Let Me In (Matt Reeves, 2010)

[jbeall]

The remake of the adaptation probably deserves its own thread, but I'm too lazy to start one. Let Me In has opened to surprisingly decent reviews.

A.O. Scott's review

And from the Nashville Scene. (I'm currently living in Nashville, so this is how I discovered that it was out in the first place.)

I remain ambivalent about this version, if only because too many American remakes have been vastly inferior to the source material (The Ring would be one notable exception), but I'm intrigued enough to go see it should the chance present itself in the next few weeks. And if I like it, I'll definitely let TedW know, if he's still around.

[knives]

I might see it, but pretty exclusively for Hammer. From my understanding this was done Psycho style so it shouldn't be bad, but rather redundant.

[rs98762001]

It's fine for what it is, Reeves actually handles the material with respect and sensitivity. The leads are both excellent, especially Smit Phee, who's progressed in leaps and bounds since his stilted performance in THE ROAD. However, ultimately, this remake never finds its own voice or reason for being. A couple of critics have been impressed by the recontextualizing of the material into the Reagan years, but in my opinion it was primarily a cosmetic change which added little resonance. The only scene in which Reeves truly steps out of the shadows of the original is

Spoiler

a startling car crash sequence that leads to Richard Jenkins' demise.

Otherwise, it's the original I'll be revisiting.

[paranoid-knight2008]

It's a shame nobody's really commenting on this film because it really is a truly great picture.

It could be easy to attack a film like Let Me In if you are easy to believe that the very existence of a remake is a negative thing. But Matt Reeves’ re-interpretation of the critically-beloved 2008 Swedish film Let the Right One In (a very good film in its own right) and the novel of which that film was based is a truly marvelous work that proves what greatness can come from the reworking of previous material. Just by changing the original film’s growing friendship between a young boy and a little vampire girl into a disturbing study on masochistic sexuality bruising in the heart of an abused child, Reeves has constructed a stronger and more human film. It only makes much more sense for the director to shift the previous film’s cold, blue-and-white hues and silences into a warm, yellow-and-amber palette with commotion in order to show the complete isolation of a boy who is, like the vampire he falls for, also pulsating with an inner beast. Very disturbing film, and even if its an American remake of a foreign film, I feel there is a more foreign cinematic nature to this film compared to the original. It's laced with subtlties and depths you don't expect from mainstream horror in the states.

[swo17]

I thought this was far better than it had any right to be, but as is the problem with any inessential remake, there were too many scenes that either felt neutered by virtue of having already been done or that tried to distinguish themselves in ways that left me just wanting the original. For instance, the scene of the woman in bed going up in flames is basically the same in the remake only shot from a less compelling angle. Or the eerie introductory moment of Eli balancing on the bar of a jungle gym being replaced in the remake with her just standing on a platform (albeit barefoot in the snow). One great exception though where the remake succeeds on its own merits is

Spoiler

the car crash scene that has already been mentioned in this thread.

I get the sense though that if someone watched the remake first and grew attached to it, they might make the same criticisms of the original. They're both very well made and worth a look.

[mfunk9786]

How does the remake treat

Spoiler

the pool scene

?

[swo17]

Spoiler

There is a good moment where the bullies drag the poor kid all the way through the locker room before dunking him in the pool but once he's under the water, it's basically all shot the same way, only less effectively in my opinion.

[mfunk9786]

There was a horrifying yet beautiful sense of motion in that scene in the remake that I find it hard to believe could ever be recaptured in the remake. I can't even begin to try to explain it more eloquently than that.

[paranoid-knight2008]

I loved the build-up to the pool scene in this one. It was much more realistic and suspenseful, for me. I think Reeves' changes are definitely of a different effect, but one that still gets his intent down pat. The 2008 pool scene is brilliant, and much better as a stand alone moment. But the 2010 cut is different, more hyperactive and wrecking with brutality.

Spoiler

(I actually love that Reeves kind of shoots this moment like a gruesome baptism.)

[manicsounds]

In this version, does the Richard Jenkins character not have a name? Is it not mentioned ever? Was it in the Swedish version and the book? I can't remember.

By the way, this movie shouldn't be missed. It's a rare remake that is as good as the original. Maybe a bit unnecessary, but still worth a watch, and that car accident scene? Wow.