-thumb-80x80-31030.jpg)
A while back there was rumblings of JJ Abrams being interested in the Let The Right One In remake. Today Screen is reporting that Cloverfield director Matt Reeves is set to take the helm and try to recapture the magic of Tomas Alfredson's Swedish vampire instant-classic. I quite dug Cloverfield. It had a lot more going on in the aesthetic and tone department than the gimmick that it could have been. Still, the usual remake rules apply: I doubt that Reeves remake can find the razor thin balance of emotion that Alfredson managed. The film is delicate and I am a bit skeptical that it will survive remake mauling. (the usual statement applies: If you haven't caught the original at a festival yet, when Magnet puts it out in the cinemas: Run, don't walk...)
The newly reminted Hammer Studios own the rights for the remake and are behind the production. It is interesting that they are going back to their vampire roots, but taking things in a very modern direction.
There will be so many changes for the american version it will hardly be the same story. Matt Reeves has directed The Pallbearer, Cloverfield, and Felicity none which show he has the visual skill to not make this a tv commerical with kid vampires.
Didn't they already make this film in Hollywood? Wasn't it called The Little Vampire?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0192255/
Maybe they'll do the right thing and call this film The Little Vampire 2. Hollywood is SO awesome like that.
I seriously doubt that they will keep the sexual undertones between the kids intact.
I like how the film tangents to a number of characters. It positively meanders around its cold little world. Very nice.
Good point Kurt. It definitely does seem to absolutely refuse to be tied to a central character. The relationships are the focus. This is something I think cannot be maintained in a remake and something, I fear, will be lost in the originals US release.
I shudder to think what would be done with the pool scene. That is now one of my favorite scenes ever in film - the understated unfolding of that scene is pitch perfect and insanely brilliant.
A bad idea compounded by a terrible choice. I liked CLOVERFIELD, maybe more than most, but this is a round peg-square hole situation. To be fair to Reeves, I'm not sure they could've booked anyone that would've excited me. Truly a case of "Just watch the original."
Well, lets hope that he does better than he did with Cloverfield, Cloverfield was crap, plain and simple.
I hate damning a remake before it's even started and I haven't seen enough of Matt Reeves' work to be able to judge this, but I love the original so he has quite a job ahead of him.
Still, if he follows the book and NOT the existing film this might turn out to be a completely different film.
Tomas Alfredson took quite some creative liberty with the story. A decision I applaud also because he made them together with the book's writer himself. Matt Reeves' version will probably take liberties as well, and hopefully different ones.
One: I suspect they'll transport the story to the US (at least I'll be VERY surprised if it stays in Sweden).
Two: They'll choose a different period of time. Take your pick: current, fifties, sixties, seventies.
These two alone will change the mood immensely. Add different vampire designs, different relationships between the characters, different use of special effects and heh, a different ending, and the end result will be NOTHING like Alfredson's movie. Nor should it even try to be. If I want to see Alfredson's version I'll go see Alfredson's version.
This American one though... it'll have to prove itself.
I agree that it has the odds against it to even APPROACH what Tomas Alfredson did, but with the correct leads it could actually be good on its own merit.
Everything was so gorgeously shot. This is such a strange, sad, sweet story - even the young lead actors seem irreplaceable to me. I'd rather beg family and friends to just read the damn subtitles than see a remake.