Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark–Humdrum Horror

Before I begin, let me address the elephant in the room—I am not the target audience for this movie. The source material became popular long after my school days. While I was growing up, there was precious little available for mid-level horror—it went from Scholastic collections of ghost stories to Stephen King, with nothing in between. I read The Shining when I was 12, and will forever have ‘roque/stroke’ burned into my memory.

I mention this for a couple of reasons—first, because I WISH I’d had horror that was tailored for my age group, and that I went into this movie without any expectations. There’s no nostalgia factor here to affect my take on the movie. I just wanted some decent suspense and a chill or two. I got neither.

Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is 108 minutes of passable digression. The plot, which concerns a book full of stories told to local children by an outcast, is fine. A few generations later, some teens, semi-trespassing, find the book in an abandoned house and take it with them. The stories then begin coming to life all around them.  That’s not a bad setup at all. However, it fails to connect on a gut level, which is something that horror needs to do. If it doesn’t connect, then it’s not scary. And this, unfortunately, is not a scary movie.

That’s not to say anyone did anything wrong. This is a well-executed film by any standard. The director, Andre Overdal, also helmed Trollhunter and The Autopsy of Jane Doe, both very good horror films in their own right. The imagery and attention to detail on display here are evident. The young ensemble performs capably in their roles, even if they are a bit generic. The creature design and makeup effects are pretty good throughout (although I think that 1988’s Scarecrows did that particular creature a bit better). The writing, while seemingly by committee, is also generally decent—the plot is okay, and the characters aren’t total cliches.

There’s just no connection.

So, why doesn’t it work? Why doesn’t it connect? I’d suggest that it fails to connect for two reasons. First, the plot is too predictable. The good guys survive, the bad guys are story fodder, and it all works out in the end. It’s as if the writers were trying to find the easiest framework they could to set up the stories. Second, (and I know this may be a little controversial) there’s no blood. None. Fairly early on, a guy gets rammed through the chest with a pitchfork. And..nothing—no blood on the tines, on his shirt…nothing. I’m not a gorehound by any means…gore has its time and place, and there have been plenty of great horror films with little to no gore. But if you’re going to run someone through, you need to show a little blood. Taking away that element takes away the last bit of suspended disbelief that I still had squirreled away somewhere. That they don’t bleed, that they can’t be truly injured, turns them into mannequins, for all intents and purposes.

Again, this is a well-executed film. But the somewhat lazy writing and the sense that the characters are never truly in jeopardy robs it of any connection or urgency. If you like creature design, it’s worth a look. Otherwise, give it a miss. Which is too bad, because I really wanted to like this movie. But I just couldn’t.

WHERE CAN I WATCH IT? Rent it on Amazon (currently a $.99 rental)

DOES THE TRAILER GIVE EVERYTHING AWAY? No, it doesn’t. It’s long on atmosphere and spookiness. It’s an excellent trailer, and I would have loved to have seen the movie the trailer promised.

WHAT MAKES IT FORTEAN? Really? Ghosts, living scarecrows, a cursed book—you get the drill.