OK, here's my story. I was cleaning my fireplace over the weekend, noticed the ash bin was unlatched and FREAKED OUT. Suddenly I remembered this traumatic experience from my youth, googled it and landed here. Yes, I too was scarred by this movie, but not in the customary way -- I've never even seen it.
I was 9 in 1973 when it came on, and the ad in TV Guide alone ("Suggested for Mature Audiences!") convinced me I wouldn't be able to handle it. But right after it ended, my mom's best friend appeared on our doorstep with her overnight bag. Her husband was away, she'd watched it and was spazzing out. I mean, her fear was palpable. She ended up staying with us for a week, during which she relayed every plot detail in lurid technicolor, over and over. By the time she left, *I* couldn't sleep without a light on.
A few years later the movie re-ran on ABC on a Saturday night. Though morbidly curious, I could not subject myself to the same vivid dementia as my mom's best friend. However, my sister watched about half of it in the next room -- before she had to turn it off.
This movie clearly holds power over many, many people -- more than I could've guessed before visiting the imdb. Interesting how many 8 to 10-year-olds were particularly vulnerable. God knows it burrowed into my subconscious, and I obviously repressed it, because year after year when listing favorite horror films at Halloween, this has never come up. Yet I can honestly say no other movie kept me wide-eyed and terrified late at night like this one did. Wouldn't it be great if some scientist examined this particular cultural phenomenon and the effect it's had on our generation? Lots of TV movies of that era had diabolical endings and satanic themes, but nothing created a depraved ripple effect like DON'T BE AFRAID OF THE DARK.
I'm now 41, and I think it's finally time to track down this little devil, stare into the abyss and face down that childhood nightmare. And I can think of no higher compliment to the filmmakers than that.
reply
share
blueduckphotos
19 years ago
there are a few new DVD copies on e-bay. I had to buy one after reading these post.I watched it last night..here is my judgement..
first its to short compared to regular films. due to it was a made for tv movie..so it runs only 74 minutes .
my copy the sound is good..but the lighting is bad..the contrast bright/dark is blown over on the dark lighting.it should of been remastered before they copied it to DVD. BUT !! still worth the low price they were asking on
e-bay.got mine on a 2.99 bid. money well spent
well after 30 some years it didn't freak me out as it did in the day..mostly because i knew what was coming up storywise.
the little bastards are still creepy enough..One tech thing i noticed was the movements of the critters. I don't think they were puppets.. It looks to me like they are actors in suits and the movie set is over sized like they did in
that old sci-fi series "Land of the giants" thats why the movements are so realistic. BUT it really Judge this movies power to hold up..I am going to have a experiment..I have a 10 year old niece who "claims no movie scares her"
and i have taken that as a personal challenge. time to loan her a movie..and get her input..wonder if i should make a doll copy of one of the demons and slap it against her window as the ending credits start rolling..Ha HA ..no even i couldn't be that mean.
36? What, does that include me? DANTE/CLERKS.
reply
share
arturobandini
19 years ago
I've ordered the damned thing and will post again as soon as I've finally seen it. To be fair, I don't see how it could possibly live up to my expectations.
reply
share
arturobandini
19 years ago
I've seen it now, and, to be honest, I don't know which was scarier -- the creatures or Kim Darby's c. 1973 'maxi' housedresses with polka dots.
Seriously, though, it holds up remarkably well considering the low budget and how dated certain elements are. The plot holes actually work in the story's favor -- any more explanation would sink the sense of ratcheting terror and disbelief. The director was smart to leave so much to the imagination. Kudos especially to the sound department, because those 'voices' (a complex layering of distorted vocal effects and what sounded like backward-run sound samples) totally created the freaky sense of otherworldliness and diabolism (is that a word?) so important to establishing a demonic presence. And it beat THE EXORCIST out of the gate by 2 whole months!
The not-so-good: Jim Hutton's wooden TV acting, that checkerboard-floor interior mansion set (I remember it being in every other ABC movie of the week), the flat, ugly lighting in certain scenes and the interminable kitchen scene early on devoted to establishing the couple's marital discord.
Kim Darby was enormously effective. I always found her an irritating, mousy actress, sort of a Sandy Dennis Lite, but she was ideally cast here as the put-upon heroine. Her subtlety was most impressive, especially for a TV movie. (How much you wanna bet they shot this in under 2 weeks?) When she let out a bloodcurdling scream, you totally believed she was losing her grip on sanity.
I hate to say it, but I do think this movie would make an excellent remake -- IF the same director could be in charge with today's budgets at his dispense. But if someone tried to do a THE HAUNTING-style remake with CGI run amok, they'd be a fool. I think a minimalist director like Alejandro Amenabar (THE OTHERS) would do a bang-up job since the original director has left us. BTW, wonder if *his* spirit got trapped in a fireplace?
reply
share
ValleyMermaid
16 years ago
Well said! And I am reading this and commenting on it 3 years later. I'm having fun reading through all the comments on this movie.
reply
share