characters which is the core of the film, not the effects, nor the gore. I preferred the original's climax a whole lot better though.
I try to always ignore trolls, but they really piss me off. They love it when ppl get mad at their comments. That's what they want, It's all a game to them.
Let's deal with this on a point-by-point basis if you want a meaningful discussion. Answer my previous question, which was raised in response to your accusation, and I'll clarify my point.
The most stupid thing about this particular review is that Kermode actually knows that Let Me In is a good film but won't except it. Halfway through the review he asks Mark if i see Let Me In but not Let The Right One In does this this mean Let Me In is a good film and if you listen close you'll see that Kermode doesn't actually answer the question becasue he knows that deep down it's not a carbon copy in fact it's totally different and even better than the orginal. Chloe Moretz made the film.
@TheConciseStatement Nice choice of wording: "preying", "deeply sleazy"
"Fix the funny language" is actually just making a version in English.
"Ugly colors" is actually "different colors". (warmer tones...not "ugly")
I'll bet you didn't know the producers of LTROI were AGGRESSIVELY shopping the story to US studios BEFORE LTROI was made, did you? Did you realize they settled with a BRITISH studio for LMI? "slow European pacing" indeed! ;)
@Kretek
Are you talking about True Grit? Cause I was talking about the Coens Brother's film "True Grit" when compared to the one John Wayne "True Grit" not LTROI & LMI. Anyone with two eyes who say both LTROI and LMI would know that Reeves copied (well almost) every iconic scene from LTROI.
I hate the current spate of Hollywood remaking foreign movies which are only a year or two old. It's pointless and insulting and Mark is right when he says if you can't be bothered with the subtitles then you basically don't deserve to watch the film...
@Kretek The Alfredson interview is on RUclips. He states very clearly that Eli is a "very old woman in a 12 year old body". And also that Eli is the "dark side of the boy"
Go to the 3:15 mark.
/watch?v=pqNo5akbMjo&feature=related
@herd4344
Except the original Ocean's 11 wasn't very good. There was a strong case to remake it. There is absolutely no reason to remake Let the Right One In. Its working class Scandinavian setting is so integral to its atmosphere, taking that away removes much of the heart and soul of the film. As for adapting novels, cinema's a different medium and a film should stand on its own. Let Me In does not. It only serves as a cynical exercise by producers with no desire to mass market foreign films.
I can understand that other people like different things. When a movie so blatantly copies the vision of another, however, whilst diluting it down into something more easily digested for the viewer, I am going to say that it's a lesser film.
I have seen both and gave credits where it's due. Can't say the good doc has done the same thing, though.
The fact that you began the sentence in question without punctuation and began it with "and" suggests a direct link of response with my rebuttal that you are projecting. e.g
There is also no such thing as "improving" on anything. It's art...which means every individual makes up their own mind about what is good and bad. LMI fans feel that is the better version....so guess what? ...That means it's the better version for them. Your opinion only applies to you.
@TickleMeElmo55 Yeah...but the True Grit remake followed what the first one did more than LMI followed LTROI. They even took the eye patch from the first movie. They made the story again....hence they remade the story.
It's not a dirty word. Not sure why everyone acts like it is. If you do it well, everything is cool. Both True Grit and Let Me In were awesome.
I trust his judgement. The original is astonishing (needs a second look to be fully appreciated) . Why this?
Just so everyone knows, HarpoSpoke and MultiButtface12 are the same user (their writing style is exactly the same). He's registered multiple accounts to downvote/mark as spam anyone he disagrees with.
Jesus, I really wish Mayo would just shut up most of the time. I loved it when he nitpicked about Mark doing English with a French accent when he said 'in French, obviously', and then Mark goes and repeats the whole analogy in perfect French!
@PJDon2503 I know that, I actually got to watch John Wayne's original in a campsite Monument Valley this year. But aside from that I was picking a hollywood blockbuster, the point remains six month's down the line you wouldn't get them remaking Black Swan.
Actually he's right
Everything that is good about LMI is so directly copied from LTROI that it leaves you wondering what is the point of remaking this?
I think the most despicable thing about the remake is that Matt Reeves agreed to direct it before Let the Right One In was even released. As someone involved in film-making, surely he understands how disrespectful that is. The film wasn't even out and he thought "I can do that better" and he successfully stole some plaudits that he doesn't deserve.
@Kretek Yes....you were complaining about things LMI did different....right after claiming it was a copy. Which is not surprising considering that's exactly what Kermode does in this video.
An entertaining rant from the good doctor, though the voice he uses to ask the question "If haven't seen the original Mark would you feel differently about it?" was rather annoying
@BoxyTheSpaceDog Like I said, you look at movies in a superficial way. Every scene features changes that alter the way the story is told. Eli answers "yes" to "are you a vampire?"....Abby doesn't. Oskar answer "oh" to "I'm not a girl"...Owen says, "you don't have to make stuff up". Eli points out she lives next door to Oskar, Owen points this out to Abby.
I hope you know what all these changes mean. Do you require Abby being a giant robot to notice the difference? ;)
@Daphuhnuh Read interviews with Simon Oakes (British producer of LMI) to find out why there are elements from LTROI in LMI. His goal was to "pay homage to the original movie". Reeves was in love with the book and did alter many things about the story, but he was instructed to "More than anything else, stay true to the imagery and mystique and the mythology of the original" (exact quote)
The film is obliviously not as good as the original Swedish version as the film feels dull in parts, however the film well acted, well casted, stylish, well written & well directed. (79%) (4/5 stars) (positive)
He's broadly stating that everything they changed was unnecessary, and everything they retained, whether that amalgam results in a good film or not, makes it a pointless endeavour. I think the word review is misleading, since these shows always come out after films are released. It's more of a guide/rant.
@TheConciseStatement So that's where Kermode complains about the differences between the two films after claiming they are the same?
Being "low key", "slow burning" is not the same thing as "better movie". Some are getting that confused. It CAN be "I like it better that way"...but that's all.
All this just happens to be one of the differences I like about LMI....and also additional proof that they are indeed quite different movies.
LOL The question is legit thought....Iv'e seen this one before the original and thought it was a great movie personally....
@Daphuhnuh
Chloe was a mis-cast. She's a talented actress but she was sorely mis-casted. I think Aeriel Winters would've been the better choice, but I think the makers of LMI were going for the more up-and-coming actress if you saw the leaked audition tape.
@TheConciseStatement "Warmer" makes no sense for this film....I agree. But it made perfect sense for LMI.
I continue to wonder how LTROI fans can claim the two movies are exactly alike....and then go on to a long list of changes that LMI made which they don't like. Gotta either eat that cake or have it guys.
I like Mark's argument about people watching this who haven't seen the original - it's no use saying "imagine if the original had never been made, and Let Me In is the first adaptation" when the fact is, the original HAS been made, Let Me In is NOT the first installment, therefore there's no real reason for the latter to exist and for people to not see the former. Not that I definitely won't enjoy Let Me In when I see it (I think I will), but it's a creatively pointless movie.
@PJDon2503 True Grit was awesome too. Bring on the remakes if this is what we get.
@ChristopherDone I cant believe that your comment got so many negative votes. It's oppresion! It seems like every comment supporting LTROI over LMI, is given heaps of negative votes. Quick everyone! Read this comment before it's gone...quick *being dragged through metal doors and out of sight, the last hints of 'read it' echoing down the corridor*
@HarpoSpoke
Have you read the novel?
@HarpoSpoke (1/2)
There's only so many times we can go round and round this straw man. Everyone knows Hammer is a distinctly British institution famous for their sole ventures, creating the creaky horror subgenre of the 60s and 70s, fondly named 'Hammer horror'. Of all the things one can accuse Let Me In, low production values reminiscent of those old cheesy British horror films of decades past, is not one of them.
Spot on Dr K.
And Warners Bros is a American studio, i don't think many people sees the Harry Potter series as American.
@Kretek what does it matter where Lina lives? Don't LTROI fans claim it got worldwide attention? Is there a reason directors would be impressed with her and then not hire her because of where she lives? This is 2011....and LTROI came out in 2008. Shouldn't an actress that impressed everyone be pretty busy by now?
I keep trying to get back to the original point and you keep wanting to change the subject.
As I said, there is no work involved in reading subtitles. Calling a person "lazy" for preferring movies without subs is inaccurate.
true we all have different opinions on film. so why we need critics is beyond me. the only opinion that matters is your own. there is no good and bad in art
Let the Right One In is an amazing book and an equally amazing film. The remake.....(sigh)
well the remake isn't based on the original book they basically removed everything connected to the book and made a new movie