So. it's 1968 in small town Pennsylvania at Halloween. A quartet of teenage misfits manage to evade a group of jock-bullies after trick-or-treating and take a detour by the old abandoned house which belonged to the local turn-of-the-century child murderer. Within its crumbling walls they come across a cursed book, and over the nights which follow the team - and their close associates - are picked off one by one as the stories of their supernaturally gruesome deaths appear magically in its pages.
KING So. What begins feeling for all the world like a Stephen King fan film*1 gradually becomes a quasi-anthology as we see a handful of creepy stories enacted. That the characters themselves realise exactly what's happening despite being powerless to change it gives the whole thing a feeling of Final Destination by way of Goosebumps. With posessed scarecrows, zombies and spiders this is classic fare, and it's definitely more an alt-teen adventure than a flat out horror, although the film is all the better for that.
The central cast of Zoe Margaret Colletti, Michael Garza, Austin Zajur and Gabriel Rush are all solid enough individually but become more than the sum of their parts to make things really fizz. The effects shots, while well-executed, are relatively few and far between so the rest is down to good old-fashioned visual storytelling and the tradition of the campfire yarn. And while the costumes and sets display a suitably vintage sensibility, the production and scripting have a distinctly post-modern air*2. The film's plot is not meant to be taken at face value, although the distinct themes of denial and survivor's guilt are plain enough for all to see. Scary Stories works because of its darkly playful structure. We're never expected to believe these events are actually happening as we see them - only that urban legends exist and people of all ages believe them for different reasons.
AND DEAN There are a few scenes of Quiet/Quiet/BANG!™ which the movie is otherwise much better than, and I'm deducting points for the third-act ritual of poking about through hospital archives and newspaper cuttings, and also the shoehorning in of The Mystical Old Black Lady™. Those are all cheap tropes which Blumhouse have flogged to death in recent years and they certainly don't need to be in here.
But the zenith of Scary Stories is far more imaginative than most of the film's genre-contemporaries, with an almost Whovian edge (and not just because Colletti's part was almost written for Carey Mulligan in Blink-mode).
While the first part of the title may be disingenuous to all but the younger audience members, Scary Stories To Tell In The Dark is an enjoyable movie that many of its classmates would do well to learn from.
Apart from anything else, you'll need blackout-curtains if you're planning to watch this in your living room.
It's worth watching again, but I'm not sure how much replay value there'll be overall.
Let's not go mad here.
Going off the judgement of at least one of my esteemed reviewing colleagues, that's entirely possible.
There isn't.
Level 2: Zoe Margaret Colletti is in this, and she was in the 2014 remake of Annie along with Rose 'Dormé' Byrne.
*1 In all honesty, when I first saw the trailer for this I thought it was for IT Chapter 2. The promo-reel opens with a geeky girl cycling around a sepia-tinged small town, then four teenagers standing in front of a dilapidated house with one of them in a clown outfit. I mean come on mate. [ BACK ]
*2 Despite a marked lack of profanity in this 15-rated screamfest - and well done to screenwriters Dan and Kevin Hagerman for avoiding that easy pitfall. [ BACK ]
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
A quick heads-up before we get started here, I've said this before on several occasions but it feels like I'm now past Horror™ as a genre. Not so much that I've 'grown out of it', but certainly that most of the mainstream fare I see nowadays just reminds me in some way of the utter trash I used to enjoy as a teenager. Almost like I've inadvertently spoiled it for myself. Logically unfeasible antagonists and telegraphed jump-scares no longer hold my interest, because if a film has to 'tell' you to feel scared, that's the horror equivalent of casting Kevin Hart in a comedy. But I'm always willing (time permitting) to give a movie a whirl on recommendation from friends whose opinion I trust. Anyway, I think you know why I've brought all this up first...
The Autopsy of Jane Doe follows the father-and-son pathologist team of Tommy and Austen Tilden, working in a small U.S. county mortuary and crematorium. When the body of a young woman is unearthed from a murder scene and brought in by the police one evening, the Tildens work late to try and identify a cause of death, even though there are no external signs of trauma or decomposition. As the post-mortem progresses it becomes increasingly irregular, as do the occurrences in the mortuary itself...
I've said this before as well: it all comes down to the writing. What begins seeming like an unassuming also-ran horror flick slowly turns into... an unassuming also-ran horror flick. That a pair of 'meat-detectives' would stumble across evidence of supernatural secrets as part of their work is a fair idea for a movie, but most of Autopsy… plays out like a greatest-hits reel of the genre's most over-used tropes. From the flickering lights and power-cuts, to the gathering storm outside and eerily juxtaposed songs playing unbidden on the radio*2, this is a well-trodden path to be walking down. The scalpel-happy pair even helpfully write their clues on a blackboard throughout the film, just to assist with the callbacks.
Things are just about saved by solid performances*3 from Brian Cox and Emile Hirsch as the central duo, not to mention Olwen Kelly as the eponymous Jane (albeit without saying a single word). But they're struggling with a script which is as unwieldy as their business's clients, so maybe Olwen's got the better end of the bargain, here.
Writers Ian Goldberg and Richard Naing don't appear to have any significant genre-work in their CVs, so maybe this is just an early stumble until they find their feet. I hope so, because there's definitely potential here for a smarter film. At only 86 minutes it's by no means lengthy, so fair play to them for waiting until the 45-mark before the shit really hits the fan*4. Unfortunately, that's also when things become completely mechanical (the 'smoke' scene in particular feels like it was filmed in post-production after the budget had ran out).
None of The Autopsy Of Jane Doe is badly done per se, I just feel like I've seen it all before. Probably during the late 1980s when I'd be hanging around Ritz Video's horror-section.
This cast, this cinematographer, this director. But with a better screenplay, please…
You can tell it wants to be a modern-day The VVitch, but it's Oculus at best (and even that's far better).
Best to use your streaming service of choice; there's not much in here for repeat viewings unless you're a makeup-effects artist.
For me, no.
No.
No.
No.
Level 2: This film's got that Brian Cox in it, and he was in 1971's Nicholas and Alexandra along with Julian 'Veers' Glover.
*1 Because I can't really complain about my local cinema not showing enough new movies and complain that I never have time to watch stuff at home, now can I? [ BACK ]
*3 Although the sight of Emile Hirsch kneeling over a body and sobbing "No-o-o-o!" brought back the one scene in Star Wars that even I can't stand… [ BACK ]
*4 Hang on a minute, Tommy Tilden needs to put on his glasses to read a reference book but not to dissect a body? He's meant to be looking for minute clues in the cause-of-death, here. Small-stuff. And what the fuck's he doing waving a scalpel around? I know it's not like he's going to unnecessarily injure his subjects, but I'm surprised Tommy's still got all his fingers… [ BACK ]
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
