Friday, October 1, 2010 at 3:32PM Movie Review - 'Let Me In'
| Let Me In
Starring Kodi Smit-McPhee, Chloe Moretz, Richard Jenkins and Elias Koteas 
|
The decision to change the title of this film from Let The Right One In to Let Me In may seem like a minor one, but it turns out that it’s a microcosm for everything that is wrong with this American remake of the critically-acclaimed Swedish film/novel.
The key difference between Let The Right One In and Let Me In - both the titles themselves and the actual films - is nuance and subtlety.
For those of you unfamiliar with the plot, the film centers on Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee), a 12-year-old outcast who is constantly picked on at his school. Owen befriends the new girl who moves into his apartment complex, Abby (Chloe Moretz), who, Owen eventually discovers, is actually a vampire. Chloe and her guardian (Richard Jenkins) move into the quiet town of Los Alamos, New Mexico in order to lay low while feeding Abby’s insatiable need for blood. Once Owen discovers Abby’s secret, he must come to terms with what exactly it means to be friends with a vampire.
That’s why the original title was so brilliant. Both titles are a reference to the idea that vampires must be invited into your home, a concept which is used quite effectively in the story. But the big difference between the original title and the title of this remake is actually a philosophical difference between the two films themselves.
Let The Right One In is a warning - it’s telling you to be careful who you let into your life. There is ambivalence there. How do you know who the right one is? If you are an unpopular kid at school with no real friends, is it okay to befriend the girl who drains people’s blood to survive if she is nice to you? It deals in shades of gray and moral relativity.
Let Me In, as a title, has none of that ambivalence. It is a command. It’s demanding something from you, ordering you to obey. And that, in essence, is the problem with this film. While the original was a well-crafted story that presented the audience with information and allowed them to make their own judgments, moral and otherwise, Let Me In shouts at you and tells you how you should feel. Things that are only hinted at in the original film, like Abby’s true relationship with Richard Jenkins’ character, are spelled out quite explicitly in this version, robbing the audience a chance to have their own interpretations. This movie spoon feeds every bit of information to you and even tells you how you should feel, which is particularly grating in one incredibly ham-handed scene where Owen talks to his father about evil in the world.
Also disappointing is that director Matt Reeves is much more interested in violence and gore than in telling a good story. His vampires have freakishly pale blue eyes and disgusting teeth. They attack with catlike speed and maul their helpless victims. It's meant to be brutal and unnerving. That would be fine, except the CGI used to make Abby appear supernaturally agile is so badly rendered that it’s distracting. People in the theater were actually laughing at the way she pounced and attacked, which was probably not the reaction Reeves was going for.
He makes a few other decisions that end up detracting from the film as well. One of the most glaring distractions is his decision to set the film in 1983, which he feels the need to remind the audience of every five minutes. Characters are constantly turning on radios to hear 80s songs (the most annoying of which was The Vapor’s "Turning Japanese") and a key scene in the film features a speech by then-President Ronald Reagan playing on a TV in the background. Setting the film in the 80s adds nothing to the story and Reeves constant need to remind you that it’s set in the 80s was just flat out annoying.
Also needlessly distracting and time consuming is the amount of time Reeves spends showing you how Jenkins’ character (who is officially credited as "The Father," though no name is given for him in the film) gets blood for Abby. In order to protect her, The Father doesn’t send her out to hunt for her own food. Instead he hides in victims cars and kills them, draining their blood and bringing it home for Abby. Reeves shows us several different outings by The Father - including a ridiculous final one that takes place at a gas station - which don’t add much to the film (except gore) and actually take up valuable time that should be devoted to further developing Owen and Abby’s relationship. Making matters worse, there is a tacked on plotline involving a policeman (Elias Koteas) trying to track down The Father, who he believes is a serial killer in a satanic cult.
As I said, these diversions with The Father end up eating up a lot of screen time, which in turn shortchanges the amount of focus put on Abby and Owen’s friendship, which is really the core of the film. Either as a direct result of this mismanagement of time, or simply because of ineffectual storytelling on Reeves’ part, their friendship never really seems authentic. Instead of developing organically as it should, their relationship seems forced and unbelievable.
As a friend of mine suggested, if you find yourself standing in line waiting to buy a ticket for this film, turn around and go rent Let The Right One In instead. There's no gray area here - watching the original Swedish film over this inferior incarnation is clearly the right decision.
Reader Comments (17)
Some people like to spoon feed material. I have friends who didn't like the original based on the reasons you did. And I guess Reeves was trying to make this remake appealing to broader, general audience instead a film that film enthusiasts love.
nice review, i will netflix the original and skip this version! Also, wondering if i missed the "fearless forecast", is it over or maybe returning in a new form?
Hi ag, fearless forecast is due out at 8PM today but usually on thursday. Thanks!
Wow, surprised by the rating/review, but I can see that you're making legitimately sound points as to why you feel the film is inferior to the original. I'm still interested in checking this film out because A. Matt Reeves made Cloverfield which is probably one of my favorite films of the past 5 years or so and B. Chloe Moretz is a phenomenal actress.
Also, I had no idea that this film was set in the 80s. I don't have a problem with that, but like you pointed out, I HATE it when movies go out of their way to point out that it's in a specific time period. So obnoxious when a movie basically goes HEY LOOK THIS GUY IS WEARING A RUSH T-SHIRT AND WE'RE PLAYING "FREEBIRD" ON THE RADIO IT'S THE 70S EVERYONE!
Another thing I wanted to add- really liked the way you took a look at the title of the remake vs. the original and argued how the change to Let Me In says a lot about the movie's subtly and effectiveness at telling the original's story in a different way. Good review.
Good review. You confirm peoples fears that saw and understood the original. The problem with the Jenkins theory, Reeves is pushing(that wasn't in the book) is it completely changes the story, or at least the character of Abbey.
excellent review. NOw i'm relaly wondering what to make of this movie (comparing it whit ebert's review).
The American version of the book is called 'Let Me In', hence the title of the movie.