"Two weeks earlier"

Struan · Post by **Struan** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 5:59 pm

So while browsing through a few forums where I lurk from time to time I came across this rather visceral comment on Let Me In (not exactly a review) by a guy who regularly does podcasts on movies and has shown in the past to have tastes similar to mine:
http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk ... tcount=188

You'll notice right off the bat that he's not happy about the remake, and in particular about something he simply illustrates with a screencap that reads "Two weeks earlier". Since I haven't got around to seeing LMI yet but I don't mind being spoiled (to the extent that a remake can be spoiled), and since the OP in question hasn't returned to clarify, I wanted to ask here if any has an idea of what he might be referring to? When in the movie does that line show?

The whole thread is an interesting read, by the way. That said I'm still not letting the entertaining reactions color my future judgement.

lombano · Post by **lombano** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 6:28 pm

LMI starts when the helper is being rushed to hospital after pouring the acid on his face, then jumps back to the beginning of the story.

sauvin · Post by **sauvin** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 6:41 pm

Struan wrote:So while browsing through a few forums where I lurk from time to time I came across this rather visceral comment on Let Me In (not exactly a review) by a guy who regularly does podcasts on movies and has shown in the past to have tastes similar to mine:
http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk ... tcount=188

You'll notice right off the bat that he's not happy about the remake, and in particular about something he simply illustrates with a screencap that reads "Two weeks earlier". Since I haven't got around to seeing LMI yet but I don't mind being spoiled (to the extent that a remake can be spoiled), and since the OP in question hasn't returned to clarify, I wanted to ask here if any has an idea of what he might be referring to? When in the movie does that line show?

The whole thread is an interesting read, by the way. That said I'm still not letting the entertaining reactions color my future judgement.

LTROI is shown strictly in linear time. LMI starts with Thomas' ambulance ride to the hospital after effacing himself with acid. In the next scene, a cop is shown trying unsuccessfully to interview Thomas his bed. He's called away to the phone at the nurse's station as somebody tries to say something about a little girl downstairs, but doesn't get to find out what that's about because of a scream coming from Thomas' room. He rushes back, sees Thomas is gone and a nurse leaning against a wall sobbing, and the window is open. He peers out the window and finds himself looking down at Thomas' bloodied body in the snow. In the next shot, the camera is inside the hospital lobby looking out into the parking lot, people are gathering around to gawk at Thomas' body, the TV has Reagan talking about how "good" the US is (as opposed to "evil").

And then the "TWO WEEKS EARLIER" message comes up on the screen, and the movie proceeds in a chronologically linear fashion from roughly the same point as the LTROI movie on through to its conclusion.

Struan · Post by **Struan** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 9:58 pm

Ah, thank you guys. A curious choice for the film to start with a flash forward to that particular scene, but still I wonder why he was so mad about it.

DavidZahir · Post by **DavidZahir** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 10:51 pm

I have been asked to delete this posting.

lombano · Post by **lombano** » Sat Jun 25, 2011 11:25 pm

Or perhaps this guy must be congratulated on his good fortune to only have watched such fine films that he has been spared watching anything nearly as bad as the bulk of films that get made. He should be subjected to the average film that gets shown when I've taken the bus to Mexico City...

Struan wrote:Ah, thank you guys. A curious choice for the film to start with a flash forward to that particular scene, but still I wonder why he was so mad about it.

I wasn't crazy about this choice, but I don't see it as particularly horrible, either. It seems a strange point to focus one's anger on.

Struan · Post by **Struan** » Sun Jun 26, 2011 12:32 am

Well he's usually the level-headed and articulate voice in the podcast, which is why my curiosity was piqued. The whole thread is pretty negative and I guess there is some valid criticism to be found (the post just before this guy's is very funny and the part about the nurses made me laugh quite a bit), but his reaction seems to be over the top and out of character for his usual self.
And worst remake? C'mon. Off the top of my head I have Planet of the Apes, Stepford Wives & Nutty Professor in line to claim that one.

sauvin · Post by **sauvin** » Sun Jun 26, 2011 4:01 am

Struan wrote:Well he's usually the level-headed and articulate voice in the podcast, which is why my curiosity was piqued. The whole thread is pretty negative and I guess there is some valid criticism to be found (the post just before this guy's is very funny and the part about the nurses made me laugh quite a bit), but his reaction seems to be over the top and out of character for his usual self.
And worst remake? C'mon. Off the top of my head I have Planet of the Apes, Stepford Wives & Nutty Professor in line to claim that one.

Planet of the Apes remake? So-so. Not good, not bad, just somewhat entertaining. The original movie and its immediate sequel had something to say, whereas Wahlberg's POTA was just a vehicle for us to drool all over Helena Bonham Carter and Estella Warren for a while.

Stepford Wives? FAIL. Pity, that, I happen to have a real soft spot for Kidman.

Nutty Professor? Gave it a miss, ain't that [deleted] brave.

LMI? First couple of times I saw it, I hated it. I knew I would, though, and knew why. It... um... well, it kinda grew on me, and now I spend roughly half my idle time dwelling Abby.

I can't speak for what angered this blogger so much, and I can't say what Reeves had in mind when he did that, but I can say the effect it had was to warn the audience that this isn't a movie about a couple of kids holding hands under the table at Sunday school or swapping bubble gums when they think nobody's looking. Right off the bat - BAM! - there's horror, and that's what we're supposed to think the movie is about. It ain't gonna be pretty.

Edit: 5 Novembre 2011, replaced a "bad word" with [deleted] to comply with renewed restrictions on language.

gattoparde59 · Post by **gattoparde59** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 3:34 am

I havn't read the review in question.

The start to Let Me In is very different from the Let the Right One In. Lots of noise and a sh-sh-sh-shakey cam at work. More of an effort to grab your attention and distract you from your popcorn I reckon.

Reminds me I need to go back and read the first draft of Reeves screenplay, now that I have seen the finished product.

jetboy · Post by **jetboy** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 5:07 am

The flash back thing didnt much bother me. I do have to agree about the characters motivations missing the point though. It wouldve been fine if it was his original creation but it wasnt and so I think he had a responsibility to carry on that characters motivation, but he didnt.

We, The Infected

"Two weeks earlier"

"Two weeks earlier"

Re: "Two weeks earlier"

Re: "Two weeks earlier"

Re: "Two weeks earlier"

Re: "Two weeks earlier"

Re: "Two weeks earlier"

Re: "Two weeks earlier"

Re: "Two weeks earlier"

Re: "Two weeks earlier"

Re: "Two weeks earlier"