frankyt
CS! Gold
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 21,947
Likes: 2,017
Location:
Last Online Nov 25, 2024 20:35:45 GMT -5
|
Post by frankyt on Aug 14, 2019 14:35:24 GMT -5
Expected this to surprise me one way or another with the pedigree behind the camera.
This was bland. It hit some tropes and missed my favorite ones. First story was solid, pretty much all of them after except for jingaling (I think?) man were shockingly bad cgi and really just weren't all that scary to be honest.
Maybe the artwork is scarier in black and white. Maybe the voice over at the end bugged the shit outta me. I can't place it. The acting was all around pretty bad, I didn't hate the leads though thought they had decent enough chemistry.
That weird hammy ending screaming for a sequel though was just off putting. But if they incorporate Vietnam somehow it could be a much more interesting story than this first one for sure.
Skip this and check it out on demand if you must, went to two horror movies this week and both underwhelmed. I should have listened to my gut and gone for crawl.
5/10
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,106
Likes: 5,732
Location:
Member is Online
|
Post by Dracula on Nov 3, 2019 23:25:34 GMT -5
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark(8/11/2019) “Scary Stories to Tell In the Dark” was a trilogy of books from the 80s and early 90s that had pretty long legs within the world of Children’s/YA publishing. The books were essentially a compilation of old campfire stories and urban legends that were assembled and re-written by a guy named Alvin Schwartz and then made more chilling by these freaky ink and charcoal illustrations by Stephen Gammell. They were fairly controversial at the time because they didn’t really pull their punches too much just because they were written for kids and a lot of busybody parents groups were not fans. They were certainly still in circulation when I was a kid in the 90s and as a youngster with an interest in the macabre I definitely read them and have good memories of them but they weren’t, like, a cornerstone of my childhood or anything and it’s a little hard to hold them in too high of a regard given that they were more of an assemblage of old ghost stories than a literary accomplishment unto themselves. So it seemed a bit odd to me that the books were being earmarked for cinematic treatment and by Guillermo del Toro no less, albeit as a producer rather than director, and given that del Toro has a bit of a spotty track record when it comes to putting his name on horror movies he doesn’t direct I wasn’t really sure what to expect.
Rather than adapt any one of the stories or going the anthology film route the film has opted to film a single narrative that incorporates several of the more famous Scary Stories via a magic book written by a ghost and a few story elements that are derivative of The Ring. Set in 1968, the film follows a group of young teenagers in a small town who visit a house that is (correctly) believed to be haunted, steal a book from a shelf and look on in horror as they start to see the book filling itself in with new stories which prove to sync up with actual scary deaths that are happening to various people involved in the original intrusion. The characters created for the film aren’t terrible compelling and largely conform to ten stereotypes but the young cast they assembled mostly makes them work better than then they probably do on page. The film generally seems more interested in recreating the Gammell drawings than it is in the details of the original stories, but that’s probably understandable and the film’s overall look is quite nice but it uses some questionable CGI to bring its monsters to life. Like the books this is trying to be a product that’s genuinely scary while not being too nasty to be viewed by tweens, and I’m not sure they really pull it off. I don’t think the film is overly scary outside of a few isolated parts. It’s not a terrible effort by any means, though I have no idea what people who aren’t familiar with the books would make of it and I don’t know that there’s enough there for it to stand out as something special unto itself in a vacuum. **1/2 out of Five
|
|