Last Life In The Universe
Cannes 2012
Cannes Review: COSMOPOLIS
MOONRISE KINGDOM Review
CHERNOBYL DIARIES Review
Cronenberg's ANTIVIRAL Clip
Cannes Review: HOLY MOTORS
Full MANIAC Remake Trailer

Trailer Alerts

TIFF 2010: An Extended Clip From Matt Reeves' LET ME IN Impresses.

by Todd Brown, September 3, 2010 2:30 PM


, ,
letmeinposter.jpg
Okay, everybody who complained that the trailer for Matt Reeves' Let Me In made it look like a shot for shot re-do of the previous Swedish adaptation of John Ajvide Lindqvist's novel, it's time to eat a few of those words.

At the San Diego Comic Con this year an extended reel of footage from the film was shown that seemingly made believers of all who saw it - I have literally not seen a single negative piece of commentary from those who were there - and now the first half of that reel has been released online. Those familiar with the source material will have no problem at all figuring out where this fits into the chronology of the story while also recognizing that this particular sequence is completely original to Reeves and his film. And it looks good.

Check it below.

Related Links

via Fangoria

Video


At Mubi

42 Comments

by Robert, September 3, 2010 4:26 PM

Most of me and mine have said, near shot for shot. He is smart to showcase one of the two new scenes exclusive to his movie. Besides the sleek look of this scene and his trailers, which I'm not that big a fan of. It seems more like watching a movie, and less like watching into the lives of the people, like in the original. Yes the comparisons are going to come up, that is what happens with remakes. With that said, the script and scene do showcase that the "caretaker" that has known Abbey since he was a little boy, and is going to be tossed aside for Owen in an endless cycle of boys she does this with. Because apparently when you read the book and watch the movie, and see what's important and necessary for it, you push an agenda that was in neither. Anyways, the scene and script do show that Reeves has no problem pushing the, "that makes me feel angry trope" with him. Instead this time, "I WANT TO BE CAUGHT". Is the thing being stated in the most outright way.

But yeah, he'll at least bring two new things exclusive to this movie as far as scenes go. While pushing one of the conclusions of the original outright, that wasn't at all in the original book. So those that are expecting a 100% shot for shot are wrong, and those that are expecting something more close to the book or even as close to the book as the original, are wrong.

Reply
user-pic
Todd Brown replied to comment from Robert, September 3, 2010 8:05 PM

"With that said, the script and scene do showcase that the "caretaker" that has known Abbey since he was a little boy, and is going to be tossed aside for Owen in an endless cycle of boys she does this with. Because apparently when you read the book and watch the movie, and see what's important and necessary for it, you push an agenda that was in neither."

Have you actually read the book? Because what you're slamming here is a HUGE thread within it. Eli is cold and callous and ENORMOUSLY manipulative of Hakan in the book, using his pedophilic urges against him to keep him under her thumb. And she tosses him aside like nothing as soon as he stops being useful. She is VERY old and has clearly done this more than once. That's not Reeves having an agenda, that's him re-inserting a major theme of the book that Alfredson dropped in his film to make it play more as a young romance.

Reply
Robert replied to comment from Todd Brown, September 3, 2010 8:42 PM

"Have you actually read the book? Because what you're slamming here is a HUGE thread within it. Eli is cold and callous and ENORMOUSLY manipulative of Hakan in the book, using his pedophilic urges against him to keep him under her thumb. And she tosses him aside like nothing as soon as he stops being useful. She is VERY old and has clearly done this more than once. That's not Reeves having an agenda, that's him re-inserting a major theme of the book that Alfredson dropped in his film to make it play more as a young romance."

I have read the book. In the book it is rather tit for tat. Hakan is using him as much as he is using him. However he is doing it more from his human need to survive. I mean Eli doesn't know any better. Eli is still a kid. Adults are supposed to know better and all. If you understood manipulation in the book, where is the love story? Also where has he done this before in the book? It never mentions once what has happened in his life before he met Hakaan. I mean a few passing mentions, but nothing concrete as to how he survived. You can push and gather agendas from the novel and original film, but as far as what we are given and shown, none of it screams what you and Reeves seem to think. Reeves by the way saying, the important thing was the love story. But if Abbey does this to every boy she meets after the one she groomed is no longer of use to her where is the love story?!?!

Knobs, mang.

Reply
user-pic
Todd Brown replied to comment from Robert, September 3, 2010 9:51 PM

There's no tit for tat in the book at all. Not even the tiniest little bit. Hakan was snared using his pedophilia as leverage and has never gained the first thing from the relationship at all. Eli found a weakness and exploited it, forcing him to commit crimes so severe that he now has no hope of ever rejoining mainstream society. S/he took a social outcast and used his weakness to make him even moreso so that he had no choice but to rely on him/her even more. Eli is not "innocent" in the slightest. Hakan has been held in the relationship for YEARS through a combination of lust and fear, both of which Eli explicitly plays on REPEATEDLY.


Where is the love story in the book? That's a good question, actually, and I'd say half the power of the book comes from not knowing whether the relationship between Eli and Oskar actually IS a love story or just Eli beginning the process of manipulation again on a new carer, particularly once Hakan is captured. I believe the book lands more on the side of manipulation driving the relationship between Eli and Oskar - Eli recognizing that Oskar's outsider status and fear of the school bullies provides a weakness s/he can leverage and build on in a manner similar to what s/he did with Hakan and his pedophilia. I also believe that there's a level on which Oskar understands that this is what is happening and accepts it because it gets him what he wants: Bloody revenge against the people who have bullied him. Anyone who believes children are "innocent" doesn't have any.

How did Eli survive before the events of the book? S/he's a hundred+ year old hunter that lives on blood, how do you THINK s/he survived? The same way s/he survives in the book, of course - through hunting and manipulation. Not by being "innocent", that's for damn sure. You see it in Eli's hunting methods repeatedly - the kill in the tunnel being a prime example - make people think s/he's just small and helpless to lure them in and then cut them down.

Does the book "scream" what I (and Reeves, apparently) have drawn out of it? No, it doesn't SCREAM anything, which is what makes it a good book. But it provides ample reason to believe it and considering that the author of the book was directly involved in the US remake - as he was also with the Swedish version - I'd say Reeves probably has a better grasp on his intentions than you do.

And does anybody actually say 'mang' anymore? 'Cause that's just silly. And it always was.

Reply
Robert replied to comment from Todd Brown, September 3, 2010 10:35 PM

So Hakan gets nothing out the Eli relationship? Does he let Hakan caress his body every now and again? I think Eli does despise and not like Hakan in the book and film, and does showcase her like for Oskar. I think Eli has more reason to not want to corrupt Oskar than Hakan. As Hakan is already corrupted. He's already, a pedofile. Which to me and some is the worst of the worst. Where as Oskar is an "innocent" boy like Eli.

Love story in the book is showcased when Eli and Oskar keep bringing out the best, or at least the necessary in the other. Humanity in one, strength in the other. But whatever. manipulation is your big theory. Reeves emailed author and says it's a coming of age love story he identified with which author said, he got it. But, whatever.

Oh and lets not forget the book scene, of be me for a while, followed by how Oskar looks through Eli's eyes.

Woah you have children that premeditate something like using a boy every lifetime by turning them into murderers then tossing them aside when something better comes along? Like kids that do something close to that? Or even half as bad as that? Difference between kids and sociopaths, yo.

"How did Eli survive before the events of the book? S/he's a hundred+ year old hunter that lives on blood, how do you THINK s/he survived? The same way s/he survives in the book, of course - through hunting and manipulation. Not by being "innocent", that's for damn sure. You see it in Eli's hunting methods repeatedly - the kill in the tunnel being a prime example - make people think s/he's just small and helpless to lure them in and then cut them down."

She's still very much a child though. In the book and film, she's showcased her ineptness of taking care of herself. Which really if she can barely take care of herself, a boy along that can't even stomach the sight of his beloved killing someone in front of him is going to help how? I mean if he can't dispose of a body, how can a boy with no superhuman strength can? Eli hunts out of necessity. With Virginia and Lackes(?), she was too hungry to think. A starving dog is giving two bowls of food, which one does he go to first and all...

"Does the book "scream" what I (and Reeves, apparently) have drawn out of it? No, it doesn't SCREAM anything, which is what makes it a good book. But it provides ample reason to believe it and considering that the author of the book was directly involved in the US remake - as he was also with the Swedish version - I'd say Reeves probably has a better grasp on his intentions than you do."

So this is where, well. Just watch. You can look it up, or not but it's known.

Reeves has said, coming of age and love story. The important parts of it. The important parts of the story. He has said Eli and Abbey in his, at the end of the day are still little kids. Forever 12. He's said this. Now does he understand it? Well, who knows. But he has said this.

Oh and the author is involved in one way. "From what I understand he is doing a new movie on the book, not based on the original film. He will be doing an adaption of the book not a remake of the film." Paraphrasing, but that's what he said and his involvement in it. Well that and his hatred of the prequel comics Hammer and Darkhorse are coming out with.

Yeah people still use mang. Winners, mostly.

So yeah, be nice how Reeves is saying everything you aren't, yet you and him have the same thoughts on the book and how the film will showcase that.

Reply
user-pic
Todd Brown replied to comment from Robert, September 3, 2010 11:16 PM

Oskar is NOT innocent. You've forgotten the early bits with him stealing a big ol' knife and driving it repeatedly into a pole while fantasizing about killing the school bullies? While Eli watched? Eli is drawn to him explicitly because of his potential for violence. Oscar is certainly more understandable and more sympathetic than Hakan - who swings between being pathetic and foul - but he is nowhere close to being an innocent and that should never be forgotten. There's a reason that scene's at the beginning of the movie and there's a reason it's one of the first shots in the trailer for the original movie.

Does Eli like Oskar better than Hakan? Yeah, I'd say s/he does but s/he still remains what she is: a parasite. She remembers bits and pieces of what she was and regrets what she has become, which adds a layer of tragedy to things, but she also knows damn well that she can never go back and she will always be nothing but a parasite that manipulates and preys upon those around her.

As for my comment about children not being innocent, spend some time with them. I'm a parent and in my college days have worked with literally hundreds of kids aged 6 - 10. Kids are essentially pragmatists. They do what works, what gets them what they want and need. They are not born with any system of ethics whatsoever, that needs to be taught to them. If they need or want something and they think they can get it in a way that will not bring any sort of negative consequence back upon them, they will do it. Period. My son's awesome and I love him immensely but kids are NOT all sweetness and light and innocence.

To your later point of how she's 'just a child' and how can Oskar help if he doesn't have the strength do what she needs, again the answer is perfectly obvious and right in your face in the original and in the book. She's training him up. She can think in the long term because she's been doing so for decades. She can't take care of herself because SHE'S NEVER HAD TO. She's always had someone under her thumb to do everything for her from the time she was turned. How'd she get into the steamer trunk and on the train to escape discovery? She talked Oskar into abandoning his own family and somehow - despite, as you say, not being strong enough to dispose of a body - carrying her on board. You think she's not aware that she's isolating him from his mother and cutting him off from his parents, his education and any hope of a normal future? You think she's doing this on HIS behalf? The ONLY person who benefits from this situation is Eli and there is absolutely no way she does not know that. Oskar knows it, too, but she's convinced him it doesn't matter. He has just thrown away his own life to feed - via murder - and care for her. She's a parasite, acting like a parasite, destroying someone else's life for her own benefit. This is not love in any true or meaningful sense, it's a desperation for acceptance being twisted and manipulated into servitude.

Reply
Robert replied to comment from Todd Brown, September 3, 2010 11:50 PM

Yes, besides the psychotic scrap book. It's all rather childish things. I mean considering how isolated and picked on he is, he is very much innocent. I mean, somewhat psychotic but still.

Parasite? Doesn't he go to Tommy for other means of blood? Around the time Oskar is bringing out his humanity? A parasite would look for other means than killing?

So all kids are sociopaths? You are saying this?

Now on the last bit, the book and film, showcase him doing all this? I remember the mom being too busy and the dad being an alcoholic. Did he talk Oskar into leaving his old life? I mean, he saved Oskar's life, but Oskar saved his life too with Lackes. I mean, really they both left more out of love and necessity. Two kids are going to be able to do what on their own? Rent an apartment? How long before Oskar can actually help him? Fifteen or sixteen? Keep in mind Oskar is a late bloomer. So what do they do until Oskar can actually help? Homeless? I mean cops are going to wonder what happened, and at least know what Oskar looks like, so what is going to happen? Also Eli could easily have gotten in the case after they got on the train. Hell even, before. Oskar could ask help to carry the case. Even if there is no help, nothing has ever shown Eli being heavy.

So umm where in the book was he training Oskar? Don't be afraid to fight back? I mean that is the only "training" that was offered.

I mean this is the funny thing, he's never had to take care of himself but he can train a wussy kid. That when having the ability to kill someone for Eli, looked away and put the knife down. Showcasing he doesn't have the stomach for it. Even in the pool scene. He got in voluntarily. So how can someone like Eli, who's never took care of himself, train a boy like Oskar? Keep in mind you've ignored the fact neither in the book or in the original film was it shown, Eli has done this with boys before.

Eli isn't forcing or asking Oskar to do anything. Oskar willingly wants to go. Two kids that have known nothing but bad in their lives, have finally found something good in each other.

Oh and thumbs up ignoring the fact, Reeves in interviews has agreed with my sentiments. As far as there is a love story in the center of it all, that is the most important part of the original book and film.

Reply
user-pic
Todd Brown replied to comment from Robert, September 4, 2010 12:12 AM

I'd say there's a coming of age story at the center of it, but that it's a tragedy, not a romance. I think you are misunderstanding the characters at a very basic, core level - that you're making all sorts of assumptions about them because they are children that are not borne out by their actual behavior.

If you look at what they actually do, Oskar is, at his core, a kid who fantasizes about being strong enough to hurt or kill the people who are bullying him. He has stolen a weapon to do so and practices with it in secret in the yard of the apartment complex. That's motive, planning, and intent. So, yes, he's a budding sociopath. An understandable one and one who is still young enough that he could possibly be turned on to another path, but still a sociopath the same as Hakan was a sociopath. There's a reason Eli is drawn to people like this. And what does Eli do? She recognizes and encourages those sociopathic tendencies.

You can argue whether Eli is preying on Oskar's loneliness or identifying with it, but in terms of actual behavior she never encourages him to seek help for himself, never helps him to actually deal with the problem in a constructive way and move on. No, she sees him acting out his violence and encourages that. All of this building up to the sequence in the pool at the end where rather than simply stopping the bullies from tormenting him - which was EASILY possible - she fulfills Oskar's fantasy, tearing the bullies limb from limb and in doing what he wanted to do but could not she seals the deal and gets him to step into her orbit, abandon his own family and his own life. Does Oskar choose? Sure he does. But why? Because he sees in Eli the violence that he wants for himself but is not strong enough to carry out. It turns to hero worship in that moment, which makes him an ideal servant.

On the romance side I think there's a childish infatuation - at least on Oskar's side and maybe on Eli's - but nothing that you could ever call love. Eli preys on Oskar's weaknesses to make him subservient to herself. That is 100% the entire arc of his character.

As for whether Eli is a parasite, look up the definition. Yeah, a vampire is a parasite. All of them, ever. By definition. I don't read any noble motive into Eli trying to get blood from Tommy, a parasite will take whatever they need from whatever source is simplest.

Is Oskar the perfect provider yet? Nope. But he will be.

Reply
Robert replied to comment from Todd Brown, September 4, 2010 3:48 PM

What part of he's a kid, don't you understand? Yes, I know all kids are sociopaths according to you. However, when do you ever see a kid stop and think about tackling a hard issue in a thoughtful, calm, and and helpful manner?

Living out his fantasy? Again, didn't he have the opportunity to kill for Eli but didn't take it? He had the knife, put it down and looked away? Hero worship? In the book it shows how Eli see's Oskar. If anything Eli has hero worship for Oskar. I mean really, everything you are describing is something a reader has to really get from. Like the novel and movie doesn't outwardly say it. The author and director, had one interpretation of it that is different from yours. Says, it's okay to think differently though. I mean, that's why it was there. But they don't think the way you do. Again, Reeves doesn't think the way you do.

" I think what he so smartly did was he recognized as the core of the story the coming of age love story. And that Romeo and Juliet story. And there’s all that other stuff in it. I mean it’s an incredible book. It’s horrifying."-Matt Reeves

I mean first, grimace at the Romeo and Juliet thing being brought up, but the love story is the important part of it. It isn't a love built on sex, infatuation, etc...It's a love built on two kids bringing out the best in the other. Two kids that have known nothing but bad in their lives, finding something good with the other. Two kids that can look beyond them being boys, and just enjoying each others company.

No, noble intentions? Well clearly you just want to see malice in everything Eli does. Which alright, we have another vampire story where the vampire is evil and trying to eff sh/t up. Revolutionary and a breath of fresh air, innit?

Though really most people's love of it, stems from very much like Thirst. It brings a certain fantastical element to an otherwise grounded story, while bringing a realism to the vampire genre/story. In LTROI's case, it's bringing fantasy to a coming of age love story and using that coming of age love story to make vampire's somewhat relatable. Grounded. Almost pitied on. In some cases, very much pitied on. Someone like Eli didn't choose the disease and all.

I mean even the scene where Eli come's into Oskar's apartment. Oskar has total control in that moment. Eli wouldn't do that unless he had confidence in Oskar's love/friendship for him. In that scene, Eli is giving himself to Oskar so to speak.


He will be eh? How long before he is? What will they do until then? Won't cops be looking for Oskar? At the very least Oskar? I mean, hell wouldn't it make more sense to go after one of the bullies who has a known violent streak? One of the bullies that follows the other bullies? I mean, hell not like there isn't more pedofiles around too. I mean statistically they would have to be right? Your theory, needs a lot of stretching of the imagination. Also while ignoring, what the author and his screen play say, and interviews say. What the original movie director says. What Matt Reeves has said in his interviews too.

Reply
user-pic
by zetobelt, September 3, 2010 6:23 PM

Still unimpressed. What are we discussing about? Obviously they think they can improved the original. Silly fools.

Instead of this scene:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_uiWlOtEjWhI/SPrFZdyPkUI/AAAAAAAAEn0/DLsLJdIgWjw/s400/LetTheRightOneIn3.jpg

We get the typical stock characters from an US high school.

Reply
user-pic
Todd Brown replied to comment from zetobelt, September 3, 2010 7:55 PM

Shows you don't know the original - or the context of this scene - as well as you think you do. Hakan has more than one kill. One that succeeds - the photo you've embedded - and one that does not. This is the one that does not. Which means he's replaced the stock Swedish characters at the pool. If you'd watched the trailer - which includes glimpses of the scene matching that image - you'd know that. A bit of research before criticizing goes a long way ...

Reply
user-pic
zetobelt replied to comment from Todd Brown, September 4, 2010 10:03 AM

You're right. I didn't saw the trailer, only the teaser. Now I have see it. Yeah, is somehow different. A shot-by-shot remake would have been awful. Nevertheless, changing a bit here and there or adding new deaths will not improve an already perfect film.

We don't need a remake.

Reply
by Ryan, September 3, 2010 7:06 PM

@Rodarte

I have to disagree entirely. Let the Right One In doesn't feel as "real" as you claim it to be. There was an odd isolated type of feel to it, but for the most part it tried to be a movie rather than less of one. We were introduced to every single one of Oskars conflicts during the course of what, an hour and 45 minutes? From what I have seen of Let Me In, the feel will be different, but I do believe it will have that same odd isolated feel to it, albeit in a different way. In conclusion to that, it will be most definitely realistic in terms of looking into these kids lives. I think there is a certain bias when it comes to films like this, simply because they are made in America. And they are a remake. People try and desperately pour crap on this film because of the other trash films in America. You can't justify anything like that. And Americans are stupid. Heh. Anyways, on to the next point. In regard to the whole "caretaker" bit, you are wrong. I admit it does look that way if you perceive some of the bits of the trailer and the tagline but I suggest you click on the link below and read the original post.
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/board/thread/168376358)

Now that we have cleared that up, I have seen also from the butthurt trolls over on IMDB that they lold very hard at the fact that Sasha Barese (sp) said that this film is going to be more faithful to the book. Actually that part may be true. There is apparently going to be a part where we see Chloe being turned into what she is now by the original vampire. This was in the book.

Finally, I am getting pretty darn tired of hearing the negative comments about this film. I'm sure most if not all nay sayers will go see it with their sweatshirt hoods up, hoping their LTROI fan club friends don't see them, and they will leave blindly hating it with their ego/bias. And lols will be had. But lets be honest here. LTROI was a good film. I can't say more than that. I thought the mood was great, and the acting was very nice, but the story had a pretty big pacing problem. Not only that, but I felt the story lacked some elements that would have been better for both character development and the overall complexity of the story. I have high hopes that Let ME in will do better that that in these areas, and so far, I am very pleased with the way it is turning out.

My message to all of the trolls is to research and set your ego aside. We will take you seriously. The "this movie will suck" comments, variated amongst claims regarding Let Me In's cast, story, or director, are BS and laughable. Just stop. Christ. People who actually can think on a higher level then "fanboy-ism" will be able to see that Let Me In will be a possibly brilliant film, and hopefully learn a few things about how to debate or criticize film without sounding like an ill-informed biased, uneducated idiot.

Reply
Robert replied to comment from Ryan, September 3, 2010 8:58 PM

Have you read the script leek to Let Me In? Not only did I read that thread already I participated in it. If you notice even the original poster admitted defeat after he was shown how blatantly wrong he was on every point of his. They show a picture of a young "caretaker" with Abbey. They constantly push the agenda that Owen will become the next in line. The garbage mask and serial killer mask for goodness sakes. Knob.

Oh and the isolated, intimate, depressing charm of the original did make it more real. It wasn't polished, or slicked up because the film didn't need it. It wasn't gritty but it was very much real in how we tend to see life. We don't really see it all that polished and clean. It's more raw and flawed. It's more real. But thanks for the whole, it's not real because it's not real argument of yours.

Now moving on to your original vampire and this part was in the book. Have you read it? Cause if you haven't, don't argue, you'll lose. On top of which, in the book.....

SPOILERS.


Eli was kidnapped by a vampire he kidnapped several other children. Was castrated as in the book and the original film Eli is a castrated boy, and then turned into a vampire. In Let Me In, they are going to change this entirely. There is an original vampire, but it's going to be one that was never featured in the book and another "backstory" entirely. Which really is nothing to do with nothing. Just his uncreative way to make his film 10% new, so him and his buttbuddies can say, see it's not 100% scene for scene copy! Win!

See, I'm not a butt hurt troll fan boy. I've researched Let Me In. Hell even the one review that is up, that is very happy with Let Me In states, it's a near shot for shot remake.

Pacing? Not going to touch that one. The book and film aren't for everyone, and if you try to make it for everyone. It becomes a stripped and soulless version of what it was meant to be.

But whatever, back story and character development. There was a lot left from the book where they could have done this. Where Reeves could have used to make a new movie. Tommy is a character that is almost half the book. The bullies in the book are shown to have some sort of reason as to their bullying. Etc. However Reeves decided not to use this and you know, "it's impossible to make a movie and not make it almost exactly like the original." REALLY?!

Well maybe a new one shouldn't be made if it brings nothing new to the table, or that the very least something that's substantial and not superficial.

I've done my homework. You clearly haven't. Until you do, I suggest you stop throwing up mirror insults, and pick your failed battles against people that aren't your betters.

Reply
user-pic
Todd Brown replied to comment from Robert, September 3, 2010 10:31 PM

They haven't gone with the original back story because if they included genital mutilation of a child in the film they'd never be allowed to release it. That rests on the realities of the MPAA more than on Reeves. Anybody that expected that to be included has no understanding of how American movie releasing works. Even in the Swedish film the only nod to it was a single, very brief shot that made no sense to anybody who hadn't already read the book. It was an image thrown in for those who knew but a theme otherwise completely left alone for the same reasons.

As for Tommy, I actually really agree and would have loved to see him factor in - to say nothing of all the Hakan post-fall out of the window stuff - but to do him (or Hakan) justice you're probably looking at adding at least half an hour to the running time of the film and ending up with something very bulky and unfocused. Books just lend themselves better to parallel narrative threads than film does.

That said, declaring yourself "better" than anyone else while slinging childish insults littered with spelling and grammar errors just makes you look like an ass.

Reply
Robert replied to comment from Todd Brown, September 3, 2010 10:42 PM

Sigh....

Did you at all read what I was replying to? I don't think you did. Cause if you did, you really shouldn't have replied to me or at the very least the way you did.

Everything I brought up was to argue his point of, "this is going to be more true to the book" or "this is going to have a lot of things that were in the book and not in the original!"

I know you can't show the castration scene. Even the passing one in the original. Which me and my cousin got first viewing of the original, before reading the book. So not everyone, had to read the book to get it. Just think maybe I'm not a girl, and that scar means, she used to be a boy.

Oh and that last bit is hilarious. Firstly, typing rather quickly. Secondly, I don't care about spelling and grammar errors. I mean you understand the posts right?

Thirdly, did you read his effin post?!?! It was troll bait. Insulting everyone who is against this remake, even if they have shown they have researched it a lot more than he has. I only called myself his better, because he deserved it. Not to mention I knew someone like you two would come along and try to bring that up in an attempt to try to, show me whats for. Which really is just showcasing the old, "I can dish it out but I can't take it" mentality.

*tips hat*
Mang.

Reply
user-pic
Todd Brown replied to comment from Robert, September 3, 2010 10:58 PM

Yep. I read every word. And you still look like an ass.

Reply
Robert replied to comment from Todd Brown, September 3, 2010 11:08 PM

And since you didn't go after him for the same reason, you look like a hypocrite.

I'll take ass over hypocrite any day of the week.

Reply
user-pic
Todd Brown replied to comment from Robert, September 3, 2010 11:28 PM

Read it again. He disagreed with you and made a couple general comments about trolls WITHOUT EVER ACTUALLY CALLING YOU ONE or in any way directing an insult specifically to you. The line you seem to have triggered on is "I have seen also from the butthurt trolls" but, basic grammar here, since he has already addressed you specifically in other places before and continues to do so after this using your actual name and specific, singular pronouns, switching to a general address (THE butthurt trolls) explicitly does NOT count you as one of them. Dodgy and immature line directed at some faceless people who aren't here to speak for themselves, yes, but a specific insult directed at you, no. He wasn't trolling you, he was disagreeing with you, to which you responded with insults and then - very ironically - declaring yourself "better" then he was.

"Oh, but he deserved it, he deserved it! He did it first!" a) No, he didn't deserve it. b) No, he didn't actually do it first, 'it' being throwing an insult at you. And c) if you're going to call yourself 'better' that would first require you to actually BEHAVE BETTER rather than responding the way you did. Hmmm ... calling yourself better while actually being the same or worse ... that'd make you both hypocrite and ass.

Reply
Robert replied to comment from Todd Brown, September 3, 2010 11:51 PM

Who was he replying to?

Winner, winner! Chicken salad!

Reply
user-pic
Todd Brown replied to comment from Robert, September 3, 2010 11:56 PM

You're not doing yourself any favors, Robert. Read it again. From the opening through to the point where the imdb link comes in he addresses you directly and speaks in terms of 'You'. Through that section he's talking TO YOU and through that section there's nothing but polite disagreement. After the imdb link comes in the pronouns switch to 'the' and 'they'. They're no longer personal or even singular. He's talking in generalities about the people on the imdb and other people like them. Very basic grammar. The only person identifying you as a 'butthurt troll' here is you. He didn't do it and neither has anyone else.

Reply
user-pic
sitenoise replied to comment from Todd Brown, September 4, 2010 12:53 PM

Entertaining and enlightening. I learned quite a bit about the film. But the deeper it got, I lost a few words because the text wrapping failed.

Reply
Robert replied to comment from Todd Brown, September 4, 2010 3:23 PM

So you agree, he was replying to me? Never once did he make a distinction. Yes the clever use of vague and generalizing terms. Much in the way if I were replying to you and suddenly said, but all the well wishers of this movie hate puppies, so what do you expect?

"Christ. People who actually can think on a higher level then "fanboy-ism" will be able to see that Let Me In will be a possibly brilliant film, and hopefully learn a few things about how to debate or criticize film without sounding like an ill-informed biased, uneducated idiot. "

That is tame? That is neutral? My original post, that started the initial panny bunching of both of you, was neutral and tame. His was trying to be insulting. Did he outwardly call me anything? Well read that part of his I quoted. Clearly I've looked up more things about this movie than he has and yet....

"Christ. People who actually can think on a higher level then "fanboy-ism" will be able to see that Let Me In will be a possibly brilliant film, and hopefully learn a few things about how to debate or criticize film without sounding like an ill-informed biased, uneducated idiot. "

So yeah again, you=hypocrite.

Reply
user-pic
by shonokin, September 3, 2010 8:32 PM

It's looking interesting. I was originally a nay sayer, since in general I think the idea of remaking a contemporary movie simply so stupid people don't have to read subtitles is pretty sad. BUT if they are going the extra step of actually re-adapting the book or parts of it at least as opposed to simply remaking the original movie, that holds more promise.

Staying tuned in on this one.

Reply
user-pic
by cuckoo, September 3, 2010 10:15 PM

Certainly a well-shot scene and a great use of BOC's Burnin For You (particularly the natural sound of the car radio), but I just wish the makers took all the efforts they obviously made on this and channeled it toward an original work rather than a remake. Yeah I know boo-hoo-hoo.

That scene was kind of Carpenter-esque, no Todd?

Reply
user-pic
Todd Brown replied to comment from cuckoo, September 3, 2010 10:25 PM

That's a fair comparison. I'd go with that.

Reply
user-pic
by ChevalierAguila, September 4, 2010 12:55 AM

I'm not watching this movie, but damn, that was quite a debate in the comments.

Reply
user-pic
Todd Brown replied to comment from ChevalierAguila, September 4, 2010 2:21 AM

I was feeling scrappy tonight. And also procrastinating writing the big pile of advance reviews I've got to do for TIFF. I've made it to 2 AM without starting on those. Yay me!

Reply
user-pic
by Swarez, September 4, 2010 7:44 AM

I'm not going to look at the clip, going to check it out at FF instead.

Reply
user-pic
by plissken2013, September 4, 2010 8:00 AM

I haven't looked at that clip. And I'll never watch that movie.

Reply
user-pic
by plissken2013, September 4, 2010 8:02 AM

I haven't looked at that clip. And I'll never watch that movie. And, since I work sometimes for free in a videoclub, I will always try to convince people wanting to rent the U$ version to watch the original instead. I'm pretty good at that. Ha!

Reply
user-pic
by TiLefouR, September 4, 2010 8:40 AM

scorching comments. whew! im a nay sayer too and will remain to be one despite todd's and others' defense of let me in. the reason being that let the right one taken as a whole, despite some of its unfaithfulness with the book, is poetic. now, i dont intend to be a racist but american directors prove it time and again that they're incapable of poetry or at least their view of poetry is misguided and/or shallow. that is the biggest problem that let me in has -- that is, it is directed by an american director. maybe we will see fascinating shots or a more faithful depiction of the book but not poetry (of course, im just guessing on this coz i hadn't seen let me in but this guess is NOT unreasonable). what would differentiate alfredson's work from reeves' and let the right one in from let me in for that matter is the element of poetry.


one would say that america has also produced films that can be said to be classified as poetry in motion but i disagree with this. one who says this has either a crude idea of poetry or hasn't seen good films outside the US that are TRUE poetry. Films like Maborosi, Tony Takitani, and In the Mood for Love would prove my point. i dont just say this out of dislike to americans. clearly, this point is evident, at least to someone who've seen a good part of world cinema. such a problem is rooted in culture, i think.


without poetry, let me in would fail especially to those viewers who have seen alfredson's version. the good effect that let me in would have on its viewers would only be fleeting without poetry. i dont know about you guys but that element of poetry made alfredson's version the film it is now, worthy of intellectual comments and conversations and even not so intellectual (but passionate) ones. let me in may fascinate someone but wouldn't make a believer out of him/her. i'll bet on that.

Reply
user-pic
Swarez replied to comment from TiLefouR, September 5, 2010 12:26 AM

First off. The reason you like films is because of American films, this is what you grew up on and then later acquired the taste for world cinema. So fuck this "poetic" bullshit, there is plenty of "poetry" in US cinema. Watch Terence Malick or Andrew Dominick ( I know he's Australian but his latest film and his best is US produced) if you are in need of US poetry.

Let The Right One In isn't unfaithful to the book, it just chooses the elements it needs to make the film they want to make, which is a down to earth love story between two pre teens, where one happens to be a vampire. I love the film and I love the book but I wish someone would take the material they didn't use in the Swedish version and made something out of it. I'm hoping Reeves and Co do that.
The reason the Swedish film works so well is because it removes more of the super natural elements of the book to make a very "European" version of a vampire story, almost something we would expect from a Scandinavian country. I'm not sure we would have embraced it as much if it had included the fanged and winged Eli and the rest of the supernatural stuff. Although the Hakan Monster is one of the more terrifying creations I've read in a long while.
Alfredson knew exactly what he needed to make the film he wanted to make and created and master piece of horror cinema. It's an example of choosing the right things for what you want to say.
America is a completely different marked place than Europe and filmmakers have to conform to that marked place in order to make movies. It's a business after all where the bottom line at the box office has more relevance than "poetry".

Reply
user-pic
TiLefouR replied to comment from Swarez, September 5, 2010 7:33 AM

well first off too, you're incredibly mistaken if you think i like films because of american films. such a comment is just plain egotistic if you're an american. i definitely understand if you're from the states and happen to be proud of the films produced by you're country but to assume that its a universal truth that everyone likes them is what you can rightly call as "bullshit." i grew up on watching miyazaki's animations and martial arts movies (some of them i've watched on beta and vhs tapes a long time ago) and yes some american films too but i never developed a liking for american cinema. (that may come as a shock to you. well.) and this is not because i dislike american people. in fact i have friends and relatives living in the states.


pls dont mistake me that i would not like a director (which is reeves in this case) to incorporate new elements to the new adaptation. all i am saying is that im a nay sayer to the new adaptation (meaning, that i think the first one would still be better than the upcoming second one) coz its handled by an american director which mind you is not poetic, judging from the films he had made. and yes, poetry makes A LOT of difference particularly in this kind of film. the proper selection of what should be included in the film is just one side of the equation, the other rests upon the delivery of the scenes, "poetic " delivery that is, which contrary to you're theory is the main reason why let the right one in "works so well."


you're saying that there are "plenty" of poetry in american cinema but you can only give two examples, one of which is australian. well yeah, that is "plenty" isn't it? cmon, the word "plenty" has a different meaning than what you are trying to suggest.


and when you said that making films is "a business after all where the bottom line at the box office has more relevance than "poetry"." you are just reinforcing my point that american filmmakers are incapable of poetry coz their thinking more of their benjamins than contributing a legitimate piece of art in the world of cinema and in the art world at large.

Reply
by Marco, September 4, 2010 11:17 AM

Loved the original movie I can't wait to see this one too. I also like how the writer of the articles responds to comments that's always cool. :)

Reply
by Carl, September 5, 2010 10:05 AM

The movie blogosphere standard for this kind of hatin' is "SPOILER ALERT!" The rest of us hardly give a shit about who has the best knowledge of the original story. And we don't need to be handed important plot points. Now, I did read the book. In swedish. So there. I best you all! Put that in your pipes, right.

Reply
user-pic
by kungfueurotrash, September 5, 2010 9:30 PM

What was the song in the radio??? I now it's an oldie but still goodie to me...

Reply
user-pic
by Todd Brown, September 7, 2010 11:02 PM

"In Let Me In, they are going to change this entirely. There is an original vampire, but it's going to be one that was never featured in the book and another "backstory" entirely. Which really is nothing to do with nothing. Just his uncreative way to make his film 10% new, so him and his buttbuddies can say, see it's not 100% scene for scene copy! Win!

See, I'm not a butt hurt troll fan boy. I've researched Let Me In. Hell even the one review that is up, that is very happy with Let Me In states, it's a near shot for shot remake. "


Your 'research' is crap. I saw a pre-screening of the film today and this scene is not it it at all. No original vampire. No new backstory. You are 100% wrong here.

Reply
Robert replied to comment from Todd Brown, September 8, 2010 4:59 AM

Well, thanks to replying to the one thing. Glad they cut that out. The script review and such said they wouldn't. On top of which, IMDB says original vampire and I was replying to that guys post on it. You know...

"There is apparently going to be a part where we see Chloe being turned into what she is now by the original vampire. This was in the book. "

He said that. Since they cut that out, smart move by the way. Then they won't be more true to the book or bring anything substantially new from it, right? Either way I'm right, and either way you're being very petty with the chop job.

*tips hat*

Knob.

Reply
by Robert, September 8, 2010 5:04 AM

"There is apparently going to be a part where we see Chloe being turned into what she is now by the original vampire. This was in the book. "-your friend

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1228987/faq#.2.1.6

"Also, according to an interview with Matt Reeves, the director, on the advice of Steven Spielberg, had both Kodi and Chloe keep a diary in character. Moretz and Reeves worked closely together in developing Abby's backstory. In this film, Abby is the daughter of a wealthy plantation-owning family somewhere in American during the late 18th century. Her uncle is a vampire who is kept in isolation in a shack somewhere on the family's property. One night, her uncle lures her into his home, where he tortures her and turns her into his vampire companion."

Was probably where that dude got it from and was what I was addressing. Originally they were going to have this scene in with an "original vampire". Again, smart of them to cut it out or not go through with it.

Reply
user-pic
by Ard Vijn, September 8, 2010 10:00 AM

I have an idea!
Let's do a "Have Your Say" article on this...

...on second thought, let's not.

Reply
user-pic
by Fosh, September 14, 2010 3:25 PM

I thought very careful to comment here, but I have to:

I do not like people producing a mere copy of an already existing work of art, whatever reasons they think they have. For me it's only to get the money someone else has earned.
That includes also people like the "great" Mr. Scorsese.

Reply

Leave a comment

Twitch homepage
About Twitch | Advertise on Twitch | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | Twitter | Facebook
All Twitch Headlines Reviews Videos Comments Add to Google
 
Full Site | Mobile Site
Related Posts with Thumbnails