Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueMrs. Aylwood is a distraught mother since her daughter, Karen, vanished in the Welsh countryside 30 years ago. When the Carstairs family move into the Aylwood manor for the summer., strange ... Tout lireMrs. Aylwood is a distraught mother since her daughter, Karen, vanished in the Welsh countryside 30 years ago. When the Carstairs family move into the Aylwood manor for the summer., strange occurrences begin to unnerve the family and Jan begins to suspect that they are linked to ... Tout lireMrs. Aylwood is a distraught mother since her daughter, Karen, vanished in the Welsh countryside 30 years ago. When the Carstairs family move into the Aylwood manor for the summer., strange occurrences begin to unnerve the family and Jan begins to suspect that they are linked to Karen's disappearance. As Jan unravels the dark past hidden by the townspeople, she delves... Tout lire
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Karen Aylwood
- (as Rebecca Aycock)
Avis à la une
It starts out well enough, but it soon takes a few detours and adds in a ridiculous, silly backstory involving the Black Plague to explain who "the watcher" is and what their game is. It kills a lot of the mystery and manages to drag down the pacing (which really takes skill since the film isn't even 90 minutes long).
If you're a fan of the original movie or the novel, you're likely to be very disappointed.
One should watch a movie on its own terms, not by the standard you impose upon it and this movie's terms is not as a horror or even a dark thriller. It's a family fantasy with a sort of dark edge.
Not half bad but this side of the age of majority it just seems a bit too by the numbers to really have an effect and it's not exactly subtle.
Good production gives a sort of good atmosphere which they clearly didn't want to be too scary, but carries the movie a long away are its performances from two great actors of very different ages. Huston of course makes it look so easy and the other one: a very able thespian and a really beautiful girl with lips and butt that will haunt your dreams.
Its a low budget deal with C acting in some characters and B+ in others. The music is done very well. Camera work was quite good. Suspense was there. The story line and plot is done well enough that my wife and I were kept engrossed.
I can predict typical horror fans will down grade this gem for lack of blood, body counts, smoking/pot, macabre humor, and so on. Its a real tribute to all involved with this movie that it does not have many of the basic elements a modern horror movie of today generally has. I'm sure many viewers will decide that such a movie cannot even be classified as horror. And yet an honest viewer is forced to check the box marked 'spooky'.
Ending is both predictable and original.
I'll be direct here: I grew up on the 1980 version of this film and adore it, and also read the book as a child. It seems screenwriter Scott Abbott was attempting to stick closer to the source novel for this version, as the 1980 film did have substantial differences, but the result is not for the better. The pacing here is fine albeit routine, and the unraveling of the mystery offers few surprises and virtually no tensity. The film has all the cliché trappings of a made-for-television film, but doesn't even attempt a unique spin on them.
I won't pretend that the source novel or even the 1980 John Hough-directed film are masterpieces; they are, at the end of the day, youth-aimed works and are going to be lite fare. That said, this retelling is not only narratively bland, but visually bland(er). The original film was a remarkably dark, Gothic film, and part of what made it such a staple of so many's childhood nightmares was the off-kilter atmosphere, menacing score, and unsettling visuals. Here, key scenes are dumbed down, and the look of the film as a whole is utterly devoid of mood; the home used in this version and the surrounding forest lack any and all menace or mystery, and the photography is a large part of what makes the film so insipid. Exterior scenes in particular are bright and cheery, and not even in an ironic way that belies the horror.
The performances are concomitantly weak, with the lead cast mainly consisting of Brits doing bad impressions of American accents. Anjelica Huston is fine given what she has to work with, but even her performance here is bland, and the intrigue surrounding her character rendered meaningless. Benedict Taylor, who played the boyfriend in the original, makes an appearance in a way that brings things generationally full-circle; this is a nice nod, but it cannot come close to salvaging the rest.
In the end, "The Watcher in the Woods" pales in comparison to its source material as well as the 1980 film, mainly because, unlike the novel and the previous adaptation, it offers nothing in the way of mood, atmosphere, or tension. It's too bland, too bright, and far too non-threatening to offer anything worthwhile. The original novel and earlier film are both unique and ominous in their own respective ways; unfortunately, the same cannot be said here. Aside from a semi-well-directed flashback scene, the film is unrepentantly dull. 2/10.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesExecutive producer Paula Hart began trying to secure the rights to the book nearly 20 years earlier, originally conceiving it as a starring vehicle for daughter Melissa Joan Hart, who ultimately ended up directing the film.
- Citations
Mrs. Aylwood: What sort of a person are you? Do you sense things?
Jan Carstairs: [shakes her head] I'm sorry... I don't know what you mean.
Mrs. Aylwood: I think I shall have to take a chance on you.
[then turns around and walks away]
- ConnexionsReferenced in Vintage Video: 0311 The Watcher in the Woods (1981) (2023)
Meilleurs choix
Détails
Contribuer à cette page
