There is NO other way to say it...I too HATED this movie

[sauvin]

This is unarguably true. If LMI didn't resonate with something deep within your being, it's certainly valid to say so. It's even valid to say that you liked LTROI much better because it was Scandinavian, or because you loved how the actors played their parts, or because you loved its direction, or... or.. or...

For me part of the feeling is that of the original/real thing versus the copy. With commodities like tomatoes, I don't care whether they're coming from Frosta or Tenerife as long as they taste good. However when something really means something to me, like LTROI (or my old Longines watch), it is a very different story. Then it simply doesn't matter to me how good or well crafted LMI (or a fake Longines watch) is, I will always regard the copy a decline from the real thing.

You're not arguing. You're stating a personal feeling. I can't argue you out of what you feel, and if I'm being honest and realistic, there's no reason I should feel compelled to do so. There's absolutely no harm in preferring this movie over that one when nobody stands to be harmed in any way by it.

What I can do is offer the impression I get that LMI does LTROI a service in a number of ways. It's not exactly a carbon copy, is it? A minus might be this droning pointless busybody cop, but a plus might be in setting Eli's American cousin on a different path with her implied Thomas cycles. Perhaps a greater value is in making the story more accessible to American audiences, who aren't exactly insignificant in their ability to hand over some entertainment profits. Americans who meet LMI just could be moved to find out that there is a Swedish original, and a Swedish novel written by a Swedish author who, a propos de presque rien, writes other brilliant novels I (for one) can't wait to get my hands on.

As for preference? I've said many times: I love the LTROI movie much more than I do the novel (which I use mostly for backstory and amplification), and I like the LTROI movie much better than I do the LMI movie. It might be a "decline", but it's far from worthless, and my patience sometimes wears thin with the all-or-nothing proposition some people insist on advancing that if the original exceeds the remake, then the remake must necessarily have zero or negative value.

[drakkar]

You're not arguing.

That's correct, my intention is to explain.
My point isn't whether I can find arguments for LTROI being better, but rather muse a bit about why I would choose to search for them.

What I can do is offer the impression I get that LMI does LTROI a service in a number of ways. It's not exactly a carbon copy, is it? ...
..and I like the LTROI movie much better than I do the LMI movie. It might be a "decline", but it's far from worthless, and my patience sometimes wears thin with the all-or-nothing proposition some people insist on advancing that if the original exceeds the remake, then the remake must necessarily have zero or negative value.

Fully agree, it is just that (my) feelings are not rational.

[intrige]

Don't take it in, but:
Mister are you blind? [/quote]
I think it is a bit relevant because when I mean he havn't seen something that is clearly there, well I didn't say YOU ARE BLIND!! AND IGNORANT TOO (Example please you guys) It was not ment as a personal assult, and how can it be personal? It's a retorical question about weather he see the CGI or not.
This have turned into some discussion. If I hurt anybody it was not intended.

I feel like Drakkar anyway, strong feelings for the original, can not be replaced.

[Swaefheard]

I don't think there's any point arguing over the 'worth' of the two films. They are both valid interpretations of the original novel and maybe each appeals more to people who share the same cultural background as the film maker. European and American films have their own ways of looking at things.
During the Christmas period there were about five versions of Charles Dickens' 'Christmas Carol' shown on television in England. One was even a musical! They all started from the same source material but were all different and not everybody would like them all.
I think a lot of us saw LTROI first and fell in love with it and find it hard to have the same feelings for what feels like a remake to some rather than a reinterpretation of the novel.

[lombano]

But say one complained that a particular Mexican film suffers from the defects typical of Mexican films, which in some sense would be complaining that a Mexican film is Mexican, but it would not be an arbitrary criticism, unless one only found fault with those characteristics in that particular film and not in other at which similar criticisms could be levelled, or if one were dismissing it solely on grounds of its nationality and not of the film's particulars. In the case of Hollywood, a typical characteristic is having overdone SFX - think cars that explode for five minutes, which of course is ridiculously unrealistic. Thus to criticize LMI's special effects as suffering from typical Hollywood faults, provided one is critical of such faults generally and not only in Hollywood products or only in the case of LMI, seems to me to be a reasonable criticism.

Sure, but that frankly isn't what I find when people complain about LMI being American. What I see are complaints that the characters are American--

In my case, I liked that in LMI Americanising it didn't just mean having American-sounding actors and have an ostensibly American setting. No objections from me on that score.

There're also complaints that are frankly stereotypes. In fact, much of the CGI in LMI is flawless, so much so one can hardly find it. The big exception was Abby's movements, which were pretty clearly intended to look unnatural. IMHO that didn't quite work. But it was hardly a case of "Oh let's stick special effects in because we all know movies need special effects!" And when you look at the cats in LTROI, well...

Bad as the cats and Virginia's death were in LTROI, most vampire-related SFX in LMI were much worse. Regardless of the actual intention, making things look a little unnatural can work well when dealing with a supernatural character (such as Eli drifting down from the jungle gym, or fiddling with her eye size and colour) but when it's so over-the-top it just looks bad, overdone.

Far more time is given to the Detective because we do need to care more about him--a subtle and excellent 'bit' pretty much ignored or trashed because he's a police officer in an American film.

This was one of LMI's weak points for me. The cop comes across as basically a good guy, but we're not really given any particular reason to care about him and no reason why Owen should view him as anything other than just another stranger; his being a cop in an American film is neither here nor there. Thus his death scene was a failure for me, made somewhat worse by the illogical entry. The thing is, if you're going to narrowly focus on a given character, it's harder to make secondary characters matter in their own right and thus risky to assume the audience will care about them in their own right rather than just by how they affect the protagonist.

Reevs keep chatting about LMI being a readiotasion of the book. Even though it has more scenes that are simelar to the original movie, or not like the novel at all. but anyway..

Yes, I think some complaints are a backlash against Reeves for insisting it was a readaptation and not a remake, yet it clearly borrows from the original film, and not just the script but some visuals. Elements from the book n ot in the original film are very secondary or cosmetic (a throwaway reference to Tommy, a t-shirt, etc).

[DavidZahir]

Mister are you blind?

I don't see any way this could be a valid argument.

How is Eli described? Long blond hair? Really? The Eli character is described as darkhaired. They found a good Eli in Lina with her wavy dark brown hair and flawless skinned face. I don't see an Eli in Abby, I give a dman about Owen's apearence. Oskar in the novel was only described as fat, but Eli. Some of the feel of the story was about how Eli looked and acted and was. This feel was sort of tron away bu Chloe's look. She is very cute and all, I just think it doesn't fit for an Eli character.

And again--don't see how this is a valid argument either. This character's hair color makes zero difference to the story. Zero.

Different people may well react somewhat differently to some of the details Zahir cites for illustrative purposes, but picking at these details in the belief that it invalidates Zahir's argument is misleading; it ignores the thrust of the argument.

Thank you.

The admonishment to "use good arguments" while failing to consider the general argument's central idea and while picking at relatively inconsequential details is what I found so repugnant.

And again.

[EEA]

Let Me In is a good movie. The only problem I had is that I felt that Matt Reeves could have done more. I did not care about the cop or about Virginia. I only cared about the kids.

[Alaska]

I understand why people have a problem with Chloe looking nothing like Eli from the book. I do too. If you love a book and a character, you want that character to stay intact in the movie, you want to recognize the character you love and like it or not, the appearance is a part of that.
What if they would have casted a blonde Harry Potter or a blonde Lisbeth Salander? Anyone would have thought that was wrong casting. I think if you make a book into a movie it's only normal that you make the characters look at least a little like the description in the book.
Of course the actor/actress also has to be able to portray the inner side of the character, but both things make a character who he/she is. Both are important. So yeah, I can understand and I think it would have been better if they had casted a girl that actually looked like the character.

[DavidZahir]

Ahem. Lisbeth Salander is a redhead. She dyes her hair black. That is an essential part of her character. So neither actress who've played the part got that right.

Eli's appearance is also important--to an extent. Just as Sherlock Holmes cannot be fat, Eli/Abby needs to be a small child. Just as Othello needs to be black, so Eli/Abby needs to come across as female.

But hair color? That plays no role in the story or her character. Hence I cannot take this "criticism" seriously, any more than I would viewers rejecting Daniel Craig as James Bond or David Suchet (whose eyes are not green) as Hercule Poirot, much less Bela Lugosi (who bears no resemblance whatsoever to the character described in the novel other than his race and gender) as Dracula.

[intrige]

Eli's appearance is also important--to an extent. Just as Sherlock Holmes cannot be fat, Eli/Abby needs to be a small child. Just as Othello needs to be black, so Eli/Abby needs to come across as female.

Ehm, actually Eli doesn't need that.