saw this at last.

[TigerEyes]

Owen and abby in the gym, bed scene, bleeding scene, and the pool scene just doesn't seem right however you slice it. Sure the LTROI is more of as love stroy, but if Reeves was trying to make the characters have similar chemistry, he should have picked his cast carefully. Abby and Owen looked to me as if they were saying, "Well, we're gonna have to say these lines... let's just get it over with."

One of the problems with statements like this is that it sounds as if you're insulting everyone who saw something very real between those characters. Whether you intended it or not, that is how fans of LMI will often (not always) experience upon reading such.

Myself, I tend to think a lot of folks don't react so much to performances as to a more mysterious chemistry about character and actor. I'll admit there are actors I cannot stand, regardless of what they play. Not many, though. But I have seen many a person react in disdain to an interpretation they dislike and thus impugn the actor's abilities--even though what they (sometimes) are reacting to is a disagreement about choice.

Case in point--the (odd, to me) assumption that Abby is an evil, manipulative bitch who cares nothing for Owen. Methinks this opinion says far more about the person holding it than about either Reeves' screenplay or Chloe Grace Moretz' performance. Indeed, it is a difficult thing to support when you see Abby do things like watch Owen when he isn't looking--watch him with what sure looks like the beginning of a crush. Likewise Abby's reaching out to touch Thomas at his most wretched (before he goes out for the last time) is something that makes perfect sense to me--displaying a relationship of great complexity.

But another problem is that if an actor has already performed a given role and done it splendidly, having another actor do the part can feel jarring. We loved Lena's take on Eli that almost automatically we compare Chloe's Abby. Yet quality is not a linear scale. Doing that role does not require copying someone else's performance as rigidly as possible, no matter how wonderful that particular actress nailed it.

Myself, I saw a powerful relationship between Abby and Owen begin and grow. That you did not is something I simply take on trust. Kindly assume that maybe others really did see something you did not--whether either of us is wise to have done so (or not).

Really? Well, i never meant to be insulting. I agree, we all don't see quite eye to eye on things.

[Midwest]

I felt there was a kind of intangible chemistry between Eli and Oskar that I just couldn't grab ahold of in LMI with Owen and Abby. I question Matt's judgment in casting Chloe for the role of Abby; I'm not sure the part really fit her.

Edit: I would add that I really wanted to be pleased with LMI. I think a big part of it was that no matter how hard I tried to be objective, I couldn't help but compare it to LTROI. I can completely understand how people who saw LMI first have a different take on it, and are (speaking generally) more pleased with it.

I agree.

Another poster said that one can't blame the actors, well of course you can. The director may have the vision but it's also up to the actor to compromise with how the character comes across on screen. Just because they're kid actors doesn't let them off the hook. Moretz & Smit-McPhee had say on their respective roles which carried over to their performances. Again, actors do have say - and for LMI both leads were shown a lot of respect by Reeves by letting them interpret their character in their own way.

[lombano]

Another poster said that one can't blame the actors, well of course you can. The director may have the vision but it's also up to the actor to compromise with how the character comes across on screen. Just because they're kid actors doesn't let them off the hook. Moretz & Smit-McPhee had say on their respective roles which carried over to their performances. Again, actors do have say - and for LMI both leads were shown a lot of respect by Reeves by letting them interpret their character in their own way.

While I much prefer Eli and Oskar, I don't really blame Chloe and Kodi. It is true there isn't the same chemistry as in the original, but apart from that, what I don't like about their characters is basically down to the script and so on, not down to the performances. They did a good job with the script they were given. With the same editing, direction, script, etc I don't think others actors would've necessarily done much better.

[jetboy]

Another poster said that one can't blame the actors, well of course you can. The director may have the vision but it's also up to the actor to compromise with how the character comes across on screen. Just because they're kid actors doesn't let them off the hook. Moretz & Smit-McPhee had say on their respective roles which carried over to their performances. Again, actors do have say - and for LMI both leads were shown a lot of respect by Reeves by letting them interpret their character in their own way.

While I much prefer Eli and Oskar, I don't really blame Chloe and Kodi. It is true there isn't the same chemistry as in the original, but apart from that, what I don't like about their characters is basically down to the script and so on, not down to the performances. They did a good job with the script they were given. With the same editing, direction, script, etc I don't think others actors would've necessarily done much better.

I agree. I personally think that LTROI was more than the sum of the parts, like the planets aligned for it so to speak, so just because lightning didnt strike twice is not the kids fault. If LTROI had not existed, maybe I would have appreciated aspects of it better but it couldntve existed without the original so thats pointless.

[danielma]

I felt there was a kind of intangible chemistry between Eli and Oskar that I just couldn't grab ahold of in LMI with Owen and Abby. I question Matt's judgment in casting Chloe for the role of Abby; I'm not sure the part really fit her.

Edit: I would add that I really wanted to be pleased with LMI. I think a big part of it was that no matter how hard I tried to be objective, I couldn't help but compare it to LTROI. I can completely understand how people who saw LMI first have a different take on it, and are (speaking generally) more pleased with it.

Thank you, I'm glad I'm not the only who still isn't that impressed with Chloe or thought she wasn't right for the role.

My big problem with the both of them is that they just felt like they were acting, there was something natural about Kare and Lina that I don't know if Chloe and Kodi could bring to the table. Now don't get me wrong, they are both good actors, I'm not taking that away from Kodi and Chloe. But for some reason it just felt like they were reading lines and going through the motions for the sake of it (if that makes sense).

I too wanted to like it, and I actually so wanted not to compare it to LTROI, I really wanted this thing to stand on its own two feet and be its own thing...but the problem lies in the fact that its almost too faithful to the original film at certain points that it never quite finds its own footing. It tries to, with all the small details it adds, but for the most part, its too content in trying to repeat what the original film already did.

[celedril]

Man, people just be hatin' on ol LMI, but I don't see why. I have to agree with David Zahir.

Not only that, but I think that the movie's title says it all. To me there are a few pivot points this movie revolves around that change it drastically. The first is simply the title. Let Me In. Says it all right there. It isn't about letting the right one in (both into your life and your heart), it's about letting her in, one way or another. The general tone of the movie is a little more sinister than LTROI, and I think this matches with the notion that Abby is supposed to be, as Dave Zahir said (though in the negative), a manipulative little bitch. Now that doesn't mean she doesn't have feelings for Owen (I also agree with DZ, that she does have tender moments with Owen and Thomas that strongly argue for her having emotional investment in both of them), just that I think the director made a conscious choice to emphasize the manipulative, parasitical parts of Abby and her existence as a vampire. That was the whole point of the title, I think: that's how she survives, she convinces you to let her in--remember, when Owen saves her from the blood effusion when she comes in without invitation, she says "I knew you wouldn't let me [die]," in a great, deadpan voice (one can argue it wasn't deadpan, but please, watch it again and see if it doesn't strike you as a resigned and just a little impassive). Again, these don't mean there isn't any complexity to her emotions or the relationships, only that a large aspect of her existence is as a parasite who uses her charms to convince others to let her in.

That's the whole point of making Thomas/caretaker who he is in the movie. We are absolutely supposed to believe that Owen has great potential to become just like him. What else is "have some now, save some for later" supposed to intimate?

The second point is the pool scene. As many have noticed, the beautiful scene of Eli and Oskar gazing at each other has been replaced by Owen staring at Abby's feet. Do people really think this wasn't a conscious choice by Matt Reeves? Abby saves Owen in his darkest hour, and when we see her feet we know he is going to be at them, with her as master (again, don't get me wrong, I think she does have feelings for Owen, but they aren't the main point in this movie). Then we see the train scene and him singing Now and Later. Reeves isn't stupid, and nothing is in that movie that isn't supposed to be. Reeves is a good director, cunning and methodical. He knows this movie is supposed to be a horror, and it is. The horror of how a vampire girl survives, and the sad destiny of those she attracts, and who fall in love with her. Owen is singing his own fate, and he doesn't even know it. If that ain't horrifying, I don't know what is.

I think this is a very subtle story that has lots of emotional content between Owen and Abby, but just because it isn't the same sort of "love" as between Oskar and Eli doesn't mean people have to impugn it. It is a sort of love, but Reeves made conscious decisions to highlight certain aspects of the story, and those enhancements change the dynamic so drastically that LMI and LTROI are consequently almost entirely different films. I love them both, but it makes me sad when people get all doom and gloom on LMI, because it has some wonderful merits, and deserves to be judged on those merits.

I'd just like people to try and divorce the two, because it is to compare apples and oranges. That's why I think JAL was able to like both, because he (rightly) recognized the vast gulf between the two, and could appreciate both as distinct entities that retained a certain core of what he was trying to do in the novel.

Obviously there's more, but I'll leave off my defense for now

[lombano]

Another poster said that one can't blame the actors, well of course you can. The director may have the vision but it's also up to the actor to compromise with how the character comes across on screen. Just because they're kid actors doesn't let them off the hook. Moretz & Smit-McPhee had say on their respective roles which carried over to their performances. Again, actors do have say - and for LMI both leads were shown a lot of respect by Reeves by letting them interpret their character in their own way.

While I much prefer Eli and Oskar, I don't really blame Chloe and Kodi. It is true there isn't the same chemistry as in the original, but apart from that, what I don't like about their characters is basically down to the script and so on, not down to the performances. They did a good job with the script they were given. With the same editing, direction, script, etc I don't think others actors would've necessarily done much better.

I agree. I personally think that LTROI was more than the sum of the parts, like the planets aligned for it so to speak, so just because lightning didnt strike twice is not the kids fault. If LTROI had not existed, maybe I would have appreciated aspects of it better but it couldntve existed without the original so thats pointless.

Yes - repeating performances like those of LTROI would be like lightning striking twice, which is not to say the performances in LMI are not good. Actually, it's not just the kids, generally everyone is at least competent, it's other aspects I have problems with. The policeman also illustrates what I meant about the actor vs. the character: we learn basically nothing about him except that he's on the case, and his barging in into Abby's flat makes no sense (this is a multiple murder investigation, and he just barges in without backup and without a warrant?). LMI didn't make me care about him and his death was ridiculous rather than dramatic - but none of this is the actor's fault and he probably did what he could with the material. Or take the deleted scenes - I liked Chloe's performance in the flashback as well as when in her audition when she repeats to Owen the first words she heard him say, but neither scene made it to the final cut.

Thank you, I'm glad I'm not the only who still isn't that impressed with Chloe or thought she wasn't right for the role.

I think she was a good choice for playing Abby - for playing what Reeves made Abby.

Not only that, but I think that the movie's title says it all. To me there are a few pivot points this movie revolves around that change it drastically. The first is simply the title. Let Me In. Says it all right there.... The horror of how a vampire girl survives, and the sad destiny of those she attracts, and who fall in love with her. Owen is singing his own fate, and he doesn't even know it. If that ain't horrifying, I don't know what is.

You're absolutely right, LMI seeks to take a different angle which, by design or by happy coincidence, is reflected in the title, a direct command, and which is obvious from the pool scene, 'save some for later' and, I would add, Owen's reactions to the photos. However, some of us don't like this take, in my case because I don't find it very interesting, and this is separate from objections to how it was executed.

[CyberGhostface]

Thank you, I'm glad I'm not the only who still isn't that impressed with Chloe or thought she wasn't right for the role.

You aren't. I found her performance bland and lifeless.

[Midwest]

Another poster said that one can't blame the actors, well of course you can. The director may have the vision but it's also up to the actor to compromise with how the character comes across on screen. Just because they're kid actors doesn't let them off the hook. Moretz & Smit-McPhee had say on their respective roles which carried over to their performances. Again, actors do have say - and for LMI both leads were shown a lot of respect by Reeves by letting them interpret their character in their own way.

While I much prefer Eli and Oskar, I don't really blame Chloe and Kodi. It is true there isn't the same chemistry as in the original, but apart from that, what I don't like about their characters is basically down to the script and so on, not down to the performances. They did a good job with the script they were given. With the same editing, direction, script, etc I don't think others actors would've necessarily done much better.

I wasn't asking for lightning to strike twice nor was I expecting it. That would be unfair. All I wanted was believability. I think I'm in the minority who liked LMI but found Owen and Abby's relationship non believable since it seemed forced. Although talented, I just thought Chloe was miscast.

Man, people just be hatin' on ol LMI, but I don't see why.

Not everyone is going to like LMI and that's understandable. Not everyone is going to like LTROI and that's understandable.

[cmfireflies]

It isn't about letting the right one in (both into your life and your heart), it's about letting her in, one way or another. The general tone of the movie is a little more sinister than LTROI, and I think this matches with the notion that Abby is supposed to be, as Dave Zahir said (though in the negative), a manipulative little bitch.

This! This, OMG a thousand times this. This was the movie I wanted to see and I expected LMI to be. I think almost every advance positive review of LMI said something to the effect of how evil Abby is. With an evil Abby, LMI would have a reason for existing, its own identity, a true re-telling of the story.

And the thing I find frustrating about LMI is that it was so close to this. I said a while ago that every actor except for Chloe approached the story this way. Kodi was wonderful as the scared bullied kid. Jenkins shined as the exhausted and emotionally immature Thomas. All that was missing was a smirking, manipulative Abby to tie the story together. But, and this I can't forgive LMI for, (and it may be an unfair criticism, I dunno) i thought that Reeves tried to split the difference. Chloe might have been miscast, but I don't think it's a slant against her to say that she made Abby too complicated, she played the tortured soul too well and because of that the plot becomes slightly inconsistent, Abby becomes unsympathetic, even worse, without the grandiose evil to make her a great villain, without a center or a victory the plot becomes inconsequential, even nihilistic. IMO if Abby were played with the same energy as Hit Girl, the movie might have been much better.