Let Me In (15)

Film

Horror films

let-me-in-M148-df-03893_rgb.jpg

Time Out rating:

<strong>Rating: </strong><span class='lf-avgRating'>4</span>/5

User ratings:

<strong>Rating: </strong><span class='lf-avgRating'>3</span>/5
Rate this
 

Time Out says

Tue Nov 2 2010

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.
0

Reviews

Add +

Release details

Rated:

15

UK release:

Fri Nov 5, 2010

Duration:

111 mins

Users say

0
<strong>Rating: </strong><span class='lf-avgRating'>0</span>/5

Average User Rating

3 / 5

Rating Breakdown

  • 5 star:0
  • 4 star:4
  • 3 star:2
  • 2 star:1
  • 1 star:0
LiveReviews|7
1 person listening
JIM

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.

RT Jones

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?

critique

Haven`t yet seen `Let the Right One In`. This "re-make" is atmospheric and well made albeit often disturbing and shocking in content.

DV

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!)

scrumpyjack

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

Paul

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.

Evie

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