Let the remade one in?
By the time LiC reviewed the Swedish coming-of-age vampire movie Let the Right One In last October, plans were already afoot for a US remake (now called Let Me In) from Matt Reeves, the guy who directed the un-excellent Cloverfield. It’s our considered opinion that this is a stupid idea, but in the big picture it’s pretty harmless. The original film had plenty of time to shine on its own and everyone has had plenty of opportunity to see it. People can choose to see the remake or not and maybe a few of them will be curious to seek out the original.
Mark Olsen of LA Times’ Hero Complex blog spoke to Mr. Reeves about why he’s remaking the film and we have to admit he said the right things. It turns out Overture Films came to him with the idea of a remake and when he watched the original he was hooked. He’s also well aware that fans of the movie are watching him closely:
“There’s definitely people who have a real bull’s-eye on the film and I can understand because of people’s’ love of the [original] film that there’s this cynicism that I’ll come in and trash it, when in fact I have nothing but respect for the film. I’m so drawn to it for personal and not mercenary reasons, my feeling about it is if I didn’t feel a personal connection and feel it could be its own film, I wouldn’t be doing it. I hope people give us a chance.”
We’re still skeptical about the necessity for a remake, but we’ll withhold further judgment until we see the movie. Reeves’ heart seems to be in the right place at least.
Via: ComingSoon
Filed under: Development
Tags: Let Me In, Let the Right One In, Matt Reeves
I’ll give him one thing, he did a great job on CLOVERFIELD. Otherwise I don’t think this is a good fit of material for him.
Maybe I would feel differently if he weren’t remaking a film that has no reason to be remade.
Well, so far he hasn’t given me a good reason for a remake other than cash-in-pocket so I remain utterly skeptical. He proved very little to me on Cloverfield but whatever, this remake was probably inevitable. Maybe he won’t make a complete travesty of it, but unless there’s some great new angle on the source material I still don’t see the point. It doesn’t help matters that Reeves hadn’t even seen the movie until AFTER they offered him the gig.
(shrugs)
He gets points for being merely clueless as opposed to full-fledged whoring. EVERY director says that when they do a remake, they’re going to be respectful and bring something fresh to the material and yadda yadda, and the bad remakes still outnumber the good by about 6 to 1. And there’s no reason to think that he knows how to make a good movie.
I actually feel like the “I have nothing but respect for it” excuse is even more offensive than saying “what’s that? a foreign film? So what?”
Remaking unique foreign films for mass American audiences is one of Hollywood’s ugliest trends. This director is a commercial filmmaker. “Let the Right One In” was not a commercial film. And it doesn’t sound like he’s writing his own adaptation of the book either. I mean, “Let Me In”? Really?
Maybe next week we’ll have JJ Abrams direct “Spring Summer Fall Winter and Spring and Summer and Spring and Winter and Fall…..and Summer”.
I find the “respect” reasoning more offensive as well, proof the directors are either trying to fool audiences or themselves or both.
Truthfully, I didn’t think much of the original though, so this is kind of an “eh”.
I love STAR WARS so much I want to remake it. I love ANNIE HALL so much I want to remake it. I love BLUE VELVET so much I want to remake it. I love ALIEN so much I want to remake it…
I would argue that real artists don’t roll this way.
10 times more people tune in to reruns of the George Lopez Show than watched Let the Right One In during it’s 6 month US run.
I’m not sure what my point here is. The remake trend is sad, but it’s never going to go away and if you’re going to do one, you might as well start with something good that no one saw.
Having said that, I can’t think of a single reason why I’d want to see this and yeah, I’m not sure what he’s supposed to say “I really just want to rape Swedish movies” ?
Christian may just have a point. I’m trying to think of a major artist who has done remakes besides Scorsese who did it twice, but I just woke up and the brain isn’t working yet. Help me out here.
Cloverfield was mostly crap. The acting was crap and that’s partly the director’s fault. The rest was all gimmick and cinematography.
I’ve said this before, but I don’t think Scorsese is in the major artist business anymore – he’s, in order to survive in the business, franchised his fevered visual style for the purpose of glossing up genre movies. I’m not tryin’ to hate but that’s almost inarguable.
Well there have been lots of great and bad remakes from respected directors, big and small. Off the top of my head I can think of Speilberg’s War of the Worlds, Gus Van Sant’s Psycho, Carpenter’s The Thing, The Coen Brothers’ Lady Killers, etc.
Remakes in general speak to a lack of originality, but they sometimes yield interesting results. Of course, the bad tend to outweigh the good, especially when the source material is so fresh and the remake is so obviously motivated by sheer commercial considerations.
Ouch, Chuck. Not sure I can argue against your point though, based on sheer circumstantial evidence, but I’d like to believe you’re wrong.
There you go Joel, I knew you’d come through.
I like all of those remakes to one degree or another. Psycho isn’t as bad as its reputation, it was an interesting experiment but a bit pointless. Lady Killers also has a horrible reputation yet it has its moments. I really like War of the Worlds and The Thing…well The Thing is great.
What I like about The Thing is that Carpenter took the same raw material, but made a movie that pushes totally different buttons.
In a sense, it’s almost a perfect remake. It took a film that a large chunk of the modern audience had never seen, applied improved technology and spun it so it was relevant to audiences 30 years later. Also, it had Kurt Russell in it.
I’m going to have to disagree with Chuck as well. Looking back through the awards and the hype, my estimation of The Departed has dipped a bit, but taken on its own terms it feels like a big energetic palate cleanser. His previous two theatrical films, Gangs and Aviator (both a little underrated in my book) were marred by blatant Oscar pretentions. It felt like he was trying to impress the blue hairs so he could take his place beside his heroes.
The Departed on the other hand felt like a fuck it all I’m just making movies head clearing. And it was a fun one. That it has later been inflated into some kind of event picture I don’t think was his original intention. I think working in genre gave him the freedom to create and express out of the spotlight a little bit…just like working on B movies used to for artists back when there WERE B movies.
In between all that I don’t think you can underestimate his work on the Blues documentary and the Dylan thing.
Having said all that, I continue to have reservations about Shutter Island. Still haven’t watched the trailer so I don’t know what to expect (though I’m hearing horror/thriller), but Lehane just gives me a bad feeling.
And honestly I’m disappointed he might be doing the Sinatra bio instead of The Silence, but I think it’s too early to say he’s sold out.
I think I’m with Chuck on this one, but I don’t totally see it as a negative thing. I think post “Gangs of New York”, which despite its flaws is still Scorsese in major artist mode, he decided to make mainstream studio movies with a level of professionalism that you don’t see from most studio filmmakers. “Aviator”, “The Departed”, “Shutter Island”, and the upcoming Sinatra film represent that studio Scorsese. I think in the case of “The Aviator” it worked beautifully. But I still say “The Departed” is his single worst film though. If he does the studio thing, I hope he stays away from “crime”. Because in that film’s case it felt like was rehashing aesthetic choices from early, better movies in his career, only for a crime movie that was impersonal and completely unrealistic. “Casino” can be seen as a sequel to “Goodfellas”, but there’s still an ambition behind it, there’s still a sense of meticulous detail and authenticity. “The Departed”….not so much. I know a lot of people love the pace and suspense in it….to me it was the first time where I felt like he was running out of gas. That’s why the concept of “Silence” is so exciting to me.
Peter Jackson’s KING KONG was excellent, but his reasoning for remaking it made sense. He was fulfilling a childhood dream and it payed off in spades. And it was different enough to stand on its own alongside the original.
No one can question Jackson’s motives for making King Kong, though I know the result was controversial.
What do you suppose it is though that would make an artist take something they love and then think that they could redo it? Kong has the benefit of 70 years passing and it had already been remade (a version I liked, but then I was like 7). I’m sure there are plenty of interviews I could look up with Peter Jackson talking about it, but I’m lazy.
That’s an interesting take on Departed Ari. For me The Departed felt like a recharging of batteries rather than a running out of gas. To carry on a jazz metaphor that I started earlier, someone compared My Blueberry Nights to the performance of a jazz combo having an informal jam session after the real show was over. A kind of loose affair and rough around the edges, but free and still bursting with creative energy. I think this idea applies to Departed.
I don’t think Scorsese was breaking new ground, but I think he was having fun.
KING KONG was a love letter, but like most love letters, goes on and on and on…
As fer THE THING, it’s not a remake but a closer interpretation of the original short story.
And I’m stymied by people who think THE DEPARTED was anything special. It’s all over the place and Wahlberg is just awful. Yell in every scene and the Oscar nom is yours!
As for Zant’s PSYCHO, I chalk that up to too much PBR!
I take pride in stymying you with my appreciation for The Departed. I trust we can still be friends.
If The Departed hadn’t caught Oscar fever, I’m not sure we’d be having this debate.
I had fun with The Departed.
“Enjoy your clams, cocksuckers.”
I have no problem with the idea of remakes. Regardless of whether or not Scorsese is past his prime I trust the artistic integrity of the man enough to feel confident he’ll bring his own vision to the work within the confines of the genre. But I have no confidence that a commercial film maker like Reeves is going to offer anything of interest. Presumably he’ll make something more accessible to a general audience and by doing so replicate nothing that made the Swedish art house film work so incredibly well. Let’s hope he surprises us.
To be fair, the book was called Let Me In during an earlier English language print run.
Back to Marty. By my own reckoning he’s been in decline for a number of years. Yet, even his films I find least successful (e.g. Aviator, Gangs) contain sequences and moments that dazzle with the old magic. The Departed felt to me like a vigorous return to form, still a long way from his very best and lacking resonance, but better than many others would likely muster with the same source material.
“It’s our considered opinion that this is a stupid idea, but in the big picture it’s pretty harmless”
Yeah, that’s pretty much my take as well. If it does bring some added attention to that wonderful original film, then some good will be done.
Am I going to get clobbered if I say I didn’t are for Infernal Affairs all that much?
I was going to say Sartre that it might be unfair to characterize Reeves as a mainstream filmmaker at this point in his career, but then I looked at some of the movies he’s been involved with as a writer and I’m thinking maybe you’re right.
On the other hand, Martin Scorsese got his start making B pictures for Roger Corman.
I’d love for Reeves to surprise us Craig, I just haven’t seen any evidence for optimism. I liked Infernal Affairs but never understood why it was so highly regarded. The Departed took the central premise but otherwise seemed like a completely different kettle of fish.
At this point I feel like Reeves can do whatever he wants and it doesn’t really matter. It’s not like the original will suddenly become unavailable.
Agree, it ultimately doesn’t matter. But it gave us an excuse for throwing ideas around.