The Let Me In Trailer: Chloe Moretz Sucks... Blood
Fans of the original Let the Right One In -- of which there are many around the Internet -- were justifiably upset when they heard that Tomas Alfredson's beloved and moody adaptation of John Ajvide Lindqvist's novel was being remade for American audiences with Matt Reeves (a.k.a. the guy who did Cloverfield) as the director. But the international trailer for Let Me In -- America likes short titles! -- has arrived and it confirms two things: Reeves was very, very faithful to Alfredson's original, and Kick-Ass star Chloe Moretz does, in fact, kick ass.
Reeves has kept things pretty similar, despite moving the locale to New Mexico. Owen (Kodi Smith-McPhee, looking as shell-shocked as he did in The Road) is a bullied youngster who becomes fast friends with his new neighbor (Moretz), only to realize that she's a vampire. "I need blood," and all. And cue vampire action and jump scares!
That's all well and good but doesn't Let Me In feel a bit too reverent toward the original? If Matt Reeves was just going to Gus Van Sant this thing, then what was the point? To make money, of course -- but will American audiences want their moody vampire tales without an Edward or Jacob in sight?
VERDICT: Maybe.
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
It looks good but it won't be able to compare to the flawless Let the Right One In.
Agreed.
(SPOILERS!!!!)
And it kind of annoys me that americans have simply forgotten the fact that Chloe's character is not female, although pretty androgenous. Eli is a castrated boy in the book, and in the original film the actress was dubbed by a boy. AND there's the famous scene Oskar sees Eli changing chothes and there's a big scar right *there*. I'm pretty sure that won't be the case in the american version... specially since Chloe is keeping her pretty feminate voice.
Meh.
No way, they remade a movie to make money? How come no one ever complained about that before? I suppose you don't get paid by Movieline.
"And it kind of annoys me that americans have simply forgotten the fact that Chloe's character is not female" It's not that Americans have forgotten the fact that Chloe's character is not female, we don't care. Its a vampire movie. Lighten up.
SPOILER
I think I read an interview with Reeves a few months back saying they were not going THERE in this version. Its not that much of a shock really, the original film barely went THERE either.
vampirism comes second to the whole story. the movie or plot is actually supposed to be about the friendship that Eli (chloe's character) and Oskar (smith's character) seem to create with one another. its simply above being vampire and human and about dealing with the relationships we cultivate on our own.
also making Eli into a female and not androgynous seems to take out the subtext of what John Ajvide Lindqvist brought in the novel. i loved the frigid blue color palette and the cinematography. i guess new mexico can work. im glad its not some rural american town like all other horror movies. new mexico should give it a decent look. why does the shots feel so contricted? isnt the undertone about freeing one self and yet being unable too?
i can only imagine how its going to end. loved the morse code at the end of the trailer and very much looking forward to Let Me In when it comes to theatres. hopefully soon.
Well, like it really needed to be said, but the original was brilliant and didn't require a remake (does any film?). Having said that, this looks very Hollywoodised -- as in, it certainly looks like they're going to focus more on the horror/gore and less on the relationships and characters, which is what the story is about.
The original was something of a supernatural drama, as I like to call it. The book was a bit creepier and had a fair few things that the film didn't (and it's not surprising they didn't make the cut in the American version, either; child prostitution, castration, paedophilia -- what's not to like?), but the foundation of it was still Oskar and Eli, Eli and Oskar.
So, does this look like a faithful adaptation? No, actually, it doesn't. It hasn't captured the essence of Lat den ratte komma in/Let the Right One in; it appears fairly generic, to put it bluntly. Put Oscar-winning actors in front and behind the camera, for all I care, but the fact remains that it's still completely unnecessary and something will be lost in translation.
/rant.
This has NOTHING to do with shock value. Neither the movie nor the book (ESPECIALLY not the book!) were about a dark romantic obsession with the mysterious yet oddly appealing vampire. The book dealt with Sweden's dark social issue and the movie examined a bullied boy who was - in case stupid American audiences did not get that - anything but shell-shocked and timid: he had dark, violent tendencies and fantasies, fueled by sheer ugliness which surrounded him. The Producers of the film did an interview where they openly and specifically stated that the goal of the adaptation was to make the movie "appeal to a broader audiences" which is exactly why they "didn't go there", so that not to provoke, not to offend. Matt Reeves is a garbage director who's going to make a complete mockery of what cinematically was one of the most brilliant and under-rated films on the past decade. Yyyyyyuck.
I prefer to judge movies as themselves, not (primarily) against previous adaptations of the same novel. This looks interesting and while reproducing scenes from the novel is clearly doing them with different choices. I even analyzed the differences in a blog: http://www.vampires.com/let-me-in-vs-let-the-right-one-in/ [/SHAMELESS PLUG]
Bottom line--I had hopes for this film and so far I still have them.
Chloe Moretz sucks...full stop.