I prefer the remake Let Me In simply because I didn't like the actors in the original.
B-but, the original actors are better....
Yep.
First, Let Me In isn't a remake. It's another adaptation of the book, and includes things I thought were far more important to the story than the first adaptation. And sorry, but the entire second film was superior - no contest.
Not even close, for starters it was a remake clearly based on the original as it's shallow and doesn't have the same foundation the original has, the original was an abridged version of the novel to begin with but it had all sorts of details and nods acknowledging the backstory and mythology of the novel, the remake doesn't, it's missing that, and in that, it turns into a more shallow attempt leaning towards Twilight territory, not that it comes close to that.
The remake is too Americanized, the visuals aren't bad but they aren't as slick, lonely and cold as in the original's, the original's soundtrack is more eerie and nostalgic, its sound is miles better too, characters are more real as the performances and delivery in the original are very natural, vulnerable and believable, the remake's is too over-dramatized and poorly delivered in comparison, as it's often the case with American remakes, and no less important, the characters were better cast in the original, period, Eli fits the book's description to a tee.
I'm not a "the originals are better" or "the books is better" reactionary, there have been cases where the American or the International versions are better than the foreign ones, fewer but they exist, like the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo international version, that wasn't a remake,
that one was based on the novel directly, it made changes and adaptations that made sense, it had a way better cast than the original, better everything and it was overall a better movie because Fincher is a way better director than Niels Arden Oplev.
But this isn't the case, in this case the original is superior in every way.
