In many ways I am jealous of those who will be able to experience Matt Reeves' Let Me In cold, with no exposure to either the source novel by John Ajvide Lindqvist or the previous Swedish film adaptation by Tomas Alfredson. I say this not because the Reeves film does not hold up to the quality of the Alfredson picture, which it does. I say this not because it does not honor the source material, which it also does. No, I say this because those people who are coming to the picture cold will be the fortunate ones who are able to slip into it and experience a good story well told without fighting the urge to maintain a running log of what changed where and why between the three different versions of the tale - all of which are quite similar and quite distinct from one another on a number of points.
Let Me In is the story of two adolescent children, one of whom is not. It is the story of Owen, a twelve year old boy living in a cheap apartment trying to cope with the twin pressures of horrific bullying at school and the slow collapse of his parents' marriage. And it is the story of Abby, the girl who moves into the apartment next door late one night, walking barefoot through the snow. Never seen during the day and initially hostile during chance encounters, it is not long before Owen feels that Abby is his one true friend and confidante. But what to make of the troubling series of gruesome murders that coincide with her arrival?
A most unusual coming of age story, Let Me In is the story of a blossoming relationship between a boy and a vampire and it is one that has now proven to be quite resilient, taking on slightly different shapes and forms as it shifts between mediums and languages. And though the Reeves take is not exhaustive by any means - the book is considerably richer and more complex than either film version - it is nonetheless remarkable on a number of levels.
First, and most strikingly, it boasts striking performances from the entire cast. While supporting players Elias Koteas and Richard Jenkins both bring surprising depth to their relatively brief screen time the weight of the film rests on the shoulders of young stars Chloe Moretz and Kodi Smit-McPhee and both are absolutely stellar. At least one of the two young performers are on screen for better than eighty percent of the running time, meaning strong performances were necessary if the film was to hang together and both deliver in a big way with subtle, restrained performances.
Second, it is remarkable for its skillful manipulation of mood and tone. Owen's life is a quiet tragedy, that of a sensitive boy collapsing in on himself emotionally and retreating into fantasies of violence against those who have hurt him when he meets Abby, someone who is - ironically - more than capable of the type of violence Owen dreams of but who seems to dream of the life she lost long ago. Why they're drawn to each other seems obvious, why they should stay far apart seems even moreso. The roots of their tragic relationship inform the entire film with a sort of muted-palette sadness, but Reeves and company find shades of meaning within that base level emotion while also punctuating it with sequences of building tension and shocking bursts of violence.
And, finally, it is remarkable for the way it manages to be both faithful and true to the earlier versions of the story while also giving the film a distinct feel of its own. It is a pleasant surprise how easily Reeves is able to make this feel like an inherently American story - one that plays on the inner rot of the Regan years, the hysteria of the Satanic Panic years and the rise of the Religious Right - rather than a thinly veneered copy of a foreign original. Though specific moments and shots will feel familiar to fans of the earlier film, the overall picture feels very much like Reeves' own. How does he accomplish this?
First, Reeves introduces a structural change right at the outset. He starts the story at an entirely different point, thereby shifting the focus from the Oscar / Owen character who drove the Alfredson film and on the Eli / Abby, who drives the Reeves picture. Do the actual events change? No, but the manner in which they are presented very certainly does and that makes a very subtle but important difference in the feel of the picture.
Second, Reeves narrows the focus of the story down, making it as purely about Owen and Abby as he possibly can with secondary characters appearing only to the degree they are needed to drive the story of the core duo. This narrowing process has become more pronounced from version to version with the book boasting a far broader involvement with a much larger world than is present in the Swedish film, which limits the action to the children, their parents / caregivers and a small collection of fellow residents, down on to the Reeves film which is so tightly focused on the children that Owen's father does not appear on screen at all, nor do the group of gossiping friends from the earlier versions. This move is somewhat double edged. On the positive side, it's very hard to argue with any move that gives more screen time to Moretz and Smit-McPhee and the relationship between them. Once again, they are remarkable. On the other side, however, the broader space provided a bit more context for the events of the story and knowing Abby's victims better made their deaths more shocking.
Much has been written by angry fans of the Alfredson film against this one based on early trailers and script reviews from dubious sources. To those who have been following those conversations, no - it is not a shot for shot remake. Yes, many sequences are quite similar but many others are not. The structure of the film is quite different, the internal focus shifted slightly. As for script reviews claiming massive revisions to the source material, disregard those entirely. They simply are not true. The back stories of the children have not been changed in the slightest, with the obvious exception being that they now live in America. Some issues are simply not touched on - which I will not go in to for spoiler reasons - but there is nothing about either character that contradicts existing canon. This is a true, respectful treatment of the original material.
As for the question of Swedish or American, which version is better? I simply don't know if I can offer an answer to that because the experience of watching the two versions is so wildly different. The Alfredson film was my first exposure to this story, so everything was fresh. Since then I have read the novel, which dives much more deeply into any number of issues barely hinted at in the Alfredson film. And approaching this film it was simply impossible to just sit and watch and experience the story fresh because comparisons to both book and earlier film were spinning in my head throughout the entire run time. And this, I think, is about the only argument that I'll accept when it comes to opposing film remakes this close to the previous film version - that things are still so fresh that it is almost impossible to judge the new version on its own terms. What I do know is that while neither film is perfect both are pretty damn good and a host of people unfamiliar with the story are about to get a treat.
Let Me In is the story of two adolescent children, one of whom is not. It is the story of Owen, a twelve year old boy living in a cheap apartment trying to cope with the twin pressures of horrific bullying at school and the slow collapse of his parents' marriage. And it is the story of Abby, the girl who moves into the apartment next door late one night, walking barefoot through the snow. Never seen during the day and initially hostile during chance encounters, it is not long before Owen feels that Abby is his one true friend and confidante. But what to make of the troubling series of gruesome murders that coincide with her arrival?
A most unusual coming of age story, Let Me In is the story of a blossoming relationship between a boy and a vampire and it is one that has now proven to be quite resilient, taking on slightly different shapes and forms as it shifts between mediums and languages. And though the Reeves take is not exhaustive by any means - the book is considerably richer and more complex than either film version - it is nonetheless remarkable on a number of levels.
First, and most strikingly, it boasts striking performances from the entire cast. While supporting players Elias Koteas and Richard Jenkins both bring surprising depth to their relatively brief screen time the weight of the film rests on the shoulders of young stars Chloe Moretz and Kodi Smit-McPhee and both are absolutely stellar. At least one of the two young performers are on screen for better than eighty percent of the running time, meaning strong performances were necessary if the film was to hang together and both deliver in a big way with subtle, restrained performances.
Second, it is remarkable for its skillful manipulation of mood and tone. Owen's life is a quiet tragedy, that of a sensitive boy collapsing in on himself emotionally and retreating into fantasies of violence against those who have hurt him when he meets Abby, someone who is - ironically - more than capable of the type of violence Owen dreams of but who seems to dream of the life she lost long ago. Why they're drawn to each other seems obvious, why they should stay far apart seems even moreso. The roots of their tragic relationship inform the entire film with a sort of muted-palette sadness, but Reeves and company find shades of meaning within that base level emotion while also punctuating it with sequences of building tension and shocking bursts of violence.
And, finally, it is remarkable for the way it manages to be both faithful and true to the earlier versions of the story while also giving the film a distinct feel of its own. It is a pleasant surprise how easily Reeves is able to make this feel like an inherently American story - one that plays on the inner rot of the Regan years, the hysteria of the Satanic Panic years and the rise of the Religious Right - rather than a thinly veneered copy of a foreign original. Though specific moments and shots will feel familiar to fans of the earlier film, the overall picture feels very much like Reeves' own. How does he accomplish this?
First, Reeves introduces a structural change right at the outset. He starts the story at an entirely different point, thereby shifting the focus from the Oscar / Owen character who drove the Alfredson film and on the Eli / Abby, who drives the Reeves picture. Do the actual events change? No, but the manner in which they are presented very certainly does and that makes a very subtle but important difference in the feel of the picture.
Second, Reeves narrows the focus of the story down, making it as purely about Owen and Abby as he possibly can with secondary characters appearing only to the degree they are needed to drive the story of the core duo. This narrowing process has become more pronounced from version to version with the book boasting a far broader involvement with a much larger world than is present in the Swedish film, which limits the action to the children, their parents / caregivers and a small collection of fellow residents, down on to the Reeves film which is so tightly focused on the children that Owen's father does not appear on screen at all, nor do the group of gossiping friends from the earlier versions. This move is somewhat double edged. On the positive side, it's very hard to argue with any move that gives more screen time to Moretz and Smit-McPhee and the relationship between them. Once again, they are remarkable. On the other side, however, the broader space provided a bit more context for the events of the story and knowing Abby's victims better made their deaths more shocking.
Much has been written by angry fans of the Alfredson film against this one based on early trailers and script reviews from dubious sources. To those who have been following those conversations, no - it is not a shot for shot remake. Yes, many sequences are quite similar but many others are not. The structure of the film is quite different, the internal focus shifted slightly. As for script reviews claiming massive revisions to the source material, disregard those entirely. They simply are not true. The back stories of the children have not been changed in the slightest, with the obvious exception being that they now live in America. Some issues are simply not touched on - which I will not go in to for spoiler reasons - but there is nothing about either character that contradicts existing canon. This is a true, respectful treatment of the original material.
As for the question of Swedish or American, which version is better? I simply don't know if I can offer an answer to that because the experience of watching the two versions is so wildly different. The Alfredson film was my first exposure to this story, so everything was fresh. Since then I have read the novel, which dives much more deeply into any number of issues barely hinted at in the Alfredson film. And approaching this film it was simply impossible to just sit and watch and experience the story fresh because comparisons to both book and earlier film were spinning in my head throughout the entire run time. And this, I think, is about the only argument that I'll accept when it comes to opposing film remakes this close to the previous film version - that things are still so fresh that it is almost impossible to judge the new version on its own terms. What I do know is that while neither film is perfect both are pretty damn good and a host of people unfamiliar with the story are about to get a treat.
More from Let Me In
- Reviews: LET ME IN: You Got THE RIGHT ONE Baby?
- Reviews: Fantastic Fest 2010: Let Me In Review
- News: TIFF 2010: An Extended Clip From Matt Reeves' LET ME IN Impresses.
- News: LET ME IN Opens Fantastic Fest 2010
- News: Matt Reeves' LET ME IN Goes Red Band
- News: New US Trailer And Poster For Matt Reeves' LET ME IN
- News: First Trailer For Matt Reeves' LET ME IN Is Flat Out Brilliant.
- News: Second Image From Matt Reeves' LET ME IN
- Galleries: Let Me In
- News: Matt Reeves' LET ME IN Cast Announced
Just wanted to say thanks. I was hopeful but worried about this project...
First off, great review Todd. I thoroughly enjoyed the version by Alfredson, and I was initially worried when I heard about the english language "remake". But this is great news, as I really like Chloe Moretz acting and would love to see her in role where one has to show their acting skills. I'm happy to hear that the Americanization of the stories background worked out well. I remember reading about it here at Twitch some time ago that the Reagan period, and other subjects as you mentioned, wosuld be implemented to make the story more plausibly American.
So this is good news, and I'm very much looking forward to seeing it. Maybe pick up the book while I'm at it.
You think this will attract academy award nominations? It would be a shame if it didn't. I have been disappointed with the choice of nominations in the past years, especially when it comes to great performances in horror films.
Two things.
Which one is the better companion piece to the book and which one is more true to the book?
Answer truthfully. As they are simple questions, that are clearly not said in insulting manner.
"As for script reviews claiming massive revisions to the source material, disregard those entirely. They simply are not true. The back stories of the children have not been changed in the slightest, with the obvious exception being that they now live in America. Some issues are simply not touched on - which I will not go in to for spoiler reasons - but there is nothing about either character that contradicts existing canon."
You're wrong.
First off, the leaked script WAS accurate. It was an early draft but it was definitely legit. If it was fake, then whoever wrote it had ESP as it had aspects such as the cop and opening it with Hakan in the hospital to be dead on.
Secondly...if you had read the book (and you say you do), you would know where the remake contradicts the previous versions.
Abby here is no longer a castrated boy, but just a plain girl. This is, again, a big change. Yes it wasn't as clear as it was in the book, but the filmmakers still tried their best to include it right down to having someone perform ADR on Eli to give her a deeper, more androgynous voice. And to say "Well, this doesn't say she's NOT a castrated boy" is nothing short of disingenuous because it's clear that Reeves copped out.
More importantly, Hakan was a pedophile that Eli had taken from the gutters to serve her. The film left this area ambiguous but did not contradict it. By having Hakan be a former paramour of Abby, and suggesting that Owen will be next in line, IS a significant change...and not necessarily a good one, as it implies that Owen is simply one in a long line of slaves as opposed to the "right one" that Abby finds after an eternity of loneliness. How is that in any way, shape or form respecting Lindqvist's story?
Glad to know you either didn't read the book, or completely forgot entirely about it.
Is Owen a girl in this movie? I mean the movie doesn't say he isn't. So he could be a girl right? Was the entire movie a dream they used to read word up magazine? Because the movie doesn't say it isn't.
Be nice to see a review from someone that read and got the book, I reckon. Be nice to see that indeed.
Good review Todd. I wasn't sure about this one but I'm going to give it a chance.
I don't understand what Robert and wpadick are doing here.
Robert started by asking a question... well actually he didn't. He DEMANDED an answer to his question and when he didn't get the exact answer he wanted he started attacking the reviewer.
"Glad to know you either didn't read the book, or completely forgot entirely about it."
Ugh, lame assumptions and wrong too.
As for wpadick, what the hell do you want? Feel free to dislike the American movie as much as you want, but I don't get the personal hatred to Reeves here. He's a coward because he didn't focus on the "parts" in the book you obviously think are more important than he did? Todd is wrong to tell you that many of the "abominations" in the original script for the American film never came to pass?
What do the both of you WANT?
Todd said he liked the film a lot. Fat chance any of your rants will change that...
"I don't get the personal hatred to Reeves here. He's a coward because he didn't focus on the "parts" in the book you obviously think are more important than he did?"
You really don't get it? American remakes always "soften" the controversial aspects of the foreign films. This is common knowledge. Look at the ending of The Vanishing and how it compared to its American counterpart. If there's an Oldboy remake, for example, the incest will obviously be omitted because such things wouldn't fly with American audiences. Already the planned "Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance" remake seems to be removing the aspect of the little girl dying and is replacing instead with an adult woman. And to a lesser extent, "Dinner for Schmucks" took the often cruel and mean-spirited humor of the original French film and made it more wacky.
As soon as the remake was announced, I knew that the castration scene would be cut out because such content would cause controversy and that they would want to play it safe. And I was correct. Reeves is cutting out because he's afraid of the hoopla that it would cause. He's pretty much said as much at Comic Con--that he didn't think he would get away with such content because of its explicit nature. He didn't want to take a risk. They're scared. Especially in America, where people would have an uproar over two boys, one naked the other in his underwear, lying in bed together with one caressing the other (already that scene is being made safe by having Owen fully dressed).
"Todd is wrong to tell you that many of the "abominations" in the original script for the American film never came to pass?
Yes, because the original script as floating around the internet is still VERY MUCH ACCURATE as to how the finished film came out. Unless there are any other scripts floating around that I haven't read, to say that Reeves' final cut is is significantly different from his rough draft is false.
Even if everything you guys say is true and you are correct, it still amounts to a great big "So What?" compared to the information Todd has shared about this film.
Well I guess everyone "missed the point" except Robert and wpadick, whatever the point is.
It is funny to read people comment that "this happens in the book" and "Reeves said this" without actually providing any read quotes. If you are going to provide a critical analysis that deeply on a subject, quotations are always a plus.
In the interviews I have read Reeves stated, among other things, that "One of the things I really wanted to do was find my own way into the story while still being very, very reverent to the beautiful film and to the wonderful story that they created." and from Todd's review this is exactly what he has done regardless of whether we like it or not. Another thing to realise is that Lindqvist himself gave Reeves his blessing and he was extremely excited about the project the way Reeves described it.
As for Todd's wishes that he had never seen the original film or read the book before seeing this, jag håller med. Sadly I won't be rushing to see this given that I have also experienced the previous material. Good review nevertheless.
Wow. This was an interesting review that made me consider seeing the film (I'm usually one of those anti-remake Nazis). But the discussion in the comments is even more interesting! To me, this conversation is a tribute to Lindqvist's original story in that it can produce such passionate responses. The best stories are those that ask to be interpreted.
My two cents: I'm upset to hear that the remake is apparently good but leaves out the gender angle (though perhaps slightly more upset about changing the Morrissey-inspired title!). To me, Eli's gender isn't something that can be left out without drastically altering the meaning of the story (unlike, say, the Tommy character, who is interesting but not crucial). Why? Because for me this story is fundamentally about the ambiguity of love. It's a kind of rewrite/commentary on the Romeo and Juliet story of "forbidden love." But unlike Romeo and Juliet, where you have attractive male and female teenage protagonists (clearly, by any social standards "meant" to be together) who love each other pretty much at first sight, this story tells us that love is brutal and that it's never what you expect or want or plan it to be. What could be a more unlikely love-object than a 12-year-old girl who is actually a castrated boy who is actually a supernatural creature that has to murder to live? The most poignant moment in the novel (for me) is when Oskar looks at Eli and thinks "A boy. My friend." And, shortly after that, switches from thinking of Eli as "she" to "he." Oskar doesn't define himself as "gay" but he can't help but love who he loves, just as Eli can't help murder others to live (another metaphor for love?). The heart of the book is, in a nutshell, "we can't help who we love." Love is not simple--it is ambiguous and painful. The pedophilia backstory adds to these themes as well; in the book we are forced at times to sympathize with the monster Hakan. I'm sure the remake can still make this theme come across (Abby is still a vampire, after all), but it seems like the gender angle adds a lot of depth and I know I will miss it if I decide to see the new film. It just seems (on paper at least) to be a dumbing-down--an assumption that American audiences "can't handle" the complexity of the original source material because we're so bigoted that we'll just say "derp, that's gay, bro" and walk away. I say give American audiences a chance to experience the story in all its complexity.
Wow, this is one hell of a thread...
When I first saw Let the Right One In at After Dark a few years back, I had no idea what I was going into. I had at first suspected that Hakkan was a boy that Eli groomed, but noticed the pervy nature of him. However, it wasn't until I read the book that it was made very blunt.
In a similar vein, when I first saw the split second of nudity, I was more noticing the fact that it was a nude child's crotch and didn't notice the utter lack of genitalia. That quickly, it just looked like a prepubescent girl. It wasn't until my second viewing and subsequent reading of the book that I caught on.
Now, let's make our generalizations of American audiences and say that most likely, if they added the castration bit, that sadly this is ALL people would focus on. It wouldn't be character-enhancing or a subtle little twist. People would stop focusing on the character dynamic and poignancy but rather say, "Omigawd did you see that movie about the gay castrated boy vampire?!"
I figured that no matter how good or bad this remake was, one good thing should come of it - more people are likely to seek out the book and the original film.
Todd: I have one concern if you would be so kind as to address it.
Let the Right One In is my favorite film of all time. I also read and loved the book. That being said, what I connected to so much about the story is the idea of the two loneliest people on Earth finding each other and falling in love. I don't care if the horror's been ramped up, I don't care if there's needless CG, I don't care if they beat us over the head with Reagan and 80s music.
My one and only concern is if this is still a love story. Do Kodi and Chloe's performances exude enough depth for us to interpret it as them being in love, their relationship being genuine, and her not simply manipulating those around her? Has the American version "dumbed-down" or reduced their relationship to merely that of friends? Does it leave hints to what her past may or may not be without blatantly stating it, thus allowing us to draw our own conclusions?
My biggest and only fear with this film is that rather than showing us the lonely, broken, empty shell of Eli (in the process making us fall in love with her along with Oskar), they're demonizing Abbey. Turning her into a veiled antagonist. Do you come away from this movie with the feeling that these two kids who love each other have run away together, their future uncertain, but there's hope? Or does it end with us dreading the path Owen has been lead upon thanks to Abbey, that he is just a pawn and that the love he feels for her is only returned to enough of an extent to make him her servant?
I don't care about any of the other changes anymore. I just want to be able to root for (both of) these kids and love the idea of them finding each other and falling in love even a FRACTION as much as I did with the original.
Very nice review Todd. I have read a few other reviews of 'Let Me In' and told myself that out of respect for Alfredson's version of the story and the Lindqvist's novel itself, I wouldn't see the remake but now, after reading your review, I think I might give it chance.
I guess what put me off from the start with the movie is the change in the name; is this a copyright issue? 'Let Me In' as a title gives a completely different message than 'Let the Right One In'. If they wanted to change the title then why not go with 'May I Come In' instead which would be a lot more meaningful to the story then the title they chose.
(Original movie and novel spoilers)
Like you Todd, I saw the Swedish movie first then read the novel. I have to admit, after seeing the original film, my impression of Eli and her relationships with Hakan and Oskar were quite a bit different then they were after completing the novel. I liked that Hakan turned out to be a creepy pedophile who was trying to kill himself with alcohol and Eli later rescued on a park bench with her offer of a partnership. My original thought of Eli and Hakan's relationship was that he was with Eli from an early age and was being cast off since Eli found a younger companion in Oskar; it sounds like the new version of the movie does present Eli's (Abby's) provider in that light which would really be a disappointment for me if that's true.
In Alfredson's movie, I thought he did a really good job of eliminating some characters and subplots while staying true to the original novel. Through the town drunks and their loss of companions and Virginia's transformation to becoming a vampire herself, you get a feeling of Eli's impact on the community; again it kind of sounds like Reeve's version has reduced even more characters and subplots to a point where a significant part of the story is missing but I'll see for myself if that's true or not.
For as much as I enjoyed Alfredson's version of the story, it was missing some details from the novel that would have made it a better movie for me. In fact, I saw four scenes that were deleted from the movie and two of the scenes were significant to the character development of Eli in my opinion and shouldn't have been removed. The 'Exterior Scene' shows Oskar and Eli outside sitting on a snow pile with Eli facing away from Oskar. The scene has Oskar with his fingers held inches away from Eli wanting to touch her then as if he found an excuse to touch her, he plays a common child's game in Sweden that would have Eli needing to guess how many fingers were on her back. She asks him "what am I supposed to do" which shows that she really isn't a child of the current time. Another significant scene eliminated from movie showed Oskar and Eli wrestling with Oskar on top of Eli, they struggle for a few moments and then Oskar gets Eli's arms pinned then slapped her across the face. You could tell that Oscar feels awful for what he has done then he hugs Eli and asks 'forgive me'. She tells him to go away at which time he gets off her but lays next to her. Oskar takes her hand while she continues to look upward towards the ceiling, he then does a vampire like growl towards her that makes her turn towards him and give a hiss back with a smile. Really it was a beautiful scene especially due to the fact that a piano soloist was adding atmosphere to the scene. It was a significant scene for me because it shows Eli's restraint because we all know she could have ripped his head off in pretty short order :-)
Another important fact missing from Alfredson's movie is that Oskar can see Eli's thoughts when they kiss. Through their kisses Oskar experiences how Elias became Eli so to speak. But, what I thought to be the most significant few lines of the novel that gave insight into Eli's true feelings towards Oskar was when they kissed after she had killed Lacke in the bathroom. The movie scene shows Oskar kissing Eli with his eyes closed and Eli kissing him with 'her' eye's opened. When I saw the scene, my impression was that Oskar had true feelings towards Eli but she was coldly manipulating him to become the new Hakan. The novel describes the moment from Oskar's point of view. He said that when they kissed he saw himself through Eli's eyes but now he looked more handsome and brave than he saw himself and also that he could tell Eli loved him. Missing also was that Eli had only took a few thousand Kroner when she left but left the rest of her fortune with Oskar. And too, that she asked him if she wanted to be like her which he declined. So how does 'Let Me In' handle all of this? I'm almost afraid to find out.
I did like Alfredson's ending over the novels. Eli tapping in Morse Code "PUSS" which is Swedish for kiss, a very nice ending ... 'Let Me In' ...?
I just found this deleted scene from 'Let Me In'. I think they should have put it in the film. http://bit.ly/c6v5or
for what it may be worth, my two cents can be found here:
http://gregrivera297.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/gregreviewsletmein/
I sure hope that I'm not too late to this party.
If I may, I'd like to add my two cents regarding all of the back and forth regarding the validity of the filmmaker's faithfulness to the source material.Something that I remember Guillermo Del Toro saying on the extras DVD for Hellboy sticks out in my mind. "We're not making the book into the movie. You can't make the book into a movie. What we're doing is a jazz riff on the book." I had an epiphany when I heard that. I realized that movies, regardless of their source material, are their own separate artistic visions and pursuits, and should be judged as such, strictly for the strengths and weaknesses of their own merits or lack thereof. What would someone who walks into Let Me In cold think of the movie? Someone with no knowledge of the previous movie or the novel that its based on? I imagine that if someone loved it enough, they might be inspired to seek out the other version of the movie, and the novel. This would make it all more enriching experience, thanks to Reeve's film. Are we so jaded that we can't see a movie for what it is, rather than what we'd want it to be? Is it necessary to be aware of outside media (the previous movie, the novel) in order to be invested in this one? Are we capable of seeing with fresh eyes anymore? I loved Let The Right One In, and I still do. I love Let Me In, which in no way diminishes my love for Let The Right One In, and I am currently reading the novel. Why must there be so much bitterness? If you don't like a movie, don't watch it. Don't buy the DVD or Blu-ray. In the end, the artistic truth of both movies will be determined by movie watcher history, for better or worse.