There's few feelings in life that hurt as badly as being bullied. It comes for no reason, it's seemingly omnipresent, and it can make just walking out the front door a task that requires the utmost courage. For those who are picked on, nothing in life is desired more than for it all to stop.
They want a protector. They dream of it...they pray for it...
They invite it.
LET ME IN takes place in New Mexico in the early 80's. Owen (Kodi Smit McPhee) is a 12-year old boy with no friends, and complacent parents. He is bullied mercilessly at school and only takes solace by imagining one day getting his revenge (not like he really stands a chance mind you). Owen lives in an unspectacular apartment complex, and one day in the dead of winter a pair of mysterious strangers movie into the apartment next door. They are a father (Richard Jenkins) and a curious girl about Owen's age named Abby (Chloe Moretz).
Owen continually runs into Abby all alone evenings at the apartment playground, and she seems to understand him far better than his absentee parents...and light years more than his abusive schoolmates. The two share a connection, one that keeps them coming back to the jungle gym night after night even though they don't really know much about each other.
With Owen, what you see is what you get, but with Abby it's much more. Owen doesn't understand why Abby doesn't so to his school, or why he never sees her around in the daytime at all. He has no clue that her "father" goes out night after night, and kills innocent victims for their blood, leaving a trail of bodies in his wake. And he doesn't know that Abby is much older than her 12-year-old frame suggests, since Abby is a vampire.
LET ME IN is a quietly vicious story of a timid friendship. Owen stands in for many of us who grew up as awkward loners. Kodi Smit McPhee embodies him perfectly - his wanting, his desperation, and especially his sadness. As the third act begins, Owen makes a frightened phone call to his father and asks a very direct question: "Is evil real?". It's one of the most frightened and honest moments you'll see in a movie, and McPhee deserves top marks for such a heartbreaking bit of acting.
Like Owen, many of us found ourselves with very few friends, the target of overcompensating bullies, and not understanding what it was about ourselves that screamed "bullseye". Like him, the best part of our day was when we got home and could escape into our own imagination and solitude. If only we too could meet someone like Abby. Someone with Chloe Moretz's wholesome smile. That person who could reach out to us with no agenda, and mean it.
Abby of course isn't all sugar and spice, and when the darkness inside of her is let loose the movie earns its bloody stripes. When Abby feeds, it's animalistic and frightening. LET ME IN isn't interested in playing up the romantic lore of a vampire while forsaking a vampire's monstrous nature, and the fact that all this carnage is caused by such a seemingly young person makes it all that much more unsettling.
And if that's not enough gruesomeness for you, there's also the fate of her protective handler and the fate of a victim that gets away to endure. Director Matt Reeves allows these moments to play: he doesn't use quick cutting techniques, and instead holds our heads with two hands and makes us watch.
The entire film is painted in gentle brushstrokes, which is what helps it succeed. It's patient, and isn't interested in revealing its hand too quickly. It's filled with quiet moments of unease, like when it instills in us the uncomfortable feeling of hearing a garbled argument through a wall that's just too thin. And as Abby and Owen walk further and further down the path of their vulnerable friendship, they are guided by a Michael Giacchino score that encapsulates everything they don't say perfectly.
While I'd like to leave it out, I suppose I can't post this review without answering the inevitable question: Is LET ME IN as good as LET THE RIGHT ONE IN, the Swedish film on which it is based. The answer is "no". Does that mean its a bad film and not worth seeing at all? The answer to that also is "no".
LET ME IN wants to tell this story in an ever-so-slightly different way, and that's not a bad thing. It has retained the original's haunting quality, its stillness, its tenderness, and its violence. LET THE RIGHT ONE IN was one of the best films the last decade had to offer, and just because this domestic take on it doesn't completely measure up, it also doesn't mean that the film fails..
What did you think? Please leave comments with your thoughts and reactions to LET ME IN.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Review: LET ME IN * * * 1/2
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
Technically, they're both based on a book. So this isn't necessarily a remake as much as it is another adaptation.
Question, though... does the movie touch on Abby's castration/the fact that she's actually a boy? The Swedish film alludes to it (and has that quick flash of scar). Did this movie feel brave enough to go for it?
@ Nick... I've read the book, and this version doesn't bring in anything that the Swedish film left out.
Thus, remake.
It doesn't really touch on it. I mean, it's there in a subtler way than what we saw in the first film, but if you don't know what's being aluded to, it'll sail right past ya.
Considering the graphic novel which they've made as a tie-in with the movie, this movie cannot possibly touch on "the fact that she's actually a boy" because in this movie she isn't.
I had presumed from a few bits of the trailer that it added in the whole "zombie" thing from the book. If it doesn't even have that, I really fail to see what the point is.
The scene that was released of Abby's "guardian" messing up a murder attempt in a car looked absolutely daft and far from in keeping with the novel.
It looks like this is another Hollywood cash-in for people who can't handle subtitles.
@ fatpie... Like I say, the moment is fleeting...and if one hasn't read the original novel or seen the Swedish film it can be easily misconstrued as something else. But believe me - it's there.
There has been nothing added about any "zombie" subplot from the book. The plot is very pulled from the Swedish movie...with a few subplots dropped.
What about that scene seems "daft"? It's a bit more kinetic than anything in the original film, but never goes too far. It's possible that it plays better in context.
I stress that this is not a cash-in. It's been handled as well as it could possibly be expected to be handled...more DEPARTED, less VANILLA SKY
I'm tempted to give it a go...
Having read the book, I don't think the original film left out anything that was terribly important (well, except for the real truth about Eli, which "Let the Right One In" at least hinted at) ... After reading your take, I'm super-psyched to see it now, which my only fear being it will be a little too reverential, so perhaps border on the shot-for-shot territory
I've heard enough reviewers say it's good that I will watch it eventually on NetFlix.
However, I felt the first film was brilliant.
This movie is such a strange beast. One one level, it replicates a lot of what the Swedish film did, but on another level does certain things quite differently (like with the Elias Koteas policeman character and the lighting choices). All in all, I thought it was stellar, far above tons of Hollywood horror movies we see these days.
@ Filmgeek... Do it, you won't be disappointed.
@ Fanatic... I was of the same opinion when I compared the book to both films...there wasn't much they left out that would have made for a better film.
If you haven't seen it by now, I will say that this version has a distinctive vision...and does not tread down the "Van Sant PSYCHO" path of shot-for-shot
@ Alex... the first film was brilliant - one of the decade's best. With that in mind, you'll still really enjoy watching this movie.
@ Edgar... That is exactly my point sir. Given all the schlock that we're getting force-fed these days, I would MUCH rather someone went to watch this than so many other options. But after looking at the films rough box office in this opening weekend...I fear that nobody will.
"Like I say, the moment is fleeting...and if one hasn't read the original novel or seen the Swedish film it can be easily misconstrued as something else. But believe me - it's there."
What moment? What are you talking about?
"What about that scene seems "daft"?"
In the original movie and book, the killer always knows it's possible that he could be caught and makes special preparations to avoid this. At very least, he wants to avoid any tie being made from him to Eli.
Hiding in the back a car and then letting the occupants drive it around town shows a complete lack of forethought. Reversing into traffic is a great way to get discovered and most likely caught. All this silliness has blatantly only been added because the filmmakers think it's exciting. Not because it's a sensible change for the story.
"more DEPARTED, less VANILLA SKY"
Those are both cash-ins. What's your point?
@ fatpie... (This sort of conversation works a lot better when you've seen the film you're critisizing - just sayin')
The moment of truth in both LTROI and LMI comes after Eli/Abby bathes. In LTROI, Oskar sneaks a peek into the bathroom and we get a glimpse of her pubic area looking...let's say "odd".
In LMI, Owen likewise sneaks a peek into the bathroom when Abby is cleaning up. However, this time we don't get to see what it is that he sees. He still gasps and tries to surpress a surprise look (which of course could just be a twelve year old trying to deal with his first glimpse of female nudity)...but given what we already know of the story, it can easily be taken as a wicked subtle alusion to the truth about Abby's gender.
The handler hides in the back of the car specifically to kill the car's owner when he gets in (presumably alone). He's just about ready to make his move when someone else jumps in. It all goes downhill from there.
It's not daft - no more so than believing that one could conceivably claim a victim somewhere as populated as a public pool. In both instances, handler just panicked.
The "Cash-In" label really perplexes me. I mean, as wonderful as LTROI is, it's not exactly a film that a lot of people have seen. I mean it's not like Reeves & Co are retelling CROUCHING TIGER here.
They've taken a wonderful story and retold it in a way that will make it more accessible to people who might not otherwise been able to see it - and again, they've handled it quite well.
I agree, it's well worthwhile, and close enough to being almost as good as LTROI.
As for whether it's based on the novel or the Swedish film, the credits pretty much answer that question, by acknowledging it's based on the screenplay of Let the Right One In. Seeing how close Reeves' take is to Tomas Alfredson's, I don't think it's even debatable.
Weird, my impression of the whole gender issue from LTROI was that her vagina had been sewn up, either by her or by someone else, because she is not capable of having sexual relationships. To be honest, I'd rather think of it that way. Then again, my favorite thing about LTROI is its multiple interpretations, especially if you have not read the novel.
I don't love all this dissing of Vanilla Sky.
@ Vance... Yeah, that's the thing. If LTROI didn't already exist I'd be jumping up and down for this film even more. As for the script - you're absolutely right. I don't know where the spin of a new adaptation of the book started.
I like your theory of what's going on below her waist - never thought of it that way.
To be clear - I like VANILLA SKY (BIG fan of Cameron Crowe here)...the star power involved and the reprise of Penelope Cruz in the part of Sophia just made it feel like a cash-in.
Post a Comment