Let Me In
- Thread starter KIA
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 1,080
No, but people who have only watched the original and then have decided opinions about the remake are close-minded.
I've just finished the original, and thought the remake was hugely superior. The various relationships are much better handled in the remake and Chloe Moretz and Kodi Smit-McPhee play their roles far better than the two original leads.
As for the gore, I'd say it's about on par between the two. I would argue the much-lauded swimming pool scene in the remake is actually more subtle in its use of gore than the original. The man's burns are certainly much more graphic in the original.
Those of you that refuse to get off the "remakes are evil" high horse should try it, you are missing out on a fantastic film.
lol
Of those who have seen both and think the remake superior, who saw the remake AFTER the original? I ask because Meridian's Law of Remakes/Covers states: "Provided the new version has at least some merit, people usually prefer the version that they saw/heard first." I'm interested to test this.
And also for the people defending the remake: since at best the remake is about as good as the original (and that is being generous according to most assessments by people I trust in such matters) you still need to answer the question: what was the point? If the original was good, and the remake no better, what was achieved? Apart from what many of us have stated: it's for people who are scared of foreign films or are to lazy/stupid to read subtitles.
Although I'll be fair, Hollywood is just as capable of ruining English-language films. The Wicker Man anyone?
M
And also for the people defending the remake: since at best the remake is about as good as the original (and that is being generous according to most assessments by people I trust in such matters) you still need to answer the question: what was the point? If the original was good, and the remake no better, what was achieved? Apart from what many of us have stated: it's for people who are scared of foreign films or are to lazy/stupid to read subtitles.
Although I'll be fair, Hollywood is just as capable of ruining English-language films. The Wicker Man anyone?
M
They're Both good, i don't think there's any significant differences between them! (seen the original first)
Broader audience, foreign language film don't get the same exposure as english films. Lazy or stupid might apply to a few, but most won't have seen the original because they have never heard of it.
Last edited:
Yes because ALL Americans are stupid. My wife is American and she is very witty, classy and has great taste. Her family and friends are all awesome and intelligent people and I actually hope we move over there sometime because it is much nicer than this crappy island.
People like you are just embarrasing to this country and heighten the English stereotype. You're an ignorant bigot who thinks he sounds clever on an internet forum, nothing more.
I bet you would never talk like that to an American.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 16,168
- Location
- Neptune
Not a patch on the original.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 11,114
Just saw it recently and I'll admit that it's a damn good and respectable remake. The car crash scene was absolutely stunning.
However, the original wins... I found that while it mimiced (and occasionally met) a lot of the emotional beats of the first, it missed quite a few of the emotional nuances that made the original so effective and authentic.
The CGI attack scenes were jarringly poor, too.
That said, I don't resent it and think that Matt Reeves rose to the occasion very well here.
However, the original wins... I found that while it mimiced (and occasionally met) a lot of the emotional beats of the first, it missed quite a few of the emotional nuances that made the original so effective and authentic.
The CGI attack scenes were jarringly poor, too.
That said, I don't resent it and think that Matt Reeves rose to the occasion very well here.
You need to chillax, its just my humourous(less?) peetake on the need to remake a movie not a diatribe on America and its citizens.
I've seen loads of remakes, some of which are average to good but the majority I find meh as they don't bring anything new in terms of perspective, or ideas, just technological advances in sfx. I thought Ring was ok as Naomi Watts is a good actress but Ring 2 was monotonous despite the same lead cast. I enjoyed Grudge and its sequel more but then I haven't seen Ju-on to compare it to. The Texas Chainsaw remake was poor and so was the new version of Nightmare on Elm Street. I actually liked Rob Zombie's Halloween as its not a carbon copy of the original classic but still very menacing and in a more depressing tone. I thought Rec was very predictable despite a promising first half hour and that has nothing to do with America afaik.
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 1,080
Good to see you're keeping an open mind about it
I thought the films had very different relationships in them, especially the boy/girl, boy/parents, girl/father and bully/brother - all of which I thought were better handled or more interesting in the remake.
While both films are obviously based on the same story, they are different films in their focus and emotion.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 9,511
I watched both too. Remake first and then the original. Never heard of either version until the other night.
I have no problem with subtitled films so that didn't have any real effect on which I would prefer.
Both are good films but much to my surprise the remake was much better.
Some of the parts which I thought were superior were:
Acting of the lead characters. You genuinely felt sorry for the boys situation and was depicted as being much more desperate than the original.. The original boy actually seemed to have nice parents and I didn't really get a connection with them.
The boy in the remake came across innocent but the original he came across as quite cold to me.
The bully was much better. In the original he just seemed like a horrible kid. In the remake he is a nasty piece of work.
The relationship with her and her partner (Depicted as her Dad) was left open for much longer and you felt the connection between them. Whereas in the original they explained it very early and I felt this was dumbed down.
Gore comparision was about the same. If anyone had more, then I would have to say that the original just pipped it.
Story wise - Yes there are based on the same book so it will have scenes that are the same but it is no way a shot by shot remake of the original film.
Over all, the remake was just a better film in my opinion.
If people disagree then that is fair enough but I would be interested in hearing why you think so rather than just it doesn't have subtitles. I am not sure about anyone else but after reading subtitles for a few minutes I don't even notice I am reading them.
What an amazing film, the 2 child actors were fantastic especially Chloe (hit girl), only after when I did the usual internet search on the film did I find out it was a remake so I will be checking that out. People seem to be divided over what was the better version.
/sticks neck out
There isn't a divide over which is the better film. You've either seen the original or you haven't.
The original, has this spark of magic, it's a brilliant film. It's better then the re shot new film, subtle changes.
There isn't a divide over which is the better film. You've either seen the original or you haven't.
The original, has this spark of magic, it's a brilliant film. It's better then the re shot new film, subtle changes.
It's a perfectly acceptable version of the story (I've read the book too, and neither of them are totally accurate to it anyway), and it's a good film. However, I do prefer the Swedish version - it's more subtle and I find the location a better fit for the events.