MovieChat Forums > Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (1973) Discussion > Has anybody revisited this masterpiece a...

Has anybody revisited this masterpiece and been disappointed by it?

posted 17 years ago by L0GAN5
13 replies | jump to latest

I first saw it when I was 8 and for years was haunted by this film. Thanks to ebay bootlegs are quite common in the UK now and I've picked one of them up. What's been preying on my mind is that it was one of my first experiences of horror so the experience would have been somewhat magnified. Also, just how scary can a made-for-TV film be?

I'm not actually expecting a scary film, but I am hoping for a film that I can appreciate as an adult, and for it to be good enough that I can understand the effect it had on me as a child.

Has anyone watched it again and found it risible? How well does it hold up?

[–] Error_PC_LOAD_LETTER 17 years ago

Well. you don't actually SEE much.

The child's mind often makes this into something much more frighteing than direct revelation of something. What a child (or adult) CAN'T see scares them more.

But, as an adult, what you DO see (which isn't much) WON'T scare you. Just pruneheaded monkeys which might have dark sunglasses or alien eyes.

Still, it has whispers in the dark with weird echoes, which fill you with fear and anticipation at the same time. They really are foul, evil creatures. This is what you'd expect them to sound like.

And 'cause' never was the reason for the evening,
--Or the Tropic of Sir Galahad.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] diezman 17 years ago

I have an old VHS of DBAOTD. It's still a creepy movie and I still get a chill from it. I don't have to sleep with my light on anymore though!

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TachoX2 17 years ago

I own the movie and have watched it once since buying it. Doesn't scare me like it did BUT I remembered how I felt watching it years ago.

The low lighting is still effective for casting the mood and giving those walnut heads too many places to hide. Also, the whispering still works to give it a creepy feel. Overall acting is pretty good.

Obviously, fashion/hairstyles/etc. date the movie.

Would I recommend the movie? Yes, and go ahead and turn those lights off...

[–] L0GAN5 17 years ago

I finally got around to watching it and I'm glad I did. It isn't remotely scary anymore but it still works in the same way that if you rewatch something like a Val Lewton horror - there is still plenty to appreciate such as its creepiness and its artistry. If I'm honest though I don't think it will work as a first time experience now.

TV acting has certainly come on a lot in the last 30 years. I guess it took a few more years before the naturalistic acting style of 70's film caught on on TV, because all the performances seem slightly stagey - not to the detriment of the film though. All in all, instead of destroying my childhood memories it brought them all back. I'm so pleased to have finally caught up with this gem!

If I ever had kids this is going on at their 7th birthday party!

[–] jamesrav 17 years ago

It is much harder to scare someone in their 40's compared to their early teens. At this point "been there, seen that" is unfortunately an all-too-common expression of mine. To be young again!. Oh well. But I still enjoyed this movie on recent viewing (Youtube), but had a 'slightly' different take on it compared to thirty years ago: I kinda thought the creatures were cute, and they clearly had a crush on Kim Darby (understandable, very cute gal). I know i didn't think those thoughts back in '73!. And I almost think she *wanted* to be taken - I don't think she liked her husband's new job, the thought of being a lonely wife was disconcerting. At least she now had some buddies to pass the time with :). Seriously though ... one thing I'll always take away from the movie is the concluding chant, about "having all the time in the world". I use that phrase from time to time, when I'm stressed out in traffic or what not, for some reason I find it puts a smile on my face.

[–] Darkholme8 17 years ago

I've had a VHS copy lying around someplace for years, but I have yet to rewatch it for some reason... ;-)

[–] tag65 16 years ago

I was 8 years old when I first saw this. And like so many here, it deeply affected me at the time - terrible nightmares, fear of the dark, etc.

I bought a dvd specifically for us to watch on Halloween (last night). I must say, the movie disappointed me. It has a nice atmosphere and good performances. But the creatures were a big let-down. Specifically, their scariness is ruined by seeing far too much of them - clearly full-grown actors in furry body suits topped by immobile monster masks. The spookiness of the movie would have been much greater if we'd only gotten glimpses of the creatures, and hadn't heard their whispering so clearly.

But Kim Darby's capture is still scary. Her drugged helplessness as they're dragging her to their lair is still chilling.

[–] RustyShackleworth 16 years ago

Has anybody revisited this masterpiece and been disappointed by it?

Yes and no. I freaked me out when I was a kid back in the 70s but watching it as an adult now doesn't quite have the same impact of course. But is still creepy.

But its hard to ignore the god-awful clothes and the plot-holes. On the another hand, I can't help but think any remake of this film is going to be dreadful.

What evil drives the Car?...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFWea3Eu97E

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BartlebyScrivner 14 years ago

I'm in my 20s and grew up reading about this in the Q&A section of my local newspaper's TV listings every Sunday; it seemed that about once a year someone would write in with memories of this creepy movie from the 70s about whispering demons terrorizing a housewife. Everyone who wrote recalled being terrified by the movie, most of them haunted by memories of seeing it as a child and wanting to know now in adulthood what it was that they saw. When the internet came around I finally got to see a super grainy still (in black and white) of one of the monster's faces and thought it was pretty eerie.

Upon finally seeing the movie this year, I can't help but say I was tremendously disappointed. I think a lot of it was the 10+ years of buildup; I wonder if any movie can live up to that kind of hype. I spent far less time hearing about "Ghostwatch"-- sort of the British equivalent of "Don't Be Afraid..." that caused some real controversy when it aired in 1992-- and it more than lived up to its reputation as a crap-your-pants creep fest. I had a very different vision of how the movie would be (black and white; a younger, less-affluent couple, a smaller house, eerier looking creatures-- strange thing, more than one person who wrote in to the TV section recalled them having wings; I was also anticipating a much longer movie with much more buildup, and was most surprised to find that with the commercials trimmed out it's barely over an hour) and what was crafted in my mind in the abstract couldn't live up to the concrete reality of what I saw.

Then, too, I have to wonder if there wasn't a different mentality in the early 70s that made this scary. Or maybe it's seeing it as a kid.

[–] SimplySteve 14 years ago

It's not that complicated. It's a made for TV movie that is nearly 40 years old.

I grew up in the 70's with Pacino, De Niro etc, etc. But i am a big fan of the golden age of Hollywood...30's, 40's, 50's. Probably from watching the "classics" shown on TV on "million Dollar Movie" and the like. A lot of them are truly great films, but i have to take them for what they are....dated. For example, i recently watched "Double Indemnety" with Barbara Stanwick & Fred MacMurray and it was fantastic. But the language was typical of film noir with " i'll do what ever you want, OK baby!". Sounds a little silly now, but i overlook that.

From Here To Eternity is a bonified Classic with a capitol C. However i found it average, and the famous beach scene between Lancaster & Kerr so did not live up to it's stature. But i don't doubt that it caused quite a stir for it's day. Just as DBAOTD did "in it's day".