I also like the remake a bit more....mostly due to the acting.

Saw the first movie first and didn't actually plan to see the remake until I saw Kick Ass and The Road.

Yes, I had already seen Chloe in Kick Ass, but I was most impressed with her in this movie. It appears she is attempting to transition into different types of roles now. I hope she continues to do good work as an adult. I haven't seen much of Kodi's other work yet but it appears he has quite a healthy filmography. Planning on checking out The Road soon.

It was kinda the combination of seeing both those movies, then seeing that both kids were in the remake. I thought, "Well....those kids are pretty good so maybe I'll check it out"

So glad I did. Matt Reeves added so many new layers to it.

I can relate to the remake more. While growing up my mom was an alcoholic and religion was forced down my throat. I can definitely relate to what Owen goes through.

I think the burning in the sunlight scene was a bit too over the top on this version.

I can relate to the remake more. While growing up my mom was an alcoholic and religion was forced down my throat. I can definitely relate to what Owen goes through.

Something similar with my brother. He was a victim of bullying in school and really related to what Owen was going through. Our mom was really religious too and also forced it on us. ...But that's to be expected and I don't hold that against her. She was doing it out of love and wanted us to go to "heaven". She's a sweet woman.

Not at all. Pretty much every great scene was ruined in the remake.

The final scene when he comes out of the water and you see her eyes looking at him, that was cut out completely. It was one of the most arresting scenes in the movie.

The scene where she is bleeding, she explains to the audience like we are idiots "I don't know, I just know this is what happens if you don't let me in". Because obvious American audiences need that laid out on a plate for them.

The scene in which she licks the blood off the floor, instead of appearing as an old woman, she looks like some generic Buffy vampire.

The girl in the original was one of the most amazing things about the film. She looked both old and young at the same time. She looked anrogenous. She looked both beautiful and ugly at the same time. The girl is the remake was...just meh.

The old man in the original had a blankness about him. You got the impression his soul had been drained out of him. He had given his whole life to Eli and now he was going to be thrown away. You understood that without it ever being explained. And it is what made the scene at the end so powerful. You knew that Oscar's fate was the same as the old man's. In the remake he is just some guy who looks normal.

The cinematography in the original was much better. Basically everything. T

Not at all. Pretty much every great scene was ruined in the remake.

The final scene when he comes out of the water and you see her eyes looking at him, that was cut out completely. It was one of the most arresting scenes in the movie.

I thought that was a huge improvement in LMI. Seeing Oskar perfectly calm after being held under water (by a backward hand) for a couple of minutes didn't make a lot of sense. At least be out of breath there.

And I liked seeing Abby through Owen's eyes instead of getting the "happy ending" thing with the two kids smiling among the dead bodies. Gives me more opportunity for interpretation. There is no "right one" in LMI. Owen was terrified. Maybe he smiles at the end? But maybe not. Owen is still dealing with his good and evil question when the movie ends.

The scene where she is bleeding, she explains to the audience like we are idiots "I don't know, I just know this is what happens if you don't let me in". Because obvious American audiences need that laid out on a plate for them.

Same thing happened in LTROI. Hakan explained to the audience what the acid was for while LMI just let us figure it out. So that can work both ways.

The scene in which she licks the blood off the floor, instead of appearing as an old woman, she looks like some generic Buffy vampire.

I think the reason for that was that Abby is not a (quoting Alfredson) "very old woman in a 12 year old body" like Eli is.

Abby is (quoting Reeves) "What I love from the book is this idea not that she's some scheming 250 year old woman inside of a 12 year old's body...She's stuck at that age...she's still emotionally 12"

So the characters are very different. It wouldn't make sense to have Abby appear as an old woman.

The girl in the original was one of the most amazing things about the film. She looked both old and young at the same time. She looked anrogenous. She looked both beautiful and ugly at the same time. The girl is the remake was...just meh.

That's different for everyone. I thought both kids in LMI were amazing. But the boys in both films were the stars imo. The girls get a lot of attention because they played the glamour role....but the boy characters were really what the movies were about.

The old man in the original had a blankness about him. You got the impression his soul had been drained out of him. He had given his whole life to Eli and now he was going to be thrown away. You understood that without it ever being explained. And it is what made the scene at the end so powerful. You knew that Oscar's fate was the same as the old man's. In the remake he is just some guy who looks normal.

I've heard lots of interpretations so nothing is set in stone there. You can take it anyway you want.

The cinematography in the original was much better. Basically everything. T

I prefer the color and shots in LMI.

Seeing Oskar perfectly calm after being held under water (by a backward hand) for a couple of minutes didn't make a lot of sense. At least be out of breath there.

Do vampires make sense?

And I liked seeing Abby through Owen's eyes instead of getting the "happy ending" thing with the two kids smiling among the dead bodies

I think you're confused. The scene in LTROI is through Oskar's eyes. That's why it doesn't make sense. It has something of a dreamlike quality about it. The fact that Oskar smiles at her shows that he is in no way horrified at what she has done. He has totally accepted her. The final scene does not make sense without this scene.

In LTROI the entire scene of Eli kiling the boys happens while we are underwater(as in from Oskar's point of view). It was totally massacred in the remake. Instead we got a tacky closeup of a severed head.

Same thing happened in LTROI. Hakan explained to the audience what the acid was for while LMI just let us figure it out. So that can work both ways.

Er no, not at all the same. He doesn't explain to us while he is pouring acid on his face "oh I have to pour acid on my face so that no one recognises me".

He explains to Eli, not to the audience. So that we know that she knows why his face is messed up when she turns up at the hospital.

The old man in the original had a blankness about him. You got the impression his soul had been drained out of him. He had given his whole life to Eli and now he was going to be thrown away. You understood that without it ever being explained. - A to Z

Håkan hadn't been with Eli his whole life, he was a fairly recent acquisition.

And it is what made the scene at the end so powerful. You knew that Oscar's fate was the same as the old man's. - A to Z

Except it wasn't.

In the remake he is just some guy who looks normal.

Per Ragnor looks completely normal, I'm not sure what you meant by this comment.

Same thing happened in LTROI. Hakan explained to the audience what the acid was for while LMI just let us figure it out. So that can work both ways. - Harpo

Agreed with this point

He explains to Eli, not to the audience. - A to Z

Well, Abby explains to Owen, not the audience

But in reality they both explain to the audience via another character, it's a standard story telling technique.

I think the reason for that was that Abby is not a (quoting Alfredson) "very old woman in a 12 year old body" like Eli is. - Harpo

Tomas was talking about Lina, not Eli in that quote. The reason that was important to him was that it gave Eli's character more gravitas, not that Eli was a "very old woman in a 12 year old body", you know this.

This from the commentary track...

JAL: So basically Eli isn't a 200 hundred year old inside the body of a 12 year old. Eli is a 12 year old who has lived for a very long time.

TA: A status quo character.

JAL: Yeah.

Tomas is agreeing with John that Eli is mentally twelve years old, a status quo character.

I think the burning in the sunlight scene was a bit too over the top on this version.

I didn't mind the way it was filmed, but I was confused as to why that scene was in Let Me In at all.

In Let The Right One In, Virginia makes a deliberate choice to end her life instead of living as a vampire, it's a statement that makes you wonder why Eli hasn't done the same thing. The obvious difference to me is that Virginia is a grown woman, whereas Eli is a twelve year old and so thinks like a twelve year old.

In Let Me In, it's a hungry vampire accidentally getting burned up while chewing on her own arm. All I can get from that is that their hunger trumps concerns of safety, but we already know this from Abby attacking the jogger in the tunnel because she was desperately hungry, and Thomas rightly called her out for it. Having said that, I think the real reason Reeves included that scene was that John had expressed regret that many scenes involving Virginia (in Let The Right One In) cutting herself and drinking her own blood were dropped due to time constraints, and Reeves wanted to give John a present.

If anyone can come up with a good reason to include the scene in Let Me In, I'm all ears.

Håkan hadn't been with Eli his whole life, he was a fairly recent acquisition.

I see. And why was this old man devoted to Eli?

Well, Abby explains to Owen, not the audience

As I already explained, a later scene would not have made sense if he had not already told Eli about the acid. Therefore it is him telling her in the story. It's an element of the story. And as I already explained, he doesn't explain this while he is doing it. Him asking Eli a question, and her replying "I dunno it just happens" is not actually conveying information, and is not needed for the story.

In Let The Right One In, Virginia makes a deliberate choice to end her life instead of living as a vampire, it's a statement that makes you wonder why Eli hasn't done the same thing.

The answer is:they are different people. Different people react differently to the same situation. Happens all the time in real life. Unless you are suggesting that every vampire that ever was was a child.

I see. And why was this old man devoted to Eli?

Apart from being written into the story as a Renfield character? He's attracted to children.

Well, Abby explains to Owen, not the audience

As I already explained, a later scene would not have made sense if he had not already told Eli about the acid. Therefore it is him telling her in the story. It's an element of the story. And as I already explained, he doesn't explain this while he is doing it. Him asking Eli a question, and her replying "I dunno it just happens" is not actually conveying information, and is not needed for the story.

But it makes sense in Let Me In without having Thomas tell Abby what the acid was for, or even that it was acid.

Also, your original contention made no mention of the importance of when the exposition happens, just that it did.

Abby telling Owen that she doesn't know why it happens, just that it does, tells us that she has done this before ... because she knows, which supports the possibility that she is playing him (not that I agree with that idea).

In Let The Right One In, Virginia makes a deliberate choice to end her life instead of living as a vampire, it's a statement that makes you wonder why Eli hasn't done the same thing.

The answer is:they are different people. Different people react differently to the same situation. Happens all the time in real life.

Yes, but films use patterns of behaviour and foreshadowing to show connections or differences between characters. The "everybody is different" approach makes film interpretation nigh impossible. A structured story is structured for a reason.

Unless you are suggesting that every vampire that ever was was a child.

Obviously not. Are all your posts going to be this churlish?

Apart from being written into the story as a Renfield character? He's attracted to children.

Did you write the script? You think that he was willing to sacrifice his life for her, because he is a pedophile? Does that sound like typical pedophile behaviour to you? And you think she would have trusted her life to this man?

She goes directly from Hakan to Oskar. It's quite obvious that he was getting old and that she found a replacement for him. It's not explicitly stated, but it doesn't have to be. The idea that she would turn him into a vampire is ludicrous. The scene on the train shows us everything we need to know. She needs him to survive. And if he is a vampire, he will be of no use to her.

Obviously not. Are all your posts going to be this churlish?

So it's a simple logical progression from what you said. The reason the woman killed herself is because she had a normal life, and becoming a vampire was horrifying to her. To someone else, perhaps it would have been different. There is no mystery.

You think that he was willing to sacrifice his life for her, because he is a pedophile?

No, but he would because he's a Renfield character. His devotion was due to being a paedophile, his willingness to sacrifice himself for Eli was because that's the type of man he is, it really isn't that difficult.

Does that sound like typical pedophile behaviour to you?

A moment ago you were arguing that all people are different, now you're trying to say that paedophiles are typically incapable of loving someone enough that they would be willing to die for them? I thought all people were supposed to be different, what happened? Even if there is a "typical" paedophile (which there isn't) why would you assume that Håkan isn't an outlier?

And you think she would have trusted her life to this man?

Eli is a boy, not a girl.

Yes, it is clear from the film that Eli trusted his life to Håkan, up to a point. Why else would he let Håkan be in a position to end it all by simply leaving the bathroom curtain open and removing the covers from the bath during daylight, or even driving a stake through his heart?

She goes directly from Hakan to Oskar. It's quite obvious that he was getting old and that she found a replacement for him. It's not explicitly stated, but it doesn't have to be. The idea that she would turn him into a vampire is ludicrous. The scene on the train shows us everything we need to know. She needs him to survive. And if he is a vampire, he will be of no use to her.

Who mentioned anything about Eli turning Oskar into a vampire?

The scene on the train shows two twelve year olds running away together, your cynicism has added to that to create an alternate outcome. Oskar is too young to be of any use to a vampire other than a meal or companionship. If Eli is depending on Oskar to survive, he's going to be sorely disappointed. Håkan could provide food, a place to hide away from the sun, could remove evidence of a vampire attack, could Oskar? No. What practical use would Oskar be to a vampire?

So it's a simple logical progression from what you said. The reason the woman killed herself is because she had a normal life, and becoming a vampire was horrifying to her. To someone else, perhaps it would have been different. There is no mystery.

This is not a logical progression, this is a statement about reasons behind someone's actions followed by "but everyone is different". This is the antithesis of a logical progression.