Showing posts with label stop motion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stop motion. Show all posts
Ray Harryhausen, 1920 - 2013
Posted by Admin at 2:06 PM 0 commentsI heard this week that stop-motion effects legend Ray Harryhausen passed away at the age of 92. Geek sites of all stripes have been doing obit and retrospective pieces about Harryhausen and his astonishing legacy, so it's only fitting that I share a few thoughts of my own about this amazing monster maker.
I was first exposed to Harryhausen's work the same way I was first exposed to most classic fantasy, horror and sci-fi cinema: through syndicated TV, during weekend afternoon sessions of channel surfing. I initially didn't know who Harryhausen actually was, but I knew his work when I saw it. The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms, It Came from Beneath the Sea, Earth vs. the Flying Saucers, 20 Million Miles to Earth, Mysterious Island ... whenever these movies would air, I would tune in and gawk in amazement at Harryhausen's stop motion creations as they terrorized us feeble, fragile human beings. I couldn't have told you a thing back then about how he brought his creations to life, but I knew that there was something magical about them. Harryhausen was a master puppeteer and animator, and his attention to the details of emotion, form and movement was so meticulous that even after I had a firmer understanding of how stop motion animation actually operates, it still felt like these creatures had a kind of life of their own. Some may complain that stop motion animation isn't "realistic" enough, but such a complaint completely misses the wonder and excitement that comes from artistic inspiration and ingenuity.
If we can learn anything from Harryhausen's work, it is that the creation of illusions is an art form unto itself. Making things move that do not otherwise move, making things big that are actually small, and making things appear close together when they are actually far apart were techniques that Harryhausen skillfully applied to make his creations seamlessly share scenes with flesh-and-blood actors. It's easy to take these techniques for granted, especially since movies in general specialize in creating a wide variety of fantasies, but Harryhausen was an artist in a truest sense who in turn influenced subsequent generations of special effects artists.
I don't mind CGI effects in general, but something gets lost when physical effects like stop-motion are replaced by digital images, when computers do most or all of the sculpting, animating, assembling and calculating; the craftsmanship and creativity of artistic vision gives way to the novelty and convenience of technology. The mass production of CGI effects has led to the mass production of flashy yet forgettable blockbusters with no uniqueness of their own. In contrast, Harryhausen was a pioneer of imaginative cinema and his distinct and distinguished work will live on long, long after the CGI-overloaded movie franchises are forgotten.
Nerd Rant: Is High-Definition Technology Killing Practical Special Effects?
Posted by Admin at 3:54 PM 0 commentsAt the end of this week, theaters across the country will debut The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, the long-awaited film adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's prequel story for the Lord of the Rings trilogy. While the film itself is getting positive reviews, I've noticed that many of the critics have also commented on one of the film's technical aspects--namely, the visual effect has resulted from the film being shot at 48 frames per second (fps) instead of the traditional 24 fps. The film's director, Peter Jackson, chose this new format for the sake of giving his film better image definition; some critics think that Jackson has achieved his goal in spades, while others think that the movie looks much more artificial than had it been shot at the normal frame rate.
In particular, Andrew O'Hehir's made this observation about the 48 fps format when he saw The Hobbit: "(F)or me ... this cinematic innovation apparently meant to create an atmosphere of magic realism makes the whole thing look immensely more fake. Mountains and fortresses that are presumably digital creations look like painted backdrops; humanoid figures of hobbits, dwarves and wizards appear just as artificial as the goblins, specters and trolls. ... Personally, I found the Thomas Kinkade-like glow of The Hobbit’s images both fascinating and disconcerting, and felt that it accentuated the movie’s other flaws."
I've noticed before on Blu-ray how higher definition can make multi-million dollar film productions look cheaper than they actually are, as if they were shot for television instead of the silver screen. Granted, this doesn't happen on all Blu-ray transfers--for example, the Blu-rays for Jaws and the Alien series look fantastic--but I've noticed it happening with enough frequency that I can only wonder how things will further change when and if the 48 fps format becomes the industry standard. In short, here's my question: Can practical special effects still be used if high-definition technology exposes their artificiality, or will only high-definition CGI special effects technology be able to keep up with the new fps format?
Essentially, special effects involve the creation of celluloid-ready optical illusions in order to enhance the audience's experience of watching a movie. In some ways, special effects are like stage magic: Just as magicians have to carefully control what a live audience can and cannot see in order to make stage tricks appear magical, special effects artists have to control what a movie audience can and cannot see in order to maintain their suspension of disbelief. The effects can be a complicated as stop motion animation or as (relatively) simple as forced perspective shots, and many special effects techniques have deliberately exploited the shortcomings of film as a medium to keep the audience unaware of the effects' artifice. So, what happens when special effects artists are forced to contend with a film format that is intended to show everything in such high detail?
Of course, filmmakers want fake things to appear real for the purpose of capturing the audience's imagination. Yet film projects that are heavily based on special effects--scale miniatures, animatronic costumes and puppets, complex applications of makeup, etc.--shouldn't look too real, because if they do they'll look exactly like what they really are: fake. Will practical special effects still have a place in 48 fps movies, or will the 48 fps format serve as another damaging blow against the usage of practical effects and further promote the usage of CGI special effects in their place?
Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009) is Fantastic
Posted by Admin at 3:49 PM 0 commentsThrough my blog, I do what I can to call attention to movies, TV shows, video games, prop replicas, or other things that I think deserve some additional recognition among the fan community. Most of the things in question are from the genres of horror and sci-fi, but I'm happy to make exceptions to this rule for things that fall outside of these genres. This brings me to the topic of this post, my review of Wes Anderson's stop motion animated film, Fantastic Mr. Fox, which is based on a book by Roald Dahl.
I'm not sure how Fantastic Mr. Fox escaped my attention for so long. I only have a passing familiarity with Anderson's films but since the movie is based on the work of an author who's as popular as Dahl, I'm surprised that it didn't earn a more successful reception. I've read that 20th Century Fox had no idea how to promote this film, so it became the victim of an extremely poor marketing campaign. That shouldn't have happened, because Fantastic Mr. Fox is a witty animated fable that is entertaining for children and adults alike--all without loading its script with pop culture references, casting the most popular movie stars, or clogging its soundtrack with the latest batch of one-hit wonders. Read on for my complete review.
Fantastic Mr. Fox is about the titular Mr. Fox (voiced by George Clooney) who promises his wife Mrs. Fox (Meryl Streep) that he will stop raiding the local farms for chickens and assume a less risky career for the sake of their son Ash (Jason Schwartzman). Yet Mr. Fox decides to pursue one last "big score" before completely retiring from his old ways, which sets in motion a series of events that leads to a near war between Mr. Fox and the local farmers.
Anderson is known for his low-key, quirky humor, and it is surprising how well it complements Dahl's imaginative story. One of film's the running gags is how anthropomorphic the animal characters are and how oblivious the humans are to the animals' complex parallel existence. The animals in Fantastic Mr. Fox don't just talk to each other in English; they also wear clothes, paint landscape pictures, have careers, go to school, play sports, engage in real estate transactions, and so forth. Yet the humans in movie only seem marginally aware of what the animals do, which results in many hilariously absurd situations. Adding to the film's humor is its strong voice cast, which also includes Bill Murray, Michael Gambon, Willem Dafoe and Owen Wilson.
What ties everything together into a great movie is the stop motion animation itself. For someone who is not known for animation, Anderson has a keen eye for using stop motion to create characters, environments, and complicated visual gags. The amount of detail in the animation is amazing, and anyone who has an appreciation of stop motion animation should see this film. Even though Fantastic Mr. Fox did poorly at the box office, I'm hoping that it builds enough of a following on home video to convince Anderson to try his hand again at animation. Animation fans would be much worse off if he didn't.
I can't recommend Fantastic Mr. Fox highly enough. It's both a wonderful example of stop motion animation and proof that you don't need studio-mandated gimmicks and market-ready product tie-ins to make an entertaining animated movie that can be appreciated by all ages.
Ray Bradbury, 1920 - 2012
Posted by Admin at 3:47 PM 0 commentsToday marks the passing of Ray Bradbury, one of the greatest science fiction writers ever to grace the genre. I honestly don't know what to write here--his body of work and artistic influence are so large that I no idea where to begin. He truly was a giant in his field.
Of the many stories he wrote that I've read over the years, one of my favorites is a short story called "The Fog Horn". Before reading it, I never thought that a story about a giant prehistoric monster could be such a heartbreaking meditation on loneliness--Bradbury was that good. This story would later inspire The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms (1953), a movie that featured innovative stop-motion effects work by Bradbury's long-time friend, Ray Harryhausen.
There a plenty of more detailed Bradbury obits out there and I particularly recommend the one by Cartoon Brew, which will give you a better idea of how Bradbury's interests and talents extended beyond the written word.
Classic Movie Monsters Terrorize Toy Fair 2012!
Posted by Admin at 4:37 PM 0 commentsWell, the annual Toy Fair has come and gone yet again. There were many familiar licenses present at this year's event, including Star Wars, DC and Marvel superheroes, and revived 80s-era toy lines such as G.I. Joe, He-Man, Thundercats, Transformers and Voltron. Yet among these popular titles were a few faces from Hollywood's classic creature features, thanks to Diamond Select.
I've already posted about how Lego is including classic movie monsters as part of its kit sets, and I mentioned how Diamond Select was continuing its Retro Cloth Universal Monsters line as part of the ongoing legacy of the Mego Corporation. Yet when I was looking through the comprehensive Toy Fair 2012 photo galleries on the Cool Toy Review site, I was very pleased to see that Diamond Select has much more in store for classic movie monster lovers in 2012. Click below to learn more about why you should be saving your money for this fantastic new items, along with pictures that were provided courtesy of Cool Toy Review.
I may have grown up with the Star Wars saga and the superheroes of the DC and Marvel universe, but nothing brings a smile to my face quite like whenever a toy company decides to pay tribute to the creature features of yesterday by releasing high-quality replicas of their titular monsters. (If anything, classic movie monster toys certainly deserve as much attention among fantasy, horror and sci-fi collectors as the umpteenth action figure, statue, bust, or model kit of Darth Vader, Batman, and Spider-Man.) Diamond Select already released high-quality action figures of Dracula, Frankenstein's Monster, the Mummy, and the Creature from the Black Lagoon, and each of those figures came with equally impressive accessories. As you can see from the pictures below from Cool Toy Review, this year's selection will include the Phantom of the Opera, Quasimodo, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (two separate figures), and creatures from B-movie classics such as This Island Earth and The Mole People.
It should be noted here that Diamond Select is also releasing figures from yet another tribute to classic movie monsters: Mad Monster Party, a 1967 stop-motion animated film by Rankin/Bass Productions.
Click here to see all of Cool Toy Review's coverage of Toy Fair 2012.
Nerd Rant: To See or Not To See The Phantom Menace in 3D
Posted by Admin at 4:14 PM 0 commentsI sense a three dimensional disturbance in The Force.
I love 3D movies, I love Star Wars, and I love the special effects work done by George Lucas-backed companies such as Industrial Light and Magic. However, I have no desire to see the re-release of Star Wars: The Phantom Menace in 3D. The reason is simple: Based on several reviews I've read, the converted Phantom Menace movie doesn't take full advantage of the new dimension it is supposed to have. It ranked fourth during its first weekend at the box office but I doubt that's enough to justify the cost of converting just one film to 3D, let alone six. Furthermore, if Phantom Menace falls off the top ten list this upcoming weekend, then the future of a complete Star Wars saga in 3D is more doomed than Alderaan.
What gives? This is George Lucas we're talking about here. If there's anyone in Hollywood who has easy and ready access to the latest special effects technology, it's him--and yet Phantom Menace didn't get a decent conversion to 3D? Really?
Naturally, I'm severely disappointed that the Star Wars 3D movie experience that was supposed to be probably won't happen at all. Yet the real reason why I am posting this rant is that deep, deep down inside of my little geeky heart, I'm hoping that someone will give the high-definition 3D treatment to one or more of the older anaglyph 3D classics, classics such as House of Wax and Dial M for Murder. Thus, I'm sure that the box office performance of re-released, 3D-converted titles such as Phantom Menace will have an impact on whether or not that happens. After carefully considering what has happened so far, I think that this could very well be the first time that Lucas' technological savvy has been trumped ... by Disney. Click below to learn about how the House of Mouse has beaten The Flanneled One to the 3D punch.
To be fair, while Lucas has invested a lot in advanced film production technology, Disney has plenty of experience when it comes to distributing their products. Add to that Disney's large catalog of titles, and it becomes clear that it takes more than technological sophistication and a huge built-in fan base to make 3D conversions profitable.
I think that Lucas' mistake is twofold: that the 3D conversion was lackluster and that he released it within months of the Blu-ray release of all six Star Wars movies--and less than two months after the Christmas shopping season, when I'm sure plenty of fans got their Star Wars Blu-ray sets. If you already have a Blu-ray player and a high-def TV, then there's no reason to pay extra cash for a disappointing 3D conversion when you can watch crystal-clear copies of the Star Wars movies (as well as the hours of bonus features that came with them) in the comfort of your own home. Even if you don't own the Star Wars Blu-rays yet, you'd be better off saving your money to get them than to spend it on higher-priced tickets for a 3D experience that doesn't deliver.
In contrast, Disney has been tinkering around with 3D for years by now, both with first-run 3D releases and 3D conversions. Its conversions include Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, Toy Story and Toy Story 2, and The Nightmare Before Christmas. Each time Disney re-releases a converted title, the distribution plan adheres to the same strategy: The title is released in theaters for a limited engagement, which is quickly followed by the release of the title on 3D Blu-ray. This strategy has worked quite well for Disney so far, although it's not the only way to do it. For example, Dreamworks converted its 2D Shrek movies to 3D and then released them on 3D Blu-ray without bothering with theatrical re-releases.
Regardless of which release pattern is followed, each would fail if the 3D conversion process didn't yield impressive results. I don't think that it's a coincidence that the most successful 3D conversions all happen to be animated. CGI animated movies are easier to convert to 3D than another other film, but that doesn't explain the successful conversions of 2D hand-drawn animated features and stop-motion features. Without knowing the exact processes and technology involved, it seems that the less moving elements there are on the screen the easier it is to convert it to 3D. The animation in Lion King and Nightmare Before Christmas is gorgeous, but none of their scenes are nearly as busy as an action scene from a Star Wars film--and there I believe is where the problem lies.
It could very well be that the 3D conversion process--at least for the immediate future--should strictly be limited to the domain of animation. If Lucas really wanted to enter the 3D movie arena, he should have taken a feature-length story arc from the CGI animated Clone Wars TV series, convert it into 3D, and then release it on 3D Blu-ray with a few behind-the-scenes featurettes. Yet even if 3D conversion is limited to animation, that shouldn't rule out the conversion of older, live-action films that were already shot in the 3D into a superior 3D format.
In summary: Disney can keep doing what it does in 3D because it does it well. But for Lucas, James Cameron and all of the other filmmakers who want to convert their older movies into 3D, I can only say this: Don't. There are many older films that I would love to see in 3D (click here to see my 3D conversion wish list) but please, please, please wait for the technology to catch up--even if it means waiting for the conversion of movies into holograms if that's what it takes. In the meantime, work on updating movies that were already shot in 3D, movies that were ahead of their time and are long overdue for a comeback.
Now ... who's finally going to release a high-def double feature Creature from the Black Lagoon/Revenge of the Creature 3D Blu-ray set?
Equinox and the Odd Story Behind a Fan-Made, Theatrically-Released Horror Film
Posted by Admin at 4:18 PM 0 commentsIf you follow the film industry as much as I do, then you'll know how often directors clash with studio executives when determining the final cuts of big-budget films. Such conflicts between the artists who create the art and the people who fund the art and mistakenly think that they are artists too have resulted in a long, long list of expensive failures. (Alien 3 (1992) and The Invasion (2007) immediately comes to mind.) Of course, it continues to happen--so much so with Hollywood productions that it's almost inevitable at this point--but how would you feel if the same thing happened with the theatrical release of a low-budget, fan-made film?
Such was the case with Equinox. It began as an amateur horror fan film made in 1967 (its original title: The Equinox: Journey into the Supernatural), and then it was re-edited, partially re-shot and distributed theatrically by Tonylyn Productions in 1970. For a long time, the Tonylyn version of Equinox was the only version that was available to the public; when Criterion released their two-disc set of Equinox back in 2006, they included both the original 1967 cut with the theatrical cut on the same disc (both with commentaries) for direct comparison. While neither cut are examples of horror filmmaking at its finest, the differences between the original edit and theatrical edit are astonishing and reflect how much the fans got right--fans who meticulously studied the craftsmanship that went into their favorite movies--and how much the so-called professionals got wrong.
Read on for my complete comparison of the two versions of Equinox, and how no movie is too small for creative differences between creators and producers.
In both edits, Equinox is about a group of college students who travel to the cabin owned by college professor, Dr. Arthur Waterman (Fritz Leiber Jr.), to check up on him because of his recent absence from their campus. They arrive to find that the cabin has been torn apart and Waterman is missing. Their search for the professor leads them to a mysterious text called the Book of the Damned that is filled with ancient inscriptions and spells intended to open a portal to a demonic parallel world--a portal that Waterman has already opened....
What Equinox is widely known for is that it features the early work of three special effects artists who would later work on some of the most popular films of the 70s, 80s, and 90s. These artists were Dennis Muren (Star Wars, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, E.T., Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, A.I., War of the Worlds), Dave Allen (The Howling, Willow, Ghostbusters II, Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, The Arrival) and Jim Danforth (Clash of the Titans, Creepshow, The Thing, The Neverending Story, Day of the Dead, Prince of Darkness). Muren produced the film for only $6500 and he co-directed the original cut of Equinox with Mark Thomas McGee, who also wrote the film's script. Muren and Allen worked on the stop motion effects, while Danforth provided the cel animation and matte paintings.
A forced perspective shot from Equinox.
Essentially, Equinox is a demo reel for the early effects work of Muren, Allen and Danforth; that the demo reel also happens to have an intriguing and creative story--albeit a poorly acted, poorly scripted and somewhat disjointed story--is simply a bonus. Considering that the film was shot on a tiny budget with amateur talents, the end results are very impressive.
Many aspects of Equinox echo the influence that the horror and sci-fi fan culture of the early-to-mid 20th century had on budding young filmmakers; depending on how you look at it, Equinox is a love letter of sorts to the creature features of that era. Muren and Allen were devoted fans of pioneering stop motion animators Willis O'Brien and Ray Harryhausen, and several of the effects scenes in Equinox are clearly influenced by O'Brien and Harryhausen movies such as Mighty Joe Young and It Came from Beneath the Sea.
Forrest J. Ackerman makes an uncredited cameo in Equinox by lending his voice to an audio recording that plays early in the film (he also provided a video introduction for the Criterion Equinox set). Ackerman's contributions to the horror and science fiction genres were numerous, and his biggest legacy to the fans of those genres was a magazine he published called Famous Monsters of Filmland. Famous Monsters differed from other entertainment magazines of its time by focusing on the artistry that's performed behind the scenes, such as special effects and creature costume designs. Muren and his production crew must've been devoted acolytes of Ackerman's magazine and the movies it covered, because their love of classic creature features and the techniques that brought them to cinematic life is on display in each frame of their original cut of Equinox. Such open affection provides a sort of charm that offsets some of the amateur film's more uneven aspects.
The theatrical release poster for Equinox.
Dennis Muren and Mark Thomas McGee
were not credited on this poster.
All I can figure is that Woods thought that Equinox would be his big break as a writer and director (hint: it wasn't), so he tried to put as much of his stamp on it as possible. It should also be noted here that the theatrical version of Equinox lists Woods as director and co-writer, while Muren's credit went from being the co-director and producer to just associate producer. Woods even put himself in front of the camera as a new character named Asmodeus, a demon who assumes the guise of a park ranger and exerts his sinister influence over young ladies by making funny faces at them before feeling them up (no, I'm not kidding). Considering that Harris made a name for himself by producing The Blob in 1958 for only $120,000, it's a shame that he was willing to let Woods run roughshod over the work that was so passionately and cost-effectively made by Muren and his crew.
Asmodeus (Jack Woods), as he grimaces, puckers, clenches
and frowns his way into the soul of an innocent victim.
The way I see it, Equinox and The Evil Dead are low-budget bookends of sorts to the changes that horror cinema went through during the 70s. Equinox reflects the heavy influence of O'Brien, Harryhausen and Ackerman on one generation of horror film fans, whereas The Evil Dead reflects the heavy influence of George Romero, Tobe Hooper and Wes Craven on a later generation of horror film fans.
Because Equinox at its best is a cheap fan-made film, your interest in seeing it will greatly depend on how much you would like to see this kind of film from another time in film history. In other words, you don't watch Equinox to see a classic horror film; instead, you watch it to see an example of how fans from a particular era applied what they learned about the crafts practiced by their movie idols to a film they financed and produced on their own, and how that film was later changed for the worse by someone else for theatrical release.
I've seen plenty of movies that were released on DVD and Blu-ray as both a theatrical cut and a director's cut, but this is the first and only time I've seen this situation occur with a fan film. For that reason alone, I highly recommend Criterion's release of Equinox for anyone who is interested in horror and sci-fi fan culture. You should also try to see Criterion's Equinox if you believe that modern CGI-based special effects lack the creativity and finesse of older special effects techniques such as matte paintings, forced perspective and stop motion animation. Click here to read Glenn Erickson's review at DVD Talk of both discs that are in Criterion's set; however, if you are interested in seeing both versions of Equinox but have no interested in buying it, the first disc of the Criterion release is available for rental through Netflix.
In 1985, Equinox was distributed on VHS by
Wizard Video under the title The Beast.
Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark and The Gate: Tiny Terrors Times Two
Posted by Admin at 6:02 PM 0 commentsWay back in August 2010, I posted some thoughts about Guillermo del Toro’s then-unreleased remake of Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark, a TV movie from 1973 that’s become a cult classic among horror fans. I had an open mind about what the end product would be like based on del Toro’s previous work, although I had some reservations based on de Toro’s decisions to make the movie a “dark fairy tale” and changing the main character from an adult woman named Sally (Kim Darby) who is in a failing marriage to a little girl named Sally (Bailee Madison) who is visiting her divorced father and his new girlfriend. Unfortunately, my misgivings were right: I just saw del Toro’s remake, which he co-wrote and produced, and his changes to the original story only hindered its overall effectiveness as a horror movie. Even Troy Nixey’s capable direction couldn’t turn this remake into something that improves upon its low-budget predecessor.
Yet as I was thinking about how I’d review the Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark remake, I found myself remembering about another movie that pit kids against pint-sized monsters: The Gate, a film from 1986 that was directed by Tibor Takács. The Gate certified its place in movie trivia by outperforming Ishtar, one of the most notorious big-budget flops in American movie history, but it’s also a great example of how to tell a dark fairy tale that’s worth watching. Read on for my comparison, with some minor spoilers.
To be sure, the original version of Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark isn’t one of the best horror films ever made. What made it memorable, though, is that it was made by talented people who understood the significant limitations with which they were faced--especially in terms of a meager production budget and the TV movie format--and successfully applied their skills within those limits. In doing so, the movie not only kept the appearance of the monsters to a minimum, but it also kept the details behind the monsters’ origin as vague as possible.
On the basis of what you see in the movie, you can piece together that the monsters were probably summoned from another hell-like dimension through some kind of dark magic and then couldn’t (or wouldn't) be sent away, although none of the characters say as much. You hear the monsters much more than you see them, and what they say amongst themselves indicate just how sadistic and obsessive they really are. By keeping the monsters vague--their origins, their capabilities, and their intentions--the movie maintains eerie mood of tense uncertainty. Adding to the tension is how the presence of the monsters accentuates the growing rift between Sally and her husband Alex (Jim Hutton), all the way to the film’s grim, creepy conclusion.
By changing the nature of the monsters and the age of the main character, del Toro winds up putting more limitations on his remake than the mandatory ones faced by his predecessors. In the remake, it is explained that the monsters are some kind of creatures from ancient folklore who may have some connection to the Tooth Fairy legend, but that explanation sets up many inconsistencies within the narrative that are more frustrating than scary. For example, these creatures are said to crave children’s teeth every hundred years, but the end of the movie suggests that they’re just as content to go another hundred years without any children’s teeth at all (?). While I can imagine del Toro thinking that strained relationship between the child Sally and her divorced father would have the same dramatic effect as the original’s adult Sally and her career-driven husband, that plot thread quickly diminishes into the cliché of parental characters who refuse to believe their children when they see ghosts, monsters, and other improbable frights.
To accommodate del Toro’s changes yet still justify keeping both the title Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark and its PG-13 rating, the remake restrains itself frequently so that it doesn’t become as horrifying and vicious as it could be. In doing so, the characters--both human and inhuman--become dumber than their TV movie counterparts. The monsters appear to be as adept with tools as they were in the original, but they also announce their presence to Sally many times, they attack her in ways that don’t really hurt her, and they ignore the tactic of stealth enough so that even the clueless adults realize what’s happening by the film’s climax. Then again, adults aren’t that much smarter: Even after they accept the danger that Sally is facing, they still are willing to leave her alone in her room. Finally, I don’t care how bad the divorce of Sally’s parents was, she still shouldn’t be talking to strangers--especially strangers who are locked behind a tiny metal door in the basement of a long deserted mansion.
It should be noted that in an interview with Cineaste magazine about Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark, del Toro stated, “I love the Welsh author Arthur Machen and his idea that fairy lore comes from a dark place, that it’s derived from little, pre-human creatures who are really, really nasty vermin but are magical in a way, living as they do for hundreds of years. His books are what compelled me to do this.” (Machen is even mentioned by name in one scene of the remake.) With such intentions in mind, I can only wonder: Why doesn’t del Toro make a completely new movie based on the works of Machen, instead of trying to insert a Machen-inspired story thread into a remake of a TV movie that gained its cult classic status without such a thread in the first place?
In contrast to del Toro’s remake is The Gate. The Gate is about a young boy named Glen (Stephen Dorff) who notices that the hole left behind by the tree that was removed from his backyard is starting to exhibit unusual features. While his parents are away and his is left in the care of his sister Al (Christa Denton), Glen and his friend Terry (Louis Tripp) discover that the hole is actually a gateway to a nightmarish dimension populated by Lovecraftian horrors that are determined to take back the world, and the gate is slowly opening....
Like Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark, The Gate is rated PG-13; unlike Dark, director Takács and his crew had a better understanding of how to tell a spooky, kid-centric story than del Toro and Nixey. In particular, The Gate is told from the perspective of its three adolescent leads, and the few of adult characters that are in the movie only appear for a few minutes. By approaching its horrors from a more innocent, wide-eyed perspective, the movie lets the vivid imaginations of its adolescent protagonists--not the overuse of expensive special effects--set the tone of unease. This works better in establishing a dark fairy tale setting, as opposed to literally placing monstrous folklore characters into a story that's largely populated by adults. Then again, The Gate uses its own kind of folklore: in particular, the 80s era belief of some that heavy metal music is a deliberate recruiting tool for Satan worship. The movie's running gag is how Glen and Terry regularly consult the liner notes from a Canadian heavy metal album for information about demons, magical incantations, and inter-dimensional portals. (Blame Canada, indeed!)
The Gate’s loose and relaxed rules about the monsters that emerge from the hole in Glen’s backyard appropriately match the story’s setting and characters. There seems to be no limit to what can emerge out of the hole: a rotting zombie, shape-shifters, forces of levitation, telephone-melting possessions, and even a gigantic, multi-limbed demon all come out of the hole. (In that aspect, this movie feels like what one of Lucio Fulci’s “Gates of Hell” movies would’ve been like if he decided to make one with kids as the main characters.) Yet what this film is most known for is its horde of pint-sized demonic minions that terrorize Glen, Terry and Al. What the minions lack in intellect they more than make up for number and determination, and the forced perspective effects techniques that were used to bring the foot-tall freaks to life are much more impressive than the CGI-created monsters in Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark.
When looking at The Gate and the remake of Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark, I can only conclude that the imaginative application of low-budget practical effects to a simple yet solid script create a much more memorable film than the erroneous application of big-budget effects and sets to an overcomplicated and underwhelming script. Even though I admire del Toro’s other work and his understanding of the horror genre, his attempt to breathe new creative life into Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark is a frustrating failure that’s best left unseen. The original 1973 movie left plenty of room for improvement (if not direct continuation), but del Toro chose to impose his own ill-fitting vision on an original story instead of exploring and enriching the strengths that the story already had. I would recommend that horror fans either revisit the original Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark or see The Gate for great examples of how big scares that give kids big nightmares can come in very small, low-budget sizes.
Ten Horror and Sci-Fi Films That Should Be Remade
Posted by Admin at 4:34 PM 0 commentsDuring the last few weekends, a series of horror and sci-fi movie remakes have appeared at the box office. Remakes of Conan the Barbarian, Don't Be Afraid of the Dark, Fright Night and Rise of the Planet of the Apes (which is a remake of Conquest of the Planet of the Apes) have already been released, and a remake of Straw Dogs is scheduled for release in a few days. It appears that the big studios are determined to remake as many of their big name horror and sci-fi franchises as possible, for no other reason that they want a "sure thing"--namely, franchises that already have devoted fan bases--instead of taking the financial risk of investing in something new and unproven.
What I believe is that if remakes are what the studios want to produce to save money and minimize, then they should be doing is remaking movies they already own but weren't complete successes in their original incarnations for the sake of improving them with better creative teams and better budgets. Read on for ten suggestions of horror and sci-fi films, listed in chronological order, that didn't quite work the first time around and deserve a second chance.
1. The Maze (1953)
As a complete movie, The Maze is less than the sum of its parts. It has plenty to hold the viewer's interest: A mysterious family curse that causes its victims to age rapidly, a gloomy castle in the misty Scottish highlands, a shadowy figure that roams the castle's halls at night and leaves behind strange webbed footprints, and an outdoor hedge maze that is fatal to uninvited guests. William Cameron Menzies' direction provides a visually engaging setting for the story, and his "dimensional" style of cinematography fit the film's original release in anaglyph 3D. Unfortunately, almost all of the film's mysteries are either quickly explained or completely forgotten by the film's conclusion. With a more meticulous script and sense of visual style that matches Menzies', The Maze has the potential to bring Lovecraftian 3D thrills back to the silver screen for a new generation of horror fans.
2. The Monolith Monsters (1957)
In a decade where science fiction movies were crowded with alien invaders and giant radioactive mutations, Monolith Monsters
3. The Black Scorpion (1957)
The Black Scorpion
4. I Bury The Living (1958)
I Bury The Living
5. Phase IV (1974)
As killer bug movies go, Phase IV
6. The Car (1977)
The Car
7. The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978)
The Eyes of Laura Mars
8. Tourist Trap (1979)
You know what's creepy? Dolls and ventriloquist dummies. You know what else is creepy? Mannequins. Of these three sorts of unlikely yet effective scares, killer dolls and dummies have been the subject of many horror movies, while killer mannequins have only been the subject of one: Tourist Trap
9. Looker (1981)
Even though Looker
10. Trancers (1985)
Yet another low-budget B-movie from Charles Band. Trancers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)