Don't Be Afraid of the Dark 2011 in Current Horror, Sci-Fi and Fantasy Films Forum

0 Points

Forum Jump

Don't Be Afraid of the Dark 2011

Author	Comment
ScareBear		#81	[-]
Jan 8 12 2:24 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Watched this (finally!) tonight with hubby and my son. We all enjoyed it. Creepy and intimate. Thought I was going to go into labor!!!!
	Remove this ad
BongoFury		#82	[-]
Jan 9 12 11:54 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I thought this was well done and i agree with everyone who said that Bailee Madison was great as Sally.
Gorilla At Large		#83	[-]
Jan 10 12 10:15 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I finally watched it over the weekend from Netflix. I liked it and so did my daughters, but the funny thing is the original they found much more scarier than the remake. My one daughter is the same age as the little girl and she said it was not as scary because the creatures looked too CGI and she knew they were fake, plus everyone could see them. She said the original was more frightening to her with something only see could see attacking her, but that having nobody else be able to see them or believe her was much more scary. Interesting perspective from a 10 year old....
gef the talking mongoose		#84	[-]
Jan 10 12 11:23 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	G Vallejo wrote: To me, the little girl looks an awful lot like Katie Holmes, even though they're not related in the movie. Strikingly so, to the point that it kept distracting me. She really could pass for that kid fathered by whichever Scientologist stepped up & actually fulfilled what would've been Tom Cruise's biological role in the couple's spawning process.
hermanthegerm	Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (2011)	#85	[-]
Jan 28 12 9:38 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	We also saw it this weekend, and we enjoyed it but it is quite different than the original. The original house is so dark and claustrophobic, the new one so airy and well lit, it is quite a different feeling. Seems like Del Toro liked the Hellboy tooth fairies so much he made them their own movie. The creatures are very much like Arthur Rackham illustrations, but they definitely work better when hidden and not out in the open. All in all a totally different vibe, that seems to tie to Del Toro's other work, Hellboy, Laberinto, Orfanato, etc. even the Underhill name seems a reference to Tolkien, so quite a rich background as opposed to the original where the background is so unknowable. The ending seems horrifically unfair in this one even if it closely mirrors the old one. SPOILERS: It was the right decision to have the dad survive, but he sure didn't deserve it. I thought exactly the opposite, I figured they would kill the Dad off and have his girlfriend survive. Was kinda surprised at how it turned out. A few kudos to the casting department for casting a young girl who actually LOOKS like an average, ordinary young girl. Del Toro has worked with children before, and he is very good about this. No kids from casting central for him. "There is a lot of money tied up in this film and people expect to hear a boom when something blows up, so I'll give them a boom." George Lucas as quoted by Harlan Ellison's WATCHING Last Edited By: hermanthegerm Jan 29 12 11:06 PM. Edited 3 times.
Godziwolf		#86	[-]
Jan 30 12 5:31 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	hermanthegerm wrote: We also saw it this weekend, and we enjoyed it but it is quite different than the original. The original house is so dark and claustrophobic, the new one so airy and well lit, it is quite a different feeling. Seems like Del Toro liked the Hellboy tooth fairies so much he made them their own movie. Del Toro liked them so much he wrote a book about the little bastards. http://www.amazon.com/Gui...id=1327962669&sr=8-5
The Batman of Gotham		#87	[-]
Apr 30 12 10:30 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I finally caught up with this one this past weekend and was pleasantly surprised! I knew the original tv movie mostly by reputation - I don't recall having ever seen it from start to finish but, I did remember having seen certain key scenes: "We want you, Sally!" Here's what I wrote to a pal of mine in an email this morning: Hi Mike, Well, on my trip to the library this past weekend I was looking through the dvds and found a copy of the old TV movie DON'T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK which starred Kim Darby and Jim Hutton ( 1973 ). Then, as I did a bit more looking, I also found a copy of the recent ( 2011 ) theatrical remake so, I picked them both up. Last night Julie and I watched them back to back. Surprisingly, we both thought the original was excrutiatingly bad! It was the silliest, corniest dialogue we'd heard and the unfolding story was insipidly stupid - as well as deadly dull to watch! I expected the original movie to be more effective and atmospheric but, it was just laughable. I was so dissappointed by it that I almost didn't bother to pop in the remake! But, fortunately I did anyway! The remake was extremely well made! The remake started out with a very gruesome scene that had me wondering if I would be able to stomach watching the rest of the film... I'm happy to report that this was as gruesome as it got. The rest of the movie was tastefully presented and extremely effective and atmospheric! The storyline seemed less contrived than the original and wasn't laughable at all. The "Sally" character in the remake is a young girl who is sent from L A to go live with her estranged Father and his girlfriend. Her Father's name is "Alex" and his girlfriend's name is "Kim" ( which, I assume, is a tribute to Kim Darby who played "Sally", the wife, in the original movie ). The couple are in the process of restoring an old mansion with a checkered past when Sally comes to stay with them. We understand that Sally is less than enthused to be juggled back and forth between her parents, then, when mysterious, destructive things begin occurring in the mansion, Sally's behavior comes into question. But, it isn't Sally who is behind the mischief, it is a community of gnome-like creatures that have recently been unwittingly released from the bowels of the mansion during it's restoration. Sally is, at first, intrigued by "voices" that plead with her to "Come and play" but, her curiousity soon turns to terror when she discovers the true nature of her potential playmates! The creatures' intentions are less than benign... they are, in fact, out for blood! I'm usually disappointed by remakes but, not this one! This one is a vast improvement on the original! That's not to say that I didn't have a few quibbles here and there - but, overall, this was a well made horror film. I think I can reccomend this one to you. - GJS Last Edited By: The Batman of Gotham Apr 30 12 10:37 AM. Edited 1 times.
delgadosaur		#88	[-]
Apr 30 12 11:34 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I really liked this film. The creatures are really fun to look at, and the opening scene makes me cringe just thinking about it.
oldmanster		#89	[-]
Apr 30 12 12:50 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Godziwolf wrote: hermanthegerm wrote: We also saw it this weekend, and we enjoyed it but it is quite different than the original. The original house is so dark and claustrophobic, the new one so airy and well lit, it is quite a different feeling. Seems like Del Toro liked the Hellboy tooth fairies so much he made them their own movie. Del Toro liked them so much he wrote a book about the little bastards. http://www.amazon.com/Gui...id=1327962669&sr=8-5 I bought a copy. It's a very nice production. ... Reed
LP Hovercraft		#90	[-]
Apr 30 12 8:27 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I rarely find remakes/reboots/reimaginings worth even the buck and change for a Redbox rental (I'm NOT looking forward to the upcoming Poltergeist remake) but this was one of the rare exceptions that I actually paid full ticket price to see it in the theater. I enjoyed it immensely and thought the Nixey/Del Toro version was a great creepy film that actually built upon the original story instead of simply recreating it using updated special effects and current actors, and it was a LOT of fun watching it in a darkened theater with an audience. That said I'll always prefer the original to the remake since that's the version I grew up with and I'll defend it to my death! It's a great example of nihilistic 1970s cinema and surely scarred many young viewers--this one included--for life! Before the days of dvd and video on demand, it was a real thrill to come across a listing of some obscure made for tv flick like DBAotD or Trilogy of Terror in TV Guide, ultra corny or not. And although I own the original on dvd now, I still have my old, beat up VHS tape recorded in EP mode on a Saturday afternoon back in the mid eighties when it aired on WNEW channel 5, commercials and all, and even with the film cut for time, I still just can not bring myself to get rid of it--it's a personal treasure and when I pop it into the old creaky VCR once a year or so, usually around Halloween, it's like magic: it's an instant portal back to my youth when the most pressing concern in life was to be sure to run back from the kitchen with a snack and drink before the commercials were over! What Would Sasquatch Do? Last Edited By: LP Hovercraft Apr 30 12 8:53 PM. Edited 1 times.
	Remove this ad
flashback		#91	[-]
May 1 12 12:28 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	i watched the 1973 tv movie version yesterday on dvd.i saw the new version a few weeks ago on blu-ray. i liked both equally.the original should be watched with the thought in the back of the mind that it was a low budget tv-movie.it was an effective well written scary story.the new version was a good story driven horror story with state of the arts current special effects. it is not a fair comparison to compare the exact effects between both movies with no reguard to when they were made and what the budgets.i like both.
borchabob		#92	[-]
May 1 12 10:31 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I remember watching the original on tv when I was younger, this was a creepy film for its time. I was happy to here there was going to be a remake, and could hardly wait to see it. I guess I'm one of those people who looks foward to remakes, just to see if they can make the movie better. like others, I do find that most remakes are not as good as the originals, but I definitely liked this one. The creatures in this one look great, and the fact that they made Sally as a young girl was a good way to update the story. I recently bought the original on dvd as well as the remake, I like both equally.
Dr Acula		#93	[-]
May 1 12 10:37 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I prefer the original, which was just out and out scarier... the newer one looked nice, but I think it was a mistake to add the extra character of the child into the story... also, I heard on the HorrorEtc podcast that fans of the new version maybe be trying to create a Tobe Hooper/Spielberg dynamic between Del Toro and credited director Troy Nixey, in that Del Toro is the real director not Nixey.
G Vallejo		#94	[-]
May 2 12 2:45 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I don't think I've seen the entire original... this is one of those films where I always came in on the last half hour of. But the little bastards and their whispering voices have stayed with me thirty-something years. A perfect Monster has no end...
borchabob		#95	[-]
May 2 12 4:45 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I always felt that Darby's Sally was treated like a child by her husband in the original, which bothered me abit
delgadosaur		#96	[-]
May 2 12 5:26 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	There's also some cool featurettes on the DVD. Like this film, lots of fun.
Spoiler II		#97	[-]
May 2 12 10:31 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	A near perfect horror film could be made if you could take the strengths of both films and fuse them together. A strength of the original (that is unfortunately lacking in the remake) is the wise choice to keep the monsters in the shadows and mostly obscured by darkness. The new film goes a little overboard by the end with the creatures in full view and constantly hissing at the camera to the point where it defangs them a bit. The hands grasping at the vents and the peering eyes are much more effective than the scenes of the buggers skittering all over the place at the climax.
The Batman of Gotham		#98	[-]
May 3 12 6:51 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Spoiler II wrote: A near perfect horror film could be made if you could take the strengths of both films and fuse them together. A strength of the original (that is unfortunately lacking in the remake) is the wise choice to keep the monsters in the shadows and mostly obscured by darkness. The new film goes a little overboard by the end with the creatures in full view and constantly hissing at the camera to the point where it defangs them a bit. The hands grasping at the vents and the peering eyes are much more effective than the scenes of the buggers skittering all over the place at the climax. I felt just the opposite. I thought the original didn't keep the creatures in the shadows enough. Plus, there were several discrepencies in scale that were all too painfully obvious ( one minute they are small enough to hide behind books on a shelf, the next minute they need no help reaching the top of a garbage can to reach the fuse box! ). The dialogue was atrocious: "We'll get her tomorrow! Yeah, we'll get her tomorrow! He he he." And, as borchabob mentioned earlier, Jim Hutton treated Kim Darby like a child. You can try to rationalize that by saying it was a different age and Women's Lib hadn't really made strides yet but, that's just not the case here. It was plain wrong, rude and insensitive even by the standards of that era. The remake was masterfully done - the creatures were in the shadows except when they needed to be exposed ( it wasn't overdone ) and their dialogue didn't sound silly as it did in the original. The idea of making SALLY a child also worked better in the remake because they could treat her like a child without any real repurcussions. Did she have an overactive imagination? Was she retaliating against things she couldn't control ( like her parents splitting up )? It made a lot more sense than the original did. I think it's only real flaw was that maybe it provided too much of a backstory - but, it still worked much better than the original. Not to mention that the HOUSE was also a more convincing structure than the 'Brady Bunch' interior decorating of the original house. Sheesh! - GJS
Spoiler II		#99	[-]
May 4 12 8:56 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	By the end of the remake,the monsters were skittering around everywhere,sneering and hissing,giving out convenient plot points (like pointing out their intentions..literally) and it blew it for me. The monsters worked early on but during that "dragging to the basement" climax,the overexposure took me right out of it. The house in the new one was an overwrought gothic masterpiece and the old film had a house. I've never lived in an old massive Hammer horror like that in my life,so the creatures living underneath a mundane house resonated more. The bottom line for me is i saw the original at the perfect age and enjoy it's crude TV movie charms for what they are. The new one is a slick horror film and much more polished (how could it not be?) but i won't be revisiting it very often.
Badfinger		#100	[-]
May 4 12 12:05 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The Batman of Gotham wrote: Spoiler II wrote: A near perfect horror film could be made if you could take the strengths of both films and fuse them together. A strength of the original (that is unfortunately lacking in the remake) is the wise choice to keep the monsters in the shadows and mostly obscured by darkness. The new film goes a little overboard by the end with the creatures in full view and constantly hissing at the camera to the point where it defangs them a bit. The hands grasping at the vents and the peering eyes are much more effective than the scenes of the buggers skittering all over the place at the climax. I felt just the opposite. I thought the original didn't keep the creatures in the shadows enough. Plus, there were several discrepencies in scale that were all too painfully obvious ( one minute they are small enough to hide behind books on a shelf, the next minute they need no help reaching the top of a garbage can to reach the fuse box! ). The dialogue was atrocious: "We'll get her tomorrow! Yeah, we'll get her tomorrow! He he he." And, as borchabob mentioned earlier, Jim Hutton treated Kim Darby like a child. You can try to rationalize that by saying it was a different age and Women's Lib hadn't really made strides yet but, that's just not the case here. It was plain wrong, rude and insensitive even by the standards of that era. The remake was masterfully done - the creatures were in the shadows except when they needed to be exposed ( it wasn't overdone ) and their dialogue didn't sound silly as it did in the original. The idea of making SALLY a child also worked better in the remake because they could treat her like a child without any real repurcussions. Did she have an overactive imagination? Was she retaliating against things she couldn't control ( like her parents splitting up )? It made a lot more sense than the original did. I think it's only real flaw was that maybe it provided too much of a backstory - but, it still worked much better than the original. Not to mention that the HOUSE was also a more convincing structure than the 'Brady Bunch' interior decorating of the original house. Sheesh! - GJS I agree. I never loved the original; always came off silly. I don't love the remake either, but I like it alright and it's an improvement over the original for many of the reasons you cited.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

Don't Be Afraid of the Dark 2011