CryBaby Lane

When a film gains a certain reputation, it makes many curious to see it, to find out whether it lives up to the hype or not. This is especially true of previously banned or lost films, as being allowed to see them for the first time makes you interested whether the fuss surrounding it is truly worth it or rather a means to an end. The latter can definitely be applied to this film, as it's inept in every way possible, with its awful storytelling, characterization and a lack of truly anything scary.

Ironically, its supposed reputation of being too scary was what originally got it lost/banned by Nickelodeon in the first place. Initially, this TV movie was meant to be a children's horror movie, in similar vein to other 90's children's horror shows like Goosebumps or Nickelodeon's own Are You Afraid Of The Dark? However, the film became controversial when many parents complained that the film's content was too scary for children, and because of this, Nickelodeon never re-released it again. No re-airing, no VHS/DVD release, nothing. Because of this, many became curious to see the film again, and many sought after it, even leading to an awful creepypasta story being written about it. It took 11 years for the film to resurface, after Nickelodeon reaired it after it was leaked online.

But sadly, that backstory is far more interesting than the film itself. Firstly, the story (whereby two brothers resurrect an evil twin who possesses people and causes chaos in their town) is quite weak. Despite a strong and quite spooky opening, the story is very poorly written, with plot holes (e.g. why does no-one question a semi-naked child running through the streets? why does someone try to run over a possessed dog despite it being on top of someone?) and how it rips off many other films for its story, whether it be Evil Dead (the twin being resurrected by a tape recording), Village of the Damned (the possessed having bright blue eyes) or Invasion of the Body Snatchers (some of the possessed change personality into a duller version of themselves). It's a shame, as for every original idea the film has (i.e. the spirit being released through a root growing out of the grave), it steals 2 or 3 from somewhere else, with little subtly.

Another problem is that not many of the characters are likable. The main character is alright, if nothing special, but his arrogant, borderline abusive brother is absolutely hateful, and you'll want him to die as soon as possible. His parents are awful too, the mother being too overprotective, the father being too liberal and neither of them caring about their children much including never checking on them when they're in their room for a few hours at the least. The supporting cast aren't great either, and mainly consist of stereotypes that you'll bore of quickly. Whether this would be the attitude-filled girls that the main characters have a crush on, the young Lord of the Rings nerd or an elder character who is so prepared to prove himself to be tough but turns out to be even more frightened than his younger companion. The only character you'll gain any sympathy for is Frank Langella's undertaker. He gets the movie's best lines (his "run" joke is genuinely funny), is the warmest character & Langella plays it very well, becoming the best thing in this by a country mile.

It doesn't help that for something like this, the film isn't scary at all. I assume that those who complained were a fascist Mary Whitehouse/James Ferman type group, as despite the dark backstory of the evil twin (having been kept hidden away all his life for being a Siamese twin and being sawed off and buried after death), there is nothing scary in this film. This is mainly due to how lame the twin is. Firstly, much of his attack consists of knocking over letter boxes and throwing fizzy drink bottles at cars, which while a nuisance seem more suited to Dennis the Menace than a scary villain like this, and his attacks against the main characters (i.e. a bull attack and a combine harvester) while threatening, aren't particularly scary, or worse than anything seen in an Indiana Jones movie. It also doesn't help that when he is encountered at the film's end, it's an anticlimax, as his character's OTT acting seems more fitting if he was in the 1980 Flash Gordon film and his behavior is more odd than spine chilling, as he just eats worms all day, and possesses people through said worms. The content is no worse than the aforementioned 90's children's horror shows or the 80's children's horror films like Gremlins or The Goonies, for instance. Quite frankly, the worst this movie ever gets in terms of content is when a kid says that they would like to raise Princess Diana from the dead, which feels slightly tasteless (I'm a British viewer after all) and out of place with the rest of the film.

It's a shame, because this movie does have a lot going for it. The film is still very well-made for a TV movie, the opening is very spooky and gets you interested in the story, the music by Andrew Barrett (no relation to Syd, I can assure you) is quite good (despite occasional out of place metal music here and there), the acting from the cast is top-notch for the most part, some of the ideas are quite clever, and Frank Langella is the standout in this film, and his bits of the film are usually the best. However, despite these standout elements, they don't form to create a whole, and the movie is very problematic otherwise, and is mostly inept because of it. Despite its controversy, it isn't a good film, and the fact that Nickelodeon buried it for this long tells you all you need to know. Avoid.

I don't care if it was the late 90s to early 2000s. I can't believe they approved this script. It's completely insensitive trash. The characters are all awful. There's honestly no one to root for. The parents are completely awful. The brother is hateful. The so called friends are all just as hateful to each other. Whoever wrote this was out to be just as mean spirited as possible. I think they were going for sarcasm, but there was no funny biting edge to it. It was just "let's showcase a terrible, dysfunctional family all being spiteful to each other for an hour and a half." Let's also showcase the whole town being hateful to the undertaker for almost no apparent reason. The whole town just seemed to be out to get him. Of course, the undertaker really isn't any better. He seems to not only just be terrible at his job, but also equally as spiteful as everyone else. I don't know what was going on in this town to make everyone hate everyone else so much, but I highly doubt this apparently evil entity had much of anything to do with it. Though, honestly, it's hard to tell since he played barely any actual part in this movie to begin with. There was sooooo much more they could have done with this kind of plot, but the writers clearly had no idea what they were doing. If they were going for tense and suspenseful, it failed. I truly struggle to believe that this movie scared anyone enough to be banned. It was more likely banned because it was an embarrassing disaster that should have never seen the light of day in this condition of storytelling and characterization. Frankly, they can just re-ban it. It doesn't need to ever see the light of day again. Does not live up to the hype it had behind it AT ALL.

It's not that good. I don't really quite understand what the huge deal is with this film, but maybe it's just not my thing. I was sure as hell bored out while watching Cry Baby Lane, to the point of which I almost fell asleep while watching it!

This is a hard movie to review, because the tone is really all over the place.

As the story goes, Cry Baby Lane was so scary that Nickelodeon only ever aired it one time, after which it was locked away in a vault forever -- becoming something of an urban legend. That is until almost 11 years later, when someone on Reddit discovered a high-quality master copy of the movie, and with renewed buzz, Nickelodeon dusted it back off and began airing it again.

The truth of the matter is... yeah, actually, there are a few scenes in Cry Baby Lane that are probably too dark for a made-for-TV movie aired on The Spongebob Channel. Whether or not it's actually "scary" is up for debate I guess, because there aren't really monsters or anything approaching legitimate horror or violence. It's a little bit more suggestively haunting than it is terrifying. But even compared to shows like Nickelodeon's own Are You Afraid of the Dark, Cry Baby Lane has a couple of moments that were beyond most of what was done on the channel at the time.

Honestly, I would not be surprised if it gave some kids lasting nightmares. It's kind of got that "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" vibe to it, where the whole world slowly turns against the increasingly isolated protagonist. Even for adults, that can be spooky, and Cry Baby Lane definitely uses this to push things in some strange directions. I'm watching this for the first time at 37 years old, and there are parts of it that are actually a little unsettling even to me.

According to the movie's history, Cry Baby Lane was originally written as a big-budget theatrical release, but after a series of box-office bombs, Nickelodeon got cold feet and downgraded it to a much cheaper TV movie. That might explain Cry Baby Lane's darker tones, but I think the creators also probably realized their movie was a little too intense for a channel that aired Rugrats and iCarly.

As a direct result, between scarier scenes, Cry Baby Lane tries to lighten the mood with cheap, bizarre, kid-friendly humor. Fart jokes, Lord of the Rings references (years before Peter Jackson) and cracks about 2000's-era pro wrestling desperately seek to cut the tension multiple times throughout the movie.

This is what dates Cry Baby Lane most, and really drags it down overall. The humor is corny at best, and obnoxious at worst -- especially the older brother, Carl, who constantly espouses an old fashioned ideal of masculinity by constantly bullying his younger brother for "acting like a girl." It's not exactly progressive by modern standards, and usually comes off more as cringeworthy than anything. There's never a point to Carl's actions, he just gets a free pass to treat his younger brother like scum. It's not fun to watch, and it never really pays off in a way that feels earned.

There's a lot of potential in Cry Baby Lane, and some genuinely spooky ideas. But it kind of ends up being one of those things that struggles to find a balance for its audience. Sometimes it's too silly for older teenagers, and other times, too scary for younger kids. And for the newer generation only familiar with its urban legend, I don't expect a lot of its pop-culture humor will land very well. That leaves a pretty narrow window of appeal.

I don't want to say that it's bad, because if you come at it from a certain mindset and consider the era it was made in, I think you'll still get something out of it. But it's sort of hard to recommend, otherwise.