Let Me In [Blu-ray]

No-spoilers review of "Let me In":I'm going to help you decide whether you want to get this DVD, regardless of what I think of it. I will do so without telling you what happens.I recommended this to a friend at church in passing. Later he saw my wife and asked her what it was about. She said "It's a vampire movie." He said "That's all I need to know."This guy is a college professor, so he's pretty smart--and statistically he'd probably be right, given what most "vampire movies" are like. And yes, it is a vampire movie. But it's so different from most other vampire movies that leaving it at that is really misleading.For one thing, most vampire movies are either romantic PG-13 Romeo and Julietty things aimed at 15 year old girls (of all ages), or blood-drenched R-rated splatterfests aimed at teenaged boys (of all ages).This is neither. Hence the disgusted one-star reviews here by folks looking for one or the other--and who always assume the director was trying to make one or the other but was just too dumb to do so. Pretty funny, really--the arrogance of the mediocre.Another source of misleadingment is the fact that this stars the same actress who played Hit Girl in "Kick-Ass (Three-Disc Blu-ray/DVD Combo + Digital Copy)", Chloë Grace Moretz. In that film she plays an ultraviolent vigilante psycho killer (and does most of her own stunts BTW). But in "Hugo," which came out recently, she plays a bookish, sunny, nonviolent girl. It's called acting. And Moretz has no interest in being typecast, so you can't use her being in a movie to conclude anything about a movie except that it will probably be different from the normal fare in some way. You can expect her to do her own stunts mostly--she trained for six months for her role in "Kickass" and now may be physically the strongest, most agile actress in her age range.She is one reason to see "Let me in." She and Hailee Steinfeld (True Grit are both serious about acting. And both, in their early teens, are doing mostly adult-oriented movies. Moretz has the added advantage of being destined to be the next Scarlett Johansson in a number of ways--looks, intelligence, gravitas and an arresting appearance--not just pretty.I think Moretz wanted this role because it gave her the opportunity to do a layered performance. There's a scene where her character says "I'm stronger than you think I am." The other teen actresses who auditioned for the role said it as a brag, smiling smugly as they did so. Moretz stated it matter-of-factly, as a piece of information Owen needed to know, but with a whiff of great sadness, since that strength is part and parcel of what's different about her that means she will never be able to have a normal life. To grow up. To have a family. To not have to live on the run forever. So she's not bragging about her strength, because she's hundreds of years past thinking it was Kool--if she ever did.Moretz put something into the character all those other beautiful, trained, skilled actresses didn't. She had a 360° view of Abby, while the others did not.You'll like this movie if you like what Moretz liked about the script, the project. It's almost like a cross between one of those Sundance Festival movies and a Hollywood movie. It has the feel of a European art film with just a tad more vividness--a bit sparklier special effects, music, high-voltage talent (like the great character actor Richard Jenkins as Abby's gofer).That's no surprise because it's adapted from the Swedish novel "Let the Right One In: A Novel (Paperback) and the Swedish movie Let The Right One In.So why not just see the original movie? Well, as it happens, I did see it first--and loved it. And not just me. The Rottentomatoes website aggregates critics' reviews and ratings, and the average of the 166 reviews it lists was a whopping 98%, while 44,000 viewers rated it an average of 90%. For "Let Me In" 205 critics gave it an average rating of a still very respectable 89% while 55,000 site viewers gave it 74%.I think the lower average audience rating for "Let Me In" stemmed from misplaced loyalty to "Let the right One In." As if you have to choose one or the other. Team Abby or Team Eli. I don't know why this is, though. I've seen at least a dozen versions of Hamlet, and many bring something unique to the original play. Same here. An expert film critic could list a dozen aspects to each film that are better than the way the same aspect is executed in the other one.And of course some people are strongly biased towards or against Hollywood. If you have a strong bias, you already know which you'll want to see. If you're like me you'll want to see both. I own both movies, and both have stuck with me, while most movies don't. Each, in its own way, is truly haunting.Both films are vampire films that make most other vampire films seem juvenile, which is ironic, since the characters in "Let me in"/"Let the right one in" are juveniles.In some ways the films are meditations on what it would be like to be a vampire, both for better and for worse; and metaphorically, for what it's like to be different from others in ways that make you superior in some ways, yet doomed to never get to experience the humble delights of ordinary human existence, and in that sense it's a study of normal human existence by seeing what it would be like to not have that."Let Me In" definitely has a Hollywood flavor compared to the Swedish model. The vampire is prettier, the music more pervasive, the violence violenter, the landscape even bleaker (though not in all respects). Some find these differences extremely annoying. But I showed "Let Me In" to a pair of Russian intellectuals I know who had not seen the Swedish film or read the book, and they loved it. I don't know how they would have reacted if they'd seen "Let the Right One In" first, but I think it's significant that without that comparison they found "Let Me In" to be a real quality film.There's a plus to seeing both versions--it's like seeing a story from the viewpoints of different characters, though both movies take third party Point of View.But the emphases are distinct. Even where both films show the same scene it feels different. Don't believe reviewers here who say this is a shot for shot remake of the Swedish original. That just means they weren't looking closely enough.One kind of person who won't like either movie is Good Guys vs. Bad Guys kind of people--people who think if you show the human side of the villain you're somehow excusing the villain's villainy. People like the fictional Inspector Javert in Les Miserables: The 10th Anniversary Dream Cast in Concert at London's Royal Albert Hall--who was so unhinged by the escaped prisoner Jean Valjean's sparing his life that he committed suicide.The vampires in these movies didn't ask to be vampires, don't want to be vampires, and would stop being vampires if there was a way out other than self-annihilation. And even if you don't normally watch vampire movies or horror movies you may want to watch this one. It's really more suspense than horror--a bit like Alfred Hitchcock.Bottom line: this is a serious movie in a genre that's rarely serious. To put it another way, it's a serious take on a non-serious genre. It doesn't ask you to believe in vampires--only that if they existed, their existences would be as fraught and painful and unromantic as they're portrayed here.SPOILERS FOLLOW--DON'T READ ON IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN OR READ THE BOOK OR ONE OF THE FILMSSuppose you've seen "Let the Right One In" or read the book, which the Swedish movie hews to more closely.If you expect the movie to copy the book, neither movie will please you, but the Swedish version will displease you less.The critics generally agree that "Let Me In" is a fine movie, while "Let the Right One In" verges on greatness.I love both and I see why the critics rate the Swedish version a tad higher--but there's one plot essential where the Swedish version is truer to the novel but falser to the audience. In the book and the Swedish movie, Eli is actually a castrated boy in drag, basically. In the American version Abby is a girl period. I think the Swedish original is trying to have it both ways, though, by casting a girl (Lina Leandersson) in the part--and not just a girl, but a girl who looks very much like a girl, and who acts like a girl. So while the Swedish version is technically truer to the novel, (a) I'm not seeing the movie as a visualization of the novel, and (b) the American version is more honest. It has a girl play a girl at least. If the Swedish movie had cast a boy to play Eli(as), that would have been true to the book, though it would have had far fewer viewers, including me. I'm glad neither movie was true to the book, frankly.I wouldn't have disapproved of Eli being a boy in the movie, but I probably wouldn't have chosen to watch it either. And Eli/Abby's social isolation and disinterest in sex have nothing to do with Eli/Abby's gender, but rather by her age (12) and need to be an unwilling serial killer, which can be quite a buzz kill. So the rest of the story doesn't need this character to be a boy for the rest of the story to make sense.And apart from this element, there are parts of the American movie that are better than the Swedish original, even though I grant that the reverse is also true (especially how the woman dies in the Swedish version, and how Eli spares the life of one kid in the pool scene, the visual of Eli scaling the side of the hospital, and the visual of what happens to Eli when (s)he enters a home without permission). But when Owen asks Abby what is she if she's not a girl, Abby says "I'm nothing," while Eli just stares at him with those Japanese anime character huge eyes. Abby's response is more profound, and her being a girl makes the reason for her saying "I'm nothing" deeper--you don't need gender bending to feel isolated if you're a vampire. Honest. Being a vampire is plenty!Also, it's absolutely fascinating to see Chloë Grace Moretz' rendition of Abby/Eli. She didn't see the Swedish movie or read the novel before making the movie, so this is her independent interpretation (ditto the boy). It's really different from Leandersson's, yet both performances are deep--truly impressive from actors so young. And the difference in their appearances contribute to making the role different.So instead of trying to decide which is better--which here is like asking if a pear is better than bacon--I love having two unique interpretations of a fine story to watch.The negative reviews of "Let Me In" by "Let the Right One In" fans--and vice versa--show that there's a Team Abby and a Team Eli...and Team Can't We All Just Get Along? which I belong to. You probably won't enjoy "Let me in" if you regard every difference as automatically inferior, and every similarity as automatically a needless copy, and if you feel superior to Hollywood movies in general.I should point out that both films end the same way, so it's not like they tacked one of those happy Hollywood fantasy endings onto this story. And I should add that the author of the book has endorsed both versions. That doesn't prove both versions are good, but it does cast an interesting light on those who disparage "Let Me In" because they think it betrays the book.I haven't addressed the subtitle issue because dubbing is unacceptable to me in all circumstances (except when used for humorous effect), and anyone who has the sensitivity to enjoy "Let the Right One In" must be able to deal with subtitles.You'll like "Let Me In" alongside "Let the Right One In" especially if you're a serious filmgoer and like to see, for example, different versions of Shakespeare plays.Lastly, I think people on Team Eli believe that the American version is stealing sales from the Swedish original. Personally I'd argue that the exact opposite is true. "Let Me In" will garner viewers who wouldn't see the Swedish original anyway because they don't like subtitles and dubbing, and/or because they prefer more American production values and style, as I described in the first part of this review. At the same time a certain % of "Let Me In" viewers will then want to see how the Swedish version did it, because it's a good enough story to justify multiple interpretations.Wouldn't it be interesting to see how Hayao Miyazaki would interpret this story as an animated film? I think it would be magnificent, given how wonderful Spirited Away is...

It was with some amount of trepidation that I first heard about the impending release of Let Me In. Like many others, I was quite taken by the original Swedish film, Let the Right One In, which easily secured a spot on my Top 10 of that year. I feared that a remake would only excise the poetic nature of the story in favor of a by-the-numbers vampire film. The attachment of Matt Reeves as writer and director didn't do much to assuage my fears. Cloverfield was entertaining enough for what it was, but its gimmicky shaky-cam aesthetic wasn't very indicative of his directorial abilities. Once the good reviews of the film started pouring in, I figured I'd see it just to say that I did and then forget about its existence shortly thereafter.Could I possibly have been more wrong? I ultimately saw the film five times during its brief theatrical run. It's been three months since then, and I still can't stop thinking about it. Never before has my reaction to a film been so contrary to my preconceived notions. Not only do I prefer the remake, it has fast become one of my all-time favorite films, and Matt Reeves has shot to the top of my "directors to watch" list. While there is much that can be said for how Let Me In compares to its Swedish counterpart, I'm going to try and keep comparisons to a minimum, because Let Me In stands firmly on its own two feet as a film. The wonderful thing is that one film doesn't have to supplant the other; Let the Right One In is a beautiful film in its own right, and Let Me In is another faithful and unique cinematic take on the same story.The story in question originally comes from the mind of Swedish author John Ajvide Lindqvist, who wrote the original film as well as the novel that inspired it. The plot revolves around a lonely 12-year-old boy who is bullied mercilessly at school and finds solace in his budding relationship with the girl who lives next door. Unbeknownst to him, the girl also happens to be a blood-thirsty vampire who has been 12-years-old for a very long time. Reeves' adaptation of the material is respectful, thoughtful, and personal. In rendering his version of the story, he draws on the overall structure of the original film, various details from the original novel, as well as some of his own ideas and experiences growing up. Reeves clearly has a firm grasp on the complexities of the material, and he crafts Let Me In as a poignant coming-of-age story, tender love story, and chilling horror story all at once. By thoughtfully transplanting the proceedings to 1980s Regan America, Reeves uses the sociopolitical context of that era as a backdrop for Owen's tortured adolescence, resulting in a subtle exploration of moral ambiguity and duality. Despite its fantastical elements, at its core, Let Me In tackles fundamental human needs - the need to connect, the need to survive, and the need to make sense of a sometimes cold and frightening world. Whereas most modern horror films rely on excessive gore as a substitute for intelligence, Let Me In is one of the select few that brilliantly utilizes its horror premise as a multi-layered metaphor to explore a variety of thought-provoking ideas.While Reeves' screenplay adaptation is impressive in its own right, his directorial style is just as powerful and artistic. Simply put, Let Me In is one of the most elegantly directed horror films I've had the pleasure of watching in a really long time. Reeves' controlled and careful direction is a revelation in today's frenetic cinematic world. Let Me In is one of those rare films where virtually every shot helps reveal character and drive the narrative forward. Reeves is clearly an ardent admirer of Alfred Hitchcock, and his point-of-view driven visual storytelling does an admirable job of cementing the audience in the perspective of the central characters. Furthermore, he injects his film with a sense of dread and tension that would have made the Master of Suspense proud. Between Reeves' crafted cinematic approach and his cinematographer's haunting gothic visual palette, Let Me In is a breathtaking and beautiful film to behold.Finally, a discussion of Let Me In's strong suits isn't complete without addressing the power of its two lead performances. Kodi Smit-McPhee and Chloe Grace Moretz may have only been 12-years-old at the time of filming, but their performances exude a sense of depth and maturity far beyond their years. Let Me In may revolve around two children, but it is a dark and complex film for adults, and the fact that McPhee and Moretz are able to shoulder the weight of the film with such a sense of grace speaks volumes for their talent as actors. Richard Jenkins and Elias Koteas turn in excellent supporting performances, but the central story of Let Me In lives or dies by the success of its two leads, and McPhee and Moretz play a huge part in making Let Me In the emotionally charged film that it is.Although it didn't do nearly as well as it should have at the box office, Let Me In deserves to find a larger audience on DVD and Blu-ray. It's a rare and precious gem that got unfairly swept aside in the chaotic rush of awards season, despite its strong critical reception. In a cinematic climate where countless films are created solely to cash in and make money, it comes as a startling surprise that such a moving, layered, and crafted piece of cinema would come in the form of a remake. And yet, Let Me In is all of these things and more. Anyone who likes their films to have equal doses of artistry, emotion, and intelligence owes it to themselves to pick up a copy of Let Me In. Don't let the genre deter you; it's not just an amazing horror film, it's not just an amazing remake, it's an amazing film, period.

Better than the original.