Film

What's on at the cinema plus reviews of the latest movie and DVD releases

Let Me In (2010)

Director: Matt Reeves

Time Out rating

Average user rating

18 reviews

Synopsis

An American remake of the Swedish pre-teen vampire movie, 'Let the Right One In'.

Movie review

From Time Out London

Tomas Alfredson’s moody Swedish fairy tale ‘Let the Right One In’ (2008) monitored the ruinous friendship between two children, the twist being that one was the victim of bullying at school and the other was hungry for human blood. American director Matt Reeves has decided to follow up his meta-monster movie ‘Cloverfield’ by heading to John Ajvide Lindqvist’s ripe source novel for a macabre English-language retooling of the material.

He relocates the story to a housing project in New Mexico circa 1983, where David Bowie’s ‘Let’s Dance’ is heard wafting from open windows. Once again, the story concerns the pre-teen, winterlight mutual crush between pallid social outcast Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) and the feral, blood-lusting, sad-eyed Abby (Chloe Moretz). And once again, both performers are pitch-perfect.‘Let Me In’ is a more recognisable horror genre movie, though, replete with stylised set-pieces, scenes of splenetic violence and a lovely milky twilight look.

Some members of the horror cognoscenti have not been charmed by this new version, but I felt this film trumped the original in a number of ways, notably by tapping in to deeper and more obscure emotions concerning the ways in which a child would interpret romantic attraction. It also urges us to question whether the bond between these youngsters is love, or something more sinister and domineering. It’s also interesting that Reeves – unlike Alfredson – opts to make Abby’s victims anonymous, so we’re not invited to sympathise with her just because she’s killing unlikeable characters: if anything, it makes her situation all the more tragic. But perhaps the new film’s greatest coup is that it refuses to romanticise childhood loneliness, framing these troubled tweens as a product of their estrangement rather than cute nonconformists blazing a violent trail.

Author: David Jenkins

Time Out London Issue 2098: 4 – 10 November, 2010

Email Tweet Share

User reviews of this film

JIM said...

Posted on May 21 2011 05:29 I read the novel first , the remake and the orig movie .
By reading the novel the remake captures the mood, imagination and suspense better .
The strong contrast between night and day in the orig is more hollywood in style the editing and pace seem to quicken the film .
The remake uses less characters and so the focus on the two main characters is stronger .
Both great films and too be honest it doesnt matter which movie was made first, more importamtly how they interpreted the novel.

Report as inappropriate
JAMES said...

Posted on May 21 2011 05:01 The remake is slightly better than the original, the atmosphere of the remake draws you into the film quicker with more drama than the og , ...i was also unaware that this was a remake.
the contrast between night and day in the orig makes the film feel streched where thein the remake it replicates the book in terms of pace, suspense and drama

Report as inappropriate
RT Jones said...

Posted on Nov 20 2010 00:40 From Mr. Jenkins: "It’s also interesting that Reeves – unlike Alfredson – opts to make Abby’s victims anonymous, so we’re not invited to sympathise with her just because she’s killing unlikeable characters…”
I see Mr. Jenkins has upgraded Eli’s victims from “grotesques” (in original review) to just “unlikeable.” That is less offensive. However, I found Eli’s adult victims in the original to be both likeable and tragic – Eli’s first victim is a friendly fellow who meets his end by being a good samaritan towards Eli. Her last adult victim, Lacke, has lost his best friend, as well as his lover – all because of Eli. In fact, all the victims (with the possible exception of the older brother at the swimming pool) are presented with different levels of sympathy – making their deaths all the more troubling, quite unlike the "anonymous" victims of the remake.
More centrally, while the remake does have a few nice special effect touches (and some bad ones as well), it lacks the subtle approach of the original. Reeves allows no alternatives to his view of the vampire’s (or the boy’s) motivations - or what their future holds. And I would certainly like to read more details about what “deeper and more obscure emotions” Matt Reeves explores in his remake. They may be there but I, and I know many others, missed those. How about some examples of where we can find those?

Report as inappropriate
critique said...

Posted on Nov 11 2010 18:56 Haven`t yet seen `Let the Right One In`. This "re-make" is atmospheric and well made albeit often disturbing and shocking in content.

Report as inappropriate
Thomas Noctor said...

Posted on Nov 08 2010 16:38 If its not as boring as the original I'll give it a go! The start of the original, a half naked kid for 5 mins? Art? Crap! Can someone tell Me if this is a tense horror, cause the original wasn't!

Report as inappropriate
DV said...

Posted on Nov 06 2010 16:01 Fantastic film. Performances, cinematography, lighting, plot, and score all outstanding (in comparison to most releases these days). Reminded me of the Coppolas in some ways. I hope some of the teeny Twilight punters go and see this and it makes some money...Not seen the original btw. That film may be better, according to some, but if you haven't seen it, it can't spoil your enjoyment of the new version, can it? (Will put the original on my lovefilm list, just to keep them quiet - fat chance!)

Report as inappropriate
ARCHGATE said...

Posted on Nov 05 2010 22:33 It's a shame that the best scene in this sorry excuse for a film is a car crash. The performance are perfunctory - which is a shame because the two kids are truly wonderful actors. There is no chemistry between the two of them. Nearly Every scene is destroyed by an onslaught of overwhelming music. This is a cheap horrid looking flm. woeful.

Report as inappropriate
scrumpyjack said...

Posted on Nov 05 2010 17:43 My post of 6 weeks back has been removed, but this is as I thought. Excellent remake, but better than "Let The Right On In" ? NO, SIR!................................8/10

Report as inappropriate
Paul said...

Posted on Nov 04 2010 08:45 I went to see this expecting to sneer at Hollywood's attempt to remake a perfect original and was surprised to find myself enjoying LMI. Yes there are some kludgey inserts to signpost the story to dumb it down for an local audience but that's the Hollywood formula. That said this is a good early remake and a great night out at the cinema this week. I would give it five stars if not for the redundant inserts such as the policeman.

Report as inappropriate
ARCHGATE said...

Posted on Nov 03 2010 22:03 woteva - Looks like you already grabbed gold well done.
and silver and bronze ..... ah, bless

Report as inappropriate
ARCHGATE said...

Posted on Nov 03 2010 00:03 I will eat my hat out of a popcorn box if this film is as good as the original. Many viewers simply have an aversion to sub-titles and non-english dialogue. The girl in the original was perfect for the role and the chemistry with Oscar was sublime. Perhaps equally important is her relationship with her father. Reeves first film was over-rated tosh, anyway.

Report as inappropriate
Evie said...

Posted on Oct 30 2010 22:45 It's a decent enough remake but lacks some of the mystery and ambiguity of the original. Chloe Moretz is not quite as feral or natural enough compared to the girl in the first film. Alot of the new material such as the car crash is well filmed and probably makes it worth the revisit. But ultimately I'm Team Oskar/Eli

Report as inappropriate
RT Jones said...

Posted on Oct 17 2010 01:37 "It’s also interesting that Reeves – unlike Alfredson – chooses to make Abby’s victims anonymous: we’re not invited to sympathise with her because she’s dispatching single-note grotesques."
You have a strange view of “grotesque” – Eli’s first victim is a friendly guy who meets his end by being a good samaritan. In fact, all the victims (with the possible exception of the older brother at the swimming pool) are presented with different levels of sympathy – making their deaths all the more troubling, quite unlike the "anonymous" victims of the remake.
More centrally, while the remake does have a few nice special effect touches (and some bad ones as well), it lacks the subtle approach of the original. Reeves allows no alternatives to his view of the vampire’s (or the boy’s) motivations - or what their future holds.
The remake is a good, but still inferior, copy of the original film.

Report as inappropriate
Joey said...

Posted on Oct 05 2010 18:31 Better than the original. Mr. Reeves kept the movie close enough to the original to prove that he wasn;t trying to change such a great movie, he just fixed everything I found wrong with the movie. And yes it can be better because he had the rights to make the remake before the original was even released. More intense and drew me in and gave us more of a horror aspect to keep us intertained.

Report as inappropriate
jules said...

Posted on Oct 04 2010 08:51 Fair enough point. I wasn't struck on the original thought it was way over hyped to be honest.

Report as inappropriate