Under the Bed - Es lauert im Dunkeln

But with a little too much gore for the kids. Couldn't explain it any better than that. It was a little corny and ridiculous at times, just like Goosebumps or Are You Afraid of The Dark but no magic shop with "Sardo." I've definitely seen worse high budget movies.

Most of the people tearing this movie apart and faulting it seem to base that on the fact the movie has some plot-holes and illogical jumps between sequences. I can agree with them, but a compelling seamless story with lots of character development and deeper meaning does not necessarily make for a good horror flick.

I enjoyed the movie as a whole, even as a cynical and self-proclaimed Horror Genre veteran. The first hour of the movie may have you wondering "Why is this even rated R?" "Where's the monster?" "Where's the gore" but all those questions are answered in the last 20-30 minutes, so be patient - and it will deliver.

There are no crazy Asian-ghost-girls and the movie does not rely on CGI at all. There are a handful of bloddy and gory sequences that do unfold towards the movie's end, one-upping the beginning of the movie which may have you wondering if you're watching another "Disturbia" (throws-up) or "My Soul To Take" (the worst wes craven produced movie by far)

It takes some time to get warmed up but the movie does deliver on the goods towards the end, and of course, any film involving fictitious monsters/demons living under beds is going to come across as silly and illogical on some level. You can tell the director wanted to engage the audience and give them some frights and fun, and it's production quality seems a lot higher than you would expect with a non-theatrical release. I can honestly say this is the most fun watching a new non-Hollywood horror movie in the last year, and that's out of dozens.

It is my admiration and fascination with the horror genre that drove me to pick up "Under the Bed" and sit down to watch it, especially since I didn't know what the movie was about or who starred in it. All that I had seen was the movie cover, and it was more than enough to get my attention.

It turned out that "Under the Bed" had a rather interesting and entertaining storyline. I had initially thought that given the title of the movie that it could be a cheesy horror movie, but I was glad to be proved wrong. The storyline here was rather good, and director Steven C. Miller and writer Eric Stolze had managed to put together a clever storyline and one that kept the audience in the dark - literally.

The movie was actually genuinely creepy, and director Steven C. Miller did a great job in building up the suspense and the dread throughout the course of the movie. And the climax when the creature was finally revealed was actually quite satisfactory.

"Under the Bed" had some good acting performances, and Jonny Weston (playing Neal) and Gattlin Griffith (playing Paulie) actually carried the movie quite nicely.

The creature in this movie was rather interesting, and it was of good design and concept idea. It was a creature that was somewhat frightening and pitiful at the same time. Sure, it was not a creature design that revolutionized the horror genre in any way.

I found "Under the Bed" to be an entertaining movie and it was a good addition to the horror genre.

This movie smells a lot like "Phatasm". Instead of the tall man and the flying spheres you get a smoke machine and a hunchback in a foam-covered wetsuit. There's also an evil dimension with a lot of coloured lamps and sheets. The biggest win however is the angry dad character, whose crowning achievement is the "grow the f.#k up" speech towards the middle of the film. It's hilarious to see him respond to his children in the way that he does. Basically it goes something like this: child: "A demon ate our mommy." Dad: "Get a job." I can't believe the actors went along with dialogue this bad without protesting or at least laughing.

The script could have been written by a pre-school student. Ooh there's like a monster under the bed and you have to sleep on cupboards. You can't touch the floor. And sometimes like the washing machines kind of wobble when it's mad. If you could judge this movie by normal standards I would say one out of ten, but how can you apply a normal scaling when a movie has become so bad it's good? Also to be fair the crew did a good job with the low budget they had for the monster scenes. Especially the heads getting ripped off.

You can tell from the title alone that "Under the Bed" is attempting to pay homage to the host of other child-horror movies that proceeded it in the eighties. You can see there is real love for films like "Gremlins" "Monster Squad" and even "Poltegeist." The story starts out well enough with a teenage boy returning home years after a tragic event took his mother's life. His younger brother is happy to see him back, but old wounds from the past resurface and both boys are put in a position where they must choose to finally confront the monster that has been plaguing their family for years. The major problem with "Under the Bed" is that it really has no idea what kind of movie it wants to be. Moments in the movie have an innocence long lost throughout the years of horror, but at other times it attempts to be too grown up for its own good by using profanity and generous amounts of fake blood. If this was the movies only sin, we could probably give it a pass, but it is not. The script is shaky to say the least, while many parts throughout simply do not make sense. It also does not help that the shoestring budget is very evident up until the last 20 minutes of the movie. I certainly respect the guts of all involved in trying to accomplish this feat on what little they had to work with, but there are much more suitable, and frankly better child horror movies to sit down and watch for ninety minutes.