Just watched both back to back, American one first then the Swedish one. Turns out this may be the longest unsearchable title in SDMB history, since the only word longer than three letters is disallowed for being too common.
Anyone have any links to previous discussions?
If you want to search for hard terms like these, use google and add ‘site:boards.straightdope.com’ to your terms to limit the search to here.
Here is Equipoise’s thread from when it was fresh.
I just got around to seeing Let Me In a couple weeks ago, and was well impressed with how “faithful yet not redundant” they managed to make it.
Sweet, thanks much for the links and the tip.
“Let the Right One In” is a masterpiece and “Let Me In” is a poor copy of a masterpiece. The analysis seen in an excellent and entertaining video comparing the two films is spot on, in my opinion.
For US viewers, you’ll have to get it here:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=M9XCZAU0
If this topic is of any interest to you, it’s well worth the effort to download this video.
Outside the US, I understand it can be viewed here, but can’t confirm this:
I thought the US film was clearly superior, though I admit the story didn’t grip me nearly as much after watching just the US version as it did after having watched both. Whether that means the Swedish version was more compelling (even though I didn’t think so while watching it) or just the story sunk in more after what amounts to repeated viewings, I can’t say.
As far as story composition, the Swedish film was clunky and disjointed, made little sense and had inexplicable weirdness in it seemingly just to propel the story. Like, for example, the woman who got attacked and later burst into flames apparently just got up and walked away from the attack without her boyfriend – who was tending to her – never even seeing her leave. She didn’t get taken to the hospital until…a bunch of housecats attacked her? Oofa. The American film handled this whole side story far better.
The linked comparison video is comically pretentious and jarring in how widely it misses the mark in many ways. For example, first they blast the American version for stripping away all subtlety and nuance, how everything must be spoonfed to the dumb audience. And then later complain that the American version only shows the kid with a Halloween mask and a knife instead of a scrapbook of serial killers like in the Swedish version. In what universe is that scrapbook subtle or nuanced?
The best example of how badly it misses the mark is when they analyze the sequence I mentioned above, the woman turned into a vampire. In the “good” film, they gloss over the woman drinking her own blood (and the dopey housecat attack) as “a bunch of scenes” and then criticize the “bad” film for how stupid it was to have the woman drinking her own blood. More to the point, in the Swedish version the woman is front and center while drinking her own blood, doubly so since it’s a shot of her looking at herself in the mirror. In the American film, she’s in the background drinking her own blood while other characters are the focus of the scene. Which film is the one with all the subtetly, again?
I could make an hour long video criticizing the criticism in the linked video.
I’m reminded of the discussion about The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, where people wondered why bother with the American film at all since the Swedish film was great. That claim certainly raised my eyebrow, since the Swedish film was pedestrian, or maybe slightly above average at best.
I think part of the attitude may be defensiveness that boils over into unintentional condescension. Hey, Sweden made a decent movie, good for them! How dare you jerky Americans make a film based on the same book, those plucky Swedes finally did good and we’re not gonna let you take it from them. None of the anti-American film critics seem to be aware that many countries remake foreign films in their native tongue all the time, not just the US.
I would apply the clunky and disjointed label to “Let Me In” in that it starts the story in the middle and flashes back ruining any surprise as to the caretaker’s fate. I think this was done because the director assumed that American teenagers (the primary target audience for a film like this) wouldn’t sit still for exposition leading up to the climax of the character’s death. Hence he has sirens, scary make-up, horrible death and boobs all in the first reel. He knows his audience.
Remember, that Virginia and Lacke were having an argument and Virginia was storming away from him when she was attacked. She goes home and tends to her wounds and Lacke goes off to investigate Eli. I would agree that such a strange event warrants reporting it to the police, but maybe they were both a little too drunk from the previous gathering to sort out the right thing to do at the moment.
Even fans of the original film, like me, find the cat attack scene weak. But it’s no weaker than the phony-looking CGI flames that consume the same character in the American version. And speaking of CGI and subtlety, do you really prefer Linda Blair demon-faced, scary contact lens wearing, Gollum movement Abby to the more realistic Eli?
In MY universe a boy who collects crime articles clipped from newspapers is more subtle than a boy who admires himself in the mirror wearing a scary mask and wielding a knife. Different universes, I guess.
Again, different universes, there’s nothing subtle about the shot of the contact-lensed, blood slathered, hissing woman chewing on her own arm. The scene of Virginia tasting her own blood at home is much more subdued.
While I don’t need festival judges or film critics to tell me a good film from a mediocre one, the critical acclaim received by “Let the Right One In” was overwhelming. “Let Me In”, not so much.
But, we like what we like and that’s as it should be. Though sometimes in a case like this people prefer the version they saw first. (Ya know, how most people seem to prefer whoever they first saw portraying James Bond.) Which film did you see first? Also, assuming you don’t speak Swedish, did you watch the subtitled version of “Let the Right One In”, because the English-dubbed version is atrocious and should be avoided at all costs!
Double Post
Thank you Ellis Dee for watching that video so I don’t have to. Not that I would have anyway.
And randwill, even though we’ve always agreed on Let The Right One In, your insults toward an excellent film, the fine director who made it, and the people who like it (“he knows his audience”??) means we will never see eye to eye.
(yes, as a matter of fact, that was quite toned down after I counted to 10)
I heartily enjoyed them both. I gave a slight edge to Let Me In after watching it. Partly, because the performance by Clhoe Moretz was as close to perfect as you can get. But, probably more because I saw it first. It’s a testament to how good the story is that I was able to love Let the Right One In, even knowing the entire story. I watched the original a few days after seeing the remake.
randwill, as I said, I agree that a large part of the preference is which was seen first. But, your characterization of the critic’s reaction seems a bit off to me. As is calling Let Me In a poor copy. I think they are both terrific.
As to critical reaction:
Rotten Tomatoes gives Let Me In a 90% score. While metacritic gives it a score of 79 out of 100.
While that might not overwhelming critical reaction, it’s pretty close and it is definitely more than just positive.
Let The Right One In got an excellent 98% score from Rotten Tomatoes, and a slightly better than the remake 82/100 from metacritic.
They are both terrific well made films, and I look forward to reading the book to see how well the source compares.
I’m surprised that “Let Me In” has such a high score at Rotten Tomatoes. But this just shows me that if you set out to make a copy of greatness, some of the greatness of the original might seep through, though I don’t see it.
I’m glad to be having a discussion with people who have seen both versions. My fear is that many English-only speakers, given a choice, would opt for “Let Me In” and thus see an inferior, in my opinion, version of this wonderful story. Though I may not agree with you that the copy is anywhere near the masterpiece the original is, at least you advocates have an informed opinion.
And, pricciar, I definitely recommend the book, though, as the makers of the comparison video referred to above point out, don’t be fooled into believing Reeves’ line that he went to the book rather than Alfredson’s film as his source. There’s nothing from the book in Reeve’s film that’s not in Alfredson’s.
Does anybody prefer Gus Van Zant’s 1998 remake of “Psycho” to Hitchcock’s original?
Why not? Are you not open to at least hearing a variety of points of view?
“His audience” in that sentence refers to American teenagers, as specified earlier in the paragraph. Not necessarily all people who preferred the remake to the original.
And don’t take it personally that I or anyone have different preferences than you. I don’t.
No. Why should I care? It’s not like it’s going to change my mind, and it’ll just make me roll my eyes and wonder why I’m wasting my time on some bitter naysaying. (hey, I don’t listen to Teabaggers either)
Matt Reeves did not make the movie for American teenagers. Matt Reeves did not make the movie for the Twilight crowd.
He made the movie because he dearly loved Let The Right One In, he knew it was going to be remade by somebody, that was inevitable, and he wanted that somebody to be somebody who cared about the original and wouldn’t treat the story the way I hysterically predicted in my huge whining naysayer thread. He wanted it treated with respect, and as far as I’m concerned, he did do that. He did more than that. He made a horror classic that stands proud next to the original. When you think of what it could have been in lesser, less caring hands, thank your lucky stars.
(edit to add, I’ve been privileged to have several conversations with Matt Reeves, who’s a wonderful guy deeply in love with films, so I do know how he feels about Let The Right One In.)
Well, I don’t know Matt Reeves, but if he dearly loved “Let the Right One In” he should have told everyone who would listen to go out and see it. Instead he created an unnecessary copy, in English, because vampires are hot and Americans won’t go to subtitled movies.
I think Reeves would have better served his audience and his own talent by finding a new property and developing it, like Alfredson did, rather than following in his wake.
Only time will tell if “Let Me In” will be considered a horror classic. I have no doubt “Let the Right One In” will be.
Your first two paragraphs are totally ridiculous. It was GOING TO BE REMADE ANYWAY. Once that was a given, he wanted to make sure that he was the one to remake it and he lobbied for it. The studio could have chosen Brett Ratner or some other hack. Luckily they chose Reeves.
You are right that most Americans won’t go to subtitled movies. Neither will most French or most Germans. Or Chinese. Or many many many other people around the world. How many languages has Let The Right One In been dubbed into?
Reeves served his audience quite well by making sure Let Me In was treated with respect and not hacked up and fucked up by a director looking for a quick paycheck and treating it like a work for hire.
I agree with your last sentence.
Oh and by the way, he does tell everyone to see Let The Right One In.
I’m not convinced that remaking a great movie is the best way to treat it with respect. Neither am I convinced that Matt Reeves, based on the only other film of his I’ve seen, “Cloverfield”, was the optimum choice to direct this remake. Just because he dearly loves the original, this doesn’t necessarily make him the best choice. There are other directors and screenwriters with proven track records who may have served the material better.
While I don’t have a cite, I’m under the impression that French and Germans and a large part of the non-English speaking world go to a great many subtitled movies, especially American films.
This sentiment is at odds with most of your participation in this thread, which been every bit as snotty and patronizing as the insufferable tone of voice those two morons in the linked video adopted through that entire execrable 23 minutes. I advise you to never link that review to anybody ever again. They are the epitome of the geek you want to beat up in high school.
I dig you as a poster; I loved your ball-breaking about daddy issues and IS IT A CON?! (hehheh) in Lost threads, as well as many other threads where I’ve seen your name. I hate everything you’ve posted about these two films, though.
You’re basically calling Let Me In a shitty film, which torpedoes all your credibility. And while Let the Right One In is a very good film, the pedestal you put it on is about 3 miles too tall.
I’d like to thank you for your notes about that in the previous dope threads, since I read them last year and so knew that there was an issue. When Let the Right One In finally made it to cable a couple weeks back, I googled around for those side-by-side clips so I could be sure I was watching the correct subtitles. You’ll be happy to know that Showtime (or whoever has it in heavy rotation) is indeed showing the correct ones.
If it matters at all, I watched Let Me In with closed captioning, as I do most things, so it’s not a matter of not liking subtitles. As for which I saw first, I led with that info in the first sentence of the OP.
I watched Let the Right One In first, and enjoyed it. Then I read the book. The movie leaves a LOT out that is kind of important. Then I watched Let Me In, and enjoyed it equally as well but for different reasons. It also leaves out some important things and one extra. The original has its flaws, the remake fixes some of those flaws while including some more flaws of its own.
I started out the original with the dubbing, realized it was horrid, and switched to subtitles about 10 minutes in. I have not seen the above linked video.
I like them equally as well but still recommend reading the book.
I had two major problems with the comparison video.
Firstly, they started off going on about how it was basically a “shot for shot” remake. I think they need to read up on what a “shot for shot” remake is, because they then spend large amounts of the rest of the video discussing the scenes that were left out or added.
Secondly, their Swedish pronunciation is comically bad. OK, you only get the title a couple of times, so I can let that one go, but every time they said Hor-KAHN, as if he is a Trek villain, a little part of me died.