Goosebumps Review

As a child of the nineties who was in elementary school at the dead center of the decade I was completely immersed in R. L. Stine's Goosebumps series. I'd go to bookstores monthly and was constantly checking to see if the latest installment was on the shelves yet. I owned and had read pretty much the entire series at least once, probably more. I was such a fan that 20 years later when a movie trailer for Goosebumps (2015) was released, everyone who put up with my fanaticism back in the day linked the video to me. Goosebumps not only is a really fun adventure movie that showcases many of the classic Goosebumps monsters, the movie's story even felt like a Goosebumps book.

Upset about moving from a big city to a small town, teenage Zach Cooper (Dylan Minnette) finds a silver lining when he meets the beautiful girl, Hannah (Odeya Rush), living right next door. But every silver lining has a cloud, and Zach's appears when he learns that Hannah has a mysterious dad who is revealed to be R. L. Stine (Jack Black), the author of the bestselling Goosebumps series. It turns out that there is a reason why Stine is so strange... he is a prisoner of his own imagination - the monsters that his books made famous are real, and Stine protects his readers by keeping them locked up in their books. When Zach unintentionally unleashes the monsters from their manuscripts, they begin to terrorize the town, it's suddenly up to Stine, Zach, Hannah, and Zach's friend Champ (Ryan Lee) to get all of them back in the books where they belong before they destroy the city.

Jack Black and R. L. Stine

So, after seeing the Goosebumps trailer for the first time, I was psyched. Up until I saw Jack Black and my interest plummeted. When I think of Jack Black, my mind immediately goes to titles like Year One, Gulliver's Travels, and Mars Attacks. But he keeps giving me reasons not to dislike him, which is really annoying. He's good in Kung Fu Panda and Peter Jackson's King Kong. And now I can say he's good in Goosebumps. Black plays a fictional version of the actual author; little of what I know about Stine himself was incorporated into the fictional character. The two don't look remotely similar. But that's fine because Jack Black creates an effectively droll characterization of R. L. Stine, combining a pair of heavy-rimmed black glasses, Orson Wells-type literate tones and a spiteful vanity that makes Stephen King the bane of his existence.

Goosebumps features a huge number of monsters from the book series. I did my very best not to jump up and down in my seat excitedly pointing out ones I recognized. "Oh! It's the Werewolf of Fever Swamp! Yay! It's the Haunted Mask! Oh, it's Mud Monster! YES! They included Lawn Gnomes! The Lord High Executioner! Scarecrows! Mummy of Prince Khor-Ru! Pumpkinhead! Cuckoo Clock of Doom! And Slappy the Ventriloquist Dummy!" I'll bet I could have been really annoying to sit next to. As a fan of the books, this catered to audiences who grew up reading the books; it was hugely nostalgic for me. I was disappointed that a few of my favorites was omitted such as Monster Blood or the Horrorland Horrors, The Beast from the East, or possibly the Barking Ghost. To be fair, there were 62 titles in the original Goosebumps book series and not all of them could be used or have screen time. I'm grateful that the movie didn't beat you over the head with what any given monster was and the title the book came from; that would have become irritating quickly and felt like overt advertisements for a 23 year old book series.

There were three monsters I didn't recognize at all. I had to look them up and it turns out they were taken from titles from some spin-off book series that were published after I had stopped reading them religiously. They were the only ones I couldn't identify. There were some fantastic shots of the monster ensemble that didn't last long enough for me to take it all in and appreciate the detail of. Sure, the shots were good and lasted an appropriate amount of time, but I wanted to just look at it and watch for characters I recognized. I guess I'll just have to get a copy of the movie to geek out over.

Not only did Goosebumps feature some above average camera work here and there, it boasted some pretty good special effects which I appreciated. Practical effects were used as often as possible. Monster suits, costumes, and make up were used instead of CGI animated creatures when it could be done, but even the digital creatures were well animated. Puppets were used to great advantage as well. Having Slappy the Ventriloquist Dummy (the movie's main antagonist) as a digitally animated creature would not have worked as well. He's a puppet, so a puppet was used to get that natural puppet movement.

Goosebumps is rated PG, and even with it's scary veneer it's a comedy adventure suitable for kids. There are lots of laughs and exciting chases to enjoy. Parts of it might get a bit too spooky for kids under 7, but overall it's a lot of fun. I laughed a whole lot during the movie. With all the mismatched monsters roaming about, it's almost like a kid-friendly version of The Cabin in the Woods. It's a fast-paced, never-boring trip to a world where stories and imagination are powerful tools. And that sort of thing just might inspire kids to do the scariest thing of all: pick up a book.

Goosebumps doesn't particularly do anything original, but what it does do is remarkably fun! There are fun characters, an uneven story, great special effects, exciting monsters, some surprising emotional heft, a generous helping of humor, and several gags at the expense of Stephen King. This is a fun movie the whole family could enjoy, especially around Halloween time! I admit that I could be viewing this movie with rose-tinted nostalgia glasses, but I really enjoyed it. You don't need to have read the books to appreciate this movie, but you certainly will have a lot more fun if you have. This is worth seeing in theaters, and I plan on getting a copy of this myself; in part because it was a good, fun movie and because it was an amusing trip down memory lane. Make sure to be on the lookout for a cameo by the real R. L. Stine.

Did you read the Goosebumps books back in the day? Which book was your favorite? Comment below and tell me why!

The Giver Review

I read Lois Lowry's book The Giver many years ago. It was originally published in 1993. Now that teenage dystopian survival movies have become so popular in wake of The Hunger Games, Hollywood seemed to think the time was right for a movie of The Giver (2014). The story has potential to be a great movie, but seemed afraid to take the necessary steps to make it a bold and memorable movie.

In the future society following a devastating war, "The Community" had decided to get rid of colors, therefore different races, and feelings. There is peace, harmony, and everyone has a purpose within The Community lead by the Chief Elder (Meryl Streep), and everyone is happy. Jonas (Brenton Thwaites) lives in his assigned family unit with his Father (Alexander Skarsgard) and mother (Katie Holmes) When Jonas and his friends Asher (Cameron Monaghan) and Fiona (Odeya Rush) turn eighteen, Jonas is chosen to be The Community's new Receiver of Memories. He enters into training with an old man called The Giver (Jeff Bridges). From The Giver, Jonas learns about pain, sadness, war, and all the unhappy truths of the "real" world. He quickly realizes that his community is fake. Confronted with this reality, Jonas faces the difficult choices about his own life and the future of The Community.

The Giver is a visually striking film. A lot of The Community had to have been computer generated, but it look clean and crisp and very comfortable. The first half of the movie is in black and white. Gradually more color seeps into the movie as Jonas learns what colors are and how to identify them. It's a very gradual transition that you hardly notice. Finally there are brilliant colors everywhere and it looks pretty. The camera work is above average and most of the sets are simple but elegant. There is plenty of stock footage and cut away scenes as The Giver gives Jonas memories. They are incongruent with the sterile, perfect Community but are still applicable to the story and look picturesque.

When a movie is based on a book it's hard not to compare the two. Really, the movie should stand on its own as a good movie independent of the book. There were so many changes between The Giver book and movie that they have to be brought up here. A few changes include Asher being assigned to be a Jet pilot. As soon as I heard that I knew exactly how Asher's character would play out and I was right. I didn't picture the story being nearly as sci-fi as it is depicted in the movie. There is a lot of subtle influence from Gorge Orwell's 1984. Jonas and his friends are supposed to be eleven going on twelve, but they are in their late teens in the movie. What's weird is they still frequently act like eleven-year-olds making pacts of eternal friendship, playing games, and getting into childish mischief. It's not unusual for young kids to behave that way but it's a bit creepy and weird for an eighteen-year-old to behave that way. Also, since they are older characters, there is an obligatory love interest between Jonas and Fiona which would have been very out of sorts if they were eleven. But thank goodness the movie doesn't use the overused teenage love triangle that is crammed into every young adult book movie these days, even though all the material was there. The movie plays up this "chosen one" trope which was completely absent in book; Jonas had been assigned to be The Receiver, not destined or chosen by fate.

The Hunger Games book focused on Katniss's perspective, while the movie added some scenes which allowed viewers a glimpse at the Gamemakers manipulating the games which Katniss would never have seen. In The Giver, there were added scenes that allowed us to see what was happening in The Community while Jonas makes a run for it. These scenes make perfect sense to the story and actually raised the stakes a bit more; this very well could have been going on in the book had the book's narrative taken a more omniscient perspective. Annoying as I found most of the new additions to the story, the ones towards the end of the movie were intriguing.

Even within the context of the movie's setting, there's a lot of holes in the plot. The Chief Elder seems to know all the history that The Giver knows; it's the function of The Giver to know the history and advise the Elders. If the Elders already know all the memories which The Giver is supposed to keep, why have a Giver in the community at all? Everyone in The Community takes injections to subdue their emotions, and yet when Asher tries to stop Jonas, Asher seems angry. We have no reason to believe Asher was skipping his injections, so was it even physically possible for him to be angry? There are plenty of others, and most of these plot holes seem to stem from not knowing the source material very well.

In the end, The Giver was a decent movie. Both the book and the movie got the same point across. The themes were still there, most of the story stayed intact, and it was, for the most part, a good time. Like the book, this isn't an action movie but a philosophical movie, contrary to what the trailers advertised. The great irony of The Giver as a movie that preaches the values of nonconformity, a lot of the story was changed to closely resemble The Hunger Games, Divergent, and other teen dystopian survival movies out there to capitalize on popular trends. Streep, Bridges, and Holmes were good, but the kid actors were pretty bland, even for characters who aren't supposed to have emotions. It's worth seeing, but it doesn't dig deep enough into the source material's thought-provoking ideas as it should have. This is a renter since it likely won't make a lasting impression upon its viewers. As a book, The Giver will doubtless continue to thrill readers of all ages, but the film version won't be enjoying a comparable shelf life.

Are there any other teen dystopia survivalist books out there? Would any of them make good movies? Are you getting burnt out on this subgenre altogether? Comment below and tell me all about it!