I Challenge You

[CyberGhostface]

What's point of taking other people's words out of the context?

Here's what I wrote originally.

"By the way, I do not agree with the statement that an acclaimed American actress who acted in numerous films is not as good as a Swedish actress who acted in only one movie. I think they are equally good in their roles."

Yes, but you're still putting emphasis on the fact that Chloe has acted in numerous films whereas Lina was in one film as if that means anything. Not to mention calling Chloe "acclaimed" but not Lina.

If you didn't mean anything by that statement, that Chloe being in more films than Lina (although, really, her first big role was probably Kick-Ass--she was relatively obscure prior and played small roles) had any bearing on her role in LMI, then you could have just said "I don't agree that Chloe is not as good as Lina, I think they are equally good".

[Wolfchild]

By the way, I do not agree with the statement that an acclaimed American actress who acted in numerous films is not as good as a Swedish actress who acted in only one movie. I think they are equally good in their roles.

I think the only valid way to make such a judgement is to compare what one put on the screen with what the other put on the screen in their respective film film version of LDKRI. Other films have no bearing upon either one's performance in portraying the tragic young vampire.

I agree, and that's why I used the word "acclaimed". Chloe Moretz has been getting praise from the critics for almost every role that she's in, especially her portrayal of Hit-Girl and Abby.

What I specifically meant was that Chloe's performance as Hit Girl is not relevant when assessing her performance as Abby, or in a comparison with Lina's performance as Eli. Coming from a larger, more active media market does not make one de facto a better actor.

In any case, while Hit Girl was a lot fun to watch, I don't imagine that it was anywhere near as demanding a role as Abby. You could use Hit Girl to assess Chloe's ability to entertain, but I'll bet Abby is the first role that required her to really act on a level comparable to experienced adult actors. Although to be fair, I haven't seen 500 Days of Summer or the Amityville remake.

[Tom]

Is Chloe Moretz good in Let Me In? Yes, she is.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/let_me_in

[Wolfchild]

Is Chloe Moretz good in Let Me In? Yes, she is.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/let_me_in

I wasn't trying to diss Chloe's performance at all. I was just trying to keep comparisons on point.

However, in the spirit of the OP, you should create a thread just to discuss Chloe's performance.

[abner_mohl]

I have heard critics call Chloe Moretz the best actress her age since Jody Foster in Taxi Driver, and when the director of that movie Martin Scorsese casts her in one of her first roles after Kick-ass and LMI, I would say that confirms that.

[Struan]

Although to be fair, I haven't seen 500 Days of Summer or the Amityville remake.

I don't think 500 Days of Summer will be of much use for that purpose, as her role there is pretty negligible and her character is the typical wise-beyond-her-years, fast-talking, romantic-advice-dispensing kid you've probably seen in dozens of sitcoms.

I personally have no interest whatsoever in Kick Ass or the Amityville remake, so maybe I'll catch her performance in the next Scorsese movie (once the bad taste left by Shutter Island dissipates a bit).

[drakkar]

I can say that because Let Me In was not a bad telling of the story of Låt Den Rätte Komma In. If Tomas Alfredson had never made his film, fans of this story would like Let Me In.

Question is if LMI had been made based on JAL's book alone, or if Tomas Alfredson's film was necessary for it to happen. I know a remake was in planning even before LTROI was released, but I still think the question is valid. Same thing might happen with "Trolljegeren" - "The Troll Hunter", and here no novel exist, so the original is necessary for the copy to be made even if it happens almost simultaneously.

[jetboy]

If you really say that there is nothing about LMI that you liked, then I'm telling you flat out that you are not really a fan of this story.

How can you say that with any confidence, I can pick things that I like about the movie but why? If I talk about it without negativity its because Im comparing the two versions because its interesting to do and also I dont want to be negative because its...negative. Having said that I didnt like it. I didnt like the changes they made to the characters. It doesnt come from a pure place that the first one came from. It came from a place where he had the original in front of him and he could "play" with it. Thinking that he had to change it up somewhat so it wont be a cheap rip off, gave him licence to give "his" version of it which is not respectable and makes me angry.

I can say that because Let Me In was not a bad telling of the story of Låt Den Rätte Komma In. If Tomas Alfredson had never made his film, fans of this story would like Let Me In. There would still be quibbles about Matt Reeves' choices in his film versus the novel, just as there are complaints about Tomas' and JAL's choices in LTROI versus the novel. However, Matt's film is faithful to the story of an isolated twelve year old boy in the process of being failed by the society that he lives in, who none the less finds escape through love and acceptance of a twelve year old vampire.

It would be hard not to do a good version of this movie because the initial ideas were so simple and brilliant. The book was made and was brilliant in that it came up with the idea that a bullied boy befriends a vampire (dont get me wrong I like all the other stuff also). The movie was great in that it boiled the book down into the main theme of the love story. The stars aligned with these two different artists collaborating. Movies have been made from books since silent films and the step from a movie to a remake is not the same as from a book to a movie. Actually what I mean is the new trend of having a remake immediately after the original. I have no problem with The Thing. It depends on the situation. To me LMI reeks big time.

I can say that because Let Me In was not a bad telling of the story of Låt Den Rätte Komma In. If Tomas Alfredson had never made his film, fans of this story would like Let Me In.

Question is if LMI had been made based on JAL's book alone, or if Tomas Alfredson's film was necessary for it to happen. I know a remake was in planning even before LTROI was released, but I still think the question is valid. Same thing might happen with "Trolljegeren" - "The Troll Hunter", and here no novel exist, so the original is necessary for the copy to be made even if it happens almost simultaneously.

Exactly my point. People want me to objectively look at the film and pretend that its original while the remake had the benefit of using the first one as a guide, not the book but Tomas Alfredsons own ideas. Everyone knows that he is the one that had the idea that Oskar could become the new Hakan but Tomas Alfredson was against the remake. He is an artist much more interested in making original art than remakes.

The most hilarious part is that now they almost are calling the remake the American version. No, its a tweaked copy. It may be good to some people but as I said it would be hard not to make a good version because the ideas are so brilliantly simple and classic.

[Wolfchild]

It would be hard not to do a good version of this movie because the initial ideas were so simple and brilliant.

Well then, at least within the context of the OP, it seems strange that you would argue. So it is a "good" movie, but there was nothing about it that you liked? This seems to be a awkward claim to make.

Although I guess you didn't really say that Let Me In was a "good" version of this story, did you? Are you saying that Matt Reeves did the hard thing and made a version that wasn't "good"?

[jetboy]

It would be hard not to do a good version of this movie because the initial ideas were so simple and brilliant.

Well then, at least within the context of the OP, it seems strange that you would argue. So it is a "good" movie, but there was nothing about it that you liked? This seems to be a awkward claim to make.

Although I guess you didn't really say that Let Me In was a "good" version of this story, did you? Are you saying that Matt Reeves did the hard thing and made a version that wasn't "good"?

Well what I mean is that its a great idea to begin with, dont screw with it. Dont make changes just so you have the benefit of being original. If you really liked the story then do it with respect first and then make it good, challenge yourself in that way. Dont use so much of the first movie and then change things. I didnt like it because I thought it was disrespectful and irresponsible in the changes he made. Namely making concrete the idea that Oskar could be the new Hakan. In the first one many people didnt see this and it was a delicat balance to portray that onscreen. Now for a remake to come out two years after the first one, it makes me worry that other people who see the remake first will automatically be preconditioned on their decision making. The remake is like a giant spoiler. When I first saw it I only knew a few things about it so everything was just unfolding before me and I was seeing it the way the director wanted me to. Will the remake spoil this for future viewers of the first one.

Other changes I didnt like that could ruin the viewing of the first one are Owen crying. Some people say that in comparison to the original Oskars acting is wooden but that was intentional. Mr Alfredson and Mr Lindqvist made the movie a blank slate and didnt want things to be too specific because it was for everyone who has been bullied or lonely and could have used an Eli, not just for people whose mothers are too much into religion and the bullies are excessive and make Owen pee in his pants. So what if the bullies in LTROI arent the worse in the world. The point is that he is subservient, you fill in the blanks with your own experiences. The Swedish movie was for everyone, not just the ideas of the movie but the actual celluloid.

My point is because the original was so delicate and subtle it shouldve been aloud to take its own course for awhile and not be encumbered by this American beast that overshadows it with just the idea of it being remade, but if you are going to remake it keep that in mind as you are making it and be responsible.