Horrible

I have a 19" old-style tube set TV, and the subtitles can be pretty small.

Recently, I PVR'd the entire Dragon Tattoo series, but gave up 1/3 way into part one because of the awful subtitling.

In the old days, they dubbed movies. I preferred that. I've seen the entire Ingmar Bergman catalogue, dubbed, and it was just fine.

Why do Americans always have to make remakes of basically every good foreign movie?!
Are they too lazy to read subtitles or what?
I caught this remake on TV once and i was shocked! Not only is it almost a 100% copy of the original but also the atmosphere is completely gone!
The original lives from the great atmosphere and the cinematography. The cold, moody colors along with the scandinavian architecture, buildings and furniture as well as the spoken Swedish is what makes half of the film.
Same goes for Oldboy, The Ring, Funny Games and a lot more.
So yeah, i really dont understand the point of remakes :)

Twin Perfect from YouTube explains it best. look up their video Let Me In vs Let The Right One In.

You make interesting and possibly valid points, but I kinda think that money may somehow be involved. Maybe its easier to get financing on such a project and a much greater potential for American revenue.

Why do you think all countries make movies based on (but not faithful to) books?

To answer your question as to why Americans always have to make remakes of basically every good foreign movie; because studios are in the movie making business to make money with remakes, sequels and adaptations they are more inclined to produce them because there is an existing paradigm to see if the concept works are does not work. In other words, it's an easier sale for the producers. There are probably a ton of spec scripts laying around that are far superior to many foreign films but those spec scripts will never be produced because studios want something that's more of a known quantity.

The craziest thing about Funny Games is that both the original and the remake were directed (and written) by the same director/writer, Michael Haneke. I thought it was impossible for a director to deteriorate his own film but perhaps it was due to various producers breathing down his neck and limiting his creative control.
Presumably even if the director of the original Oldboy had been called to direct the remake it would not have been just as good (but still not as bad as Spike Lee's atrocity, I believe), despite the higher budget, due to Hollywood's "sanitation practices".

Tomas Alfredson's (the director of Låt den rätte komma in) first English speaking film, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, was really quite impressive, perhaps because Hollywood was not involved in creating it (it's a France - UK - Germany co-production). So, if Alfredson had directed Let the Right One In's English speaking remake, but outside of Hollywood, ideally in Scandinavia and with full creative control, perhaps it would have been just as good - minus the Swedish, of course. Still a remake though. And, since personally I have no problem with subtitles, and I always try to watch every foreign film with original dialogues and subs, even if the English dub is very good, an unnecessary one in my opinion.

Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.

I have read the first few pages of arguments was there a need to go on.....?

Like others here I am sick and tired of people who use divisive tactics to put down Americans, American movies or whatever else they desire. I dont need to apologize for being American. I dont need to apologize for liking this movie. If YOu want to condemn it, that is up to you. If you want to condemn ME for liking it, that is another matter.

Lets focus on the movie and what it did for ME. It got my attention and got me genuinely interested. I fell in love with the movie so to speak. So much so, that I also purchased a copy of the original movie. So much so that I purchased and read the book. So I ask you, did the movie more than achieve its goal? To ME it did.
I would not have been familiar with either the foreign film OR the book if it were not for LMI. So that writer of the book AND the makers of the foreign movie should be more than grateful.

I am a person who "connects" with characters in a movie. I often connect with time periods, places, or familiarity with my culture and parts of my history. LMI did that for me. is that WRONG to YOU?.
The movie and story does not simply lend itself to a specific place or culture. The story is fairly universal. However when a movie is made. it often takes on the aspects of the people and culture it is made for. The fact that I related to that is not WRONG.

This post totally ignores the AWESOME talents of the principle characters as well as more minor characters. It ignores the amazing efforts of the director who brought this all together.
I am NOT saying this to ignore the talents of those associated with the original.
It especially takes extraordinary young actors to make this movie work. Neither side should be ignored for their extraordinary contributions to their movies.

What I see is that each movie is filmed from a somewhat different perspective of the original work. Slightly different perspective is a good thing. One can sit down and dissect elements of each movie and find strong and weak points of each. To ME, it comes down to personal preference and the movie I feel most "connected" to.

There is not a right or wrong answer to a persons personal preference.
I am not about to be put down for what I preferred.
If the movie was "horrible" as you seem to imply, I doubt that I would have had much interest in seeking out alternate versions or source material.

maybe its a good time to shut up and accept the fact that YOU dont have any authority over persons personal likes and dislikes. YOU dont have the authority over what is and isn't remade or reinterpreted or by whom.
At least have the decency to acknowledge the skills and the people who dedicated themselves to this move AND to the people who found it worthy to investigate others works as well.


("No stupid sigfiles here that have nothing to do with anything in particular")

I guess studios try to make some bucks out of foreign films, repackaging them for the American market. This one must have been titillating at the time, because of the Twilight madness and all that stuff. What is sad, many Americans do not bother to watch the original film, thinking that the remake is exactly the same, so they just stop at the remake, missing out so much. I always push my American friends to watch the original version.

Over Let me in, I watched it a few days ago for the first time. I love the book and of the Swedish version since they came out. With the remake, I got pretty much what I expected. It is shot scene by scene like Let the right one... Apart the initial scene, as they show Hakan, (or whatever is his name in the remake), being transported to the hospital, and the girl visiting him. I was glad for at least that little change. Another different scene is how Hakan gets in trouble. Oh, and they show a picture of the girl and Hakan together when he was a kid. In the book she met him when he was already an adult, in the Swedish film it is not really specified. I think that was all.

Moreover they took away all the "social" aspects of the film, that made the original appealing to adults, as, for example, the relationship between the alcoholics, and added instead supercheesy effects and noises to the scenes where the girl attacks her victims...
So basically they reduced the story to a cute dark supernatural teen film.
My partner (who is American and 40 y.o.) appreciatedy the references to certain sweets they show as he also used to like them as a child, but for the rest he also consider the original film superior in basically every aspect.