Let Me In (Let the Right One In Remake)

[NSL]

I'm sad to say this, but the Swedish vampire film Let The Right One In, is due for an American remake. They're changing the title to Let Me In, which isn't even that much of a problem, since the publishers of the original book wanted the title changed to that.

To me, the problem is that the director, Matt Reeves (Cloverfield) is saying that he wants to stick to the original movie, while making it more Hollywood for American fans. That is bullshit. The movie does not need more blood, more gore, more shock, or more anything. It was perfect the way it was. There's no need to reboot it, remake it, re-whatever you want to call it.

The writer of the book seems to be OK with all of this, but the director of the original is yet to comment on it. I'm thinking that's because he knows it'll be shit. I might end up buying it to watch it, but I don't think it'll be in the same league as the original.

What are your thoughts? Does this piss you off as much as it does me?

 

[Razor]

I'm sad to say this, but the Swedish vampire film Let The Right One In, is due for an American remake. They're changing the title to Let Me In, which isn't even that much of a problem, since the publishers of the original book wanted the title changed to that.

Eh. Titles aren't THAT big of a deal. Though if he had completely renamed it, I would have complained a little. That title pretty much says it all. No need to change it completely.

To me, the problem is that the director, Matt Reeves (Cloverfield) is saying that he wants to stick to the original movie, while making it more Hollywood for American fans. That is bullshit. The movie does not need more blood, more gore, more shock, or more anything. It was perfect the way it was. There's no need to reboot it, remake it, re-whatever you want to call it.

This is the problem with Hollywood. They see classic movies in other countries and automatically feel they need to remake them. Just repackage the movie for release here.

Especially in the case of this movie, which was awesome. I still haven't bought it, because of the infamous "You made the subtitles sound like they were typed for 3 year olds" fiasco, but I'm going to pick it up soon. I've already seen it, and can't wait to see it again...in the original form.

The writer of the book seems to be OK with all of this, but the director of the original is yet to comment on it. I'm thinking that's because he knows it'll be shit. I might end up buying it to watch it, but I don't think it'll be in the same league as the original.

I'll watch it in theatres, and if it's shit I'm sticking to the original. So what I'm really saying is, I'm sticking to the original.

What are your thoughts? Does this piss you off as much as it does me?

Not really. I'm used to this. Guillermo Del Toro's "Pan's Labyrinth" was the last foreign language film I remember that managed to be in a different language and still avoid the horrible Hollywood remake. Probably because Del Toro is an accepted film maker here in the States, and wouldn't have taken that sorta shit.

Oh well. I'm more indifferent than anything.

 

[X]

Like Razor, I'm a bit indifferent towards this project. It's obvious that no matter what Reeves does, it simply won't match the original, which ranks among the best films I've seen in the last few years (and I watch a shitload of films).

Now, I think Matt Reeves gets a bit too much shit though. I thought Cloverfield was a fantastic film, and one of the most original and creative monster movies ever made. I don't understand some of the hate that film gets, it's damn good. So, I do have some hope here from Reeves. But the way he describes how he wants to "Hollywood-ize" it scares me. Because there's nothing even slightly Hollywood about the original. Children vampire love stories aren't exactly a formula for blockbuster success.

If they turn this into some kind of action or exploitative horror film, I'll be royally pissed. I've got some faith in Reeves though. We'll just have to wait and see how this turns out for now.

Oh and the title "Let Me In" was one of the alternate titles for the original film. Not a big deal to use it here.

 

[Uncle Sam]

It's people like Matt Reeves that give you Americans a bad name.

"Yeah, wasn't the original so great? Yeah, I really enjoyed it too. One of my favourite movies ever in fact. But yeah... gonna remake it. Needs more America."

I'm not going to see the film anyway, so no skin off my nose. Then again, I'm one of those guys that thought a clumsily used handheld camera wasn't enough to stop Cloverfield being shit. You win some, you lose some.

 

[NSL]

Now, I think Matt Reeves gets a bit too much shit though. I thought Cloverfield was a fantastic film, and one of the most original and creative monster movies ever made. I don't understand some of the hate that film gets, it's damn good.

I didn't say Cloverfield was bad, it's just the only thing I could list here to make people know who he was. Being a big player behind the scenes on Felicity wouldn't exactly scream out "This will be a great horror flick!".

So, I do have some hope here from Reeves. But the way he describes how he wants to "Hollywood-ize" it scares me. Because there's nothing even slightly Hollywood about the original. Children vampire love stories aren't exactly a formula for blockbuster success.

This is what worries me. The original works because it's a Swedish horror film.

If they turn this into some kind of action or exploitative horror film, I'll be royally pissed. I've got some faith in Reeves though. We'll just have to wait and see how this turns out for now.

Which is why I'll end up watching it. But, if it's the shit I think it will be, I'll video tape myself burning it outside, and post it on YouTube

"Yeah, wasn't the original so great? Yeah, I really enjoyed it too. One of my favourite movies ever in fact. But yeah... gonna remake it. Needs more America."

Exactly.

 

[X]

It's people like Matt Reeves that give you Americans a bad name.

"Yeah, wasn't the original so great? Yeah, I really enjoyed it too. One of my favourite movies ever in fact. But yeah... gonna remake it. Needs more America."

Can't help it if the entire film industry revolves around the US and Hollywood Sam. That's just simple fact. If the epicenter of filmmaking was in London, you'd hear him say "It needs to be more British".

I'm not going to see the film anyway, so no skin off my nose. Then again, I'm one of those guys that thought a clumsily used handheld camera wasn't enough to stop Cloverfield being shit. You win some, you lose some.

What was shit about Cloverfield? It was a damn fine monster film, easily the best since The Host.

I didn't say Cloverfield was bad, it's just the only thing I could list here to make people know who he was. Being a big player behind the scenes on Felicity wouldn't exactly scream out "This will be a great horror flick!".

I heard people say the same thing about JJ Abrams, you know, the guy that created Felicity? And went on to create Lost, one of the most creative shows ever? Matt Reeves certainly knows horror. Besides, Let the Right One In isn't even a horror film.

This is what worries me. The original works because it's a Swedish horror film.

But it's really not. Just because there are vampires involved doesn't immediately make it a horror film.

 

[NSL]

I heard people say the same thing about JJ Abrams, you know, the guy that created Felicity? And went on to create Lost, one of the most creative shows ever? Matt Reeves certainly knows horror. Besides, Let the Right One In isn't even a horror film.

I wasn't a fan of Lost personally. I was surprised with Cloverfield. I'm not saying Reeves is the problem with the movie, it's his "American-izing" of it. He'll change the feel of the film, and I'm sure that it'll be good for what it is, but it won't be the original, and that will take away from it.

But it's really not. Just because there are vampires involved doesn't immediately make it a horror film.

I know it's not a horror, but there's really nothing else to classify it as. It has a love story, but it's not romantic. It has drama, but it's not a drama film. It's also not a thriller or action movie. I just use "horror" as a way to classify it for the masses.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Can't help it if the entire film industry revolves around the US and Hollywood Sam. That's just simple fact. If the epicenter of filmmaking was in London, you'd hear him say "It needs to be more British".

Then he'd be wrong then too. The Swedish original is damn great that doesn't need to be remade into everything.

What was shit about Cloverfield? It was a damn fine monster film, easily the best since The Host.

Haven't seen The Host. The only decent thing about it was the camera. I lie; it would have been a stupid idea if done well. It was even stupider considering how badly it was implemented - how annoying it was and how nonsensical it was that the characters used it as it did.

Actors were uninspiring at best, dialogue was stupid, plot was stupid.

But it's really not. Just because there are vampires involved doesn't immediately make it a horror film.

It's one of those many, many films these days that defies a singular genre. It's not uncommon.

 

[X]

Then he'd be wrong then too. The Swedish original is damn great that doesn't need to be remade into everything.

Oh I agree, I don't want it to be remade. But I'll still give it a rent. Or more likely, I'll watch it on my laptop. It could be alot worse is all I'm saying; we could have, say, Stephen Sommers remaking it.

Haven't seen The Host.

You should. You'll like it.

The only decent thing about it was the camera. I lie; it would have been a stupid idea if done well. It was even stupider considering how badly it was implemented - how annoying it was and how nonsensical it was that the characters used it as it did.

Actors were uninspiring at best, dialogue was stupid, plot was stupid.

I disagree that the plot was stupid; it's a monster movie. The characters shouldn't be great, they were trying to do a faux cinéma vérité style. Think about it, if you're being chased around by fucking alien monsters, are you going to be saying anything particularly enlightening or entertaining? Not really. You'll likely just be screaming and crying.

It's one of those many, many films these days that defies a singular genre. It's not uncommon.

That it is. I too loved the original, and I don't want this remake being made. But I'll give it a shot, that's all I'm saying. I hate to judge a film before seeing it.

 

[Uncle Sam]

I disagree that the plot was stupid; it's a monster movie.

Then we'll just agree that the genre is stupid.

The characters shouldn't be great, they were trying to do a faux cinéma vérité style. Think about it, if you're being chased around by fucking alien monsters, are you going to be saying anything particularly enlightening or entertaining? Not really. You'll likely just be screaming and crying.

With no South African accent, screaming and crying is just so dull. Fokken New Yorkers!

I hate to judge a film before seeing it.

I won't be going to see it. That's because I have no interest in it though - it's not a protest or anything.

 

[Nitafrong]

So wait..... other people actually have seen this this film and loved it too? I was beginning to wonder there

While I didn't think that the origonal quite needed a remake- as it came close to being one of the best films I have seen in a long time, I am not really against the new director remaking it in a different fashion. The worst kind of remakes in my eyes are the ones that stick too closely to the origonal- whether it be music, tv or film. By taking it in a different direction, hopefully the new film will transform the film into something different. By taking it away from its slightly alien Swedish landscape and putting it into a more recognisable setting this new remake could strike a closer cord to people with its message, similar the Spagetti Westerns, or the Departed which made great remakes of I think origonal Jappenese films. Of course it could turn into Twlight 2, though conversly it could instead explore the darker storylines and themes which were in the book. There is at least one major storyline which was in the book which the origonal made only passing reference to- (for those who havn't read the book I shan't spoil).

So despite my huge love for the origonal- I will still go and see the remake, and judge it on its own merrits (if I can )

 

[Loveless]

Well I'm pleased to see everyone is against remaking it. The original is one of my favourite films of the last few years and there's simply no need to remake it and especially not for the Twilight generation (wankers). The fact is you can't remake it for an American audience and not take out significant parts of the film. What I'm expecting is

Hakan is now her real father and not a pederast
Eli is actually a girl and not a castrated boy
The bullies are dicking American jocks
Eli doesn't actually kill anyone, instead she just beats them up
Oskar and Eli become boyfriend and girlfriend, eli is adopted by Oskars mum and dad (who aren't broken up at all and are entirely tolerant of their son dating a vampire)
Taylor Swift is going to do the soundtrack
Dakota Fanning is Eli
Hakan will be a Dexteresque avenger who only kills bad people for his daughter

It's going to be fecking horrible and then we'll get the Twilight fans (wankers) arguing that the remake is better "Becuz I dont has to reed".

 

[Y 2 Jake]

I'll watch it, but for the same reason I watch Buck Angel films. I'm simply curious.

I'd be an intresting remake if they were going to add what wasn't in the original, paedophilia & medieval torture. But that's the sort of things that's taken out of American adaptations of novels. It's why tame films like Hard Candy are considered to be edge and people go wild for films like Hostel.

Instead, with it being American, the lad will have a bowl cut and the girl will be presented as being a lot more attractive than she should be for an 11 year old.

I expect shaky camera angles, snow that makes a a thudding sound and a bigger box office.