I kind of wished they used the original actors, director, soundtrack and storyline and just re-released the original.

(anti-remake brigade heated up...heh)

Tried to comment on this twice but I ended up making big, boring rants about how they'll probably screw this up.

I'll just say that poster and picture are already giving me the same vibe about how hollywood always trims off the rough edges of something great and slaps a ton of expensive polish on it. Exactly the same kind of thing they did with Life On Mars and that awful first pilot they made where they took all the stuff that made the original great, threw it out and hollywoodized it so much it was an unwatchable piece of crap.

Ummm can someone plz explain to me why they changed the title? I am assuming that whoever put this remake together didn't take the time to read the novel and realize that besides the important double meaning behind the title, it also is in reference to a Morrissey song that is quoted often throughout the text.

LET THE RIGHT ONE IN was good enough on it's own it certainly doesn't warrant paying 10$+ to see a remake. The original isn't even that old nor is it hard to come by so... wtf?!

Also: Chloe looks like the girliest little girl ever. What were they thinking?!

I will not see this American remake. The orginal was good enough in my opinion. I think there was no need to remake this film.

the one thing that always upsets me when "america" remakes a foreign movie is the fans of the original always say why are they making this, the original was perfect, etc.
first off the author and the publisher of the book are comptlely aware and required to sign off on the purchase of the movie rights along with the original movie production company.
second like all movies that have been adapted from a book the original is not perfect compared to the novel.
consider this a different adaptation of the novel and do not compare to the first cinema version of the book.

Pic taken directly post-feeding?

As for the "she's not androgynous enough" comments, strictly speaking she should not have to be. "Eli" was a pretty girl, both in the book and in the Swedish film. Some people make it sound as if Lina Leandersson looks like half-a-boy in the original (which she doesn't).

The whole eunuch-angle was not explored in the Swedish film either, although that one nude shot was a big wink towards the people who had read the book.
When I saw "Let the Right One In" at the IFFR back in 2008, I had not read the book yet and I totally misinterpreted that shot, thinking: "Underage nudity? There goes any chance of this being distributed in the USA!". I thought the shot was more about Oskar getting his first illicit peek of female pubic hair than about realizing that there is something strange going on, gender-wise. Yes, now that we have discussions about it and now that you can freeze the image on a DVD or BluRay (you perverts) you can see that there is more going on, but at that first cinema screening this totally passed me by.

I absolutely worship the original LTROI but I'm interested in taking a look at how these two child actors will handle the material. Kodi Smit-Mcphee was remarkable in The Road, handling his own beside the great Viggo Mortensen. Chloe Moretz popped up on my radar (as with probably a lot of other people) with the advent of Kick-Ass so I'm intrigued to whether her acting has any diversity to it.

That said, if we keep comparing this to the original LTROI it'll obviously never be good enough. We've already put that movie up on a pedestal. I say lets keep an open mind and see if it can break new ground on the original story material.