TIFF Movie Review: Let Me In (2010)
Did you see the original? Well here's a copy.
Photo: Overture Films
It's not necessarily fair, but when a film clearly "copies" more than "remakes" the original film, a comparison is only apt. In the case of Let Me In, it is virtually a scene-for-scene clone of Tomas Alfredson's Let the Right One In rather than a new adaptation of John Ajvide Lindqvist's novel, offering hardly anything new outside of grislier kills and a few different variations.
It seems the idea of an American remake of a foreign film holds true as ramping up the violence and figuring out ways to punch the audience in the chest before focusing on the story is what's important. The impression I got from what's presented here is the filmmakers think American audiences won't be willing to stick with the relatively slow-paced narrative unless they're given something meaty to chew on every now and then. As someone who liked the original but isn't an overwhelming supporter, I was at least able to recognize the subtlety of Let the Right One In as one of its high points. Let Me In is hardly subtle, but it is rather boring.
The cast includes Kodi Smit-McPhee, Chloe Moretz, Richard Jenkins, Elias Koteas, Cara Buono and Sasha Barrese. For more information on this film including pictures, trailers and a detailed synopsis choose from the following menu.
Review
"Let Me In" is a Overture Films release, directed by Matt Reeves and is rated R for strong bloody horror violence, language and a brief sexual situation. The running time is 1 hour 55 minutes.
The connection Abby and Owen find is in their shared loneliness, him as an outcast at school and her as a vampire that can't enjoy the same luxuries regular humans do. In Let Me In this aspect is glossed over and almost non-existent. Abby appears incredibly independent and this comes as a result of writer-director Matt Reeves dramatically underusing her guardian played by Richard Jenkins.
Reeves, however, does get solid performances out of both Moretz and Smit-McPhee. Moretz's performance, though, is marred by Reeves's fumbling of her character and the film's violent death scenes, one of which is drenched in so much blood and bone-crunching sound effects I'd love to ask him just how exactly he saw the film benefiting. Worst of all, only a few seconds before this happens the image of a peacefully sleeping Abby is so well constructed the fact Reeves chose this moment for his most violent scene is particularly upsetting.
To that effect, Let Me In is technically proficient. Owen's parents are hardly a part of his life as they're going through a divorce and Reeves amplifies this fact not by hammering it home with dialogue, but by being careful to never show his mother's face. It's a move that will likely go unnoticed by many, but that's only because it's so well done. Additionally, a car crash scene midway through the film is highly inventive. Unfortunately, when a car crash is your film's high point and your film isn't Days of Thunder there's a bit of a problem.
Having seen the original, I can honestly tell you this film adds nothing new other than increased bloodshed. Scenes you may have loved from Tomas Alfredson's film are mishandled here in such a way they don't come close to sharing the same impact. The performances of the two lead child actors are well done, but in the end I just didn't believe their relationship.
Perhaps those that have yet to see the original 2008 Swedish film will find enjoyment here. I'd even argue those that have seen it will be at an advantage as they'll be able to fill in a few emotional gaps where Reeves misses out. However, if you're in the latter camp it's probably just as well if you skipped this one altogether. You've already seen it.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 39 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
An actual review. Cool. One of the more neutral ones too. How did the spelling out of the "guardians" relationship with Abbey work out? In the original, some people believe the book's version of him, where others believe the version Reeves seemed to go with.
It's extremely straight-forward and makes the final scene of the film worth much less than in the original.
Ya, what I thought. Good to know. If anything my friends will force me to sit through it on Netflix when I force them to sit through I Saw The Devil, when they both hopefully come around the same time. Actually if I Saw The Devil is playing at the festival I'd love to get your thoughts on that film. Two brilliant actors and a good to great director attached to that and all.
I wasn't that big a fan of the original…I think it lacked energy, maybe a bit too subtle for my liking. So in jy case the remake might actually work.
"It seems the idea of an American remake of a foreign film holds true as ramping up the violence and figuring out ways to punch the audience in the chest before focusing on the story is what's important."
That is certainly true in most cases, but I'll give you an exception. Martin Scorsese refined the very crude, albeit brilliant Mou gaan dou(Infernal Affairs), fleshed it out, and gave us The Departed.
I liked the original more myself. Just because it was a trilogy(though one more prequel if anything). But yeah, Departed seemed rather long and drawn out, where the original worked cause it was spread apart in films. Not to mention I didn't like Whalberg's character being in Departed solely for the somewhat happy ending.
I was shocked to hear the early raves of this film. Your muted response is more what I was expecting.
Perhaps it was because the film is actually brilliant? I hate these reviews but at the same time can't help built admire the crowd it attracts. It just goes to show that people are out to hate this movie and not be able to enjoy this movie for a work of art. Blatantly. The irony is killing me.
Would you consider someone tracing the Mona Lisa to be a work of art as well?
@Philip- that's the best comment I have read in ages. I can't stop laughing. Tracing the Mona Lisa, I'm going to use that.
Reeves hasn't helped himself by making this film two years after the original adaptation. Scorsese he aint!!! This has got me thinking about Fincher now and although I think there are a few areas he can do different, I think ultimately we are going to see Fincher trying to trace a Rooney Mara shaped Salander from Noomi Rapace.
How do they handle 'the scene' at the end? I'm terrified that they'll show to much and totally blow it.
The handle it brilliantly. They do not show anything. Its underwater. Don't listen to this review. Go read twitches review. It isn't written by a biased fanboy. I keep going back and reading this review and keep getting "punched in the chest" by bias. The comparisons to the other film and the authors view about it are blatantly obvious that this wasn't a fair review on any standards. You can't compare the two films. It only adds to the BS when the reviewer is biased to the original film.
"You can't compare the two films."
Why not? One's a remake of the other, isn't it?
You can't compare the films in terms of what it didn't do and the other did, and then use that as a way to criticize the film. Think about it. Let it settle. Now, get it? How is that a critical assessment of the film? That is why they should be separated.
Well if someone makes a movie that is 90% the same as the other, why not? That's like saying you shouldn't compare the Avatar with 8 extra minutes to the one without the 8 extra minutes.
This review isn't written by a biased fanboy, either. If you had actually read the review and paid attention then you would have known that.
I will probably catch it eventually, but it may be a rental.
Even though US remakes are predominantly inferior to the originals (the author is right though that US audiences have a rough tendency not be able to deal with subtlety, and this is particularly so in the horror genre where blood, guts and physical violence is much preferred by US audiences) they can still sometimes pass the time decently.
In that sense, I would think the best audience for the film is probably those who have never seen (or maybe even heard of) the original period.
Hmm I guess it's what I expected, I wish it lived up to the awesome poster campaign more, but then again the swedish adaptation was never gonna be beaten it was a powerhouse of a film, I'm just glad my hopes of Moretz being at least somewhat measureable to Leandersson is the reason I'll be seeing it.
The main thing I'm interested is Moretz. I think that after Kick-Ass, this, and the FIVE movies she has for 2011, she looks to have a lot more staying power than Fanning or Breslin.
Also, it's interesting that people's opinions on this one re so wildly varied. I mean, Peter Sciretta over at /film said that it was so different from the original tht he didn't even want to compare the two other than to say they were equally great in separate ways.
*are
*that
Freaking iPhone >:O
Seriously. Did you see a different film then other reviews? Are you an amateur? For christ's sake, you're an article writer! WTF is this? Your biggest mistake here is the comparisons. Stop it. I've said this many times before. Just stop. Ever see Silence of The Lambs? Subtle yet bloody? People like you and the reviews that will come of it will only try and hurt the film by biased reviews. The idiotic biased press has hurt the film. It's funny that you cite the American's for not being able to "understand" or "enjoy" a film that has LTROI's pacing, yet perhaps it's you who can't understand what Reeves was going for with that balancing act. You refuse to look at it as a whole and in turn produce reviews that are painful to read. It's one thing if you hate a film, but another for bogus reasoning. If they had Razzies for article writing, i'd be sure to support you and all of the other reviews such as this one for articles of the year. I hate they way people react to these films.
I also think its worth mentioning that you are absolutely and idiot for saying that this is a shot for shot remake. Bull. No one listen to that. It's a complete biased exaggeration. The trailer alone boasts new additions to the story that can't be brushed off as "minor" additions.
"I also think its worth mentioning that you are absolutely and idiot for saying that this is a shot for shot remake. Bull. No one listen to that. It's a complete biased exaggeration. The trailer alone boasts new additions to the story that can't be brushed off as "minor" additions."
What has Reeves added to the story besides the photograph of Hakan and the cop who doesn't do anything besides getting nommed on at the end by Abby?
Well for one the flashback scenes. The more developed relationship of Hakan. The more developed relationship of Abby and Owen. In terms of actual story its pretty much the same, but its done completely differently. It isn't the shot for shot remake people claim it to be. But I understand the reason why they might say it was. Because it didn't do anything drastically different from the source material. Both get their source material from the book. You know, the one the original was based off of? Just a little bit of information.
The reviews also fail to acknowledge what other favorable reviews have. And thats the storytelling, camera work, and the acting to name a few. They fail to recognize all of that as a whole. These reviews are hung up on the comparisons. Thus is it becomes amateurish.
And how did Reeves further develop Owen and Abby? You mean, Abby setting up Owen to be her future Renfield?
And stop with the "new adaptation of the book" crap. Not only did Reeves not include new stuff from the book, he copied stuff directly from the film that wasn't there in the book in the first place. This is very much a remake of the Swedish film.
Even the favorable "reviews" say it's in most part like the original. That is has a FEW changes, but that it's still the same movie. The funny thing is none seem to have a problem with seeing the same movie twice.
Correction. The movie's story is similar to the book. You have no argument otherwise. LTROI's story was like the book. I hate it how people try and make it out to be this untouchable original story that the writers came up with themselves. Aside from sharing a few of the same lines its done differently. Read twitches review.
Please don't tell me you honestly think this is a new adaptation of the book.
In the book Hakan is a pedofile that met Eli way later on in life. Never once in the book is it even hinted that Eli is grooming boys to take care of him later on in life. In the book Eli is also a castrated boy. If you make Hakan, sorry the caregiver/father a former victim of Abbey, and Owen following in the same footsteps it is a story that is not told in the book. I wish people that wanted to argue about the book actually read it. I read twiches review. He is bsing. He says in the book it spells out Eli is grooming boys to take care of her. Which it doesn't. He also said both books are equal in faithfulness to the book and both are equal in being companion pieces to the book. Which they aren't. Seriously.
Thanks for the review Brad, Did you see Brighton Rock yet?
I will seek out the original to watch during October, in honor of Halloween.
Didn't look that good anyways.
The original was great. This one doesn't look as good but it still looks pretty good but Chloe Moretz is the ONLY reason i'm watching this, she's been one of my fave child actresses ever since I first saw her in Big Momma's House 2, she was very funny there. Dakota Fanning, Elle Fanning, Saoirse Ronan & Abigail Breslin are also my faves.
I've only seen Kodi Smit-Mcphee in The Road, he was one of the reasons that made the movie worth watching. Also, Richard Jenkins is in this (probably the most UNDERRATED actor today). Brad, you said Reeves (the director) underused Richard Jenkins so that means he isn't in there that long, damn it!! What's his screentime?
What will make this film great and far more superior than the original will be the under rated, highly believable, and most beautiful actress working today: Sasha Barrese, playing Virginia. She is amazing!
Too bad she just shows up in two scenes to get nom nommed on and then go poof.
yeah i know….i wish she was in more scenes….she steals every scene she is in….did you see the hangover? she was AMAZING in that movie! def held her own in every scene!
Philip has made me laugh a lot. What a legend. I haven't read the book but my girlfriend tells me that Eli is a castrated man (hence the scene in the original showing the sewn up axe wound.) Has Reeves made her a female?
This is a very balanced and honest review. Thank you. I really like Moretz but I won't watch this film. I remember reading an interview where Reeves claimed that the book was very close to his heart. I doubt Reeves would have read this book if it wasn't for the success of the Swedish adaptation. I think Reeves has done something very pointless and must have absolutely no artistic integrity.
This review is just plain B.S.. Movie should be judged and reviewed separately, despite a status as a re-make. If the movie's brilliant yet follows the same structure and story as the original, what's the need to bash it? Honestly, if Reeves had made the movie any other way, reviewers and fans of this movie everywhere would be disappointed.
No need to bring in comparison into a review.
How the hell should a shot for shot remake of a previous film be judged differently from than the film it's copying?
Its not a shot for shot remake. i have seen it. It has most of the same scenes, but the way the scenes are structured in terms of the emotional impact is different.