Déjame entrar

As a fan of the 2008 Swedish film "Let The Right One In", I was originally very frustrated when I heard the news about the upcoming remake. "How do you ameliorate something that is already perfect?", I asked myself. I treated the remake with hostility and vowed to stay away from it. And then, I decided to open my mind.

I attended the world premiere of this film at the Toronto International Film Festival on Monday, September 13. I am very lucky to live in the proximity. This was the first year that I've attended the festival. Before seeing "Let Me In", I saw "127 Hours".

I liked the idea of seeing the remake of a film that I recently gave a second viewing. I thought it would be a fun challenge to sit there and compare both films while watching.

Before the screening (or it might have been after), the director, Matt Reeves (who launched his career with "Cloverfield"), was welcomed on stage to say a few words. It surprised me to find out that he, too, thought the original was fantastic and didn't understand why he was asked to remake it. However, after reading the book as well, he had the desire to work on his interpretation of it. After this speech, I gained a significant amount of respect for this man.

When the movie began, I was only expecting something satisfactory. But as the story progressed, I was breathless. It was a very captivating, interesting take, and I loved all the little modifications. I honestly believe that "Let Me In" is one of the greatest American remakes of all time.

Nevertheless, I still see the original, "Let The Right One In", as a superior film. Although it may be a biased opinion, I preferred the mood, atmosphere, and cinematography in the original. While the remake seemed to take a greater interest in the horrific violence, the original had the perfect blend of genres (thriller, romance, horror, fantasy). Both films had many beautiful contrasts: coldness vs warmth, chaos vs peace, guilt vs innocence, darkness vs delicacy, and despair vs hope.

I must also mention that I preferred the sense of ambiguity presented in the original. Very few questions were answered, and the whole film was more of a mystery left to interpretation. In contrast, Matt Reeves was more clear and direct in his screenplay with the mystery surrounding his characters. It's all a matter of personal preference, though. I believe that most people will prefer what Matt did, since the original has a certain style that less people can appreciate.

Despite the comparison, I believe that they are both great movies that can be enjoyed by everyone. Fans of the original-- rather than being narrow-minded and boycotting this version-- should give it a chance and appreciate it for what it is. Wouldn't you want more people in North America to discover this mesmerizing vampire tale, anyway?

I really enjoyed every aspect of "Let Me In". The child actors, Chloe Moretz (Kick-Ass) and Kodi Smit-McPhee (The Road) were both excellent choices. They proved to us, once again, that they are among the only child actors who actually have talent. Now that I think of it, the only thing that didn't impress me was the music. For an original score composed by Michael Giacchino (Up), I was quite disappointed. It was mediocre, in my opinion. It didn't convey the same emotion as Johan Soderqvist's music in "Let The Right One In".

Aside from that, "Let Me In" is a surprisingly great film for the fans of the original. And it would probably be a bloody masterpiece for those who haven't seen it. And yes, that lame vampire pun was definitely intended.

7.9/10

Really? Your going to remake a movie 3 years after it was released? Is that even necessary? About a year ago, i use to feel this way about this production. Seriously, just go to the video store and watch the original....it's cheaper than going to the theater. But then i realized that it isn't that simple. If you want to show people good cinema, you really need to force them to watch it. Honestly, if i told someone to go to the video store and rent an awesome Swedish vampire movie, they would probably skip my suggestion, and pick up "Couples Retreat" or some crap. The only way someone would even view a portion of this film, is if they came over to my house, as i am in the middle of watching "Let The Right One In", they sit down and finally ask "What movie is this again?". So no, i am no longer dissing this movie, because in order for people to truly accept something good and different, it needs to be shoved in their faces.

Now when it comes to reviewing remade movies, all you can do is compare and contrast. So let me go ahead and get that out of the way so i can speak to the majority of you who have not seen it. The film is not an exact carbon copy of the original. However, it still has the same working parts. Sure they changed things around a bit, nothing too major......but they really did hit the nail on the head by still maintaining the overall eseccense of what this movie promotes, and that is crucial for this feature. The one thing that they did improve on however, was the musical score. It was more developed and very fitting to the gritty style of cinematography. It took those really eerie yet intriguing sequences, and made them that much more entertaining. As far as the acting, i am leaning towards the original, but it is a very VERY close race.

So with that being said, this movie is probably the best horror movie of the year. Yes, it is a remake, but i don't care. All these original ideas still do not compete with something that obviously works. This movie is very dark, the way a vampire movie should be. Not with it's gore, which is amped up by the way, but it's method of storytelling. That is the hook in this film. That is what gets you. It isn't some crybaby teen heartthrob, it is an in-depth storyline told in an entertaining yet odd fashion. It is very different compared to any vampire movie you have seen. Take Kiersten Dunst character in "Interview with a Vampire", and make a whole movie about her.....thats pretty much what this is.......somewhat.

Bottom Line, hopefully this movie will bitch slap all those wannabe vampire geeks harder the second time around, because this is how you make a vampire movie people. Yes, i still like the original more, but this movie gets as close to the original as you possibly can get, and that is saying a lot in my book. I urge all of you to see this, because there is a reason why they wanted to remake it so quickly. However, if you do get the chance, please still try to watch the original.

Matt Reeves, who is most famous for his monster film "Cloverfield", took on the task of adapting and directing this film. Two years ago, film festivals were in love with the Swedish Horror film "Let the Right One In" and it was almost a given that it was needed to be made American. In our culture vampires have kind of turned into more of romantic figures and a lot of times represent sexuality. This film goes back to basics and makes this vampire what I think they are sup post to be, which is completely scary and messed up. What is very impressive is that Reeves takes this and in a way, his changes actually enhance the story and kind of makes it better and more entertaining. Kodi Smith-McPhee who was spectacular in last year's "The Road" and Chloe Moretz who received most of her fame as Hit-Girl in this year's "Kick-Ass" carry this film and both of these kids bring a type of eeriness; these kids both knew exactly how their characters were sup post to be and they hit it spot on. This gory, terrifying, and dark film turns into some type of odd entertainment and represents why people would even want to see a horror film; it has a strong story and an even stronger scare. Instead of going over the top Reeves bends this movie into a tension roller-coaster more than anything. Very rarely can a foreign film be successfully adapted and made a success in America, but Reeves made something that can stand a distance from the original, but still he true to its origin. It is a great movie for the Halloween season, it will most likely refresh people who are used to "American Vampires" and give them a real vampire movie

I believe that many viewers of this movie are fans of the original Swedish movie LTROI, so I won't be emphasizing on how much I am fond of the original one – and here we are for the American remake.

That being said, I just watched the remake. In general, I am not disappointed (if not a little pleasantly surprised) by this remake, though it still cannot catch up with the original one as a whole.

Honestly, I was a little worried when I went to the cinema, being afraid that the story would be degraded into a superficial Hollywoodian fest of clichés and pure visual stimulations. Thankfully, that didn't happen.

In general, this remake is in line with the original book (and the original movie). Many settings are almost identical with the Swedish one, so are quite a number of actors' lines (well of course they spoke English in this one, no Svenska LOL). More importantly, the tranquillity resembles a lot to the Swedish one. We can tell see that the filmmaker had no intention to challenge the basic tone of the story, a beautiful love tale under vampire's cover. This, on the other hand though, might disappoint some fans who watch the remake in search for a revolutionary interpretation of the old story, YMMV.

Sure, there are still many differences. The first one is the ambiance colour tone of many scenes where Owen and Abby meet. The director has obviously chosen a warmer tone (under orange-yellowish street lamp) in which our two protagonists interact, as compared to the sharp contrast of white snow vs dark sky in the original one. Personally I give credits to that change, as it better alludes to the tenderness of Owen and Abby's friendship / love.

The real gender of Abby is one of the hottest topics amongst fans. Here, instead of giving a direct shot to Abby's under (which I find totally unnecessary in LTROI), the director chose to interpret Abby's gender in a very ambiguous way, leaving much room for interpretation.

Also, I feel that the American remake is more "focused" on the two protagonists than the Swedish one. "More focused" has two senses: in one hand, filmmakers tend to let Owen and Abby physically occupy a bigger part of the screen, instead of the wide-angle lens in LTROI; in the other hand, the director cut many "peripheral" scenes (scenes where actors other than Owen and Abby interact). I am personally neutral to that change, though I believe that we need not give further emphasize to Owen and Abby for a better character depiction.

OK, now time for some negative comments. As a whole, I find the remake's interpretation of the gory scenes as a failure. They are too violent, bloody, and explicit, which, I think, largely spoils the basal tone of the movie, inserting some cheap and inconsistent horror elements in this supposedly beautiful, ambivalent movie.

Last, the music. Here I have to say LTROI's soundtrack totally outworks that of the remake. LMI's OST is, to its most, up to a "hardcore" horror film's suspense scenes, whereas LTROI's music is as beautiful, as poignant as the movie.

In conclusion, a good remake, loyal to the original story. One can tell the director's effort to re-interpret some minor details without changing the story's basal line/tune, though many of the modifications aren't as successful as they expect.

Basic story line: LTROI = LMI: 8.5 (basically the same) Settings: LTROI = 8.5, LMI = 9 (I am esp fond of the colour tone…) Scene interpretations: LTROI = 9, LMI = 6.5 (not so implicit...) Actors: Eli = 10, Abby = 9.5, Oskar = 8.5, Owen = 8.5 (those young actors are just gorgeous – both in Swedish and in American versions, Owen may not be as good looking as Oskar, but his acting is as excellent) Music: LTROI = 10, LMI = 5 (I bought the Swedish OST to fill my iPod. The American one? no thanks) Originality: LTROI = 10, LMI = 6 (afterall, LMI is a remake that has borrowed a lot from LTROI)

OVERALL: LTROI = 9, LMI = 7.5 congrats to both, good job done!

A remake that's almost as good as the original.

What would you do, if you just couldn't change, so set in your ways, with habits quite strange; how would you live, in a divisive world, when the city's awake, while you're hidden and furled; would you hold out your hand, to stave off the brink, would you stake all you've got, just float and not sink; when you look in the mirror and nothing is there, in the darkness of night, only pain and despair; then a saviour appears, with their own set of fears, an innocent soul, undefiled, sincere; someone to trust, a protector by day, who'll carry your secret and promise to stay; unaware of the pact that you've drawn them into, endeavours they'll end up performing for you; until the time comes, to repeat and replay, like a school game of tag, I think it's called child's play.