by Allan Fish
(Sweden 2008 114m) DVD1/2
Aka. Lat den Ratte Komma in
Twelve years, eight months and nine days
p Carl Molinder, John Nordling d Tomas Alfredson w John Ajvide Lindqvist novel John Ajvide Lindqvist ph Hoyte van Hoytema ed Daniel Jonsater, Tomas Alfredson m Johan Söderqvist art Eva Norén
Kare Hadebrant (Oskar), Lina Leandersson (Eli), Per Ragnar (Hakan), Henrik Dahl (Erik), Karin Bergqvist (Yvonne), Peter Carlberg (Lacke), Ika Nord (Virginia), Mikael Ramm (Jocke),
We live in a world where vampires are cool and they have been since the days of Anne Rice and Joss Whedon. On TV alone, one can think of True Blood, of Human Nature and even an episode of Doctor Who. Then on film the gormless Blade films and the terminally bland teen candy that is the God-awful Twilight series, compared to which even the Harry Potter movies seem like masterpieces. Into this pit of recycled regurgitations we have Tomas Alfredson’s film of John Ajvide Lindqvist’s celebrated novel.
It’s set in Blackeberg, a suburb of Stockholm, in 1982, and centres around the existence of a small boy, Oskar, bullied at school and desperately in search of a friend. His only friend is a young 12 year old girl, Eli, who he only sees at night, hanging around on a climbing frame in the courtyard of their apartment block. She lives with a middle-aged man and lives very reclusively. The reason being of course that she is a vampire and that her guardian is getting closer to being captured following a series of killings in which the victims’ blood is drained for Eli’s consumption. Rather than being just 12, she’s actually been 12 for over 200 years.
Adolescent films are traditional fare in Scandinavia and, amongst the nostalgic fare lapped up in the west (say, Hallström’s My Life as a Dog), there’s grittier fare (such as Andersson’s A Swedish Love Story, Moodysson’s Fucking Amal and Christensen’s Razone). The essences of darkness and the loneliness of school life are there, not least in the form of the bullies who torment Oskar, and yet Lindqvist and Alfredson’s film, in showing something altogether darker, highlights the persecution of bullying all the more. Amongst various violent and bloody sequences, the most terrifying is undoubtedly that where Oskar is cornered in the school pool by the bullies and one’s psychotic elder brother. So here’s the paradox, Oskar isn’t frightened of vampires, for what are they to him but soul-mates, fellow outcasts from society. The bullies are what scares him, and though the bullies get theirs in a stunningly shot retribution, the terror they invoke in Oskar remains in similar treatment meted out to millions of kids around the world. Nothing is scarier than school.
Essences of modern vampire culture are embedded into the film that will raise a smile, such as the not being able to enter a room uninvited, but for all its gory detail, not least a sequence of voluntary immolation by a woman bitten by a vampire and savaged by wary cats, it’s an eerily beautiful film. The bleak wintry setting is splendidly utilised, not just in shots of blood falling on snow, the apartment block superbly Kieslowskian in its anti-aesthetics. The period detail is, one assumes, accurate, and at the heart are two excellent performances from the central duo. Hadebrant, with his blonde locks, looks like a prototype loner, and his inner sadness is most heartbreakingly evoked in the scene where he visits his estranged father, who’d rather drink beers with a visiting friend than continue to play a game with his son. If one remembers anyone, however, it’s got to be Eli, and Leandersson manages a miraculous mix of childlike loneliness and a world-weary sense of the inevitable, that she will outlive all who she comes to love. Anyone who watches the sequence where she shows Oskar what will happen if he doesn’t invite her in, and doesn’t feel it, may as well give up now and go back to something gorier and wholly more disposable. This is a vampire movie for grown-ups, with an ending that leaves it open not for a sequel – perish the thought – but endless interpretation.
I’m not much for vampire revivalism– save for Coppola’s take on Bram Stoker, most of the movies & television works on the subject from the past twenty odd years have more or less bored me. Rice’s chronicles are too gothic for me to feel welcome, Whedon’s Scooby-Gang too campy for me to check my eye-roll reflex. I also feel that there’s an increasing amount of homoeroticism in the vampire genre (especially from the likes of Rice & Whedon) which more or less excludes it from my taste– even this film with its centuries old “girl” underlines a strain of sexual ambivalence that would feel too much even for a Mugwump. Maybe I’m just tired of the “vampirism-as-metaphor-for-coitus” aspect in lieu of the more interesting musings on immortality (though to be fair, this movie isn’t without that). Save for the really essential takes on the genre (Murnau, Browning, Coppola) I can’t say I care too much about blood-suckers to get too worked up about them. “The Hunger” was pretty cool, though. I’ll admit that.
No mention of Romero’s ‘Martin’? That is, to me, one of the ten or so most underrated horror films (and to these eyes his best film).
Aside from the original “Night of the Living Dead” and “The Crazies”, I’m not really a fan of Romero’s, at all. I don’t even like the original “Dawn”, frankly– it’s too jokey, too self-consciously satirical to work with my tastes. Don’t get me wrong, NotLD is a true American classic, it’s just that I prefer his more serious takes on the zombie genre than the increasingly campy, smugly ironic films he kept churning out since then. That being said, I haven’t seen “Martin”, and don’t plan to– I don’t care for the genre, and am not too crazy about the director.
Nor am I, I really only like NotLD and MARTIN as good films in his canon.
It’s seems you’ve made you mind up, but you should see MARTIN, and definitely the other I’ve mentioned, HABIT. there is a girl in that one that I think you’ll, ummm… like.
I can’t find it online or for sale at any store at the moment, so I’ll just have to guess– Pixie-cut?
yeah, here…
the movie can be rented on netflix, if you have an account.
What about Herzog? His update of Nosferatu is arguably superior. And I’m totally with you on Coppola’s Dracula; it’s my favorite of his films.
Yeah that’s a decent one (though I don’t think it’s close to the original)… also a few more recent ones that I think are pretty good are Bigelow’s NEAR DARK, and the David Lynch produced NADJA.
When you think about it we’ve named about 6-8 good ones in the last 35 years or so… that’s not bad.
Oh and damn… HABIT. Very good indie vampire film from the 90’s… directed by Larry Fessenden, the same guy that did WENDIGO.
Herzog’s “Nosferatu” is very nice, very atmospheric, but superior to the Murnau? Not a chance in hell. It owes too much to that silent-classic in its visual design, especially in Kinski’s singularly Orlock-tastic Count. Mostly it’s an interesting blend of the original film and Stoker’s “Dracula”, which Murnau had originally sought to adapt. Plus, it has Isabelle Adjani, which is never a bad thing.
But yeah– better than the original? It’s lucky if it’s even anywhere near the same ballpark as the “Dracula” films starring Frank Langella or Christopher Lee. Hell, even “Blacula” has more reason to exist than the Herzog movie.
“Near Dark” and “Nadja” are both quite good. But going back to what I said originally, I was talking about the vampire films of the past twenty odd years. “Near Dark” falls outside of that, and “Nadja” right within, so that one’s an oversight on my count (mistakenly thought that was an 80’s film). Still, most of the recent popular bloodsucker flicks all tend to be pretty awful, and considering my own lack of interest in the genre, there’s really nothing to be done about it.
Question– does “Monster Squad” count as a vampire film? Because if it does I’ll take back a little of what I said. That movie’s awesome.
I’d count MONSTER SQUAD, that is fun. It’s been ages for me though.
Is RABID (I know outside your 20 years) counted as a vampire film? probably not, but it’s in the discussion. Vampires on Nortons, that’s how it’s done folks.
No, “Rabid” is more of a zombie movie, almost 100% in the Romero mold. Mind you, I think that Cronenberg does it better than most of Romero’s own takes on the genre, injecting just the right amount of his own body-horror sci-fi into the more staid conventions of the breakdowns of social-order following that kind of epidemic breakout. It’s interesting to see how Cronenberg is mining Romero’s territory in his early features following “Stereo” & “Crimes of the Future”, trying to find a voice of his own outside of the avant garde. I think he eventually started to find just that voice starting with “The Brood” (a movie I’ve gotten more and more into lately), but even in those initial zomebie-esque movies, it’s cool to see him try to be “mainstream” while still doing his own thing.
By the way, did you ever catch “Stereo” & “Crimes of the Future”?
A quick thought, though. It’s interesting to observe how the zombie genre was influenced by, of all things, a vampire story– Richard Matheson’s “I Am Legend”. Now, oridinarily I’d argue that Matheson’s work on its own exceeds the boundaries of the vampire genre, but it doesn’t quite go far enough to establish its own new form– it uses the language of vampirism to describe a world of zombies. It was incredibly influential both to Romero’s “Night of the Living Dead”, and also to guys like Godard (whose considerations of the book eventually led to the zombified citizenry of “Alphaville”) and Lang, who had wanted to direct a version of it himself (one of the great cinematic missed opportunities).
So there is a bit of the blood-sucker in the brain-eater, but they both hail primarily from myths and fears of cannibalism– and in that case, my vote for the best vampire film of all time becomes “How Tasty Was My Little Frenchman”.
I’ve never seen ‘My Tasty Little Frenchman’ but the description has me very intrigued… I’ll netflix it presently.
Still (urgh) haven’t had a chance to watch the two early Cronenberg’s, been pretty busy. When I do I will be sure to seek you out to discuss.
Oddly enough, I’m a great admirer of Murnau, but I don’t think Nosferatu’s one of his strongest films. It certainly crafted one of the great characters in cinema history (and it is an original achievement, despite the famed source material). However, its style is not as dynamic nor its storytelling as inventive (all the Dracula adaptations seem to drag somewhat in the second half, don’t they?) as Murnau’s other masterpieces. Faust in particular I find a far more compelling and exciting gothic romance.
Have not seen the Herzog film.
Well, I’ll throw my hat in, I love Herzog’s take on NOSFERATU. There’s a greater sense of importance to Murnau’s without any doubt, but Herzog does a fine job of hitting his typical notes by casting the Count as an outsider of society and generates some good atmospherics as well (the boat coming into the harbor comes immediately to mind).
And while Schreck’s is one of the seminal performances in movie history, Kinski does a damn fine job of portraying that certain level of creepiness and strangeness that the role requires.
In other words, though Murnau’s film is the best vampire film in movie history, Herzog’s is easily in my top five.
One I was very interested in, but haven’t seen yet. It’s on the list guiding my own series, so I’ll be watching & reviewing it eventually. My friends had the book, which I began sitting in a hot, stalled subway car last summer. I was intrigued by the way the author began with the history of the housing project in which the vampiric plot will unfold. I like the sense that the film conveys a strong sense of physical context (something lacking in most American films in this decade) – a sense you and others have conveyed. Still looking forward to it.
For me, our perception of age -v- appearance was the most interesting theme in the film. The vampire angle is what makes such a warped idea “feasible”.
I thought that the book – which I read after seeing the film – was little more than mass market fiction in terms of prose, but with some very black ideas – certainly blacker than the film goes near. At the same time, now that I appreciate some of the dafter aspects of the novel, the screenplay adaptation is a job truly well done.
In the end, though, it is the look and feel of the movie that makes it so spellbinding. I could have lived without gore, crazed cats and pyrotechnics in favour of something even more stripped down and focused on the central pairing. Still an enchantingly bleak fairy tale all the same. The ending is arguably as doomed as it is seemingly optimistic.
A great film. And I agree with Longman Oz: A rare example of a better film than a novel.
This one’s been on my “To-do” list for a while. I think what got me interested was that Sam and Luculle loved this one and not just the kids. A lot of what has been thrown out there lately has been generated to cash in on the 12-18 year old crowd and this one, in general, has attracted strong word of mouth from the 25-50 crowd as well (70 if you count Sam! LOL!). I sat through TWILIGHT for Melanie’s sake (God!) and INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE was so horribly miscast and un-focused that my temper was raised. This, however, with both the critics and mature audiences in agreement, has me looking forward to it. Figures it would be a director out of the states to get it right. This review was exceptional! I’ll have to scour Sam’s basement/black-hole for this one to set up a screening.
I liked this film on first viewing quite a bit, then each time since a little less, but it’s still a very good film. the placement (83) seems about right.
DONIPHON-Unless your only seeing Herzogs film version of NOSFERATU and nothing else, then it MIGHT be superior. To compare the Herzog film (very good) to Murnau’s classic is like comparing the differences of a Smart car to a Cadillac Escalade. There is NO competition there. One is a gothic horror flm that helped form the filmic fabric while the other is just a remake albeit a very good one. I’m thrilled you enjoy Herzog’s interpretation, but to call it superior to the Murnau film is way off course. IMO.
Dennis, fair enough, but I’m referring to as it a film in and of itself and not in terms of its historical contexts. Obviously Murnau’s film was far more influential, but that is not innately proof of its artistic superiority. I’m not trying to disparage Murnau at all; Sunrise and Tabu are in my mind among the greatest films ever made, and he’s one of my favorite directors. But Herzog’s Nosferatu is an incredible achievement, and I think worth consideration independent of just being a “remake.” Herzog’s use of Wagner is incredible, and although Bob is right to point out some of its visual design is indebted to Murnau, much of it (such as that march of coffins or the family eating as rats walk the streets) contain moments of striking and wholly original beauty.
No doubt, the best moments in Herzog’s “Nosferatu” are where he’s doing his own thing. That’s what makes his use of Murnau’s iconography so disappointing, though. It’s so unnecessary, especially considering how closely he hews to Stoker’s original narrative. Why couldn’t Herzog have simply made his own “Dracula” instead of trying to reanimate “Nosferatu”?
Well Bob, he is probably is prone to the “homage” as much as Scorsese, and no doubt he adored Murnau, his fellow nationalist.
“Homage” is one thing, and remakes another. Scorsese tipped his hat to idols like Hitchcock, Powell and Val Lewton like crazy in “Shutter Island”, for example, but at the end of the day it was still an original film. Like I said, Herzog’s film is a good one, but it would’ve been better if he hadn’t leaned so heavily on Murnau.
Indeed Bob, I can’t dispute what you say here at all.
But there was clear intent here. Herzog considered Nosferatu to be the most important German film ever made, and he wanted his version to excite interest in a new German cinema. That’s not going to make it a better movie for you, but I think that does show it was hardly unnecessary. Herzog was trying to rekindle German interest in their own (it goes without saying rich) cinematic history.
MONSTER SQUAD? NEAR DARK? Jesus! To put thos films in the same sentence, much less the same breath with Murnau’s immortal chiller is calling for the MORON ALERT that Allan mentioned in a prior thread. One is a kids movie, and not a very good one at that, and NEAR DARK is vmore of a action flick with some horrific elements. I give NEAR some props for its originality, but both of you should be slapped for even considering lumping those films in the same thoughts as Murnau’s immortal triumph. I’d be careful with this kind of talk, if ALLAN sees this he’ll come in and blow you alway into SMITHEREENIES!!!!!! LOL!
Take a look back. Nobody’s saying “Near Dark” or “Monster Squad” is up there with Murnau. They’re just examples of decent vampire-themed movies from the past twenty years. Are they as good as “Nosferatu”? Nope. But they’re sure as hell better than “Interview With the Vampire”.
Ditto, bump.
Mr. Clark is on fire. There isn’t a single things he has said that I don’t agree with, and he says it way better than I ever could. Thanks for a very entertaining Wednesday afternoon Mr. Clark.
Mr Clark is on fire…
Dreams can come true 🙂
Dennis, get the atom rearranger…Acme’s own.
Yeah, but in Murnau’s NOSFERATU does anyone get kicked in the nards? That’s the true test of cinematic quality!
(I think that’s all I can remember about that movie…)
EPIC. CLASS. Fantastic Post.
Sure the Murnau is better and a masterpiece and all, but the joy one had at age 11 seeing that is barely describable.
Incidentally, the swimming pool sequence that ended the film (shown here in screen cap) was deliciously inventive, and alone elevated this film to the top pantheon of contemporary horror, methinks.
Very happy to see this on the list as it’s one of the very, very few examples of quality horror films in the 2000’s. It was also nice to see a vampire themed movie that took the genre trappings and didn’t try to make them post-modern or revisionist, instead just using quality filmmaking to play them straight as a story of loneliness and coming-of-age.
And Allan nailed it — the wintry surroundings that really drive home the themes of loneliness and isolation (but then again, what decent movie with those same environs doesn’t try to achieve that goal?) and that swimming pool scene is good as it gets for a shocking, horrific moment (that shot Allan uses for the end screencap is fantastic).
Can’t wait to see what a piece of crap the American remake of this is (with the blunt, silly title of LET ME IN). I’m sure it will be worth a chuckle.
LOL! Call Wile E. Coyote, maybe we can borrow his credit card. NOSFERATU by Herzog is an admirable film to be sure. However, Murnau’s version is light years ahead of it and not just in historical significance. Its dripping wet with gothic atmosphere and is a prime example of Murnau’s originality fused with German Expressionism. Uttering those titles in the same breath with Murnau’s film is like heaping 2001 A SPACE ODYSSEY together with episodes of THE JETSONS. It embarrassing.
dude, who compared them but you? We were discussing good/decent vampire films made in the last 30 odd years or so.
Does ACME make a Strawman reducing pill one can take with water? LOL
Considering ACME products always backfire, I don’t really think any of them should be recommended, even rhetorically.
I did not realize Herzog had a version too.
Having seen and purchased the Murnau version and from what I just read, I’ll not see the H version.
This other film is added to my list of ever growing length, thanks to ya’ll here.
Cheers!
I also like Dreyer’s ‘Vampyr’ from 1932 if you’re interested in that brand of horror.
LOL-I love setting off the thread. Ha-Ha! 39 hits and counting! LOL!
I’m a little disappointed no one mentioned Park’s fantastic Thirst from last year. Another great vampire film that I think proves there’s still new and inventive stories to tell involving vampires. I also want to say that Herzog’s Nosferatu is really a masterpiece in horror and a case where a remake to another masterpiece holds up just as well. Also I thought Kinski’s Dracula may have been the best ever, though there have so many great ones (Bela Lugosi, Christopher Lee, Max Schreck, and a personal favorite, Udo Kier). I also want to know if its okay to consider Dreyer’s Vampyr among the great vampire films because i really think that might take the cake. But of course this is about Let the Right One In and not vampires so let me start actually talking about this great film. It was my favorite film from 2008 (maybe tied with Steve McQueen’s Hunger) and a strong contender for a spot on my top ten of the decade. A great film which was dubbed by many as the anti-Twilight vampire film but was so much more than; Let the right one in is one of the most complex and sophisticated films that the horror genre as produced this decade. Maybe it’s just me, but this film was a hell of a lot stronger than any of the horror films from Takashi Miike this decade. and Lina Leandersson’s fantastic performance is easily one of the decades best.
I just viewed this film. Sam’s kids and I scoured the dungeon before we found it and, along with Bobby (Sam’s cousin, a man in his 60’s), were riveted by the film. Nothing, in my mind anyway, stepped wrong. The narrative was tight and metaphor of Vampirism was used effectively to comment on the lonliness children have in those formative years between adolescence and early adulthood. Miles ahead of the popular and embarrassing TWILIGHT films, I felt that the desolation of the settings perfectly hinted at the desolation of societal acceptance. Spare, I guess, would be the best word to describe the overall effect the film-making has on this film and its just right. Because of thisN the supernatural element comes off as viaby real and, in turn, made me really saunter up to this one. I think this film is a resounding success and far out-shines anything the gebre offers here in the states. This is a GREAT film, one I won’t soon forget. IMO