Film Junk Podcast Episode #288: TIFF Part 2: Let Me In and The Town

0:00 – Intro / TIFF Overview
28:15 – Review: Let Me In
39:00 – Review: Tabloid
51:40 – Review: Black Swan
1:01:20 – Review: The Town
1:09:55 – Review: The Ward
1:24:50 – Review: I Saw the Devil
1:31:50 – Review: The Trip
1:39:40 – Review: Boxing Gym
1:46:15 – Review: Never Let Me Go
1:55:18 – Review: Machete Maidens Unleashed
2:00:10 – Review: I’m Still Here
2:19:50 – Other Stuff We Watched: Everything Must Go, Game of Death, 13 Assassins, Buried, The Promise: The Making of Darkness on the Edge of Town, Blue Valentine, Insidious, Passion Play, The Conspirator, Casino Jack, Super, Trigger, Easy A, The American, Devil, Exit Through the Gift Shop, Bad Faith, Three, 127 Hours, Tears of Gaza, Stake Land, Cave of Forgotten Dreams, Vanishing on 7th Street, Cool It, Monsters, Fire of Conscience, Our Day Will Come
2:58:22 – Outro

» Download the MP3 (85 MB)
» View the show notes
» Vote for us on Podcast Alley!
» Rate us on iTunes!

Subscribe to the podcast feed:
RSS iTunes My Yahoo!

Donate via Paypal:

Recurring Donation $2/Month:


This week’s episode is sponsored by Audible, the largest online provider of digital audiobooks. Head over to and sign up for a risk-free 14-day trial, and get an audiobook of your choice absolutely free!

  • 3 hours?! I LOVE IT!

  • The most mega episode ever!

  • kyri

    welcome back Greg,
    There is something wrong with Jay’s voice. He sounds Sick as in Cool.

  • Rob

    Great to have Greg back on the podcast. When is Doug Nagy going to make another guest appearance?

  • AdamH

    3 hour podcast?! Love it!

  • rjdelight

    A full show of reviews? While this is awesome it’s going to be a while before I can actually listen to all of this. I’ve only seen two of these movies.

  • Why does Sean decide to go on a 2 week vacation on the 2 weeks Wall Street and The Social Network are coming out xP

  • Antho42

    With the Filmjunk Podcast, Mondays no longer suck.

  • Kurt

    The Herzog/Morris full video in three parts at the TIFF LIGHTBOX is up on Youtube and at Ebert’s Journal/Blog.

  • KeithTalent

    Jolly good show fellas!

    I love hearing all of the TIFF stuff; we do not get anywhere near the number of films out here that you do, but I will be seeing a couple at VIFF that you mentioned here.

    I sure hope Jay and Greg pull something together for their adoring fans next week, though without Sean it would probably be a bit of a mess.

    Anyway, thanks for the show; made staring at my 40,000 line spreadsheet almost bearable.

  • Walter

    The reviewer who called “Let Me In” a new take on the novel and not a remake of the Swedish film has no idea what he’s talking about and/or hasn’t even read the novel. Reeves film is very much a remake of Alfredson’s work.

  • KeithTalent

    So Walter, let me get this straight:

    a film that is faithful to the original film, which in turn is faithful to the novel, cannot be considered an adaptation of the novel?

    That makes no sense. If the novel was wildly different from both films, or if Let Me In was wildly different from the original film, you may have a point, but nope, you’re pointless.

  • Walter

    Have you even read the novel?

    The novel is significantly different from the Swedish film in many ways. Reeves also borrows concepts exclusive to the Swedish film–content that WASN’T in the novel. For example, the scene in which Eli tries the candy to appease Oskar and throws it up…that wasn’t in the novel. It was entirely Alfredson’s idea. But Reeves had no problem using it in his film.

    Also, the big twist in Reeves film is derived from a popular interpretation from the Swedish film–something that was never in the novel.

  • Walter

    I mean, yes…I would imagine that two separate adaptations would likely focus on similar ground in making the story more prominently about Oskar and Eli (as the book explores several other characters) and excise certain material (the pedophilia) but Reeves’ film is essentially a shot for shot version of Alfredson’s 90% of the time. He doesn’t include any different angles from the novel that previous film explored, and when the film differs from the novel, he takes the film’s approach.

    So much of his film is dependent on the previous film that you can’t really say that “Oh, well they’re only similar because of the same source material.” It would be like calling Gus Van Sant’s Psycho another adaptation of Robert Bloch’s novel.

  • KeithTalent

    No I’ve not read the novel, I don’t read horror novels anymore, I get no enjoyment out of them. I am guilty of misreading your post though, so I apologize for that. I got the names mixed up in my head.

  • Greg

    Walter, my point was to not have a single Film Junk listener dismiss the film as a simple U.S. remake. It deserves much better than to have that happen.


  • Walter

    Except… it is a remake. At the end of the day, that’s exactly what it is. Calling it a different take on the source material is misrepresenting it.

  • maybe we should call it a GOOD REMAKE and something that might even add to your enjoyment of the source material and the original film. I think Greg and Jay did a good job of putting this back on my radar. it sounds like a great double bill to me – watch both films back to back to see the process.

  • Kurt

    I was quite disappointed with LET ME IN. It’s just a louder, slightly more over-done version of the Swedish film. The commenter above who said that it is NOT a new take on the novel is absolutely correct. There is a lot of stuff they could have done with Richard Jenkins’ HAKAN character (can’t remember the characters americanized name) that they chose not to.

    Also, the new film doesn’t know how to glue all the ‘key scenes’ together, they just sort of happen.

    And I’m getting mighty tired of the whole opening scene of action followed by “3 Weeks Earlier” then catching back up again. Not cool (Curiously Scorsese does this in his new Boardwalk Empire show, and I was kinda miffed despite that show being fabulous otherwise).

    Also, they lost the Bad CGI cats from the original, but added bad CGI Eli when she goes all vamp-y quick. I’m surprised there was so much love for it on the filmjunk podcast, as while it is a perfectly adequate multiplex movie. Hell, it’s a solid multiplex film, even a damn good one, mainly because all the actors are great here, but again compared to the original Swedish film it’s sub-par, blunt, and outside of making American $$$, completely unnecessarily. It’s like a slightly less strong echo.

  • Kurt

    If you watched these back to back, you’d be bored stiff, they are VERY,VERY similar. Even with a year since last watch of the Swedish film, it still felt like a strong case of Deja Vu.

  • Antho42

    Kurt– Which version is closer to the novel?

  • Kurt, you just said it was a damn good multiplex film. What’s wrong with that?

  • Kurt – I saw Boardwalk Empire and was extremely disappointed in Steve Buscemi – that guy does the same character everywhere, literally, my sister meet him in NYC and he is the same in person! I do not see him carrying a show. His character is bland and shows no balls, anguish, nothing. Hopefully he WAKES UP AND DOES SOMETHING WITH A GREAT OPPORTUNITY!!

  • FILMJUNK should do a poll on worlds greatest “face actors” – actors that get parts based on looks. I nominate Steve Buscemi!

  • Mark in Ottawa

    There is so much in this podcast – wow !

    The more I hear about your experiences at TIFF the less likely I am to go.

    Reed – Did you ever see The Rutles – All you need is cash ? I saw it this week. Mixed feeling on it as a Beatles fan.

    Enjoy your cruise Sean – you deserve the rest.

  • Walter

    Antho42, I haven’t seen the film yet, but from what I’ve read I can safely say that the Swedish version is closer. Even excluding that the characters in the book are Oskar and Eli, not Owen and Abby, the Swedish film includes more content from the book.

    The remake, for example, cuts out the entirety of the subplot with Oskar’s neighbors as well as the scenes with Oskar’s dad. It also omits the scene detailing Eli’s gender reveal.

  • @Mark in Ottawa: I didn’t find The Rutles that funny, but I thought the music was well done. A year ago or so, I came across “The Rutles 2: Can’t Buy Me Lunch” in a Jumbo Video, and had to buy it, because I didn’t know a sequel had been made years later. It was disappointing. Now I sort of think it was a good thing that The Beatles never got back together. Tonight, I’m actually going to see another Beatles tribute band playing at a wine festival.

  • Mark in Ottawa

    The Rutles – Part 2 was a disaster.

    Jimmy Fallon really ? He didn’t need to be in it. He was brutal. I FF’d through his parts.

    If Film Junk were a cover band – would this be the lineup ?

    Sean – Paul MCartney
    Jay – John Lennon
    Greg – Billy Preston
    Reed – Ringo Starr
    Frank – George Harrison (Frank is so underrated)

  • “Enjoy your cruise Sean – you deserve the rest.”

    I second that

  • Greg

    Good Lord, Mark. You need to let the LFC thing go. Seriously? Billy Preston? If you looked up passive aggressive in the encyclopedia…your picture would be there.

    Plus, I would have to sing more.

  • Mark in Ottawa


    You need to calm down. Billy Preston is an icon of rock – view the picture of this page –

    That’s a cool image my friend.

    I think you’re upset because Calvillo is primed to knock your Cats out of the playoffs this year.

    This just in – Liverpool still sucks …..

  • Greg

    Ladies and gentleman of the jury…I rest my case.

    Also, go see Let Me In. It’s a wonderful adaption of the original Swedish novel.

    Thanks for listening everyone!

  • Mark in Ottawa



  • Nick Robertson

    GREG! Are you sure the ‘Space Monkey’ thing wasn’t in regards to Fight Club? Was it a Fincher movie or even a screening of Fight Club itself?