About Let me in
Moderator: LMI Moderator
Re: About Let me in
I watched the DVD today and noticed how Owen talks about Tommy, a boy who used to smoke and drink in the cellar with his friends. I hadn't noticed that when I first saw the movie, but it really made me smile when I realised it today Tommy rather stood out for me in the novel and his recognition in the movie was quite exciting.
Re: About Let me in
I thought Tommy stood out too in the novel as well. He was a pretty interesting character.Pevalwen wrote:I watched the DVD today and noticed how Owen talks about Tommy, a boy who used to smoke and drink in the cellar with his friends. I hadn't noticed that when I first saw the movie, but it really made me smile when I realised it today Tommy rather stood out for me in the novel and his recognition in the movie was quite exciting.
- IDreamtIWasABee
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 12:38 am
Re: About Let me in
Let Me In is an outstanding movie.
Just sayin'.
Just sayin'.
Ursula was played by a boy in 1961. One day, Eli.
- DavidZahir
- Posts: 694
- Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:24 am
Re: About Let me in
I agree--but then, folks here already know that.
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
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
Re: About Let me in
Same here.IDreamtIWasABee wrote:Let Me In is an outstanding movie.
Just sayin'.
Re: About Let me in
johnajvide wrote:My love for LTROI is unflinching. It was my first, it was my own script and it will always have a special place in my heart that nothing done from my writing will ever replace or eclipse.
But there is room for LMI, too. A smaller chamber in a different location. But definitely there.
I have seen opinions that differ from mine both here and in reviews, but as for me I salute Matt Reeves and I walked out of the cinema with a great sense of relief and joy.
I suppose the discussion will go on, and I might pop in again some time in the future.
Take care, you all.
John
thank you for this wonderful story.
its a treasure to read and fuel for discussion
thanks again.
im worried that we may have gotten our lunchables mixed up
- LOMGIFLORUM
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2011 9:36 am
Re: About Let me in
Matt Reeves has endorsed a movie in its first version it was splendid Swedish. And when I say that has taken over I say with utmost respect for his great work. Because I have achieved this cold harsh revived two solitary creatures that are searched among the miseries. A boy and a vampire who trace the glacial snow and ice emotional temperature around them to enter the universe together in a warm, only for them, a covenant sealed with love, blood, pain, fear and devotion.
An unusual pair of preteens outside of the ordinary. Reeves again emphasize, as did Thomas Alfredson excellently, that helplessness mordant, the isolation in which many young people stumble tiptoeing along the edge of an abyss opened between them and society. The original atmosphere is preserved intact. Owen is a faint shadow that supports silent shock and humiliation of life holed up inside. His mother's face off the field, being nearest and the farthest Owen also two coexisting but thousands of miles from each other between the same walls. She just knows what he is paraded through the boy's soul, knows nothing of the depth of his injuries. Or, if you intuit, understand that it was he who opened the door and let it go. Which he does. Like so many mothers and children, but do not want to communicate.
Such misanthropy of marginals flies so brilliantly here as in the Swedish version, in an inhospitable climate for a winter hit comes more from within than from without.
In the silence of the boy who secretly licks the abuses, observes and includes, without deciding to act. In her circle seemed to have no exit, Abby appears. The affinity of the charges set by request but have not carried on the backs flowing between them since the first encounter.
And he will enter.
An unusual pair of preteens outside of the ordinary. Reeves again emphasize, as did Thomas Alfredson excellently, that helplessness mordant, the isolation in which many young people stumble tiptoeing along the edge of an abyss opened between them and society. The original atmosphere is preserved intact. Owen is a faint shadow that supports silent shock and humiliation of life holed up inside. His mother's face off the field, being nearest and the farthest Owen also two coexisting but thousands of miles from each other between the same walls. She just knows what he is paraded through the boy's soul, knows nothing of the depth of his injuries. Or, if you intuit, understand that it was he who opened the door and let it go. Which he does. Like so many mothers and children, but do not want to communicate.
Such misanthropy of marginals flies so brilliantly here as in the Swedish version, in an inhospitable climate for a winter hit comes more from within than from without.
In the silence of the boy who secretly licks the abuses, observes and includes, without deciding to act. In her circle seemed to have no exit, Abby appears. The affinity of the charges set by request but have not carried on the backs flowing between them since the first encounter.
And he will enter.
-
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 6:00 pm
Re: About Let me in
I totally agreed with John sure i haven't seen LET THE RIGHT ONE IN first but I did saw LET ME IN for the first time and i totally got into it and i wanted learn more about then it said that it was already made aka LET THE RIGHT ONE IN so I've watched it and read both of the books and i can say yes they are both beautiful and they both made me cry i cannot say which one is my favorite but i can say that theyre both exact the same and but have different saying to my heart but both have the meaning to be a real true love horrific story for Eli And Abby
No one ever ask to become A MONSTER.
Sometimes FATE plays a cruel hand.
CURSED!!!
Sometimes FATE plays a cruel hand.
CURSED!!!
- gattoparde59
- Posts: 3242
- Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:32 am
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
Re: About Let me in
Hello! I see this was your first post.
I'll break open the story and tell you what is there. Then, like the others that have fallen out onto the sand, I will finish with it, and the wind will take it away.
Nisa
-
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 3:00 pm
Re: About Let me in
I've recently discovered the fantastic world of JAL thanks to Let Me In. Having not been able to sleep one night I was flipping through the guide and started watching LMI. I missed the first 20 minutes of the movie, but I was so impressed with Kodi's acting that I watched the rest of it anyways and recorded the next showing. After IMDB'ing the movie, I saw there was a book, so downloaded it and read it. Even as a single parent with a full-time job, a 12 month old and other obligations, I finished the book in a week.
Then I found this board, and after reading a few reviews, just went and bought the movie LTROI. I was very impressed with both movies, although LTROI is now my favorite. They are both the same and different, and I think that is why I like them both.
The only thing that absolutely drives me crazy in LMI is that damn photo strip with Abby and a young Thomas. As one of my friends that also is familiar with the movie said; if the "father" was with Abby for 35+ years (just a guess, he looks to be at least in his late 40s), why did he all of a sudden regret his role and "maybe I want to get caught". It just ruins the father's character for me. I'm sure there are plenty of good explanations as to why he finally had enough, but it just seems to me that if that was the case, it would have occurred sooner or he would have just left.
I know there have been numerous interpretations of the photo strip and what it might mean. It isn't so much the interpretations and the exact meaning of the relationships, but why it was their in the first place. To me it radically alters Owen's view of Abby versus Oskar's view of Eli. With Oskar, you have the unknown beginnings of a relationship with a vampire, something that has never been done before ... will she stay with you, will you stay with her? With Owen, seeing the photo strip you know that at least in this case Abby and Thomas have stayed together a long time (whatever their actual relationship may have started as), you don't have the uknown. So why the change, why the necessity to go that route? When I saw the film the first time, I thought that Abby was deeply hurt by the way her and Thomas's relationship ended up, and was determined to start over with Owen and "do it right". I'm oversimplifying, but hopefully you get my point.
I feel that the photo strip was added to appease the portion of the American audience that would have been up in arms with a "Haken" type character (pedophile). After reading LTROI, I was rather pissed about having the photo strip in the movie and came to conclusion above. Otherwise, why the change, why the need to establish that the father had been there since he was the same age as Abby.
Anyways, other than that part of LMI, I love the movie, love LTROI movie better and love LTROI novel the best!
Glad I found this board ... I've read Harbor now and looking forward to Paper Walls coming out in the US later this year.
Then I found this board, and after reading a few reviews, just went and bought the movie LTROI. I was very impressed with both movies, although LTROI is now my favorite. They are both the same and different, and I think that is why I like them both.
The only thing that absolutely drives me crazy in LMI is that damn photo strip with Abby and a young Thomas. As one of my friends that also is familiar with the movie said; if the "father" was with Abby for 35+ years (just a guess, he looks to be at least in his late 40s), why did he all of a sudden regret his role and "maybe I want to get caught". It just ruins the father's character for me. I'm sure there are plenty of good explanations as to why he finally had enough, but it just seems to me that if that was the case, it would have occurred sooner or he would have just left.
I know there have been numerous interpretations of the photo strip and what it might mean. It isn't so much the interpretations and the exact meaning of the relationships, but why it was their in the first place. To me it radically alters Owen's view of Abby versus Oskar's view of Eli. With Oskar, you have the unknown beginnings of a relationship with a vampire, something that has never been done before ... will she stay with you, will you stay with her? With Owen, seeing the photo strip you know that at least in this case Abby and Thomas have stayed together a long time (whatever their actual relationship may have started as), you don't have the uknown. So why the change, why the necessity to go that route? When I saw the film the first time, I thought that Abby was deeply hurt by the way her and Thomas's relationship ended up, and was determined to start over with Owen and "do it right". I'm oversimplifying, but hopefully you get my point.
I feel that the photo strip was added to appease the portion of the American audience that would have been up in arms with a "Haken" type character (pedophile). After reading LTROI, I was rather pissed about having the photo strip in the movie and came to conclusion above. Otherwise, why the change, why the need to establish that the father had been there since he was the same age as Abby.
Anyways, other than that part of LMI, I love the movie, love LTROI movie better and love LTROI novel the best!
Glad I found this board ... I've read Harbor now and looking forward to Paper Walls coming out in the US later this year.