Let Me In VS Let the Right One In

[othervoice1]

Okay I havent seen the Hollywood version yet - but - I have surprisingly seen very positive reviews for it and more then one reviewer saying it is actually better then Let the Right One In. And I must admit I did like the casting of the girl from Kickass.

I loved LTROI and shuddered when I heard a remake was being done already- so for anyone that has now seen both versions- what did you think? Could the remake actually be very good, even as good or better then the original??

Im weighing if I should spend the money at the theatre to see this....

[The Chaostar]

Easy choice. Oh I haven't seen the Hollywood remake. So what?

[dave13]

is anyone actually going to see the remake? i won't be. not out of outrage, or loyalty to the original. just out of sheer, complete, 100% apathy.

[maybrick]

is anyone actually going to see the remake? i won't be. not out of outrage, or loyalty to the original. just out of sheer, complete, 100% apathy.

I'm going to see it because it's the first theatrically released film made by Hammer Studios in 31 years. I'm curious. I personally see a difference between a "remake" and a "new adaptation". This is the latter, as from what I hear LET ME IN includes a few things that were in the original source novel that LET THE RIGHT ONE IN didn't.

[bigdaddyhorse]

I'm going to see it because it's the first theatrically released film made by Hammer Studios in 31 years. I'm curious. I personally see a difference between a "remake" and a "new adaptation". This is the latter, as from what I hear LET ME IN includes a few things that were in the original source novel that LET THE RIGHT ONE IN didn't.

Being Hammer kinda makes me want to see it. My dislike of the original (over-rated after school speacial IMO) almost insures I won't.
Good to see Hammer back, but why on a remake of movie not even 5 years old?

[maybrick]

Good to see Hammer back, but why on a remake of movie not even 5 years old?

Because the studio bought the rights from the producer of Let the Right one in before said film was even released to the general public. That and they probably didn't want to take any unnecessary monetary risks after being defunct for so long. Not that they ever really took risks to begin with. Their first bonafide hit, The Quatermass Xperiment, was itself a remake of a tv serial barely even a year old. And of course, the remake status of Curse of Frankenstein and Horror of Dracula barely even needs mentioning. Historically speaking, virtually all of the major hits the studio has ever had have been remakes.

[russweiss]

I prefer remakes to put a new spin on the story. Let Me In (besides being a worse title) offered almost nothing new. Most of the scenes were nearly identical to Let the Right One In. I didn't realize it was a Hammer film until I started watching the credits. Their new logo is nice as it shows scenes from lots of their classic horror films.

[MorallySound]

I prefer the original, but the American version is surprisingly very good! Here's my review from my blog:

http://reeltoreelradio.blogspot.com/2010/10/innocence-in-blood.html

[Ash28M]

The Original always gets bonus points for creating the template. Saying that the remake did an amazing job. I'll say it's a tie.

[fattyjoe37]

The original is by far better. The remake took a lot of the subtlety out of the film and beat you over the head with its pounding score and terrible CGI vampire effects. The new one isn't bad, but it honestly adds nothing to the story.

[Ash28M]

Honestly I think some fans of the original should just not see the remake. It really doesn't matter how good it is. Some people are not going to get over the fact that it's a remake of a film they thought didn't need to be remade. IMO yes it was needles but I can't deny that they're both GREAT films. The original does some things better but I found there were scenes in the remake that actually improved on the original. The only thing I can compare it too and I think I may have mentioned it in another thread is that it is what Ring is to Ringu.

[TheDreamMaster]

I am a big time fan of the original, and I thought Let Me In was a worthy readaptation (which is really what it is--the original movie itself was based on a book) that's just as good as the first one. Not sure why people are really seething over this one--instead of one good movie, we now have two.

[Paff]

I personally see a difference between a "remake" and a "new adaptation". This is the latter, as from what I hear LET ME IN includes a few things that were in the original source novel that LET THE RIGHT ONE IN didn't.

Let Me In was a worthy readaptation (which is really what it is--the original movie itself was based on a book)

In the name of disclosure, I haven't read Let the Right One In, nor have I seen Let Me In. That said, I'm still calling BS on this "re-adaptation" theory. If that were the case, you're basically saying that the producer/writer/director of LMI read the novel, and felt that Alfredson's film was not a faithful adaptation.

Even what I've seen of LMI seems to be based (visually at least) on Alfredson's film. Gimme a break. This is not a case of re-adapting a novel. It's simply a case of knowing that a film with Swedish actors and scenes will not play very well in the US.

It's a remake. Call a spade a spade.

On the plus side, it did not do well. Only when we stop going to these inferior remakes will they stop making them.

[TheDreamMaster]

That said, I'm still calling BS on this "re-adaptation" theory.

Call it what you want, but it is just another adaptation of the book; it's no different than Hammer doing the same thing 50 years ago when they re-adapted the Dracula and Frankenstein novels. No matter what the intent/inspiration was, that's still what it is. Yes, Let Me In hews very closely to the original film, but Reeves did put his own stamp on it (and it didn't all work completely).

these inferior remakes

nor have I seen Let Me In.

I really think you should give it a shot before making snap judgments. I see no reason why anyone wouldn't like Let Me In if they adore Let the Right One In. It's really faithful in tone and style. I guess you feel the same way I did when I first saw the Omen remake: I thought it was a very good movie, but it was so similar to the original that it felt redundant. Then I saw it from another perspective, and it's like I said earlier: you have two good movies instead of one. What's not to like?

[Ash28M]

I guess you feel the same way I did when I first saw the Omen remake: I thought it was a very good movie, but it was so similar to the original that it felt redundant. Then I saw it from another perspective, and it's like I said earlier: you have two good movies instead of one. What's not to like?

I was with you until you said the Omen remake was a good movie.:eek1:

[Paff]

Oh, and just because something is based on a novel, does NOT mean it's not a remake. C'mon. If I make a movie about the Corleones, a mafia family based on a novel by Mario Puzo, don't tell me you're not going to compare it to Coppola's film.

Yes, in some cases, a novel can be "re-interpreted", especially if the movie took significant liberties with the original text. Dracula and Frankenstein are perfect examples. 1931's Dracula and 1959's Horror of Dracula are both based on Stoker's novel, yet neither are THAT close to the book.

So, that said, those of you that are calling it closer to the book (Maybrick and DreamMaster), spoilerize it if you need, but what are some of the elements from the book that Let Me In addresses that Let The Right One In ignored or altered? They'd better be damn significant.

[shithead]

I have zero interest in seeing the remake. It's sole purpose for the most part, seems to be for the tards that won't read subtitles.

I'm glad it didn't do well this weekend.

[TheDreamMaster]

Oh, and just because something is based on a novel, does NOT mean it's not a remake. C'mon. If I make a movie about the Corleones, a mafia family based on a novel by Mario Puzo, don't tell me you're not going to compare it to Coppola's film.

Yes, in some cases, a novel can be "re-interpreted", especially if the movie took significant liberties with the original text. Dracula and Frankenstein are perfect examples. 1931's Dracula and 1959's Horror of Dracula are both based on Stoker's novel, yet neither are THAT close to the book.

So, that said, those of you that are calling it closer to the book (Maybrick and DreamMaster), spoilerize it if you need, but what are some of the elements from the book that Let Me In addresses that Let The Right One In ignored or altered? They'd better be damn significant.

I haven't read the original novel either (though I guess I'd be a "tard" cause I'd have to read it in English and not the original Swedish ;)). However, I already said that Let Me In and Let the Right One In are very similar. But that has nothing to do with the technicalities of what the movie is and how these things are perceived. Why can novels like Dracula and Frankenstein have the holy hell reinterpreted out of them with no one batting an eye?

Frankly, I think the whole "remake" thing is just a boogeyman ideal that people latch on to and use as an excuse to dismiss something. I'm not even going to pretend and I say I haven't done the same thing in the past with certain ones (almost always dealing with franchises where sequels would be a better option at the time). But the fact is, no one has bothered to answer my simple question: why can't you like both? If I like something, I'm generally not going to say "hey, I don't want anymore!" Why wouldn't you want two good movies instead of just one? If it's a matter of originality, how can you like any movie that's based on a novel (unless the director is the original author). After all, that's taking an idea that's someone else's to use as a basis for your own creative project. At the end of the day, if something is fucking awesome, who cares what it is? You've got to think that at least a few people that saw Let Me In enjoyed it and realized that it was based off of the original, which led those people to seek it out and give it a shot too. These things do more good than harm to their originals (if anything, some of them are so poor that it enhances the original's reputation!).

I was with you until you said the Omen remake was a good movie.

I really do think it was a solid movie--very well directed, and the production values were great. So much of it recycled the original stuff that was effective in the first place, which all but assured that it would at least be good. That said, if I'm going to watch The Omen, nine times out of ten I'm going with the original. But if I were some guy that was nuts about The Omen series and watched it very regularly, that remake is a good curiosity piece that wouldn't be bad to revisit every now and then.

[RidgeShark]

I'm a fan of the original and still managed to enjoy the remake. They're both haunting portrayals of lonesome childhoods. Unfortunately, I doubt the remake will have any appeal to mainstream audiences.

[Katatonia]

I caught the remake last night... it was "okay" as far as remakes go, but I still prefer the original far more. I didn't feel that it worked nearly as well in many areas.

[mcchrist]

I was with you until you said the Omen remake was a good movie.:eek1:

Well, it was a good movie.

:cool:

[maybrick]

So, that said, those of you that are calling it closer to the book (Maybrick and DreamMaster), spoilerize it if you need, but what are some of the elements from the book that Let Me In addresses that Let The Right One In ignored or altered? They'd better be damn significant.

I have no idea. As I've already said, that is what I've heard. And actually, I haven't heard that it's "closer", only that it used a few things that the first film didn't. I haven't seen either LET ME IN or read the source novel. I'm reserving my judgement until I see the film. I still stand by my opinion in the difference between a remake of a classic film based upon an original script and a readaptation of a literary novel that had already previously been made into a feature film. With the latter there is far more latitude in reinterpretation because there is always things that get cut out when you condense a several hundred page novel down to a 90-120 page script (general rule of thumb: 1 scripted page = 1 minute screen time). With remaking a classic film that began as a script, however, about the only thing you can do is to dilute it's power by adding things that weren't originally there. And when you do that, you risk changing the very things that people always liked about the film to begin with. Certain films are a called classics for a reason. You can't improve upon perfection.

[spawningblue]

I really do think it was a solid movie--very well directed, and the production values were great. So much of it recycled the original stuff that was effective in the first place, which all but assured that it would at least be good. That said, if I'm going to watch The Omen, nine times out of ten I'm going with the original. But if I were some guy that was nuts about The Omen series and watched it very regularly, that remake is a good curiosity piece that wouldn't be bad to revisit every now and then.

I 100% agree with you here. I don't get all the hate The Omen remake gets. It's so similar to the original that it can't really be a bad film. Not needed may be a better term, but it wasn't BAD. I will add Psycho to that list as well, even if that is sacrilegious. And yes, I too will watch the original 9 times out of 10, but every once in a while I don't mind the remake.

[spawningblue]

As for this remake. I have heard nothing but good things about it so I will definitely check it out when it hits Blu Ray. I just recently watched the original for the first time though so I am in no rush to run to theaters to see this as I also heard it is pretty similar.