Review: Let Me In

Set in New Mexico in the 1980s, Kodi Smit-McPhee plays a bullied 12 year-old who is neglected by his parents (who are apparently Charlie Brown’s parents too). He becomes interested in an unusual girl in the apartment next door, played by Chloe Grace Moretz. Seemingly around the same age as Smit-McPhee, she tries to tell him that she’s ‘not a girl’ and that they can’t be friends. However, that doesn’t stop Smit-McPhee, and soon they do indeed become close, with Moretz even giving him advice on standing up to school bullies. It turns out that Moretz is indeed not a ‘girl’, but a vampire, whose blood thirst is aided by her guardian/father Richard Jenkins, who provides her with fresh bodies. Elias Koteas turns up as a solemn investigating cop tracking down a vamp...er...‘serial killer’.

I’ve found some films in the past to be really hard to review. “Precious”, “The Killer Inside Me”, and “Death Proof” all spring to mind for various reasons. This 2010 remake of the Swedish horror flick “Let the Right One In”, from director/co-writer Matt Reeves is yet another. If you scroll down, you’ll even see that I’ve refused to rate it. That does not mean it is a terrible film, as it certainly is not. The reason for my rating will soon become apparent.

Y’see, perspective is a funny thing. I didn’t much like the original film, partly because I think it didn’t say anything much that wasn’t already said and done in “Near Dark” (though that only had the one ‘adolescent’ character, but it did have a familial motif), and although the central concept might be an interesting one, it didn’t do anything interesting with it. It was cold, slow, aloof, with mumbled and hushed dialogue, and lots of off-putting elements. I objected to the film’s big twist and what I saw as the pseudo-paedophilic relationship between two of the characters in the film (The ‘girl’ and her ‘dad’). This remake mostly removes the things I objected to in that regard, which before sitting down to watch the film seemed like an instant improvement. But on reflection, I’m not so sure if it’s a good thing so much as making the film more palatable (BTW, this review might’ve been even more difficult had I read the original novel, which I haven’t. I’ve only got the two films to go on).

Does palatability really result in an improvement? I’m not so sure, especially when you consider that this is an Americanised remake of a film made only two years previous. In some ways it’s even more annoying and unnecessary a remake than “Death at a Funeral”, though I actually really liked the first of those (BTW, the gap between the two “Death at a Funeral” movies was three years, unlike the two year gap here). But also it’s an English-language remake of a foreign-language film, and I hate the notion of merely remaking a film ‘coz them fancy foreigners fer sure do talk funny, Har-Har. Removing the more controversial content of the original adds to this feeling of commercialisation, of sanitisation. So whilst it might’ve been less off-putting to me personally, I’d be a hypocrite if I didn’t also object to it at the same time. Reeves has removed the most controversial shot from the previous film that gave us more insight into one of the main characters’ identity. Despite kinda knowing the twist before watching the film, I personally didn’t ‘get’ it when I saw the original (trying not to spoil anything here), because it was such a brief shot and it was forcing me to look at something I’d rather not (and to an extent don’t have enough knowledge of to really get the point I was supposed to being that I’m not a pre-teen girl). So I kinda don’t mind Reeves removing it, except that the actual scene itself is still there, just that one shot removed, making the scene itself completely pointless.

 

Anyway, this is essentially the same film as the original (including some dialogue verbatim, despite Reeves’ claim that it’s more a remake of the book- my arse!), and like the remake of “Death at a Funeral” (or “Quarantine”, the American remake of the excellent Spanish film “[REC]”), watching a remake of a film you’ve already seen quite recently, is almost always going to be a completely useless experience. This is especially so when you didn’t like the original much, and indeed, this is essentially the same cold, aloof, and off-putting film (largely shot-for-shot the same it seems), just a bit easier to stomach. I guess removing some of the more controversial material allows the film to get past the ‘remaking a film just ‘coz Americans are illiterate’ stigma, but only just. It’s still unnecessary and I don’t buy Reeves’ own argument that he was bringing the story to a bigger audience. I’ve heard that argument a million times and it never manages to convince me as being anything more than a total B.S. cop out. The original wasn’t some lost, out-of-print experimental Russian film from the silent era, dude. It’s pretty readily available, if not ‘accessible’ to the illiterate/philistines out there. Remaking the film for people who don’t like subtitles isn’t going to entice them to go and ‘discover’ the original, it just means you’re pandering to the ignoramuses who can’t be bothered getting out of their comfort zones.

So anyway, at the end of the day, a rating/grading would be completely and totally useless and pointless in this case. I’ll just continue giving you my thoughts on the film (which is at least better than Reeves’ previous disaster, “Cloverfield” not to mention the awful “Twilight” series of so-called teen vampire stories) and you can make up your own damn mind whether you like the film or not. If you haven’t seen the original, you might indeed have a good chance of liking this.

I’ll admit seeing the words ‘A Hammer Films Production’ is never a bad way to start a film, even if it’s odd in 2010. Unfortunately, this is a long way from the atmospheric, Gothic trappings that graced many a fun Hammer film (This new ‘Hammer’ is in-name only, and headed by the Dutch creator of “Big Brother”, of all things). It’s the same dull look, and features the same low-key, muffled performances by actors speaking so softly and flatly that you need to really pay attention to hear the dialogue (An unrecognisable Elias Koteas suffers the worst from this approach. I couldn’t hear a word he said throughout, most of his dialogue disappeared into his moustache). However, it just annoyed me and failed to make me care about anyone or anything in the film.

One of the few things I liked about the original was the two central performances. They were both pretty unlikeable, non-typical ‘kids’, and that made them kinda interesting. Unfortunately, Kodi Smit-McPhee and Chloe Grace Moretz just don’t compare. They lack nuance (the film itself is the same as the original, just without the nuances), and the latter looks far too pretty and sweet-faced (and feminine), compared to the rather grotty-looking Lina Leandersson from the original. Like just about everything here, she’s been ‘cleaned-up’, sanitised, and the change is not a good one (A good change? How about changing the characters from around 12 to about 14-15. That would make the whole coming of age thing better in my view, not to mention that 14-15 year-olds being involved in some kind of quasi-romance is less icky and more believable than 12 year-olds. 2-3 years really does make a difference). Terrible blue glowing eyes when she goes all bloodthirsty, as well. Too pretty and too ‘normal’ (Leandersson seemed otherworldly), Moretz in particular is just plain miscast, as she was in “Kick-Ass”, whilst McPhee is just too wimpy, whereas the original kid was a bit Columbine-y and creepy.

However, as I said earlier, I’m in some ways glad the film doesn’t include the somewhat ambiguous, pseudo-paedophilic stuff and ancillary characters, as the original was cluttered with way too many unnecessary and extraneous characters that simply bogged things down and frankly made me uncomfortable. In fact, Richard Jenkins’ performance as Moretz’s ‘parental’ figure is much better than the guy who played the role in the original. He’s well-cast in the ambiguous (but less ambiguous than in the original) role and the best thing in the entire film. The scenes with his character were my least favourite thing before, but my favourite thing this time. The scenes between he and Moretz could still be read in an unsavoury way, but they give off a far stronger familial vibe than in the original (so long as you don’t think too long about how old Moretz is actually meant to be). Jenkins is perfectly creepy in a subtle way you just can’t quite put your finger on. He’s a bit like Dennis Rader, the BTK Killer, who just seemed like a boring Average Joe, even when discussing the horrible crimes he committed. I especially liked his last scene, the best scene in the entire film (aside from maybe the pool scene, which has great sound and suggestion).

The film has been set in the 1980s, for absolutely no good reason whatsoever, but then the novel was too, so I guess I should take issue with that, if anything. But the constant references to Rubik’s cubes, David Bowie, and The Vapors absolutely add nothing. I’ve heard the author and the director both grew up in the 80s, but hey, so did I and I still don’t think it added a damn thing except distraction. I did, however, love that the kids watched the Franco Zeffirelli version of “Romeo and Juliet” (the best version) at one point, because not only does it suit the material, but I saw it myself when I was around that age. There was also one great song choice, with Culture Club’s ‘Do You Really Want to Hurt Me’. Crap song, but perfect title for this film’s subject matter (It’d fit even better in the original, though, given...y’know, Boy George liked to cross-dress).

Despite not featuring as many extraneous characters and scenes as the original, I think this one actually moves even slower. Either that, or I was just bored considering I was seeing a story twice that I didn’t really like the first time.

The other big issue I had with the film is once again my old arch-nemesis, filtered cinematography. The original had a blue/white drabness to it that whilst unappealing and uninteresting, at least matched the cold climate. Reeves and cinematographer Greig Fraser (Jane Campion’s “Bright Star”), however, say to hell with that. Instead we get amber filters. In winter. Yellow/brown (Piss Yellow to be exact) doesn’t exactly say ‘winter’ to me. In fact, it makes the entire film look like it’s set in Summer. I genuinely felt hot watching it, and at one point, McPhee even goes shirtless. In winter. Every now and then Fraser (who is unfortunately a fellow Aussie) will offer up a chilly blue to remind you that, yes it is indeed winter, but mostly the film looks like warm piss. It’s stupid lighting (and it’s not just the lighting, the sun is shown at times and looks awfully bright. Is global warming about to cook the planet or something?), and whilst I’m glad you can at least see the sources of light here, it doesn’t end up mattering a damn. It just makes the film look like a seriously dodgy urine sample, and a hot, sweaty vibe that just isn’t right. It might be symbolic or thematic lighting, rather than realistic (Think Hitchcock’s use of green in “Vertigo”), but it just didn’t work for me in this case. Worst of all, the amber filters make every single thing look yellow. Do all American cities have amber lighting that makes everyone and everything look yellow? Please tell me, because I’ve never come across a yellow light source that did that and if it’s not true, then there is seriously something wrong in cinema and it needs to be stopped! Even the swimming pool scene is impacted by Fraser’s stupid filters, though at least he uses blue this time instead of yellow, ‘coz that would be a bit of a problem. Once again I ask you, have you ever been to a swimming pool that not only makes everyone and everything look entirely blue, but is so damn dark (due to the filter) that it looks like there are no lights on? If the lights aren’t on, then why is the pool area even blue? Is the pool itself a powerful light source or something? Hell no. Tell me I’m wrong, people, but hell no.

At the end of the day, I don’t think either film is worth much, really. It’s an off-putting, arthouse treatment of potentially interesting vampire stuff. This one’s been made more palatable and ‘accessible’ to the mainstream than the original, but I don’t know if that really justifies its existence when everything else is the same, and not very interesting to me. It also serves to make the horror completely toothless. But if you haven’t seen the original, the material cut out doesn’t render the film incoherent or anything, so there’s a chance you’ll like it even if I personally didn’t (My views, thus, will largely be irrelevant to you). I won’t give it a score, but I’d give the original a C+ at best, so make of that what you will.

Rating: NR