About Let me in

For discussion of Matt Reeve's Film Let Me In

Moderator: LMI Moderator

Post Reply
ColBlair
Posts: 592
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:05 pm

Re: About Let me in

Post by ColBlair » Sat Dec 18, 2010 3:38 pm

Wolfchild wrote:
God of Vampires wrote:Though, I did expect this version to be a more mainstream version of LTROI, I found that the opposite is true. LMI is actually an artsy film in a higher degree than LTROI, which means that I feel that this is not the right path to bring the story to a mainstream audience. That is at least my feeling on the matter ;) .
You aren't the only one. I have read an article where some film industry pundit makes the same observation. That person said that while Matt set out to make the story more accessible, by modeling so many of his shots so closely to the corresponding shots in Tomas' film, he ended up making an arthouse film without even trying. Instead of making it more accessible for the mainstream, he inadvertently went in the opposite direction. This pundit used this to explain the poor showing that LMI had at the box office. I think there was probably more to it than just this, but LMI does have an arthouse feel to it.
I agree, it did have an artistic feel to it.

User avatar
jonjon_z
Posts: 497
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:42 pm
Location: San Diego, California

Re: About Let me in

Post by jonjon_z » Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:40 pm

As I posted elsewhere in these forums, I really wanted to like LMI because I own both the LTROI DVD and the novel. I've also seen Kick-@$$ at least 3 times and like many of us, fell for Chloe. She was amazing. So I kept an open mind when watching LMI for the first time.

I feel Chloe's performance was held back to extenuate Abby's sadness which is unfortunate. I could picture Mr. Reeves instructing her to speak softer, slower. I have to give a nod to Richard Jenkins. His portrayal of The Guardian was bittersweet. A bit different than the cold Renfield we know in the swedish film and novel.

There was one scene in particular that really bothered me. It was when Owen discovers the photobooth film strip. My first thought was, Owen freaks out when he realizes the boy in the picture is the Father though at a younger age (as evidenced by the glasses and face scars). As another poster had mentioned, we don't know if this is because he then realizes how old Abby really is, or the realization he would be the replacement provider now that the old man was gone. In any case this part wasn't in the book or LTROI.

I also agree LMI was a more artsy film although it might have gotten a bit obtrusive.

What sets the tone between the two movies, more than anything, is the music scores. If you listen to the music from both movies (easy to find at youtube) the differences are like night and day. LTROI's score for the most part, namely "Eli's theme", "The Arrival", "Oskar in Love" as well as the main theme, is tender, hauntingly beautiful, sad and yet romantic. You can't help but visualize the tender moments between Eli and Oskar when you listen to "Eli's Theme" It makes for an excellent listening CD for its' genre.

The LMI soundtrack, in contrast, is eerie and scary. While it does have some excellent arrangements, this is the 'something is gonna jump out any minute' type of music (with a few exceptions). I ended up deleting at least 14 songs from my mp3 player.

I do think LMI is a worthwhile movie. Had I never seen LTROI or read the novel before seeing LMI I'm sure I would be a lot less disappointed.
"Can we die?" "Of course we can." Eli put his hand on his heart, felt the slow beats. Maybe it was because he was a child. Maybe that was why he hadn't put an end to it. The pangs of conscience were weaker than his will to live.

ColBlair
Posts: 592
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:05 pm

Re: About Let me in

Post by ColBlair » Sat Dec 18, 2010 6:19 pm

jonjon_z wrote:As I posted elsewhere in these forums, I really wanted to like LMI because I own both the LTROI DVD and the novel. I've also seen Kick-@$$ at least 3 times and like many of us, fell for Chloe. She was amazing. So I kept an open mind when watching LMI for the first time.

I feel Chloe's performance was held back to extenuate Abby's sadness which is unfortunate. I could picture Mr. Reeves instructing her to speak softer, slower. I have to give a nod to Richard Jenkins. His portrayal of The Guardian was bittersweet. A bit different than the cold Renfield we know in the swedish film and novel.

There was one scene in particular that really bothered me. It was when Owen discovers the photobooth film strip. My first thought was, Owen freaks out when he realizes the boy in the picture is the Father though at a younger age (as evidenced by the glasses and face scars). As another poster had mentioned, we don't know if this is because he then realizes how old Abby really is, or the realization he would be the replacement provider now that the old man was gone. In any case this part wasn't in the book or LTROI.

I also agree LMI was a more artsy film although it might have gotten a bit obtrusive.

What sets the tone between the two movies, more than anything, is the music scores. If you listen to the music from both movies (easy to find at youtube) the differences are like night and day. LTROI's score for the most part, namely "Eli's theme", "The Arrival", "Oskar in Love" as well as the main theme, is tender, hauntingly beautiful, sad and yet romantic. You can't help but visualize the tender moments between Eli and Oskar when you listen to "Eli's Theme" It makes for an excellent listening CD for its' genre.

The LMI soundtrack, in contrast, is eerie and scary. While it does have some excellent arrangements, this is the 'something is gonna jump out any minute' type of music (with a few exceptions). I ended up deleting at least 14 songs from my mp3 player.

I do think LMI is a worthwhile movie. Had I never seen LTROI or read the novel before seeing LMI I'm sure I would be a lot less disappointed.
I seen LMI first and the photobooth picture made me think that the guy was her brother and not a friend. I didn't know anything about the novel until the credits. When I think about the photobooth picture, I don't believe that The Father was a servant at all, just a friend of Abby's. The photostrip alone, to me, doesn't represent that Owen's the next servant, it represents why Abby couldn't get close to other people. She said to Owen as he left, "This is why we can't be friends." This implies probably when Abby said it the first time, that she was going to move forward on her own. If you were to look at the photobooth picture, she doesn't smile with her teeth at all. This could represent that she didn't want want to get too close to him, but her loneliness caused her to stay with him. Maybe at one point she wanted love from "The Father," but there is no way to tell that. I think Abby chose people her age cause she wanted to be around 12 year olds so she can feel like a 12 year old, but some ended up leaving, or some got old like "The Father." I believed "The Father" stayed cause he didn't like being alone and Abby represented to him the times that they had together.

Key things that I noticed that Abby wasn't going to use Owen:
1. How sad she was when she told Owen that she needed blood to live. She wasn't happy with it at all, especially when someone had to go get it for her.
2. The excitement she had at the arcade.
3. She was expecting a kiss from Owen at Tommy's basement, but she didn't realize that he cut his thumb to have the pact. She also didn't kill him and ran out the door.
4. The Hospital scene with Abby and The Father interacting with one another. They had a history.
5. The note where The Father apoligizes to Abby. he wasn't sorry that he failed her, he was sorry that he wished to be with her forever.
6. She felt sorry for Owen when he got attacked by Kenny and tells him to fight back. I had people tell me this when I was bullied to hit back.
7. She also said that she would help Owen. Now if the incident at the pool didn't happen, I would say that if Kenny and his cohorts punched or kicked him, then Abby would of done the same. ;)

I think Owen was scared at the fact that Abby was a lot older than The Father. I don't think he knew about The Father killing people at all.

One more key. Owen was scared at the violence that was inflicted on the Policeman and at the pool locker room where Owen had the knife, he didn't want to use it cause it wasn't in his soul to kill another human being. In the end, I believe it's all smooth sailing from here. that's how I saw it though and I can't wait to get the dvd.

User avatar
jonjon_z
Posts: 497
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:42 pm
Location: San Diego, California

Re: About Let me in

Post by jonjon_z » Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:13 pm

I have no thought whatsoever Abby was ever using Owen. Of course she was genuinely attracted to him. My point was the filmstrip (however way you interpret the meaning) was unnecessary and at worst, confusing. I thought Abby's answers to Owen's questions was plenty enough for him to storm out of Abby's apartment in a state of near panic ("I want to go home now.. if you'll let me"). It was this point when he saw Abby as a threat ("What are you going to do to me? Are you going to kill me?"). There are a lot of instances in LMI/LTROI that are open to interpretation. That's what makes boards like these popular. So we may freely discuss various opinions and perhaps agree to disagree. :)
"Can we die?" "Of course we can." Eli put his hand on his heart, felt the slow beats. Maybe it was because he was a child. Maybe that was why he hadn't put an end to it. The pangs of conscience were weaker than his will to live.

User avatar
God of Vampires
Posts: 692
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:08 pm
Location: Sweden/Stockholm

Re: About Let me in

Post by God of Vampires » Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:21 pm

To me, the filmstrip proves that Abby isn't Eli. Eli only meet her caretaker a few months before her first encounter with Oskar. With Abby they have been together a long time. It is also possible that Abby's caretaker isn't like Håkan, but rather a genuine freind.
"I think Eli, just as me, is a fan of multicoloured equines. You need this to get through an eternity of bloodshed."
_God of Vampires/Prince Darkmoon, Proud infected, proud brony.

ColBlair
Posts: 592
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:05 pm

Re: About Let me in

Post by ColBlair » Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:30 pm

jonjon_z wrote:I have no thought whatsoever Abby was ever using Owen. Of course she was genuinely attracted to him. My point was the filmstrip (however way you interpret the meaning) was unnecessary and at worst, confusing. I thought Abby's answers to Owen's questions was plenty enough for him to storm out of Abby's apartment in a state of near panic ("I want to go home now.. if you'll let me"). It was this point when he saw Abby as a threat ("What are you going to do to me? Are you going to kill me?"). There are a lot of instances in LMI/LTROI that are open to interpretation. That's what makes boards like these popular. So we may freely discuss various opinions and perhaps agree to disagree. :)
I apoligize that was my mistake. I do agree that both LMI and LTROI are open to interpretation. I like to pick things apart in movies like this and anaylze them bit by bit. :D I can't wait to get the DVD in February!

User avatar
jonjon_z
Posts: 497
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 4:42 pm
Location: San Diego, California

Re: About Let me in

Post by jonjon_z » Sat Dec 18, 2010 7:58 pm

God of Vampires wrote: To me, the filmstrip proves that Abby isn't Eli. Eli only meet her caretaker a few months before her first encounter with Oskar. With Abby they have been together a long time. It is also possible that Abby's caretaker isn't like Håkan, but rather a genuine freind.
This is a very good point. Perhaps this is what Mr. Reeves was trying to tell us, that Abby is not Eli therefore her guardian is not Hakan. See? I welcome varying views like this. It's refreshing and stirs thoughts.
ColBlair wrote:I apoligize that was my mistake. I do agree that both LMI and LTROI are open to interpretation. I like to pick things apart in movies like this and anaylze them bit by bit.
No need for apologizes my friend. I also tend to nit pick minor details especially when it comes to remakes and movies I love. I will concede the filmstrip is a minor detail. I'm happy to see there are a lot of people like you and me who are touched by the story in one way or another. I guess this is what it means to become infected. :)
I can't wait to get the DVD in February!
Oh man neither can I!
"Can we die?" "Of course we can." Eli put his hand on his heart, felt the slow beats. Maybe it was because he was a child. Maybe that was why he hadn't put an end to it. The pangs of conscience were weaker than his will to live.

ColBlair
Posts: 592
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:05 pm

Re: About Let me in

Post by ColBlair » Sat Dec 18, 2010 8:43 pm

jonjon_z wrote:
God of Vampires wrote: To me, the filmstrip proves that Abby isn't Eli. Eli only meet her caretaker a few months before her first encounter with Oskar. With Abby they have been together a long time. It is also possible that Abby's caretaker isn't like Håkan, but rather a genuine freind.
This is a very good point. Perhaps this is what Mr. Reeves was trying to tell us, that Abby is not Eli therefore her guardian is not Hakan. See? I welcome varying views like this. It's refreshing and stirs thoughts.
ColBlair wrote:I apoligize that was my mistake. I do agree that both LMI and LTROI are open to interpretation. I like to pick things apart in movies like this and anaylze them bit by bit.
No need for apologizes my friend. I also tend to nit pick minor details especially when it comes to remakes and movies I love. I will concede the filmstrip is a minor detail. I'm happy to see there are a lot of people like you and me who are touched by the story in one way or another. I guess this is what it means to become infected. :)
I can't wait to get the DVD in February!
Oh man neither can I!
Oh yeah, I'm infected and I'm infected for good and I blame Abby for it! It's all Abby's fault! LOL! GO TEAM ABBY!!!! GO TEAM ELI!!!

User avatar
DavidZahir
Posts: 694
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:24 am

Re: About Let me in

Post by DavidZahir » Thu Feb 24, 2011 1:49 pm

Very wonderful to read Mr. Lindqvist's opinion of Let Me In. Frankly a lot of the posts here in reaction the American film remind me of forums I used to go to about Ringu and The Ring. Most could simply accept that different people with individual tastes viewed the films in their own way. But a few simply could not imagine why anyone would like the foreign film in any way, shape or manner. Then there were those who regarded the American film as some kind of deep sin, and liked to mock every single choice made by the filmmakers, putting upon them the worst motives and assuming incompetence on the part of everyone involved.

For the record, my own opinion mirrors that of the author--he (and we) have been very fortunate to see two excellent adaptations of his work. Coming as I do from a theatre background, seeing different versions of things seems natural. Look at Lawrence Olivier's Richard III as opposed to Ian McKlellan's.
O let my name be in the Book of Love. If it be there I care not
For that Other great Book above. Strike it out! Or write it in anew--
But let My name be in the Book of Love!
-- Omar Kayam

ColBlair
Posts: 592
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2010 11:05 pm

Re: About Let me in

Post by ColBlair » Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:36 pm

DavidZahir wrote:Very wonderful to read Mr. Lindqvist's opinion of Let Me In. Frankly a lot of the posts here in reaction the American film remind me of forums I used to go to about Ringu and The Ring. Most could simply accept that different people with individual tastes viewed the films in their own way. But a few simply could not imagine why anyone would like the foreign film in any way, shape or manner. Then there were those who regarded the American film as some kind of deep sin, and liked to mock every single choice made by the filmmakers, putting upon them the worst motives and assuming incompetence on the part of everyone involved.

For the record, my own opinion mirrors that of the author--he (and we) have been very fortunate to see two excellent adaptations of his work. Coming as I do from a theatre background, seeing different versions of things seems natural. Look at Lawrence Olivier's Richard III as opposed to Ian McKlellan's.
I agree with you there too David. One reviewer said that there are countless versions of Shakesphere, why not Lindqvist's? So that's where I stand with that.

Post Reply

Return to “Let Me In”