Jeremy Rowley
jrowley1@uwyo.edu
An original story is a hard find in the world of movies. For every “Edge of Tomorrow,” there are five “Avatars.” Yet, sometimes that is not a bad thing. Sure, “The Lion King” is just Hamlet with animals in Africa, but it was terrific. It highlighted the quality that can come out of a story that has already been told.
Then something like “Goosebumps” comes along to lower our expectations.
Everything in “Goosebumps” feels like the dollar store version of an already successful film. The premise feels like a barely-altered version of 2006’s “Monster House.” The blend of humorous and horrific elements is similar in tone to “Gremlins,” only significantly watered down. Even the actors feel like discount versions of more popular performers.
The film starts by introducing us to Zack, played by Dylan Minnette, an actor that is thoroughly indistinguishable from Logan Lerman, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Dylan O’Brien and all the other Zac Efron lookalikes. Through some clunky dialogue, we discover that Zack recently lost his father, so he and his mother have just moved to a new town in Delaware–There is no need to remember that because the screenwriters will remind you every time it becomes barely relevant again. Within what seems like less than a day, Zack befriends the girl next door, is told by her paranoid father to stay away and then manages to attract the attention of the most annoying kid at his school.
The girl next door is played by Odeya Rush, who deserves to win an award for the least convincing smile in the history of cinema. Just as she comes off like a substitute Shailene Woodley, the most annoying kid at school, played by Ryan Lee, comes off like a substitute Jon Heder (of Napoleon Dynamite fame). The only performer in “Goosebumps” that does not seem like they are trying to play some other actor’s “type” is the girl next door’s paranoid father, Jack Black, who is surprisingly funny in the film.
We soon discover- again through clunky dialogue- that Black’s character is really R.L. Stine, author of the “Goosebumps” series of books. We also find out that if the manuscripts for his books are opened, the creatures from the story are released. Then, to nobody’s surprise, all of the creatures are released and our heroes have to try and save the city.
This synopsis may seem like there is not a lot to it. That is because there is not a lot to the movie itself. The “scares” in the film are about as frightening as a Chihuahua. The “jokes” in the film are about as funny as eight hours of CSPAN. It is just plain confusing trying to figure out whom the filmmakers were making this movie for.
It felt as though the people involved could not decide if they were targeting the film to children or to whole families, so they decided to do neither. Save for a few referential jokes scattered about the script, the movie is more of a chore to complete than a joy. Even nostalgia for all the old “Goosebumps” stories will fail to make the film entertaining.
The film’s only saving grace is Jack Black. While he clearly was not giving his all, Black was pretty funny from time to time. His presence was not nearly enough to make up for the altogether unremarkable performances of his costars. Rather, he is the movie’s chaser, helping the audience choke down the pitiful remainder of the film.
All in all, “Goosebumps” is as humdrum as they come. The film seems like it could only appeal to the type of child that enjoys eating paste and pushing over the girls that he likes. It is a sophomoric attempt at capitalizing on a popular brand and it falls flat on nearly every level.
