I was never really excited for Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark but I was curious to see how they would be able to improve on an already cheesy 70’s TV show. When I saw the trailer for it, I thought it looked amazing but at the time I didn’t know it was a remake. As time passed I forgot about the movie until my friend watched the original TV show and said it was really cheesy. So, on the eve of its premiere, I was beginning to show a little excitement. This was a chance for the filmmaker and Guillermo (as the producer) to construct an homage to 70’s horror where the music and the mood are the scariest pieces. In the end, I walked out of the theater with a feeling of “eh.” It certainly isn’t bad but it wasn’t great either. It was okay. The film centers on a father, his young daughter and a stepmother who is NOT evil like any other horror movie. The young daughter, Sally, begin hearing voices coming from an old gated up hole in the basement. The voices say they want to be her friend but she quickly learns they want to attack her. Thinking that his daughter is crazy, the dad believes all the attacks are staged by Sally to get attention. Sally’s dislike for his new wife may have been the cause of that, however, the “no so evil” stepmother does a little sleuthing and finds out that little creatures that eat the teeth of young children inhabit the house.
One of the biggest problems that I had with the film, and it doesn’t tarnish the entire movie, was the willingness to show the creatures in extreme detail. Don’t get me wrong, I’m okay with a movie that feels like a demonic version of The Borrowers but I didn’t need to see all the details. By doing a Google search on Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark, it seems as though the original did the same thing. The beginning of the movie has a man, named Blackwood, who chiseled his teeth and his maid’s teeth out and offered them to the creatures in exchange for his son. While in the process of sticking his head through that hole in the wall, something grabs him, we hear screams and then his entire body gets sucked into it. That was creepier than anything else in the movie. By showing your monster too much, you lessen the scare value and it reveals just how funny the creature or creatures are. I think if we saw small movement, or even a silhouette running in the shadows, it would have built up a better mood. If they had to show you what the creatures looked like, I think the best part to do so would be when Sally is lifting up her bed sheets and one of them pops out. It’s fast, it shows you it’s face and it’s a great teaser.
Perhaps Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark was marketed for horror fans that are within the R-rating. I can’t help but think of Insidious when I talk about it because they both seem to rely heavily on the same scare techniques of the 70’s, loud abrupt orchestral pieces and a very definitive mood. As a side note, I wonder why Insidious got a PG-13 and Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark got an R? There wasn’t any swearing any either of them from what I remember. However, in the case of Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark, it wasn’t so much moody as it was loud noises. I’m fine with that because a lot of horror flicks use the loud noises to scare it’s audience but what made Insidious so good was the mood and it’s willingness to use silence as a means of scaring the audience. For younger horror fans, loud noises and foreboding music works and it’s a staple in the horror genre, I just wish they did something a little more different.
With all that said, and this goes for Insidious too, I love that Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark isn’t just your typical haunted house movie but rather something much more with a creature that is very reminiscent of old world demonology. The tooth-snagging creatures could be interpreted as teeth fairies seeing as how they steal your teeth and leave a piece of silver in it’s place. They almost seem like they drew inspiration from Medieval and Colonial takes on fairies where they were seen as monsters or demons that attacked children. I love that idea that there are things that live within the walls of my home, which is why that line, “Are you feeding that thing that lives in the wall again?” from People Under the Stairs freaked me out. I know this is a remake and I’m sure all this more appropriately applies to the original but I haven’t seen it yet, so I am basing all my assumption on the remake.
All in all, it wasn’t a near-flawless movie but it was still entertaining at times. I guess what separates me from a majority of the new horror fans is that I like it when the monster is left to your imagination. On the way back from the theater, my friend leaned over to me and told me that it would have been far creepier if they only revealed the creatures in the forms of the drawings. I couldn’t agree more. Otherwise, the acting is what you’d expect from a horror movie but the little girl was fantastic. It always seems to be the case. The mansion was creepy and I felt like it owned something to The Haunting remake. I also really enjoyed the bitter ending; I didn’t expect it and it was pretty cold. I won’t spoil it but it’s pretty sad. I wouldn’t rush out to see it but it’s a good movie to watch if you have surround sound and have nothing better to do on a dark stormy night.
Posts
HauntedHouseChicago.com - Chicago’s Online Halloween Headquarters
21 comments:
I had the same problem with it: they showed too much. Although I do have to add that they showed too much way too early on. It didn't give us enough time to wonder.
Perhaps because it wanted to be a horror-fantasy. I find that most horror movies thrive on not showing, while the latter is almost exactly the opposite. If the filmmakers did want to make a hybrid, they could've worked more on balancing what we see versus what we're forced to create in our minds.
I think I liked it a little bit more than you did, though. I loved the mansion and the details of its interior. The look added to the movie's mood and I found myself that much more into it. Every time Pearce looked through a hole, I literally squirmed in my seat. I was entertained. (And so did a friend of mine with whom I saw it with--mostly from all my squirming.)
I guess, compared to it's original, it's a step up. I wasn't overwhelmed by it but it was a fair sequel, nonetheless.
It was a television MOVIE not a TV show. Your easily researched mistake is like looking at a car and calling it an airplane because both go very fast.
"The young daughter, Sally, begin hearing voices coming from an old gated up hole in the basement. "
In most houses it is called a fireplace. You light pieces of wood inside of it and it causes the house to spin around in faster increments until everyone inside the house is pressed up against the outer walls.
"Perhaps Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark was marketed for horror fans that are within the R-rating."
What may have tipped you off was the R rating.
"I can’t help but think of Insidious when I talk about it because they both seem to rely heavily on the same scare techniques of the 70’s, loud abrupt orchestral pieces and a very definitive mood."
Other than the fact that the movie is a remake of a 70's television movie I agree, since no movie ever made in the 80's or 90's has ever resorted to musical stings - the proper term, not what you referred to as loud abrupt orchestral pieces - or mood to make a movie frightening.
The tooth-snagging creatures could be interpreted as teeth fairies seeing as how they steal your teeth and leave a piece of silver in it’s place.
The proper grammar for your sentence is "tooth fairies."
"They almost seem like they drew inspiration from Medieval and Colonial takes on fairies where they were seen as monsters or demons that attacked children."
Here is the real origin of the legend of the tooth fairy. I wish I could take credit in this, but I used Wikipedia to find the actual information, which points out how easy it could have been for you to do the barest amount of research and not make erroneous assumptions.
"In early Europe, it was a tradition to bury baby teeth that fell out. The tradition is still very much alive and well in Ireland and Great Britain, where it is common for young children to believe in the Tooth Fairy. When a child's sixth tooth falls out, it is customary for the tooth fairy to slip a gift or money under the child's pillow, but to leave the tooth as a reward for the child growing strong. Some people leave trails of so called "fairy dust" on the floor of the child's room.
There was also (in northern Europe) the tradition of the payment of a 'toothfe' or tooth fee. This payment was paid when a child cut their first tooth. This tradition is recorded in writings as early as the Eddas (poetic Edda and Prose Edda) which were the earliest written record of Norse and Northern European mythologies and traditions.
Rosemary Wells, a former professor at the Northwestern University Dental School, found evidence that supports the origin of different tooth fairies in the United States around 1900. Folklorist Tad Tuleja suggests postwar affluence, a child-directed family culture, and media turned the myth into a custom."
"Your easily researched mistake"
Watch your syntax - your wording implies that the mistake itself was easily researched rather than corrected.
In what respect is a TV movie not a TV show? There's a lot of overlap there, no, since a TV movie is by its nature...shown on TV?
"I wish I could take credit in this..."
I wish you could too, but unfortunately the correct collocation here is 'to take credit FOR' not 'with'.
Otherwise - excellent trolling! Definitely a B or even a B+ for the sheer volume of obnoxious responses! You're a credit to the internet.
Rick, everyone knows it is you.
When you click on your name you are directed to a page with "As a courtesy, your ISP provided this page because "www.trollingguild.com" does not exist or is unavailable."
Rick, just come to your own defense of your page, don't hide under an assumed name.
I'll play along though...
I want to thank you "Hugh", but I want you to know YOU are the biggest credit to the internet especially since you took the time to get offended. Your tears are like salt in my martini, unnecessary yet enjoyable.
Yet,I must point out few things in your very well meaning attempt at correcting me (remember it is not trolling when you do it, it is correcting):
1. "Your easily researched mistake"
"Watch your syntax - your wording implies that the mistake itself was easily researched rather than corrected."
I disagree, not only was it a form of sarcasm, but it did imply that his mistake could have been avoided by simply research but sarcasm and common sense are usually lost on people when they read words on a screen, especially attempting to troll, I mean correct, someone in the same manner that they have seen someone else previously trolled the same way.
Drowned kittens and retarded uncles also have the same problem recognizing common sense and sarcasm.
2. In what respect is a TV movie not a TV show? There's a lot of overlap there, no, since a TV movie is by its nature...shown on TV?
There is no overlap. TV show implies television series when this was a television movie of the week. TV show is a series with recurring characters and plot devices (yes I include anthology television shows such as tales from the Darkside in there due to their nature) NOT a TV movie of the week.
Your weak yet somewhat inventive question that just because it is a Made for TV Movie qualifies it as a television show without the designation of being a television movie reeks of grasping at straws to try and qualify your argument...and yes, grasping at straws does indeed produce an off odor that many people have described as "reeking."
3. "I wish you could too, but unfortunately the correct collocation here is 'to take credit FOR' not 'with'. "
As you noted, my actual quote that you referenced was:
"I wish I could take credit in this..."
I said take credit "in" not "with" as you have mistakenly mentioned.
It was a simple mistake on your part but I chalk that up to desperation on your part and decided to give you a pass despite you not doing the same for me, so yes you are correct on what you probably attempted to correct.
I would like to give your attempt at cross trolling a good grade such as you did to mine, but since you resorted to the desperate, "pissed off reader" role of Grammar Police with no other way of picking apart any of my posts I will have to give you a full letter grade below mine with a C or C+ for getting your vagina completely filled with sand.
Good attempt at trolling back Rick, but you still have AIDS.
Actually, that wasn't me at all despite your paranoia. I didn't defend my blog because he doesn't need defense. Your comments are still here, you have the opportunity to voice your criticisms or concerns and that's that. Unlike you, I don't hide behind a fake name.
LOL, just goes to show you should never feed the trolls! They just get bigger!
'Raeshaan', Rick didn't troll you back - I did. Nice to meet you, you seem a very friendly and constructive young man. Or should that be 'constrictive', like the snake? :)
Normally I wouldn't bother with the likes of you, but as you posted *SIX* troll comments on a decent blog written by a decent guy and big horror fan, I couldn't resist.
Anyway, back to trolling the troll!
'Your tears are like salt in my martini, unnecessary but enjoyable'.
Martini is a proper noun, so you should have given it a capital letter. You also used a comma incorrectly.
'I disagree, not only was it a form of sarcasm, but it did imply that his mistake could have been avoided by simply research...'
You need a class in comma usage; also how do you avoid making a mistake by 'simply research'?
As for sarcasm, here's a pointer: it works best when you use words correctly. That's how language is effective.
Your second point is flawed as well; a TV show is *shown* on TV. A series is in the form of several episodes. A show is not necessarily a series.
Oh, my! I made a mistake in pointing out your error regarding collocation with 'to take credit'. I shall smack myself on the wrist in a moment. As you say though, I'm correct on what I attempted to correct.
I'd love to correct you further but, as you invariably lurk under bridges, it's sadly not possible. If you'd like to provide a link to your extensive and error-free reviews, I'll gladly help. As you nit-picked here, the least I can do is take a look at your work. Obviously I'll critique properly too, rather than just cut and paste from Wikipedia to demonstrate my research skills.
Have a great weekend!
MrsK since you are a female Internet user and therefore are not worth listening to you since you only are prone to complaining about the centipedes in your vagina and other hysterical matters a liberal arts education has afforded you I haven't bothered to read your above comment other than to give it a quick scan.
Thank you for wishing me a great weekend, I plan to have one. I'm going to sit in the woods and feed deer a mixture of corn, apples, sawdust and tack nails in an effort to gain their trust. In ancient China there is a high demand for antlers because the Head Chink liked to sharpen them and use them as spears to kill his enemies and I plan on inventing a time machine to go back and sell him all the deer antlers I will undoubtedly have at the end of this weekend. All this success I attribute to your wish for me to have a great weekend, which was in no way smug and snarky. People like that usually just sit back and read what they posted and actually say, "Yeah." Then they reach for a Red Bull or a 5 Hour Energy. Did I tell you I also am going to go back in time and invent 5 Hour Energy? Don't worry, I will tell you yesterday.
Do you find it interesting that bees theoretically should not be able to fly due to their body size and weight in relation to their wings? This reminds me of your earlier statement when you adamantly stick to your fictional theory that "a TV show is *shown* on TV. A series is in the form of several episodes. A show is not necessarily a series." Once again you are wrong because if you saw a theatrical movie that made its debut on television you wouldn't say, "Hey, I just saw "Jaws" in a movie theater" after watching it on your living room TV despite it being first run in a movie theater. Another similar example is when you hear your favorite Katy Perry song on the radio. You wouldn't say that since you heard the song on the radio you actually heard the whole album, nor would you say you heard the "radio program Katy Perry's [ insert song here ]" unless you were trying to desperately win an Internet argument you proclaim to not really be interested in or unless you were incredibly stupid. I must admit that I find the notion of you ripping apart grammar in retaliation to posts mocking a poorly written review pretty funny as it is usually the last dying act of a World Wide Attention seeker but in your case you used it as an opening act but missed the point entirely despite curling your finger around the trigger and pulling both barrels. This leads me back to the subject of bees and how they shouldn't be able to support their bodies with tiny wings and fly. I have seen them fly so I know for a fact that it is untrue, but since I saw that information on the Internet I am conflicted because everything posted on the Internet is the truth and should always be taken as such. Maybe I will swing by with my time machine and we can go into the future and see when we will actually have flying cars since I would like to be able to drive above traffic jams. If you say no to my advance I will just travel back another five minutes and ask you again. Or maybe I will ask again in the future but go back in time to a minute or two from now. The possibilities are literally endless.
MISSK THIS IS ME FROM 6 YEARS IN THE FUTURE. WE HAVE FLYING CARS. I CALLED YOU MRSK IN THE PREVIOUS POST SINCE WE MARRIED IN THE FUTURE AND THEN DIVORCED IN THE DISTANT PAST.
YOU RECEIVED HALF OF MY MILLION DOLLAR ESTATE WHICH CONSISTS COMPLETELY OF BASEBALL CARDS AND STAMPS. EXCEPT THE PETE ROSE CARDS. THOSE I HID. THEY HAD NO MONETARY VALUE BIT I HAD MY REASONS.
DO YOU WANT TO GO IN MY TIME MACHINE AND SEE THE FUTURE AND LEARN IF WE HAVE FLYING CARS YET?
Missk whatever you do choose the red door.
I send this message from last month and by my calculations this should reach you just after your nit picking pissy posts defending Rick's shitty review and my responses to you.
The red door.
Remember. The red door.
I shall see you in time.
Dear MrR, you forgot the link to your own blog, silly!
That's okay though! We all make mistakes. Judging from your comments, you're a real expert on most things. I love reading the work of my betters; no errors, no grammatical issues, no petty mistakes. We all need inspiration, and luckily your troll comments exist for us all. Thankyou for sacrificing your weekend on the altar of giving-not-a-fuck for our sakes.
I can't wait to see your site though. Let's talk there! I'm excited already.
Ahahahahahaha!!!!!
MissK thank you for your understanding and tolerances of other people's mistakes. Being a fan of this blog and making so many mistakes yourself I would expect nothing but tolerance from you. Thank you for not disappointing me. I can't wait until we take our relationship to the physical level.
Once again you seem to be mistaken in thinking that my initial posts were in response to Rick's grammar which if you bothered to read you will see that is not the case. It is his lack of common sense which is a trait you obviously share. I love you anyway so don't think that will deter me.
Rick, the reply wasn't that funny but since you need any assurance that you possibly can I understand your desperate need to show solidarity towards MissK since she is fighting your battle.
I have decided to use my time machine to go forward in time and meet God like in that Star Trek movie. I believe it was called "Star Trek: Kirk meets God." When I meet God I shall ask him if there is anyway that MissK can be less of an Internet fag. I will explain that I have been to her blog and that I see no solution there. I will also ask God if MissK gets a full dose of satisfaction by replying to me despite her earlier claims that she is better than feeding the trolls. If God can not answer me I feel that we shall all be at a loss.
Things that are infinitely better than any of MissK's retorts:
1. The complete discography of Billy Bragg, including bootleg recordings.
2. Watching a tiger get punched by Henry Rollins
3. cheese
4. The works of Pablo Neruda
5. soccer
I have an actual website, MissK. I would be delighted if you visited there:
http://www.cinemajuggs.com
I hope to see you there.
Regards, Rae
I'm actually laughing at everything, not just one post. Also, there is no battle. Just comments.
Fair enough. I'm secretly hoping that MissK doesn't challenge me to a dance off.
Post a Comment