Review: Don't Be Afraid Of The Dark

Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark is a rarity in that it’s the first time since The Ring 2002 that I’ve gone to see a remake of a film I haven’t seen. Somehow the original 1973 TV movie that I’ve heard so much about and I haven’t crossed paths. Therefore, this will be the first, and probably last, time you will read a review of a remake on this blog where I have no frame of reference. From talking to people who have seen both, it seems that it’s fairly close in story and has some interesting nods to the original. All I knew about it going in was that Guillermo Del Toro had a hand in it. I hadn’t even seen the trailer, so the flick is all I have to go on. Therefore if you’re looking for how the flick stacks up against the original, you’ve come to the wrong place.

Sally’s mother has sent her to live with her father Alex and Kim, his girlfriend. They are staying in and restoring a beautiful old gothic mansion that once belonged to renowned painter Emerson Blackwood. Blackwood became obsessed with painting grotesque, evil fairies after the disappearance of his son. He then mysteriously disappeared. When Sally discovers a hidden basement in the house, she unwittingly opens a door for the house’s deep, dark secret, the creatures that live beneath it, to enter. Can she convince the adults that these tiny terrors aren’t just in her imagination before it’s too late?

This movie is all about old-fashioned horror, but in a more “dark fantasy” way. It almost has the feeling of a kid’s movie, but with the scares and intensity kicked up. It definitely has that twisted fairy tale feeling that permeates the vast majority of the films that Guillermo Del Toro is involved with. That’s partially due to the fact that the story is basically told from Sally’s point of view. Remember back in the late 70’s and early 80’s when Disney started making slightly darker live action flicks like Watcher in the Woods, Candleshoe, and Something Wicked This Way comes? That’s exactly what it reminded me of. It had the feel of one of those, just WAY meaner and without the happy ending. I don’t want to give anything away, but no, everyone does not live happily ever after. Think of it this way, remember when you were a kid and someone told you a scary story? Your imagination ran wild. Everything was lush, simple but detailed, and dreamlike, and you were scared shitless. This is like that childhood story that gave you nightmares, but designed to work for grown ups. The best part is…it succeeds.

Like Insidious earlier in the year, DBAOTD doesn’t rely on cheap camera tricks, music video editing, and constant jump scares for its fear. It’s a throwback to the days of horror based on atmosphere. Despite what mainstream, and therefore squeamish, reviewers might try to tell you, there is no gruesome violence in this movie. There is violence, some of it rather squirm-inducing, but it’s not graphic. I respect a movie that doesn’t need a lot of violence and gore to be intense. Woah, hold on. Don’t get me wrong, I love gore. LOVE IT! Everybody knows that I’m a gorehound. They won’t come and see me in this dive. (Anyone?) Atmospheric horror is great too, though. Some movies go with the gore because that’s the style of horror they want to do, and others gore it up because they can’t manage to create atmosphere or suspense. Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark didn’t go there because it didn’t need to. This movie’s potent combination of children’s story feel, gothic horror tropes, monster movie thrills, and genuine suspense creates a unique atmosphere that’s honestly unlike anything I’ve seen in a long time. Doing something different is a rarity in horror these days, and I love that this film went that way.

Del Toro may not have directed (he co-wrote and co-produced) this movie, but just like The Orphanage, which he also produced, his distinctive style is all over this flick, from the “tooth fairy” motif (Hellboy 2) to the child protagonist exploring an old, creepy house (Devil’s Backbone, Pan’s Labrynth). First time feature director Troy Nixey does a very good job behind the camera. Being a comic artist, he definitely has a knack for compelling visuals. He also shows a lot of skill when it comes to creating suspense. The scene in the trailer when Sally is looking under her sheets for one of the little creatures plays out perfectly in the film. They hold off the payoff scare for just long enough to let it ripen, but not so long that the effect is lessened. I’m a fan of Del Toro, and his style is always welcome, but his fingerprint on the film makes it a little hard to tell how much of the good stuff here is him and how much is Nixey. It will be interesting to see what Troy comes up with on his own. Consider me intrigued.

Guy Pearce is probably the least impressive of the three leads. It’s not that he’s bad, because he isn’t. His character is very one note though, and doesn’t really grow or change much, so he didn’t have a whole lot to work with. Katie Holmes does a good job, proving that she can pull out a good performance when the situation calls for it. Leah informed me that she was much better in this than she was on The Kennedys, which was the last thing she saw her in. On a side note, Katie used to be really hot. Now she looks like an x-ray with hair. I’ll be glad when anorexia goes out of style and we can get our buxom Hollywood hotties back. Anyway, the best of the three leads is 11 year old Bailee Madison. This girl can emote and be believable. Sure, all kid actors can turn on the waterworks, they learn to do that to manipulate mom and dad. She runs a full gambit of emotion here, some very subtle. Very impressive for a child actress. The other performance that stood out to me was Jack Thompson as Harris, the handyman who knows the secret of the house. Going back to the children’s movie thing, he’s the stock “gruff and scary adult who turns out to be just trying to look out for the kid” character.

There is only one thing that didn’t work for me in this movie. Ironically, it’s one of the things that worked well also. I’m speaking of the monsters. The voices sound great. It’s a collective ethereal whispering, and it’s pretty damn scary. That definitely worked for me. Visually, for the first half of the movie the monsters are only glimpsed in shadows. They are dark little shapes skittering around with only their glowing eyes or a quick flash of a hand visible. They are incredibly creepy and effective that way. If they had kept it at that, this movie might have been an instant classic. The problem is, they decided to show them. How many times do I have to say it? CGI characters aren’t scary because they don’t look real. A completely CGI character hasn’t been realistic enough not to take me out of the story since Jurassic Park. These little guys look like tiny Gollums. I expected them to start talking about “their precious” any minute. They should have left them barely glimpsed, because when they decide to give the critters some screen time, they just don’t cut it. I found myself wanting to be swept back into the well-told story, but I was too busy laughing at the inane CGI. It’s a shame too. If they had decided not to show them in detail, the creatures actually would have been one of the movie’s strengths. Had I seen the trailer, I would have known that. Since I hadn’t, it was the film’s only disappointment.

One thing about this movie I absolutely do not understand is why it was rated R. This is a PG-13 movie if I ever saw one. That’s not a knock on it at all. In fact, Del Toro says that he designed it for that rating. There is minimal gore, not really any language to speak of, but the MPAA said that their R rating was "not negotiable because of pervasive scariness." Pervasive scariness? Are you f**king kidding me? Whatever. Up yours MPAA. Buncha jackasses. Anyway, this “pervasive scariness” that in no way makes this an R movie is also what makes it a good movie. For the most part, it’s visually stunning and beautiful to look at, the acting is solid, the pacing is perfect, and the suspense is effective. It’s a solid combination of old school gothic horror, dark kid’s story, and creature feature. Bad CGI monsters and all, it’s still good enough to get two severed thumbs up. Nathan says check it out.

30 Day Horror Challenge Day 17 - Your favorite horror film remake

I’m probably gonna catch some flack for this one, but that's ok, everyone's entitled to my opinion. A lot of people hated the 1990 remake of Night of the Living Dead. I absolutely love it though. Before you say anything, let me say that I cannot state loud enough how much I love the original. If this had been a butchering of that classic I would revile it with the same passion that I loathe the Nightmare on Elm Street remake with. What NOTLD90 (that’s gonna be my shorthand for the title from here on out) does is the same thing that some of the best remakes, like The Thing, The Fly, and The Body Snatchers, have done. Instead of completely trying to reinvent the wheel, they took the premise of the original, stayed true to the spirit of the original, but updated the attitude to fit the culture of the time it was released.

One thing that I think contributed to NOTLD90 staying so true to the immortal 1968 film is the fact that the filmmakers were so closely associated with the source material. George Romero wrote the remake’s screenplay and was one of the executive producers, along with his co-writer of the original, John Russo. Tom Savini may not have had anything to do with the original flick, but due to his effects work on its sequels he is arguably the second most important figure behind the Living Dead series after Romero. I can’t think of anyone better to take the directorial reigns of this flick. The fact that it wasn’t just some studio taking advantage of a license they own with no respect for the original (I’m looking at you Platinum Dunes) gives this film a lot more credibility than these wholesale “reboots” we’re getting from the current remake-mania.

While the basic plot and character list are the same as the original, there are definitely changes. While there is more gore and violence in the remake, I am kind of surprised that there wasn’t messier zombie mayhem with the notorious special effects master in the director’s chair. The most obvious change, though, is the strengthening of the female characters. Romero has said that he regrets writing the character of Barbara as absolutely useless, hysterical, and semi catatonic in the original. He remedies that here, turning her into a Sigourney Weaver/Linda Hamilton style ass kicker. After her initial scenes of well deserved freaking out, she becomes the most level headed one of the group. They never quite explain just how she became such a great marksman though. Hmmmm. Anyway, even Cooper’s wife is much more forceful in the remake.

What a cast they assembled for this one too! The always on point Tony Todd plays Ben. He had some mighty big shoes to fill, playing a role originated by Duane Jones, but he does admirably. He plays the character just as take charge and forceful as Jones did, but hives him vulnerability and a touch of sensitivity. The man, no matter what his role, has a commanding screen presence. The scene near the end of Ben, sitting in the cellar as the zombies invade the house and bursting out laughing when he finds those damn gas keys is one of my all time favorite movie moments. There’s also a great inside joke shot involving a crowbar that is a riff on another Todd role you may remember. Tom Towles plays Cooper. In the original, you hate Cooper. In the remake, you loathe him. In Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, Towles was a magnificent scumbag. In NOTLD90, he’s a magnificent dickhead. His job is to make us despise Cooper, and he pulls that off in spades. Patricia Tallman (Army of Darkness, Monkey Shines, various Scifi TV series) is great as the tough as nails Barbara 2.0. Johnny, her brother, is played by genre legend Bill Mosely. It’s a very small part, but you can tell he’s having an absolute blast.

To be fair, this movie does have its faults. Remember when I talked about the female characters being stronger in this version? Judy is the exception. She basically shrieks for the entirety of her time on screen, which is REALLY annoying. Had I been in that farmhouse, I would have fed her to the zombies. Near the end, Barbara, watching the redneck zombie rodeo, throws out the line “They’re us. We’re them and they’re us.” The film is not so much Romero’s usual social commentary as it is just a commentary on mankind’s violent nature, but that was as subtle as a headshot. I think they should have left that unstated; the subtext was obvious enough without them beating us over the head with that line. It also contains the single dumbest thing I have ever seen a horror character do. When Tom and Judy go to refuel the truck, they find that it’s locked. Tom decides to use his trusty lock pick, AKA double barrel shotgun. In the original, Ben blows the lock off with a .22. That was stupid enough. Now, I realize that in horror movies, sometimes the only way to advance the plot is for people to act differently than most people would in real life. I cannot, however, imagine a person ever being stupid, panicked, or drunk enough to think that the best course of action in any situation is to SHOOT A FREAKIN’ 12 GUAGE AT A GAS PUMP!!! Come on now. What did you think was gonna happen?

The successes in the remake of Night of the Living Dead far outweigh the faults though. Savini and Romero manage to retain much of the claustrophobic atmosphere and sense of dread that made the original so great. They completely changed the ending, which in many remakes is a big mistake, but this new ending is brilliant. Overall, this is what a remake should be, everything you love about the original with a modern facelift. Two severed thumbs up. Nathan says check it out.

30 Day Horror Challenge Day 1: A horror film that no one would expect you to love, but you do.

I had some trouble coming up with this entry. Honestly, if you know me, I can’t imagine you being really surprised that I like any horror flick. I like more horror than I don’t like by a wide margin. I even asked some friends “Are there any horror movies you’re surprised that I like” and no one could come up with anything. Then I was reading another blog and saw someone mention how bad the remake of House on Haunted Hill was. Looks like I’ve found my answer.

People might be surprised that I like, nay, love this movie because it’s a remake. A remake of a film starring my favorite actor of all time, Vincent Price, no less. Normally, I hate remakes. In fact, I despise the trend. This movie, coming at the very beginning of remake-mania, did it right. It takes the basic framework of the original, references it, but shows enough creativity and originality to make it its own entity. Give this flick a different title and it would play just as well.

My question is, why do people hate on this movie so much? I mean, it’s got a 25% Rotten Tomatoes Rating and a 5.3 on IMDB. Maybe it got lumped in with another haunted house remake that came out at the same time, the absolutely awful The Haunting. While some point to the plot holes, and yes they are there, movies that are generally loved by the horror world have been built on much thinner plots than this. I don’t really know why this movie has gotten such a bad rap, but it certainly isn’t deserved.

Visually, House on Haunted Hill is stunning. The set dressers and art directors did an amazing job. The house, or rather the old asylum, is as good a location as anyone’s ever created. From the lavish foyer to the genuinely creepy bowels of the building, it has a unique look that becomes a character in and of itself. This flick doesn’t go overboard with the cheap quick edit jump scares. It creates an unnerving atmosphere through the sheer bizarreness of its visuals. The “saturation chamber,” the great ghosts, the skinless statuary, the operation rooms, and the labyrinth like corridors are all unsettling. The cast is solid. Taye Diggs, Ali Larter, and Bridgette Wilson are good, even if their characters aren’t very well developed. Peter Gallagher, Famke Janssen, Chris Kattan, and the always awesome Geoffery Rush are all excellent. People say Rush overacts in this, and that may be true, but it’s that over the top grand guignol excess that the entire movie revels in that makes it so good. Chris Kattan is absolutely hilarious, adding just the right amount of comic relief to the proceedings. Plus, any movie with a cameo by Jeffery Combs as a demented ghost surgeon gets huge points from me.

This movie is not without its faults. When we actually see the embodiment of the “spirit of the house” it’s pretty lame. The ending is way too cliché for me. Personally, I think one of its biggest faults is the exclusion of a scene in the basement involving zombies that is so killer that I think cutting it hurt the movie. At least it’s on the DVD. Dark Castle has been extremely hit or miss over the years; producing good stuff like The Hills Run Red, The Orphan, and Splice while offering up atrocities like Gothika, Ghost Ship, and the House of Wax remake. For my money though, House on Haunted Hill, their first flick, is a little slice of B movie heaven. Two severed thumbs up. Nathan says take my word for it and check it out.

Review: I Spit On Your Grave (2010)

After being severely disappointed in the Last House On The Left remake, I didn’t have very high expectations for the remake of the other classic stalwart of the rape/revenge subgenre, I Spit On Your Grave. I was pleasantly surprised. While some of the raw ferocity of the original is lost due to the glossy, stylized nature of the remake, it is nevertheless a brutal exercise in vengeance. The story basically remains the same. Jennifer Hills, played by Sarah Butler, is a writer who rents an isolated cabin for a little peace and quiet to work on a novel, but runs afoul of a group of locals who gang rape her. She then exacts a bloody revenge on her attackers. Basically, good clean family fun.

The main difference between the original and this one is the addition of a lot of exposition. It takes much longer for the attack to occur in the remake. The filmmakers tried to flesh out the characters of the rapists much more. They are only semi-successful. Each of Jennifer’s attackers has a distinct personality in the update, however they have little depth and achieve little more than being caricatures. This is not a big issue, however, as these characters really didn’t need to be anything more than reprehensible yokels. Much more time is given this time around to the attempts of the attackers to cover up their crimes. Two characters were added that were not in the original. The man who rents her the cabin seems to only be there to show that at least one resident of the backwoods town isn’t in on the whole thing. The other addition, who adds quite a bit to the story, is the town sheriff. The fact that he ends up being one of the attackers adds a new feeling of hopelessness to Jennifer’s plight. One of the criticisms of the original is that Jennifer didn’t even attempt to go to the authorities. In the remake, she truly has nowhere to turn to for help, since the authorities are part of the attack. He is a truly reprehensible character, as scenes of him with his wife and daughter immediately after the rape emphasize to great effect. But, as the great Joe Bob Briggs would say, that’s just too much plot getting in the way of the story. The real crux of the film is two things, rape and revenge.

As anyone could have predicted, the rape scene itself is not nearly as long or intense as it is in the original. While the scene seemed to be never ending and grueling the first time around, it is greatly truncated this time. In fact, we only actually see two of the five attackers do the dirty deed; we skip right past the other 3 and see only the aftermath. The attackers don’t get right down to business this time either. A lengthy scene where they invade the cabin and psychologically assault, degrade, and humiliate Jennifer is added in place of an extended rape. What actual on screen sexual assault is there, however, is still pretty damn intense and does the trick. While I can see why the filmmakers did this, as audience sensibilities are very different today than in 1978, I think the way the scene was handled lessened the effect. The way the scene is shot subtly changes the feel of the scene from the one in the 1978 version. In the original, the scene is shot in a raw, almost documentary like style, mainly full shots with very few close-ups and minimal editing. This realistic style, coupled with its sheer length, carried an emotional impact, making the audience endure the attack alongside Jennifer. In the new film, it is shot in such a way that the terrific camera work and snappy editing makes it almost too pretty. The filmmakers did too good a job. While the rape was not quite as brutal as it should have been (dear God I hope no one ever decides to take THAT quote out of context), the revenge portion of the flick is where it really delivers.

In the original, Jennifer Hill uses ropes, knives, and even an outboard motor to dispatch those who wronged her. Jennifer 2.0 is a bit more creative than that. Jennifer 2.0 also has obviously watched Saw once or twice. While not setting them up in “traps” per se, her ingenious murder methods definitely show a bit of a Jigsaw influence. And make no mistake; the murders are straight up brutal. I won’t give any of them away…well, maybe one just because I’ve always wanted to type this phrase… SHOTGUN SODOMY! What I dug the most about the murders is that they are infused with irony. The way she kills each man is a direct callback to something he specifically did or said to her during the attack. They also dispensed with the one thing that always kinda stuck in my craw about the ORIGINAL. In that one, Jennifer seduces all of her rapists into leaving themselves vulnerable enough to be killed. Now, I’m all for suspension of disbelief. I’m not one of those people who insist that every aspect of a plot make logical sense. In fact, it seems to me that mindset would more or less preclude one from being a horror fan in the first place. Asking me to believe that these guys who just gang raped this woman really believe that she’s willingly coming back for round two is pushing it though. Over the years many critics have written that they found that aspect of the film to be highly offensive. I just find it dumb. That being said, the remake does unrealistically show Jennifer doing things a 100 pound woman wouldn’t have the strength to do, but that’s just nitpicking. There is no seduction going on in the remake. When Jennifer 2.0 comes back she is a hardcore sadistic killing machine screaming for vengeance. This is where Sarah Butler’s performance goes from good to great. Camille Keaton may have had more intensity during the rape scenes, but when Sarah starts giving the boys their comeuppance she more than makes up for it.

When I first heard that this movie was being remade, I thought there was no way it could be done well. I generally hate remakes. I want to see some original ideas. You can argue the merits of remakes forever, but eventually you have to judge these movies not by how they stack up against the original, but by the criteria all movies should be judged by: is it good? In this case, the answer is yes. This movie is good enough to stand on its own. They did stay pretty faithful to the plot of the original. They also added some nice references for the fans like the harmonica, certain choice lines of dialog, and the poster itself. I believe, however, that if I had never seen the original classic, I would not have enjoyed this movie any more or less. And that, my friends, is the mark of a good remake. I Spit On Your Grave 2010 is a sick, violent good time. Two severed thumbs up. Nathan says check it out.