This brought nothing new to the table. As usual, the American remake is aimed at people who don't like subtitles or subtlety. Even the CGI was fake-looking and distracting. Sure, the kids did a good job, and it could've been a lot worse, but that's not exactly a ringing endorsement.
I love the original more. Though i like the actress who played Eli here, the Eli from the original is more suitable for the role, she's creepy as hell :p
As with many American adaptations of foreign films, most if not all of the subtlety of the original was lost. Moments that should speak for themselves now have dialogue added, robbing scenes of any gravity they may have had.
Likewise, character development was reduced, and in the case of peripheral characters, completely removed. The victims lacking lives of any kind takes so much away from this version of the story, takes the life out of the world the story takes place in.
A very sad remake of an amazing Swedish film, which in turn is an adaptation of an absolutely wonderful novel.
Not as intense as the original. Although they tried, the main characters couldn't re-create the feeling. But still far better than what I expected for a translated video-copy. I'm such a sucker for this story though.
I agree with MrE2Me, except I can't help but be perpetually annoyed with Chloe Metz; There are a lot of pretty shots here, but ultimately something gets lost in translation. Despite this being an almost shot-for-shot remake, the original is far superior.
I saw the original first, then I read the book and finally saw this one, and I totally regret the order I did it in. I remember the first film being very original and creepy. I loved it. The book was amazing except towards the end. This film, while good in it's artistry, was soooooooo disappointing. They mutilated the story. I know movies based on books are never like the book but they usually keep the spirit of it. This one did not at all. It tried to bare the main story so much by taking out all sub-plots that we are left with pretty much nothing. It's like if you're watching a scary movie with the longest build-up and nothing ever happens. The director/writer of the script should shoot himself. The story was so destroyed that we are left with an infinitesimal part of what the book is. Plus the casting is better in the original.
As an admirer of the original I put off watching this, and now I have seen it I was disappointed, even though it's actually a solid bit of film-making it can't compare with a bona fide modern classic. I was seeing whole scenes played out in my mind as the film progressed and realised not a single one was an improvement. Chloe Moretz is a fine actress - but she's not right for Abby/Eli, especially in contrast to Lina Leandersson's deeply unsettling portrayal - there's nothing otherworldly about her at all, she looks like a pretty, normal 12 year old girl to me. if that's what Matt Reeves wanted, fine, but that's so much less interesting. Oh, and the CGI vampire attacks were just awful. It's good enough if you've not seen the original, but you're far better off watching that than this unless you have an aversion to reading. In which case watch Twilight instead and stay firmly within your intelligence bracket.
Wow, this movie was utterly terrible. I knew it was going to be but got talked into watching it with "don't judge a movie till you've seen it". I should have just listened to my gut and not bothered.
My biggest problem with the movie was Abby and the actress who played her. She was not creepy at all and the dialogue was flat. Abbys manner of speaking was way too modern for someone who is supposed to be centuries old. When the kids interacted or when she spoke I did not get the same sense of wrongness about Abby as I got with Eli.
Also, the CGI was TERRIBLE and the fact that Virginia was made young and attractive signifies everything that is wrong with American movies.
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 15 of 28
alma95
I personally think the original one was way better.MrE2Me
This brought nothing new to the table. As usual, the American remake is aimed at people who don't like subtitles or subtlety. Even the CGI was fake-looking and distracting. Sure, the kids did a good job, and it could've been a lot worse, but that's not exactly a ringing endorsement.zaraheco
I love the original more. Though i like the actress who played Eli here, the Eli from the original is more suitable for the role, she's creepy as hell :pSpleen Machine
As with many American adaptations of foreign films, most if not all of the subtlety of the original was lost. Moments that should speak for themselves now have dialogue added, robbing scenes of any gravity they may have had.Likewise, character development was reduced, and in the case of peripheral characters, completely removed. The victims lacking lives of any kind takes so much away from this version of the story, takes the life out of the world the story takes place in.
A very sad remake of an amazing Swedish film, which in turn is an adaptation of an absolutely wonderful novel.
Here is a more in-depth critique for anyone curious.
http://questionablyintelligent.blogspot.com/2011/06/150-days-of-halloween-let-me-in.html
audiopile
Not as intense as the original. Although they tried, the main characters couldn't re-create the feeling. But still far better than what I expected for a translated video-copy. I'm such a sucker for this story though.Jumping Elephant
I agree with MrE2Me, except I can't help but be perpetually annoyed with Chloe Metz; There are a lot of pretty shots here, but ultimately something gets lost in translation. Despite this being an almost shot-for-shot remake, the original is far superior.Cuadie
Loved the shit out of this. Chloë Grace Moretz does a splendid job. Beautiful soundtrack as well.sacmersault
I saw the original first, then I read the book and finally saw this one, and I totally regret the order I did it in. I remember the first film being very original and creepy. I loved it. The book was amazing except towards the end. This film, while good in it's artistry, was soooooooo disappointing. They mutilated the story. I know movies based on books are never like the book but they usually keep the spirit of it. This one did not at all. It tried to bare the main story so much by taking out all sub-plots that we are left with pretty much nothing. It's like if you're watching a scary movie with the longest build-up and nothing ever happens. The director/writer of the script should shoot himself. The story was so destroyed that we are left with an infinitesimal part of what the book is. Plus the casting is better in the original.thaisquisito
that didn't work out...dombrewer
As an admirer of the original I put off watching this, and now I have seen it I was disappointed, even though it's actually a solid bit of film-making it can't compare with a bona fide modern classic. I was seeing whole scenes played out in my mind as the film progressed and realised not a single one was an improvement. Chloe Moretz is a fine actress - but she's not right for Abby/Eli, especially in contrast to Lina Leandersson's deeply unsettling portrayal - there's nothing otherworldly about her at all, she looks like a pretty, normal 12 year old girl to me. if that's what Matt Reeves wanted, fine, but that's so much less interesting. Oh, and the CGI vampire attacks were just awful. It's good enough if you've not seen the original, but you're far better off watching that than this unless you have an aversion to reading. In which case watch Twilight instead and stay firmly within your intelligence bracket.ShibbyMary
Wow, this movie was utterly terrible. I knew it was going to be but got talked into watching it with "don't judge a movie till you've seen it". I should have just listened to my gut and not bothered.My biggest problem with the movie was Abby and the actress who played her. She was not creepy at all and the dialogue was flat. Abbys manner of speaking was way too modern for someone who is supposed to be centuries old. When the kids interacted or when she spoke I did not get the same sense of wrongness about Abby as I got with Eli.
Also, the CGI was TERRIBLE and the fact that Virginia was made young and attractive signifies everything that is wrong with American movies.
DavidLynchFan
A worthy but only decent remake, but it doesn't deliver anything new compared to the original, it's almost excatly the same.Great actors, and a few new cool scenes. Dark and moody like the original, I liked that, but I could have gone without the bad vampire CGI effects.
Rambonator13
one of the best vampire films i ever seen together with its original counterpart.This should not be compare to crappy Twilight!
Mudskipper
so flat and boring augh i dont like itMudskipper
so flat and boring augh i dont like itShowing items 1 – 15 of 28