Let Me In
- Thread starter KIA
- Start date
As good as the Swedish original?
Not even close.
I mean it's not a particularly bad film and if it was the first adaptation of the book then I imagine I would look on it more kindly, the problem is that the original was not old or badly made meaning the remake is purely an Americanisation for people who can't deal with subtitles or the fact the movie has foreigners in it.
It's insulting, really.
Still can be safe in knowing the original made more on a 1/5 the budget.
Last edited:
I haven't seen it and have no intention of seeing it either. I've heard the swimming pool scene in the remake ruins the whole feel of the film. In the original it's the subtlety of the scene that makes the horror that much more effective (in that there is a minimal of gore). But once again America has apparently gored it up so as to dumb it down for a mainstream audience.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 9,979
- Location
- Poland
I think the new one isnt bad, it's almost a shot for shot remake but they have Vampire'd it up more. If you love the original then you'll probably spit at it but it's got some decent talent in it and i enjoyed it just as much as the first.
I have no desire or intention to watch this wholly unnecessary remake whatsoever.
I can just imagine the US audience trying to figure out the original's climax.
Dude 1: Dude, whats going on?
Dude 2: Who knows, they can't even speak american.
Dude 1: Why aren't they showing the friggin' actors?
Dude 2: This cameraman sucks. He isn't even filming the action, just some underwater pool crap.
Dude 1: Douchebags!
Dude 2: I heard they filmed this in Ikea
Have you noticed how they even have subtitles on a lot of US reality shows to help Americans understand what other Americans are saying.
I can just imagine the US audience trying to figure out the original's climax.
Dude 1: Dude, whats going on?
Dude 2: Who knows, they can't even speak american.
Dude 1: Why aren't they showing the friggin' actors?
Dude 2: This cameraman sucks. He isn't even filming the action, just some underwater pool crap.
Dude 1: Douchebags!
Dude 2: I heard they filmed this in Ikea
Have you noticed how they even have subtitles on a lot of US reality shows to help Americans understand what other Americans are saying.
Not seen it but I imagine it is a lot worse. Just like the film 'funny games', the US version is awful in comparison.
I wish the US would put their big budgets to use and actually try and think of new ideas, instead of just stealing everyone else's ideas.
I wish the US would put their big budgets to use and actually try and think of new ideas, instead of just stealing everyone else's ideas.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 9,511
Just finished watching the new version. Never watched the first one but if it is better than this then I will definitely be watching it.
Fantastic film. Had me glued to the movie all the way through it even at this late hour.
By the way for the elitist snobbery who frown upon all movies that don't have subtitles this was the 2nd movie I have watched tonight, the first being `The Girl who kicked the hornets nest, which had subtitles
It's very sad that people will not even give a film a chance purely because it is a remake of a good film without subtitles.
Ever thought it might just be a variation on a story that we have all heard before. Sorry to break it to you but even your precious original is just a copy of an older story.
PS They swimming pool shot is done entirely under water. And the entire film has very little gore in it for a vampire movie.
Fantastic film. Had me glued to the movie all the way through it even at this late hour.
By the way for the elitist snobbery who frown upon all movies that don't have subtitles this was the 2nd movie I have watched tonight, the first being `The Girl who kicked the hornets nest, which had subtitles
It's very sad that people will not even give a film a chance purely because it is a remake of a good film without subtitles.
Ever thought it might just be a variation on a story that we have all heard before. Sorry to break it to you but even your precious original is just a copy of an older story.
PS They swimming pool shot is done entirely under water. And the entire film has very little gore in it for a vampire movie.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 1,080
Thanks for sharing those second hand opinions as fact, that was really useful
.I thought this was a fantastic film - brilliant acting from both the young performers. Of course, I haven't seen the original, so I'm just having to take this film on its own merits, which I realise is tantamount to heresy when it comes to remakes
Thanks for sharing those second hand opinions as fact, that was really useful
I thought this was a fantastic film - brilliant acting from both the young performers. Of course, I haven't seen the original, so I'm just having to take this film on its own merits, which I realise is tantamount to heresy when it comes to remakes
Where did I imply they were facts? Or was "I've heard" and "Apparently" not enough for you? In any case, now we've ascertained it's a shot for shot remake with English speaking characters for those incapable of reading subtitles, it's still not worth watching.
Actually it isn't.
I was very sceptical, but thought remake was excellent.
Yes, the magical journey into Europe of 1980ies is lost, but that's why they remade it - because it didn't resemble American 1980ies - and the yanks managed to make their version very, very universal in appeal. The leading roles are casted perfectly, in many cases better than in original version (bully and the minder for example). Many scenes are shot by shot homage to the original. Against all preliminary press reports nearly all of the little nuances ( ie. the "girl" element) were actually left in the story in almost as open to speculation form as in the original film. And what is more important - the U.S. version is miles, and I mean miles ahead of the horrible, teeth gritting, face palm DUBBED (you know the one - where dubbing for bully is done by a girl) version of original movie that was on release in most TV channels .
Go see it, be open minded, it's pretty good.
Yes, the magical journey into Europe of 1980ies is lost, but that's why they remade it - because it didn't resemble American 1980ies - and the yanks managed to make their version very, very universal in appeal. The leading roles are casted perfectly, in many cases better than in original version (bully and the minder for example). Many scenes are shot by shot homage to the original. Against all preliminary press reports nearly all of the little nuances ( ie. the "girl" element) were actually left in the story in almost as open to speculation form as in the original film. And what is more important - the U.S. version is miles, and I mean miles ahead of the horrible, teeth gritting, face palm DUBBED (you know the one - where dubbing for bully is done by a girl) version of original movie that was on release in most TV channels .
Go see it, be open minded, it's pretty good.
By the way for the elitist snobbery who frown upon all movies that don't have subtitles this was the 2nd movie I have watched tonight, the first being `The Girl who kicked the hornets nest, which had subtitles
It's very sad that people will not even give a film a chance purely because it is a remake of a good film without subtitles.
Its nothing to do with snobbery. The original, lower budget versions are almost always better imo. Subtitles are beside the point.
Watched this last night with a mate who has seen the original before.
I absolutely loved as did he, he actuall preferred the remake by a small margin. Unlikely a lot of people on here he is actually open minded and watches films to enjoy them without pre-conceptions.
People who are avoiding this for the remake factor really are missing out, 89% on Rotten Tomatoes should indicate this isn't a 'typical' cash cow remake.
I absolutely loved as did he, he actuall preferred the remake by a small margin. Unlikely a lot of people on here he is actually open minded and watches films to enjoy them without pre-conceptions.
People who are avoiding this for the remake factor really are missing out, 89% on Rotten Tomatoes should indicate this isn't a 'typical' cash cow remake.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Dec 2003
- Posts
- 2,716
- Location
- Glasgow
I've seen the original but I want to pick this up sometime.
It is easier to watch a film without subtitles, I need to be in a decent mood and not tired to concentrate on a sub-titled movie and often I like to watch a film when I am tired and lazy.
It is easier to watch a film without subtitles, I need to be in a decent mood and not tired to concentrate on a sub-titled movie and often I like to watch a film when I am tired and lazy.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 77,793
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
See I understand what you mean by this but that can also come off as just as bad as the snobs you are trying to discredit, if he preferred the new one then great, it's a good movie and as remakes go it's an achievement, however that does not mean people who prefer the original are somehow close minded. Also, it's a remake of a film myself and many others enjoyed that came out 2 years ago, did quite well and was a great movie in it's own right, I think it's perfectly reasonable for those of us who liked it to feel slightly miffed.
However I would say that those who have seen the original should see this, it's not bad and you may prefer it.
Last edited: