Reviews Film / Scary Stories To Tell In The Dark 2019

Underwhelming missed opportunity.

When thinking of the link between ghost stories and curses, one must remember that they have to have rules. Ghosts tend to want something, something you took, or you entered somewhere you shouldn't have. Curses, a good one for a story anyway, work in much the same way. I bring that up, because of how it ties into the story before us.

Now, any kid who grew up in the 90's knows Scary stories to tell in the dark. A book so impactful that it was the type you peered over people's shoulders to get a good look at, the kind you waited in a reserve line. Why? Well while the stories within said book are fairly standard (with a few notable standouts) the artwork remains unreal even to this day. The art MADE that book series.

So adapting it to film seems like a tall order.

Not content to go the anthology route, with perhaps a wider story woven in the background between stories (Such as a kid buying time while trapped by a witch wanting to eat him), SSTTITD choses to insert a handful of the stories into a wider narrative.

How does it fair? Ehhh....

Some of the imagery is there, but most of the stories themselves are changed in various ways. Sadly, not for the better either. Oh it starts off promising, Harold awakens and punishes an abuser, something straight out of the book (Although Harold's method isn't nearly has quietly horrifying as the book.) Sure, being stabbed and turning to a scarecrow is a bit creepy, it's also something we've seen in some form or another multiple times. In the book, we don't know WHAT the hell Harold did..we just see the aftermath.

After that, it's downhill. "Where is my toe?" comes in. Problem? The boy targeted neither took the toe, nor ate it as in the story. We never seen what stalks the boy in the story, but the in film, the ghost has zero reason to target Auggy. He didn't take the toe, nor does he have it. Said toe was spat on the floor.

Which is why I brought up rules. None of the main kids really did anything to earn their respective ghosts ire, and it is rather confusing as to why they have been cursed. Because the one girl took the book? Because they all touched it?

"The red spot" is an urban legend just about everyone has heard. So there isn't anything jarring there. It's use is a bit confusing, as no one perishes in that tale.

Next comes "The Pale lady" a character who isn't even evil in her story. Sure, she looks great, right out of the book. But after that, it's all "Original" material. Why target Chuck? Why do what she does?

The issue is that the film takes bits of stories from the book, and makes them generic monsters.

Enter "Me tie dough-ty walker", one of my personal favorites. Now ghost stories often have a moral, or lesson. Don't steal, or stay out of places you shouldn't go even on a dare.

Me tie dough-ty walker is a slow build story about a boy who accepts a dare/bet for $200 to say in a rumored haunted house. All seems well until he hears, off in the distance, a soft singing of "Me tie dough-ty walker" Creepy, but what ramps it up is his DOG answers, singing softly and sadly "Lynchee kinchy colly molly dingo dingo."

Every time the singing rings out, it's getting louder and closer, and every time the dog answers, it's calling out they boy's location. The horror is right there, something is coming, and something that is supposed to be your protector, your partner, man's best friend, is leading something to you. Even when the bloody head tumbles down the chimney, the dog betrays his little boy. Dropping dead on the spot from fear as it lays eyes on the ghost it called. Attacked by a ghost, because you were betrayed by the one thing every little boy trusts, his stalwart dog (who may have been cursed by the ghost) It's a double whammy.

But in the film, none of that happens. The set up is there, the dog focused on the chimney. But not once does the ghost call out, not once does it sing. The dog appears to be ruffing "My tie dough-ty walker", not "Lynchee kinchy colly molly dingo dingo" so they didn't even bother to get that right. When the head finally says the phrase, if you didn't already know, you'd have no clue what the hell it was supposed to be referencing.

After that, the story is blended with the "Jangly man", and said Jangly corpse is turned into a generic Terminator esque pursuing monster. It's not scary, or even unnerving. Sure it looks good, and moves in a disturbing "Silent hill" sorta way...it's just a chasing monster. The type we have seen so many times before.

Running into the film's climax, my thoughts about rules come up. I had assumed it was tied to the book that was removed from the old creepy house. You know "You took the book, now you are cursed. Return the book, and be free." But none of that really happens. Instead we get some random time travel-y shenanigans and Stella just sort of yells at the big bad ghost, Sarah, that she's being a real bitch, and being the monster she was accused of being.

And that's that.

Like...what? I mean okay, talking down the ghost is somewhat reasonable. But it all seems to come out of nowhere.

Honestly, if not for the bits taken from the original Book, this would be a bog standard Ghost film. It hits all the beats. Scary house, weird book, random old lady who appears to know something but you can't get anything out of her. I mean just the most generic of generic ghost movie tropes.

And that's a real shame. They had so much to work with but just...didn't. To top it off, the "original" Material they added is so old and stale that it couldn't even pass as a Sci-fi original.

The film looks good, and when it's being faithful to the artwork it nails it pretty much. But other than that...there just isn't anything here.

Unrealized potential. Not because they couldn't, but perhaps....because they didn't care to? Thought they knew better?

I dunno, but sadly, the film completely fails to live up to the unforgettable nature of it's book counterpart.