Matt Reeves, the director of Cloverfield recently sat down for a talk with the L.A. Times regarding his upcoming remake of the cult-hit Swedish vampire romance, Let The Right One In, which has been a sore spot for fans of the original (including yours truly), partly because the original was such a stunning achievement (that’s barely a year old); partly because it’s the Cloverfield guy doing the remake.
However, Matt Reeves is aware of all these gripes and wants to assure Let The Right One In fans that he has his head on straight for the remake, which has been retitled “Let Me In“.
|
|
Here’s what Reeves had to say about his own experience watching Let The Right One In:
“I was just hooked…I was so taken with the story and I had a very personal reaction. It reminded me a lot of my childhood, with the metaphor that the hard times of your pre-adolescent, early adolescent moment, that painful experience is a horror.”
If you haven’t seen Let The Right One In (check out my reivew here), it was a Swedish film adapted from a novel by author John Ajvide Lindqvist, about a lonely tweenage boy who goes through life serving as a punching bag for local bullies until the night a strange young girl moves in next door to him. As boy and girl strike a puppy-love romance, boy slowly learns that his new crush is also a vampire.
The premise is interesting in and of itself, but it was the direction of Tomas Alfredson that really elevated Let The Right One In above such other crappy vampire-romance fare like Twilight.
Speaking of The Twilight Saga, Reeves promises fans that the characters of the two adolescent leads (expertly portrayed by Kåre Hedebrant and Lina Leandersson in the original) will not be aged into later teenage years in order to try an be more Twilight-relatable. Reeves expresses his staunch commitment to the original and says he will try to honor it in every way. And while I’m sure Reeves is a well-intentioned guy, this is Hollywood we’re talking about and NOTHING is really that sacred… the proof will be in the pudding, as they say…
One final bit of news: Reeves says that Let Me In has been set in Reagan-era Colorado, so at least we can be sure that the remake is going to recreate the snow-blotted world of the original. Good to hear.
Reeves recently turned in a second draft of the Let Me In script and the movie is set to go into production soon. It’s currently slated for a Fall 2010 release. For more of the L.A. Times interview with Matt Reeves, go here.
Source: L.A. Times
Loading ...
25 Comments
Remake?! Sounds disastrous.
Thanks “Twilight fans” for the all the vampire remakes and upcoming crap films…
Remaking a film that’s only a year old, this is what were all in store for? Lame is the word of the day!!!
Any particular reason why it should be set in the ’80s? I did wonder the same about Donnie Darko until I found out that was when director Richard Kelly was at high school and was simply the period he felt comfortable dealing with. I haven’t seen the original, so was this set in the past too, or will this be some oblique comment on the Reagan era a la American Psycho?
This is absolutely ridiculous. The only reason to do this is because American audiences won’t watch subtitles, but I’m pretty sure most of the people who won’t watch subtitles aren’t going to be interested in a movie like this anyway.
While I’m not a huge fan of the original (I think it would have been better had I not known it was a vampire movie going in), I don’t want to see a watered down version for people who can’t watch foreign films.
Also, “Let Me In” isn’t anyway near as a good a title as “Let the Right One In.”
I’m really trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, but the words “Vampire human romance” fill me with dread.
@The Big Dentist, yes the original took place in the 80’s. It gave the feeling of a smaller world where something so surreal could happen. Maybe I just felt that cause I grew up in the 80’s
I loved the original film but was ultimately left with questions regarding the characters. When I learned of the book I quickly absorbed all it had to offer and was left with a complete, satisfying experience that made me appreciate the movie even more.
While most remakes are made for poor reasons, I have faith in Matt Reeves and he seems genuine concerning his passion for the remake. If they stay close to the book it will be a different movie to be sure, but it will also be an extension of the original.
Trying to remain hopeful in a sea of negativity we at least have a good director who cares for the original work. If it fails horribly we still have Alfredsons version that will stand the test of time as a true classic.
Why do people get so upset about remakes?
Fine, they are not original ideas, etc.
It comes down to “you don’t want to see it, then don’t see it”. Let it fail naturally. Why do people run to message boards and useless online petitions? If a remake sucks, it will be evident in the reviews and box office.
If a film maker/actor/producer is passionate about it, let them do it. Who are we to judge their creativity?
On a personal level failing to support remakes isn’t having any effect. All I have left is Screen Rant and the freedom to endlessly complain and whine about them.
Boooo remakes boooo!
I have seen the original and it is amazing. Can we at least enjoy this movie for ten years before a remake is disasterously made?
If he likes the story so much then why not promote the original movie? As much as Matt Reeves says he liked the first movie, he must not have to be remaking it.
Remakes feel like the new director thinks s/he can do better then the original. Occasionally that can be true, but give audiences some time to absorb the original.
“Let the Right One In” is still on the shelf for Christ’s sakes. Let Americans try to get over ourselves enough to enjoy a movie that we have to read.
@ogb
Because remakes often suck and they smack of a lack of creativity and a quick buck.
Vic
Sethimus, cheers for that – sounds like I should trust the majority opinion on this, for once!
Yeah, but everyone knows that they suck.
Does it bother you guys so much that someone else made a movie out there that you don’t like and people are seeing it?
@Vic
Very true and I won’t argue that point (cause I’d lose) but there could be advantages to this remake in particular
Best case scenario the movie doesn’t suck and turns a lot of people onto the original work (both the film and book)
Worst case scenario the remake fails horribly and turns a lot of people onto the original work(s).
I’d much rather see a director who is passionate about the source material do a remake, rather than something like “White Chicks 2: That Time of the Month” or an “American Werewolf in London: Our Wolves are better than Twilight’s”.
@The Big Dentist
Even I have to admit that most (alright…all) remakes pale in comparison to their original counterparts. I’m just trying to remain hopeful for a film that I love and a director that I respect will do alright.
Reeves has a tremendous challenge ahead of him and so much could go wrong. But if all goes right, we have a wonderful adaptation of an instant classic and a director who sets himself apart from the typical Hollywood fare.
@ogb
For every sucky remake made, there might be a decent movie that DIDN’T get made because the money and resources went into that instead.
Vic
Vic
I know what you’re saying, and I’m not disagreeing, but you are stretching it a bit.
I think horrible movies would get made either way. Yes a remake carries a certain stigma (lazy, not original, etc.) and that should be noted.
You could argue for every original sucky move a decent remake could be made.
I guess my point is that these remakes die a natural death and I’ve been seeing that a lot lately. People, although not that smart in general when it comes to movies, know when a remake is really bad. The middle of the road remakes are still making money, but those are OK movies that don’t really bother me. The truly bad ones are often singled out and actors’ or directors’ careers can be really hurt.
Ogb, I would rather see a seqeul to “Snakes on a Plane” then this remake.
instead of remakes why dont we spread the word and make most of the population of the u.s.a. start watching subtitled movies.
but no because u.s.a. is a majority of meat heads and snobs to good to read some words on a screen….
..
its gunna be like quarantine all over again.
Iggy o horror, if only half of the population read Screen Rant we wouldn’t have this problem.
790
Well Snakes on a Plane was sort of a “remake” of the SNL skit. If you’re saying Snakes on a Plane was original that is (or more original than this remake).
Ogb, your point of view pops up about twice a year on these remake threads. I have to agree with Vic’s pov that these films are just studio fodder usually directed at making a quick buck and providing training for newbee directors.
Most if not all these film properties are already owned by the studio. Therefore they get a cheap thrown together film that they call quality entertainment.
The way I see it, these remakes are only gaining strength. There’s no slow down in sight,,,, hence the frustration…
The Cloverfield director should be working on a sequel to Cloverfield not a film that came out less than 2 years ago. That’s insane!
Speaking of SNL, whens the “Mango” film supposed to come out ? I could even go for a “Debbie Downer” epic.
I totally love this movie. I’ve watched it many times and probably will again. There’s something different about movies from other countries. The atmosphere, the characters etc. I personally would rather hear the original language of the movie and read the subtitles. I guess the US release had the subtitles botched up somehow. A sequel would be better than a remake. It hasn’t even been out that long… geesh. It would be cool to see Eli somehow get her curse lifted and her and Oskar grow up together. That’s what the movie left me feeling like. I’m in america and love foriegn films…. peace out!!!!
What's your opinion? Leave a Reply!
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!