Horror Chick: ‘Let Me In’ and the Blessed Vampire Redemption
Pity the vampires. They've been tucked and slicked and oiled and waxed out of any shred of real dignity. Whatever happened to the grainy, unwashed horror of Dracula? The blood-soaked poetry of Bram Stoker? Nowadays vampires are a joke–walking sex toys with their spackled hair and waxy genitals and teams of rabid publicists who are far scarier than any bloodsucker in history.
And yet for even the most heinous cinematic-genre crimes, redemption can arrive in myriad ways. In this case, it came from Sweden.
Let the Right One In, aka "That Swedish Vampire Movie That Almost No One Saw," was a marvel. Moody, textured, well-paced, perfectly-acted (by children, no less), and most of all, totally original. The film emancipated vampire-ness from its dungeon of shtick and made it a tragic curse again, a grim, chaotic mess that drove two fantastic characters to do bloody things and make acute choices that, well, you could see yourself making if you happened to be 12 years old and in love with a friggin' vampire.
Granted, the miracle that was Let the Right One In–both the John Lindqvist novel and the award-winning film–got buried in the U.S., which was fast becoming a hatching ground for a Swedish-mystery-mania that would soon devour our eyeballs (and wallets). Due to some cultural force I will never understand, a dyspeptic trio of Swedish novels has now claimed its place as the new Da Vinci Code (and if those damn Girl With Not a Single Realistic Character Trait books continue their chokehold on this country, I may have to stage some Terry Jones-style burnings).
So it came as a pleasant surprise when Overture Films announced it was remaking Let the Right One In, this time in the U.S. (meaning it would be in English-which honestly wasn't an issue in the first film at all, except that Americans seem to have a scathing allergy to subtitles).
Even more pleasant was the casting announcement: Chloe Moretz, the "See-You-Next-Tuesday"-uttering savior of Kick-Ass, would be playing the vampire. The father character would be Richard Jenkins, who always plays the hell out of aging, desperate men, and then the boy-really the most crucial character-was the doe-eyed Kodi Smit-McPhee, a.k.a. "that porcelain kid who had to suffer through Viggo Mortensen's B.O. in The Road."
Of course, you never know with an American remake of a European film-half the time they'll toss in a Jonas Brothers cameo plus a crapload of CGI for good measure. But here's the thing: Let Me In is good. Seriously f&*king good. The mood and granular consistency are there from the first scene, creeping you out while simultaneously drawing you in. Director Matt Reeves (who also did Cloverfield, but we won't hold that against him-not permanently, anyway) captures the 80s in a way that most filmmakers are afraid to: without a hint of nostalgia. No leg warmers and silly haircuts here-it's a grim and pulverant time invaded by David Bowie songs (seriously, there is a major Bowie fetish going on with the score of this movie) and fractured ideals, with Reagan's face beaming incessantly from the TV and Rubix Cubes dominating lonely boyhood hours.
And then there are the kids. These children act their way into a space that 99% of American movie stars can't even approach. They create a world that children know, and adults still relate to based on niggling memories of what it was like to not be socially obligated to be a jerkoff all the time. The only thing more remarkable than Moretz's scenes with Smit-McPhee are her scenes with Jenkins. A child playing an adult-in-a-child's-body is a pretty remarkable thing to achieve-Kirsten Dunst pulled it off in "Interview With the Vampire," and it was almost frightening to watch (as in, "more frightening than Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt flinging homoeroticism across the screen"). Moretz ups the ante even further-particularly one scene in the hospital, where a single look she gives Jenkins provides around 40 years worth of backstory. Dirty-mouthed chick can act, and she carries this movie as easily as she did those GE M134 miniguns in Kick-Ass.
Let's just pray that she doesn't get super famous, go Lohan, and lose it all in a storm of beaver shots and blow. Please, Chloe, we beg you. The agony would be too great.
Melissa Lafsky does like children just not usually on screen.







but did the cat scene make it in?
No cat scene!
… but the remake does add herky-jerky closeup camera shots to a couple of climactic scenes which, in the original, were much more effective with the camera at a fixed remove.
On the third hand, it's pretty good in its own way.
I'm most excited about a horror film finally not trying to shoehorn in some hot hollywood talent. I mean, Look at Elias Koteas!
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm138707200/tt1228987
A child playing an adult-in-a-child's-body is a pretty remarkable thing to achieve
Wasn't this the main piece of evidence that Lohan was an actual actress? That FF performance was tragically overrated.
Cool. I had high hopes for this and you've affirmed them. The only thing I'm wondering is if it's worth seeing if you've seen the first one. Are there enough differences to keep it from being an exercise in "Oh, that's just like the original". You know.
Also really hoping Ms Moretz stays cool. She was the best thing about Kick Ass, even acting beside a pretty righteous Nic Cage.
Any interest I may have had in seeing this remake was killed the second I saw the series of "revenge has never looked so" promos. If it's actually a shot-for-shot remake (which I'm disinclined to believe), then that description is infuriatingly dishonest. And if they did actually twist the story line to give the "revenge" narrative top billing, then ICK!
Pity the vampires. They've been tucked and slicked and oiled and waxed out of any shred of real dignity.
Largely, I'd agree. But a notable exception was 30 Days of Night. For all of its faults, the movie stood out by portraying vampires as filthy, sadistic nihilists.
Heh. Ok, the trailer doesn't look as bad as Brothers remake looked like, but it doesn't promise to be an improvement over the original, which means: there is absolutely no reason to see it unless you can't read and don't speak Swedish. Couple of specific gripes: "the mood" seems to be oddly "warm" considering it's about sucking blood in cold weather. And: it seems like something's wrong with everyone's vocal chords, which would definitely make me snicker in the theater (which would ruin "the mood" for everyone).
Saw it last night. It's brilliant and scary as hell. The CGI didn't work for me, but it doesn't matter because it is a movie about characters. The film embodies the best aspects of Spielberg's genre pictures, but darker, and lots of blood. Loved it.
Did you see the original, and how would you compare the two?
I did not see the original, but the movie is great on its own terms. Wonderful acting (seriously touching and scary child acting), perfect 80's macabre tone. I can't think of recent movie that so well captures the horror of being 12 years old.
If you hold the original in some religious icon status then don't see it, but if you are willing to enjoy another take on the story, I don't think you will be disappointed. I can at least say it won't make you angry,but then again fans of the Swedish version act very Taliban about remake.
See, this is where we differ: I see no reason to update the old Nazi insult with the Taliban remake.
I fucking Love you!
glad they managed to make a good movie out of a great film…
So says the man who has not seen the movie.
I did see it, don't need to see it twice.
I know this might be an unpopular opinion, but having to read subtitles does take away from the experience for me. Yeah, you don't notice it after away, but it's physically impossible to taken in the whole scene as it was intended when you constantly have to glance up and down to read things.
Although if I remember the original correctly there wasn't all the much dialog to go around…
Unsurprising, now that the American remake is coming out, the original will be inflated far beyond its real qualities.
I mean, a "miracle"? Really? It is (granted) well-acted and tightly written and in a few scenes very well shot, but also (in addition) overdesigned, overly reliant on mood, and just pretty lifeless (heh). Also, big story holes. It's just not as good as its reputation suggests.
Though, I guess, if you're really, really into innovative "spins" on vampire stories, which apparently 94% of the world is, it's a miracle. Ishkabibble.
what were the holes in the plot that you found? Overly reliant on mood? that's a strange observation, how was the original more "reliant" on mood than any other film ever made? Keep in Mind it is a horror film. Also, "Pretty Lifeless"… it's about a vampire and a weak depressed boy, please define "pretty lifeless" within this context. I really don't feel the need to defend it so much as question your observations.
While I really liked the original and essentially have no need to see this, my biggest hope is gaggles of dullard tweens and teens who think Twilight vampires are the be-all and end-all of "vampires" will end up at the multiplexes to see this and have their worlds turned upside down. (I'm assuming none of those types would ever watch a subtitled foreign film.)
This is also my hope. I've told my niece and her teeny friends that they should all go see it. And, being the great uncle I am, have offered to buy their tickets and the essentials: popcorn, sodas, candy, blow, etc. Hopefully the true horrifying (and awesome) nature of vampires will catch on.
I just don't understand why you would do such a thing. The original was a great film, I can't see what a remake would add. I'm pretty sure even US audiences can read a subtitle.
I just don't get it. 12 Monkeys is not better than La Jetee. Funny Games(USA) was not better than Funny Games(AUT). La Cage aux Folles is far more hilarious than The Birdcage. Abre Los Ojos, La Femme Nikita and L'ultimo Bacio were all butchered. Can't even imagine what will happen to that other great recent horror movie: The Orphanage. Precedents folks!
Can someone who saw the original tell me the meaning of the (spoiler alert, I guess) little girl cooch? I thought it was rather odd, but maybe there was some reason for it?