Don't Be Afraid Of The Dark

A few months ago the smart marketing campaign for Don’t Be Afraid Of The Dark hinted at a film that was smart, terrifying and possibly brilliant. Now it’s here, the reality is a lumpen mess that is dumb, unscary and possibly one of the worst films of the year. Things don’t bode well from the very opening scene in which a clearly CGI’d horse and carriage goes galloping past a spooky looking mansion. This reminded me somewhat of the now infamous gophers from the last Indian Jones film. If the film makers can’t be bothered to do something so simple without resorting to special effects, then it hardly augers well for how much effort they going to put into the rest of the picture does it? Lo and behold (much like that Crystal Skull) this is a shambles. One of the biggest mistakes of the films is made during the opening prologue in which a man in the aforementioned mansion is seen talking to something mysterious in his boiler, but (inexperienced) director Troy Nixey (helming from a Guillermo del Toro screen play) makes the error of then showing us that what he’s talking to, that being some tiny odd looking goblin type creatures. Haven’t these guys heard of the cardinal rule of horror films? (i.e. that suggestion is 9/10ths of the law). We’re then into the main crux of the story in which Alex (Guy Pearce) and Kim (Katie Holmes), having just moved into the house, are joined by Alex’s daughter Sally (Bailee Madison) Before long the creatures are after Sally. However, as the reveal has happened so soon already there isn’t much to be interested or intrigued about. A further problem is that the creatures want to lure Sally down into the basement, so when they “attack” her in the bedroom or bathroom you’re totally non-plussed as you know that nothing’s going to happen to her. The fact that each time the creatures disappear just seconds before any adults appear are coincidences too far. Even more ludicrous is the fact that Sally takes about 50 photos of the creatures to prove their existence, but it’s never explained why they can’t be seen on the photos. Is she that bad a photographer from point blank range? This is just another sigh worthy plot hole in a screen play littered with them. So, just why has this turned out so bad? This’ll be the first (and last!) time I ever quite Oscar Wilde in a film review but in del Toro’s case I think this is a situation where “…each man kills the thing he loves”. I haven’t seen the original TV movie from 1973 on which this is based, but it was well received at the time and gave children nightmares for weeks. Del Toro was one of those children, but this just begs that old question that if something was so great in the first place, why re-make it? Del Toro claimed that when he passed the finished version of the film to the MPAA he was thinking about cutting it to get a lower rating until the MPAA questioned why he would want to do that as he had just made one of the scariest films of all time. Either Del Toro’s telling (publicity aimed) porkies or the person who told him that at the MPAA needs a need job. Instead of being a white knuckle horror the film this most resembles is Gremlins, albeit without the humour or menace. Apart from one jump scare (already shown in the trailer!) this has nothing to get anyone’s pulse racing at all and only the youngest of children would cover their eyes at certain points. On the acting front Pearce doesn’t even bother finding the gear box, let alone only shifting into 1st, but Holmes isn’t that bad, putting more effort into her part than perhaps the films deserves. Fair play to her for that, but even this can’t save Nixey’s confused direction. The only other plus points come from some of the special effects involving the pesky creatures and the eagle eyed among you can have fun trying to spot Del Toro in a background cameo. In the end though this is a just a whole lot of nothing.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict

Unbelievably disappointing. From being promised ice cold chills all you get is a couple of lukewarm thrills. Rating: 2/10.