What a waste of my time!!!

Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

Set in the late 19th Century - This well-produced Disney production is a rather tame (but, all the same, effective) little tale of terror. Its story was adapted for the screen from the novel of the same name, written by Ray Bradbury, who was also responsible for this film's screenplay.Told from a 12 year-old boy's point of view - This film's story is set in Green Town, USA (a typical mid-western, American town).It's late Autumn and a strange, travelling carnival, run by Mr. Dark, arrives (seemingly out of nowhere) and mysteriously sets itself up, in a matter of mere seconds, on the outskirts of town.Before long the forces of darkness begin to manifest themselves, casting a sleepy, hypnotic spell over all of the unsuspecting townsfolk. 2 terrified young boys soon discover that Mr. Dark, with all of his malevolent power and wickedness, intends to control the town and seize all of the innocent souls.This fantasy tale is an old-fashioned, even gentle, story of the supernatural, that seems, most likely, best appreciated by pre-teens.

Bradbury's Something Wicked This Way Comes is a classic, and possibly his best work. This film should have been a great success, with a good cast, and especially with Bradbury himself writing the script from his own novel, but alas, it was not. Several reviewers have suggested that it should be remade with modern special effects. This may be a good idea, but the effects were generally pretty good for the early '80's, and in my opinion the major problem lies elsewhere.Ultimately, this is a suspense film with very little suspense. This is particularly obvious in the climactic scenes in the library, which should have dripped with suspense, but actually felt flat. Which presumably points to the director and perhaps the editors. This is surprising, as Jack Clayton had a fairly high reputation and made some very good movies, but perhaps he was just no good in the suspense genre. Whatever the reason, this was a reasonably good movie which should have been much better.

The devil-comes-to-town premise is one that Stephen King has practically built half his smelly career on. He has used it – or shall we say "ripped it off" – from Bradbury (and others) and turned it into countless formulaic stories and novels. Satan comes to a small town to wreck havoc, and it's always the same shticks, over and over, at least when it comes to his drivel. There are, however, worlds between how an intelligent, skillful writer such as Bradbury treated this idea and how a commercial, fluff-for-the-masses mediocrity such as King does. SWTWC is a moody, subtle, enjoyable take on the subject. King treats this type of story (his favourite story) with much more pomp, clichés, and very exaggerated and annoying small-town stereotypes – most of which reveal this left-winger's barely hidden resentment towards small-town folk (and people in general; perhaps he's just frustrated that nearly all of us are much prettier than him). King wrote these kinds of stories with the primary intention of dragging small-town America through the mud, because - as every good Marxist - he detests the success of democracy and Capitalism, and nothing annoys him more than religious folk. (I am an atheist myself, and yet I do not hate believers the way King does.) No such pathetic, sociopathic, misanthropic tendencies are to be found in SWTWC.The movie has an excellent visual quality; the photography, the look of the movie is reason enough to watch it. Most of the special effects stand up very well to today's CGI; there is very little of that miserable cheesy quality or hoakeyness that some 80s fantasy movies have. It's a Disney flick, but it strikes a fairly decent balance between a kid's movie and adult horror, although obviously leaning more toward the former. Nowadays, the Disney conglomerate would be hard-pressed to squeeze anything of quality out of its ravaged/fruitless Mickey Mouse butt, let alone make a movie that either kids (with taste) or adults (with brains) can like. (I do not count Pixar's movies as Disney produce.)The only "beef" I have with SWTWC centers around Jason Robards. No, not the actor himself; he is excellent, as always (one of the very few top-notch nepotists in Hollywood). I am referring first-and-foremost to the age difference between him and his wife, played by a useless nepotist that goes by the name of Ellen Geer; she was 42 at the time of filming, he was 61, which is simply ludicrous. Far from make-up reducing the difference between them, they actually look as if there's 30 years between them - though this is by no means intended as a compliment to the homely Geer. Robards looks like the kid's grandpa, not his father. The other thing that I found silly was Mr. Halloway's unlikely/exaggerated obsession with his failure to save his son from drowning a few years earlier. It would make perfect sense had his son drowned - but he didn't. Halloway (Robards) even states that he harbors ill-feelings toward the man who saved his son – which I find highly far-fetched and a bit of a leap; it would imply that the life of his son takes a backseat to his own Ego, i.e. the issue of whether he is a "real man" and brave father. Still, I guess the story needed some kind of "inner conflict" in order to make the all pieces fall together in the movie's evil-snuffs-it finale.For other film versions of Bradbury's material, I highly recommend "Fahrenheit 451", and especially the lesser-known, fairly ignored gem "The Illustrated Man".

Maybe it is because I grew up with this movie, that I love it so. Especially watching it around this time of year. It drips Autumn and all its beauty and decay. Sure, the sets look like movie sets, but I feel this adds to the storybook like quality of the piece. I have read the book too and do see how someone in love with the book might be upset at this retelling. It doesn't bother me though and I will tell you why.The atmosphere of this movie is amazing. The director, who also made The Innocents which is another favorite horror movie of mine, knows how to craft an image. The acting is all good. Mr. Dark, Jonathan Pryce, is my favorite, stepping out as the evil carnival owner just a scant few years away from Brazil, even though I never knew him in this movie until it was pointed out to me. Ah, acting and a beard makes all the difference. I would marry Mr. Dark, but then I am a Gothic minded girl who wouldn't mind the Dust Witch in the entourage. I really think happiness is over rated too, take me with you! I suppose, this wasn't the point of the book or movie, but I digress. The child actors are good, really, no one acts horrible in this movie. It adds to the theater like quality of the movie, its dreamy and murky. I never knew Pam Grier of Coffy fame was the Dust Witch. Again, the power of acting and character actors can take it to the next level. I have no idea why this movie would get a "rotten" rating on Rotten Tomatoes, yet the audience rating is 63%, goes to show you how the movie is actually loved. The scene with Mr. Dark tearing out pages in a book to show Will's father's life passing by is wonderful, in fact, Jonathan Pryce, does a bit of a running monologue for the most part and makes it believable. Add the carnival and all its craziness and the Dust Witch in her shroud, setting fashion standards for the gothlings to come, it is a formula win for me.I wish the scene with the Dust Witch in her balloon could have been added. It would have been cool to see. Or Mr. Dark being killed by happiness, which we all know is the best way to kill a goth. I wonder how the original cut of this was before special effects were drizzled all over it. I almost have to see the film Hysteria now because Jonathan Pryce looks like an older Mr. Dark in it. Growl!