Don't Be Afraid of the Dark Post-Release Discussion - Page 2

Troy's credit got a big round of applause in my Scotia Theater screening in downtown Vancouver last night, which was a really lovely moment.  I also cheered loudly when I saw Nicks name.

Just about everything I would want to say has been covered already so I'll make this brief.  I was sitting next to two 13 year old girls during this movie and that was maybe the best thing I could have done.  They loved it, the scares and the laughs played big for them and their enthusiasm unquestionably helped to boost my own.

The creatures themselves I'm of two minds for.  I really adore the look of them.  Those glowing cataract eyes were really effective and the little hunch back look to them is just interesting.  They're cool to look at.  Unfortunately I was never afraid of them.  I'm not sure if this was a CG over exposure of the monster problem or what, but the practical creatures from the first flick had a creepy factor that just doesn't strike me here.  I loved the concept that the "hero" imps were actually Blackthorn(Blackwood?) and his son.  A very neat idea and it's a shame that there wasn't a small hint in the film.

There is definately some pacing and logic issues, but it's nothing I couldn't over look.  I can't remember the last time I saw a movie that was allowed to keep this kind of classical slow pace.  Nick was absolutely correct when he said they don't make movies like this any more.

Oh and as a final special note I absolutely ADORED the score.  Those opening credits were like Drag Me To Hell light and that lovely driving violin thing whenever mischief was about was extreamely memorable my first viewing, which is incredibly rare for film music these days.

There's a decent movie lying underneath this somewhere.....but this isn't it.

I LOVED the sound design, even if it's a little over the top. And the creatures were more effective when they were more hidden (though they looked nice).

Did not enjoy the acting from anyone, not even Guy Pearce. They didn't behave like real parents. Even if they thought she was the one doing everything, you still have a daughter thats clearly fucked up and on meds (a 10 year old on anti-depressants?).... the way he just dismissed everything drove me nuts. He even brings in a child psychologist (I assume a nod to Dr. Loomis with the bald & beard look?), and then doesn't even listen to THAT guy.

Kim full on starts to believe Sally, but then takes her sweet time packing a bag and lets Sally run around the house.....the same house she now believes has little demons running throughout?? Cmon...

It was even little things.....the creatures can't stand light but are okay with moonlight and lightning flashes? Guy Pearce runs from the garage to the house in a rainstorm and is perfectly dry. They are supposed to be vicious creatures, but seem content to just knock everyone unconscious. The head construction guy won't just come out and say whats going on, he has to talk in riddles.

Having said that, there were still things to like and I think its a noble failure.

I think there's a nit you forgot to pick in there somewhere.

Katie Holmes is trapped in a house with crazy, short motherfuckers only to eventually be assimilated into their cult...

I kid Ms. Holmes, she was actually really good in this, giving what I felt was the most sympathetic and relatable performance in the whole piece. I enjoyed it a lot, especially once I got past the fact that this isn't a horror film as it is a fairy tale, which I really should have expected considering who was involved. Once the homunculi fully materialize, the tension all but disappears, and I don't think the film ever fully recovers from that, but it manages with style and grace. Also, yes, I thought it was fairly obvious that the "hero" homunculi was Blackwood, but I didn't catch his son (of course, my knowledge of the original film probably helped me with expecting that...).

All in all, I'm very pleased with it. Yes, fully CGI characters still have a steep hill to climb before they're effective in this kind of film, but I was mostly very happy with the script and with Nixey's direction, and I do love fairy tales, so good on everybody. You guys did a great job.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DamnDirtyApe 

There's a decent movie lying underneath this somewhere.....but this isn't it.

I LOVED the sound design, even if it's a little over the top. And the creatures were more effective when they were more hidden (though they looked nice).

Did not enjoy the acting from anyone, not even Guy Pearce. They didn't behave like real parents. Even if they thought she was the one doing everything, you still have a daughter thats clearly fucked up and on meds (a 10 year old on anti-depressants?).... the way he just dismissed everything drove me nuts. He even brings in a child psychologist (I assume a nod to Dr. Loomis with the bald & beard look?), and then doesn't even listen to THAT guy.

Kim full on starts to believe Sally, but then takes her sweet time packing a bag and lets Sally run around the house.....the same house she now believes has little demons running throughout?? Cmon...

It was even little things.....the creatures can't stand light but are okay with moonlight and lightning flashes? Guy Pearce runs from the garage to the house in a rainstorm and is perfectly dry. They are supposed to be vicious creatures, but seem content to just knock everyone unconscious. The head construction guy won't just come out and say whats going on, he has to talk in riddles.

Having said that, there were still things to like and I think its a noble failure.

Jesus Christ.

I don't really remember anything that would imply that Blackwood was one of the creatures, except for the very ending and realizing that Kim has been assimilated.  Was there a physical feature or clue that tipped you off during the movie?

Yeah, the facial structure and it appeared to be balding, not just bald. Like I said, I think the original film kind of helped in that it had me looking for stuff like that.

I wonder how they go about turning you into a little demonic imp thing?  Maybe they use a shrink ray on you Duke Nukem style?  They are little enamol sucking beasties right?  How about if they suck all the marrow out of your bones and shrink you down pigmie/shrunken head style?  Maybe they you suck on you like Reeves sucking the fetus in South Park.

These are the unanswered questions that keep me up at night, Nunziata. 

In a way, the homonculi are Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers of sorts. Symmetry! I love that.

I wanted to know less about the homunculi. I could have done without the exposition-in-the-library scene. I also could have seen less of them. I liked them better when they were in the shadows.

Referring back to a few posts in the last page of the thread:

I TOTALLY thought that was Rosemary Harris.  For whatever reason, I was kinda disappointed when I realized it wasn't her.

Saw it last night.

Could've done without the South Central audience participation (e.g. Urging/Err... yelling at Sally to turn on the lights. Insulting the parents). Due to them it was hard to stay totally immersed.

Still, massive credit goes to the film for keeping me involved and entertained. The score was an absolute blessing for DBAOTD. Dug the stylized opening credits sequence. But all in all, I bought into the plight of the little girl and the homunculi.

I can understand the grievances or nitpicks viewers may have with moments of logic in the film or CGI vs. practical creature effects. However, I'm always the sort to channel my energies towards the elements of a film that I enjoy (or speak to me).

With that said. Kudos to Nick and everyone involved in the making of this special film. One way or another, hurricane be damned,  it'll find the audience it deserves.

I really enjoyed it, but there were some rather large logic jumps that kept grating at me.  It's a horror film and it's to be expected that characters have to do the occasional silly thing to keep the badness ensuing, but why wouldn't Sally let any of the dinner guests see the photo?  That whole bit is obviously just a way to get her to lose it before showing her dad.  Beyond that, she smashes Blackwood's son (something I didn't get during the film, but strongly considered after the final Kim reveal; thanks for confirming, Nick)  in the bookcase.  At this point, she has dozens of photos of them and the crushed body as evidence.  Why the hell do they stick around that night?

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dark Shape 

I really enjoyed it, but there were some rather large logic jumps that kept grating at me.  It's a horror film and it's to be expected that characters have to do the occasional silly thing to keep the badness ensuing, but why wouldn't Sally let any of the dinner guests see the photo?  That whole bit is obviously just a way to get her to lose it before showing her dad.

I thought this was fairly clear. She was waiting for it to develop - to see if she actually got the shot. She wasn't keeping the photo away from the guests. She was being protective of it until the image appeared. I think the bigger question is why did Kim have a Polaroid camera in 2009/10/11.... But I'll allow it!

I wondered about that Polaroid too.  Not because the camera itself bugged me...  I was just wondering if there was anything in the movie that placed it in a particular span of years.

I do believe they were all the very cute modern Polaroids that are (forgive me) popular with hipsters and such these days who are too cool for a filter on their iPhone.

So little Sally wasn't tweeting about her experiences?

"New stepmom sucks.  But I am making lots of new friends! #tinywhisperers"

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

1st question:  That's a good question.  I don't really have an answer for that.  Perhaps they really like to play with the food before feasting?  They are assholes.  They clearly love to cause mischief.

Thinking more about this ^ and why they didn't take Sally the first chance they got when the grate opened and she nabbed the teeth. They also didn't attack her when she was bathing. They harassed her after she got out of the tub and chased her back in. Granted, she's a minor and certain filming sensitivies need to be managed and it's an easy scare if they had gone that route. It's one of the times when we're most vulnerable (naked, submerged, etc): see NOES and SLITHER, etc.

But the lil creeps do toy with Sally. They manipulate. They frame her (if that was their motivation). Taking her would have been easy. Several times. Hell, they could have grabbed her while she slept any night. But they want you fearful, and on their turf, so to speak. Like the Pale Man temptation in PAN'S LABYRINTH, the homonculi want you to fail. They want an excuse. The want you to step off the path. It's a fairy tale after all. With grim consequences. They want you at your most emotionally vulnerable before they can gobble you up or make you one of them forever (they're twisted and small and us). Off the path... Whether that's desperation for getting your son back (and resulting in murder to do it) like Blackwood or abandoning your parents because they first abandoned you like Sally.

Food for thought.

Course, the fact that they took Kim instead, who showed the most care for Sally and represented the movie's moral compass shoots holes in that theory.

Or maybe they just want you at your most fearful. Sally is just a strong-willed (and medicated) gal. Maybe they wanted her slowly marinating in FEAR first before taking her.

EDIT: And I loved the low-fi Polaroid element. Makes it feel almost period. Adds to the ambience and reminds me of the 70s when the original came out. Also works as a great plot device between the flash used as a weapon and semi-instant (developing builds suspense) showcase for what she took pics of.

Yeah I guess I kind of assumed it was like the Stephen King book "It".  They want her to be afraid because it's the monster version of "salting the meat."

It's stubbornly old-fashioned, and that languid pace might hurt word of mouth from the multiplex crowd. Horror-wise, its biggest hurdle is that the most horrifying moment involves teeth and a chisel and happens in the opening scene. I did find the creatures scary enough, though - there was one jump scare of a creature's face that made the hair on my arms stand up. That never happens.

Everyone remembers the scary, whispering turd monsters from the original, but if you watch that film lately, the horror of it is that Kim Darby is constantly dismissed as a silly, hysterical woman by a fuckload of males painted in various shades of misogyny. She's utterly powerless, whether there really are little homicidal gnomes or not. That's the default power(less) level for most kids, though, so it's not as unsettling to me.

Cast and Troy all did good work. If there's a weak spot it's the script's logic gaps and thin characterizations.

Can't get over how good this film looks and sounds. I imagine it's quite rare for a horror movie to be a true "demonstration quality" Blu-Ray that people use to show off their fancy home theater setups, but I have a feeling this might just be one. Since I don't have one of those setups I might have to go to the same theater again just to experience those whispers as they should be heard.

Enjoyed it, not without it's flaws but I can say that technical prowess is not among them. It's a beautiful looking movie and as expected with a film called 'Don't Be Afraid of the Dark', there is effective use of light, shadow and contrast. Every single frame of the movie drips dread, and the house looks like it's been built up as some twisted imp reflection. The sound was excellent; the whispers were great. I just love the art direction and camerawork; it's nice to see a film, especially a horror film, take its time with its work, cutting when it seems natural and not just forcing us into a shaky cam dizz-a-thon.

Plus, I want a book because I want those prints that Kim saw in the library. Especially the one of the imp's face emerging from the pitch black paper.

I kind of agree, but I think this was always going to be the case. Original DBAOTD and a small handful of other old TV horror movies had a special, intimate, lightning-in-a-bottle creepiness to them. You start spending a bit of money on the same story and making things bigger and more sophisticated and start losing the practical effects, even the best director with the best intentions cannot recreate that magic. The best he can do is make the new thing work without trying to compete with the old. Same thing would happen if someone tried to remake Trilogy of Terror or Gargoyles.

Took the wife (who has no idea what CHUD is) early evening on Friday and thought it was okay. I'll break down my feelings in bullet points:

• The early American History X moment had my wife burying her eyes and covering her ears, as she wanted no part of that.
• Them being "tooth fairies", I felt, was underwhelming due to the concept already being touched upon by Guillermo in Hellboy II, so it settled as an immediate letdown very early on for me.
• The acting was solid and was probably the most I've enjoyed Holmes to date, who I was fearing the most coming into this. I enjoyed her performance so much that I thought it sucked (even moreso) that she didn't get to wrap up her Batman role, possibly due to shit that has nothing to do with movies. (For the record: I never thought she was as bad as people claimed her to be, just that she was surrounded by top-notch actors; I enjoyed Maggie's performance, despite the continuity flub.)
• From the trailer onward, I couldn't get into the creatures. I appreciated the Gremlin-y vibe, but I found the voice choice to be all wrong as it made them sound more cutesy than creepy. CG wasn't a factor, however.
• The shot when the little girl first discovers the garden/pond was amazing; it really created the sense of being magical.
• It would've been stronger had Pearce's character not been so regulated to cliched horror movie reactions/decisions. I get being a shitty parent, but there's still a few times where it seemed to be just silly that he was still behaving the way he was.
• Katie's leg-break was a great touch, as was her death (I didn't necessarily see it coming and her performance made it all the more sucky to see come to fruition).
• The ending was confusing. I didn't understand how she was alive and it never crossed my mind that she was turned into one. I'd never seen the original and I never picked up on the fact that Blackwood (or his son) were amongst them (though I can clearly see the reveal image in my head now that I look back), so I imagined a broken-legged 100-foot-fall miraculously-alive Katie Holmes sitting in the cave, surrounded by them all, having unexplicably joined forces.

I now picture Kate Holmes homonculi visiting the demons from THE GATE for bridge night.

I love this sub-genre to pieces. Now where the heck is Dante's THE HOLE???

Not to be a dick, but I don't get how people didn't get that Holmes (and previous victims) were turned into creatures. I didn't even remember that aspect from the original, but someone in this version states it pretty explicitly. I think it might have been the dude at the library, and the line was that they take people when they emerge in order to maintain their numbers. Gotta pay attention!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Benenson 

Not to be a dick, but I don't get how people didn't get that Holmes (and previous victims) were turned into creatures. I didn't even remember that aspect from the original, but someone in this version states it pretty explicitly. I think it might have been the dude at the library, and the line was that they take people when they emerge in order to maintain their numbers. Gotta pay attention!

But the line said something like "take a life" didn't it? To me that sounds like MDK at first thought, not assimilation.

Yeah, I think it was "take a life." For whatever reason it just immediately meant assimilation to me, but maybe that was a fluke (or an unconscious recollection of what happens in the original, though I swear I didn't consciously remember it was in there too until reading this thread).

Thank God those people didn't have any household pets.  As it is, I'm grateful those little bastards didn't kill the fish and dump them in the grown-ups' bed Godfather-style.

Because you know Dad would have blamed Sally for that too.

So, any East Coasters see this over Labor Day weekend?  I went with some friends on Saturday who both loved it.  But the theater was mostly empty.  I could tell by the small amount of yells during the big shock moments.  And the theater we were in had a noisy AC system making a low but steady roar over our heads.  It made me realize how this film needs absolute silence to work, as you want to perceive every little creak, whoosh, and whisper in the sound mix.

I finally caught this fantastic film this past weekend.  Not only did I love it, but I was also pleasantly surprised to see that the theater was still 75% full.  It might not have caught on overall, but it seems to have found an audience in my area.  It played my audience like a fucking harp!

This is absolutely destined to become a cult hit on video and I cannot wait to show it to my son when he is a little older.  As long as he can handle it, I plan on starting him on horror at the same age that my father did and this is a wonderful one to use when that day finally comes years from now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doc Phibes 

So, any East Coasters see this over Labor Day weekend?  I went with some friends on Saturday who both loved it.  But the theater was mostly empty.  I could tell by the small amount of yells during the big shock moments.  And the theater we were in had a noisy AC system making a low but steady roar over our heads.  It made me realize how this film needs absolute silence to work, as you want to perceive every little creak, whoosh, and whisper in the sound mix.

Yeah can't wait to pick this one up on blu-ray. Hope it gets an awesome AV encode. 5.1 DTS-MA will be awesome for the fantastic sounds and score!!!! (7.1 DTS-MA would be orgasmic).

Wonder if Nick might make a cameo on the special features?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Benenson 

Not to be a dick, but I don't get how people didn't get that Holmes (and previous victims) were turned into creatures. I didn't even remember that aspect from the original, but someone in this version states it pretty explicitly. I think it might have been the dude at the library, and the line was that they take people when they emerge in order to maintain their numbers. Gotta pay attention!

Just saw the movie and loved it but I agree with this statement. The Blackwood creature even uses the same staircase trick to knock Holmes out that it used on the maid when he was human.