Sleeping in a movie theater is a great way to catch up on some much-needed rest. It's a dark, cozy environment that's practically made for napping, especially after stuffing yourself with mounds of overpriced popcorn, soda and assorted candy. But as a critic, I have some obligations when in the theater, so I don't get to enjoy such pleasures, which is a real shame when watching something like "Goosebumps," one of the more spectacularly boring movies to be released this year.
"Goosebumps" follows Zach (played by Dylan Minnette), a teenager who has just moved to Madison, Delaware with his mother. Zach quickly gets to know his new neighbors, Hannah (played by Odeya Rush) and her eccentric father and famous author R.L. Stine (played by Jack Black), and through a series of rather ridiculous events, Zach accidentally unleashes all of the monsters from Stine's original manuscripts of the "Goosebumps" series into the real world. In order to save their town, Zach and the gang must trap the monsters back in the books, a process that proved much more tedious and exasperating than anything Stine has ever written.
The first of this film's many problems is the fact that it in no way captures the spirit of Stine's books. The author has cornered the market on "horror for children", and as many of us are aware, his books, although written for a young audience, are anything but tame. But, conveniently enough, tame is the exact word I'd use to describe the "Goosebumps" film. The theater in which I found myself was, appropriately, full of children, and not once did any of them seem the slightest bit frightened, which immediately indicates that the film is a categorical failure.
Stine didn't start writing horror stories to mildly amuse his audience. Fear has always been the draw for the "Goosebumps" audience, a fact that even the 90's television adaptation understood. But, for whatever reason, the film plays out more like a fantasy romp than anything even the slightest bit creepy. The only thing I can attribute this to is the vision of director Rob Letterman. His previous works include "Shark Tale" (2004) and "Monsters vs. Aliens" (2009), both of which are children's movies that weren't particularly well received by critics. So, in retrospect, it makes sense that "Goosebumps" turned out to be so unimpressive.
But even beyond the simple fact that the movie doesn't represent Stine's work in the way that it should, the film still just doesn't make any sense. Every twist and turn the plot takes is instigated by some ludicrous leap in logic or unbelievable convenience, which really undercuts the severity of everything that happens on screen.
I know that at this point in my argument, some people might tell me to just chill out because I'm not this film's target audience, so who cares if it makes sense? As long as the kids are happy, why does it matter? And, as always, I'll respond with the Pixar argument. Just because you're making a movie targeted at children doesn't mean it has to be flat out garbage. There are an innumerable number of films out there geared towards kids that hold up in and out of their genre. "Inside Out", the first of Pixar's two films to be released this year, is the perfect example of this. It works for both younger and older audiences because people of talent gave the project the attention it needed. "Goosebumps," unfortunately, didn't receive the same treatment.
So at the end of the day, this film just winds up being a big waste of time for everyone involved. Black's portrayal of Stine, one that ended up being of little substance, could've proved very interesting in the hands of the right director with the right script. But since neither of those were at the film's disposal, "Goosebumps" ended up being a forgettable film punctuated by an overload of special effects and silly dialogue. Someday Stine may find retribution on screen, but that day is certainly a long way off.
"Goosebumps" follows Zach (played by Dylan Minnette), a teenager who has just moved to Madison, Delaware with his mother. Zach quickly gets to know his new neighbors, Hannah (played by Odeya Rush) and her eccentric father and famous author R.L. Stine (played by Jack Black), and through a series of rather ridiculous events, Zach accidentally unleashes all of the monsters from Stine's original manuscripts of the "Goosebumps" series into the real world. In order to save their town, Zach and the gang must trap the monsters back in the books, a process that proved much more tedious and exasperating than anything Stine has ever written.
The first of this film's many problems is the fact that it in no way captures the spirit of Stine's books. The author has cornered the market on "horror for children", and as many of us are aware, his books, although written for a young audience, are anything but tame. But, conveniently enough, tame is the exact word I'd use to describe the "Goosebumps" film. The theater in which I found myself was, appropriately, full of children, and not once did any of them seem the slightest bit frightened, which immediately indicates that the film is a categorical failure.
Stine didn't start writing horror stories to mildly amuse his audience. Fear has always been the draw for the "Goosebumps" audience, a fact that even the 90's television adaptation understood. But, for whatever reason, the film plays out more like a fantasy romp than anything even the slightest bit creepy. The only thing I can attribute this to is the vision of director Rob Letterman. His previous works include "Shark Tale" (2004) and "Monsters vs. Aliens" (2009), both of which are children's movies that weren't particularly well received by critics. So, in retrospect, it makes sense that "Goosebumps" turned out to be so unimpressive.
But even beyond the simple fact that the movie doesn't represent Stine's work in the way that it should, the film still just doesn't make any sense. Every twist and turn the plot takes is instigated by some ludicrous leap in logic or unbelievable convenience, which really undercuts the severity of everything that happens on screen.
I know that at this point in my argument, some people might tell me to just chill out because I'm not this film's target audience, so who cares if it makes sense? As long as the kids are happy, why does it matter? And, as always, I'll respond with the Pixar argument. Just because you're making a movie targeted at children doesn't mean it has to be flat out garbage. There are an innumerable number of films out there geared towards kids that hold up in and out of their genre. "Inside Out", the first of Pixar's two films to be released this year, is the perfect example of this. It works for both younger and older audiences because people of talent gave the project the attention it needed. "Goosebumps," unfortunately, didn't receive the same treatment.
So at the end of the day, this film just winds up being a big waste of time for everyone involved. Black's portrayal of Stine, one that ended up being of little substance, could've proved very interesting in the hands of the right director with the right script. But since neither of those were at the film's disposal, "Goosebumps" ended up being a forgettable film punctuated by an overload of special effects and silly dialogue. Someday Stine may find retribution on screen, but that day is certainly a long way off.