In honor of Halloween, a day of vampires and naughty misdeeds, I sat down to watch Let the Right One In again — a movie tied to a naughty misdeed of my own. My offending act of immoral behavior? Back when it was released, one year ago, on Oct. 24, 2008, I wrote a review that trashed this pensive and brooding Swedish vampire movie. I called it “arty,” I said that it wasn’t “coherent,” and I accused the hero — a 12-year-old blond boy in a wintry Stockholm suburb who befriends the vampire child next door — of “skulk[ing] through the movie in a blank-faced torpor.”
Few words that I have ever written have provoked such a collective and righteously resentful howl of protest. In the year since I panned Let the Right One In, I have been attacked for this review all over the Web (“Owen Gleiberman should apologize,” “He never actually saw this movie. At least not sober,” “Owen Gleiberman: Welcome to Contraryville, population 1,” “Worst…review…ever!”), and let me say from the outset: I have felt the bitter sting of your wrath.
From virtually the moment this review appeared, there were two aspects of it that I regretted. One is that I made a small factual mistake (more on that in a moment); the other is that I had only 90 words to work with. A longer review, I have no doubt, would have pissed people off as well, but on this particular week I could only get space in the magazine to do it as a capsule, and in hindsight — given the acclaim that the movie has inspired — that wasn’t a great act of planning. The shorthand, kick-in-the-ribs style that capsule writing often engenders probably made my dismissal sound more curtly hostile than I would have liked it to.
At the same time, let’s get a little perspective here. In the last 20 years, most of the movies that, to me, can be counted as landmark works of art — Boogie Nights, Far From Heaven, Saving Private Ryan, Chuck & Buck, Titanic, Moulin Rouge!, Lilya 4-Ever, Natural Born Killers, Brokeback Mountain, Zodiac — have inspired critical responses that are all over the map. And that’s exactly as it should be. Do we really want lockstop uniformity? No movie should exist in a place where it’s beyond having detractors. Yet such is the cult of Let the Right One In that the very idea of dismissing this movie is somehow an act of nerve-smashing insensitivity.
All of which leads me to say: I did watch the movie again. I really, truly gave it a shot, and my gut-bucket honest reaction is: I still don’t like it. But let me now take a few more than 90 words to say why.
Let the Right One In is the story of two characters, both 12 years old: Oskar (Kare Hedebrant), a long-haired, doleful blond moppet who looks like a more mature version of Danny Torrance in Kubrick’s The Shining, and Eli (Lina Leandersson), the dark-haired vampire with the saturnine smirk who suggests Sara Gilbert as the world’s most androgynous hobbit. The factual mistake I made in my review was saying that Hakan (Per Ragnar), the dour, lumpish middle-aged man who Eli lives with — the one who goes out and kills people so that he can give her their blood — is her father. Mea culpa and all that, but watching the movie a second time, I at least understood my confusion: Yes, Hakan is her “guardian” (or something), but their relationship is not well drawn. It’s sketchy and obtuse, undernourished and underplayed. That, however, is the whole glum, murky, too-serious-for-words style of Let the Right One In. That’s what gives it its languid Nordic chic.
The movie has been lavishly praised for its visual “beauty,” but when I think about the look of a film, what matters isn’t just the individual images — in this case, many prosaic shots of crystalline sun and snow. It’s the way that they flow into each other, the way that images become narrative. Let the Right One In, however, has the logy stop-and-go rhythms, the surface aestheticism and underlying visual drabness of a movie that was perfunctorily scripted and then patched together in the editing room.
The scenes between Oskar and Eli lack a dramatic pulse, but that somehow becomes part of the film’s mopy romantic texture. Let the Right One In is, in essence, a teasingly angelic prepubescent homoerotic love story. Its a kiddified Crying Game that places a halo of sanctimony around a “forbidden” friendship. The key scene isn’t any of those arbitrary blood-lettings. It’s when Oskar and Eli are lying in the same bed, and Oskar asks, “Do you want to be my girlfriend?”
Eli replies, “Oskar, I’m not a girl.”
And Oskar, without missing a beat, says: “Oh. But do you want to go steady or not?”
Aw, how sweet! Here’s a 12-year-old boy who has just been told that the girl he’s entranced with isn’t a girl. His utter lack of reaction rings totally false, but more than that, it’s false because it’s pious — and, in an odd way, uninteresting. (Imagine if Stephen Rea had responded to the “reveal” scene in The Crying Game by saying, “Hmmm. So where do you wanna eat?”) In the saintly shrug of a boy who doesn’t give a fig if the girl he loves is actually a girl or not (or a vampire, either), this moment literalizes, and sentimentalizes, one of the most enduringly facile of all trendy academic ideas: that gender is just a “construct,” and therefore far less important than it seems.
Where, I want to know, in all this girl/boy, normal/vampire, angel/demon spiritual diddling is the heat, the confusion, even the anguish of young love? In its glossier way, Twilight – both the book and the movie — got at those emotions. But one reason for Let the Right One In’s cachet is that it was seen, last year, as the anti-Twilight, the “cool” indie young-love vampire movie to celebrate over the overhyped corporate young-love vampire movie. On a second viewing, what struck me is that for all the film’s gooey, oozy “sensitivity,” there’s a nagging and obtuse heartlessness to it. The homicide scenes aren’t staged so that we have a whisper of sympathy for the victims — who, after all, haven’t done anything — and the kids who torment Oskar at school are such overwrought bullies that the very crudeness of the characterizations seems like the filmmaker’s own projected form of vengeance.
And, sorry, I still think it lacks coherence. Why do a bunch of cats turn demonic and attack a woman who has been attacked by a vampire? And why the sudden, excessive carnage of the swimming-pool massacre? Perhaps scenes like these don’t fit some viewers’ definitions of “random arty blood thrills,” but they certainly do mine. Let the Right One In, however, may be the kind of cult film whose bedazzled fans regard it as beyond criticism. I’m sorry, but that’s sucking the life out of what you love.
Comments (1-30) of 125 Add your comment
So, basically, you wrote this review so you could trash the movie again??? Wow, lazy writing…and I want your job…LOL
He was merely explaining himself. It’s admirable that someone who watches movies for a living would take the time to watch a film he didn’t like again. Give him a break.
He’s a lazy reporter, and shouldn’t be given a break.
He’s allowed not to like it, and coherently explained why he didn’t. I enjoyed the film immensely, but the fact that he didn’t (and I can certainly undertand some of his points), doesn’t affect my enjoyment…nor should it yours.
Phew! What a relief. I thought for a moment I the only person who saw the lack more than the luster.
I also think it’s admirable to give something another shot. It’s very open-minded. Besides the fact that I think most “art” films are all naked emperors, he’s at least got real reasons for not liking this film. People take negative reviews as an attack on their person. Don’t be so sensitive! It’s a vampire movie!
Jeffery, I believe it was Gene Siskel ( I’m not sure) who said it’s totally okay to not like or to like a movie, as long as it’s for the right reason. I could understand if he said if he was bored by it, or that he didn’t like that it was a bloody film with 12 year olds or something, but I think some of his reasons are invalid. Mostly, referring to the girl and her gaurdian’s relationship:
“It’s sketchy and obtuse, undernourished and underplayed”
No. It’s implied. It’s purposefully vague and ambiguous. The fact that you saw this film again and still criticized some of the things you did does not show what an admirable reviewer you are. I don’t care if you didn’t like it, but you cant make up criticisms that don’t exist.
The ridiculous part is he wrote 2 reviews for this movie and still doesn’t even understand the film. 1. Oskar is so doleful and mopey because he is a bullied, intensely lonely social outcast. He’s depressed; that is why he bonded so closely and quickly to Eli. She is even more lonely and isolated than he is. 2. Hakan, Eli’s “guardian”, is a human friend. He probably befriended her as a child like Oskar and has stayed with her the rest of his life. That is why he doesn’t want Eli hanging out with Oskar. He is scared to be replaced in her affections and worried she may be exposed and hunted. 3. You cannot compare the I’m not a girl scene to either Twilight or The Crying Game. The Crying Game was about sexual deception. That reveal was a betrayal. Since Eli told him up front “I’m not a girl.” I see no comparison. And, The Twilight couple were both 17. A 17 year old wants an at least semi-sexual component to the relationship. These kids are 12. Let me repeat that…12. I remember my boyfriends at 12. 12 year olds, outside of the Maurry Povich show, don’t want sex.
Ok, maybe I’m confused but when Eli tells Oskar that she is not a girl, it doesn’t mean she is a boy; she is telling him she is not human. She obviously had female body parts because we see her completely naked at one point. Not to be disrespectful, but I still think you didn’t see the same movie.
Lesley, you are wrong. Eli is a castrated boy.
I don’t think that wound is from a castration, I think it’s her original scar, the wound that turned her into a vampire. It makes more sense (to me) because it plays into the pedophilia angle. Also, in the two scenes with Oskar wherein we see the true age of Eli, she is clearly female, not male.
I thought she was saying she wasn’t a “girl” because she was really old… a girl is young and being a vampire she is NOT young.
The implication is still that she is male, whether it is her meaning or not. Homosexuality is implied.
Scott and Adam are right. It’s strongly suggested that Eli was castrated – hence the scar when “she” is changing into Oskar’s mother’s dress.
As for the cat scene, the cats “turned demonic” and attacked Ginia because she had turned into a vampire. Hence her spontaneous combustion from sunlight.
I’m gay and I didn’t see any implied homosexuality at all. Eli is not a girl because she’s old and a vampire.
I generally don’t read any EW movie reviews because I can’t stand either OG or his humorless counterpart. This article just affirms my wish to continue avoiding them both.
justjack is right. I live for gay subtext in cinema. Until I heard Eve’s voice, I actually thought there was some in “Wall-E” (come on, genderless robots! That would have been awesome!).
you know…i was actually pretty disappointed with this film also, but only because i actually read the novel it is based upon first. i really loved this book. not only was the novel scary and cringe-inducing, it was also very sad and moving. the film is incoherent like owen points out. all of his criticisms would vanish had this been a book review. the relationships are much richer and understandable in the novel. for instance, the relationship between Hakan and Eli is unclear in the film. He is actually a pedophile who is enthralled with the young Eli and does her bidding because he believes he is in love with her. It is his obsession with her that causes everything to fall apart for the characters. Oskar and Eli’s relationship is drawm better; he doesn’t shrug off her admission of not being a girl, he simply doesn’t understand what she means. i really thought the filmmakers could have incorporated at least some of this so that the film would be a bit more relatable and coherent.
Totally agree. I was disappointed too. I bought the book based on the glowing reviews for the film and read the book first. The book is wonderful. It’s a bit of a slow burn, but then is just so rich, brooding and haunting. In my opinion, the best part of the book is not really developed in the movie: Virginia’s story.
Thank you! Someone here realizes that this is a movie based on a book. The movie was a decent adaptation, but like most movies based on books, some details had to be left out. In this instance, pretty much all of Hakan’s storyline is cut, which is very disappointing. His story is where the real creep factor comes in. I was bored with this movie since I had read the novel first. But overall, I consider it to be a passable adaptation, nothing more.
The book was amazing, probably the best book I read last year. But I do think there were certain scenes in the book that would have been all but unfilmable. So I think they did a decent job with the filom.
Sorry, but you people who must read the book first are slightly silly. If there’s a film that hi-lights this best, it’s this one.
You cannot expect to spend hours reading a thoroughly engaging book, filling out all the intricacies, being drawn in by the less brisk pace involved, fully form images of the characters and settings and their feelings, and expect a Movie to approach this totally internal approach at interaction. It’s just plain dumb to even try. Nobody compares to the story fleshed out within the mind, which always leaves enough open to interpretation to bring it closer to home, injecting and transposing our own experiences into the telling.
Watch movies before reading their adapted book form, if at all possible. Otherwise, get a clue, nobody tells a story you want to hear as well as you do.
I think the movie is sad more than romantic. Oskar is lonely and vulnerable, and Eli is stuck in this life where she must kill in order to survive. She doesn’t really seem to enjoy it, and the movie doesn’t ask us to feel one way or another when she does kill. It’s more of a fact than anything. They bond over their discontent, and in the end she saves his life, but in a gruesome way that indentures him to be her caretaker, probably in a way similar to Hakan. It’s just very sad.
On a side note, the nude scene makes it clear that she is a female, and by “not a girl” she means “not a young human, but a vampire.” That’s why he wasn’t surprised. So, no real homoeroticism.
Actually Eli is not a girl, but a castrated boy. The nude scene is a semi close-up of a jagged scar.
The film never adresses this, so in the film, she is female. Plus, Sarah is right. It’s about tragic detachment, not so much romance.
Eli is definitely some sort of damaged boy.
no. Eli is a boy. the film clearly shows the castration marks. he was castrated by the vampire who created him. of course the film never explains this. however, Eli is being ambiguous when she says she’s not a girl. she literally is NOT female, but she is not human. in the novel ( which btw i know is not what we’re discussing) she says she’s “nothing”. the novel is so much better.
What is the point of this article? Who cares if you did not like this great movie.
It’s a BLOG dude (look at the top of the page). A blogger can blog whatever’s on his mind, no? Certainly you are under no obligation to care.
I agree, the “father/guardian” relationship had us asking questions at the end of the movie too. We finally decided that he was probably her previous version of Oskar — a boyhood love/companion all grown up. It seems to make more sense than an adult man befriending and eventually loving a vampire girl as his own daughter.
FINALLY!!!! I saw Let the Right One in about 4 months ago and was bored out of my mind. I have no idea why so many people swear by this slow and incoherent film. Sometimes, not answering questions in your movie isn’t the mark of cinematic genius, it is just lazy filmmaking.
I respect the fact that you didn’t like this movie but to call it lazy filmmaking is just moronically. It’s brilliant and intelligent filmmaking. It’s very ambigious and I have my own interpretations about some issues but I got the whole picture of this story because I cared for the characters and was engaged. Not because I’m more intelligent than you.
Finally! Somebody else hated this movie. I’m sorry you had to sit through it twice.
My thoughts were that the man was at one time a young boy entralled with her and protected her until he no longer could. The scene where Oskar found all of those rings suggest that Eli has had many guardians over her life span who love her and was with her until circumstances could not have them be with her anymore. Meg above cleared up the relationship with Hakan from the book. When you’re teased and pretty much an outsider, you cling to anyone who is just as withdrawn and that’s Oskar draw to Eli. I enjoyed this movie a lot but it’s just my opinion, just like everyone (including you Owen) have yours. Please there are people thinking Paranormal Activity is genius filmaking and I think it was lame. That’s why we have opinions. LOL
That’s exactly what I thought about Hakan.
…and Paranormal Activity
Once again: “nothing new to say so let’s write a bad review again so the people can talk about me because I’m just not good”
Lazy and sad work Owen Gleiberman
How dare you have an opinion different than mine!
Wow, nice post. When I saw the movie in theaters last year, I was PSYCHED for it. I left having kinda enjoyed it, but something didn’t seem quite right and I couldn’t put a finger on what it was. This really helped illuminate why I have been lukewarm about the film.
Owen, you make some good points and I’m glad you feel respect enough for the movie to revisit it even if you didn’t like it – And the only thing I didn’t like about it was something you addressed about coherence (the cats attacking the lady–which they did I guess because she was becoming a vampire?) at least in the scenes involving that lady–the cat scene and the combustion scene are staged kind of badly as to detract from the film. I actually kind of laughed when she was covered with fake cats. Also, I agree that the relationship between Eli and Hakan is kind of murky–I didn’t really get it until a second viewing. But that aside I loved this movie. I loved how this lonely kid found a friend and how their relationship developed under extremely weird circumstances to this strange but really well staged climax in the pool scene that makes you go…What just happened? Anyway I think it’s a really special movie that is easily better than what Twilight is selling. But I agree with you that it would be really dull if everybody loved every movie so good for you for sharing your thoughts-even if you are in the minority on this one.
I agree with Owen. I think the movie is slow and plodding and incoherent at times. It lacked any dramatic pulse and while watching the film, i couldn’t understand why so many critics loved the movie. But everyone has a right to their own opinions.
Needless to say I can’t trust this man as a film critic anymore.. Not when he gave a glowing review to “date movie”, “epic movie”, “meet the spartans” and the mightiest of them all: “transformers 2″
Hmm, he rated Date Movie a B- Epic Movie a B- and Meet the Spartans got a C+ from a different reviewer altogether. I wouldn’t call any of these “glowing” – and Transformers 2 with a B is decidedly lukewarm. Giving LTR1I a C is hardly bashing it, and not a whole lot worse the the B- you call glowing. Don’t bash the man with false information, that’s low.
i tried to like this movie too, because ive heard so many great things, but i just dont. its not scary at all. i love love stories and evil (or nonhuman) kids, but just couldnt get behind it (nor twilight. and to owen who thought the movie was incoherent, and couldnt understand why a woman who was just BIT BY A VAMPIRE was suddenly attacked by cats really?!? i watched the movie halfassed, usually miss a lot of points in movies and it was pretty obvious that the woman then became vampire, (because thats what happens when people are still “alive” after being bit by one) nonhuman things casue animals to freak out and sometiems attack these nonhuman things and i knew she was a vampire long before she started on freaking fire from the sunlight (which she cringed from earlier that morning) when she told the guy to open the curtains. the problem wasnt that it was incoherent, it was just not scary, and i didnt care enough about the characters. i dont know whether eli is male or female, but maybe were supposed to interpret it for ourselves. anyone whos read the book know the answer? i dont remember the nude scene but to me that would suggest female. the actress that plays her has kind of an androgynous face (my husband and i couldnt tell whether male or female for awhile). when eli says im not a girl i interpreted it as not not a boy, not a girl, not human. i know im ranting but seriously!
lol, now im incoherent. Okay I’ll try again in english. I tried to like this movie too, because I’ve heard so many great things, but i just don’t. It’s not scary at all. I love love stories and evil (or nonhuman) kids, but just could’nt get behind it (nor twilight). And to Owen who thought the movie was incoherent, and couldnt understand why a woman who was just BIT BY A VAMPIRE was suddenly attacked by cats, really?!? I watched the movie halfassed, usually miss a lot of points in movies, and it was pretty obvious that the woman then became vampire (because thats what happens when people are still “alive” after being bit by one). Nonhuman things cause animals to freak out and sometimes attack these nonhuman things (thsu the cats attacking her. I knew she was a vampire long before she started on freaking fire from the sunlight (which she cringed from earlier that morning) when she told the guy to open the curtains. The problem wasn’t that it was incoherent, it was just not scary, and i didn’t care enough about the characters. I dont know whether Eli is male or female, but maybe we’re supposed to interpret it for ourselves. Anyone who has read the book know the answer? I don’t remember the nude scene but to me that would suggest female. The actress that plays her has kind of an androgynous face (my husband and i couldn’t tell whether male or female for awhile). When Eli says ‘I’m not a girl’ I interpreted it as not a boy, not a girl, not human. I know I’m ranting but seriously!
All movie buffs occasionally feel this disconnect – the inability to grasp exactly why or how a particular movie achieves “critical darling” status. For most of the times when I feel like this, I can at least recognize that okay, I don’t get it, but I sorta see how one might admire this, or maybe that. I just can’t do it with “Let the Right One In.” It’s a plodding, mind-numbing mess. Angsty slow-moving chill can be quite effective, but the viewer is never invited in or given any reason to care. I spent a good third of the movie thinking about how badly I needed to clean my refrigerator, and the other two-thirds wondering why I wasted both my time and money on this nonsense.
I felt that way about “21 Grams.” Everyone I knew loved it sooo intensely, and I thought it was one of the most over-acted, terrible pieces of garbage I had ever seen. And people got angry with me for not liking it! I understood that the filmmaker had talent (which he put to much better use in “Babel”), but I just felt really disconnected to it.
I can’t speak for the movie, but the review was boring beyond belief.
Fans crying foul and calling Glieberman “lazy” (that seems to be a common thread amongst his detractors on here) are, in fact, the lazy and unimaginative ones. It’s pretty easy for fans to sniffily dismiss anything negative with “oh, you just didn’t get it,” or “I guess you weren’t watching the same movie as the rest of us.” Many people who walked away from this movie thinking it was a pretentious bore (myself included) are the very people who really wanted to like it the most. What’s truly “lazy” is for fans to assume that, because they think it’s brilliant, anyone who thinks otherwise is a drooling idiot. Watching a movie is about as subjective an experience as any, and they’re called OPINIONS for a reason.
I agree with this review. I so wanted to like this movie. I tried very hard to get to a theater screening, but had to settle for DVD instead. I hated it as well. Eeeek. Sorry. It just didn’t make a lot of sense to me.
I agree. I watched it twice and didn’t enjoy it. I understand others do, and thats cool, I’m sure there are a ton of movies I love that others hate. But for me, give me a classic vampire movie anytime! Whatever happened to Dracula?
Well, you know, you’re totally entitled to your opinion. And I say that because, having read your list of ‘genuine works of art’ of recent times, I know that I am unlikely to value your opinion on any movie I see in the future. Nothing personal, mind. We just clearly have nothing in common.
One of the most original vampire movies I’ve seen. Beautifully shot and acted. I have no problem with Owen not loving it. It’s just that I think he’s trying too hard to analyze everything. Sometimes you just have to let a movie be what it is and not question every frame of it. Just enjoy it and embrace its originality. I can say I’ve never seen anything like it. And I was mesmerized.
Sounds like you attempted this review to validate your previous 90 word rush to judgment and this time you’ve thrown in some “artsy” words of your own. Perhaps reading the novel might help illuminate the concept that there is some variety in the genre that exceeds your experience.
Are you suggesting that if he reads the novel, he may appreciate the movie or the ideas contained therein? Doesn’t that simply acknowledge that the movie, on its own, is lacking?
THE HOST and LET THE RIGHT ONE IN are the greatest movie of the past 5 years made anywhere in the world, hands down.
I felt the movie was about loneliness, not vampirism. Eli had a person who yes supplied her blood but was loyal to her to the end of his life. The boy was lonely and attacked by a bully. Their friendship came from the bond the two had. Perhaps it wasn’t stretched out as clearly but the movie showed or didn’t show her tearing them apart. We didn’t need to see her kill them. I felt the scene showing her ‘vulnerability’ showed how easily he could have killed her. By not caring about her.
I tried to like this movie, it was drab, depressing and I felt like I was missing part of the story. For the people that read the book, Thank You! for clearing up some of the points such as the weird relationship of the caretaker and Eli. I felt it was just a low budget movie that everyone overhyped and apparently some people agree.