So i hadn’t been following any news about this movie at all and had absolutely no idea what it was about. Initially thought it was a remake of some Wes Craven movie or something (sounded like it) but apparently it’s a remake of some Swedish flick from 2008?

So i checked out the trailer last night and surprise! Chloe ‘Hitgirl’ Moretz was in it! Loved her in Kick-Ass, saw her again in (500) Days of Summer and again in Diary Of A Wimpy Kid. It was like when Dakota Fanning started popping up in almost every other movie ever made.

Anyhow, i downloaded the original Let The Right One In and i’m debating whether i should watch that one or the remake first. I read somewhere about how they changed some things in the remake.

But whatever!

A commenter posted a link to this video of Chloe in a pink blue wig and we all know how much we like seeing girls in wigs on this site.

Blue wig, purple wig, Chloe Moretz is pretty awesome.

61 thoughts on “LET ME IN

  1. Watch the FIRST one first.

    #1 | Comment by cobalt — October 3, 2010 @ 6:53 am

  2. but what if it’s like the ring where the remake is superior?!

    #2 | Comment by Justin — October 3, 2010 @ 6:54 am

  3. Can’t help you there b/c both of those films sucked donkey cock. And yet I suspect both of these films will also suck donkey cock, so maybe your reasoning is sound.

    Sleepy blue-haired pre-teen wins, btw. She was Chloë on the dotted line, but in my arms she was always Hit-Girl.

    #3 | Comment by cobalt — October 3, 2010 @ 7:16 am

  4. Remake is going to suck, they are totally doing it wrong. USA is Trying to make it a scary movie when it is supposed to be an understated story about two kids whom one happens to need to drink blood. I don’t think the word vampire is ever even used in the original, also the title Let The Right One In refers to vampire lore where a vampire has to be told that they can enter a dwelling and the original requires you to know this, it expects a smarter audience.

    #4 | Comment by Lita — October 3, 2010 @ 9:23 am

  5. If you want to really “get” this story, don’t bother with either of the movies and read the book first.

    #5 | Comment by CaPPyD — October 3, 2010 @ 9:32 am

  6. i’m watching the original right now with the theatrical subs (apparently they let the wrong subtitles in the first time around)




    #6 | Comment by Justin — October 3, 2010 @ 9:51 am

  7. The wig vid is just simply amazing.

    #7 | Comment by reggidee — October 3, 2010 @ 9:54 am

  8. done watching. pretty good! can’t wait to see the changes in the remake, for better or worse.

    #8 | Comment by Justin — October 3, 2010 @ 11:33 am

  9. first one was the shit. i’d carry “it” around in a cardboard box…

    #9 | Comment by Mike — October 3, 2010 @ 12:44 pm

  10. The book apparently was the best version I guess as it had pedophilia in it.

    #10 | Comment by Booger — October 3, 2010 @ 1:25 pm

  11. OMG old. Sometimes I think Justin really lives in 2008, and this website is somehow reaching all of us in the present.

    #11 | Comment by Dex — October 3, 2010 @ 3:23 pm

  12. Remake has Chloe, therefore it is superior.

    1:40-1:45 in the wig vid <3 <3 <3

    #12 | Comment by zomg — October 3, 2010 @ 3:24 pm

  13. Damn, this site still exists? Whatever happened to all those hot chicks that used to post in like ’02?

    #13 | Comment by Mike — October 3, 2010 @ 3:46 pm

  14. This girl is going to be a stunner. She seems to have acting chops. Somebody get word to her that bolt-ons are no good.

    #14 | Comment by Metacarpal — October 3, 2010 @ 5:48 pm

  15. @ Lita

    It’s nice of you to bestow your clairvoyant wisdom on this topic. I have watched the original, the remake and read the book. Both movies leave a lot of the things from the book out (for obvious reasons). It just wouldn’t fit and it’s hard to do a movies narrative and include everyone’s thoughts. The book also went into details on a lot of minor / un-needed characters that a movie just couldn’t.

    After seeing both, you can’t really say one is closer to the book than the other. Most plot points are closer in the original move, but many details are put in the remake that were omitted in the original. The remake did a lot of things right and better than the original. I’m not going into spoiler details but the original tried to hit on plot points from the book that it just didn’t explain and go into. The remake did a much better thing of ignoring these plot points that only confused the plot of the original movie.

    As for the title…If “Let the Right One In” is such a superior title and about the vampire aspect…who is the “Wrong One” in the story? The US title is referring to a Vampire (a word that I also isn’t mentioned in the remake) needing to be invited in. Let me in fits much better in this context than let the right one in. If you read the book you would know that the original title didn’t have anything to do with vampire invite directly . It was from a minor character in the book thinking about peoples relationships coming into and out of your life…and the best thing you could do was to just let the right ones in. Meaning let the right people in your life and keep the wrong people out of it. This character was very minor in the original movie and she didn’t even go into those thoughts…so it really didn’t make sense to call the original movie that. “Let the Right Ones In” would have actually been better.

    All 3 (book and 2 movies) are great. There were parts of each that were better and worse than the others. It reminds me a lot on my opinions on The Watchmen comic vs the Watchmen movie.

    #15 | Comment by DugFreez — October 3, 2010 @ 6:27 pm

  16. #3 – paraphrasing Nabokov ftw. though prolly way too literary for the denizens of this perved-out corner of the interwebs.

    #16 | Comment by AngelBaby — October 3, 2010 @ 7:39 pm

  17. … looks like a teen version of Rachel McAdams

    #17 | Comment by Josh — October 3, 2010 @ 7:41 pm

  18. #16 – Nabokov wrote about ‘sucking donkey cock’? I must read up on this Russian literary giant – those guys are a hoot!

    #18 | Comment by Smiley — October 3, 2010 @ 7:53 pm

  19. It has been a while since I have seen the original film, but I do think at one point he say’s “You are a vampire” almost a statement, almost a question. She doesn’t answer.

    I love the point about letting the right people in to our lives, but I have to believe the author also intended the double meaning about inviting vamps. There was that scene where he didn’t and she entered anyway, ‘member?

    #19 | Comment by Geekazoid — October 3, 2010 @ 9:21 pm

  20. *droolz* I am def. a fan.

    #20 | Comment by Phil says, "huh?" — October 3, 2010 @ 9:58 pm

  21. @ Geek azoid: I had forgot about the part where the boy asks the girl if she is a vampire. In both of the movies I think vampire is used 1 time each. It’s actually in the trailer of the original and if it was in the remake it was in the same part of the movie (the remake trailer he asks “What are you?” but I think in the movie he asks if she is a vampire in the same conversation). The book, on the other hand, uses the word vampire quite a bit, but I don’t remember her ever calling herself that or admitting it it that way.

    The original title is probably playing off of both the vampire invitation lore and also what I mentioned before about the minor character thinking about letting the right people into your life. I just assumed that there was a little bit lost in the “Let the Right One In” translation. As I said, I think “Let the Right Ones In” (plural) works better and on both levels. I just think since the topic of letting people in your life wasn’t addressed in the remake the redone name of “Let Me In” works much better and it’s silly to think it was changed because “dumb Americans” can’t understand what the title is.

    #21 | Comment by DugFreez — October 4, 2010 @ 1:06 am

  22. I was hoping for pre-teen sex, but the best we get is chloe naked in bed (under covers of course, about 4-5 years till we could get the real thing)

    #22 | Comment by Bruins — October 4, 2010 @ 2:56 am

  23. i remember when this site used to get updated all the time. and with good shit.

    #23 | Comment by dylbaby — October 4, 2010 @ 3:16 am

  24. A bit old for this site (she’s 20) but how about Jessica Nigri…?


    #24 | Comment by Phil says, "huh?" — October 4, 2010 @ 6:27 pm

  25. I remember back when this site would have been all over these pics of tight little Emma Roberts and her wandering eye prancing around in her underwear …. http://www.hollywoodtuna.com/?p=43735. Now, instead, we get pictures of boxes that Justin opened. Weee.

    #25 | Comment by Rod Stiffington — October 4, 2010 @ 7:38 pm

  26. Chloe Moretz + blue wig = thick, white sticky cream in my shorts

    # 25- Emma Roberts is too old.

    #16- What’s a nabakov?

    #26 | Comment by Hambubger — October 4, 2010 @ 7:58 pm

  27. Honestly, I thought this site died in like 2003. Whatever happened to the fubar girls? Jesus there used to be more going on than just pics of celebrity girls.

    #27 | Comment by Mike — October 4, 2010 @ 10:12 pm

  28. #25….yes this site needs more of this….at the very least

    #28 | Comment by jez — October 4, 2010 @ 10:39 pm

  29. #26 – Nabakov? That’s a brand of Cold War era Soviet cough medicine.

    ‘Cough got you, Comrade? Nab-a-Kov! Now with 100% pure grain alcohol! Comrade!’

    #29 | Comment by Smiley — October 5, 2010 @ 2:28 am

  30. #27 – get over it. no one cared the first time you posted it.

    #30 | Comment by Mike — October 5, 2010 @ 2:30 am

  31. #30 – butthurt?

    #31 | Comment by Mike — October 5, 2010 @ 8:00 am

  32. Just in case you’re yet to see Ren Stevens’ tits:


    Don’t know why she swapped the A-cups for misshapen fakes, but still fappable.

    #32 | Comment by cobalt — October 5, 2010 @ 4:36 pm

  33. ^^^

    thanks, i had no idea. implants are a bad idea 99% of the time, but skinny chicks should never get them. i’d smash that ass, but i am disappoint.

    #33 | Comment by Mike — October 5, 2010 @ 4:56 pm

  34. Cute kid 🙂

    Dunno if that’s gonna result in hot adult… well, hot young adult. Anyway, she’s a southerner so she’s got a pretty good shot.

    #34 | Comment by Tony — October 5, 2010 @ 6:38 pm

  35. #32: Jesus Christ that chick’s got some big fake tits!

    #35 | Comment by Tony — October 5, 2010 @ 6:40 pm

  36. #32 Thank You for saving this Thread

    #36 | Comment by pwrdrive — October 5, 2010 @ 11:17 pm

  37. I saw this today, in a matinee. The only other people there were 2 other like-minded pedo loners.

    I enjoyed it. It didn’t add much to the original, but I didn’t really care. It did have a very cool car scene that wasn’t in the original, though. Anyway Chloe was great.

    #37 | Comment by zomg — October 6, 2010 @ 1:00 am

  38. That last video made me wonder whatever happened to original pink wig Stephanie of lazytown…

    I guess if you lose the limelight for even a short few years, someone will permanently take your place.

    Most recent example: Emma Stone v. Lohan

    #38 | Comment by Picard — October 6, 2010 @ 2:37 am

  39. it’s kinda sad, but Chloe’s the only other jailbait I want.. the other is Dakota fanning. who is no longer jailbait. life’s not fair.

    #39 | Comment by garth — October 6, 2010 @ 8:55 pm

  40. Ha Ha, Egotastic has the topless “Ren Stevens” pics…. while this site has______ movie reviews? Lol. Way to destroy a once fine site.

    #40 | Comment by Canadian — October 8, 2010 @ 12:39 pm

  41. Destroy a once fine site? am I the only person here who remembers what this site was originally – Just a random blog by Justin, often filled with updates of nothing but text and no pictures at all!

    #41 | Comment by wtf — October 8, 2010 @ 2:58 pm

  42. ^^^
    you’ll have to excuse the noobs who only come here for fap material. they don’t have the first clue about the origins of Justin’s site. i’m quite happy that he’s posting again like he did back in the day.

    not to mention, a link to the pics that this fucktard is gushing over was posted (props to cobalt) in this very comment thread THREE DAYS BEFORE EGOSPASTIC POSTED THEM.

    oh snap.

    #42 | Comment by AngelBaby — October 8, 2010 @ 3:54 pm

  43. stop the fighting!

    yes, the authors of this site do not post multiple new items every day.
    yes, there are other items of interest at other sites, but that doesn’t mean this one is obsolete.

    but AngelBaby does bring up a good point. Visitors of this site post links in comment threads. Perhaps some sort of community shout box can help bring these links to the forefront.

    #43 | Comment by anonymous — October 8, 2010 @ 7:23 pm

  44. I wonder if the haters realize we have forums here, where you can contribute, complain, get involved, start a discussion, and even a dedicated “babes” section, if that’s what you’re here for.

    #44 | Comment by Dex — October 9, 2010 @ 12:35 am

  45. Pictures of boxes that Justin has opened is a vast improvement over what this site used to be, which was conversations about boxes that Justin has opened.

    #45 | Comment by Nobody — October 10, 2010 @ 4:55 pm

  46. Aye, the comments here keep the site going. Keep posting the pics between the actual posts!

    #46 | Comment by Clone — October 10, 2010 @ 7:48 pm

  47. Vladimir Nabokov, professor at Cornell, born in St Petersburg into a family of Russian nobility, was educated by a British governess In the 60s, he wrote “Lolita,” a literary masterpiece. After an initial outcry by the PC crowd, it became a world best seller. It depicts the love, the obsession of a middle aged professor for 12 year old Dolores Haze. It is not a fast read, buit when you break the code with which Nabovkov describes the sex scenes, of which there are many, you have one of the finest, elegantly written descriptions of love for and sex with prepubescent Lo, who he calls “Lolita.” I don;t know if it is still in bookstores. Amazon carries it. Buy it, you will not be disappoointed.

    #47 | Comment by Andre — October 10, 2010 @ 8:47 pm

  48. i don’t know wether of you guyses emails, so ill just say it here, Christy Carlson Romona (even stevens) has fake boobs and is nude in Mirrors 2.

    #48 | Comment by Xan — October 10, 2010 @ 10:46 pm

  49. Here’s a fantastic pic of Chloe. I dunno if that is part of a set, but if it is I want the rest.

    #49 | Comment by zomg — October 11, 2010 @ 1:35 am

  50. ^^ Fantastic pic?? sorry..looks like a guy…or a Tranny at least..absolutley the worst picture of her I have ever seen…try again

    #50 | Comment by Nevaben — October 11, 2010 @ 5:21 pm

  51. 🙁

    #51 | Comment by zomg — October 11, 2010 @ 6:24 pm

  52. “Fantastic pic?? sorry..looks like a guy…or a Tranny at least..absolutley the worst picture of her I have ever seen…try again”

    Whoa!! Damn! looks like Chloe’s brother! !

    #52 | Comment by Al — October 11, 2010 @ 7:36 pm

  53. ^^”Chloe’s brother would be damn cute then… Though that hair style isn’t flattering on any gender…” Shrug.

    “Not the best pic of Chloe, but it’s not terrible.”

    #53 | Comment by Ryu — October 12, 2010 @ 5:02 am

  54. Man, fuck you guys. I stand by my description.

    #54 | Comment by zomg — October 12, 2010 @ 1:05 pm

  55. “I wasn’t being sarcastic, zomg, or critical. I’m not one of the usual assholes of this site.”

    #55 | Comment by Ryu — October 12, 2010 @ 2:51 pm

  56. Got a Hermione thing going on with that pic. And IMO that’s not a good thing.

    #56 | Comment by Metacarpal — October 12, 2010 @ 10:58 pm

  57. @#44 – I’m not sure even Justin knows we have forums here!!!


    #57 | Comment by smash — October 13, 2010 @ 9:21 am

  58. oh yes for sure that pic of Chloe looks like a dude…bad choice of pics

    #58 | Comment by Frankenstory — October 13, 2010 @ 5:15 pm

  59. I would have posted sooner, but I’m just keeping inline with the normal update frequency of the site…

    Chloe in KA is definitely FTW: schoolgirls ZOMFG. But, Christ, she looks like a young Macaulay Culkin in this vid — blech.

    I’ll wait to fap until I see something that looks vaguely female in her again.

    #59 | Comment by Quidam — October 21, 2010 @ 5:03 pm

  60. So I watched Let Me In tonight. Implied Chloe nudity(the only exposed breast we saw was the neighbour’s within 10 minutes of the start, and she’s too old for most of the paedos here), including the part where she requests invitation, the above-mentioned bed scene, and the bathing scene later. Beyond that, implied fondling(“You’re not wearing anything!”, also during the bed scene), and also, unintentional hilarity. Dunno about you guys, but whenever she said “I’m not a girl.”, the theatre audience here was cracking up(presumably, the joke being if she’s not a girl, she must be a boy, or a futa!) Overall, pretty good fuel for imagination, but if you’re the sort who MUST SEE TIT FOR IT TO COUNT!, not really much. Lots of gore, though most of it can be willed away as long as you remind yourself it’s simulated.

    #60 | Comment by Anony Mouse — December 21, 2010 @ 3:24 pm

  61. She’s actually not quite as bad-looking as the above comments might imply. I admit, in the theatre, I was telling my companion “She’s getting that Emma Watson phase.”, but at least she’s still got killer legs(hoping she gets to at LEAST 5’4″, so they’re not wasted). I can see that Macaulay Culkin bit though. Mostly in her lips. She’s better in the scenes where her hair’s down. Those make her look a bit like Hayden Panettiere.

    #61 | Comment by Anony Mouse — December 21, 2010 @ 3:27 pm

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *