The Ohio Sci-Fi and Horror Marathons

Let the Right One In

_________________
Jaws3dfan®
Follow me on Twitter

I'm sure they used a rubber body part stand in. That's why they only showed her waist down for a second before the dress fell to cover her up. It reminded me of Return of the Living dead with the naked girl dancing on the grave. They made a plastic crotch piece to cover her up and it was so much more noticable with it on. Now the real question... Did they really eat that guy's kibbles 'n bits in Ferox?

It's not a naked body part. There was actually no nudity since that wasn't a vagina. IIt was showing that Eli is a boy and was castrated hundreds or however many years ago. It goes over it in the book.

WARNING!

The previous post in this thread gives away a HUGE SPOILER!!




Moderator! Moderator?!

Is there a Moderator in the house...................?

_________________
Long Live the Orson Welles Cinemas

The American remake of "Let the Right One in" is going to be titled "Let me in". I'm not a huge fan of remakes, but they got Chloe Moretz (the little girl from "Kick-Ass") to play Eli (who they're now calling Abby). If anyone can do that role justice, it's Chloe Moretz. Below is the trailer.

http://www.youtube.com/user/overturefilms?v=reRRAEVHq8E&feature=pyv&ad=5868033809&kw=let%20me%20in

_________________
Remember ... no matter where you go, there you are.

Actually it is an American/UK co-production.

Good to see Hammer studios rise from the grave.

_________________

Hmmm The Swedish film is perfect as is.

So, I caught an advance screening for "Let Me In" last night at the Gateway Theater. I'm not typically a fan of remakes, but this was done really well. The acting was great (by everyone who had a line of dialog), the pacing was a vast improvement over the original, however they added some CG effects that were pretty bad (i guess nothing's perfect). I really enjoyed it. In fact, the more I think about it, I may even like it better than the original (and i LOVED the original).

_________________
Remember ... no matter where you go, there you are.

Regardless of how well it's done (and I'll probably catch up with it), this really was a superflous remake coming so soon after the original. Don't let the filmakers get away with the crap about re-imaginings and going back to the novel - it's a friggin' remake. PERIOD.
Back in the day, when foreign films played a couple of big cities and disappeared, it was one thing to do a remake. But, now with DVD, the internets and cable channels, a film like LET THE RIGHT ONE IN gets pretty wide exposure within the fan base despite only a $2M gross.
I guess the "good" news is that the remake has tanked at the box office on Friday. Perhaps, it will at the very least cause Hollywood to pause before hitting the remake button so quickly next time....

From Deadline Hollywood:

6th place. Let Me In (Relativity/Overture] NEW [2,020 Theaters]
Friday $1.9M, Estimated Weekend $5.2M

This unnecessary vampire remake, based on the Swedish horror pic Let the Right One In, logged only a "C+" Cinemascore. That's quite an inauspicious start for Overture's first outing since the distribution operation was taken over by Relativity. But only publicity hound Ryan Kavanaugh would do a victory lap in the naive mainstream media this week before he knew how Let Me In would perform at the box office so as to avoid the tough questions afterwards. And judging from Friday's weak number and even weaker weekend estimate, despite the presence of Kick-Ass star Chloe Moretz, this is yet another stand-alone Relativity disaster area. Especially because film financing circles tell me the company will lose most of the P&A investment on the film. Fortunately for Relativity, its co-financing projects with Sony have fared best -- witness this weekend's The Social Network opening -- whereas too many of the co-productions with Universal have gone straight into the crapper recently.

_________________
Long Live the Orson Welles Cinemas

Hollywood will always hit the remake button, they don't know how to do anything else.

However, seeing how Let Me In was co-produced between Hammer Studios and Overture, it could perhaps lessen the sting rather than just one studio eating the bullet on this one.

I hope that this doesn't hurt Hammer's attempt at a comeback.

_________________

First of all, I LOVE that Hammer has this as its' comeback film, because I gotta tell ya, I LOVED this movie! Very well performed, music was perfect, whole movie had a creepy, unsettling feel. Also, using the example that the lack of box office may mean the movie isn't good is a terrible example to use. I would like to take this opportunity ot remind everyone that in its' first TWO weekends in release, Beverly Hills Chihuahua was number ONE.......therefore, box office does not correlate to quality of movie...

_________________
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote, 'the world is a fine place, and worth fighting for.' I agree with the second part"

The superfluous nature of the remake was only confirmed by the poor commercial and audience reaction. The 'smart' financial move would have been to go all TWILIGHT with the material. Of course, that would have p!ssed off the retread doubters even more. There's the conundrum.
By hewing so closely to the original, the new edition has gotten critical cred, but didn't really expand the audience beyond the cult. The 'average' filmgoer wasn't expecting a European style art thriller, and it got a very bad
C+
grade by opening night viewers on Cinemascore. By contrast, the soon-to-be forgotten CASE 39 got a B-. Make light of Cinemascore all you want, but it's a pretty darn good guage of what ordinary movie fans think of a movie. No, it doesn't make a film good or bad, but it reflects audience consensus outside the fanboy network.
By making the artistically valid choice to be faithful, the remake cut it's own bloody throat in the marketplace.
Again, why do such a faithfull imitation so close to the original? Particularly one that is easily accessible on DVD and the internets (and with an English track no less!)?? The original's Director has said basically the same thing - NO sign of approval there (unlike say, Don Siegel's thumbs up to Philip Kauffman's INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS. Heck, Siegel is IN the remake!). The key there, is that enough time had passed from the original, that you could sense something fresh with the approach. Simply translating the language, adding a few small things from the novel, and setting the location in wintry New Mexico rather than wintry Sweden ain't that.

_________________
Long Live the Orson Welles Cinemas

could not agree more with hallbeast

Lest I be accused of dissing a film I haven't seen, I did catch up with LET ME IN this weekend. No, it isn't a bad movie at all. On it's own terms, it's pretty good actually.

The film does have a few pretty good setpieces, including an interestingly done car crash. There is more to the bullying backstory, and the relationship with the older man and the vampire Abby has a slightly different spin than in the Swedish movie. Chloe Moretz isn't bad in the film - a bit bland, perhaps - but, more importantly she is just too All-American blond pretty to be believable as the androgynous creature. Certainly, nowhere near as effective as Lina Leandersson's looks in the original. There is a bit more action and gore than the Swedish film, but the CGI is about as bad as in the original (surprising, since this is one area you'd think would have been improved on). And, the music, while effective in parts, makes a HUGE mistake in using the ominous horror movie sounding notes even during the bullying scenes. WTF??

All that noted, where is there anything in the film that makes it different enough to have warranted a remake less than 2 years after the original? Many of the scenes (including shots and camera angles) are virtually beat for beat the same as the original. So, really what was the point? My friend and I both agreed that the retread drags in parts, largely because it was SO close to the original that the surprises were few and far between. At the end, I didn't so much want my money back, as I did the 2 hours so I could have seen something fresh.

To all those defenders of the remake - Tell me what was original or worthwhile about the new movie to, other than doing it in English??


SPOILERS:


Despite the R rating, it's surprising that they cut out the "nude" shot from the original. Although, they drop in a few 'winks' to fans of the original with the photos and the boys reaction to Abby's body (off-camera), this version is even more muddy that the Swedish film in telegraphing such an important element from the novel. Again, the filmmakers blow a clear opportunity to improve on the Swedish film.

_________________
Long Live the Orson Welles Cinemas

In my opinion, your making WAY too much out of this. You can't stop the production of remakes. Like it or not, they are a permanent fixture in Hollywood. I'm not really a fan of remakes myself, and I agree that remaking "Let the Right One In" was not necessary at all. My only point was that, as far as remakes go, they did a really good job on "Let Me In". Remakes usually remove everything that I thought was cool about a movie, and replace it with whatever is trendy or make huge changes in order to attract a new and younger audience. I have accepted the things I cannot change (the over bombardment of remakes) and in doing so, I can appreciate "Let Me In" as a horror movie that I enjoyed.

_________________
Remember ... no matter where you go, there you are.