So I just finished watching LMI for the first time in one sitting on my television. I had seen it before in bits and pieces on my computer but I wanted to wait before making any serious discussion on the matter until I could see it the way it was intended to be seen.
First off, if you're going to go to say "Well, you never would have liked it" then do us both a favor and just click out now. For what it's worth while I'm not a fan of Reeves' actions in promoting the film, I did my best to distance my personal feelings and focus on the film itself more. I mean, heck, James Cameron sounds a bit like a douchebag (telling his actors to piss themselves lest they take off their costume in the middle of shooting) but I still think Aliens is a great film. I even withheld from rewatching the Swedish film (haven't seen it since last September). If there was never a chance of me finding anything positive, I would have forsaken seeing it entirely. So yeah, I was hoping I could come away from it and go "Well, at least that part was good" or "So and so gave a good performance" even I thought that the overall fim was a waste of time.
Overall? I was surprised at how apathetic I was. You may have expected me to be gnashing my teeth while watching the film, but I just couldn't bring myself to care. So I didn't hate the film, but I left thinking "So what?" I couldn't bring myself to have any interest in the characters or the plot. I'm not particularly proud of this as I was hoping to get a more emotional reaction out of it for good or bad. Now you may say this is because I saw the original first but A.) I've already seen LTROI three times and I've liked it more each time and B.) I saw both True Grits in the span of one week and I had no problem liking the Coen Brothers' version significantly better.
It just felt rushed. I don't know how given that both films are two hours and there is less focus on the subplots than there was in the first film, but the plot didn't seem to breathe. It went through the motions but I didn't get the heart that the Swedish film had. Whenever Reeves copied scenes from the Alfredson film it just paled that much more in comparison. Maybe Reeves thought "If it worked for them, it'll work for me" but obviously that didn't happen.
For example: the "invite" scene. Just the look on Eli's face throughout or Oskar's prodding with the "tsk tsk". Little details like that. The bleeding scene itself was more effective with the close-ups and sound effects. I just didn't get the impact that the Swedish film had from LMI. The same thing happens, but that's it. "End of scene, let's get to the next one." Or when Abby feeds on Thomas? After not showing his face in the opening scene, Reeves shows his scarred face with little fanfare and then its done with. In the original, we don't see Hakan's face until the end and it's far more unsettling and disturbing.
The acting/characters: A lot of people have pointed out that whereas Alfredson apparently told the kids what to do specifically, Reeves took Spielberg's advice and let the kids act the way they wanted to. Or something like that. All I have to say is...if both films are representative of the different types of directing style, then I would much prefer the directors tell the kids what to do to the smallest detail. I am utterly baffled at how anyone could say Kodi and Chloe did better than Kare and Lina. Pretty much all the complaints I've heard about the Swedish kids seemed to multiply tenfold in the remake.
For what it's worth, I did like Kodi. He felt like an awkward kid making friends for the first time, and I sympathized with him quite a bit. His best scene IMO was when he called his father on the phone. Didn't like him as much as Kare, but he gave one of the better performances in the film. I'm going to say the problems I had with him had to do with the script and not his performance.
Chloe on the other hand, except for a couple of scenes (like when she killed Thomas) felt stiff. I liked her in Kick-Ass, but here it just felt like someone acting and not really "being" the character. Even the scenes with her smiling felt unnatural. I felt her performance in Kick-Ass was much better, so I don't think she's a bad actress or anything. I mean look at the scene in Kick-Ass when her father dies for example.
With the bullies, the only thing I liked was the scene where we see that the older brother was bullying the younger one. Besides that, they left me cold. Compare the original where we see the kid is crying as he's hitting Oskar because the other one is goading him into doing it and the scene in the remake where the kid doing it is just being nasty with no conscience. They were there, and that's it.
One thing I was wrong about was Jenkins. He was the one I expected to like the best and upon watching it again, I have to say that I was disappointed. Not so much with his acting perse but his arc felt rushed and I didn't find myself caring about what happened to him--even when I should be sympathizing with him more as he's much more Abby's victim here. Again, I can't put a finger on it as he more or less had the same scenes as Per Ragnar did. I know Ragnar had the scene with him at the cafe which showed how lonely and detached he was, forsaking the potential friendship with Lacke and friends, so maybe that's it? If so, mark that up to another casualty of cutting out that particular subplot. The car scene was effective from a visual standpoint, but I found Ragnar's quiet desperation in the original before pouring the acid to be far more heartbreaking than anything in the remake. And of course, we need more gore and we need to see the acid melting him while he screams in pain. *sighs*
Probably the biggest thing I was wrong about was the cop. In the script, he was essentially a bland proxy for Lacke's storyline, to give Abby and Owen an antagonist and for someone to become vampire chow at the end. Well, that still may be the case, but I thought Koteas did a great job with what he had and I would daresay he gave a better performance than whoever played Lacke in the Swedish film. The best of both worlds would have be to have Koteas play Lacke or combine Lacke's subplot with the cop's as Lacke is still a more interesting character and his storyline more rewarding. But yeah, I think Koteas gave the best performance second to Kodi. And a small thing, but I thought his "look" with the oversized glasses and mustache gave him more character than your typical grizzled cop. So he definitely salvaged what would have been a one-note subplot.
The screenplay/plot: Well, I've already discussed ad nauseaum how Reeves forsook the book for copying the Swedish screenplay, so I'll just leave it at that. I will say that when watching the opening scene I was slightly optimistic because it was effective and well-done in terms of set-up and music but after that the film started sinking.
Reeves actually surprised me with how much he overexplained everything, even moreso than I thought from the script. See that photo of Abby and Thomas? Let's zoom in so the audience doesn't miss it! Or the scene after the bleeding "This is what happens if you don't let me in..." No sh_t, Sherlock. Or the addition of Romeo and Juliet--that was pretty much there so the audience would know where "I must be gone and live, or stay and die" came from as that was the exact scene showed from the movie. And just so we don't forget its significance--as soon as Owen reads the letter, we cut to him reading Romeo & Juliet!
Slight divergent: I read a short story about a character with a complicated relationship with his dad. There's a throwaway line about him reading a novel called The Demolished Man. Now if you were to read the referenced novel itself you would know that it's about someone who kills his father and what significance that had. The short story didn't explain that and you would only get the significance of its metaphor if you had read it. If Reeves had used R & J like that, I would give him points, but the way its handled was "See? SEE?! This is a reference to Romeo & Juliet! And in case you forget, here it is again!" C'mon Reeves. Show a little respect for your audience...please?
The few times where Reeves tried to "improve" the original's iconic scenes I couldn't help but laugh. The Virginia bed-scene was tragic in the original with her effectively committing suicide lest she succumb to the vampirism. The scene in the remake was comical in comparison with her going "Om nom nom" on her hand before the nurse opens the shades for her. And then when the nurse gets lit alight? Oh God.
The pool scene itself was a joke. Having body parts fly at the camera? Hearing people screaming and bones ripping? It was played just like another gory horror film.
Overall, the remake was pretty much what I expected it to be. I will say that I was pleasantly surprised in some aspects (Kodi's and Elias's performance) but overall it was like watching a subpar abridgment of the Swedish film. The story was simplified, the gore/special effects were predictably ramped up, the taboo elements were neutered and the heart was removed leaving behind a hollow husk. It could have been worse, I'll give it that, but there's no excuse for it to be as flat as it was.
So yeah we were essentially agreeing, sorry for the miscommunicated tone.