Let Me In (I) (2010) User Reviews

What a shocking surprise!

[Copyright1994 · 8/10 · 14 September 2010]

As a fan of the 2008 Swedish film "Let The Right One In", I was originally very frustrated when I heard the news about the upcoming remake. "How do you ameliorate something that is already perfect?", I asked myself. I treated the remake with hostility and vowed to stay away from it. And then, I decided to open my mind.

I attended the world premiere of this film at the Toronto International Film Festival on Monday, September 13. I am very lucky to live in the proximity. This was the first year that I've attended the festival. Before seeing "Let Me In", I saw "127 Hours".

I liked the idea of seeing the remake of a film that I recently gave a second viewing. I thought it would be a fun challenge to sit there and compare both films while watching.

Before the screening (or it might have been after), the director, Matt Reeves (who launched his career with "Cloverfield"), was welcomed on stage to say a few words. It surprised me to find out that he, too, thought the original was fantastic and didn't understand why he was asked to remake it. However, after reading the book as well, he had the desire to work on his interpretation of it. After this speech, I gained a significant amount of respect for this man.

When the movie began, I was only expecting something satisfactory. But as the story progressed, I was breathless. It was a very captivating, interesting take, and I loved all the little modifications. I honestly believe that "Let Me In" is one of the greatest American remakes of all time.

Nevertheless, I still see the original, "Let The Right One In", as a superior film. Although it may be a biased opinion, I preferred the mood, atmosphere, and cinematography in the original. While the remake seemed to take a greater interest in the horrific violence, the original had the perfect blend of genres (thriller, romance, horror, fantasy). Both films had many beautiful contrasts: coldness vs warmth, chaos vs peace, guilt vs innocence, darkness vs delicacy, and despair vs hope.

I must also mention that I preferred the sense of ambiguity presented in the original. Very few questions were answered, and the whole film was more of a mystery left to interpretation. In contrast, Matt Reeves was more clear and direct in his screenplay with the mystery surrounding his characters. It's all a matter of personal preference, though. I believe that most people will prefer what Matt did, since the original has a certain style that less people can appreciate.

Despite the comparison, I believe that they are both great movies that can be enjoyed by everyone. Fans of the original-- rather than being narrow-minded and boycotting this version-- should give it a chance and appreciate it for what it is. Wouldn't you want more people in North America to discover this mesmerizing vampire tale, anyway?

I really enjoyed every aspect of "Let Me In". The child actors, Chloe Moretz (Kick-Ass) and Kodi Smit-McPhee (The Road) were both excellent choices. They proved to us, once again, that they are among the only child actors who actually have talent. Now that I think of it, the only thing that didn't impress me was the music. For an original score composed by Michael Giacchino (Up), I was quite disappointed. It was mediocre, in my opinion. It didn't convey the same emotion as Johan Soderqvist's music in "Let The Right One In".

Aside from that, "Let Me In" is a surprisingly great film for the fans of the original. And it would probably be a bloody masterpiece for those who haven't seen it. And yes, that lame vampire pun was definitely intended.

7.9/10

The Curse of Who You Are...

[Xstal · 8/10 · 22 December 2023]

A remake that's almost as good as the original.

What would you do, if you just couldn't change, so set in your ways, with habits quite strange; how would you live, in a divisive world, when the city's awake, while you're hidden and furled; would you hold out your hand, to stave off the brink, would you stake all you've got, just float and not sink; when you look in the mirror and nothing is there, in the darkness of night, only pain and despair; then a saviour appears, with their own set of fears, an innocent soul, undefiled, sincere; someone to trust, a protector by day, who'll carry your secret and promise to stay; unaware of the pact that you've drawn them into, endeavours they'll end up performing for you; until the time comes, to repeat and replay, like a school game of tag, I think it's called child's play.

Even better than expected

[jjj1924 · 8/10 · 9 November 2010]

I still have not seen the original, so went into this hearing people saying this not as good. I found this mostly excellent. The two kids did a great job, the tension was mostly set just right. The slow build-up at start was not remotely tedious. The actual gore is just the right level, not over the top. The only scene for me that didn't seem to live up to the rest of it, was when she attacked the police officer after he crept through the house. Don't know what it was, just for me didn't quite match the other tense scenes in the film. At 2 hours, it was the perfect running time. The bullying scenes were well acted by all. Now I can't wait to see Let The Right One In, if it's even better than this, it will be a treat.

Consistent with the lore. It's good.

[JohnDeSando · 28 September 2010]

Owen: You kill people. Abby: I do it because I have to. (from Let Me In)

I do reviews of vampire movies because I have to; with the exception of Bella Lugosi as Dracula and Max Shreck as Nosferatu, I am rarely moved by weak attempts to play with the formula. Need I say more about the corruption of the sub-genre by the Twilight Series, an epic treatise on teenage longing devoid of vampire tropes and replete with long stares that take the stories nowhere.

Let Me In, based on the Swedish smash novel and film Let the Right One In, is a somewhat old-fashioned and successful vampire tale about two twelve-year olds, vampire Abby (Chloe Moretz) and effeminate intellectual Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee). As for most pre-teens, theirs is a rough connection filled with doubts and discords, but through it all they are surprisingly close and caring.

In the sense that a vampire story should have more than bloody necks, this film achieves the psychological crossover by being true to what I know and remember about those emotionally parlous times. Owen and Abby are social outcasts who suffer for their uniqueness, she because of her need for blood and he because he is sensitive (I don't have to forewarn you about what eventually happens to Owen's bullies).

While the very red blood flows freely in the vampire tradition (I went home to cook a nice marinara sauce for my pasta in the Hannibal Lecter tradition), the film also includes common elements such as the divorcing parents, the snooping cop, the bully motif, and atmospheric music. I can accept all but the bullying sequences, which are trite and overwrought in the revenge category.

Good bye brooding, grey Twilight; hello bloody Let Me In. This is a film that relies on both dialogue and openness to bring a loving relationship to life and death.

Coming from a hard core fan of the original...Let Me In is Fantastic

[ruink · 6/10 · 3 October 2010]

Both Let the Right One in and Let Me In are both masterful bites on the vampire genre and cinema alone. With both films I felt the exact same sensation. It was a mixture of every adolescent feeling I had endured throughout my life. For me its beyond a movie going experience, it's being absorbed into a thing of beauty and art. This is when you know you are being wrapped up into something that will forever leave an impression on you.

If your not familiar with the original's story, which is kept essentially as the exact same thing in Let Me In, tells the story of a lonely pre- pubescent boy whom is an extreme outsider of anything relatively well, that has to do with life. This connection he can't make is due to the hindrance from the lonely home life being endured from a divorce mother and bullies at school. The boy evokes every attribute of innocence, something that is trying to be corrupted against his will thus the loneliness. All is cold and somewhat hopeless until a mysterious young girl who is the same age as Owen moves into the same apartment complex. After nights of awkward mingling on the freezing, iced over playground belonging to the apartment complex, Owen and the mysterious Abby who only comes out at night barefoot, finally make an immediate intimate connection. Oh yes, did I forget to mention that Abby is a vampire? From there the film spirals into the emotions of lost childhood, innocence, beauty, regretful violence, and every intimate emotion that has been dealt with in life.

What has made this story so great from the start is that its a tale of emotion, and not horror. But more importantly the horror of our confused emotions as children. We have all felt this and we can all connect to it.

The story of Let Me in is constructed beautifully by Matt Reeves' chilling directing. Some shots evoke a mirror image of the original thus showing his infinite amount of respect for the original. Yet Reeves adds enough of his own talent to make it his own vision. There is one scene in which I won't spoil that is probably one of the most well constructed scenes I have seen in quite some time. Reeves knows how to direct quite moments of loneliness, and pulse pounding action scenes. The best addition to the directing is the tone of the film. When you watch it, you feel cold, and you feel as if your in New Mexico with the characters.

All the acting in the film is sensational rivaling they're Sweedish counterparts. Chloe Moretz and Kodi Smit Mcphee are flat out THE BEST child actors alive. Kodi as Owen portrays the feeling of lost innocence with spot on portrayal. Although Chloe as Abby isn't physically as menacing as her Sweedish counterpart, she plays the role with the right amount of anger, and the look of a lost soul. Watching these two characters interact is a true privilege.

If there are any problems with the film, its with the Richard Jenkins character which is Abby's caretaker who drains his victim's blood for Abby to feed off. The problem I had with this version of the character juxtapose to the original's is that the character's back story is kept completely ambiguous in the original. In Let Me In there is sort of a hint as to who he was at one time. This felt as if the filmmakers were depriving the audience of letting us use our imagination. This isn't to say Richard Jenkins gave a bad performance though. He is actually quite good as this character.

With one subjective criticism aside, Let Me In is truly a remarkable film. A film that doesn't come around too often. Its something that you make an actual intimate connection to. After its viewing you feel as if you have relived your journey of growing out of adolescence.

Something we all miss right?

Magnificent

[ben_jkeenan · 9/10 · 24 October 2010]

Given the background to this film, I must start by saying I have neither read the book it is based on, nor seen the 2008 Swedish original. After watching this masterpiece, I intend to do both.

This is a truly sensational film. When you can't really pin a film down to a specific genre, you know you're onto something special. Calling this film a "vampire movie" doesn't really do it justice, given the preconceived notions most film goers bring to the genre. It is part horror, part dark family drama, part love story, with all 3 categories succeeding admirably.

In my estimation, the director has come on in leaps and bounds since "Cloverfield", a movie with a clever idea that was hampered by a poor cast and so-so execution. Here the director sets a mood of oppression and isolation from the very earliest frames and never lets up. The locations are used superbly, as are lighting and sound to create the gloomy world poor Owen is stranded in.

The film undeniably belongs to Chloe Grace Moretz as the young vampire Abby. This girl is an absolute powerhouse of an actress, turning in a dark, subtle and convincing performance that belies her tender age of 12. If she does not make the shortlist for next year's Oscars, the Academy needs its collective head examined. She embodies the potent mixture of lovable innocence and animalistic darkness within Abby with such ease, you will be genuinely astounded.

My fellow Aussie, Kodi Smit-McPhee, is also excellent, making you really feel for the put-upon Owen and share in his joy at finding a spark of happiness with the mysterious Abby. The entire film falls apart if this pair fail to convince, so it is a testimony to their respective talents (particularly Moretz') that you invest so heavily in their relationship.

Don't let the press about this film being a remake put you off. I must say I'm very disappointed to see this hasn't done too well at the box office in the USA, as it is a vastly superior film to the likes of "Paranormal Activity 2".

If anyone is in two minds about seeing this film, take the gamble and shell out your hard-earned. You'll be glad you did, if for no other reason than witnessing one of the most impressive performances by a child actor in cinema history.

A British-American Remake of the Swedish "Låt den Rätte Komma in"

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 9 June 2011]

In Los Alamos, New Mexico, the twelve year-old Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) is a lonely and outcast boy bullied in school by Kenny (Dylan Minnette) and two other classroom mates; at home, Owen dreams on revenging the trio of bullies. He befriends his twelve year-old next door neighbor Abby (Chloë Grace Moretz) that only appears during the night in the playground of their building. Meanwhile, Abby's father is a wanted serial-killer that drains the blood of his victims to supply Abby, who is actually an ancient vampire. Abby advises Owen to react to Kenny fighting back; however, sooner he discovers that she is a vampire and he feels fear and love for the girl. Meanwhile a police officer is investigating the murder cases believing that it is a satanic cult.

"Let me In" is a British-American remake of the Swedish "Låt den Rätte Komma in" a.k.a. "Let the Right One In". This stylish vampire movie is developed in a slow pace, like most European movies, with an original, sensitive and very well constructed story. The performances are top- notch and the greatest difference of this good remake is the language, since it is English spoken. Nevertheless, the original film is classy and unbeatable and the first Swedish vampire movie I have ever seen. . My question is, wouldn't be much easier to dub the original film for those that have difficulties to read subtitles? My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Deixe-me Entrar" ("Let me In")

Dark but beautiful

[murphyEIRE · 8/10 · 8 November 2010]

Whether you are a fan of Gothic horror or not Let Me In is well worth a viewing and by no means is it just a "scary film" it is so much more than that. Before I go into the film itself I have to comment that this is a re-make of a Swedish film called "Let The Right One In" from 2008 and both films come from the novel of the same name by Swedish author Tomas Alfredson.

The film itself is a masterpiece and hats off to director Matt Reeves for brilliant work on what was a difficult task re-making an already loved film for American audiences (and all those who don't like subtitles). The film is shot in the eerie Los Alamos, New Mexico snow, mostly at night time and it is truly gorgeous and the dark, cold land gives a real genuine vibe to the tale and you feel Owen's despair .

The story itself centers on Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee) who is a twelve year old child whose parents are going through a divorce and is a victim of bullying, he lives with his mother and is dangerously isolated and becoming slightly weird. All his problems are answered when the amazing Abby (Chloë Moretz) moves into the apartment next door. She is a self assured twelve year old who helps Owen overcome his bullying problems, gives him someone to love and their friendship blossoms.

However all is not right with Abby who is played by the highly capable Chloë Moretz, (Hit Girl in Kickass) her performance is remarkable and the chemistry with her and Kodi Smit is all the more special when you take into account they are only children. You feel every touch, you love every second Abby and Owen are together their bond is beautiful yet you know all is not well. Abby is a vampire, she "needs blood to live" and she will do anything to get it, indeed even jump on an innocent persons back as they go for a nice jog and feast on their blood. Yes there are plenty of shock moments in this film it is scary but its more than that.

Like Owen we (the audience) has to see past the fact Abby is a vampire and become immersed in this special and beautiful friendship and we do; thanks to the performances of both Kodi and Chloë, that are nothing short of brilliant, and long may they succeed.

Good job, not disappointed

[c99432 · 7/10 · 9 October 2010]

I believe that many viewers of this movie are fans of the original Swedish movie LTROI, so I won't be emphasizing on how much I am fond of the original one – and here we are for the American remake.

That being said, I just watched the remake. In general, I am not disappointed (if not a little pleasantly surprised) by this remake, though it still cannot catch up with the original one as a whole.

Honestly, I was a little worried when I went to the cinema, being afraid that the story would be degraded into a superficial Hollywoodian fest of clichés and pure visual stimulations. Thankfully, that didn't happen.

In general, this remake is in line with the original book (and the original movie). Many settings are almost identical with the Swedish one, so are quite a number of actors' lines (well of course they spoke English in this one, no Svenska LOL). More importantly, the tranquillity resembles a lot to the Swedish one. We can tell see that the filmmaker had no intention to challenge the basic tone of the story, a beautiful love tale under vampire's cover. This, on the other hand though, might disappoint some fans who watch the remake in search for a revolutionary interpretation of the old story, YMMV.

Sure, there are still many differences. The first one is the ambiance colour tone of many scenes where Owen and Abby meet. The director has obviously chosen a warmer tone (under orange-yellowish street lamp) in which our two protagonists interact, as compared to the sharp contrast of white snow vs dark sky in the original one. Personally I give credits to that change, as it better alludes to the tenderness of Owen and Abby's friendship / love.

The real gender of Abby is one of the hottest topics amongst fans. Here, instead of giving a direct shot to Abby's under (which I find totally unnecessary in LTROI), the director chose to interpret Abby's gender in a very ambiguous way, leaving much room for interpretation.

Also, I feel that the American remake is more "focused" on the two protagonists than the Swedish one. "More focused" has two senses: in one hand, filmmakers tend to let Owen and Abby physically occupy a bigger part of the screen, instead of the wide-angle lens in LTROI; in the other hand, the director cut many "peripheral" scenes (scenes where actors other than Owen and Abby interact). I am personally neutral to that change, though I believe that we need not give further emphasize to Owen and Abby for a better character depiction.

OK, now time for some negative comments. As a whole, I find the remake's interpretation of the gory scenes as a failure. They are too violent, bloody, and explicit, which, I think, largely spoils the basal tone of the movie, inserting some cheap and inconsistent horror elements in this supposedly beautiful, ambivalent movie.

Last, the music. Here I have to say LTROI's soundtrack totally outworks that of the remake. LMI's OST is, to its most, up to a "hardcore" horror film's suspense scenes, whereas LTROI's music is as beautiful, as poignant as the movie.

In conclusion, a good remake, loyal to the original story. One can tell the director's effort to re-interpret some minor details without changing the story's basal line/tune, though many of the modifications aren't as successful as they expect.

Basic story line: LTROI = LMI: 8.5 (basically the same) Settings: LTROI = 8.5, LMI = 9 (I am esp fond of the colour tone…) Scene interpretations: LTROI = 9, LMI = 6.5 (not so implicit...) Actors: Eli = 10, Abby = 9.5, Oskar = 8.5, Owen = 8.5 (those young actors are just gorgeous – both in Swedish and in American versions, Owen may not be as good looking as Oskar, but his acting is as excellent) Music: LTROI = 10, LMI = 5 (I bought the Swedish OST to fill my iPod. The American one? no thanks) Originality: LTROI = 10, LMI = 6 (afterall, LMI is a remake that has borrowed a lot from LTROI)

OVERALL: LTROI = 9, LMI = 7.5 congrats to both, good job done!

Let Me In Will Quietly Haunt You Long After the Lights Come On

[KoshPatel756-7 · 10/10 · 16 October 2010]

"Let Me In" is an adaptation of the Swedish Horror Classic "Let The Right One In". Being an adaptation many fans of the original may have been against the idea of an adaptation on the basis of many adaptations of other films in the past which had failed to do the original justice, those fans should be happy to know that "Let Me In" not only does the original's brilliance justice, but builds upon it to give an even better experience, and a new take of an excellent story to those who will see this film.

"Let Me In" (LMI) will make you do what the title asks, it will make you open your mind, heart and subconscious where it will plant a seed that will grow and continue to haunt you long after you have left the theater. Unlike most Horror genre movies these days LMI is a movie that doesn't lean heavily on visual effects and gore to scare you. Instead LMI builds its foundation in an already excellent story, complimented with great direction, acting, and cinematography. Normally the horror genre is one I choose to avoid due to the frequent use of cheap visual thrills rather then hard hitting emotional trauma and mental unrest. This is where LMI transcends the genre, as it is a film with depth and emotion that will truly stay with you long after the lights come on.

The acting in LMI is award worthy, especially Chloe Moretz as Abby, who's acting is amazing and makes the film's most complex character work. Give her the statue please! Worth mention for those who have seen the original is compared to Lina Leadersson who did an exceptional job as Eli, Chloe was responsible for both the acting and the voice, while Lina was dubbed. Also award worthy is Kodi Smit-McPhee as Owen, without Kodi's Owen to compliment Chloe's Abby the film would have lacked a soul and fell flat despite a great story.

The one area I thought the film lacked compared to the original was Musical Score, whole LMI has an excellent musical score, it is far more direct than the brilliant and creepy Score that supported the original, just nitpicking here though.

In my opinion LMI is a brilliant movie which perfectly compliments the original, as well as one of the best this year.

9.6/10

***Spoilers Below This Point***

I hope my review doesn't come off as disjointed since I have separated the spoilers from the rest of the review.

LMI is driven only by the relationship between Owen and Abby, two brilliantly conceived and acted characters.

Abby is a very complex character, many on the IMDb boards have taken Abby to be a pure evil, calculative, and manipulative 200 year old lady who has perfected the art of tricking others into helping her, I do not agree with this. Abby's character is brilliant because despite these 200 years that she has lived, she is still a 12 year old trapped inside of a monster. There are many hints throughout the movie that evidence this. For example when Abby's caretaker fails to bring back blood for her she is furious because she will now be forced to do the sinful deed herself. Abby's reluctance to get her own hands dirty is evidence that somewhere inside her the 12 year old girl still lives, rather than an insatiable monster who would jump at the chance to enjoy adrenaline pumping moments of a kill. This makes Abby kind of an ironic character, she is defined by her disease as a creature that lusts for human blood, as well as one with the power to obtain it herself, but instead she is reluctant to do so when it can be avoided, because somewhere inside her the 12 year old human girl still lives.

Owen is also a very complex character, but in a way that almost is the inverse of Abby. Owen is a helpless school boy constantly tormented by bullies in his school. He is weak, and has a poor family foundation with his parents going through a divorce. But, when we look into his character, and in certain scenes, we see he has a desire to do harm to his tormentors. One example of this is the scene where he is stabbing the tree with the knife and pretending that it is the group of bullies that torment him on a daily basis. So his character can be described as a weak 12 year old human boy, who wishes for the power to exact his revenge on his tormentors and imagines doing them as well, yet he still lacks the power to do so.

If one looks at this Owen and Abby work sort of like the puzzles Abby loves in that each of them compliment a void in the other, hence when they are together they are complete and they are happy. This is what makes them a perfect match, as when Abby is with Owen she can be her 12 year old self which the majority of her clearly prefers to be, and on the opposite end of the spectrum Owen is no longer lonely and at the same time has someone who has the power to defend him.

Neither of these characters would be even remotely believable without strong performances to back them up.

LMI is also one of the greatest Romantic Tragedies ever made, because despite the happy tone the film ends on, one is assured there is nothing but trouble ahead. Either Owen will outgrow Abby and due to his love decide to keep himself useful and become her replacement caretaker, or she will choose to share her curse with him, where both will have to share in the curse of what a Vampire is a Victim.

Good, but the original is even better

[Leofwine_draca · 7/10 · 19 June 2018]

LET ME IN is a well-directed and engaging little story about a young and isolated boy who befriends what turns out to be a vampire girl. I admit to thoroughly enjoying it, not least thanks to the sterling work of CLOVERFIELD director Matt Reeves. I even enjoyed the performance of Chloe Grace Moretz, and I tend to find her largely overrated except in the likes of the KICK-ASS films. The main problem with LET ME IN is that it's a remake, and a remake of a film that had only been made a couple of years before. The Swedish version is lower budgeted but more atmospheric and better, purely because it's closer to the Swedish source material and more icy and disturbing. This Hollywood outing is slicker and eventful, and certainly worth a look, but as the original exists I have no wish to go back and rewatch it.

Hidden Gem

[steph0783 · 10/10 · 29 November 2010]

I went to see this film two weeks ago with my Mum (who loves horror films just as much as me) and although we went expecting to be frightened, we were entertained much more than with a few scares. We were however, shocked that we were the only ones in the cinema and for this reason did not expect the film to be as good as it turned out to be! Having seen the original (Let The Right One In) 18 months ago, I was more impressed with the 2010 remake (which doesn't happen often!) The two main characters Owen and Abbey draw you into the story and into their lives. Owen, a 12 year old boy who has no friends, an alcoholic mother and is being bullied at school and Abbey, a young vampire girl who relies on her keeper to feed her. Also a loner, Abbey befriends Owen and later in the film we learn that he will replace her current keeper (Richard Jenkins). Unlike usual horror films, Let Me In shows the reasoning behind the villains motives and similarly to We Are What We Are, the audience is intrigue by the killer and are let encouraging their behaviour. Unlike We Are What We Are, Let Me In is much more than a horror film, its a story of friendship, teenage anxieties and family break ups and for this reason I give the film 10/10. A highly recommendable, enjoyable, believable portrait of Vampire life (if there were such thing) which is acted and directed faultlessly.

Finally, a great American horror flick that was everything "Twilight" miserably failed to be.

[dvc5159 · 6/10 · 11 November 2010]

Yeah, I admit. I haven't seen "Let The Right One In" yet, even though it's been released for two years now. This is due to the film not being shown (or even sold in DVD) widely here in Malaysia, much to my dismay. So I now have no choice but to wait patiently until it appears on TV, or watch the inevitable American remake. So I'll try my best to avoid referencing the original and review this as a stand-alone film.

Here comes the good news: as a film by itself, "Let Me In" is a truly terrific horror drama. It scares you, thrills you, and moves you. We haven't had this great of an American horror film since, well, I can't remember.

Owen's a lonely boy. He frequently gets bullied, and his parents are getting a divorce. He even peeps at the neighbors across his apartment, and fantasizes about killing the bully occasionally. Out of nowhere, a mysterious girl and her father move into the apartment complex next to his. The girl doesn't talk much, and walks barefoot sometimes in the cold snow. Boy meets girl. As time progresses their relationship deepens, and more and more secrets about this girl are revealed bloodily.

Right off the bat from the trailers and posters' tag-lines, you can tell that "Let Me In" is a vampire movie. But, this movie is everything that "Twilight" wanted to be. "Twilight" failed miserably. In fact, why am I even mentioning "Twilight"? To add that to a movie this good is an insult to this film's (and the original's) reputation. "Let Me In" is genuinely scary and creepy, but it also has a real human connection and heart, thus giving it humanity.

Kodi Smit-McPhee and Chloe Moretz are terrific in their roles and prove heavily that they are among the best child actors today. Smit-McPhee gives a hauntingly innocent performance as Owen, he not only looks the part; he also fills up character in the role with a varying degree of moodiness, creepiness, frustration, desperation, and - during his moments with Abby - satisfaction and subtle happiness. Moretz's performance as Abby has a bit of nuance to it, shades of innocence, gloominess and mystery are exhibited by this extraordinary child performer. And the chemistry between the two are great, that one can't tell the difference between actors and normal children innocently getting to know each other. Not forgetting Richard Jenkins, who also gives a quiet but concentrated performance as Abby's "father", making his character ever more creepy. And to round of the performances department, Elias Koteas as the detective is O.K. but his character is not really that important; and the actors who portrayed the bullies give out terrifyingly menacing performances, that you not only hate them the instant they appear, but you fear them. Add to the fact that these sort of people exist in the world even now and you've got something even more disturbing than a mere vampire.

It's mostly about innocence, this movie. It's not just about a vampire tearing people up - it has a beautifully written story to tell. And with that screenwriter and director Matt Reeves has succeeded. He had found a good story in the original novel/film, and decided to tell it to American audiences. But there is one thing about Reeves - he knows what he's doing. From the looks of the movie, it seems that Reeves put his heart into the film and really made sure that this film wouldn't be a rip-off, or worse, an insulting cash-in to the original - so he tried his best to be as faithful to the original material as possible. And this film by itself is great - that means Reeves did his job properly. The screenplay is written in a subtle, non-intruding (not shoving the facts down audiences' throats) way and the direction is focused and elegant. Instead of showing everything that happens like in many horror films Reeves took the old-school route and doesn't show us most of the terror, making us make it up in our mind, which is scarier than what is shown. And also the ability to control actors, both old and especially the young ones, to the extent that they deliver powerful performances, is something only a quality director can do. Matt Reeves has created a fantastic follow-up to his "Cloverfield" and he looks like one of the more promising American film directors to look out for.

Technically, the film is absolutely outstanding. The production design is homely/quaint, making it calm, peaceful, yet very moody when it needs to be. The editing crisply paces the film at a steady pace without it being too fast nor too slow, it moves along very nicely; you won't feel rushed watching the film. The cinematography is eye-poppingly, beautifully, and serenely framed. Lastly, Michael Giacchino's hauntingly melancholic score proves him as one of the best, most promising and versatile film composers as of late.

Of course, like every movie, there are flaws. Some of the cringing bloody/gory scenes (though moderate and not excessive like "Saw" and "Hostel") and one brief sex scene looks forced in to give the movie an R-rating (The bullies and their colorful language was enough to give this an R in my opinion). Having said that they do almost nothing to distract the movie's focus and good points. Fans of classic American horror movies, please give this movie a chance.

Now I am frantically looking for the original Swedish version. If this is already great by itself, I can't imagine how excellent the original must be.

Definitely, for me, one of 2010's best films. Bravo, Mr. Smit-McPhee, Ms. Moretz, and especially Mr. Reeves. Here's hoping to great careers ahead of you all.

Overall rating: 78/100

News from a Parallel Universe

[basilisksamuk · 1/10 · 7 May 2011]

This contains spoilers right from the start so please don't read if that is a problem to you.

I loved the Swedish original and didn't understand why anyone would want to remake something that was already perfect. However, I had read so many good and positive reviews of this version that I began to believe there was some truth in them. However, watching the film surpassed my worst fears of how bad it could be and here's why:

1 Immediate alienation of viewer by starting with artificial pumped up action sequence followed by "Two weeks earlier." I swear this formulation of "X weeks, months or years earlier" appears in every other drama I watch these days and it is overused and annoying. It's bad enough on TV but it's spreading to movies now.

2 Awful music - either vague angelic voices swelling to indicate a scary/portentious moment or tinkly piano music to tell us this is an emotionally significant scene.

3 No doubt someone will tell me I am wrong but the snow throughout looked completely fake. It reminded me of one my cooking experiments gone wrong then smeared over everything in sight. Difficult to believe in the veracity of the film when the snow, which is significant to the story, looks fake.

4 The CGI. This has to be some of the worst CGI work I have ever ever seen and that's saying something. In the original there is one significant CGI scene involving cats which is so grotesquely exaggerated that it works by drawing your attention to it. Here the CGI made me groan aloud every time it appeared.

5 What was the point of the hospital scene with the woman catching fire except to stick a bit more action in? In the original you know who these characters are and you have an emotional investment in them. Here, they appear, you don't know or care about them, she dies.

6 The director bottles it when it comes to the ambiguity of Abby's gender. It was pretty obscure in the original film but you get enough to intrigue you and make you go and read the book.

The two young leads did well given how badly everything else around them was so poorly realised but I have to say that they come a pretty poor second to the actors in the original. The fact that Chloe Moretz played Abby was one of the reasons I decided to watch this as I think she is an enormously talented actress but I can only think she was poorly directed given her interpretation here.

I really wanted to like this given the fact it was well reviewed, I liked Cloverfield, I liked Chloe M but the truth is that it's just awful. Maybe if we didn't have the first version to compare it to, Let Me In might have become a minor cult film in years to come but we do have the original and it is so much better than this in every respect that it eclipses the remake.

Wonderfully composed, Great storytelling

[Red_Identity · 3 January 2011]

I have seen the original Let The Right One in, and when I heard of a remake I was skeptical. Why did we need a remake this soon? However, I approached it with open eyes, as I have seen very faithful remakes in the past. I thought that the Swedish version was a good, sometimes very good film, but I ended up loving this new version.

I knew what story was coming, but I also knew that the journey is in the experience. Let Me In does a great job of creating a mood and tone that, while similar to the original's, it also adds a fresh perspective on it. That is in part thanks to the director Matt Reeves. I have only seen his previous film Cloverfield and while it is entertaining and rewatchable, I had no idea he was capable of the subtlety that is needed for this story. The cinematography is itself also amazing, and there are some shots that will linger in my memory.

Part of what I liked better in this version were the performances. Honestly, I think Chloe Moretz is just as great as the original performance, but I think the film definitely belongs to Kodi Smit- McPhee. He gives an incredible performance full of nuance and longing, and I do not recall being this impressed with the boy in the original version. I also feel the need to stop comparing them because a film should stand-alone on it's own, and this certainly does. It is a horror film, a drama, and a love story all in one, and along with the original, are vampire films to be celebrated among all the others in this time.

Let the right one in...72.5/100

[dfle3 · 7/10 · 20 October 2010]

This American remake of the terrific Swedish film "Let the right one in" (Låt den rätte komma in) seems to have come out with undue haste perhaps...I reviewed the original (subtitled) movie here on 22 April 2009. When I heard that there was to be a US remake, I was sure I would ignore it, as the original was in no way flawed. What changed my mind? Two things: 1) Chloë Moretz. She was inspiring in the comic book themed movie "Kick-Ass". 2) "At the movies" mentioned that the remake was pretty close to the original. Personally I still find the original the gold standard for this film, so would encourage people to see that on a big screen before you see the remake.

The story is identical to the original...a troubled young teenage boy (about 13 years old) doesn't fit in at his high-school. Then a similarly aged teenage girl moves to his town and to a flat right next door to him. She seems strange too. They form an unlikely relationship...which seems to perhaps offer up salvation to both of them. However, some brutal murders soon start occurring in the small, isolated town they live in. The local policeman fears that a Satanic cult or some such is at work in the town and he tries to find it.

Comparing the two movies - since the original is still fresh in my memory, I had a check list watching the remake...seeing that all the key scenes for me were in the new movie. They pretty much were. Maybe that was a sort of distraction...ticking boxes as I watched the movie. Maybe a couple of extra scenes have been added in the US versions. David Stratton complained about one scene not being replicated in the remake...where the young girl is naked. In some ways this is better, I think. I'll go into that later.

The original let me in more. With the remake, I felt a bit of a distance to the story. Kodi Smit-McPhee as the young boy Owen is terrific in this movie. He brings a subtle understanding to the character. For instance, I like the way he casually taunts Chloë Moretz' Abby about coming inside his house. Chloë is very good too, but maybe her ticking all the boxes as far as the physicality of her character goes left Abby with a lot less soul. Both convey a nice sense of alienation from society...sort of like mall rats.

I suppose I was hoping that the remake would convey a very European sensibility. American movies don't really go for that or couldn't if they tried, perhaps...although "My girl" was a terrific example of an American movie capturing that European sensibility. Instead, you get a sort of American Gothic. You get a good sense of the character of place in the small town Owen and Abby find themselves in. The flats that both find themselves in are nicely represented too...sort of in the Barton Fink mould...I mean the hotel room that movie was set some of the time.

Now, to the scene which didn't make it into the remake and which David Stratton criticised on "At the movies"...personally I think that maybe they made a wise choice leaving that naked scene out. Here's why: in the original, the interpretation you give to the Abby character's self-observations are directed towards viewing it as a question on her own anatomical status. In the remake, however, her question seems more about her essential nature. In other words, the remake gives you less information about the character, and I think that actually not having that information about her makes her self musings more philosophical...they can't really be taken literally any more.

It was also a concern of mine that some aspects of the relationship between Abby and her guardian would not be featured in the remake. They are. You're really not missing anything storywise from the remake...it's just that the original was more fulfilling...to me at least.

From memory, Abby looks more androgynous at times than her original counterpart (Eli). Australian actor Kodi Smit-McPhee looks the part as Owen. You also get the terrific character study of the original...perhaps made more explicit. E.g. you are constantly forming views of certain characters then having to reinterpret them later on, as more information comes to light. For instance, Owen is quite creepy early on in the movie. One of his class mates is also disturbing...but things aren't really that simple or black and white. It's a very nuanced character portrait many times in the film.

My biggest problem with the movie was the ending. Sure, it ticked that box too, from the original. However, I felt that the pool scene in the original gave a feeling of exhilaration which the remake lacked. Perhaps the original constructed that scene better, or did the sequence of events in a different way. What should have been a great emotional high for the movie is really just flat. It just failed to manipulate my emotions as the original did. That's a great shame. Perhaps it being so close to the original in scenes and screening is to blame? Maybe, but I just think that the original did that scene much better too.

Starting out wanting this movie to tick all the boxes of the original, in hindsight was a mistake...for me and the makers. If they had added many new elements to the story then perhaps the movie could have carved out its own identity more.

It's sad to me that the need for this remake was thought necessary. Watching the original, the performances were captivating...the central characters had such beautiful voices that I wished I could understand what they were saying without the need for subtitles. Here now you have a movie where you don't need the subtitles, but something has been lost in the translation...a little bit of soul.

This movie casts a spell that endures

[larry-stauch-1 · 9/10 · 12 October 2010]

A life as a companion and living on the run is better than living without love. This is a film for the bullied and unwanted children in our world. The roles portrayed were executed with honesty by all actors involved. The director was clever in not showing the mother's face for very long and we never see the father. The poor lad is left pretty much alone to face the cold, wintry world without a single friend. Then comes the new girl. She seems as utterly sad and alone as he..... and she is. It was refreshing to see how their chemistry blended and bloomed. The only fault I found was the CG attack scenes. That was unbelievable for me. I would have portrayed a vampire as having total control and with slow, deliberate moves. Imagine a fiend that would regard his next meal with detached urgency. That would be much more scary. After all is said I believe that this film will be regarded on it's own as a good love story although with some mayhem and gore that makes a fine cocktail to patiently consider as a film thats heads's above many other horror films .

Good, if you haven't seen the original

[bowmanblue · 7/10 · 8 February 2021]

'Let Me In' is yet another vampire film which is trying to cash in on those most bankable nasties at the Box Office. It's actually a remake of a foreign film, titled slightly different, i.e. 'Let the Right One In.' I know Hollywood remakes often find it hard to live up the original and, if you don't mind films with subtitles, I'd definitely recommend the original. However, that doesn't mean that there isn't something here that's a little different.

It's set in the eighties (why, I'm not entirely sure as it doesn't really make much difference to the overall plot, besides the bad haircuts here and there and unfashionable clothes) and a young boy (Kodi Smit-McPhee) who's having a rough time at school at the hands of some of the most clichéd bullies since Nelson and co from 'The Simpsons,' befriends a twelve year old girl (Chloe Grace Moretz) who's recently moved into his block of flats. Guess what... she's slightly more than she seems.

Soon he has to come to terms with the fact that his new bestie has a perchance for tearing people's necks out in order to sustain herself.

Despite the grisly nature of the general theme, it's actually rather a sweet kind of film - almost like a kind of 'Romeo and Juliet' story, but with fangs and a severe allergy to sunlight. The two young stars work well together and you do tend to feel for their plight.

It probably isn't for everyone. If you're expecting wall to wall gore then you may be disappointed as the bloody moments are nothing that gruesome and you're bound to have seen worse. Also, there's little in the way of action or thrills. It's more of a drama, but with the undead. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it might come across as a little 'slow' to some people. I'd seen both this version and the original before, so I pretty much knew I wasn't in for some sort of action-rollercoaster of a movie. Plus the ending does tend to be a little anti-climactic in my opinion. If you're expecting some sort of epic final act, it doesn't really materialise.

Overall, if you're still up for watching yet another film with bloodsuckers and don't mind that this is somewhat of a subtle and reserved film then it's worth trying to see if you like it. At least the vamps don't sparkle!

Very worthy in its own right

[christina_norwood · 9/10 · 19 October 2010]

First let me say that I read the book a week before watching this movie, and watched the Swedish film a few days after seeing it. I found that all three were very different takes on the same tale, each with something very valuable to offer. Lindqvist explored the social context of the tale in far greater detail then either movie - the degenerate society of broken lives and relationships, alcoholism and drug abuse, pedophilia, crime, schoolyard bullying, and vampires. I had a strong feeling that killing people for blood was no worse than what was going down on a daily basis in that society.

Alfredson chose to concentrate on the story. A beautiful movie, somewhat detached viewpoint, just watching the story unfold.

Reeves, in Let Me In, was all about the relationship between Abby and Owen. The acting by Smit-McPhee and Moretz was outstanding, conveying so much so authentically with body language, expression and tone of voice. The adult actors did a great job too. Visually it was very different from the Swedish film. More moody I guess. As a visual artist I was fascinated by the different artistic decisions the two directors made. While watching the Swedish film I had to sometimes remind myself that it was the same story I had seen a few days earlier, so different were they.

I've been watching a lot of Japanase Yakuza movies lately, and have no problem with different movies telling basically the same tale in different ways. For Let Me In the original source material is the experiences that the writer and both directors had of their own childhoods, and all three artistic works are beautiful and powerful reflections on those experiences. I encourage anyone to see Let Me In because it is beautiful and powerful cinema. Period.

Still a watchable film, despite not being on the same playing field as the original

[Marter2 · 7/10 · 3 October 2010]

Let Me In is a 2010 drama film, directed by Matt Reeves. Based on the novel Lat den Rätte Komma in, and taking inspiration from the 2008 film of the same name, Let Me In tells the story of friendship and love between two young leads. In this case, the leads are played by Kodi Smit-Mcphee and Chloe Moretz as Owen and Abby respectively. At the beginning of the film, Owen is told the pair can never be friends, but this ends up being subverted later, as the two gradually become closer to one another.

Seeing as how the film appears to be distancing itself from the original Swedish film, I'm going to attempt to do the same, and judge it completely based on if it stands up on its own. In short, it does a decent job at telling more or less the same story. The story is basically left in its entirety, with only the subplots switched around. If anything, the already basic story became even more basic, likely in hopes of not alienating the target audience. In this regard, I don't see it succeeding.

Having actually gone to the theatre to see this, it's important, in my eyes anyway, to see how the audience reacted to the film. In Let Me In's case, the audience did not respond all that well. Whether through being uncomfortable with the subject matter, or just finding many scenes hilarious, the audience actually ended up laughing at parts that were supposed to be morbid, or even touching. This is a problem. Seeing as how the story is already simplified for the North American audience, seeing the crowd react like they did to it leaves me feeling a bit sad.

The audience laughed the most whenever the two leads got close to one another. In this retelling of the story, Abby's gender is left alone. She is clearly a girl. However, many of the same lines hinting that she isn't were left intact. You can still interpret them that she is trying to tell Owen that she is a vampire, but to be honest, it doesn't really end up working that way. It seemed like they were trying to force those lines in, and without an at-the-time ambiguous gender of Abby, they didn't fit. However, when the characters were not trying to bring in forced lines, they actually were fairly convincing.

First mention definitely has to go to Chloe Moretz, who does as good a job as anyone in bring the character of Abby to life. Now, before the movie came out, the director said that he asked both leads to not watch the original film. Somehow, I don't believe Chloe took his advice. She plays Abby almost exactly how I expected her to be played, and was just about as scary as the original. Seriously, we probably have one of the most promising young stars at the moment in this film, and she does not disappoint. Kodi Smit-Mcphee on the other hand is less impressive. He isn't bad necessarily bad in his role, but he's nothing to write home about either. He's a bullied kid, but doesn't usually show how it is affecting him. I feel with a little better direction, his feelings could have been brought across on-screen better.

In fact, the directing may end up being one of the bigger problems the film has. The aforementioned scenes where the audience laughed could have easily been omitted, or edited to fit more with the tone Reeves was going for. His movie is definitely bloodier than the original, but the CGI that was used really took away from the experience. Whether Abby was climbing a building, or feeding on a person, it just looked off somehow. The jerky movements of the character made it quite apparent that it wasn't real. The story also felt kind of disjointed. It didn't have a real flow to it, and events seemed to just take place, as opposed to flowing naturally.

That's really all there is to say without directly comparing Let Me In to Let the Right One In. The story is more or less the same, and so is the general feel of the films. The acting is still quite good, with big props going to Chloe Moretz as Abby. The problems come mostly from the way the film was put together. The CGI used looked fake for the most part, and took away from the atmosphere of the film, while the events of the story didn't really feel connected. The fact that the story was overly simplified also didn't seem like it did its job. At the theatre I went to, the majority of the audience laughed in parts that they definitely should not have. Still, it's worth watching, especially if you aren't able to find the original.

Hopefully now the American audience can finally embrace a decent vampire tale

[blackmambamark · 8/10 · 3 October 2010]

Really? Your going to remake a movie 3 years after it was released? Is that even necessary? About a year ago, i use to feel this way about this production. Seriously, just go to the video store and watch the original....it's cheaper than going to the theater. But then i realized that it isn't that simple. If you want to show people good cinema, you really need to force them to watch it. Honestly, if i told someone to go to the video store and rent an awesome Swedish vampire movie, they would probably skip my suggestion, and pick up "Couples Retreat" or some crap. The only way someone would even view a portion of this film, is if they came over to my house, as i am in the middle of watching "Let The Right One In", they sit down and finally ask "What movie is this again?". So no, i am no longer dissing this movie, because in order for people to truly accept something good and different, it needs to be shoved in their faces.

Now when it comes to reviewing remade movies, all you can do is compare and contrast. So let me go ahead and get that out of the way so i can speak to the majority of you who have not seen it. The film is not an exact carbon copy of the original. However, it still has the same working parts. Sure they changed things around a bit, nothing too major......but they really did hit the nail on the head by still maintaining the overall eseccense of what this movie promotes, and that is crucial for this feature. The one thing that they did improve on however, was the musical score. It was more developed and very fitting to the gritty style of cinematography. It took those really eerie yet intriguing sequences, and made them that much more entertaining. As far as the acting, i am leaning towards the original, but it is a very VERY close race.

So with that being said, this movie is probably the best horror movie of the year. Yes, it is a remake, but i don't care. All these original ideas still do not compete with something that obviously works. This movie is very dark, the way a vampire movie should be. Not with it's gore, which is amped up by the way, but it's method of storytelling. That is the hook in this film. That is what gets you. It isn't some crybaby teen heartthrob, it is an in-depth storyline told in an entertaining yet odd fashion. It is very different compared to any vampire movie you have seen. Take Kiersten Dunst character in "Interview with a Vampire", and make a whole movie about her.....thats pretty much what this is.......somewhat.

Bottom Line, hopefully this movie will bitch slap all those wannabe vampire geeks harder the second time around, because this is how you make a vampire movie people. Yes, i still like the original more, but this movie gets as close to the original as you possibly can get, and that is saying a lot in my book. I urge all of you to see this, because there is a reason why they wanted to remake it so quickly. However, if you do get the chance, please still try to watch the original.

Entry Granted

[Jonny_Numb · 7/10 · 13 October 2010]

As I can be kind of stubborn toward particular films that get heaps of praise from every conceivable angle (let's admit: the hype factor can saturate even a niche conscience to the point where interest is decreased as a result), it took me a good long while to get around to watching "Let the Right One In," the Norwegian vampire saga that is as interested in the fragility of children's relationships as it is in subverting conventional cinematic standards of the vampire mythos. In the end, I was converted into -- and still am -- a true believer in its greatness. The Americanization of foreign films has always been a tricky prospect (even in the decades preceding Hollywood's current infatuation with recycling), synonymous with "dumbing down" a concept for the sake of placating the impatient masses (and their notorious intolerance of subtitles). There is a lot to admire about "Let Me In," Matt Reeves' faithful U.S. transplant: the moody score is fantastic; the performances by Chloe Moretz ("Kick-Ass") and Kodi Smit-McPhee ("The Road") are delicately heartbreaking; and the sparing use of CG allows a quiet, simple story of childhood camaraderie (paradoxically complicated by the extraneous factors -- absentee parents, religious tension, schoolyard bullies, puberty -- that make a child's life complex) to take precedence above all else. Reeves deserves an accolade for resisting the urge to transform the film into a surround-sound, jump-scare-happy headache of the Platinum Dunes sort, instead challenging the viewer to something more subtle and deliberate. Where he falters, however, is in making the strong setpieces of the original (particularly the climactic "pool scene") truly his own -- there just isn't enough creativity or divergence present to reconfigure these now-classic moments into something that will impress those who have seen "Let the Right One In." Still, "Let Me In" coasts on a uniquely moody energy that makes it worth a look on its own terms.

6.5 out of 10

Dark and Intelligent

[jamescraig2000 · 8/10 · 1 October 2010]

Reeves has done it. Saw this at Fantastic Fest with director and cast present and I have to say I was very impressed. The acting is great as my heart went out to Kodi's character Owen. I honestly wanted to jump into the screen and make the cruelty stop. It was heartbreaking. Chloe is a wonderful actress and she portrays Abby very well. I wanted a bit more from that character but it is good. The scenes together are very good and sweet. Jenkins who plays the caregiver is very very good. His portrayal is a very real and creepy take. His means of attaining victims was chilling. His character climax is great, my jaw dropped.

Reeves does a wonderful job with cinematography and I loved the setting. I have been eagerly awaiting this movie and I was not disappointed. If you have seen the original you still haven't seen Let Me In.

Why make this film??

[MikesIDhasbeentaken · 6/10 · 29 April 2011]

Well OK, its obvious, money. Let the right one in was such a good film, of course Hollywood were going to grab it, dumb it down, and cash in.

But what made Let the right one in so special, was how different it was, Let me in looses most of what made the original so good. the 'Swimming pool scene' a good example of this. One of the finest scenes ever filmed, turned into a very average scene here.

Of course most people who watch this film, will not have watched the original, or even know of it's existence, it had subtitles to read! So many people will watch 'let me in' as a stand alone film, which for that reason, makes this film actually pretty good.

If you can't or don't want to watch the original, then this film will do nicely. If you've seen the original, you know exactly what to expect from this, so you might as well not bother.

Stick with the original

[CountVladDracula · 1/10 · 28 October 2011]

The following is an explanation as to why I prefer Let The Right one In to Let me In. Many people think it's pretentiousness to prefer the Foreign film to the domestically made one but really, it's not. It simply was a bad a film.

1. I don't like the CGI. I see no point in adding blood with CGI. It looks awful.

2. I do not like the implication that the boy is to be the next henchman (or whatever term you want to use). It goes against the original novel and the original theme of rare and true unconditional love without sex. The purist and most innocent love through darkness. That was at the heart of the original story and what made it so endearing. Also to claim Eli had known her/ his henchman since that henchman was a boy is wrong. He's too bungling and incompetent. He clearly is not experienced at killing and disposing of the body so how could he have been doing this his entire adult life? That version of the character in the remake does not make sense.

3. The setting of the remake felt wrong. I like atmosphere and I like the unearthly quality of vampires and you lose some of that without the bare footed child in a t-shirt walking in snow and you can't see her breath but you see everyone else's.

4. Making it clear that Eli was really a boy was important because it was the result of that mutilation that Eli was anti-social, avoided human society, was clearly awkward and shunned society with it's gender roles. Eli did not trust the outside world because of his secrets and because of what he suffered and some of that was lost. It takes away from the child vampire's tragedy. And the solidification of the fact that their love was NOT sexual but something far deeper.

I think it's kind of depressing that we Americans can accept monsters but we can't accept that the child vampire was really a boy? The fact that being a blood thirsty monster seems "more acceptable" to the audience than the idea of the child being a boy says something is really wrong with our society right now.

5. I feel the Swedish actress was simply a better actor in general. The girl who played Abby is now in Dark Shadows and I've been watching interviews with her and she's spacy and acts... well, kind of high...

6. I just tend to prefer films that follow the original source material better.

7. Let the Right One In was the first good vampire film since Twilight. And by "since Twilight" I do NOT mean that Twilight is good, but rather the first good vampire film since the whole annoying fad started!

8. The remake disappointed me for another reason as I expect more atmosphere from the recently revived Hammer company and they let me down.

9. I don't like finding out that the reason the title was changed was "The original title is too long for Americans." (real reasoning). That offends me. Especially when the original title was based on an English language song by Morrisey and the song definitely suits the movie. And the follow up short story is named for the next line of the song, Let the Old Dreams Die.

The interpret it that OsKar / Owen (what's the point of changing the name? We have Oscars here in the US) is the next henchman hurts the film and the entire theme of the movie that love, actual unconditional affection, without need of sex, can bloom in the strangest of situations. That was at the heart of the story. For the boy and for the monster. And if you deliberately strip that out for the sake of your "interpretation" the entire message and meaning of the movie is lost just to appease contemporary and cruel cynicism. It's wrong to completely twist the very heart and meaning of the story to appeal a cold, modern interpretation based on the disturbing fact that people today have become too cynical to accept the notion that love can bloom anywhere at ny time with anyone. The heart of the story was that Oskar could love despite the fact that Eli was a monster and not really female and that Eli would love to a degree of fierce protectiveness she/he never gave to the henchman. To dismiss this and turn the film into something colder and shallow. And to be honest the mindset that does this... disgusts me.

The writer of the original story said what it's about and wrote a follow up story to prove the way it's supposed to be seen. He says that Eli eventually makes Oskar a vampire after they finish the blood pact when they get off the train. To act as if he's wrong about the outcome of his own characters is like telling a child they are wrong about their own imaginary friend. That it's not a pink rabbit but rather a green bear.

Watch the original, skip Let me In.