MovieChat Forums > Let Me In (2010) Discussion > So I rewatched it last night...

So I rewatched it last night...

posted 8 years ago by DanielMann861
14 replies | jump to latest

People probably don't remember me, but I used to visit this board years ago. I'll admit it, I was pretty much a dick to some people here. At times, I really was a dick to some people here. Hell, I even apologised to Harpo in a private message for some of the stupid *beep* I said to him/her a while back. Anyways, that's beside the point....I'm not here to be a dick again.

So I rewatched it last night. I have not seen this movie since I bought the Blu Ray upon its release. But I decided to give it a re-watch last night just to sort of re-evaluate it. I can't really say my overall opinion has changed...I'm sorry LMI fans but I still think the film disappoints me as a whole simply because I wanted more than just a retread of the Swedish with a few minor changes here and there...I wanted a proper re-adaptation...I wanted this movie to be something that started fresh from the page and probed even further into that book and its content. But at the same time, I'm a realist and I know that's somewhat impossible considering the books content.

I can't say this rewatch won me over completely, but I will say I didn't entirely despise it either. I still don't believe the film is necessary at all, but if we had to have a remake then I guess it could have been worse than this.

There are some things I still do kind of like about it. I really grew to like Richard Jenkins more and more, I just wish he didn't have to say some of the dumb on the nose lines that the script gives him...I kind of wish Reeves had more confidence to let him emote it with his face rather than have him say it out loud...but whatever, that's a real nitpick. The point is I still really like Jenkins in this movie.

I'm still not sure what to make of Chloe. I still think she is kind of overrated as a whole...sorry Chloe fanboys but I'm not here to please you, I say things the way I think them.

Weirdly enough, it's Kodi Smit McPhee that still makes this movie for me. He may not have the same dark streak that Oskar has, but I think his Owen is really good and really sympathetic and I did like that kid a lot....again, like Jenkins, I just wish he didnt have to say some of that real on the nose dialog that the script gives him...the whole "some day I'm moving out and I'll never return" is really on the nose...but what can I say, I still like the kid and his performance in this movie.

I don't know, what else? I still think the movie is somewhat clunky as a whole. I still don't really understand why Owen leaves with her in the end considering the path he takes throughout this whole film...I'm sure that will annoy some LMI fans, but hey, I'm sorry. I still just don't understand why a kid who becomes somewhat adverse to the idea of violence would end up with someone whose very existence is unfortunately steeped in it. I guess it's love, but even then I still have a tough time swallowing it.

The main thought I took from this rewatch is that I probably would have preferred Abby to be straight up evil...at least then it would have made sense and it would have been an "all according to plan" revelation as opposed to what she is in this movie...which is sort of grooming but also kind of not.

I don't know...this really did come out more negative than I thought it would, but hey, I can only say what I felt...but in all honesty, I didn't hate re-watching it either...I just wish it had more confidence to really do its own thing instead of trying to somewhat mimic the original but also trying to add its own flavour.

Anyways, I'm out of here....I probably won't post much more over here...life is hectic, between work and studying Japanese. Yeah, I started studying Japanese like three years ago...hard *beep* language, I'll tell you that :D

But yeah...I'm just kind of writing this spontaneously without much pre-thought, so go gentle on me :) It's sort of nice to be looking at something else rather than a text book for a change :D

[–] cosmic_surveyor 8 years ago

1) Could you clarify for me what you're trying to convey with this "on the nose" idiom? Wiktionary offered several different interpretations, which could apply tenuously for each use.

2) I agree Kodi/Owen makes the movie worth seeing. I also understood Owen was a victim of bullying, not that he was averse to violence. Once he felt empowered, and supported by a powerful being, there was no need to return to a previous status as a victim.

_________

Est modus in rebus sunt certi denique fines quos ultra citraque nequit consistere rectum Goldilocks

[–] DanielMann861 8 years ago

1.) Sure thing, it's clumsy. Or a little too direct. I don't know, it's just badly written dialog that pretty much tells us what we can already convey from the image alone.

[–] cosmic_surveyor 8 years ago

On the nose: the two characters were 'stating the obvious' to the viewers.

That is nitpickingly demanding of two actors, one who hardly spoke and one with limited experience in emoting with facial expressions.

___________

Est modus in rebus sunt certi denique fines quos ultra citraque nequit consistere rectum Goldilocks

[–] treejam555 8 years ago

I don't understand. which actor had limited experience?

[–] DanielMann861 8 years ago

How is it nitpickingly demanding?

Hell, the kid in the original had even less experience than Kodi Smith McPhee and was able to pull off such minimalism.

I thought the dialog was on the nose. But that's life and I've been down this road too many times to get dragged back down this road of arguing.

[–] treejam555 8 years ago

The main thought I took from this rewatch is that I probably would have preferred Abby to be straight up evil...at least then it would have made sense and it would have been an "all according to plan" revelation as opposed to what she is in this movie...which is sort of grooming but also kind of not.

Hey Abby is totally evil. :)

Kudos for you giving it another try though. I don't think I'm could do that, I usually never reread books or rewatch movies. In fact, I usually never see an original if I saw the remake first or vice visa, but LtROI is so special that I really wanted LMI to be special too. (And maybe it is, to others..)

Seriously though, I don't think there is anything new I could say about LMI or LtROI at this point, but I was feeling nostalgic today and I was looking back through my old posts at WtI. My favorite ones are those conversations about the morality of Eli, about how and why the film got fans to fall in love with Eli, despite being the whole killing and eating people business. That's the one thing that's so magical about LtROI: the way that the audience was made to root for Oskar and Eli despite all better judgment. I think the director really conveyed the tenderness of the relationship in the moment and made the actions of the characters believable.

I get the Reeves may have been trying to do something different. From what I have read/heard from people who prefer LMI, they want to know more about Thomas and how Owen and Abby's relationship will change in the future. That's fine, I guess LMI may even qualify as a more "realistic" take on the story and LtROI more of an old fashioned fairy tale-the original dark ones, not the disneyifed versions.

LMI I think, is really Thomas's story, with Owen as the main character, but really reenacting what Thomas went through. Where LtROI the audience is supposed to sympathize with the monster that is Eli, maybe LMI tries to get the audience to care about Thomas and understand his motivations.

I'm not going into which is better, and there may be some truth to the argument that I enjoyed LtROI because it seemed fresh because it was foreign and LMI painfully on-the-nose because I've seen much more US movies to the point that US cinema is so familiar as to become cliched. Maybe some Swedish viewer of LtROI looks at the bedroom scene and goes "oh great, another scene where a boy asks out his first girlfriend on a bed" Yawn.

Maybe I am being unfair to LMI. I thought LtROI was sweet, affecting, and most importantly morally subversive in an organic way: it made viewers feel for a murderous vampire even in a world of realistic characters.

I guess that LMI was more about why Owen might fall for a vampire and the dire consequences doing so. But c'mon do we need a PSA on the dangers of a vampire girlfriend or the movie telling us that good and evil isn't black and white? I think the a story about how love transcends good and evil is just more interesting than a story about how an impossible relationship heads to the the doom that everyone can see except for the two participants.

Of course, the other more interesting story is about an apex predator manipulating its prey and THAT is how I will forever view Abby, just because the evil mastermind makes for a more interesting cinematic character.

[–] DanielMann861 8 years ago

Seriously though, I don't think there is anything new I could say about LMI or LtROI at this point, but I was feeling nostalgic today and I was looking back through my old posts at WtI.

You and me both, I haven't posted here in a long time and I think the last time I posted here, well, I was very much a douchebag to some people. But hey, I grew up a bit and realised how insufferable I must have been to certain people so yeah, anyways moving on. But yeah, I think with the upcoming English release of John's book I Am Behind You (Himmelstrand), I started getting very nostalgic and started going back and re-reading both We, the Infected and this board. It's kind of nice to re-read through some of those conversations.

LMI I think, is really Thomas's story, with Owen as the main character, but really reenacting what Thomas went through. Where LtROI the audience is supposed to sympathize with the monster that is Eli, maybe LMI tries to get the audience to care about Thomas and understand his motivations.

I think I kind of agree with this sentiment, even on this re-watch, I'm still absolutely fascinated by what Thomas and Abbey's relationship was like instead of the so-called blossoming one that is supposedly happening between Abby and Owen. I guess it's an interesting take, but then I just think to myself that I would rather see a movie that is about Thomas and Abbey that ends with the early events of New Mexico and the death of Thomas and her moving on to Owen as the final shot. I don't know, I just think that story is far more interesting than the one presented on screen, which feels too much like a retread of what I believe is a better film.

I'm not going into which is better, and there may be some truth to the argument that I enjoyed LtROI because it seemed fresh because it was foreign and LMI painfully on-the-nose because I've seen much more US movies to the point that US cinema is so familiar as to become cliched. Maybe some Swedish viewer of LtROI looks at the bedroom scene and goes "oh great, another scene where a boy asks out his first girlfriend on a bed" Yawn.

There probably is some truth to the "elitist"...I will admit, I was a bit of an "elitist douchebag" when contending with other people's opinions on this board. However, I would still say that there are so many sections of LMI that are just painfully on the nose. But I think that probably comes down to the difference between directors. I mean Alfredson seems confident in his ability to show rather than tell (as is evident by LTROI and TTSS), whereas Reeves seems more ready to show and then tell at the same time. But that's completely subjective opinion as I prefer films to show rather than tell.

Of course, the other more interesting story is about an apex predator manipulating its prey and THAT is how I will forever view Abby, just because the evil mastermind makes for a more interesting cinematic character.

You and me both, I just wish the film went all the way with it instead of pulling back and still trying to make Abbey sympathetic.}

I don't know.

I've watched both movies back in the last week and I still think LTROI is somewhere around the 9 out of 10 area while LMI is hovering somewhere around the 6.5 out of 10 area. I didn't despise it, but at the same time, I just wish it had more confidence in it's direction.

[–] HarpoSpoke 8 years ago

Hey Abby is totally evil. :)

See how different people see it differently? 😁

[–] treejam555 8 years ago

Sorry, that's not subjective. Abby is objectively evil, like a dracula. The whole photo with Thomas shows that she's willing to kill someone who has been with her a lifetime. That is one of the differences that you like so much from the original.

And if she's done it once, she'll do it again.

[–] HarpoSpoke 8 years ago

Sorry, that's not subjective. Abby is objectively evil, like a dracula.

You keep saying that no matter how many people see it differently than you. Ever occur to you that it's just YOUR view of the character? You are able to ignore all the LMI fans who don't see it your way and now you can ignore a LTROI fan too. That's impressive belief in the importance of your personal opinion...I'll grant you that! lol..

The whole photo with Thomas shows that she's willing to kill someone who has been with her a lifetime. That is one of the differences that you like so much from the original.

She has been with Thomas for 40-50 years and that's a change I like. But you didn't watch the movie if you got "she's willing to kill him". Where did you get that from?

And if she's done it once, she'll do it again.

So....do you apply this kind of logic to Eli? Since he chose a companion based solely on his ability to be a caretaker (several times according to the novel)....wouldn't that mean he would do it again? Sounds like Oskar has a big surprise coming.

That's how Abby is different than Eli. We don't know of any instance where she chose a companion based on anything other than a need for companionship. That's the one and only thing the young Thomas and Owen could give her.

[–] treejam555 8 years ago

You keep saying that no matter how many people see it differently than you. Ever occur to you that it's just YOUR view of the character? You are able to ignore all the LMI fans who don't see it your way and now you can ignore a LTROI fan too. That's impressive belief in the importance of your personal opinion...I'll grant you that! lol..

that's what "objective" means; separate from personal opinion. It's not my view of the character any more than calling the sky blue is an opinion. It's an accurate description. If you believe the sky to be pink, and I'm saying that the sky is blue, that's not us having a difference of opinion, that's you being wrong.

Ok, I'll grant that if you don't believe in "evil," then calling Abby evil would be an "opinion." But the opinion part of it would be the philosophical position regarding the term "evil." Assuming that you have a reasonable definition of evil, Abby would qualify.

For example, Google defines evil as "profoundly immoral and malevolent." Now morality varies from place to place, but let's just say that immoral means falling below the standards of behavior acceptable to a reasonable person.

Now I believe that reasonable people would kill strangers to survive. I don' think that's very controversial as to the average person. That's a baseline. Some people are morally better and some are worse. Whatever, that's what Eli does. that's what Abby does most of the time.

Now I also believe that reasonable people would NOT kill a loved one to survive. Or at least, kill without emotion or kill friends consistently as a survival strategy. That's what Abby does when she feeds on Thomas. He wasn't dying. He wanted to die, yes, but that situation is at least partially Abby's fault. So Abby falls below the moral standards of average people, quite a bit below, even. She is evil; that is a description of her character and actions. It's not an opinion.

She has been with Thomas for 40-50 years and that's a change I like. But you didn't watch the movie if you got "she's willing to kill him". Where did you get that from?

I got that from the fact that she killed him. I don't think I can explain it simpler than that.

That's how Abby is different than Eli. We don't know of any instance where she chose a companion based on anything other than a need for companionship. That's the one and only thing the young Thomas and Owen could give her.

See, that's why I accused you of being disingenuous: You claim multiple times that a kid like Owen could not be a helper and therefore Abby must have wanted Owen for companionship. But then you say that Eli is choosing Oskar to kill for her. How does that work? Isn't the fact that Eli chose Oskar an instance of her choosing someone because of love?

If someone were to call Eli evil, I would say that Oskar is useless as a helper because he is a child. This would mean that Eli actually changed throughout the course of the story. If she were going through a "cycle" like Abby, she would not have come back for Oskar.

When I call Abby evil, you cannot say that Owen is useless as a helper the same way that Oskar is because the photo is a change in LMI that did not exist in LtROI.

Thomas was a kid and he grew up to kill for Abby. That is the canon of the story. It is something LMI asks the audience to accept as a suspension of disbelief: A kid can survive with a vampire and ultimately kill for her just like a vampire can live forever on blood. Accepting this and assuming Abby isn't an idiot because she survived so long, I can assume that Abby doesn't choose adults for a good reason. Maybe she needs to get someone young to instill the proper sense of loyalty. Whatever the reason, Abby is repeating something that she has done before, while Eli and Oskar are headed for something new.

[–] HarpoSpoke 8 years ago

that's what "objective" means; separate from personal opinion. It's not my view of the character any more than calling the sky blue is an opinion. It's an accurate description. If you believe the sky to be pink, and I'm saying that the sky is blue, that's not us having a difference of opinion, that's you being wrong.

You don't understand how art works, first of all. If other people don't agree with your interpretation of the character, that doesn't make them wrong.

And are you going to keep ignoring that the director of the movie insisted the audience has to make up their own minds?

Not to mention that "evil" is also subjective. We think humans killing seals is evil but polar bears killing seals is not evil. A lion hunting for food is not evil, but zebras would define that as pure evil.

Ok, I'll grant that if you don't believe in "evil," then calling Abby evil would be an "opinion." But the opinion part of it would be the philosophical position regarding the term "evil." Assuming that you have a reasonable definition of evil, Abby would qualify.

For example, Google defines evil as "profoundly immoral and malevolent." Now morality varies from place to place, but let's just say that immoral means falling below the standards of behavior acceptable to a reasonable person.

You are using real world definitions for fictional characters in a completely different situation. Doesn't actually apply. If a character like Abby or Eli existed, their standard of evil would be quite different than that of a human.

So don't just selectively use this on Abby and then give Eli a pass.

I got that from the fact that she killed him. I don't think I can explain it simpler than that.

I don't think you understand the scene if that's all you got out of it.

You really think she went to the hospital to kill Thomas? You completely missed the part where they touched foreheads and where it was HIS idea for her to kill him? Not to mention that if she really wanted to be rid of him, she would just forget about him instead of going to see him in the first place.

You pretty much got the intent of the characters exactly backward. That's how hard you have to bend things to make your view work.

Not to mention that Eli also killed Haken if you want to play it that way. Except Eli had less reason to go to the hospital for Haken since they didn't have a history together. Maybe you are really describing Eli here?

See, that's why I accused you of being disingenuous: You claim multiple times that a kid like Owen could not be a helper and therefore Abby must have wanted Owen for companionship. But then you say that Eli is choosing Oskar to kill for her. How does that work? Isn't the fact that Eli chose Oskar an instance of her choosing someone because of love?

I'm not claiming that Owen or the young Thomas couldn't kill for Abby...that's just a fact. They literally could not offer Abby anything else but companionship.

Well...that...and forcing her to live in close proximity to human beings thereby making her life much harder than if she chose to live alone and not care for two young boys. There is seriously no logical way to make the "grooming" theory make sense.

So many contradictions to make it work. You are claiming that Abby doesn't mind killing...but then would go to all this trouble and put herself in great peril to get someone to do something she allegedly doesn't mind doing. Companionship is not her motive in your theory...but then she chooses companions who can offer nothing else and in fact would make her life much harder.

O...kay? I'm supposed to buy into that?

Now...if YOU want to believe a vampire can somehow take in a young boy and take care of him for years in the hope that he might grow up and kill for her...then you can't just suddenly exclude the Eli character. ...A character who has a history of choosing companions to kill for him.

That's the difference between Abby and Eli. Abby has never done that. So if either of them is capable of grooming a young boy to be a future killer, Eli would be much more likely given his history.

If someone were to call Eli evil, I would say that Oskar is useless as a helper because he is a child. This would mean that Eli actually changed throughout the course of the story. If she were going through a "cycle" like Abby, she would not have come back for Oskar.

But you somehow ignore that Owen is not physically capable of being a helper and would in fact be a burden for Abby? ...And that Abby also came back for Owen?

And when Abby came back, she just burst in and saved Owen. She didn't sit there and watch the whole thing like Eli did. (He actually knew which bullies were involved and which were not) If there is any "manipulation" going on, it's clearly with Eli since he waited until the last second to save Oskar.

Like really....that's pretty messed up what Eli did. I can't think of a motivation for watching until Oskar was almost drowned other than manipulation.

When I call Abby evil, you cannot say that Owen is useless as a helper the same way that Oskar is because the photo is a change in LMI that did not exist in LtROI.

How does the photo which shows another instance of Abby choosing a companion who is not physically capable of being a helper prove the opposite in your mind?

Of the two, only one has ever picked a companion just to kill....that's Eli.

Thomas was a kid and he grew up to kill for Abby. That is the canon of the story.

And that's all. You don't know anything else. That's where interpretation comes in. You imagine that Abby cared for Thomas for years just to finally convince him to kill for her when he grew up. Ok...if that's what you want to believe. But then you want to claim your interpretation of something like that is a fact which others are "wrong" to not buy into. That just doesn't work.

I've gotta inject more logic into my interpretation. Obviously Thomas could not be a helper when he met Abby. He looks about 10 in the photo so she knew him for about a decade before he could really help her kill. She may have known him earlier than that as well so I could say she found an abandoned 5 year old and took care of him. Thomas would have been 5 years old around 1919.

Who's idea was it for Thomas to start killing? We don't know. Yet another interpretation. Yours is not "fact". We don't even know when he started. Was he 20? 25? 30? If he started at age 20 that means he's been killing for Abby for 40 years or more. (Jenkins was 63 when he filmed the role) I'm not buying that a person could kill for 40+ years against their will. Thomas is definitely beaten down by it all when we meet him. No kidding....40 years of that would wear anyone out. But if it takes 40 years for you to finally get tired of doing it...that says something about you.

If you go with Thomas starting much later....say he didn't start until he was 50. That certainly would not support any idea that they were only together for the killing.

A 50 year (at least) relationship doesn't sound plausible based upon just that. It's a far more complex relationship imo.

Whatever the reason, Abby is repeating something that she has done before, while Eli and Oskar are headed for something new.

More problems pop up with that claim too. Since Abby does everything a person would NOT do in the movie if they were trying to trick someone. She shows Owen the picture, she openly rejects his advances, she does not watch Owen like Eli does with Oskar, she leaves him.

And then there is the stated fact from the director himself that Abby has a 12 year old brain. ....Which we know is not physically capable of long range planning like that. And Reeves also made it a point to show the scene where Abby shows affection toward Owen when he was not looking and even cited his source for doing so...the movie Klute.

So you can certainly stick with your interpretation, but it's not really logical and acting like everyone else is "wrong" for not buying your view is unsupportable.

[–] HarpoSpoke 8 years ago

I'm still not sure what to make of Chloe. I still think she is kind of overrated as a whole...sorry Chloe fanboys but I'm not here to please you, I say things the way I think them.

Weirdly enough, it's Kodi Smit McPhee that still makes this movie for me.

We can agree on those at least.

The more I watch Moretz's movies, the more I think she just got a hot streak going for Kick Ass and LMI. Everything else she's done I found kinda "meh". Carrie isn't bad...I'll give her that one.

But even though I really did love her performance in this, it was always McPhee who really amazed me. Sadly, I think he has grown up to be too quirky looking to be a lead actor. Although that could change again in his 20s. He kinda looks awkward in the way Jeff Goldblum looked when he was really young to me. But Jeff eventually matured into a really striking looking guy.

[–] Soodinum 8 years ago

"I still just don't understand why a kid who becomes somewhat adverse to the idea of violence would end up with someone whose very existence is unfortunately steeped in it."

You missed the early scenes where Owen was already harbouring more than slightly pathologically worrying tendencies when he was wearing the mask and threatening imaginary people with the knife?

'Then' and 'than' are different words - stop confusing them.