MovieChat Forums > Let Me In (2010) Discussion > No real reason to see this over the orig...

No real reason to see this over the original

posted 8 years ago by YuunofYork
14 replies | jump to latest

Having thoroughly enjoyed the original Swedish film, and being in the mood to rewatch it, I decided instead of a rewatch I'd try the remake out, since I had heard good things.

But those people couldn't have seen the original, could they? With the exception of the actual shooting of the car crash scene, there's nothing of any quality here that isn't beat for beat in Låt den rätte komma in, or even surpassed there.

I'd previously sought out the book as well, and still prefer Tomas Alfredson's adaptation to either the book or Matt Reeves' film.

I guess the point of this post is to warn away anyone in the same situation who did enjoy the first film. Most of what follows is spoilers. If anyone has seen both and still thinks the remake was necessary, as good, or better, say why below.

What was the point of revealing the vampire and the "father's" fate right at the start? In a vampire film, the vampire is your monster. You don't show your monster, or at least don't show the monster doing monster things, until you establish some characters. It looks like you've walked into a film at the midway point.

Why does the "father" disappear at the 55 minute mark? 60 awkward minutes follow.

Why remove the "father"'s name from the script? Now there's no unrequited love subplot, or arc for Owen as is implied in the last scene for Oskar in the original film. Do they want English speaking audiences just to assume it was 'some guy'?

The score is so loud! It frequently intrudes over action and dialogue. I would have rather had no score, or a much subdued one.

Quite a bit of the original dialogue has been cut. I haven't seen the scripts, but it's got to be 15-20 pages' worth, and the original was not a dialogue-heavy film to begin with.

I have no issue with making the vampire female, but at least retain the exploration of their relationship/sleeping together. This provided a level of comfort and intimacy to their relationship which made the perceived betrayal that much more hurtful to Oskar, not to mention believable. The reveal of the vampire as a castrated boy was also in the book, and this is something Let me in necessarily loses, but it still could have been done right.

Why was it felt necessary to add vampire transformation shots; if so, why make them CGI; if so, why shoot them in close-up? Because it looks like Andy Serkis is hiding under there. 10 years ago.

That Håkan/Father's acid-face mask was pretty poor quality. It looked like something commercially available at Halloween.

The bully was a fuller character in the original film, and severely underwritten here. We don't get the background that he's bullied himself at home, which makes him sympathetic and his death at the end tragic

The death of the random man in the tunnel had no emotional impact or consequences, because the set of cafe characters (Lacke, Virginia, Jocke) were removed/rewritten from the original. I liked those characters and their amateurish attempts to find out what was going on. It certainly provided a better reason for someone to be poking around the vampire's room than the cop character does here.

I don't even understand that "2 weeks earlier" title card. That's an absurdly short period of time for all these events to have happened and to fall in love with someone. You got the sense in both the original film and the book that these events took the better part of the winter.

I think the differences are spelled out in the titles. Låt den rätte komma in is about a loner child unable to form stable connections with either of his parents or his peers, but relating to another loner, the vampire. Let me in is not about that at all. It's a loud, abrupt, overly-obvious episode in the life of a vampire girl trying to find a protector, not that the title properly conveys either of these ideas.

There are some good things here, no question. They just aren't enough to outweigh all the head-scratching I was doing from the filmmaker's other decisions. Good things:

The car crash from the POV of inside the vehicle. I don't think I've seen that before, personally.

Owen's portrayal by actor Kodi Smit-McPhee. He didn't have as much to work with as his Swedish counterpart, but what was here was head and shoulders above everyone else.

The snow was mostly fake, but it wasn't as distracting as it could have been, mainly because the lighting work was spot-on

At least they kept the severed-head shot at the pool, but so did the other film.

[–] cassbtt 8 years ago

Agree with you about the score. When Owen comes to Abby's apartment and asks her "are you a vam-------?" Too loud in places.

The death of the random man...

Not random. I had to point out the same thing here shortly after I saw it and was informed that it's the body-building guy that Owen spied on early in the show. I'd agree that it was "random" that he was the guy who happened through the tunnel to get chomped on, but no more so than it was for the character in LTROI.

For me, movies are to be watched and listened to, not read. The reason I eagerly pursued the remake when I heard about it was because I wasn't interested in the "reading" subtitles. (I saw LTROI first and was impressed, 9/10, but gave LMI 10/10.)

Disagree about the "quality" of the bully. The brat in LTROI was a mite too cute for me, whereas in LMI he was a genuine prick. I think a second viewing of LMI will show you how his brother was even more monstrous a bully than the older bro' in LTROI. I'd have wanted to punch him out.

Disappearing at the 55 min. mark: Yeah, I noticed that, but the actor's performance of that character risked taking away from the story, it was that good. It was time to let the kids take over.

I think you'd have eliminated some of your issues with another viewing or two of LMI, but it also looks like you've made up your mind so - to each their own.

Just remember, LTROI may be the more genuine "first movie" because it was the "first movie", but neither is it "totally" genuine. The LTROI producers dubbed the little girl's voice because they didn't like it.

So perhaps it can be said that the truly "unaffected" version of the story has yet to be told. Maybe the TV series?

The LMI script is on my page, below, for analysis, FYI.

http://www.catconsulting.ca/themanyfacesofabby/index.htm

[–] YuunofYork 8 years ago

The LTROI producers dubbed the little girl's voice because they didn't like it.

I read that their reason for that was they wanted a more androgynous voice than the actor had. It was all in service of Eli's backstory.

I have a very different preference than you in that I don't mind subtitles, but I do usually mind dubbing. I understand some Swedish, though. But if an entire film is only available dubbed, I won't watch it.

I do wonder what's in store for the TV series, but if the story is going to be expanded for television, I hope they use more of the source material.

[–] Jameron 8 years ago

"I read that their reason for that was they wanted a more androgynous voice than the actor had. It was all in service of Eli's backstory." - YuunofYork

That is correct.

"I have a very different preference than you in that I don't mind subtitles, but I do usually mind dubbing. I understand some Swedish, though. But if an entire film is only available dubbed, I won't watch it." - YuunofYork

I'm the same, except that I only catch the occasional word in Swedish. Can't stand when third parties dub on another language, the Magnolia dubbing of Let The Right One In is some of the worst dubbing I've ever heard. So if you want to torture yourself for any reason, there's always that ;)

.

- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfE

http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story

[–] Jameron 8 years ago

*********** SPOILERS AHEAD ***********

"If anyone has seen both and still thinks the remake was necessary, as good, or better, say why below." - YuunofYork

Are any films "necessary"? Is Tomas' film necessary?

"What was the point of revealing the vampire and the "Father's" fate right at the start?" - YuunofYork

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the beginning of the film only deals with the father, and not Abby. Also, someone is bound to point out that what we see is not his "fate", but only an incident along the way to his fate.

"Why does the "father" disappear at the 55 minute mark? 60 awkward minutes follow" - YuunofYork

What was "awkward" about the last 60 minutes?

"Why remove the "father"'s name from the script? Now there's no unrequited love subplot, or arc for Owen as is implied in the last scene for Oskar in the original film. Do they want English speaking audiences to assume it was 'some guy'?" - YuunofYork

I imagine the removal of his name, although he is thought to have been called Thomas (possibly an homage to Tomas?), was to imply that he left no impression on people he may have come into contact with. People living in the shadows, under the radar, don't want to be noticed ... he has no name; ergo, he doesn't exist. Maybe?

I'm not sure what you mean when you cite "unrequited love" for Oskar in the last scene of Let The Right One In.

"The score is so loud! It frequently intrudes over action and dialogue. I would have rather had no score, or a much subdued one." - YuunofYork

I concur.

"Quite a bit of the original dialogue has been cut. I haven't seen the scripts, but it's got to be 15-20 pages' worth, and the original was not a dialogue-heavy film to begin with." - YuunofYork

I don't have a problem with this.

"The bully was a fuller character in the original film, and severely underwritten here. We don't get the background that he's bullied himself at home, which makes him sympathetic and his death at the end tragic." - YuunofYork

But we can see that he's bullied on screen, the "little girl" taunt from his brother is clearly something that is used a lot. Kenny also uses the taunt on Owen, it's classic trickle down bullying. It is also an ironic reference to Abby, the "little girl" who kills them all.

Conny wasn't bullied at home in the original film (nor the novel).

"The death of the random man in the tunnel had no emotional impact or consequences, because the set of cafe characters (Lacke, Virginia, Jocke) were removed/rewritten from the original. I liked those characters and their amateurish attempts to find out what was going on." - YuunofYork

That wasn't a "random man". That was the guy that Owen saw weight lifting in his apartment, possibly the inspiration for Owen to start weight lifting himself. I think his name was Larry. He was shown as being a "good guy". Admittedly, there was no real character devotion due to lack of screen time, but that is also true of Jocke, in the original film.

"It certainly provided a better reason for someone to be poking around the vampire's room than the cop character does here." - YuunofYork

Yeah, the cop character made no sense to me, other than to push the story along, he wasn't needed in my opinion.

"I don't even understand that "2 weeks earlier" title card. That's an absurdly short period of time for all these events to have happened and to fall in love with someone. You got the sense in both the original film and the book that these events took the better part of the winter." - YuunofYork

In the novel, the entire story takes place over a twenty two day period.

"I think the differences are spelled out in the titles. Låt den rätte komma in is about a loner child unable to form stable connections with either of his parents or his peers, but relating to another loner, the vampire. Let me in is not about that at all. It's a loud, abrupt, overly-obvious episode in the life of a vampire girl trying to find a protector, not that the title properly conveys either of these ideas." - YuunofYork

Correction. Let The Right One In is about making the right connection, to the right person; ie, letting the right one into your heart. Oskar had a stable relationship with his parents, it's just that their relationship wasn't right for him.

"Let me in" could also be a plea, it doesn't necessarily have to be loud and abrupt. I don't think there is a right one for Abby, but she does seem to be able to find people that she can "let in" to her life. Eli finds the right one for him, and it's a beautiful love story. Whereas with Abby, she seems to be condemned to keep finding and losing people, as they age and die, for the rest of her life ... or is Owen the one? Who knows, it's an open story.

.

- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfE

http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story

[–] YuunofYork 8 years ago

Admittedly, there was no real character devotion due to lack of screen time, but that is also true of Jocke, in the original film.

You are right. I would say though that at least people go looking for Jocke.

Conny wasn't bullied at home in the original film

I think there is a scene outside the school that establishes this. Conny's older brother intimidates him, seems like a bully to me. If not, then there would be no reason for that exchange to be witnessed by Oskar. The kid looks frightened of his older brother. Did I read into it more than intended?

I'm not sure what you mean when you cite "unrequited love" for Oskar in the last scene of Let The Right One In.

Sorry that was unclear of me. The unrequited love angle is from Håkan, he even has a line about it when he expresses his jealousy of Oskar to Eli. The final scene shows a possible arc for Oskar of following in Håkan's footsteps, while the relationship between Owen and Abby is rarely hinted as more than friendship. I meant that the removal of information about the Father character also cheapens the relationship between Owen/Abby for me.

What was "awkward" about the last 60 minutes?

It was only awkward because of my expectations for the character to have a greater role/presence.

Are any films "necessary"? Is Tomas' film necessary?

I think it makes sense to talk about sequels, adaptations, remakes, soft reboots etc. as desirable or undesirable, based on the strength of the original content. An original creative work exists, it's a book. Is it necessary to make a film of it? No, but at least it's a different medium. Is remaking that film necessary? No, because now the first film already exists and is critically-acclaimed and widely available in English speaking countries. If any of that were untrue, or Reeves' improved upon the source material in some way, then I think it would make sense to talk about a remake being justified.

Is there supposed to be no meaning behind a statement such as "a sequel to a cheesy Roland Emmerich film 20 years later seems unnecessary"? To take it to one extreme. Desirability is all I meant.

[–] Jameron 8 years ago

"I think there is a scene outside the school that establishes this. Conny's older brother intimidates him, seems like a bully to me. If not, then there would be no reason for that exchange to be witnessed by Oskar. The kid looks frightened of his older brother. Did I read into it more than intended?" - YuunofYork

I'm not sure why you think Conny is frightened of Jimmy. What I saw was Jimmy surprising Conny from behind, when Conny sees that it's Jimmy he's all smiles, and they part with "Thanks, see you later".

Oskar's thoughts are obvious initially but then become open to interpretation; he's happy that it appears that Conny is getting roughed up, then later when the two part he almost seems wistful as if he's wondering what it would be like to have an older brother. I don't think Oskar needs to see that scene, but I think we see it in order to witness the contrast between people that have people (Conny, Jimmy, Martin, Andreas), and people that don't have people but want people (Oskar).

"Sorry that was unclear of me. The unrequited love angle is from Håkan, he even has a line about it when he expresses his jealousy of Oskar to Eli. The final scene shows a possible arc for Oskar of following in Håkan's footsteps, while the relationship between Owen and Abby is rarely hinted as more than friendship. I meant that the removal of information about the Father character also cheapens the relationship between Owen/Abby for me." - YuunofYork

Ah, that unrequited love. Gotcha. Håkan's love, as you say, is completely unrequited by Eli.

However, the circumstances between Abby and Thomas are different to those of Eli and Håkan; there are various hints in the film that tell us that Håkan is a relatively new helper for Eli, Thomas and Abby have been together a long time, Håkan is terrified of Eli when he returns empty handed, Thomas is sure Abby wont hurt him, Håkan gets some fake comfort when he asks Eli not to see "that boy", Abby comforts Thomas before any demands are made of her only withdrawing when asked not to see "that boy again".

Not to mention the hospital window scene was far more touching in Let Me In because there was a real relationship full of remorse between the two, whereas in Let The Right One In it was more of a duty of care for Eli, and tying up loose ends, because Eli has no real feelings for Håkan other than gratitude for services rendered.

As for Oskar's possible arc of following in Håkan's footsteps, I couldn't disagree more. There are more hints that Owen will follow in Thomas' footsteps than Oskar in Håkan's. Both Thomas and Owen meet Abby at roughly the same age, Håkan and Oskar are decades apart in age when they meet Eli (Eli is looking for different things whereas Abby is getting more of the same). Thomas and Abby clearly show an emotional tie just as Owen and Abby, Håkan's love is unrequited where Oskar's love is returned tenfold. Owen wears a mask in the film when brandishing a knife in his bedroom ... it is a mask of Jenkins' face (Thomas)(huge hint). Oskar has to make a choice between his slightly dysfunctional but loving family and Eli, this shows that he retains control of his actions (even if he makes bad choices they are his choices), Owen has a mother who crawls into a bottle every night and a father that doesn't want him so he doesn't really have to make a choice and therefore hasn't exhibited the control he needs in order to guarantee whether or not he can decide if will start killing for Abby at some point in the future. Owen also talks of wanting to leave his life behind and "never come back", so he's already primed and ready to go ... maybe not for all the right reasons. Owen's lack of thought makes him easier to manipulate if you believe Abby wants to manipulate him into killing for her.

"I think it makes sense to talk about sequels, adaptations, remakes, soft reboots etc. as desirable or undesirable, based on the strength of the original content. An original creative work exists, it's a book. Is it necessary to make a film of it? No, but at least it's a different medium. Is remaking that film necessary? No, because now the first film already exists and is critically-acclaimed and widely available in English speaking countries. If any of that were untrue, or Reeves' improved upon the source material in some way, then I think it would make sense to talk about a remake being justified." - YuunofYork

I suppose "justified" is a more defendable position that "necessary", slightly, lol. However, "justified" is subjective and it all depends to whom you are trying to justify something.

I feel Let Me In achieved something, Hammer created an American style horror film from an unusual Swedish love story and therefore created more interest in the novel and the Swedish film within America and the English speaking world. If you are referring to artistic achievement then we could talk until the cows come home and still have no consensus, so I won't even bother trying.

"Desirability is all I meant." - YuunofYork

I'm leaving that can of subjective worms unopened too.

.

Out of interest, what are your thoughts on the possibly upcoming tv series adaptation?

.

- - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0e3tGxnFKfE

http://tinyurl.com/LTROI-story

[–] HarpoSpoke 8 years ago

You are right. I would say though that at least people go looking for Jocke.

That's the difference in the characters there. They establish a whole group of people for Jocke while the jogger is shown alone in his apartment and could easily be seen as a single man living alone with no ties.

I think it makes sense to talk about sequels, adaptations, remakes, soft reboots etc. as desirable or undesirable, based on the strength of the original content. An original creative work exists, it's a book. Is it necessary to make a film of it? No, but at least it's a different medium. Is remaking that film necessary? No, because now the first film already exists and is critically-acclaimed and widely available in English speaking countries. If any of that were untrue, or Reeves' improved upon the source material in some way, then I think it would make sense to talk about a remake being justified.

And there is the danger of labeling something "unnecessary". I feel LMI improved upon LTROI in just about every way I can think of. The music might be the lone exception but that's more about a couple of scenes and the use of the music more than the music itself.

So LMI is certainly justified to me. Without it, I never would have bought the LTROI movie or the novel. The first movie didn't move me enough to do that.

[–] HarpoSpoke 8 years ago

since I had heard good things.

But those people couldn't have seen the original, could they? With the exception of the actual shooting of the car crash scene, there's nothing of any quality here that isn't beat for beat in Låt den rätte komma in, or even surpassed there.

There is no rule there. I saw LTROI first and prefer LMI.

I'd previously sought out the book as well, and still prefer Tomas Alfredson's adaptation to either the book or Matt Reeves' film.

One could also say there is nothing of any quality in the first movie that doesn't come right out of the book too. Almost every idea in either film comes from the book. So if you first reason is your motivation, you would have to like the book the most.

I guess the point of this post is to warn away anyone in the same situation who did enjoy the first film.

I'm glad you didn't warn me away before I saw LMI. It's now one of my all time favorite movies.

If anyone has seen both and still thinks the remake was necessary, as good, or better, say why below.

No movie ever made was necessary. The human race existed for thousands of years before movies were invented. We already had the book in this case. We didn't need the book either.

The main reason LMI is "necessary" for me personally is because it's one of my favorite movies. If it had not been made I wouldn't have it. So the "reason" would be every person who enjoyed LMI.

The reasons why I enjoyed it more than LTROI would include the acting, the additional themes, the ambiguity, and the different main characters. (Abby, Owen, Thomas, Cop)

What was the point of revealing the vampire and the "father's" fate right at the start? In a vampire film, the vampire is your monster. You don't show your monster, or at least don't show the monster doing monster things, until you establish some characters. It looks like you've walked into a film at the midway point

It's a pretty common technique in cinema. If you don't like that, stay away from movies like Citizen Kane, Pulp Fiction, Inception, Sunset Boulevard, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Saving Private Ryan, Goodfellas, Iron Man, or Breaking Bad on TV. And definitely stay clear of Memento! :) Oh...also stay away from the opening scene of American Beauty.

Why does the "father" disappear at the 55 minute mark? 60 awkward minutes follow

I never noticed any awkwardness. He's not the main character or anything. If you didn't mind Hakan disappearing from the movie, you shouldn't have any problem with Thomas doing the same. The alternative is the novel where he comes back as a zombie vampire and tries to rape Abb/Eli. Maybe they'll do that in the TV show.

Why remove the "father"'s name from the script? Now there's no unrequited love subplot, or arc for Owen as is implied in the last scene for Oskar in the original film. Do they want English speaking audiences just to assume it was 'some guy'?

I liked that it added to his status as an unknown person. The police don't know his name and neither do we. I am glad I found out his name though.

The score is so loud! It frequently intrudes over action and dialogue. I would have rather had no score, or a much subdued one.

I liked it everywhere except the scene where Owen is hiding from the Cop.

Quite a bit of the original dialogue has been cut. I haven't seen the scripts, but it's got to be 15-20 pages' worth, and the original was not a dialogue-heavy film to begin with.

I'm confused. Are you irritated with LMI because it's the same or because it's different? You complained first that LMI didn't do anything different but have been complaining about all the changes LMI made since then. It can't be both.

but at least retain the exploration of their relationship/sleeping together. This provided a level of comfort and intimacy to their relationship which made the perceived betrayal that much more hurtful to Oskar, not to mention believable. The reveal of the vampire as a castrated boy was also in the book, and this is something Let me in necessarily loses, but it still could have been done right.

Not sure what your complaint is here. The perceived betrayal in LMI centers around the photo of Thomas. If "right" is "just like LTROI", then that would be like your previous complaint that LMI didn't do anything different. Kinda seems like LMI did a lot of things different from your post.

Why was it felt necessary to add vampire transformation shots; if so, why make them CGI; if so, why shoot them in close-up? Because it looks like Andy Serkis is hiding under there. 10 years ago.

That's from the novel. JAL went to great pains to describe the physical changes Eli underwent. The reason for the look of it was Reeves showing that Abby was stuck at age 12. He wanted her teeth to be malformed and acne to illustrate her being forever trapped at adolescence.

That Håkan/Father's acid-face mask was pretty poor quality. It looked like something commercially available at Halloween.

Probably a testament to how we are getting better Halloween makeup over time.

The bully was a fuller character in the original film, and severely underwritten here. We don't get the background that he's bullied himself at home, which makes him sympathetic and his death at the end tragic

I found the bullies to be weak in LTROI. The novel versions were more brutal (actually a scene where Oskar is in danger of being pushed in front of a train). The bullies in the novel also have a motivation for bullying Oscar that was lacking in the LTROI movie. LMI provided a motivation for the head bully so is more like the novel.

The death of the random man in the tunnel had no emotional impact or consequences, because the set of cafe characters (Lacke, Virginia, Jocke) were removed/rewritten from the original. I liked those characters and their amateurish attempts to find out what was going on. It certainly provided a better reason for someone to be poking around the vampire's room than the cop character does here.

That's probably a difference in taste. I found the town dwellers and father in LTROI to be annoying and was glad they were cut. The result in LMI is more time with the kids and their story is more interesting to me.

Not sure how a Cop doesn't have a motivation to investigate a murder. I found his actions far more logical than Lacke's. His Van Helsing wannabe thing didn't make as much sense to me. Plus I like that the Cop was not there to harm Abby. The whole scene felt more tragic to me. Frankly, I didn't have a lot of sympathy for Lacke.

I think the differences are spelled out in the titles. Låt den rätte komma in is about a loner child unable to form stable connections with either of his parents or his peers, but relating to another loner, the vampire. Let me in is not about that at all. It's a loud, abrupt, overly-obvious episode in the life of a vampire girl trying to find a protector, not that the title properly conveys either of these ideas.

They are just different movies as you point out after you complained LMI didn't do anything different. 😁

One of the differences is that Oskar is a loner with little interest in others while Owen is lonely and wants companionship. It's the little things that matter. Oskar has so little interest in the world around him that he barely even looks at Eli when he shows up. Owen on the other hand is deeply interested in the people around him and even runs to the doors to look at Abby longer. When they meet, Owen knows where Abby lives while in LTROI, Oskar has no idea where Eli lives. The change is the opposite with Abby and Eli. Abby does not know where Owen lives while Eli knows exactly where Oskar lives. So that starts the story off in a different direction right away.

I definitely appreciate that LMI can be taken so many different ways. There is no "right one" in LMI. The "right one" is who you decide it is.

[–] YuunofYork 8 years ago

It's a pretty common technique in cinema. If you don't like that, stay away from movies like Citizen Kane, Pulp Fiction, Inception, Sunset Boulevard, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Saving Private Ryan, Goodfellas, Iron Man, or Breaking Bad on TV. And definitely stay clear of Memento! :) Oh...also stay away from the opening scene of American Beauty.

None of those films' suspense is derived from creature/monster attacks. I appreciate the technique, but I think it was inappropriate in LMI because it subverts the expectations of the genre in an unsatisfying way. I realize by now 90% of the audience will understand it's about vampires before it starts, but I liked how LtROI let you find that information out for yourself.

Of course, both versions also contain scenes where the suspense is derived from character interactions, like in your list, but this was an opportunity for something special and fitting.

Not sure how a Cop doesn't have a motivation to investigate a murder.

He has motivation to investigate. His motivation to investigate when and where he does is thin, and the rapid-fire leaps of logic about bite marks to the neck a bit unrealistic. The real reason they had the cop go into that room was someone had to. The cop justifies the script rather than the other way around.

No movie ever made was necessary.

I mentioned my reservations with this in a reply to Jameron above.

[–] HarpoSpoke 8 years ago

He has motivation to investigate. His motivation to investigate when and where he does is thin, and the rapid-fire leaps of logic about bite marks to the neck a bit unrealistic. The real reason they had the cop go into that room was someone had to. The cop justifies the script rather than the other way around.

I can't agree there. He seems to follow normal procedure with questioning witnesses. It was Abby's apartment being the one that didn't answer his knock in the first place that made it stand out. Then later he notices the windows blocked. Then he knocks again and hears Owen make a sound with the floorboard. Since he is investigating what he believes is a cult (a popular fear at the time) that may have kidnapped a little girl, it makes sense that he would enter the apartment.

All that had been occurring during a time when murders are being committed in a small town. He's not some big city cop...Los Alamos is a small place...especially in 1983.

[–] cassbtt 8 years ago

> The real reason they had the cop go into that room was someone had to

He went because he found Owen's note saying that's where "Abby", whom he knew about because of the talk of a "little girl" at the hospital, the "father's" scribble in his notepad, and the question to Virginia's husband in the hospital (before she lit up) all shows he was seriously curious about the "little girl", probably named Abby.

And of course he went to the apt. in the first place because he saw something (presumably no name) on the mailbox outside and as Harpo suggested it was the one place he hadn't been able to check in his canvassing.

All very deductive.

I made a star out of this very cop (post-Abby bite) in my fan fic sequel to LMI, which alas is now "out of print". Ha.

http://www.catconsulting.ca/themanyfacesofabby/index.htm

[–] realbullet 8 years ago

Without rehashing everything that others have said, I think you're missing the thematic changes to Let Me In when compared to LTROI. A lot of the questions you ask seem to stem from this difference.

LTROI is a basic coming of age romance/friendship story with a supernatural twist. In LTROI both characters learn something from each other to accept the changes in their world. LMI is also a coming of age story, but it's Owen's story. He needs to understand the appeal to this strange girl next door who is someone he has decided must be evil.

His mother is no help because she looks for evil in everything, yet is barely present in Owen's life. His dad dismisses his fears of evil forcing to learn about it on his own.

When Owen sees the film strip as a young boy, he sees his future, and he rejects it ("Are you going to stop me?")

By the end, he's accepted Abby which means he has accepted his role in her life. Owen left with Abby knowing full well what was expected of him.

👿 I know something you don't know ... I am ambidextrous!

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

It's a decent telling of the story (which is a great story) and features some A-class production values.

I mean it was directed by Matt Reeves (Cloverfield, Dawn of & War for the Planet of the Apes, The Batman) and the cinematography was done by Greig Fraser (Rogue One, Dune, The Batman).

It has style, good acting and a good story. Whether it's better than the 2008 version is up for debate, I can see both sides of the argument. It's definitely worth watching, even having seen the 2008 version.

[–] CrabgrassWilly (1616) 3 years ago

Eh, I watched both of these back to back and there really wasn't much of a difference besides all the stupid hairstyles in the original.