 |
| Scene from Goosebumps (2015) |
Welcome to a weekly column called Theory Thursdays, which will be released every Thursday and discuss my "controversial opinion" related to something relative to the week of release. Sometimes it will be birthdays while others is current events or a new film release. Whatever the case may be, this is a personal defense for why I disagree with the general opinion and hope to convince you of the same. While I don't expect you to be on my side, I do hope for a rational argument. After all, film is a subjective medium and this is merely just a theory that can be proven either way.
Subject: A House With a Clock in Its Walls is released in theaters this Friday.
Theory: Goosebumps (2015) is underrated.
For a certain type of person, the next month and a half are a great time for theaters. It is quickly approaching Halloween season, and that means that theaters will be packed with horror films for those wanting to feel the rush. A few weeks ago, it technically kicked off with The Conjuring spin-off The Nun, and continues this upcoming weekend with the more kid friendly A House With a Clock in Its Walls, which focuses on a house full of mystical wonder. With Cate Blanchett shooting pumpkins and Jack Black doing his familiar shtick, it looks to be a good time. With that in mind, there's a lot of ways that this week's Theory Thursday could go. Do I focus on horror-themed kids films? Seems too broad, and likely to be a rich fallback come October. Do I focus on the career of Eli Roth, who seems like a VERY odd pick for a family film, considering his ties to the torture porn genre. However, the reason that I'm a bit excited about the film is more about another film that Black has done, of which gives me the sense that he's primed to be the perfect fit for these type of movies.
In 2015, the first big screen adaptation of Goosebumps was released and was at best a sleeper hit. It was all a bit confusing though. Why would someone want to adapt the R.L. Stine books by merely throwing them all at the screen at the same time, Jumanji style? I'll admit that it still seems like a bit of a fluke that the film worked in spite of this. Part of the joy of the Stine books was that each story focused on one supernatural event that would scare the pants off of kids. It's part of the charm, especially with youthful protagonists slowly winding their ways into the fear-based societies. For many, it's the earliest introduction to horror fiction and the subsequent 90's eponymous TV series brought these stories to life in a bit of a cheap but effective manner. If nothing else, it was one of the earliest gigs for future Oscar-nominee Ryan Gosling, so... there's that. It was an anthology show before programs like Black Mirror revitalized the format long dormant in decades since The Twilight Zone and The Night Gallery.
So, what is so good about Goosebumps in 2018? To be honest, there's a lot if you're a kid who reads the tag line "Reader beware, you're in for a scare" and see that as a dare. While I'm unsure about the modern publication history of the franchise, many of those books are key to introducing kids to horror that's both terrifying and safe enough that it doesn't traumatize them for life. Having been several years removed from the target audience, I cannot speak to how well the books resonate with modern audiences, but I do feel like whatever equivalent is out there is vital to the world of children's literature. They need to have that scare available to feel their world dismantled and to experience something less conventional. I want to believe that Goosebumps as a brand is still vital in 2018. I kind of believe that since there's a Goosebumps 2 that's only weeks away from release. However, I don't exactly know where you go from the first, let alone because Jack Black seems to have already made another Goosebumps-esque movie for kids that (based on advertising) looks a tad better.
To some capacity, Goosebumps (2015) is an embodiment of what makes the books so good in spite of their lacking singular story. The crux of the story is that a group of kids uncover a series of books that unleash R.L. Stine's creations unto the world. For those who love the books, there's a good chance that there's some Easter eggs that will delight. However, it's pretty successful at conveying the magic of literature in a less preachy way. It's a problem solving story, and it involves teaming with the "real" R.L. Stine (played by Black) as they go on wild adventures, recounting plot points of the books to capture them and return the world to balance. There's something charming and engaging about the premise, mixing in typical family horror concepts, such as a budding relationship that forms between the young protagonists. In some ways, it reinvents the idea of Goosebumps as a franchise not by telling one story, but teasing audiences into reading one of the many referenced books. Is it a successful approach? Maybe it's too much of a good thing... but it works as a cumulative experience of living in a world that runs rampant with Goosebumps properties.
I don't know if this is just a lack of observation to the contemporary family horror, but another charm of Goosebumps is that it has a bit of a throwback vibe to it. It is very reminiscent of the mid-90's when the style of Tim Burton and Barry Sonnenfeld style that was rampant in Disney Channel movies. Films like Matilda and Hocus Pocus were highly stylized films centered around kids that were scary but also a lot of fun for those outside the target audience. They winked at the audience with some frequency, and it shines through in even the cinematography and soundtrack, which felt faux-Gothic. Goosebumps is based on books that were released alongside those Burton and Sonnenfeld homages, and it makes sense then that the film would feel that way. It wasn't limited to a modern aesthetic, instead feeling like a portal into an older style of cinema that still appeals to kids.
In what is probably the biggest stretch from the books is the overall sense of having more fun with its premise. Black of course is comedic and scathing as Stine, even taking jabs at fellow horror writer icon Stephen King at one point. Still, the film's sense of adventure allows the grandeur to feel earned, creating a sense of wonder as to how the story would resolve itself. Admittedly, it is very silly and maybe steers towards some jokes that are a bit too silly. Still, as a film meant to appeal to kids, it's successful in at least being entertaining. It's tough to imagine that a Goosebumps book could be adapted properly to the screen and be accessible in 2015, if just because films that are outright scary and geared at kids doesn't have a strong track record. There is a need for some personality and humor. It's what the film delivers perfectly.
While I'm skeptical that the sequel will be any good, I still think that there's something to like about the 2015 version of Goosebumps. It may not be considered an iconic movie, nor the most faithful version of the franchise. However, it does a good job at taking a survey course on the author and making it into an accessible journey that is consistently fun. It's the type of film that is likely to be a fallback favorite during the Halloween season, creating a vibe that gets the kids in the mood, but not in a way that traumatizes them. With that said, it's also great to have a mishmash monster movie for kids that has some genuine scares. In some ways, this could be as much a gateway to more horror-based arts as the books were. It's too early to see how much of an impact the film had, other than making enough to warrant a sequel. With that said, A House With a Clock In Its Walls at least suggests that there's an audience for this style of horror, and it's hard not to see Goosebumps as somewhat contributing to that.
For a certain type of person, the next month and a half are a great time for theaters. It is quickly approaching Halloween season, and that means that theaters will be packed with horror films for those wanting to feel the rush. A few weeks ago, it technically kicked off with The Conjuring spin-off The Nun, and continues this upcoming weekend with the more kid friendly A House With a Clock in Its Walls, which focuses on a house full of mystical wonder. With Cate Blanchett shooting pumpkins and Jack Black doing his familiar shtick, it looks to be a good time. With that in mind, there's a lot of ways that this week's Theory Thursday could go. Do I focus on horror-themed kids films? Seems too broad, and likely to be a rich fallback come October. Do I focus on the career of Eli Roth, who seems like a VERY odd pick for a family film, considering his ties to the torture porn genre. However, the reason that I'm a bit excited about the film is more about another film that Black has done, of which gives me the sense that he's primed to be the perfect fit for these type of movies.
In 2015, the first big screen adaptation of Goosebumps was released and was at best a sleeper hit. It was all a bit confusing though. Why would someone want to adapt the R.L. Stine books by merely throwing them all at the screen at the same time, Jumanji style? I'll admit that it still seems like a bit of a fluke that the film worked in spite of this. Part of the joy of the Stine books was that each story focused on one supernatural event that would scare the pants off of kids. It's part of the charm, especially with youthful protagonists slowly winding their ways into the fear-based societies. For many, it's the earliest introduction to horror fiction and the subsequent 90's eponymous TV series brought these stories to life in a bit of a cheap but effective manner. If nothing else, it was one of the earliest gigs for future Oscar-nominee Ryan Gosling, so... there's that. It was an anthology show before programs like Black Mirror revitalized the format long dormant in decades since The Twilight Zone and The Night Gallery.
So, what is so good about Goosebumps in 2018? To be honest, there's a lot if you're a kid who reads the tag line "Reader beware, you're in for a scare" and see that as a dare. While I'm unsure about the modern publication history of the franchise, many of those books are key to introducing kids to horror that's both terrifying and safe enough that it doesn't traumatize them for life. Having been several years removed from the target audience, I cannot speak to how well the books resonate with modern audiences, but I do feel like whatever equivalent is out there is vital to the world of children's literature. They need to have that scare available to feel their world dismantled and to experience something less conventional. I want to believe that Goosebumps as a brand is still vital in 2018. I kind of believe that since there's a Goosebumps 2 that's only weeks away from release. However, I don't exactly know where you go from the first, let alone because Jack Black seems to have already made another Goosebumps-esque movie for kids that (based on advertising) looks a tad better.
To some capacity, Goosebumps (2015) is an embodiment of what makes the books so good in spite of their lacking singular story. The crux of the story is that a group of kids uncover a series of books that unleash R.L. Stine's creations unto the world. For those who love the books, there's a good chance that there's some Easter eggs that will delight. However, it's pretty successful at conveying the magic of literature in a less preachy way. It's a problem solving story, and it involves teaming with the "real" R.L. Stine (played by Black) as they go on wild adventures, recounting plot points of the books to capture them and return the world to balance. There's something charming and engaging about the premise, mixing in typical family horror concepts, such as a budding relationship that forms between the young protagonists. In some ways, it reinvents the idea of Goosebumps as a franchise not by telling one story, but teasing audiences into reading one of the many referenced books. Is it a successful approach? Maybe it's too much of a good thing... but it works as a cumulative experience of living in a world that runs rampant with Goosebumps properties.
I don't know if this is just a lack of observation to the contemporary family horror, but another charm of Goosebumps is that it has a bit of a throwback vibe to it. It is very reminiscent of the mid-90's when the style of Tim Burton and Barry Sonnenfeld style that was rampant in Disney Channel movies. Films like Matilda and Hocus Pocus were highly stylized films centered around kids that were scary but also a lot of fun for those outside the target audience. They winked at the audience with some frequency, and it shines through in even the cinematography and soundtrack, which felt faux-Gothic. Goosebumps is based on books that were released alongside those Burton and Sonnenfeld homages, and it makes sense then that the film would feel that way. It wasn't limited to a modern aesthetic, instead feeling like a portal into an older style of cinema that still appeals to kids.
In what is probably the biggest stretch from the books is the overall sense of having more fun with its premise. Black of course is comedic and scathing as Stine, even taking jabs at fellow horror writer icon Stephen King at one point. Still, the film's sense of adventure allows the grandeur to feel earned, creating a sense of wonder as to how the story would resolve itself. Admittedly, it is very silly and maybe steers towards some jokes that are a bit too silly. Still, as a film meant to appeal to kids, it's successful in at least being entertaining. It's tough to imagine that a Goosebumps book could be adapted properly to the screen and be accessible in 2015, if just because films that are outright scary and geared at kids doesn't have a strong track record. There is a need for some personality and humor. It's what the film delivers perfectly.
While I'm skeptical that the sequel will be any good, I still think that there's something to like about the 2015 version of Goosebumps. It may not be considered an iconic movie, nor the most faithful version of the franchise. However, it does a good job at taking a survey course on the author and making it into an accessible journey that is consistently fun. It's the type of film that is likely to be a fallback favorite during the Halloween season, creating a vibe that gets the kids in the mood, but not in a way that traumatizes them. With that said, it's also great to have a mishmash monster movie for kids that has some genuine scares. In some ways, this could be as much a gateway to more horror-based arts as the books were. It's too early to see how much of an impact the film had, other than making enough to warrant a sequel. With that said, A House With a Clock In Its Walls at least suggests that there's an audience for this style of horror, and it's hard not to see Goosebumps as somewhat contributing to that.
No comments:
Post a Comment