Razor's Pick for Greatest Movie of All Time: Let The Right One In

[Razor]

A vampire film the greatest film of all time? A scary movie the greatest film of all time? A foreign film being argued to the denizens of Wrestlzezone as the greatest film of all time? Razor's been smoking the weed, huh?

Let The Right One In
Director: Tomas Alfredson

A kid in Sweden is being bullied at school. At the same time, a set of really weird murders are taking place. Oskar, the boy, meets a new girl in his apartment complex. A girl named Eli. A vampire named Eli.

Shit gets crazy, people die, and at the end you're left realizing that some Swede just managed to make art out of a vampire movie. In the age of that hack Stephenie Meyer, we have a vampire film that actually makes sense. A vampire film that actually works. A vampire film that doesn't suck your soul out of you in the form of 10 muscled up and tanned "werewolves" that have inexplicably misplaced their shirts. All the time.​

I submit this film as the best of all time for a few reasons. All of which are backed up by the likes of Roger Ebert, Bloody Disgusting, and many other critics, I'll have you know.

Cast​

The children in this film are what carry it. The main character Oskar (Kåre Hedebrant), truly looks alone. Sad. You watch that boy walk through the snow covered scenes in Sweden and you just want to cry for the little man. He is simply so alone in this world.

Then we have the girl who plays Eli (Lina Leandersson), as a lonely vampire chick that is being cared for by some weird pedophile dude (whom is played by Per Ragnar). The pedophile, Hakan, goes out and kills people to drain them for their blood. He then gives the blood to Eli. She obviously doesn't like the set up, and is just as lonely as Oskar. Being an ageless 12 year old will do that for you.

When you consider their age their acting is truly incredible. When a film is so simple in its plot, essentially two children lonely in their world, the characters must come ablaze on the screen. There is no room for error in their construction or portrayal. It's a testament to their acting, the directing of Alfredson, and the screenplay of John Ajvide Lindqvist.

Writing​

Quite simply the best I've seen in a long time.

We have a plot that could have been blown into some kind of bizarre Michael Bay/James Cameron/Tim Burton dreamland. We could have vampires popping up everywhere, some weird police agency in Sweden coming through because they're searching for Eli, or Optimus Prime could simply stomp on all of the characters at once.

Instead, we have a very controlled, very simplistic plot. Eli is under the care of a murderous pedophile that gets her blood to keep her alive in exchange for....touching her. Oskar is bullied in school (read: almost drowned by three little bitches, then beaten and made to squeal like a pig at other times just because) and his parents are divorced, having no time or want for him. They bond in their loneliness.

Simple. And it leaves enough room for the characters to grow unhindered by crazy circumstances. It is also simplistic enough to allow the viewer to accept the main premise, that of a 200 year old vampire chick forming a romance with a 12 year old recluse, easily. We don't have a underground vampire cult to consume our time and energy. Simple, clean, and enough blood to send you home happy.

Why the Best?​

I could wow you with a long list of awards it's won. But I won't. Those don't matter. Neither does money. NSYNC earned millions upon millions of dollars. They obviously aren't a wonder of the music age. They're more of the footnote from the 90's that most of us would wish was never there.

The simple fact of the matter is that this film is simply awesome on almost every account you could throw at it. The cinematography is excellent. The acting is superb, even if you don't understand Swedish (l2readsubtitles). The story is amazingly well done on all accounts. Somehow Lindqvist managed to get me, and many others, to confront the idea of a vampire romance and embrace it. To completely root for all involved (minus creepy pedophile dude, of course).

We got a vampire movie that didn't degrade itself down to base stereotypes and exaggerations. The blood drinking was worked into the plot easily and unobtrusively. Aversion to sunlight was handled elegantly by daylight being dedicated to Oskar's torments. The overall story, quite simply, has no holes.

What does anyone else have? The Godfather is Marlon Brando with cotton stuffed into his mouth and everyone leaving horse heads all over the place. Star Wars? Please. That story gets so convoluted and necessitates itself on characters doing the exact wrong thing at so many occasions it's laughable. Pulp Fiction is quite awesome, but requires one to believe that Marcellus would get raped in the ass without going back and burning the entire neighborhood down. And that Bruce Willis would actually get a hot foreign girlfriend.

But where do you stand? Is the importance I place on story and acting way over the top? Do money and awards actually matter? Does human-vampire kid romance creep you out? Stake your claim.

 

[klunderbunker]

Back in March, it was either someone on ESPN or Sly that said that Duke won the national championship like they did, it was a great game. If Butler won on the miracle shot, they win the national championship in the greatest game ever played. What the hell does this have to do with a movie?

In short, part of a movie's greatness is its appeal to the mainstream while maintaining the greatness it claims to have. I would bet that there have been games that have gone almost exactly the same as Butler/Duke (or any great game for that matter) but simply on a smaller level. They are indeed great, but if the games (or films) are the same all throughout but one made 500 million dollars and is nationally revered while the other is relatively unheard of, the money and fame act as a tiebreaker.

I haven't seen this movie nor have I heard of it and I think that's what holds it back. A movie can indeed be great while being unknown, but being known is what can elevate others over it, no matter what indy fans that hate the mainstream and all it produces would like you to think.

 

[Uncle Sam]

Eh, not really though, is it?

Anybody that's really into indie films has a much artsier favourite and anybody too into the mainstream is too busy encasing Christopher Nolan and his ilk's dicks with their mouth; while thinking they're artsy. Or, worse yet, they're watching something with Owen Wilson in it. Poor bastards. The only people who would think it is are the, as ever irritating, inbetweeners. The people who want it both ways. The bisexuals of the film world. In short, ***** like me. And, unfortunately, even I don't think this is the greatest film of all-time.

Basically, it's a Swedish film. Which is like saying it's a British film - only with more subtitles. It's gritty and dry. Probably overlong. Inverts a stereotype or two. Actors aren't traditionally attractive. Urban setting. Sad and/or ambiguous ending. Might feature children as the protagonists. Possibly in black and white - if you're unlucky. There's room to work in there, sure, but you generally know what you'll be getting. Personally, I'm tired of Swedish cinema. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo exhausted me. Of course, bellends like that one what did Slumdog Millionaire may eventually make enough money to stop making the stereotypical British film.

The children in the film could be the world's greatest actors but I wouldn't know. They're speaking Swedish and half of good acting is the delivery of lines, and I can't read intonation. I also think the third act is disappointing, even though it did allow me to make a friend sad by, y'know, explaining what it all actually meant.

But, for the record, I don't think being little known discounts a film from being the greatest of all-time.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Definitely a five star/A+ film, but calling it the greatest film ever made is a bit of a stretch. I don't think a better film has been made about teenage loneliness and angst, but this isn't an issue that consumes us our whole lives. It's nice to know that an author and director were able to perfectly capture what I sometimes felt like growing up, but there are now other, more pressing existential topics on my mind.

I commend you for the interesting choice, though, and I look forward to more of your defense.

 

[a0161613]

I love the choice because I can't wait until I get the chance to see it.

But you call Stephanie Meyer out for attempting something a little more mainstream, more targetted and more mature and she's a hack for being successful with it?

I don't like Twilight and this is going to be much better but it has reached a massive audience because it deals with much more mature (mature as in older) issues. In doing so it has reached a much wider audience because the teenage base that it calls out to can relate to the story that much more.

Childhood loneliness is not going to tug on the same heartstrings as teenage lust/romance. I dont like it but its the way it is. Twilight has accessed a bigger audience because of what emotions Meyer has chosen.

Like I said, its a film I want to see. It's a tough one to defend. Can it be the best of all time when it deals with such issues at its core?

 

[DirtyJosé]

I love the choice because I can't wait until I get the chance to see it.

But you call Stephanie Meyer out for attempting something a little more mainstream, more targetted and more mature and she's a hack for being successful with it?

She's maybe not a hack, but when Stephen King is telling you that you can't write worth a darn, you have a problem. Her books, and the subsequent films, are classic examples of all style and no substance.

I don't like Twilight and this is going to be much better but it has reached a massive audience because it deals with much more mature (mature as in older) issues. In doing so it has reached a much wider audience because the teenage base that it calls out to can relate to the story that much more.

I wouldn't call the issues Twilight deals with as being all that more mature. For the sexual appeal that it tries to play up, it really isn't a very sexually risque film/book. It tries to play upon the importance of Bella's choices and their consequences, but Bella is nothing more than a slave to Edward the entire way through. It has reached a wider audience because it is more like N'Sync, as mentioned by Razor in the OP. It's sugar coated pop drivel that will be forgotten in a matter of years, while great movies like this one (which actually does more to innovate the "Vampire" folklore than Twilight does) will be talked about for a long long time.

Childhood loneliness is not going to tug on the same heartstrings as teenage lust/romance. I dont like it but its the way it is. Twilight has accessed a bigger audience because of what emotions Meyer has chosen.

Again, because the kids love their N'Sync. Loneliness in the long run is something people will identify more with than their passing teenage hormone driven longings.

Like I said, its a film I want to see. It's a tough one to defend. Can it be the best of all time when it deals with such issues at its core?

I don't know if I could call if the greatest of all time, but I certainly can state that it is much better than the vampire crap made over here in America these days.

 

[a0161613]

See D'Jose, I agree with what you say about Meyer. I detest Twilight - the films are shit but it's more than that. More than anything, it's because of what it symbolises. Hollywood's desire to release crap and then capitalise and massacre it when it makes a load of money.

I hope that (when I get to see it) that Let The Right One In does a great at restoring how vampire films can be.

But I have to ask, can films about teenagers really leave a lasting impression on us as opposed to films that we can relate much more readily to as adults?

 

[Razor]

Back in March, it was either someone on ESPN or Sly that said that Duke won the national championship like they did, it was a great game. If Butler won on the miracle shot, they win the national championship in the greatest game ever played. What the hell does this have to do with a movie?

In short, part of a movie's greatness is its appeal to the mainstream while maintaining the greatness it claims to have. I would bet that there have been games that have gone almost exactly the same as Butler/Duke (or any great game for that matter) but simply on a smaller level. They are indeed great, but if the games (or films) are the same all throughout but one made 500 million dollars and is nationally revered while the other is relatively unheard of, the money and fame act as a tiebreaker.

I haven't seen this movie nor have I heard of it and I think that's what holds it back. A movie can indeed be great while being unknown, but being known is what can elevate others over it, no matter what indy fans that hate the mainstream and all it produces would like you to think.

Now see, hating mainstream stuff just because it's mainstream is annoying. You have a point there.

However. Mainstream appeal, or even mainstream awareness, does not make anything great just because it's known on the mainstream. As I said in the OP, all of the flavor of the month boy bands and Disney acts are not, by any stretch of the imagination, musical art. They will not be known 50 years from now as some great revolutionary song writers. Beethoven and Mozart they are not.

While the lack of mainstream awareness may be a hindrance on its overall impact, it can't downgrade it's other great qualities so far as to actually make it worse than the first Godfather. Eli drowning bitchy boys has got to be better overall than Brando with cotton in his mouth.

Eh, not really though, is it?

Anybody that's really into indie films has a much artsier favourite and anybody too into the mainstream is too busy encasing Christopher Nolan and his ilk's dicks with their mouth; while thinking they're artsy. Or, worse yet, they're watching something with Owen Wilson in it. Poor bastards. The only people who would think it is are the, as ever irritating, inbetweeners. The people who want it both ways. The bisexuals of the film world. In short, ***** like me. And, unfortunately, even I don't think this is the greatest film of all-time.

Fuck. I'm a bisexual in the film world? That really deflates my ego.

Basically, it's a Swedish film. Which is like saying it's a British film - only with more subtitles. It's gritty and dry. Probably overlong. Inverts a stereotype or two. Actors aren't traditionally attractive. Urban setting. Sad and/or ambiguous ending. Might feature children as the protagonists. Possibly in black and white - if you're unlucky. There's room to work in there, sure, but you generally know what you'll be getting. Personally, I'm tired of Swedish cinema. The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo exhausted me. Of course, bellends like that one what did Slumdog Millionaire may eventually make enough money to stop making the stereotypical British film.

For my point, the film doesn't exactly fit your (probably mostly accurate) guidelines. There are more subtitles and the actors are children, so not exactly as traditionally attractive as, say, a full-grown woman would be.

I find that the film wasn't over long. At least it never felt stretched. The events in the plot, through Eli and Oskar meeting to Eli finally beating the shit out of and getting all vampire murderous on three bullies, all felt natural. They didn't feel strained or forced. Even when the woman gets attacked by Eli and turned into a vampire. You know it's mainly there to reinforce Eli being a vampire and how dangerous life for her has become now that Hakan is dead, but it doesn't feel out of place.

At least, not as out of place as bullshit like that crazy dude from the Silence of the Lambs dancing around with his junk wedged between his legs. I don't need to see that. I know he's crazy from the scenes where he kidnaps fat women and cuts off their skin. I know he's a man who wants to be a woman, because he's making a woman skin suit. I don't need 15 minutes of him dancing around to weird music and awkwardly trying to keep his penis in place.

The children in the film could be the world's greatest actors but I wouldn't know. They're speaking Swedish and half of good acting is the delivery of lines, and I can't read intonation. I also think the third act is disappointing, even though it did allow me to make a friend sad by, y'know, explaining what it all actually meant.

But, for the record, I don't think being little known discounts a film from being the greatest of all-time.

I count them as good actors mainly by the idea that I can tell their feelings without having to actually read what is said. Sure, they are mostly sad the entire time and nothing changes in that regard until the final act, but still. How many feelings can you pick out of an English movie if you close your eyes and just listen? One? Two at the most? The fact that these are children, and they managed it more gracefully than your average adult English star, has got to count for something.

Furthermore, their acting was on a further test because of the bare nature of the movie. As you said, it was pretty much gritty and grim. When you have nothing more than some snow, a vampire girl, and a boy who gets picked on by a bunch of malicious boys, those actors have got to bring it or go home. Because every fuck up on their part is glaringly obvious.

Definitely a five star/A+ film, but calling it the greatest film ever made is a bit of a stretch. I don't think a better film has been made about teenage loneliness and angst, but this isn't an issue that consumes us our whole lives. It's nice to know that an author and director were able to perfectly capture what I sometimes felt like growing up, but there are now other, more pressing existential topics on my mind.

I commend you for the interesting choice, though, and I look forward to more of your defense.

Sure it doesn't encompass a topic that engrosses you now. We're adults, for the most part, and we're not going to be caught up in teen angst for the rest of our lives. It's how the world goes.

However, it at least makes a stab at a set of emotions and delightfully fulfills the goal of totally capturing them. The feelings of loneliness and fear that Eli and Oskar felt are totally captured by everything in that film. Maybe the specific nature of their fear and loneliness isn't enough to keep it current with our own natures, but give it a shot. Sit down and watch the film, trying to feel as lonely and as fearful as they are. Eli is currently in a situation that no one would ever want to be in. A creepy pedophile trading food for molesting you? Oskar is currently going through a bitter divorce and being tormented by kids at school. When I say tormented, I mean 500 times worse than anything American high schools could come up with.

It is rather specific, but what film isn't? Take the emotions it deals with in their most vaguest of applications, and I submit that they would be equally as hard hitting as if you were a 12 year old going through exactly what Oskar was going through.

I love the choice because I can't wait until I get the chance to see it.

It's a great film. GO SEE IT NAO.

But you call Stephanie Meyer out for attempting something a little more mainstream, more targetted and more mature and she's a hack for being successful with it?

I call her out for taking a generic stereotype, Vampires, and completely fucking them over with a horrible plot, characters, and overall writing. It's blatantly obvious that those books are nothing more than a shitty vessel for her Mary Sue character in Bella. When the major flaw in your character is revealed to be that she's clumsy, not that she is a embarrassing excuse for a woman that only sees value in her life if Edward is there to creep on her and steal her alternator because he doesn't want her leaving her home, then something is wrong.

I don't like Twilight and this is going to be much better but it has reached a massive audience because it deals with much more mature (mature as in older) issues. In doing so it has reached a much wider audience because the teenage base that it calls out to can relate to the story that much more.

Mature how? Bella giving herself over to an abusive and controlling vampire boyfriend? Bella wanting nothing more in her life than to become pregnant with a vampire baby and become a vampire herself? She threatens suicide at one point because Edward refuses.

Please. Twilight is successful because Bella is an empty shell that any lonely bitch who is 16 or 50 can put themselves into and experience a life that is dominated by an abusive boyfriend that will always love them and can never leave because he will never die.

It's blatant Mary Sue writing with an angle at manipulating lonely women and teenage girls. That's not good writing. That's hack writing for the sake of making money.

Childhood loneliness is not going to tug on the same heartstrings as teenage lust/romance. I dont like it but its the way it is. Twilight has accessed a bigger audience because of what emotions Meyer has chosen.

Like I said, its a film I want to see. It's a tough one to defend. Can it be the best of all time when it deals with such issues at its core?

I think that the loneliness presented by Let The Right One In is so well shown and documented on screen that is actually transcends the strict bounds of the characters involved. It goes so far that it is no longer a lonely boy and girl, but lonely people. See what I'm saying? The feelings are so severe and so completely overwhelming that any one can watch the movie and feel how the children feel without necessarily having to go back to how they would feel at 12 years of age. Or have to imagine what a 2000 year old vampire would feel in such a situation. It's so blunt and honest that you know how they feel. And when you have that knowledge it's easy to empathize. And that's how Let The Right One In works so well.

I know I may have sounded even angry when it came to Twilight, but this is what it boils down to. Look at the vast majority of move goers. I'll tell you a 100% true story.

I was driving past my local movie theatre to go to the grocery store. As I passed I was blocked by the multitude of drivers that were leaving the theater (I was blocked because they were all ******ed and just pulled into the road without waiting if it was clear or not. Totally blocked the thru traffic for a mile. But then again, we're in Arkansas. No one in Arkansas can drive). I got a good look at everyone of the cars. The people in those cars? Teenage girls, middle-aged women, and the odd boyfriend that obviously didn't like that he was there.

Twilight didn't take more mature topics and capitalize on them. Meyer took the basic loneliness of her teenage years and put it onto paper. The only way it worked for her was that teenagers and middle-aged women have money to blow. And a lot of it. Meyer took an empty, soulless character and gave her to an audience of millions. That's not good writing. And that's why I would go as far as to say that the feelings expressed by her books aren't even the feelings that she may necessarily want you to feel. They're your own feelings that you put into the book yourself. That is horrible, horrible writing.

 

[Lee]

Just....no.

If it was so good why's it being remade within two years of release? If it's so good why have most people not seen it? If it's so good why have only a handful of cinema buffs heard of it, even then they would go "Oh that Swedish vampire movie, I wanted to see that, I heard it was good" Heck it even lost the BAFTA for best non English speaking movie to "A prophet" which I have seen and wasn't that good.

Sorry but without having seen this film, it has no redeeming qualities to make it the greatest of all time and any movie released within 2 years cannot lay claim to this accolade.

 

[Jonnie Walker]

I haven't seen it, but like KB, I think what's holding it back is the lack of mainstream appeal. If I was Swedish, I would probably have seen this, and I would probably agree, but I haven't heard of this movie, and that hurts your argument. I think it very well could be a great film, I'm nor saying it isn't, but having not seen it or heard of it, then I see no reason to pick it over something like The Godfather or even Borat. Reading what you've typed, and what's said on Wikipedia, I think it could be really, really good. But I don't know, and not many other people on this site, if any at all. I think it could be good, but I don't know, and for that reason, it can't be the greatest film of all time.

 

[jmt225]

If it was so good why's it being remade within two years of release?

I think that actually speaks in the film's favor that it was so beloved internationally that Hollywood INSTANTLY had to get their hands on it and bring it's own version to America.

If it's so good why have most people not seen it?

Considering this movie was done in Sweden, where hardly any of their movies become known in America, it's impressive the impact the film has made internationally.

If it's so good why have only a handful of cinema buffs heard of it, even then they would go "Oh that Swedish vampire movie, I wanted to see that, I heard it was good"

More people have heard of it than I think you give credit, Lee.

Heck it even lost the BAFTA for best non English speaking movie to "A prophet" which I have seen and wasn't that good.

And Ordinary People beat out Raging Bull for the Oscar... that doesn't mean Raging Bull is the inferior film.

And for the record Lee, I think you would highly enjoy Let the Right One In if you don't mind sub-titles. Check it out if you ever get the chance.

any movie released within 2 years cannot lay claim to this accolade.

Ahh... and while I disagree with everything else in your post my good man, this is where your strongest point lies and this is exactly what proves why Let the Right One In should not be considered the greatest movie of all time.

Razor, listen man... this is a great, great movie, and it was easily one of the best in 2008, but for a movie to be in the consideration of the greatest ever, dude... it has to stand the test of time first. It can't be this new. We have to see if 10/20 years from now if everyone still holds it in such high regard. Hell, for all we know the remake in America will trump it in every possible way and the original Let the Right One In will become forgotten. Anything's possible in the movie business, which is why I think you made the wrong choice here choosing a film that's only a couple of years old. I commend you for thinking outside the box, but in my opinion... there's no way you could ever justify this film being the greatest ever.

 

[Razor]

Just....no.

Oh come on Pro. Gotta go with me on this one. It'll look bad if you don't.

If it was so good why's it being remade within two years of release?

Because Americans rarely enjoy foreign films as much as domestic films. It's a rule of Hollywood. Along with remaking anything they can buy the rights to.

If it's so good why have most people not seen it?

Ask any generic American on the street to name 5 foreign films. Now ask them to name the last 2 Michael Bay films.

Considering any of those 5 foreign films could beat the shit that is Transformers 1 and 2, I think you can see the flaw in your argument.

If it's so good why have only a handful of cinema buffs heard of it, even then they would go "Oh that Swedish vampire movie, I wanted to see that, I heard it was good" Heck it even lost the BAFTA for best non English speaking movie to "A prophet" which I have seen and wasn't that good.

Right. Well. Do you want me to go ahead and make a list of great movies that were screwed out of various movie awards, or do you want this point I'm making to just stand as true?

Sorry but without having seen this film, it has no redeeming qualities to make it the greatest of all time and any movie released within 2 years cannot lay claim to this accolade.

Fair point. JMT is right with this one to.

However, if I may, look at the other movies presented as best of all time on their merits alone. The acting, plot, directing. Now look at Let the Right One In.

Can you honestly tell me that Let the Right One In doesn't at least stand a chance against the others? Forget the ability to stand long term, look at the basic merits that can at least prove it a contender against the others as a "better" film than them.

Then, if you can agree it's a better film, then how can those other films be the "best of all time?" If they're not even better than a random Swedish vampire film, then why even bother nominating them?