Customer Reviews

The Boogeyman

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

This allegedly new digitally re-mastered version of 1980s "The Boogey Man" has replaced the original opening credits with computer generated, generic white lettering. And the video image is probably not as good as the original Anchor Bay release. The Anchor Bay version is still around so buy that one instead.

Although, The Boogeyman is worth watching and very entertaining for what it is, I can't help but feel ripped off by the movie on the other side of the disc titled Return of the Boogeyman. Basically, a psychic woman narrates the original movie for you claiming that she's having nightmares about it. It's like watching the original movie with some annoying commentator giving you a play by play of what you have already seen. Not to mention, whoever put this movie together also stole a scene from another movie called Brainwaves (the tub scene where the woman is electrocuted by the radio).

Return of the Boogeyman is boring, a waste of time. A waste of money if you buy it. View at your own risk. You were warned.
;-)

This special release of The Boogeyman that features its sequel as a "bonus full length feature" is a double-sided disc. While The Boogeyman is widescreen, Return of the Boogeyman is fullscreen. And tragically, "Return of the Boogeyman" is an hour and 15 minutes, and is literally an entire flashback of the first movie. Remember Silent Night Deadly Night 2? Same disaster here. This time, a psychic working with a psychiatrist sees the entire first movie's deaths in her head, as she narrates everything that's happening on screen! WHAT A WASTE.

If your looking for a unique old 80's horror classic that will bring you right back to your childhood hayday of renting every horror title with cool/scary cover art from your local mama & papa's video store. Then Ulli Lommel's "THE BOOGEYMAN" is just the classic your looking for!

I saw this movie when I was in my Junior year of high school. I was 16. It played at the local downtown theatre for a buck and a quarter. When I got home that night, I took down every mirror in my bedroom and slept with the lights on. I'm not getting what all these people are saying about how bad it was though. I completely disagree. If you've read the many descriptions of the film here already, then I don't need to reiterate anything. My only wish for this movie would have been in the scene when Lacey sees the Boogeyman in the mirror in the house where she grew up; instead of throwing the chair at the mirror and breaking it, I would have liked to have seen HIM (The Boogeyman) trying to get out of the mirror FIRST for a few minutes (punching the glass with his fists, kicking it, etc...) and THEN have her break it with the chair. THAT was the scariest scene in the whole movie to me. That dude was FRIGHTENING with the pantyhose over his head! To this day, I'm 46 now (30 years later), this movie still scares the crap outta me! LOL!

This excellent shocker outdoes the recent remake by a long shot. Ulli Lommel's film of THE BOOGEYMAN was criticized in 1980 for its violence and strong horror. Now that Hollywood horror movies have caught up to the intensity and "fear factor" of this movie, Lommel's film seems very contemporary. One of the giveaways that this is a 1980s horror film is the droning synthesizer music. Don't let that stop you from watching this one. Plus Sony's remastered presentation is a huge improvement over the earlier DVD release from Anchor Bay.

Willy and Lacey murder their mother's abusive lover. The man's soul haunts a mirror that unleashes a terrible revenge on Lacey and Willy as grown-ups. Suspense doesn't let up and even the quiet scenes have a sense of forboding and terror. WORTHWHILE.

The Boogeyman (Ulli Lommel, 1980)

Ulli Lommel may have been a disciple of Rainer Werner Fassbinder's, but his directorial efforts (save a few at the outset of his career, arguably) have never come close to the brilliance of Fassbinder's best work. While Lommel did attempt for a few years to make Fassbinder-style films, he was always drawn to the world of exploitation (consider Tenderness of the Wolves, his third film, based on the same case as was Lang's immortal M; there's a compare-and-contrast for you), and starting with The Boogeyman, he allowed his baser impulses free rein. If he had done so in any sort of original way, this might have been the cult hit it threatened to become back when it was released.

Lacey (Lommel's wife Suzanna Love) and Willy (Love's real-life brother Nicholas), as children, had the mother of all traumatic experiences. One of their mother's string of boyfriends was an abusive psychopath who liked to tie Willy to the bed to keep him out of the way, beating him once in a while for good measure. One night, Lacey cut his ropes, and Willy grabbed the knife from her, stormed their mother's bedroom, and stabbed the boyfriend dozens of times, killing him. Fast-forward twenty years, and Lacey, now married and living on her aunt and uncle's farm with her brother (who hasn't spoken since the incident), gets a letter from her mother, now retired and living in Georgia, asking to see the two of them again before she dies. That night, Lacey has a horrible nightmare that the boyfriend has come back to kill her. On the advice of a psychologist (John Carradine), husband Jake (standup comedian Ron James in his first film role) takes Lacey back to the childhood house to try and expel the demons. (Mom, by the way, never surfaces again.) In her mother's old bedroom, Lacey finds a mirror that was there back in the day, and she sees the boyfriend's reflection in it. Terrified, she shatters the mirror, releasing his restless spirit to spread death and destruction wherever shards of the mirror happen to be.

It's an interesting concept, and done right, it could have been a fine flick. It is in no way done right, being satisfied with being a silly slasher flick that gives new meaning to the term "derivative"; you'll recognize a lot of this from previous films, many of which were hot off the presses at the time. (While Lommel's obvious antecedent for this film was Halloween, pretty much every slasher film made during the seventies gets at least a quick nod, from Black Christmas to Friday the 13th.) Even the music is ripped straight out of John Carpenter. Lommel is not nearly talented enough a director to turn melange into homage, and even were he so, I don't think that was his intention at all; this has the feel of a movie put together for the sole purpose of making a quick buck. And it probably did, but of the films from the golden age of slashers I've been rewatching these last few years, I can't remember one that's aged quite as badly as this. If you've never seen it, do yourself a favor--ignore its existence and go rent Tenderness of the Wolves again instead. *

Before I get to just some of what is wrong with this film, here what it did right. At least for me. It had decent production value. The filmmakers were competent (unlike a lot of trash that comes out today - but that's a different story). After twenty or so minutes of repetitive B.S. and constant flashbacks to the first scene, the storyline got better. This movie opens up on a scene and flashes back to it three or four times in the first twenty minutes! WTF? Some of the deaths made me laugh. The kid in the window thing cracked me up. Seriously, I laughed out loud. In a good way. After the horrible beginning, I began to enjoy the film a bit because it began to move away from what I expected. Some of the deaths are really great.

Okay, so here's what I hated.

We all realize that certain films have great influence (Psycho, Halloween, Amityville, Black Christmas, The Exorcist)and homages are no surprise. As a matter of fact, they are welcome to any horror fan. That being stated, homages and ripping a film off are two completely different beasts. It's kind of like the difference between art and pornography. You may not be able to define it in specific terms, but you know the difference when you see it. The Boogeyman can't get its head out of Halloween's ass from shot 1 and continues to rip off so many movies I couldn't even keep count. This movie rips off Halloween so much and so often, it just baffles me - right down to the exact same camera angles and shots of the same action!! (I love Halloween, don't get me wrong, it's one of my favorites, probably my very favorite horror movie ever - possibly why I hate lame imitations) There are incredible leaps of logic made just to rip off a film. Wow, look, we grew up and now we live in the Amityville house! When hypnotized, why does the girl all of the sudden sound like Linda Blair in the Exorcist? Why would a ghost have muffled breathe? You've got it - Another rip off of Halloween.

Look, I generally don't write negative reviews because their are plenty of people out there who can't wait to put something down, even if it's undeserved. However, I'm a fan of lots of different horror films, modern and classic, and I was always told how great this film was. This movie is far from great. However, if you are able to stick with it after the ridiculously lame Halloween imitation beginning, there are some very enjoyable moments. Oh yeah, and don't even bother with the 2nd movie. It's unwatchable.

This was a total waste of time. It reminded me of "Halloween" at many points but beyond that it was extremely poor acting, no plot, and not at all scarey. Don't waste your time watching this.

Please can someone tell me if this is the uncut version, as the previous Anchor Bay release which I own is cut.