Customer Reviews

Boogeyman [VHS]

5 star:		(20)
4 star:		(32)
3 star:		(28)
2 star:		(62)
1 star:		(89)

 

 

If there's one trend in horror movies that really needs to go away it's the Loud Sudden Noise, aka the "SHREEENK!"

I mean that overamplified, more-annoying-than-scary racket that jumps from the speakers during a thriller whenever anything mildly startling happens. It usually sounds like a cello being sliced in two by a guillotine and it's a sure sign that a movie doesn't have any honest scares.

You know the drill:

The hero cautiously backs into a dark room and bumps into - SHREEENK! - a coat rack.

The heroine closes a medicine cabinet and in the mirror - SHREEENK! - sees the ghost of her great-aunt.

Few recent horror flicks have relied as heavily on the "SHREEENK!" as "Boogeyman," which is often atmospheric but mostly silly and boring.

Following a childhood run-in with the title character, magazine editor Tim (Barry Watson) is left with a crippling fear of closets and other dark storage spaces. He's a mess. At 23, he still stops in for treatment at the kid's ward of his neighborhood psychiatric hospital.

"Look around you," his doctor finally tells him. "There are only children here."

I fear that scene isn't nearly as moving as the writers intended, but it sets the tone because Tim spends most of the movie walking around his dark old house wigging out - in fact, a good 60 percent of the film's running time is devoted to scenes in which he approaches sinister-looking doors/staircases/barns really... really... really... slowly (just before the "SHREEENK!").

The rest of the movie involves Tim doubting his sanity and awkwardly courting his childhood sweetheart (Emily Deschanel, who isn't given much to do but still manages to be the best thing in the movie). Eventually, they battle the fabled Boogie Man, and I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure their conflict ends as the result of a complete lack of ideas.

This is one "Boogeyman" that won't keep many viewers awake. That task falls to the "SHREEENK!"

You know what would have made "Boogeyman" scarier? Just about anything! Truly nothing happens in this movie after the first five minutes. The lead guy walks around teary-eyed and looking mysterious at half opened doors or ceiling tiles......and then.....nothing. Don't waste your time with this thing, if you want something that sets a pretty good eerie mood, get "Fear of the Dark" instead. It's shot on almost no budget, with no stars of any kind, but at least "Fear of the Dark" gives the viewer some kind of pay-off, and packs at least a minimal fright factor.

Boogeyman could have been a very scary film except that the director and producer wanted that all-important PG13 rating. This is killing the horror movie as an art form; Boogeyman is a clear case of shocks traded in for an imaginary audience who likes bloodless horror movies (like "The Ring").

This movie sets up an interesting story, then does almost nothing with it. And the "surprise twist" in the film was a surprise only to the 5 year olds in the audience taken to this film by their baby-sitterless parents.

I miss the old "Hellraiser" days when horror films strived for an "R" rating and wore it as a badge of honor. I hope Hollywood will start making films like that again.

I recently watched Boogeyman, and I was sooooo glad I didnt listen to every wannabe critic in every magazine and newspaper i picked up. I was told, and i read, that this film was rubbish. Whereas it's really not.
I'm not gonna summarise it, i'm just going to tell you that this film is pretty scary. I will admit that the alst half isnt really as scary as the first half. But there is interesting, but confucing, twists in the second half that will consume you. And the ending was strange too, but very watchable.
If you wanna get totally freaked out, as I did, watch this in the dark, with the volume up high and you'll get every jump and chill out of this movie....

Is it just me or did anyone else notice that "Boogeyman" is almost a scene for scene rip off of the much better 2003 movie, "Darkness Falls"?

Don't believe me? Check it out:

1) Both movies open with a young boys in their bedrooms at night who are afraid to go to sleep because they fear that mythical beings from folklore will come and harm them. In "Darkness Falls," it's a vengeful Tooth Fairy. In the Boogeyman it's well, duh, the Boogeyman.

2) In both movies these scenes end with the young boys watching in helpless terror as said mythical beings slaughter a parent. In "Darkness Falls," Mom buys the farm. In "Boogeyman" it's Dad that gets it.

3) After the previous scene, both movies jump forward several years to the same boys as young men. In both cases, they remain so traumatized by the prior events that they've even adapted their living quarters to fend off future attacks they believe will one day come. In "Darkness" hero Chaney Kley's apartment has more lights than the Las Vegas strip since the Tooth Fairy can only exist in darkness. In "Boogeyman," every closet or cupboard in Barry Watson's apartment is windowed so that he can see if the Boogeyman is hiding inside before opening.

4) In both movies, the young heroes are forced by a tragic events to return to their hometowns where they must face the evils that have haunted their dreams since childhood. And once they hit town, both young men immediately reconnect with old childhood flames who've not surprisingly grown up into serious hotties.

5) Lastly, both movies also end with frantic, climaxes where the young heroes use their wits to dispatch their supernatural enemies in explosive finishes.

Seriously, I could go on but what's point? There is one significant difference here though. "Darkness Falls" is actually an okay movie where as "Boogeyman" kinda sucks.

To its credit, the opening scene(though as I said it's a ripoff) is a killer and had me genuinely creeped out. But after that the movie descends into scene after scene of Watson moping around.

The few original story elements the movie does try to use like the Boogeyman and his origins don't work. The movie doesn't really explain who or what the Boogeyman is though there are suggestions that any child who fears the Boogeyman deeply enough can make him real.

Bottom line this one's not only a loser but also such a blatant ripoff of "Darkness Falls" that if I were the attorney for the scriptwriter of that film I'd probably recommend filing a copyright infringement lawsuit.

Let's start by saying I hate the sudden surge of all the pg-13 horror movies directed at making pre-pubescent girls jump (there is a reason the only good review on this site is from a kid). This movie actually manages to be less scary and make less sense than "The Grudge". The only scary moments in the movie are jump moments and not one of them made me jump, there is no tension or creepy parts in the movie at all. The last half-an-hour of the movie doesn't even make sense by horror standards. The only reason I'm not pissed that I saw it is because I saw it for free. The only entertainment that can be derived from this waste of celluloid, is that you can watch it with your buddies and make fun of it.

Despite the hype and critcism to the negative aspect, I liked this movie. The film industry in the past 30+ years has tried to feed us the fact that we cannot be scared without being force fed buckets of gore. Now in this generation, the public has become desensitized to the whole American horror movie genre. It has been played....and re-played....then replayed again so many times that it has become one genre that has totally lost it's originality. Aside from forays into the bizarre by Clive Barker and horror maven, Wes Craven, there has been little that hasn't been copied or overdone in the horror field. Sad, but true. Now movie execs are trying to aim movies at the voracious appetite of the younger crowd and are soft selling the horror movie to the PG-13 crowd and the "R" crowd are hating the lack of limbs (severed, that is) in these movies. If you go into this new found soft-core horror (so to speak) with lower expectations and an open mind, some of it can just be fun. That is what I liked about "Boogeyman". There is little here that cannot be viewed on late night TV without being hacked to death, no pun intended. Aside from the sometimes annoying amplified noises, there are no true horrifying scares, but if you get into the story there is a moral of a man confronting his childhood fears and triumphing and some genuine atmosheric chills. The hero, Tim, played effectively by 7th Heaven's Barry Watson is tramatised as a youth after seeing the much feared "Boogeyman" violently attack his father and pull him into the fabled closet, never to be seen again. At 23, having premonitions of his mother's death, prompts him to return to his childhood home and fears to confront and finally overcome the "Boogeyman". Although when the Boogeyman finally appears, the animatics are a bit weak, but I overlooked this because it was aimed at a younger crowd. Setting aside the obvious flaws, I found the underlying story of a man conquering his fears to be a nice escape from impaled and severed body parts and not a bad trip afterall. If you are looking for a thriller, this is a finely crafted, yet somewhat predictable story, capably acted by Watson. It's a fine, old fashioned type ghost story. If you are a gore hound, this is not for you.

When one tries to tell the difference between the truth and a lie, a simple question is all that is needed: does it make sense? Ninety-nine times out of one hundred, if it doesn't make sense, then it is a lie.

Something similar works for art. If it doesn't make any sense, not only has the audience been egregiously deceived, but the film simply doesn't work.

That's what happens here.

The first hour of this film is filled with "blank". Nothing. The main character (in an interesting turn from his character on Seventh Heaven - and I LIKE that) looks around a bit, obviously creeped out. With a few very minor exceptions, that's about it. In addition, the minor exceptions don't hold up to the litmus test of: does it make sense. Those exceptions don't make sense, so they're eliminated entirely from the story line.

I'll give the film credit for making an attempt to create something that's almost "Memento meets horror". There is some paranormal time shifting going on, but again, we're not given enough information for any of that to make sense. This begs the question: can we make sense of it? The answer is yes, to a certain degree - but only if we throw all reason and logic out the window. Let me compare this to another film, so that perhaps some perspective can be brought into the picture: could we make sense of The Exorcist? You bet we could. That simply isn't going on here. Props for a decent attempt, though.

I'd like to comment on the ending - especially as that's the only truly interesting part of the film, and even that's confusing and a major letdown - but I won't. There really are no surprises, but who knows? Someone might be surprised. Suffice to say that my five-year-old nephew figured out the ending, and to make it worse, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. A ball is smashed, a "doll" that we all know never should have existed is smashed, and these things play a part in the ending. Why? I can't for the life of me understand why. Maybe the producers knew, but their knowledge became lost in the story and thought that by not telling us it made the movie stronger. They were wrong, and the box office receipts prove it.

I personally thought Boogeyman rocked!
Honestly, the only way for you to know for yourself if it is good or not, is not to listen to the professional critics or any other form of critic because everyone is different and has different tastes.
I think if you easily have nightmares from horror movies though, you will have them from this movie.
Just rent it and see for yourself because then you are not out anything more than a couple bucks and a little time.
I thought it was a refreshing horror movie that far outranked recent ones like Saw or The Grudge.

Boogeyman oozes with fear, primarily because Barry Watson is fantastic at showing the panicky, childish fear we all know is deep within ourselves. This fear is the centerpiece of Boogeyman; this is not a slasher or gorefest movie. The Ring, Darkness Falls, and Jeepers Creepers are other recent Hollywood releases that are scary in similar ways. The cinematography, editing, and overall direction by Stephen Kay are first-rate. There really is no sound track, but rather a nearly continuous series of creepy sound-effects that increasingly prickle the nerves (in a good/creepy way) as the movie runs. The combination make watching Boogeyman a genuinely scary experience.

One wonders through most of the movie whether this really is about a supernatural, literal Boogeyman, or perhaps a digression into the mind of sick young man who was psychologically deranged by his father's locking him in closets as a youngster and then running off, leaving a seriously depressed wife and emotionally damaged son. Some aspects of the movie brought to mind Identity, and Hide and Seek. Without giving anything away, suffice it to say that the resolution to Boogeyman's story does not satisfy either as a monster movie or as a psychological thriller.

It is surprising that this movie doesn't rate higher, as all but the final 10 minutes are quite good. Unfortunately, the ending is often what's remembered, and perhaps that's part of the reason for the low ratings. Expectations from Raimi's involvement (which apparently was very slight) and Evil Dead are sure to disappoint; Boogeyman is a completely different type of movie. Even so, Boogeyman is very scary throughout (unless blood-n-guts are required to scare you), and is overall a very good movie.

The Special Edition DVD has an alternate ending that is quite good (perhaps superior), being very different from that in the movie. I usually skip watching the deleted scenes, but am glad I watched them here; many are great, e.g., Watson once again excelling in his portrayal of a visceral revulsion to a maggot-ridden rabbit falling on him. Two "Making of" features are also well done, and compensate for the lack of a commentary track for the movie.

Recommended