I may be biased because "Dread" is the story that turned me on to Clive Barker originally. I love the story and was so blown away by it I actually made my girlfriend at the time read it (I probably should not have been surprised when she broke up with me soon after) and I still consider it one of his best. I was slightly hesitant to see the film because i knew the filmmakers would change all kinds of stuff around, which they did. Unfortunately, not much of it is for the better.
Basic setup is the same as in Barker's story: Quaid, a mysterious and wealthy young college student who suffers from recurrent nightmares enlists classmates Stephen and Cheryl to help him conduct a Kinsey-esque "fear study" to find out what people dread the most. Stephen and Cheryl have their own fears: Stephen is scared of driving ever since his older brother died in a car crash and Cheryl won't eat meat (for reasons that are revealed about halfway through the film). Another character, who isn't in the short story at all, is Abby whose face is half covered with a dark birthmark. Another character, Joshua, a student in the study, is fairly important as he fears what Stephen originally feared in the short story. The original story only had three characters whereas the film has many.
I think the basic problem with the film is one of padding. They've taken a simple story and padded it out to feature length but in the process they've made it a lot less interesting. Also, in order to cater to the blood and guts crowd they've taken the motivation behind the Quaid character and made it less fascinating. In the short story Quaid's recurring nightmare was of a clown with an axe slowly coming to get him in the middle of the night. Why he had the dream or what it represented remained a mystery. We knew only that it haunted him. In the film, Quaid's dream involves witnessing the murder of his parents by an axe- wielding psycho. We've seen that done a million times in a million movies. Who the hell cares about yet another run-of-the-mill axe wielding psycho? Boring!!
Additonally, in the short story Stephen's fear is going deaf (a fear transplanted to the Joshua character) and one of the most compelling parts is when that fear is realized. But the filmmakers botch this completely. They go for the easy way out. The only thing the movie gets right is Cheryl's fear of meat and the way Quaid exploits this. It plays out pretty much like it does in the short story and is very well done.
Other than that, I thought the cinematography was really nice. The direction is pretty decent. The acting is above average for this sort of film, particularly the girl who plays Abby. She has one scene where she comes on to Stephen that's heartbreaking. The guy who plays Quaid is pretty good as well, although it might have been better if he had been more sympathetic.
All in all, not bad. But I would still read the short story before seeing it.
Basic setup is the same as in Barker's story: Quaid, a mysterious and wealthy young college student who suffers from recurrent nightmares enlists classmates Stephen and Cheryl to help him conduct a Kinsey-esque "fear study" to find out what people dread the most. Stephen and Cheryl have their own fears: Stephen is scared of driving ever since his older brother died in a car crash and Cheryl won't eat meat (for reasons that are revealed about halfway through the film). Another character, who isn't in the short story at all, is Abby whose face is half covered with a dark birthmark. Another character, Joshua, a student in the study, is fairly important as he fears what Stephen originally feared in the short story. The original story only had three characters whereas the film has many.
I think the basic problem with the film is one of padding. They've taken a simple story and padded it out to feature length but in the process they've made it a lot less interesting. Also, in order to cater to the blood and guts crowd they've taken the motivation behind the Quaid character and made it less fascinating. In the short story Quaid's recurring nightmare was of a clown with an axe slowly coming to get him in the middle of the night. Why he had the dream or what it represented remained a mystery. We knew only that it haunted him. In the film, Quaid's dream involves witnessing the murder of his parents by an axe- wielding psycho. We've seen that done a million times in a million movies. Who the hell cares about yet another run-of-the-mill axe wielding psycho? Boring!!
Additonally, in the short story Stephen's fear is going deaf (a fear transplanted to the Joshua character) and one of the most compelling parts is when that fear is realized. But the filmmakers botch this completely. They go for the easy way out. The only thing the movie gets right is Cheryl's fear of meat and the way Quaid exploits this. It plays out pretty much like it does in the short story and is very well done.
Other than that, I thought the cinematography was really nice. The direction is pretty decent. The acting is above average for this sort of film, particularly the girl who plays Abby. She has one scene where she comes on to Stephen that's heartbreaking. The guy who plays Quaid is pretty good as well, although it might have been better if he had been more sympathetic.
All in all, not bad. But I would still read the short story before seeing it.