(This review has SPOILERS to both the original and the remake) I saw as a kid and was really spooked by the original TV movie from the 70s, with Kim Darby. So I awaited the remake with great anticipation, particularly because the original little monsters were so corny looking and could really do with a face-lift.
Overall I thought Del Toro did a good job of updating the story, and improved it in some ways, but in others I think I prefer the feel of the original better.
First, I'm of two minds about the switcheroo making Sally a child. Yes, the sense of danger is greater, the fear for the child. But the downside of that is there are too many people in the mix -- in the original it was just the husband and wife but now there are two protective adults and so the feeling of isolation isn't as strong, and they have to be pretty contrived in putting the little girl by herself over and over again. In the original the husband is often out and very often it's just the adult Sally at home, all by herself, with her suspicions and fears, which I found to be very spooky.
Second, all the back story. It sets the creatures up better, I suppose, and gives Kim the ability to do the detective thing with the groundsman and at the library, but does this really build tension or make the story scarier? I didn't think so -- having a person (especially a child) menaced by ugly little scampering creatures is plenty, and I actually found all the back story something of a distraction.
Being Del Toro, he just had to add a magical secret garden. What is it with this guy and secret gardens? I saw all that overgrowth and the pond and the Koi and knew that it would play a part in the final act of the story, but it didn't. It was completely superfluous! I think GDT needs to get over his magic garden fetish and stick to the story.
The cheesiness of the original creatures actually was a benefit, as they didn't show them too much. Here we see these obviously CGI creatures constantly. I am amazed that someone who likes the supernatural as much as GDT does not realize that what we don't see scares us far more than what we do. Likewise, having things explained to us takes the fearfulness of them away immediately. Human beings are first and foremost afraid of the unknown. (This is why so many primitive cultures independently invented "God.") To show something, to explain it, is to take the fearfulness away from that thing. As soon as the creatures take over the screen time, the movie stops being a thriller and becomes a monster movie, and my interest immediately wanes. "Insidious," anyone? That recent movie was quite scary until the trainwreck that was the big explanation in the last act, which drove a stake right through the heart of the picture.
One final thing -- that self-conscious playfulness that GDT sometimes uses in his stories is not so cute to people who also have some background in the same story. In the original, Kim Darby played Sally. Here Sally is a girl, but the adult woman watching over her is named ... wait for it ... KIM. As soon as I heard that I thought, "ah, she's going to be taken instead of Sally," as Kim Darby got taken in the original. And sure enough, that's exactly what happened. That lessened the tension of the story for me immediately.
Well, this ended up sounding more negative than I really meant it to be, as I am a fairly critical person. I should say that I actually enjoyed the remake, I thought it kept a good level of suspense, and it was quite an eyeful as all of GDT movies are -- very handsome and evocative. Bailey Madison with that chubby round face and big eyes was absolutely adorable, and she's also quite a talented young actress -- she did a wonderful job maintaining a sense of mournfulness over her family situation, which explains perfectly her mindset in unlocking the terror from the walled-in room. Katie Holmes has a familiar girl-next-door affability undiminished from her time on "Dawson's Creek," and she's just about as good to look at as she was back then as well. I was a little surprised that an actor as accomplished as Guy Pearce gave this two-dimensional performance, but it could be argued that he had little to work with -- this movie belonged to the girls.
I have to say that I'm very glad that GDT is no longer associated with "The Hobbit." I think he's wonderful at painting supernatural tableaux, but truth be told, he's not a particularly good storyteller, and The Hobbit, despite the dragons and were bears and all that, is all about the story. In "Don't Be Afraid" he already had a pretty compelling story from the original teleplay, and it still manages to hang together well, but despite its cheesy teevee movie production values, I think there are more scares to be had in the original. That said, go see this one too, if only for the female leads and the beautiful camera-work.
Overall I thought Del Toro did a good job of updating the story, and improved it in some ways, but in others I think I prefer the feel of the original better.
First, I'm of two minds about the switcheroo making Sally a child. Yes, the sense of danger is greater, the fear for the child. But the downside of that is there are too many people in the mix -- in the original it was just the husband and wife but now there are two protective adults and so the feeling of isolation isn't as strong, and they have to be pretty contrived in putting the little girl by herself over and over again. In the original the husband is often out and very often it's just the adult Sally at home, all by herself, with her suspicions and fears, which I found to be very spooky.
Second, all the back story. It sets the creatures up better, I suppose, and gives Kim the ability to do the detective thing with the groundsman and at the library, but does this really build tension or make the story scarier? I didn't think so -- having a person (especially a child) menaced by ugly little scampering creatures is plenty, and I actually found all the back story something of a distraction.
Being Del Toro, he just had to add a magical secret garden. What is it with this guy and secret gardens? I saw all that overgrowth and the pond and the Koi and knew that it would play a part in the final act of the story, but it didn't. It was completely superfluous! I think GDT needs to get over his magic garden fetish and stick to the story.
The cheesiness of the original creatures actually was a benefit, as they didn't show them too much. Here we see these obviously CGI creatures constantly. I am amazed that someone who likes the supernatural as much as GDT does not realize that what we don't see scares us far more than what we do. Likewise, having things explained to us takes the fearfulness of them away immediately. Human beings are first and foremost afraid of the unknown. (This is why so many primitive cultures independently invented "God.") To show something, to explain it, is to take the fearfulness away from that thing. As soon as the creatures take over the screen time, the movie stops being a thriller and becomes a monster movie, and my interest immediately wanes. "Insidious," anyone? That recent movie was quite scary until the trainwreck that was the big explanation in the last act, which drove a stake right through the heart of the picture.
One final thing -- that self-conscious playfulness that GDT sometimes uses in his stories is not so cute to people who also have some background in the same story. In the original, Kim Darby played Sally. Here Sally is a girl, but the adult woman watching over her is named ... wait for it ... KIM. As soon as I heard that I thought, "ah, she's going to be taken instead of Sally," as Kim Darby got taken in the original. And sure enough, that's exactly what happened. That lessened the tension of the story for me immediately.
Well, this ended up sounding more negative than I really meant it to be, as I am a fairly critical person. I should say that I actually enjoyed the remake, I thought it kept a good level of suspense, and it was quite an eyeful as all of GDT movies are -- very handsome and evocative. Bailey Madison with that chubby round face and big eyes was absolutely adorable, and she's also quite a talented young actress -- she did a wonderful job maintaining a sense of mournfulness over her family situation, which explains perfectly her mindset in unlocking the terror from the walled-in room. Katie Holmes has a familiar girl-next-door affability undiminished from her time on "Dawson's Creek," and she's just about as good to look at as she was back then as well. I was a little surprised that an actor as accomplished as Guy Pearce gave this two-dimensional performance, but it could be argued that he had little to work with -- this movie belonged to the girls.
I have to say that I'm very glad that GDT is no longer associated with "The Hobbit." I think he's wonderful at painting supernatural tableaux, but truth be told, he's not a particularly good storyteller, and The Hobbit, despite the dragons and were bears and all that, is all about the story. In "Don't Be Afraid" he already had a pretty compelling story from the original teleplay, and it still manages to hang together well, but despite its cheesy teevee movie production values, I think there are more scares to be had in the original. That said, go see this one too, if only for the female leads and the beautiful camera-work.