Comparison - but which did you see FIRST?

[sauvin]

I've just fled the IMDB boards. Again. The average age there, I swear, has got to be something like twelve with an average IQ roughly two standard deviations below the mean for an American rural population with corrective adjustments for long-term effects of drug abuse, commercial brainwashing, lead and other heavy metals in the tap water, porn sites and computer games.

I have yet to see LMI, planning to do so later today, or tomorrow at the latest. Regulars on this forum know how hard I often try to see if there isn't a man behind the curtain pulling levers and twisting knobs, and I intend to walk into the theater trying just as hard to see LMI as a creation in its own right and not just a second-rate derivative work that pays "homage" to an inspired original. I may come back saying "It ain't bad, it's just American", or I may come back hissing, spitting and swearing a blue thunderstruck streak that a paragon of cinematic art has been desecrated.

Wolfchild, if your censor's button is gathering dust, you may want to run a damp cloth over it and keep it handy.

One of the things I'll try to keep in mind as I watch LMI is that it's made by an American for Americans. We aren't French who can spend two hours watching a movie consisting mostly of verbal drama and maybe a little bit of action as somebody raises a glass of wine, and we're not Japanese who appreciate movies with ambiguous content or "conclusions" to encourage analysis, interpretation and politely heated fights at the dinner table. We like our movies to give complete backstories, explain all our characters and their motivations, and conclude neatly, cleanly and completely (even if not always happily). We like our movies to move, and we like them salted down with foul language, peppered with lots of blood and gore, and spiced up extra hot with gratuitous sexual references, nudity and taboo sex. I'll be the superannuated American teenager expecting these things.

Unfortunately, as fair-minded as I always try to be, I did happen to see LTROI first, and I've read the book. Love her or lump her, Abby isn't going to be Eli, nor is Owen going to be Oskar. It'll be hard, if not impossible, to stop myself from thinking "that's not how that happened in the book or in the movie" or "the folks on the board disagree with THAT implication...!!"

Which brings me to the question: when you've seen both movies, which did you like better, and why? But, more importantly, if you've seen both movies and have a preference, which did you see first? And, are you an American (or, for that matter, a Canuckian), and are you under or over the age of, oh, say, 40?

I have this idea stemming from personal experience and bolstered by some fairly cool (i.e., "level-headed") writing done in this area (horror fiction as a reflexion of a given people in a particular period) that suggests that people imprint on what they experience first. Somebody recently admitted his conception of a Dracula was founded largely on Oldman's presentation of this character somewhere in the early '90's. I'd suggested that his conception is a bit distorted in view of his ignorance of the "archetypal" Lugosi impersonation, and that suggestion stands, but I'm not as thoroughly as convinced as I had been at the time: for all that our more modern Oldman's Dracula apparently has a codpiece full of very lively undead swimmers and a mawkishly romantic broken heart, he's also a [deleted]l of a lot more charismatic and colourful than the stodgy monochrome archetype about whom nobody but Van Helsing knows anything. Oldman brings tragedy; Lugosi just brought terror. Would the fellow who knows Oldman's Dracula even be able to appreciate what Lugosi's Dracula brought to the public four generations ago, or would he just see what my Eli sees - a clown and a jackass? Oldman DOES make Lugosi's Dracula boring, even to me.

And yet, though I like Oldman's Dracula better, I still find Lugosi's monster more definitive. "Purer", if that's the word I want.

There have been others, both ways. Movies I've seen as a child or very young adult, I tend to view them as the "original", the basis on which to judge all remakes and find wanting - but when I see a remake first, particularly if it's reasonably well-made, I'll often look down my nose at the "original" as being simplistic, naive or worse. Boring, usually, and sometimes I'll even be arrogant enough to call the original "uninspired". This has actually happened! I've recently run across the original Vincent Price rendition of the last man on earth and found it wanting after having seen Charlton Heston's "Omega Man", which I liked a lot, and the much more recent Will Smith treatment "I Am Legend", which I found moderately revisionist without being untrue to the story I half remember having read in my now long lost youth.

If LMI turns out the way some of the reviews I've read so far suggest, even if I think it's a total loss, it may still prove useful for the contrast it brings. We could look at LMI as being one big monster of a piece of fanfic, an interpretation not of the novel on which it's purportedly based but on the movie it says it seeks to honour (I'm not encouraged by the tagline "Innocence dies. Abby does not" or by "She'll keep you forever"). The differences we condemn may tell us more about ourselves than we'd care to admit.

Still, some folks on the IMDB boards so far have said they liked LMI better because LTROI moved too slowly, had no action, no gore - [deleted], it had no proper self-respecting vampire! They've felt cheated because they wanted to see a horror movie and were treated instead to a kiddie chick flick. Others have shredded LMI to bits for lacking subtlety, the lack of "chemistry" between the two kids and... and... From the perspective of having watched other movies and their prequels, sequels, remakes, derivatives, parodies and outright rip-offs, at this stage (remember, I've not seen LMI yet), it's easy enough to see why each camp might have settled where it did.

As we sally forth, then, and before we square off on some endlessly fascinating and probably excruciatingly analytical LTROI vs. LMI war^H^H^Hdiscussion, I would personally view it as a great favour if people speaking up would clarify which movie they've seen first, which movie they feel best represents the novel, which movie best represents the distillation of the relationship between Oskar/Owen and Eli/Abby, whether or not they're basically North American and their approximate age.

I would also ask my fellow Infected board denizens to bear in mind that differences of opinion do not imply intellectual or moral superiority or deficit (until some a%# blithely marches in with a Day-Glo poster screaming that Eli is a flaming drag queen...)

It's all too easy to foresee that folks who've invested heavily in LMI would find LTROI adherents "fossilised old dodgers who need to be carted off to the hospice", with the LTROI camp hurling "shallow, oversexualised bloodthirsty American rattlesnackes" in return volleys. Respect is key, a genuine attempt at understanding together with tolerance for cultural and generational difference.

Because, well... hee... from the trailers I've seen so far, it looks to me like Abby might be sexier, but Eli's stiffly reserved demeanor implies several different kinds of strength that could kick Abby's blonde butt up and down the length of Death Valley twice before the sun has even properly set.

Did I forget to mention I'm particularly fond of northern Europeans...? I'll just hide now...

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

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

[Lacenaire]

As someone who is, at this time, not intending to see LMI, I see the issue slightly differently. I think in addition to the information "which movie you saw first" it would be also useful to point out what were your reasons for seeing "the second" one and what were you expectations and attitude before you saw it. To start with there are two obvious scenarios: you loved the first and you hoped that the second would somehow reproduce the same experience (but of course with some difference). Or perhaps you love the novel and did not think the first one gave it full justice. Or perhaps you love the novel and will go to see any films made on its basis, whatever your expectations. Or maybe it was just unprejudiced curiosity.

There is also another issue that might play a role: do you think that Tomas Alfredson's intellectual rights have been violated and does this make you somewhat hostile to the whole enterprise. (I admit I feel this way, a little). Or are you upset that some people will now claim that this American girl is a "superior actress" to Lina? (A claim that in itself proves to me that the person making it never saw the qualities of LTROI that are the most important ones for me).

All such matters and more, will influence people's reactions as much or more than their being Americans.

As for me, so far I have found not one reason to make any effort to see the film. Seeing any film, except perhaps when I am flying long distance, is an effort for me and carries a price in the form the time spent on doing so. But since almost everything that has value to me in the original I attribute to the director (TA) and the two principal actors, and since I also believe that this sort of achievement is rare, I have completely no reason to expect anything of this kind to happen again so soon. Unless, of course, Tomas's "intellectual rights" have been grossly violated, but then who wants to see a copy of Leonardo if they can see the original (there are, by the way, lots of copies of paintings of Leonardo of which the originals are lost, and these copies seem quite beautiful - but of course they would seem much less so if we ever found the originals. For example, this is a copy http://www.paintinghere.com/uploadpic/L ... winder.jpg).

Every review of LMI that I have read has only given me reasons not to bother about it. The funny thing is that the favourable ones give more such reasons than the negative ones. The reason is that the unfavourable ones could always be biased, for some of the reasons I mentioned above. But everything that I have seen praised in the new film is the sort of thing that means nothing or little to me. Perhaps after all Tomas has no real reason to complain, for none of the special qualities that make him such a great and original director seem to have been successfully "borrowed". I doubt that this film will make Matt Reeves a great director or will diminish Tomas's standing, but I have no doubt that the remake will make more money that the original and that it will only do so because of this "borrowing", however imperfect. This is not exactly a pleasant thought but is vary much a fact of life about which nothing can be done.

[TΛPETRVE]

We aren't French who can spend two hours watching a movie consisting mostly of verbal drama and maybe a little bit of action as somebody raises a glass of wine...

Sorry, I just couldn't resist .

[sauvin]

As someone who is, at this time, not intending to see LMI, I see the issue slightly differently. I think in addition to the information "which movie you saw first" it would be also useful to point out what were your reasons for seeing "the second" one and what were you expectations and attitude before you saw it. To start with there are two obvious scenarios: you loved the first and you hoped that the second would somehow reproduce the same experience (but of course with some difference). Or perhaps you love the novel and did not think the first one gave it full justice. Or perhaps you love the novel and will go to see any films made on its basis, whatever your expectations. Or maybe it was just unprejudiced curiosity.

Yet another reason: I'm an idiot. I don't know what to expect, and don't know why I have to go see it even with all these warnings that it's going to suck BIG time, and have faith that my strong constitution can weather it.

There is also another issue that might play a role: do you think that Tomas Alfredson's intellectual rights have been violated and does this make you somewhat hostile to the whole enterprise. (I admit I feel this way, a little). Or are you upset that some people will now claim that this American girl is a "superior actress" to Lina? (A claim that in itself proves to me that the person making it never saw the qualities of LTROI that are the most important ones for me).

With all due respect to Alfredson (and make no mistake, I regard the man as peerless even if LTROI is all he ever does), intellectual rights aren't directly involved. I'm still trying to understand what makes it so hard to get Eli out of my head. As for Moretz being a superior actress to Lina, this, too, is something probably better left to keener minds than mine, but my feeling is that there is any number of young actresses who could have done what Leandersson did if given the right kind of director to work with. Maybe the magic wouldn't be exactly the same, just like the pile of hash browns you get from the family diner across the street aren't exactly like what you get from the other diner across town, but I think the statement "the person making [this claim for superiority] never saw the qualities of LTROI the most important ones" might be a tad strong.

All such matters and more, will influence people's reactions as much or more than their being Americans.

Some such matters may matter more, and some more than others. It'll vary by person, as with most such things. I have a sick little hollow spot in my gut that LMI's Americanisation will have a strong influence, and particularly for Americans. I live here; I have to listen to people gripe about having to deal with subtitles for foreign films and about how "stupid" movies made abroad "tend" to be.

Every review of LMI that I have read has only given me reasons not to bother about it. The funny thing is that the favourable ones give more such reasons than the negative ones. The reason is that the unfavourable ones could always be biased, for some of the reasons I mentioned above. But everything that I have seen praised in the new film is the sort of thing that means nothing or little to me. Perhaps after all Tomas has no real reason to complain, for none of the special qualities that make him such a great and original director seem to have been successfully "borrowed". I doubt that this film will make Matt Reeves a great director or will diminish Tomas's standing, but I have no doubt that the remake will make more money that the original and that it will only do so because of this "borrowing", however imperfect. This is not exactly a pleasant thought but is vary much a fact of life about which nothing can be done.

Yup. Take a movie, any movie. Do up all the cinematography all you like, redo the dialog a bit (make sure Uncle Billy Bob can understand it before you say you've finished with that bit) and either make the male protagonist a ripped 20something running around shirtless or make sure he looks good in a clown suit. Use lots of Karo syrup and catsup (blood sells!) - and don't forget that a remake's financial success often seems geometrically proportional to the total area of the female lead's exposed skin with a bra size coefficient.

I liked Cloverfield, and I respect Reeves' accomplishment here. For the two hours or so I was in the movie watching it, I was in it. The problem is, I don't really remember it now, and on this basis, I have the fear that making a movie about a group of young people trying to flee the destruction of their own private Idaho doesn't prepare him for making something as subtle and as profoundly quiet as the stately and tentative development of a relationship between a pair of preteens against a horrific backdrop.

[Lacenaire]

Or are you upset that some people will now claim that this American girl is a "superior actress" to Lina? (A claim that in itself proves to me that the person making it never saw the qualities of LTROI that are the most important ones for me).

As for Moretz being a superior actress to Lina, this, too, is something probably better left to keener minds than mine, but my feeling is that there is any number of young actresses who could have done what Leandersson did if given the right kind of director to work with. Maybe the magic wouldn't be exactly the same, just like the pile of hash browns you get from the family diner across the street aren't exactly like what you get from the other diner across town, but I think the statement "the person making [this claim for superiority] never saw the qualities of LTROI the most important ones" might be a tad strong.

Well, I think what I meant was a little subtle than what I managed to express, but I really did not spend much time on this. To put it very briefly, though: I think the whole point of Lina's (and to a lessern extent Kare's) role in the film, as conceived by Thomas, was to "act as little as possible". It is only by suppressing their own real personalities to a degree that has to be very difficult for children, one could produce the effect that Alfredson wanted. The idea was to reduce speech to a minimum, to communicate through glances, slight changes in expression and make the camera and the special sound effects drive almost all the actions. This requires of the actors not so much conventional "acting skills" and a very high level of physical and mental discipline, often just being extremely still or making controlled and clearly choreographed eye movements (as you can see Lina doing in the "fighting scene"). I don't know how many child actors could do this but I suspect very few as well. Note also how different the two kids are in real life from the characters they play, particularly Lina. The easiest way to act, I think, is simply by being oneself - this is actually what what quite many professional grown up actors do. What Lina had to do was to be in most ways the opposite of what she is when we see her in real life, where she is a lively, very expressive young person. I have never had that much interest in film acting technique but I know that in traditional Japanese theatre Kabuki,where they have very young children acting in serious plays on stage, one of the hardest things is said to be learning to keep your body perfectly still and make only very controlled gestures. That is one of the reasons why I see Lina's performance as quite remarkable and rather doubt that there are "ny number of young actresses who could have done what she did" nearly as well.

[sauvin]

Well, I think what I meant was a little subtle than what I managed to express, but I really did not spend much time on this. To put it very briefly, though: I think the whole point of Lina's (and to a lessern extent Kare's) role in the film, as conceived by Thomas, was to "act as little as possible". It is only by suppressing their own real personalities to a degree that has to be very difficult for children, one could produce the effect that Alfredson wanted. The idea was to reduce speech to a minimum, to communicate through glances, slight changes in expression and make the camera and the special sound effects drive almost all the actions. This requires of the actors not so much conventional "acting skills" and a very high level of physical and mental discipline, often just being extremely still or making controlled and clearly choreographed eye movements (as you can see Lina doing in the "fighting scene"). I don't know how many child actors could do this but I suspect very few as well. Note also how different the two kids are in real life from the characters they play, particularly Lina. The easiest way to act, I think, is simply by being oneself - this is actually what what quite many professional grown up actors do. What Lina had to do was to be in most ways the opposite of what she is when we see her in real life, where she is a lively, very expressive young person. I have never had that much interest in film acting technique but I know that in traditional Japanese theatre Kabuki,where they have very young children acting in serious plays on stage, one of the hardest things is said to be learning to keep your body perfectly still and make only very controlled gestures. That is one of the reasons why I see Lina's performance as quite remarkable and rather doubt that there are "ny number of young actresses who could have done what she did" nearly as well.

But you've hit it. You've hit it exactly. The kids we saw were just being themselves. Watch the movie a couple times more specifically just to see where their moves might have been choreographed. You'll see hesitance here, some stiff jerkiness there. It's clear that on occasion they're following a script. Most of the time, though, looks to me like the kids are just being kids. This, IMO, is the best way for a child actor to act, and yes, I get the impression that many seasoned actors do something very similar (Morgan Freeman, for example, is Morgan Freeman regardless of the kind of costume you force him to wear or words you pay him to mouth, and I've never seen the man do turkey time).

This is why I say "given the right director to work with". Please don't misunderstand, I'm not saying that Leandersson is replaceable. She did a freaking awesome job with her role as Eli, and for me, Elina is an impossible act to follow. All I'm saying is that Alfredson could probably have found any number of Swedish kids to fill Eli's role and done well enough with them to make a movie almost as good as the existing LTROI. Reeves isn't Alfredson; Abby won't be Eli. If Abby turns out to be a stinker, I don't necessarily believe it'd be Moretz' fault.

[cmg1066]

ok,here we go.I`m from Las Vegas and i first saw LTROI in 2008 and i read the novel shortly thereafter.First off the original is a modern day classic,as is the novel.So how does Let Me In stack up to those finely crafted pieces of work...just fine.The Eli from the original i thought was way more creepy as far as subtle things such as her eyes constantly changing,most notably was the the scene when they were laying next to each other and every time she would look at him her pupils would go cat-like then when she looked up they would be round again and this happened three or four times,and i thought that was a really cool effect that they actually thought out.And in"Let Me In" she is not so much creepy as she is deadly,which was the case in the novel.She wasn`t this lost little soul who cryed over the body of Jocke when she just tore through his neck.She was a predator and acted as such.I`ve seen so many posts on the internet saying that Abby has no emotion,has no feeling,has no remorse...READ THE BOOK...she was a predator feeding on humans and didn`t care one way or the other how she got her food.In that case LMI did a better job at she was a killer vampire(hold the tears).And then we get to the whole "crotch-shot"...i`ve turned at least 20 people on to LTROI and when i talk to them later its always the same thing..."what the fuck was up with that split-second crotch scene..i didn`t get it"So now in LMI they did away with the"crotch-scene"and replaced it with a scene of owen listening through the walls to hear"the father"arguing with another man...camera pans through the wall and we see that its Abby in her adult male voice...so most newcomers to the story are gonna be like"WTF"to both scenarios.owen/oscar...gotta go with owen on this one just because in LTROI you never really saw how overmatched he was,they talked shit to him a few times and then smacked him in the face with a branch.In LMI its right there in your face and its brutal.As far as the surrounding cast...it doesn`t really matter now does it,because thats not who the film is about.The Virginia scenes are far supperior to the originals...like JAL said "she finally drinks her own blood".Do i think this film is better than LTROI,hell no.But this is a really good film that guys like Cyber and Beiger should give a chance.I hope you guys might be surprised...i mean JAL liked it...but then again he`s only the one who wrote the novel...so what the hell does he know huh!!!Wait what was i talking about again...

[TΛPETRVE]

No offense, lad... But please do us a favour and stop klemping. The space key is there for a reason. Without spaces between sentences, your wall of text is quite a chore to decipher.

[sauvin]

No offense, lad... But please do us a favour and stop klemping. The space key is there for a reason. Without spaces between sentences, your wall of text is quite a chore to decipher.

Yes, please. Spaces and paragraphs.

[cmfireflies]

cmg1066

I'm disappointed that I didn't like LMI. I certainly wasn't one of the people rooting for it to fail. In some ways I liked LMI the most when Reeves departed entirely from the book. I.e. the opening was nice and creepy. But I think the problem is that he copied too much from LtROI and the scenes from LtROI doesn't really fit into his interpretation of the story. LtROI's was a slow burn, about people just going along with their lives. So you have scenes where the drunks talk and Oskar timidly reaching out to Eli and they fit together.

Reeves's version is a lot more horrific and direct. The bullying was terrifying right off the bat, but he tried to use the same slow pace with Owen and Abby. And the horrifying elements really overshadow the talky parts. Maybe if Owen and Abby's moments were more kinetic, or darker they would fit in more. Maybe something like the deleted scene but with Owen and Abby playing their knight and dragon game and Owen gets too into it and punches or cuts Abby. He's horrified, but Abby laughs and throws him off. Something to connect the violence with their relationship. Without that, Owen just seems way to passive and instead of a friend, Abby comes across as a different kind of bully.

I went in expecting an evil predatorish Abby, but between the CGI and Abby not acknowledging her vampire side at all, (no be me a while scene), the disconnect is even more jarring. The blurry cam didn't help either cuz Reeves used it on Abby and Owen's mother. They're supposed to be opposites!!. OK, ranting again, but the point is I couldn't see Abby as a predator nor could I see her as Owen's friend. Some of it must be the fact that I saw and loved the original, but I'm really curious to see what Reeves would have done had he never saw the movie in the first place and only read the book.