Let Me In Review

Let Me In film still

Score

Fans of the original will no doubt pore over each and every borrowed detail, but this is Reeves’ own vision and it has a tragic grandeur all of its own.

On a winding, snow-banked highway in the town of Los Alamos, New Mexico, Let Me In opens with a statement of intent from director Matt Reeves. As the whir of police sirens yields to Michael Giacchino’s relentless, looming score, the tone is ominously and conspicuously set. This is a horror film, bloody and unabashed. What else did you expect?

Understandably, though perhaps unfairly, Reeves has been at the mercy of the bloggers’ wrath ever since his name was attached to this adaptation of John Ajvide Lindqvist’s novel and remake of Tomas Alfredson’s anti-horror masterpiece, Let the Right One In. Of all the doubts cast over Let Me In, one issue recurred more than any other: the director, whose only previous feature, 2008’s Cloverfield, was hardly renowned for its subtlety and restraint.

Such qualities would be indispensable for anyone looking to capture the serenity and emotional maturity of Alfredson’s original. But Reeves’ film isn’t about holding back. It’s about classic archetypes – victims, suburban tedium and highschool politics. It’s about bloodshed, revenge and unleashing the beast within.

Superficially, then, Let Me In is a full-blown genre flick: the eerie quietude so deftly composed by its predecessor is here ousted by bloodcurdling screams and eye-watering violence. It’s explicit, but somehow this change of tack works.

It’s easy to condemn Reeves for trying to spoon-feed the uncultured masses, but Let Me In isn’t aimed exclusively at audiences who find slow-burning Swedish drama a hard sell. Under the newly resurrected Hammer banner, even the most ardent critic would be hard-pushed to brand Let Me In the cinematic sacrilege it might have been.

In truth, the more you draw comparisons between the two films, the more incomparable they become. Shot-for-shot reconstructions of several iconic scenes may reaffirm Let the Right One In’s unequivocal brilliance, but Reeves never concerns himself with trying to better perfection. Instead, he simply tells his version of a bittersweet coming-of-age story that, in essence, could take place on any street, in any neighbourhood, in any town.

His task is eased by the presence of Chloe Moretz and Kodi Smit-McPhee, who, after staving off supervillains and the apocalypse respectively, are superb as the more anglicised Abby and Owen. While Moretz and Smit-McPhee are likely to receive most of the plaudits, however, it’s Reeves’ development of several fringe characters (notably Richard Jenkins’ Father and Elias Koteas’ Policeman) along with the odd personal touch that gives Let Me In its own voice.

Swapping rural Scandinavia for small town USA and background pop culture references – Ms. Pac-Man, Bowie, televised seeds of Reaganomics – textures the film with nods to Reeves’ own adolescence. Fans of the book and Alfredson’s film will no doubt pore over each and every borrowed detail, but this is Reeves’ own vision and it has a tragic grandeur all of its own.

Anticipation

A refined Swedish masterpiece gets a Hollywood makeover. What could go wrong?

3

Enjoyment

A surprisingly personal reimagination that ought to shake up mainstream horror cinema.

4

In Retrospect

After all the talk about the director, it’s the performances of Chloe Moretz and Kodi Smit-McPhee that really linger.

3
Out This Week
Still Showing
Recommended*

View 12 comments

jamescraig2000

2 years ago
Awesome review. Kodi made it so worth it.

edd

2 years ago
Matt Reeves' debut feature was The Pallbearer in 1996, not Cloverfield.

chris olson

2 years ago
Fantastic review, picking up on the original elements to Reeves' film. I found the isolation of the characters was linked superbly with a bitterly cold setting and a loneliness that seems palpable.

Adam

2 years ago
Good spot Edd, although any romcom starring Gwenyth Paltrow and David Schwimmer is probably worth forgetting anyway.

Anton Bitel

2 years ago
Nice review - although, for what it's worth, I don't think the original was set in 'rural' Scandinavia. Blackeberg is a working-class suburb of Sweden's capital. Interesting that the remake unfolds in a town that was originally built to accommodate the scientists working on the Manhattan Project during the Second World War. Los Alamos is therefore a town forever associated with secrecy, disproportionate violence and, if you like, evil.

Tom

2 years ago
Apparently Reeves was pretty down about shooting in Los Alamos - he was forced to do it because of tax breaks from the production company. And then he read up and realised about the Manhattan Project etc, and that really fired his imagination. The Reaganisms in the film really work for me...

Tom

2 years ago
AND apparently Los Alamos has the highest average IQ in America, and the highest number of churches per capita...

Frank

2 years ago
Kodi Smit McPhee looks destined to be in big movies for a long, long period of time. Very natural performance. Chloe Moretz looked so stilted to me. She had a couple of strong scenes, but a lot of her reactions looked premeditated, forced. Same goes for Kick Ass. She's horribly over-rated.

Anton Bitel

2 years ago
Perhaps that is only to be expected from a community sired by an élite of nuclear physicists, and with a closer historical connection to Armageddon-style powers than most...

Anton Bitel

2 years ago
I strongly recommend that anyone who likes Kodi Smit-McPhee should track down a copy of Richard Roxburgh's amazing directorial debut Romulus, My Father (2007), in which he plays the philosopher Raimond Gaita (on whose memoirs the film is based) as a boy. With its emphasis on the bond between father and son in an unforgiving environment, it makes an interesting companion piece to The Road - and, though less well known, it is every bit as good.

Jimmy Hoffa

2 years ago
To that I would like to add the first two minutes of Wolverine, which I was fortunate enough to catch on Sky recently.

On second thoughts, no I wouldn't.

Robert Rodarte

2 years ago
One shouldn't get a free pass thanks to hindsight. Reeves went in with only that. Here is a great near perfect movie. Let me take some of the complaints found in the original from a small but vocal minority and make those changes happen. That isn't art or talent, that's hindsight. You shouldn't tackle a remake because you can make a movie slightly better. You see two movies and they both tell the same story(more or less), except one has a genuine heart and soul and the other is a superficial robot that shows. Let Me In is indeed a good movie made out of a great one, and because of that it suffers from being pointless(and with Reeves happily taking credit for all of it, downright insulting). When watching a movie and the entire time you are thinking(if you are honest about it) what is the point? You've just seen something much worse than a bad B, Mystery Science Theater 3000 movie.
Comments are closed.