Let Me In

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 12-09-2016 11:27pm #1

I watched Let Me In tonight. The 2010 remake with Chloe Moretz and Kodi Smit-McPhee.

Now, I know a lot of you are already itching to jump in here and tell me the original Swedish version is better. It probably is. That said, I thought this was brilliant. Chloe Moretz was such a good actress for one so young, she probably still is but her choices are questionable these days. She's plays Abby with such innocence and yet you could genuinely believe that she's been around for half a century. I really can't figure out if she genuinely liked Owen or was just "grooming" him, bit of both? It was such a sweet kiddy romance to begin with and then BAM! crazy town. Kodi Smit-McPhee is excellent too, I think I've only seen him in Slow West since but, like Moretz, he plays the range of subtle emotions so well.

I also couldn't figure out the relationship between Abby and her "dad".

I assume that was him in the photos with her? So they've been together since he was that age but was that her as a human or has she been befriending little boys for decades?

Snake Plisken · 13-09-2016 12:06am

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I watched Let Me In tonight. The 2010 remake with Chloe Moretz and Kodi Smit-McPhee.

Now, I know a lot of you are already itching to jump in here and tell me the original Swedish version is better. It probably is. That said, I thought this was brilliant. Chloe Moretz was such a good actress for one so young, she probably still is but her choices are questionable these days. She's plays Abby with such innocence and yet you could genuinely believe that she's been around for half a century. I really can't figure out if she genuinely liked Owen or was just "grooming" him, bit of both? It was such a sweet kiddy romance to begin with and then BAM! crazy town. Kodi Smit-McPhee is excellent too, I think I've only seen him in Slow West since but, like Moretz, he plays the range of subtle emotions so well.

I also couldn't figure out the relationship between Abby and her "dad".
I assume that was him in the photos with her? So they've been together since he was that age but was that her as a human or has she been befriending little boys for decades?

Kind of, they fall in love with her and become her protector, I really enjoyed this version over the Swedish version I have to say Matt Reeves did a great job on this!

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 13-09-2016 12:17am

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Kind of, they fall in love with her and become her protector.

Yeah, but I couldn't quite figure out is it just something that happens or is it a premeditated thing on her part? That makes it sound quite harsh. Then again it's possible she's just a lonely child, essentially, and can't help the need to not be lonely, even though she knows where it ends up.

jcsoulinger · 13-09-2016 12:21am

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I w.

I also couldn't figure out the relationship between Abby and her "dad".
I assume that was him in the photos with her? So they've been together since he was that age but was that her as a human or has she been befriending little boys for decades?

It's been a while since I've seen it but for some reason I think they may have been siblings but could be wrong.

It's a more enjoyable film than the orignal imo which was so gorey at times it just felt unnecessary. The soundtrack in the remake is also alot more interesting.

Will have to rewatch now cheersðŸ˜‰

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 13-09-2016 12:25am

jcsoulinger wrote: »

It's been a while since I've seen it but for some reason I think they may have been siblings but could be wrong.

It's a more enjoyable film than the orignal imo which was so gorey at times it just felt unnecessary. The soundtrack in the remake is also alot more interesting.

Most other vampire things have the "rule" that they don't reflect in mirrors or show in pictures, which made me think she was alive when the pictures were taken, which could make them siblings. I didn't really pay attention enough to see if she reflected in anything else. The scene where he asked her not to see that boy, Owen, anymore seemed like it was something else though.

There's a scene on Youtube that was cut from the film that shows her being turned but it's impossible to tell when it's set. She never confirms her age either so who knows?

jcsoulinger · 13-09-2016 12:37am

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Most other vampire things have the "rule" that they don't reflect in mirrors or show in pictures, which made me think she was alive when the pictures were taken, which could make them siblings. I didn't really pay attention enough to see if she reflected in anything else. The scene where he asked her not to see that boy, Owen, anymore seemed like it was something else though.

There's a scene on Youtube that was cut from the film that shows her being turned but it's impossible to tell when it's set. She never confirms her age either so who knows?

In some way not knowing the nature of their relationship beyond him being her protector, and having these questions only adds to the enjoyment of the film. Will have to check out that deleted scene.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 13-09-2016 12:53am

jcsoulinger wrote: »

In some way not knowing the nature of their relationship beyond him being her protector, and having these questions only adds to the enjoyment of the film. Will have to check out that deleted scene.

It's pretty intense. I think if it had been included in the final film it would have added a bit of weight to Owen's decision to keep seeing/helping Abby. It's a shame it wasn't left in.

Snake Plisken · 13-09-2016 12:26pm

No I get the impression that they weren't siblings and that she struck up a friendship with her when he was a young boy. Also it is kind of hinted to that she used to. be a boy in the novel she was castrated while she was being turned!

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 13-09-2016 12:37pm

Snake Plisken wrote: »

No I get the impression that they weren't siblings and that she struck up a friendship with her when he was a young boy. Also it is kind of hinted to that she used to. be a boy in the novel she was castrated while she was being turned!

Yeah, I read that on the IMDb facts

That's one of the things I like about it so much, the multiple possibilities of what's going on. There are quite a few moments where you could interpret her actions as being manipulative and assume she knows the other guy is getting near the end of his usefulness so she needs a new "friend". But at the same time they can all be interpreted as her just being a lonely child who is obviously attracted to kids her own age and the sadness is there because she knows how it will all play out but she can't help not wanting to be lonely.

Like the scene where Owen suggests they use Morse code through the walls and you see the realisation on her face that he might be able to hear her and the old dude through the wall. Is it a dangerous "oh ****, I might have to kill this kid now if he knows too much" reaction or is it a sad "he's not going to want to be my friend anymore" reaction.

Man, I'm going to be thinking about this one for days.

Sad Professor · 13-09-2016 1:40pm

The idea that she grooms boys to become her protector wasn't in the novel and was something that grew out of the ambiguity of the Swedish film. Reeves telegraphs it (the birthmark, the casting) with muddled results that don't make a lot of sense. Little boys don't make good protectors. Grown men do, but that begs the question what is the guardian getting in return. An area that Alfredson didn't want to get into in the original (but you can still read it that way), and Reeves certainly didn't.

It's a while since I've seen it, but maybe this problem is offset by the character being less vulnerable in the remake, so that her guardian isn't really a guardian at all, just an emotional crutch. Which I guess lends a different reading to the film. But it makes it very difficult to view the character as anything but untrustworthy since whatever way you look at it she's being misleading about herself. Where as the original has a beautiful ambiguity about it. She might be using the kid but it's not heavily implied that she has a long history of successfully doing this, which leaves open the possibility that she's taking a massive risk with him since he won't be able to protect her.

Tony EH · 13-09-2016 2:50pm

The book makes it quite clear what her protector is getting out of their relationship and that he was drawn to her as an adult, not a child. The film alludes to it just enough, but keeps a certain mystery about Eli's thrall.

If you haven't read the book, I'd recommend it. It goes into far more detail with every character. Oskar, especially, is fleshed out in a very different manner.

As for Eli's sex, this is explained in detail.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 13-09-2016 3:24pm

I liked the open nature of the remake though. You can interpret it in a number of ways. There's enough there to suggest a few possibilities but they don't commit too much in any one direction. I suppose some could see that as sitting on the fence rather than actually being a choice.

Snake Plisken · 13-09-2016 4:52pm

According to Reeves plays Abby as a girl in this version as the deleted scene shows her being bitten as a girl! Also he describes Abby as a scheming 250 year old woman trapped inside a 12 year old body! She tests Owen to see if he would care for her or get scared and leave her!
I do really like Matt Reeves work from Cloverfield, Let me in and Dawn of the planet of the apes!

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 13-09-2016 5:05pm

Snake Plisken wrote: »

According to Reeves plays Abby as a girl in this version as the deleted scene shows her being bitten as a girl! Also he describes Abby as a scheming 250 year old woman trapped inside a 12 year old body! She tests Owen to see if he would care for her or get scared and leave her!
I do really like Matt Reeves work from Cloverfield, Let me in and Dawn of the planet of the apes!

I think you've got that backwards.

From IMDb:

Director Matt Reeves stated the main thing he loved about the novel 'Let the Right One In' was the fact that Abby wasn't a scheming 250-year old woman inside a 12-year old body. She was very much a child emotionally and has had to protect herself from getting too close with anyone. He believed Abby was testing Owen to see if he would show he cared for her and stay or if he would get scared and stop seeing her.

Sad Professor · 13-09-2016 5:16pm

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I liked the open nature of the remake though. You can interpret it in a number of ways. There's enough there to suggest a few possibilities but they don't commit too much in any one direction. I suppose some could see that as sitting on the fence rather than actually being a choice.

The original is far more ambiguous, though. The remake is actually less open to interpretation. It implies things, but so heavily that there's only one way to read it. Like Jenkins is the boy in the photo. There's no other interpretation. They both have a big birth mark on their face. Reeves doesn't come out and say "that's him", but there's no other way of reading it. Where as that character came across to me as a mixture of sad and sinister in the original.

The question about Abby's sex is muddled in the remake. There's all the dialogue about her not being a girl but she's totally feminine with no attempt to make her appear androgynous like in the original. As mentioned, there was a scene cut that implies a different backstory (she was a girl, not a boy, and was raped). Reeves removed it but left in the post-shower moment which is very confusing.

I'm probably overly harsh on the remake. As unnecessary American remakes of foreign language films go it's actually really good. But still inferior in every way IMO.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 13-09-2016 5:27pm

Sad Professor wrote: »

The original is far more ambiguous, though. The remake is actually less open to interpretation. It implies things, but so heavily that there's only one way to read it. Like Jenkins is the boy in the photo. There's no other interpretation. They both have a big birth mark on their face. Reeves doesn't come out and say "that's him", but there's no other way of reading it. Where as that character came across to me as a mixture of sad and sinister in the original.

The question about Abby's sex is muddled in the remake. There's all the dialogue about her not being a girl but she's totally feminine with no attempt to make her appear androgynous like in the original. As mentioned, there was a scene cut that implies a different backstory (she was a girl, not a boy, and was raped). Reeves removed it but left in the post-shower moment which is very confusing.

I'm probably overly harsh on the remake. As unnecessary American remakes of foreign language films go it's actually really good. But still inferior in every way IMO.

I have to say I didn't notice the birthmark thing but it did seem obvious he was the boy in the photo. It's still not clear if Abby was human when the pictures were taken. As I said earlier there didn't seem to be any mention of the vampire's not reflecting rule that often appears in the lore. And the cut scene doesn't do anything to give us a time frame for when she was turned.

As for Abby's sex, it's irrelevant if you're just watching this film, which I did. With no knowledge of any other version of this story "would you still like me if I wasn't a girl" thing just comes across as "I'm secretly a vampire." There is no ambiguity about her sex in this version of the film.

What's the "post shower moment"? He sneaks a peak at her getting dressed, or did I miss something?

I suppose that's the thing about remakes. Go literally scene for scene and people say "what's the point?". Change anything, even only slightly, and you'll have people coming in with the original film, and/or book, in their heads who can't see it as a separate entity. I guess if you're going to remake something you really have to put your own stamp on it.

Sad Professor · 13-09-2016 5:59pm

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I have to say I didn't notice the birthmark thing but it did seem obvious he was the boy in the photo. It's still not clear if Abby was human when the pictures were taken. As I said earlier there didn't seem to be any mention of the vampire's not reflecting rule that often appears in the lore. And the cut scene doesn't do anything to give us a time frame for when she was turned.

As for Abby's sex, it's irrelevant if you're just watching this film, which I did. With no knowledge of any other version of this story "would you still like me if I wasn't a girl" thing just comes across as "I'm secretly a vampire." There is no ambiguity about her sex in this version of the film.

What's the "post shower moment"? He sneaks a peak at her getting dressed, or did I miss something?

She would have been a vampire when the photo was taken. The implication of the photo is that this isn't the first time she's formed a deep relationship with a human boy. The original doesn't have this. While many viewers still think Eli is manipulating Oskar, the original doesn't provide such indisputable evidence that she has a history. Where as the remake does.

Re: the post shower moment I referred to: He sees her getting dressed and reacts with shock at something that he sees. We don't see what (we do the original). It's an unnecessary moment left over from the original script. Reeves seems to have left it in only because everyone predicted that he would cut it. But without the gender ambiguity (or even the cut flashback rape scene), it makes no sense. If you've seen the original you'll probably assume she used to be a boy as well. If you haven't you'll probably be confused and have only the "not a girl" stuff to go on. It should be ambiguous but it just comes across as muddled.

Sad Professor · 13-09-2016 8:15pm

I've split this discussion off from the recently watched thread as it was kinda taking over. It's interesting film to discuss anyway, well worth it's own thread.

I'm a huge fan of the original but only ever watched the remake once. But I see it's on Irish Netflix so I might watch it again tonight.

sheep? · 13-09-2016 8:20pm

I watched both of these in very quick succession a while back, Swedish one first. Went into the remake thinking it'd be nowhere near as good, but was pleasantly surprised (perhaps because of my preconceived notions, I dunno).

Must watch them again, cheers for the reminder they exist!

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 13-09-2016 8:29pm

Sad Professor wrote: »

Re: the post shower moment I referred to: He sees her getting dressed and reacts with shock at something that he sees. We don't see what (we do the original). It's an unnecessary moment left over from the original script. Reeves seems to have left it in only because everyone predicted that he would cut it. But without the gender ambiguity (or even the cut flashback rape scene), it makes no sense. If you've seen the original you'll probably assume she used to be a boy as well. If you haven't you'll probably be confused and have only the "not a girl" stuff to go on. It should be ambiguous but it just comes across as muddled.

To be honest I didn't see this as anything other than a young boy having a sneaky peek at a girl getting dressed. I read his ever so slight reaction as him realising he shouldn't be doing it and that was it.

As I said, armed with no knowledge of the original film or the book it's based on, none of that stuff confused me. I took the "what if I wasn't a girl" to be her talking about being a vampire. The idea of her being a castrated boy never even occurred to me.

I had kind of thought about watching both versions but I have to say I enjoyed this one so much that I don't think I really want to see the original one. Or at least not for a while.

Tony EH · 14-09-2016 8:19am

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I suppose that's the thing about remakes. Go literally scene for scene and people say "what's the point?". Change anything, even only slightly, and you'll have people coming in with the original film, and/or book, in their heads who can't see it as a separate entity. I guess if you're going to remake something you really have to put your own stamp on it.

As someone who much preferred the Swedish original, I had high hopes for the American version as I'd heard that it was going to be more "by the book", before production began.

Of course, there are parts to the book that wouldn't ever make it into a mainstream US horror film. They simply wouldn't dare and I see that I was perhaps a little naive in thinking that any studio would have the balls.

I suppose my point is that one is going to do a remake, they should do a John Carpenter on it and stick closer to the source material, otherwise we do end up with a "what's the point" more often than not.

While there are some people who like 'Let Me In', I think that it just gets relegated to the "unnecessary remake" bin. It's not terrible, by any means, but it lacks the atmosphere of the original and is just "safer" all round.

Snake Plisken · 14-09-2016 3:28pm

Tony EH wrote: »

As someone who much preferred the Swedish original, I had high hopes for the American version as I'd heard that it was going to be more "by the book", before production began.

Of course, there are parts to the book that wouldn't ever make it into a mainstream US horror film. They simply wouldn't dare and I see that I was perhaps a little naive in thinking that any studio would have the balls.

I suppose my point is that one is going to do a remake, they should do a John Carpenter on it and stick closer to the source material, otherwise we do end up with a "what's the point" more often than not.

While there are some people who like 'Let Me In', I think that it just gets relegated to the "unnecessary remake" bin. It's not terrible, by any means, but it lacks the atmosphere of the original and is just "safer" all round.

I strongly disagree I think it is one of the better American remakes of the original foreign version! A great cast and nicely told story as we see it unfold from the eyes of Owen a bullied young boy with no friends Who finds his first love who just so happens to be a vampire I just really like it, I had high hopes for it when I heard Matt Reeves was directing it and I was not disappointed.

Tony EH · 14-09-2016 3:53pm

But it doesn't do anything that much different from the original film, so what's the point? The major thing is that it replaces the language.

If it had been made as a standalone film, I'd probably have been more willing to receive it better. But, it was just another riff on something that was already existing and to me it was too similar. It just ends up being 'Let the Right One in' for people who don't like subtitles.

If people like it then, more power to them. I'm not going to tell people what their entertainment should be. But, after I'd seen the Swedish version and then later viewed the remake, it was down to a case of "what you see first", because the films are so alike, which is a malady that plagues a lot of American remakes.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO · 14-09-2016 4:11pm

Generally speaking I don't get the scene for scene remakes. It does just make it seem like a studio thought that the original is great but needs to be in English, like they literally take the script and run it through Google translate, stage directions and all. I get some things contribute to atmosphere or are integral to the story but when they're literally shooting scenes from the same angle and cutting scenes together in the same order and same framing etc. Etc. It does make you wonder why they even need to hire a director or editor. They could just give some film students a shooting script and send them off.

This may be the case with Let Me In, I don't know.

I suppose if nothing else it will get some people to track down the original film.

tunguska · 14-09-2016 8:51pm

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I watched Let Me In tonight. The 2010 remake with Chloe Moretz and Kodi Smit-McPhee.

Now, I know a lot of you are already itching to jump in here and tell me the original Swedish version is better. It probably is. That said, I thought this was brilliant. Chloe Moretz was such a good actress for one so young, she probably still is but her choices are questionable these days. She's plays Abby with such innocence and yet you could genuinely believe that she's been around for half a century. I really can't figure out if she genuinely liked Owen or was just "grooming" him, bit of both? It was such a sweet kiddy romance to begin with and then BAM! crazy town. Kodi Smit-McPhee is excellent too, I think I've only seen him in Slow West since but, like Moretz, he plays the range of subtle emotions so well.

I also couldn't figure out the relationship between Abby and her "dad".
I assume that was him in the photos with her? So they've been together since he was that age but was that her as a human or has she been befriending little boys for decades?

I agree 100%. I liked the sweedish version but I liked this more. It has this atmosphere about it that is just beautiful. Its criminal that not a lot of people saw this or are even aware of its existence.

jcsoulinger · 14-09-2016 11:05pm

tunguska wrote: »

I agree 100%. I liked the sweedish version but I liked this more. It has this atmosphere about it that is just beautiful. Its criminal that not a lot of people saw this or are even aware of its existence.

Yep, I was to recommend one of them to someone who had seen neither It would be Let Me In every time.

Tony EH · 15-09-2016 3:04pm

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Generally speaking I don't get the scene for scene remakes. It does just make it seem like a studio thought that the original is great but needs to be in English, like they literally take the script and run it through Google translate, stage directions and all. I get some things contribute to atmosphere or are integral to the story but when they're literally shooting scenes from the same angle and cutting scenes together in the same order and same framing etc. Etc. It does make you wonder why they even need to hire a director or editor. They could just give some film students a shooting script and send them off.

This may be the case with Let Me In, I don't know.

I suppose if nothing else it will get some people to track down the original film.

They're remade for American audiences, primarily, who generally don't take to subtitled films, except on an arthouse circuit in major cities. The same issue is here in Ireland too. Something like 'Let the Right One in' wouldn't get a release in "normal" cinemas. But, even for a city the size of Dublin, you have the Lighthouse and the IFC, which is where I caught it first I think. I don't think that would happen in a city of equal size in the US. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I get.

But even as an "Americanized" effort, 'Let Me In' was a relative flop, despite the buzz that surrounded the original, positive reception from some critics and the fact that it wasn't a bad film.

As for directors, sometimes the same director does the American remake! Michael Haneke remade 'Funny Games' and didn't change a thing, except for the spoken language. Although, in this case I prefer his English version over the original German version for some reason.

I agree with your sentiment though, in that I find "obligatory" US remakes (even of US films) somewhat baffling in the large number of cases, as they generally bring nothing new to the table. In a rare case, the remake improves on the original ('Invasion of the Body Snatchers'), but more often than not, I'm left wondering why they wasted the money.

Let Me In

Comments