Visitors Review

Matthew (2012-05-25 18:51)

Cool and Creepy Chloe Moretz

Let Me In reminds me of a modern day Hitchcock film (along the same lines as Rear Window or Psycho), as well as a little of the British film Hallam Foe. The director effectively uses a lack of color and a predominance of blues and greys, a style that was also used in the Underworld films, to add to the creepy atmosphere. Chloe Moretz gives another great performance, just as she did in Kick-Ass, as the 12 year old (more or less) vampire girlfriend to a lonely boy who endures bullying classmates and a family in the midst of divorce. Moretz has to be one of the most talented young actresses today; Let Me In is a good psychological horror and one of the better films that I have seen in 2010.

hfeldst (2012-05-25 06:14)

An American Remake That Gets it Right

A Hollywood remake that actually gets it right and is as good or possibly even better than the original, "Let The Right One In". This is a atmospheric, creepy and at times, horrific vampire movie that sets itself apart from any other vampire/horror film coming out of the Hollywood machine today. As lonely 12 year old Owen befriends the mysterious Abby, brutal killings begin to occur. Writer/director Matt Reeves, known for "Cloverfield", does an terrific job, first adapting the screenplay and then slowly building the suspense, driving excellent performances from his young actors. Kodi Smit-McPhee plays Owen and he acts way beyond his years with heartbreaking conviction. Chole Grace Moretz (the breakout star of "Kick-Ass") plays Abby, with a winning seduction of both Owen and the audience. One of the creepiest character actors working today, Elias Koteas, plays the fairly normal role of the policeman investigating the killings. And the wonderful Richard Jenkins also stars in a very pivotal role which I will not reveal. Mr. Reeves sets up wonderful camera angles, unusual points of view, and makes great use of both the light and the dark. While much of the film is a slow build of dread, there are enough flashes of horror to jolt the viewer through to its inevitable conclusion. I can't imagine this film doing great box office as today's horror audiences want quick shock value. "Let Me In" will reward a patient audience and may haunt you long after it's over.

(2012-05-24 04:17)

VAMPIRE WITH A BITE

The past few years the vampire film has changed from what began as a horrifying creature to a seductive animal, followed by more creatures and finally with the TWILIGHT films a vampire more interested in seduction than say draining blood. All that changed with a well received Swedish film called LET THE RIGHT ONE IN.As with most movies that have success that come from foreign markets, Hollywood made the decision to remake it as an English language film in the hopes of attracting a wider audience. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. For me, this one works and works well. And for viewers who would rather not follow subtitles this movie should do the trick.Directed by CLOVERFIELD director Matt Reeves it's not so much a remake of the movie as it in an interpretation of the book. Reeves has gone on to say that he spoke with the author and found that his take on the book was what the author was attempting to discuss which was going through the awkward teen years set in a vampire story. It clicks here and Reeves does a great job.Set in Los Alamos, New Mexico, we find ourselves in the midst of winter. Young Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) is a small boy prone to being bullied while at school. Living with his mother (a woman trapped in her own problems with a failed marriage, devout religious follower and alcoholic in training) Owen leads a lonely life. There are no other kids in their apartment complex and he spends most of his time sitting on the frozen playground outside in the snow. Until a new neighbor shows up.Rarely seen this new neighbor moves into the apartment next door and at times Owen can hear conversations through the walls. The only person he sees is an older man (Richard Jenkins) who goes in and out of the apartment. Then one night Owen meets Abby (Chloe Moretz) who lets him know up front that they can't be friends. But friends they do become.Owen confides in her about the bullying at school. She advises him to just take the bully on up front, that he'll back down once Owen lets himself stop being pushed around. She also lets him know that if need be she'll be there to back him up.What Owen doesn't know is that Abby is a vampire. The man she lives with isn't really her father but the man who takes care of her, supplying her with fresh blood that he extracts from victims he kills and then drains. When a draining goes wrong, Owen can hear two voices arguing, neither of which sounds like a child. Due to this accident, Abby is forced to go out and feed on her own.Owen and Abby become close friends. Both lead lonely lives but find comfort in one another's company. Each is the companion the other thought they'd never have. But would this be the case if Owen truly knew what Abby was?While this story unfolds the police are searching for the savage killer on the streets. The bullies continue to give Owen a hard time as we wait to see if he calls their bluff. And the time draws near where we discover if Abby will reveal herself to Owen or not. And if she does, what will be his response?The surface of this movie is a horror film with a few gory moments tossed in for those fans but a more horrifying tale that smolders beneath. It's less about the attacks and bloodshed of the vampire and more about what it takes to survive, especially while being 12 years old for so long. Gone is the romantic adolescent version of vampirism and in its place a deeper story of what it's like to be lonely in the middle of a world full of people. Each actor does a fantastic job, most importantly the two young leads. For either of them to carry the weight and depth of their characters is something worth watching, for both of them to do so is amazing. Jenkins does a good job but is relegated to little in this film. And Elias Koteas as the detective searching for a killer does a tremendous job.It seems that many horror fans have taken a liking to blood drenched horror that offers multiple mutilations these days. For those that like something to think about, that plays as much with your mind as it does your stomach, this is a movie that will whet your appetite. The pacing may be slow, but there's a reason for that. This is a story that unfolds rather than slaps you in the face. And a good story at that.

felix1966 (2012-05-23 12:50)

It is a remake

I went to an almost empty cinema to see this film, a few short daysafter its release and not far into the movie one of the handful sizedaudience left - a woman, I guess, in her sixties. I have seen and lovethe original, Let The Right One In and for those who have not seen thatmovie will come across a treat in the remake. I am going to try andavoid a compare and contrast between this and the original, though verydifficult to do. Set in 1983 - pre social networking and cell phones - where boredom andimagination were our friends. Even though the stars are kids, it moveswell away from teen horror and slasher, and a mature audience is mostlikely to appreciate this fable. In ways it even has tints of Where TheWild Things Are.. The main characters are superb and we get drawn intothat world and that era. On the one hand, the boy is 12 but the girlonly looks 12 and that is the mystery and the trick that stops theaudience judging such a cute kid so strongly. One is following theimpulses of pre-adolescence the other an impulse to survive but thereis an awful undercurrent of emotional abuse that makes the film sointriguing - and when pushed in those corners we make bad choices aboutfriendships.I would also remind that this is Hammer's first movie since 1976 - andway different in their style from back then. I think the lady that leftthe cinema had seen the Swedish version, much more subtle, and left atthe first gory scene - of which there are few in the original. There isa lot of horror in this tale and perhaps it didn't need to bevisualized so much. The director did a great job of keeping hold of theessence but one feels the Hollywood machine wanted more visual gore toup the audience ante. That is the only flaw in an otherwise excellentMovie.

(2012-05-23 08:33)

Disappointing adaptation of a great book

Customer review from the Amazon Vine™ Program (What's this?) Readers of the Swedish novel this film is based on will be both relieved and disappointed with this big screen adaptation. They'll be relieved that the movie leaves out some of the most disturbing elements of the novel, such as pedophila and Abby's (Eli's) sexual ambiguity. Though it is hinted at, it is never really explored in the film. Neither are her origins. This may be a relief to some, frustration for others.Those who have read the novel first will be disappointed that a lot of the back story so important to the novel is not covered in the film. That's to be expected to some extent for a film trying to remain under 2 hours in duration, but viewers who have not read the book will be left with a lot of questions and few answers. They'll feel like large parts of the story are missing and they'll question the motivations of characters because the movie doesn't offer them. Readers of the book and non-readers of the book will be equally disappointed. This isn't a great horror film, nor is it a great vampire film. It's not even a good adaptation of a very successful and popular novel.

(2012-05-23 01:14)

Do yourself a favor: Watch the original!

Let me make this clear: This film is good, but the original (Swedish version) is GREAT! I would highly recommend the original ("Låt den rätte komma in"; US translation Let The Right One In), directed by Tomas Alfredson, over this remake. The original delves more into the supporting characters whereas this focuses mainly on the boy (Smit-McPhee) and girl (Moretz), but still doesn't quite catch what the original does. Nevertheless, Moretz shines in this film and with her roles lately (Kick-Ass, Diary of a Wimpy Kid, (500) Days of Summer), she's proving to be quite the young actress! This film proves that she can do drama with the best of 'em! Reeves does great with the directing but the screenwriting adaptation is something to be desired. Like I said, if you haven't seen the original and you're not up to reading subtitles in the original, then this will do. Otherwise, I highly recommend the original. Nevertheless, a great horror film that is more suspense thriller but still gives a good uneasy feeling.

(2012-05-21 02:01)

stands on its own

First off, if you're comparing this film to the original, that's a mistake. I like the original because I was surprised at the simplicity of it. It was simple, straight forward film making and it was able to convey what all fine films convey, an emotional experience. Let me in is its own film and if compared to the original I would say that this version also created an emotional experience, but a much deeper and richer one. Neither version of the novel stick to it loyally. In the novel, the character of the old man who goes out in hunt for blood for Eli or Abby or whoever is a pedophile, doscovered by Eli when he was an older man, not when he was a child. Neither movie makes that clear. There is a separate plot line in the novel about an older friend of Oskars whose mother is having a relationship with the officer in charge of capturing the old man(Elis renfield) that is not touched on in either film.Also, in the novel the old man returns as a vampire monster because Eli/Abby does not break his neck after drinking his blood at the hospital window. I think the the remake captured the tone of the loneliness that both Owen and Abby feel as a result of her vampire existence and his lack of friends. Abby gives Owen the ability to care about himself and Owen gives Abby the ability to let herself care about somebody else. Most excellent.Simple,yet very affective.

Damien Keith (2012-05-20 05:46)

As subtle as a brick to the head

Before seeing Let Me In, I fell in love with Let the Right One In butwent to the screening with an open mind. I think both kids in Let Me Indid a very good job with the script they were given but, ultimately Ididn't feel same bond and empathy with Abby and Owen as I did for Oskarand Eli. Because of the subtlety of the writing and directing, theactors in Let The Right One In were able to give, what I felt were,real and nuanced performances. The relationship in Let the Right One Inwas sweet whereas Let Me In tried to be but seemed more strained andcreepy.The subtlety in question, or lack thereof, also carried over to boththe Abby/Eli transformations as well as how they fed. Eli seemedremorseful that she needed to kill to live whereas Abby seemedunapologetically predatory and animalistic. It didn't help that Let MeIn went with the more radical vampire transformation rather than,again, the subtlety of Let the Right One In. I suppose it's associatedwith Hammer so they felt they had to.If you are a fan of Let The Right One In I think you owe it to yourselfto see the remake to compare for yourself. I would also recommendreading the book to see which of them appeared to capture the spirit ofthe relationship better. I, personally, believe Let the Right One Inmore closely displayed the love and connection in Oskar and Eli'srelationship.I believe Let Me In is a good vampire movie but it is no where near theclassic that Let The Right One In is primarily because its subtletyallows you to connect better with Eli and Oskar; not so much with Abbyand Owen.

(2012-05-19 20:08)

I learned more about the story

This review is from: Let Me In (DVD) I learned a lot about the story from the original book in this movie than I did from Let the Right One In. When I first heard they were gong to remake Let the Right One IN i figured it would be really bad but this is one of the very rare cases where I think the remake is as good, or in this case, even better, than the original. If I decide to watch the story again, which I will eventually, its more likely I'll watch Let Me In than Let the Right One IN.

Mahmoud_Buttrumps (2012-05-19 11:03)

A soft murder of Lindqvist's World Cinema Classic

For friends, who may not be familiar with the original source of themovie "Let Me In", it's an Official remake of Majid Majidi's worldfamous Swedish masterpiece "Låt den rätte komma in" or"Let the RightOne In" released in 2008, which was also nominated in the Best ForeignFilm Category at the Oscars. John Ajvide Lindqvist is one of the mostrenowned new age directors of World Cinema with a simple but uniquevision of film- making. Influenced by his magical art, Matt Reeves, theman behind many recent hit comedies, returns with his own version ofthe classic featuring the incomparable Kodi Smit-McPhee in the leadrole.Keeping its remake status in mind, I would like to review the movie intwo different sections here. One, as an individual piece of artattempted by the American team of film-makers and Let Me In, as theOfficial Remake of John Ajvide Lindqvist 's emotional gem.As a children movie alone, "Let Me In" is not at all impressive as itshould have been, considering its unusual emotional storyline about abrother and sister. It somehow comes out with the same results aspreviously seen in "Sikander" released in 2009. In fact it even startsexactly in the same manner as "Sikander". And after this clichédopening, the movie keeps moving at a slow pace till its climax, withoutany crescendo kind of impact created by the director. Besides this, theconcluding moments showcasing a children marathon race, simply fallflat in absence of any emotions, thrill or excitement factor put in bythe writers. Moreover the over exposure of the brand "Microsoft" inseveral scenes, looks quite over the top, irresponsible and unexpectedfrom the well known director, Matt Reeves: the Rip-Off King.However, the major flaw of the movie remains that instead of stickingto its original plot of the shoe exchange between the two kids, thescreenplay tries to incorporate many other unwanted sub-plots into thenarration which look forced and completely misfit. For instance, Whatis the use of showing a vampire, blood consumption, severed genitalsand cold-blooded murders in a movie which is supposed to be aChildren's FLICK. Does the director thinks that these all elements arenecessary to fit-in, even when you are making a film around twoinnocent and poor kids. And does he consider it to be fine enough to bewatched by the kids in the age-group of 5 to 15. I sincerely doubt itand would strongly like to vote against any such venture which playsaround with the psyche of all those "Still not stuffed young minds".Hence for that matter, "Let Me In" was a big unpleasant surprise for meas it was not at all interested in talking about its main storylinerevolving around the two kids. On the contrary, the brilliantperformances of both Kodi Smit-McPhee and Chloe Moretz do not turn outto be that powerful, mainly due to the other sub plots interfering intheir scenes together at regular intervals. Both Richard Jenkins andCara Buono also try their best to contribute in this prestigiousproject, but their underwritten characters don't allow them to doanything exceptional on the screen. As a result, the final outcome isnot able to touch the viewer emotionally and he just moves out of thetheater unmoved and unimpressed.Interestingly, as I see it, the movie can be easily edited out again toget a completely different version, which only depicts the relationshipbetween the two children and their parents. And that I think would bemore precise, complete and to the point version, as demanded by itsinnocent theme written by John Ajvide Lindqvist himself. Also this newedit would in turn reduce the over-length of the movie which happens tobe another drawback of this dismal attempt by the USA team.Now comparing "Let Me In" with its Original Source "Låt den rätte kommain"….. it sadly stands nowhere around the excellence achieved by thesimplistic vision of John Ajvide Lindqvist. In other words it'sextremely difficult to be as simple yet impressive as Lindqvist and hismovies. In this context, I also remember the quote of a well knownfilm-maker which says that, "Cinematic masterpieces get madeaccidentally and they cannot be ever remade as a version with the samegenius." That's exactly the case with "Let Me In" where it seemsnothing close to its Original Swedish classic and just remains anotherversion attempted by a successful director of Holltwood. Reeves verycarelessly wastes the innocent plot of two kids using the same pair ofshoes for their school among the other rotten sub-plots in the script.Strangely, he never cares to elaborate on the time structure of the twoschool shifts and neither he focuses on the relationship between thefour family members in specific. Also the premises of the story remainsconfused between Moretz and McShmee-Phit with people wearing misleadingoutfits in the backdrop. Still, the cinematography is excellent and thetwo kids are a pleasure to watch.Summing up, I would like to inform that few years back there wasanother Hindi Version of this Classic made in the year 2009 with thetitle "Salaam My First Fang Incisor". It was a kind of B-C grade moviewhich completely followed Lindqvist's masterpiece scene by scene.Strictly speaking where this version was A Brutal Murder of theOriginal, the present 2010 version is a Soft Murder of the same.So watch "Let Me In"….only if you want to ruin the immense pleasure,satisfaction and joy of watching John Ajvide Lindqvist's "Låt den rättekomma in".

quirkbuster (2012-05-18 20:56)

Brilliant Vampire Film

From the very beginning we are treated to spectacular creepiness. Whois the man who covered himself in acid? What kind of a strange youngman wears a mask and pretends to stab girls? Who are the new neighborsthat move in under cover of dark? This film is much more violent andhas more suspense than the original, a Swedish film hailed as alandmark in vampire cinema, which might turn off some people but itreally made it great for me. The film was a roller coaster of emotionand rhythm, each tender scene followed by a horrific moment. Somepeople may feel that it moves too slowly, but each quiet moment ismeant to be enjoyed because deafening horror is soon to follow.Overall it is not just a vampire story. It is the story of a lonely boywho finds companionship in the most unusual place. It is a wonderfulstudy of human nature and asks important questions. Are there trulyevil people in the world? And are they always evil, or can theyactually be wonderful in the eyes of some? One of the great strengthsof this film is that it constantly moves between two worlds--thesweetness of youth, and the horror of what a vampire really is. We geta front row seat to both and must decide if the evil outweighs thegood.I can't think of the last time I saw a vampire movie that impressed meas much. This has all the blood and action that was missing from theoriginal, but maintains its commitment to carefully revealing thecharacters to us. There are wonderfully creepy additions and a trulyartistic filming of a car crash that elevate this film onto a differentlevel than the original. If you are a fan of horror films this one isnot to be missed!

Jules (2012-05-18 10:34)

A remake that really is as good as the original (if not slightly better).

Its reassuring to say the least that while highly renown, yet highlydivided vampire films (Twilike or a Twifright) can leave an irritablestain on media, the lesser known films can have more humanity, pungencyand raw emotion that the tips of the latter could scarcely touch. Thecult clamped Swedish horror: Let The Right One In was sadly still inthe airbrushed shadow cast from it fellow vampire films, despite beinga remarkable exception that hadn't drowned in its own neck piercedblood.So while the remake may have sparked frustrating and insensitive glaresfrom the lovers of the original, Matt Reeves has faithfully anddelicately delivered a worthy successor that too many remakes have madeof a bad name of doing. This bend in the rule is like Cloverfield'sdeliberate use of shaky, amateur camera, which was either tirelesslymemorable or sickly forgettable. Let Me In is just the same. Apoint-blank refusal to even look at the trailer ticks the forgettablebox, while enjoying, or even admitting it's as good as the originalticks the other. In several small but noticeable footsteps it actuallygoes as far as slightly improving on the Swedish version, but we'll letthat point settle in before it's resurfaced and explained.For Kodi Smit-McPhee's character Owen, things are as tough and lonelyas they were earlier in the year when he was in The Road, and as forChloe Moretz, she Kick's Ass in a very different way than when she wasHit Girl. Bullied Owen and Abbey first meet when she moves in nextdoor, and their relationship begins to form one of great envy. Bothbeing only twelve, the awkward overused issue of sex isn't on theplaying court; their friendship is consoling each other with company ofthe other and finding comfort and understanding. A children's storywith adult themes if you like.Moretz and Smit-McPhee handle the awkward, defensive first meet withmaturity and talent, more so than with the actors who played Oskcar andEli. This makes their relationship throughout have more depth andmeaning, so when it's good you smile and when it's bad you worry. Thisis something you rarely feel in a remake because the characters wouldhave their paths so clearly outlined through a parallel plot of thepredecessor, there's a lack of effort to care when you know what willhappen. Not with Let Me In. The special effects are also an improvementon the original. The fits of hunger Eli had are nothing compared to thebone snapping aerobic attacks of Abbey, not to mention the welcomingdeparture of the original's hissing cats that boasted bad B-movieeffects rather than successful cult Swedish horror.But if anyone, deserves the most limelight for such a fantastic remakeReeves should be bestowed that honour. His scripting and artfuldirection doesn't feel the need to go full Hollywood (which was alsohis method for Cloverfield) and glamorise every little blip of action -for example the shot inside the car crashing. It's this faithfulnessnot to stray too far from the original's rigorous control but takerisks that don't push the boundaries, which make this masterpiece asbeing every bit impressive it's original.

(2012-05-18 10:31)

Packaging Only Review

This review is from: Let Me In [Blu-ray] (Blu-ray) If you read any reviews from me, I always try to review Blu-rays on the product and not the film itself. If I wanted to read reviews on the film, I'd use Metacritic or a specific critic who I have similar tastes with. I don't understand all these reviews on the movie itself on Amazon, so anyways, onto the product...I'm disappointed with the casing, in general. It's the cheap recycled Blu-ray case that is flimsy because of the holes in the box to save the company money. Also, I've seen the Blu-ray elsewhere, which had a nice plastic sleeve that when taken off you could see the girl. This doesn't have that for some reason. Maybe they already jumped to cheaper casing in a matter of two months since the release date. It's strictly the cover printed out and put in the case.I don't think it's a big deal. It would have been nice to know, but the $13.99 price tag was well worth saving an extra $12 than for getting the one with a plastic slipcase at Best Buy.

magoomj (2012-05-17 21:59)

Bored Me To Tears. Where Are All These Great Reviews Coming From???

When I headed to the theater to see this movie, I was actually excited.A friend of mine had described it to me, and I thought it soundedgreat. Boy, talk about a let-down! I sat there, thinking to myself,"when's it going to get interesting?" An hour and a half later, themovie was over and it NEVER GOT INTERESTING!!! When Abby attacked thejogger, and again when Virginia woke up in the hospital and it wasrevealed that she had been "turned", I thought to myself, "hey, nowmaybe it'll get going!" But no. Abby killed the man and that was theend of the "horror". They killed Virginia off within 5 minutes and wentback to the whole "poor bullied boy, poor blood-sucking fiend girl"crap. Honestly, the entire movie was like pulling teeth. Granted, theperformances by the kids were done reasonably well - they portrayedangst and loneliness quite competently, all things considered - but Iwas still bored out of my mind. If I wanted to watch love-struck teens,I would've stayed home and watched Romeo + Juliet. If I wanted to watchmiserable, doomed-from-the-start vampire lovers, I would've stayed homeand watched Twilight. Total waste of money, in my opinion.Oh, and the CGI!!! It was total CRAP. Like, from 10 years ago crap.Compare it to LOTR or Avatar - there IS no comparison.I gave the movie 2 stars, and that only for the sake of the kids'acting. The rest of it was a total bust.

Jonny_Numb (2012-05-17 19:56)

Entry Granted

As I can be kind of stubborn toward particular films that get heaps ofpraise from every conceivable angle (let's admit: the hype factor cansaturate even a niche conscience to the point where interest isdecreased as a result), it took me a good long while to get around towatching "Let the Right One In," the Norwegian vampire saga that is asinterested in the fragility of children's relationships as it is insubverting conventional cinematic standards of the vampire mythos. Inthe end, I was converted into -- and still am -- a true believer in itsgreatness. The Americanization of foreign films has always been atricky prospect (even in the decades preceding Hollywood's currentinfatuation with recycling), synonymous with "dumbing down" a conceptfor the sake of placating the impatient masses (and their notoriousintolerance of subtitles). There is a lot to admire about "Let Me In,"Matt Reeves' faithful U.S. transplant: the moody score is fantastic;the performances by Chloe Moretz ("Kick-Ass") and Kodi Smit-McPhee("The Road") are delicately heartbreaking; and the sparing use of CGallows a quiet, simple story of childhood camaraderie (paradoxicallycomplicated by the extraneous factors -- absentee parents, religioustension, schoolyard bullies, puberty -- that make a child's lifecomplex) to take precedence above all else. Reeves deserves an accoladefor resisting the urge to transform the film into a surround-sound,jump-scare-happy headache of the Platinum Dunes sort, insteadchallenging the viewer to something more subtle and deliberate. Wherehe falters, however, is in making the strong setpieces of the original(particularly the climactic "pool scene") truly his own -- there justisn't enough creativity or divergence present to reconfigure thesenow-classic moments into something that will impress those who haveseen "Let the Right One In." Still, "Let Me In" coasts on a uniquelymoody energy that makes it worth a look on its own terms.6.5 out of 10

MovieManMenzel (2012-05-17 04:53)

A unique vampire horror gem with a solid story and acting.

"Let Me In" follows a boy named Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee), who is aoutcast and gets bullied on a regular basis at school. To make mattersworse, Owen lives a pretty depressing life at home with his mother(Cara Buono) who is constantly arguing with her ex-husband over thephone. One night, Owen notices a new family moving into the complex andwonders who they are. The following night while sitting in the park,Owen is greeted by Abby (Chloë Grace Moretz) who begins to talk to himfor the first time. The two of them instantly form a bond and becomeclose friends. The only issue is that Abby is not human but rather avampire who needs to feed off humans in order to survive. Aninteresting and well made vampire flick ensues...I have to point out right away that I have not seen the originalSwedish film. I do realize that I should have before watching theremake but fear not, I have it at home and will watch it very soon.With that being said, I didn't know what to think of "Let Me In" beforeI watched it. I wanted to see it just because Chloe Moretz from"Kick-Ass" was in it but other than that it didn't make my must-seemovie list. The reason why is probably because I am not a big fan ofhorror films as a whole because they are usually clichéd and stupid. Iam also a little sick and tired of recent vampire films. This film,however, received solid reviews and intrigued me enough to see it. It'snot everyday that a horror film gets solid reviews so I knew this hadto be somewhat decent. Sadly, "Let Me In" didn't really do well in thetheaters (no surprise there) so I had to rent it in order to see it.Over the past few years, vampire films have become a dime a dozen.Luckily, "Let Me In" is one that truly stands out. Its nice to see thatMatt Reeves actually took the time to create a solid horror film aboutvampires. What stood out the most about "Let Me In" was that it's focuswas on the "old" version of vampires. You know the ones seen before"Twilight" and "True Blood" flooded the market. Abby is not yourtypical vampire and that also adds to it. The character itself is verylikable and you as a viewer feel bad that this poor girl has become avampire. The bond that she shares with Owen is genuine and sincere BUTis also extremely believable. I think that was another key element ofthis film. In a lot of films, you see characters that don't really fitwith one another but Owen and Abby seemed to be a perfect fit for oneanother.The scares in "Let Me In" were not the typical horror clichés that onemay expect when watching a film like this. Matt Reeves relied heavilyon the cinematography and scene set up to create the overall mood forthe film. The movie was very dark and gloomy but that fit the film'stheme. By doing using these elements wise, Reeves set the mood for thefilm therefore making the scares work to the best of his advantage. Thestory also had several story-lines going on at once, which I felt keptthe viewer always interested in and questioning what was going tohappen next. The multiple story-lines included Abby and her guardian,Owen and the bullies, Abby and Owen's relationship, and of courseOwen's home life. I also loved how the film's story felt like a horrorretelling of "Romeo and Juliet." The screenplay was well written withsolid character development. Any film junkie knows that a screenplay is only as good as the actorsyou pick to play the role and if they have chemistry. There are reallyonly two main stars in this film those being Kodi Smit-McPhee and ChloëGrace Moretz. Both of them shine in their roles and I am going to putthis out there right now that Moretz is going to be a huge actress inthe next couple of years. She is already skilled as an actress at avery young age. There were a few smaller supporting roles in this filmincluding Richard Jenkins and the three kids who played the bullies.All of which played their part and played it well. I think in terms ofacting for a horror movie, this was some of the best I seen. I knowthat isn't saying much but everyone really nailed the role they played."Let Me In" is a breathe of fresh air for the horror genre and morespecifically in the vampire sub-genre. I can't really say how loyalthis version is to the original but based on my research for the film,it is extremely similar with a few scenes being almost identical. Ithink "Let Me In" will end up being a cult classic for those whoappreciate it as a well made vampire flick. I don't think "Let Me In"will be loved by all because it is very dark, gloomy and a deeper thanyour typical horror flick. Those who like the "True Blood" take onvampires may or may not enjoy it. As a whole the film is not what youwould expect from your average horror film but more or less what youwould expect from a independent one. Its basically a character studyfocusing on a troubled boy who shares a special bond with a girl whohappens to be a vampire. While its not for everyone, I know that as afilm lover I thought this film was a great staple in the horror filmlibrary and will be a Blu Ray I will be adding to my collection.MovieManMenzel's final rating for a solid 7 out of 10.

(2012-05-16 12:31)

Could Have Been Much Better

Hackneyed vampire story with a script and directing that was predictable, disjointed and lacking in creative storytelling that, sadly, was potentially possible in this unique juxtaposition of two misunderstood needy lovers. Opportunity missed! Instead we just get shallow personifications of characters such as parents, guardians, caretakers, professionals and teachers that are presented as incompetent expendable meals that have no more depth than a shadow. These people were given such small stereotypic roles that we seem to care little whether they die or do nothing all film long. Just not real! The rest of the unreality of this film was the heavy reliance upon ripping people apart which, again, did nothing to advance our understanding of our misunderstood protagonists. Two stars for the cinematography and Chloë's presence. Although, wasted in a movie where her talents were diminished by very fakey blood; CGI teeth; bare feet endlessly filmed (another reason why Americans need to wear sandals more often) and posing for the camera with "the look" punctuated by limited scripted lines that seemed almost tritely comical. She needs a new agent. You would think that a nearly 1000 year old 12 year old vampire would have experienced love at least once in that long life span. Also, you would think that raiding blood banks and hospital blood freezers would be a whole lot quicker and safer source of hemoglobin (you know - AIDS; other viruses and pathogens would be screened out). Also, what does a Rubik's cube have to do with innately primitive blood hunting savagery - there's just not a whole lot of abstract creative intelligence transfer between the two activities. Conclusion: Just a poorly thought out and directed script.

(2012-05-15 21:41)

An Over Rated Remake

This review is from: Let Me In [Blu-ray] (Blu-ray) If you have already seen the original Swedish film be prepared to be disappointed. 'Let Me In' is almost a shot-for-shot remake of 'Let the Right One In', the Swedish vampire film by director Tomas Alfredson. There are scripting changes that appears to have been done to tailor the script to American audiences. Some are understandable, others are not. For example, the original is set in a Swedish community that was built in the age of Swedish socialism and this setting is part of the film's backstory which is set in the cold winter of 1982. The American version changes this to an apartment complex during a cold snowy winter in .... 1980's Arizona(?). The impact of the setting laid out in the original is lost in the remake. In the original, Oscar's mother is obviously not religious; in the remake Owen's mother (name change here) is clearly very religious for no apparent reason. The original film has a particularly Swedish approach to storytelling which is one of things that makes it such an interesting film for film fans who like to understand a director's style. Much has been made about the use of CGI in this film. The remake has too obviously inserted CGI in 2 critical scenes. They are fake looking, obviously CGI, and are out of place in a film that was produced to have a realistic film approach. The remake IS a good film and a welcomed relief for what passes as a horror film nowadays, and normally would deserve a higher rating then 3 stars. But since I rate the original a 4-star film, and the remake is not quite the film that the original is, this version need a lesser rating. The director also makes, in my opinion, a mistake in his commentary in not acknowledging that his film is a direct remake of the original. He takes credit for the look of film which is clearly not his; lighting, cinematography, and acting style is a copy of the work of Tomas Alfredson. Watch both and see for yourself.

ihatespike (2012-05-14 14:05)

I'm not a snob, but I'm also not impressed.

With the rising tide of vampire-mania these days it's easy to cash in,and easier to become irritated by those doing the cashing, but ifyou're like most people you just want to see a good and interestingmovie and don't really care about whose vampire lore is more accurate.Let Me In is an American version of a Swedish movie, based on a book,and in some strange way it is an original story. It's about love, deathand life and stands unique among other vampire stories of the same ilk.However, the problem I had with this is not the story, but the factthat the story has already been told. Remaking movies is no sin to me,but when I've seen and enjoyed the original made only two years ago,I'm helpless but to feel that I've read the same book twice,paraphrased on different paper and there is no new revelations tobehold. Regardless of the intentions of those who remade this, itreally wasn't necessary, and while I give it a 5/10 on its own merits,I can't help but realize that the original film highlights why I'm notespecially into this one. There were a few unnecessary vulgarities inthis version that made Owen seem far more warped and thus harder tosympathize with, Chloe Moretz is a competent actress but Abby's lapsesbetween sickly and bored little girl to demon-possessed orangutansimply cannot compare to Lina Leandersson's versatility playing both asweet girl and a desperate creature in the original. The specialeffects were very good, but while the Swedish version tempered theviolence and gore with a cold atmosphere of sterility, the Americanversion embraces it's penchant for slasher tones and it becomes evenharder to feel anything for any of the characters. Whether or not youwill enjoy this movie is really all about your bias, since everyone hasone. If you like the original, there's a 50/50 chance you'll like thisone too since there isn't too much different about it. If you're a fanof the horror genre you'll like it, if you're a Twilight fan youprobably won't, and if you like anything vampire then you already knowthe answer. Give it a shot; it couldn't hurt.

StChom (2012-05-14 05:47)

Almost good enough...

Not a bad movie, it would have been a shame regarding the originalmaterial it is based upon, but here you can measure the differencebetween good, and really good. And as in every arts and crafts, thehigher you get, the harder it gets to find that little thing whichmakes the difference.And the biggest little thing here is Lina Leandersson whose presence issorely missed. As Eli/Abby, she was far more ambiguous, complex,strangely mature, eerily ironic, and... simply ghoulish. Chloe couldnot bring these dimensions here, she's not bad either, just too cuteand childish for the part. Thirteen years old miracles are that rare.It was just a unique combination.What Matt Reeves added can often been seen at best as surperfluous, andat worse as flirting with ridicule, like the long shots on Abby'stransfigured, evil face. A kitsch Tomas Alfredson rightly avoided.Make-ups and effects here just distract from the dark, but essentiallyrealist core of the original. The emphasis on the police inquiry, bothin story and construction (the initial flashback), is just anotherconcession to a supposed hollywoodian canon, with its feeble attemptsat some good old suspense. Again, more is often less.Regarding the cutting, some important scenes (like the two mainprotagonists encounter) seem to be rushed in, again, Reeves (or ahigher hand) did not trust his audience. All this is revelatory of the principles behind the project : this is aproduction, not an original vision. In the end, an acceptable, butdispensable effort of a remake.And as an effort, it can only trail behind the grace and subtlety ofthe original.