Let The Right One In

[playbynumbers]

I saw it in cinema about a week before people on here started mentioning it and I think it's a hopeless piece of wank, that's why I said I thought there was a joke going on. :wink2:

 

Seriously though, I intensely dislike it. The story might be tolerable if it was a film for kids, but for a film that's taking itself dead serious like this one it's just...I don't know... it throws in a couple of splatter-bits that don't make much sense and don't even look good enough or are generally introduced too randomly to be shocking or anything, and I don't get why everyone's thinking it's so beautiful either. ... The actual camera-work of LTROI was pretty average, sometimes even annoying cause you could tell they were aiming for a whole lot more but didn't succeed. I had high hopes in the beginning, but eventually gave up on it. There were about four shots in the film that had a good and working composition, at least to my eye, and fancy depth of field can't make up for that. You can create impressive looking stuff using a shitty camcorder, but also the other way round. So many times it felt like they wanted to emulate the look you find e.g. in many of Michael Haneke's (Funny Games) films, meaning very steady, minimalistic shots, often of long duration, hence creating the feel of realism. After all, one could argue that realism is kind of expendable when you're making a film about kid-vampires, stealing bits from all over the place and generally follow a completely pointless plot. I'm not one for saying every film needs to have a moral in order to be good, but it should at least be clear about what it wants to be. Does LTROI have a moral, a meaning, anything? Fight violence with more violence, rip some heads off, problems solved, I don't know? Boy's getting bullied, so he calls his stronger undead friend to kill the bullies... it's not exactly a contructive message, nor is it really entertaining... But regardless of all my hate, it's just such a forgettable stupid little film, which is why it's bothering me so much that people who are often discussing and recommending each other real good films fall for this lazy stub, I don't get it

 

 

 

right, what this guy said

[Guest Mirezzi]

I thought the politics of violence, or ethics, or however you want to phrase it, of LTROI was the least convicted and weakest part of the film, but I'd rather watch it again before discussing that in detail. I thought it was contradictory in that regard, like the writer couldn't decide whether the story was about the redeeming and salutary effects of friendship and intimacy...or...a straight forward revenge tragedy about the cycle of violence. The idea of gender, child abuse, and pedophilia, was fascinating. I don't see how you can dismiss it so quickly. (Come on, they reference Deliverance rather awesomely, too.)

 

That being said, I don't recall the photography that much so if you found it pretentious, that's odd because I thought it was fairly pedantic and unaffected! In fact, I remember thinking there were only one or two moment's in the film where I was really interested in the photography. The scene right at the beginning when Hakan was bleeding the guy like a deer, right out in bright light without a care in the world. It was such an unusual choice, but I dug it.

[playbynumbers]

I thought the politics of violence, or ethics, or however you want to phrase it, of LTROI was the least convicted and weakest part of the film, but I'd rather watch it again before discussing that in detail. I thought it was contradictory in that regard, like the writer couldn't decide whether the story was about the redeeming and salutary effects of friendship and intimacy...or...a straight forward revenge tragedy about the cycle of violence. The idea of gender, child abuse, and pedophilia, was fascinating. I don't see how you can dismiss it so quickly. (Come on, they reference Deliverance rather awesomely, too.)

 

right, exactly; the moral is ... it's okay to team up with a murdering vampire and abandon your family and go live on the lam? it would have made more sense if she (or she/he) had just left after the scene in the pool, leaving him to conduct his life more rationally, etc. friendship/intimacy based on mass murder isn't really sufficient.

 

 

 

 

That being said, I don't recall the photography that much so if you found it pretentious, that's odd because I thought it was fairly pedantic and unaffected! In fact, I remember thinking there were only one or two moment's in the film where I was really interested in the photography. The scene right at the beginning when Hakan was bleeding the guy like a deer, right out in bright light without a care in the world. It was such an unusual choice, but I dug it.

 

that is interesting, as i really felt like each shot was straining to be ART. it reminded me of haneke, or the more recent van sant, where every shot is framed "just so," yet not done as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

and all right, if i'm being totally fair, i would still give the film like a 7 out of 10; it could have been much worse. i guess i just had much higher expectations, and then i have the flu, lol, so things probably annoyed me more quickly than they would have normally.

 

(also, what have you done with mirezzi? who is this calm, reasonable person?)

[Guest Mirezzi]

I think it's those contradictions, and therein the subtleties, of LTROI that sucked me in. In fact, I thought it was an incredibly sinister, but unavoidable reading of the story that Eli actually has baited Oskar from the get-go. She sees that he has some penchant for violence; in fact, that's how they meet. Her dollish, meek innocence, which has brought out pedophiles from within the diegesis and without from "fans" of the film (you should read the creepy fucking posts on the net about the actress), is set provocatively against her transformation into a conniving, manipulative killer.

 

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

The Freudian metaphors of Eli's castration and Oskar's first violent "erection" (slamming and bloodying the bully at school with the rather long stick) were all over the film, but I wonder if they're more elegantly explored in the book itself. I think the novel was handled boorishly at points while incredibly understated at others.

 

I remember having a similar reaction to Dogville's violence, although this time it was much more intellectual. With Dogville, I wanted revenge so bad I could taste it, but it came as such an unexpected rush that my reaction was more release than relief. With LTROI, it was rather the opposite. I didn't want the kids to be killed, but I think schoolyard bullies are the lowest fucking forms of scum on the earth, so if some bully post-Columbine cunt was watching LTROI and treated it as a cautionary tale, so be it.

 

The more I think about it, I don't see why it can't be both a revenge tragedy, however clumsy it handles that, while at the same time exploring the nature of childhood friendships.

 

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

Meanwhile, there's the element of the uncanny, since the girl is not really a girl, nor is she young. I think the film's ending, which is rife with possibilities and different readings, is the most appropriate ending I can think of for the material. I really should read the book though.

 

P.S. - I am usually only an unruly prick about movies when I hate something everybody likes. I don't mind it so much when people hate things I like. <3

[Guest Mirezzi]

Really, I am a sucker for vampire films, or moreover, any horror films, and anything dealing in the uncanny / fantastic can win me over rather easily.

[Guest telikan]

pbn seems to think films shouldn't have noticeable cinematography, and require a moral to the story....

:undecided:

 

not really what i look for personally.

[Squee]

Phew, this thread had too much parity. At least it's not me this time.

 

 

 

 

lol, well, if i hadn't been told that it was a masterpiece art film that transcended the horror genre, or been told that it was the best film of 2008 (both of these things were said to me), maybe i would have been pleasantly surprised. but, no.

 

honestly i think people are being fooled by this movie; sure, it's somewhat well-shot, but not THAT well-shot. it's a film that sure is TRYING to have every frame scream out "ARTFUL FRAMING!", where in actuality it just became mannered and boring and deadening, and isn't actually done particularly well (i can list dozens of films released in the last few years with better cinematography).

 

and again, it just made no sense in relation to the story ... like when the 12-year-old vampire girl violently attacks the guy under the bridge, and the director seemed to think this would be the perfect time for the millionth wide-frame bergman-lite overarranged shot of nightime snow gently falling, etc.

 

i can see how the themes of the plot were SUPPOSED to fit together (and probably did, in the book); alienation, love, blah blah. but the film itself was sterile and clinical; it didn't move me at all, which shouldn't be too hard to do with a story like this.

 

it's sort of like with kar-wai's films, where, if you squint enough, you can see (hidden underneath the sloppy, badly-edited, badly-acted mess of a film) what he was TRYING to do. and even at his worst, he gets across mood/atmosphere far more effectively than 'let the right one in.'

 

 

I saw it in cinema about a week before people on here started mentioning it and I think it's a hopeless piece of wank, that's why I said I thought there was a joke going on. :wink2:

 

Seriously though, I intensely dislike it. The story might be tolerable if it was a film for kids, but for a film that's taking itself dead serious like this one it's just...I don't know... it throws in a couple of splatter-bits that don't make much sense and don't even look good enough or are generally introduced too randomly to be shocking or anything, and I don't get why everyone's thinking it's so beautiful either. ... The actual camera-work of LTROI was pretty average, sometimes even annoying cause you could tell they were aiming for a whole lot more but didn't succeed. I had high hopes in the beginning, but eventually gave up on it. There were about four shots in the film that had a good and working composition, at least to my eye, and fancy depth of field can't make up for that. You can create impressive looking stuff using a shitty camcorder, but also the other way round. So many times it felt like they wanted to emulate the look you find e.g. in many of Michael Haneke's (Funny Games) films, meaning very steady, minimalistic shots, often of long duration, hence creating the feel of realism. After all, one could argue that realism is kind of expendable when you're making a film about kid-vampires, stealing bits from all over the place and generally follow a completely pointless plot. I'm not one for saying every film needs to have a moral in order to be good, but it should at least be clear about what it wants to be. Does LTROI have a moral, a meaning, anything? Fight violence with more violence, rip some heads off, problems solved, I don't know? Boy's getting bullied, so he calls his stronger undead friend to kill the bullies... it's not exactly a contructive message, nor is it really entertaining... But regardless of all my hate, it's just such a forgettable stupid little film, which is why it's bothering me so much that people who are often discussing and recommending each other real good films fall for this lazy stub, I don't get it

 

 

 

right, what this guy said

 

 

I thought the politics of violence, or ethics, or however you want to phrase it, of LTROI was the least convicted and weakest part of the film, but I'd rather watch it again before discussing that in detail. I thought it was contradictory in that regard, like the writer couldn't decide whether the story was about the redeeming and salutary effects of friendship and intimacy...or...a straight forward revenge tragedy about the cycle of violence. The idea of gender, child abuse, and pedophilia, was fascinating. I don't see how you can dismiss it so quickly. (Come on, they reference Deliverance rather awesomely, too.)

 

That being said, I don't recall the photography that much so if you found it pretentious, that's odd because I thought it was fairly pedantic and unaffected! In fact, I remember thinking there were only one or two moment's in the film where I was really interested in the photography. The scene right at the beginning when Hakan was bleeding the guy like a deer, right out in bright light without a care in the world. It was such an unusual choice, but I dug it.

 

 

right, exactly; the moral is ... it's okay to team up with a murdering vampire and abandon your family and go live on the lam? it would have made more sense if she (or she/he) had just left after the scene in the pool, leaving him to conduct his life more rationally, etc. friendship/intimacy based on mass murder isn't really sufficient.

 

 

 

 

That being said, I don't recall the photography that much so if you found it pretentious, that's odd because I thought it was fairly pedantic and unaffected! In fact, I remember thinking there were only one or two moment's in the film where I was really interested in the photography. The scene right at the beginning when Hakan was bleeding the guy like a deer, right out in bright light without a care in the world. It was such an unusual choice, but I dug it.

 

that is interesting, as i really felt like each shot was straining to be ART. it reminded me of haneke, or the more recent van sant, where every shot is framed "just so," yet not done as well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

and all right, if i'm being totally fair, i would still give the film like a 7 out of 10; it could have been much worse. i guess i just had much higher expectations, and then i have the flu, lol, so things probably annoyed me more quickly than they would have normally.

 

(also, what have you done with mirezzi? who is this calm, reasonable person?)

 

 

I think it's those contradictions, and therein the subtleties, of LTROI that sucked me in. In fact, I thought it was an incredibly sinister, but unavoidable reading of the story that Eli actually has baited Oskar from the get-go. She sees that he has some penchant for violence; in fact, that's how they meet. Her dollish, meek innocence, which has brought out pedophiles from within the diegesis and without from "fans" of the film (you should read the creepy fucking posts on the net about the actress), is set provocatively against her transformation into a conniving, manipulative killer.

 

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

The Freudian metaphors of Eli's castration and Oskar's first violent "erection" (slamming and bloodying the bully at school with the rather long stick) were all over the film, but I wonder if they're more elegantly explored in the book itself. I think the novel was handled boorishly at points while incredibly understated at others.

 

I remember having a similar reaction to Dogville's violence, although this time it was much more intellectual. With Dogville, I wanted revenge so bad I could taste it, but it came as such an unexpected rush that my reaction was more release than relief. With LTROI, it was rather the opposite. I didn't want the kids to be killed, but I think schoolyard bullies are the lowest fucking forms of scum on the earth, so if some bully post-Columbine cunt was watching LTROI and treated it as a cautionary tale, so be it.

 

The more I think about it, I don't see why it can't be both a revenge tragedy, however clumsy it handles that, while at the same time exploring the nature of childhood friendships.

 

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

Meanwhile, there's the element of the uncanny, since the girl is not really a girl, nor is she young. I think the film's ending, which is rife with possibilities and different readings, is the most appropriate ending I can think of for the material. I really should read the book though.

 

P.S. - I am usually only an unruly prick about movies when I hate something everybody likes. I don't mind it so much when people hate things I like.

 

[playbynumbers]

pbn seems to think films shouldn't have noticeable cinematography, and require a moral to the story....

:undecided:

 

not really what i look for personally.

 

 

 

i love noticeable cinematography, when it's done in an interesting and story-advancing way ('the new world' is the most recent example that comes to mind). and i don't need a moral, but i'd rather have it be clear-cut one way or the other; a moral, or not. versus a vague conflation of the two, like in LTROI. (and even an ambiguous 'moral' can be done well, but this was just confused, and not ambiguous)

[Guest zaphod]

yeah i actually agree with playbynumbers here, sort of. this was one of the best films of last year, but there were almost no good films last year. it was barely a horror film except in the loosest sense. nothing about it disturbed or scared me. the only thing i found eerie or unsettling was the ending; the idea that the boy gets beat up a couple times (big deal) and so it's alright for an audience to cheer on his androgynous vampire friend slaughtering them, then the boy and him/her run off together and this too is ok? maybe i didn't get beaten up enough in middle school to get that...

i'm also just not big on really primal, violent pieces of art that focus on themes like revenge. it just isn't realistic, to me, in the slightest. like, i can't relate at all to someone who feels the need to murder other people, or who just wants to beat up the world, or whatever. it always lapses into being ludicrous.

i didn't have an issue with the cinematography, but i see where pbn is coming from about the forced, deadening quality of the framing of shots. i find that in a lot of foreign films, like it's some other polar extreme of american michael bay lightning editing. it rarely works, maybe ozu could do that, but your swedish vampire movie would probably move along better if every shot weren't set up like it really means something. i had this same problem with no country for old men, which was far, far too serious for its own good. so many slow push in shots from behind a character as they walk. it was so measured it got annoying and tedious.

i totally disagree with you about wong kar wai though, although i have no real defense of his editing style. different strokes...

[lumpenprol]

lol, thanks for ruining the end of the movie for me

[fenton]

right, exactly; the moral is ... it's okay to team up with a murdering vampire and abandon your family and go live on the lam? it would have made more sense if she (or she/he) had just left after the scene in the pool, leaving him to conduct his life more rationally, etc. friendship/intimacy based on mass murder isn't really sufficient.

 

 

 

What a great life you'd have after being found semi-concious in a swimming pool with a load of dismembered corpses dragged about all over the shop.

 

 

Anyone read the book and can tell me if the Sweden in the book knew about vampires existence? I.E. Newspapers reporting on vampire attacks?

 

Or was it, as I assume, all put down to paedophilia/ serial killery.

 

The movie didn't explore the after effects [on the public/community] of the burning corpse in hospital/bite wounds/etc.

 

 

I think Oskar was a badman, I'd totally of gone with Eli whether I'd got to put my 12 year old boner in her scar or vampire cunt or whatever but first I'd of got turned into a vampire too.

 

 

MMM vampire.

[playbynumbers]

i totally disagree with you about wong kar wai though, although i have no real defense of his editing style. different strokes...

 

 

 

 

despite my annoyance with the way in which kar-wai directs actors, and then that all of his films are like 20 minutes too long, i actually own two of his films and (oddly) love his work, almost despite myself. after having seen a couple of his earlier movies, i remember going to 'my blueberry nights' in the theater (with my girlfriend, who insisted on seeing it, despite not knowing who the director was, etc.), and thinking, "wow, kar-wai has outdone himself on the sloppiness this time," ... but then, i shit you not, a week later i couldn't stop thinking about the movie, and decided that it actually was incredibly affecting, and very good, though there were obvious flaws. he just gets across mood so ridiculously well

[Guest Mr Salads]

This movie had a great body falling to the ground scene. I always hate in movies when they fuck those up. This one got it just right. Everything from the sound of the body hitting the awning to how quickly it fell. And its all one shot. I loved that.

[beneboi]

I find it strange that people expect some sort of moral from a movie.

 

I kind of agree about Wong Kar Wai, I watched 2046 recently and wanted to like it, but it felt really (as you said) sloppy, for lack of a better term.

[Guest Mr Salads]

My relationship with wong kar wai is best illustrated in the Alice in Chains song I Stay Away

[Squee]

This movie had a great body falling to the ground scene. I always hate in movies when they fuck those up. This one got it just right. Everything from the sound of the body hitting the awning to how quickly it fell. And its all one shot. I loved that.

 

I couldn't agree more! I laughed in sheer joy when the body slammed its head into the dumpster on the way down.

[Guest Mr Salads]

lol, me too. I felt bad that I laughed, no one else really did.

[Squee]

People falling from buildings in movies makes me wet my pants... Ever since the first Turtles movie I've always loved seeing people fall.

[autopilot]

You'd have loved the 9/11 footage.

 

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

sorry