Can't wait to see this next week. Loved the original, and sounds like they didn't ruin it either. Nearly all of the reviews are overwhelmingly positive from critics and horror-media types alike, though a few mention there's too much of Michael Giacchino's score at times.
http://fangoria.com/index.php?option=co ... %20%20%201
LET ME IN - Remake-Itis
-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 9742
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
Re: LET ME IN - One of the Great American Horror Films Since
I too loved the original, but I'm not above seeing a well-made American version (as opposed to the typical internet geek gnashing their teeth at the gall of doing such a thing 
). The cast is great, the trailer was atmospheric, and hopefully the CGI cats won't be as laughable as the original. 
). The cast is great, the trailer was atmospheric, and hopefully the CGI cats won't be as laughable as the original. -
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34276
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: LET ME IN - One of the Great American Horror Films Since
Yeah, I'm with you. Chloe "Hit Girl" Moretz is great.
Can't say I'm going to complain that they dumped the "private parts" element that the original had, which didn't really add anything to the story. If you know what I mean...
Can't say I'm going to complain that they dumped the "private parts" element that the original had, which didn't really add anything to the story. If you know what I mean...
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34276
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: LET ME IN - One of the Great American Horror Films Since
...she just got cast as EMILY THE STRANGE in addition to being expected to return in KICK ASS 2.
http://www.deadline.com/2010/09/chloe-m ... e-strange/
Few teen actresses have made this kind of name for themselves since Winona Ryder. Hopefully her adult acting range will prove more successful than Winona when she gets there, lol.
http://www.deadline.com/2010/09/chloe-m ... e-strange/
Few teen actresses have made this kind of name for themselves since Winona Ryder. Hopefully her adult acting range will prove more successful than Winona when she gets there, lol.
-
Monterey Jack
- Posts: 9742
- Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am
- Location: Walpole, MA
Re: LET ME IN - One of the Great American Horror Films Since
Moretz is definitely a talent to keep an eye on. She may turn out to be the next Jodie Foster if she continues to select challenging roles instead of falling back on "cute kid" schtick (who wants to bet that Abigail Breslin's career will end by the time she hits eighteen?).
-
AndyDursin
- Posts: 34276
- Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2004 8:45 pm
- Location: RI
Re: LET ME IN - One of the Great American Horror Films Since
Well I LIKED it, but I didn't love it. And here's why (spoilers ahead) --
1. The use of Giacchino's music drove me crazy. It's one thing if he's just writing another score like LOST (and he was), but it's the use of it that I really a problem with -- scenes wouldn't even unfold, they'd start with music underscoring them, so that you instantly were "informed" as to what kind of scene it was. This happened over and over and really ruined the moment on a number of occasions.
2. The '80s period setting -- didn't feel authentic and didn't seem to have a point. The clothes, hair, old transistor radios -- looked like the '70s, not the '80s. Just putting a group of songs on the soundtrack, some old arcade machines in the backdrop and Ronald Reagan on TV doesn't make it the '80s...that also bothered me a little.
3. This felt more like a "HORROR" movie than the original. Much more obvious than the original, much more graphic (especially in the boy's beatings) and overall unpleasant. The original movie was more ambiguous on a number of levels, whereas this film made it abundantly clear the boy was the next in line for her suitors and also, because the Richard Jenkins "Father" character was more sympathetic here (what there was of him), she didn't get as much out of the relationship with the boy as vice versa. In the original, she really needed him -- here, it was almost like she was using him. That felt a lot more obvious, especially in the ending, and left me with a sour taste as opposed to the original.
4. Because the film is more graphic, that "big shot" at the climax everyone remembers from the original has none of the impact here, despite being staged almost the same way.
Overall, I thought the film was alright, but overpraised by most critics (96% positive? even the local critic here gave it 5 STARS for goodness sakes). Worth seeing for hard-core horror fans -- but watch the original first. A better film on every front.
1. The use of Giacchino's music drove me crazy. It's one thing if he's just writing another score like LOST (and he was), but it's the use of it that I really a problem with -- scenes wouldn't even unfold, they'd start with music underscoring them, so that you instantly were "informed" as to what kind of scene it was. This happened over and over and really ruined the moment on a number of occasions.
2. The '80s period setting -- didn't feel authentic and didn't seem to have a point. The clothes, hair, old transistor radios -- looked like the '70s, not the '80s. Just putting a group of songs on the soundtrack, some old arcade machines in the backdrop and Ronald Reagan on TV doesn't make it the '80s...that also bothered me a little.
3. This felt more like a "HORROR" movie than the original. Much more obvious than the original, much more graphic (especially in the boy's beatings) and overall unpleasant. The original movie was more ambiguous on a number of levels, whereas this film made it abundantly clear the boy was the next in line for her suitors and also, because the Richard Jenkins "Father" character was more sympathetic here (what there was of him), she didn't get as much out of the relationship with the boy as vice versa. In the original, she really needed him -- here, it was almost like she was using him. That felt a lot more obvious, especially in the ending, and left me with a sour taste as opposed to the original.
4. Because the film is more graphic, that "big shot" at the climax everyone remembers from the original has none of the impact here, despite being staged almost the same way.
Overall, I thought the film was alright, but overpraised by most critics (96% positive? even the local critic here gave it 5 STARS for goodness sakes). Worth seeing for hard-core horror fans -- but watch the original first. A better film on every front.