Pajiba

I dunno, that might not be so awful. I see glimmers in there that give me slight hope ... and others that grab that hope by the throat and smash and smash and smash and smash its little furry head on the rocks and rip its fur from its frail bleating body and stick what's left on a spit and roast it over a roaring fire and rip and tear the flesh from its tiny bones until there's nothing left but gristle and viscera.

So I'm kind of on the fence.

Fuck vampires in the ass with a giant dildo, then break it off inside them and beat them to death with the rest of it. I'm vampired out. No more. I just don't give a shit about any of this.

Trippdup is right but I also find it unnecessary to remake a movie that's only two years old. To me it feels like this whole thing was done only to capitalize on Let the Right One In and make a quick buck. Which puts a nasty taste in my mouth.

I think it appears they took out all the creepy. What's the fast shaking? What's with the shots of her climbing trees all ninja like and jumping from high heights? Of her keeper wearing a trash bag on his head?

Also...did anyone else cringe at hearing that in English?

The thing is.... the original film was already sort of a vanilla'ed up version of the book. I wonder what's left for the U.S. version to adapt?

Not that I'm a book purist, per se, I'm not, but there were some revelations in the book that were hinted at very baldly in the Swedish film (regarding Eli's scars/origin story), but never dealt with or discussed by the characters. (It would have probably been better to have never shown those hints at all if they were just going to let it all drop.) So I'm curious as to how the U.S. version will handle this.

In light of the above, Chloe Moretz looks extremely girly to be playing this character.

Wow. Now I totally want to read the book.

I love a good vampire story.

What? Where did that notion come from? I never got that impression...what with the crotch shot of her and that she didn't want him to look when crawling in bed with the boy.

DeistBrawler,
I've only read about the book, but I believe it is clearly stated in the book that Eli is a castrated boy. I believe the crotch shot shows scars, but it is a bit difficult to tell.

I liked how Eli's gender came off as ambiguous in the film. I fail to see how you could that pull off that ambiguity with Chloe Moretz. She is clearly female.

They can remake it if they want, I see no point in getting worked up about it. I guess I just wish that instead of remaking it, they'd give the original a decent release in the US. That goes for all remakes.

Really not interested in this at all.

This looks so boring. Because Ive already seen it before. Two years ago. Not in English. Jesus.

I wanted to second some of the above thoughts wrt the orginal film vice the book. While I loved the movie enough to purchase it for repeated viewing, I thought the trade-offs in deleting parts of the book for brevity's sake didn't always work.

In particular, I disliked the movie's handling of the vampire's original keeper. I thought shambling, disfigured wreck's trek back to find the boy/girl was a deliciously suspenseful undercurrent to the novel's tenderest scenes, not to mention the shudder-inducing terror of the creature's appearance in the basement storage area.

Having read the novel first, those omissions alone deeply disappointed me.

Huh...I never even thought that Eli could be a boy. I thought he/she was obviously female from the start. Where is this ambiguity you speak of?

Sorry, I'm having trouble mustering up the requisite outrage here, other than a general "why do they remake every single halfway decent foreign film in the first place" response.

Here's the thing: this could be way, way worse. Two words: Tween Twilight. I rest my case.

That's OK, Nadine.
I'm just going to laugh at you a little for wrapping yourself in ducks.
I bet it's kinda quackly, sorta like bubble wrap, yeah?

Huh...I never even thought that Eli could be a boy. I thought he/she was obviously female from the start. Where is this ambiguity you speak of?

It's in the book, I believe (I haven't read it), that Eli is a castrated boy. Possibly the film-maker changed it for the movie, but I don't see it explicitly stated that Eli is a girl. I'd have to go back and check the crotch shot scene again, but I don't believe it clearly shows vag. I believe you see scars.




It really pisses me off that anyone had the gall to put on another performance of Hamlet after Shakespeare's original show. Who would ever want to see differently skilled actors interpreting interesting roles and good stories in new ways?

That's my obligatory defense of remakes.

I thought about that, too. However, you couldn't see Hamlet after the "original run" back then. You could only read it. It had to be performed. That's the medium. Movies don't have that problem. I would think that people around these parts would be praising a remake of Let the Right One In if every single copy of the original had been destroyed, but that isn't the case. You could argue a different interpretation, but from the trailer it seems as though they're just trying to duplicate the look and feel of the original...which is just two (fucking) years old.

I'm not entirely certain this is a cash grab. It could be that people saw the original, loved it, and wanted people who are averse to subtitles to see it. That's wishful thinking, however. I think it might be more interesting to think about why so many people who really love films hate to see remakes so much. We could always (and often do) just not watch it. Like I said earlier, the only real downside I see is that I (living in Arkansas) will never get a chance to see something like Let the Right One In in a theater. And that is my preferred way to watch films.

Ugh. Why does there always have to be a Hollywood remake? The original was good. It doesn't need to be done again! If people in the US want to watch this movie, it's already out there- rent it.

/end rant

But seriously. Argh.

What I'm saying is that there is merit in watching different actors perform the same roles or seeing new directors interpret old stories, and I believe that merit can translate to film.

Oh, that's definitely a possibility. However, with the director seemingly trying to duplicate the original look and feel, I find it hard to see merit in this. I feel that this will just be a remake for people who aren't comfortable reading subtitles (possibly a cash grab, but who knows?). Without a drastic shift in tone, it's just way too soon for a remake (again, all going off the trailer).

On top of that - as you say - how exactly is the original work diminished by the existence of a remake? The original is still there to be watched and appreciated, and - also as you say - those who are offended are not being forced to watch the new one.

I suppose it isn't. It is also entirely possible that the remake will be as good, or possibly better, than the original. However, as I said, I'm just bummed out that I can't see the original in a theater. I mean, I eventually found out about it, but I can only imagine how many good films I'm missing out on because they wouldn't do well in American theaters.

I just wish that instead of remaking it, they'd give the original a decent release in the US. That goes for all remakes.

Posted by: pissant at July 26, 2010 1:18 PM

I think you hit the nail on the head there. A lot of people I speak with never even heard of the original. I'm trying to spread the word, but I'm only one (?) *counts self* yes, one man. Also, let's say North America rather than "the US", you nationalist, you.

Huh? What'd I do now?
Step off, you punctuated biatch.

It deeply disturbed me to hear it not in Swedish. I feel like the language itself lent such an otherwordly, ethereal feel to it. The amount of flash cuts and action shown in the trailer make me feel that they are going in a very different direction. Also, where the fuck is the snow?

The concept of comparing a movie to a remake of a play is completely ludicrous. Obviously after the original run of Hamlet, they used the same exact script and same general stage and stage actions. It's a ridiculous and false analogy to compare it to a movie where the script is completely new, and every single action could be different than the first iteration.