Absolutely woeful
-
nemesis — 3 years ago(April 17, 2022 11:49 PM)
Calm down! I "literally" do have an idea What I'm talking about, having read the book and seen both films. What am I lying about?
The Swedish adaptation is superior in so many ways. There is a real connection between Oskar and Eli which is unfortunately missing In Let me In. It also includes the very important plot point I mentioned in my previous post. You must know what I'm talking about?
In the American version there are several identical scenes which are almost shot for shot. This has been observed by many people, viewers and critics alike, including respected film critic Mark Kermode. So it's pretty much indisputable. -
MagneticMonopole — 3 years ago(April 18, 2022 01:53 AM)
What am I lying about?
"Shot by shot remake" is just complete bullshit. Note that once I called you out on this nonsense, you finally toned down your hysterical take to "several" identical scenes. Even if true, this is not a criticism–Reeves could have been doing this as an homage.
The Swedish adaptation is superior in so many ways. There is a real connection between Oskar and Eli which is unfortunately missing In Let me In.
Completely and utterly subjective, impossible to back up with objective facts. Period. I think the American version is actually better, but unlike you I am not so stupid and arrogant to immediately assume my own personal impressions are the rule of law.
It also includes the very important plot point I mentioned in my previous post.
Having read the book before seeing either version of the film, I can say that this "important" plot point isn't really that important. Sorry you have such a pathetic attachment to fidelity to the source material. -
nemesis — 3 years ago(April 18, 2022 07:51 AM)
Wow, you go from 0-60 with the anger!
Note that once I called you out on this nonsense, you finally toned down your hysterical take to "several" identical scenes
Nope, this was my first post on the subject in this thread.
It is
more or less
shot for shot LTROI, except that the American version left out a hugely important plot point.
It was a pointless, pointless remake which brought nothing new to the table except an insult to the audience.
Nothing hysterical there, so stop making things up.
Even if true, this is not a criticism–Reeves could have been doing this as an homage.
Homage? Doubtful, the film came out 2 years after LTROI!
Lazy copy intended for audiences too lazy to read subtitles is more accurate. Cashing in on the success of a beautiful film? Definitely.
Completely and utterly subjective, impossible to back up with objective facts.
My apologies,
in my opinion
the Swedish adaptation is superior in so many ways.
I think the American version is actually better, but unlike you I am not so stupid and arrogant to immediately assume my own personal impressions are the rule of law.
Yet here you insulting and exaggerating your way through the conversation, having a childish tantrum because several posters disagree with you!
By the way , "rule of law"? Grow up, I was merely expressing why the remake was pointless.
Having read the book before seeing either version of the film, I can say that this "important" plot point isn't really that important. Sorry you have such a pathetic attachment to fidelity to the source material.
Yes, you read the book we get it. There you go again with the insults, do you talk to people like this in your real life? I don't have a attachment to the source material, some sub-plots like zombie Hakan are elements I didn't miss. However, that
Eli was originally a male
was without doubt important to the film. It transcends their love from a mere not meets girl. -
MagneticMonopole — 3 years ago(April 18, 2022 10:14 AM)
Nope, this was my first post on the subject in this thread.
It is more or less shot for shot LTROI,. . .
Again, this is an absolute hysterical lie. Only a meaningless handful of sequences can be said to duplicate the original. This is just a fact.
It was a pointless, pointless remake which brought nothing new to the table. . .
A. It was stylistically far more adventurous than the first adaptation. The Father's epic failure scene has no parallel in the original, for instance.
B. The addition of the 1980's Satanic Panic obsession held by the cop was a genius addition to the screenplay to add uniquely American historical context. He couldn't use the 1980's Swedish culture detail, so this was a brilliant substitute.
Homage? Doubtful, the film came out 2 years after LTROI!
Congratulations for making absolutely no sense. How do you infer logically from "two years later" to "not homage"? I'd like to see the steps of clown logic you took in that mind of yours.
Lazy copy intended for audiences too lazy to read subtitles is more accurate.
A new take on the material by an artist who loved the book fits better with all the facts we have.
However, that
Eli was originally a male
was without doubt important to the film.
No, cupcake, the only thing that is important to the film is what is inside of the film and internally consistent. Reeves obviously decided that he wanted to tell a version of the story without that twist, which no one was going to miss who had never read the book or seen the first adaptation. And sadly, in America that's 90% of his target audience.(Arguably, even the Swedish version downplayed the third act reveal.)
It would be a fair criticism to say that he went with typical American schmaltz to have the ending remain a somewhat sweet love story instead of diving into implications suggesting more cruelty and manipulation on the part of Abby, and part of me sort of wishes Reeve had left it in, but I'm ultimately okay with his choice.
Long story short–it's adorable that you like the first adaptation so much. I love it, too. But it is just childish of you to become so attached to it that you are forced to pit both versions against each other as if there is some sort of contest where a winner has to be picked and the virtues of one film ignored. Very pathetic. -
nemesis — 3 years ago(April 18, 2022 02:51 PM)
Again, this is an absolute hysterical lie.
I'm genuinely perplexed as to how you get hysterical from
"It is more or less shot for shot LTROI".
Your reaction, on the other hand IS hysterical!
Congratulations for making absolutely no sense. How do you infer logically from "two years later" to "not homage"? I'd like to see the steps of clown logic you took in that mind of yours.
Oh behave and stop being disingenuous, you know as well as I that in terms of film an homage is a tribute to an earlier film or collection of films. For example, Duncan Jones' Moon pays homage to 70's Sci-Fi films.
Long story short–it's adorable that you like the first adaptation so much. I love it, too. But it is just childish of you to become so attached to it that you are forced to pit both versions against each other as if there is some sort of contest where a winner has to be picked and the virtues of one film ignored. Very pathetic.
Well firstly, you are making stuff up again, you should try to stop that! Secondly, obviously the two films are going to be compared, it would be crazy to believe otherwise. I compared the two and found the remake to be superfluous.
LMI is (in my opinion) a pointless remake when it is so similar to the original and that's basically all I've said. Your own "hysterical" reaction, with the insults (I mean "cupcake"? Fuck off with that patronising ****) tells me that you're the one who can't tolerate different opinions.
Toodle pip. -
MagneticMonopole — 3 years ago(April 18, 2022 03:08 PM)
I'm genuinely perplexed as to how you get hysterical from
"It is more or less shot for shot LTROI".
Because this is a crazed lie, period. It is not in any reasonable sense a shot for shot remake. Any claim to that effect is just pure lunacy.
If you really believe this and aren't just engaging in childish hyperbole to attack the second film, you are exactly like the crackpots who think they see Jesus in the mold on their walls.
Oh behave and stop being disingenuous, you know as well as I that in terms of film an homage is a tribute to an earlier film or collection of films.
You are the one being disingenuous, here. If Reeves really did consciously duplicate some scenes from the original out of admiration for what the other director did, that's still an example of homage.
MI is (in my opinion) a pointless remake when it is so similar to the original and that's basically all I've said.
No, you couldn't just say that. You had to lie, accusing it of being so close to the first adaptation that it is more or less a shot for shot duplicate. This is utter bullshit completely divorced from objective reality.
Both films adapt the same novel and that is the primary source of the similarities. Almost no one in America was ever going to see the Swedish version or read the book, so making an English language version serves the completely reasonable function of bringing the story to new audiences.
And guess what–the vast majority of critics loved the second try, making your negative assessment a mere fringe minority take. You are welcome to it, but other than lying about the film or making unreasonable claims that no one should have adapted it a second time, you offer no coherent reason for thinking Reeves dropped the ball. Indeed, as a critic you leave a lot to be desired. -
nemesis — 3 years ago(April 18, 2022 03:20 PM)
You're boring me now, you're overly invested in this to the point that you've lost control.
I'm happy that you prefer the inferior remake.
This is the bottom line, one is a stunningly beautiful film, shot in a wonderful landscape and the other is a poor copy that betrays the source material with a glaring omission.
Now, jog on "cupcake" this conversation is over. -
MagneticMonopole — 3 years ago(April 18, 2022 04:51 PM)
nemesis said...
You're boring me now, you're overly invested in this to the point that you've lost control.
I'm happy that you prefer the inferior remake.
This is the bottom line, one is a stunningly beautiful film, shot in a wonderful landscape and the other is a poor copy that betrays the source material with a glaring omission.
Now, jog on "cupcake" this conversation is over.
Again, you are welcome to your completely uninformed, out of touch, utterly fringe minority opinion. Too bad you have to make up lies to justify yourself. What a clown. -
MagneticMonopole — 4 years ago(March 19, 2022 06:48 PM)
A dark superhero movie for the sake of it.
It was dark because the source material has been dark for literally decades, not just "for the sake of it". It is more faithful to the tone and mood you find in the best modern comic books and graphic novels than any other live action adaptation has ever been, and that's why, despite your hate, it is going to go down as a classic take on the character of Batman for decades to come. -
I'VE BEEN OAN THE LASH FER 5 WEEKS — 4 years ago(March 19, 2022 07:19 PM)
There is nothing classic about this, sweetie. It's being panned and rightly so.
This is paint by numbers, cookie cutter dirge for the ignorant morons who know no better, laddie.
Thank you for talking to me -
I'VE BEEN OAN THE LASH FER 5 WEEKS — 4 years ago(March 19, 2022 07:31 PM)
It has terrible reviews for a massive budget movie with so much anticipation and an elite cast.
Are you going to melt down and throw Nelson Muntz style pejoratives now like you normally do?
Thank you for talking to me -
MagneticMonopole — 4 years ago(March 19, 2022 07:32 PM)
It has terrible reviews for a massive budget movie with so much anticipation and an elite cast.
I hate to break it too you, cupcake, but most filmmakers would kill to get the kind of critical reception this one is getting. You are simply out of touch. -
I'VE BEEN OAN THE LASH FER 5 WEEKS — 4 years ago(March 19, 2022 07:34 PM)
I'm a filmmaker myself and considered the main movie expert this website has. I was taught by J Neil Schulman himself.
I'm sorry, sugar, but this monstrosity has been panned and you need to accept this.
Thank you for talking to me