John Carpenter's Suburban Screams

I don't understand the rating of the season. It's 4.4 (Date: 17.10.2023).

But, comparing this rating 4.4 with the individual ratings of the six episodes of season 1

Season 1 - Episode1: 5.4 / Episode 2: 6.2 / Episode 3: 7.1 / Episode 4: 7.1 / Episode 5: 6.5 / Episode 6: 7.1

something is not right. The average of ratings of the six episodes is 6.6.

Some reviewers here haven't even seen all episodes of this first season, but write a review and rating more or less after watching just two episodes. Sorry, but this is no good practice and gives a false impression of this series. Furthermore, how is it possible, that the season gets an overall rating of 4someting, but the average rating of the episodes is 6something? Makes no sense.

I suggest, please check the individual rating of each episode.

Some thoughts on the show: The show has some old-school flair, is not groundbreaking or needlessly overproduced and follows some traditional horror story telling. It uses the true-crime setting with interviews and storytelling as flashbacks. If this kind of story telling is not your flavor, than skip this show.

John Carpenter is one of the shows executive producers, directed episode 6 and composed the main theme music with his son Cody. Furthermore, his voice is in the intro of the episodes.

I liked the stories, the atmosphere and the good production values of this show. It's a solid horror show for gloomy sundays.

My overall rating for this first season is somewhere near six stars.

----

18.10.2023 Ratings update:

season rating: 4.5

episodes ratings: E1: 5.4 / E2: 6.5 / E3: 7.2 / E4: 7.3 / E5: 6.5 / E6: 7.3 = average episodes rating 6.7

--> difference between season rating 4.5 vs average episode rating 6.7

----

19.10.2023 Ratings update:

season rating: 4.4

episodes ratings: E1: 5.2 / E2: 6.0 / E3: 7.0 / E4: 7.2 / E5: 6.1 / E6: 7.2 = average episodes rating 6.5

--> difference between season rating 4.4 vs average episode rating 6.5

----

23.10.2023 Ratings update:

season rating: 4.4

episodes ratings: E1: 5.4 / E2: 6.2 / E3: 6.6 / E4: 6.4 / E5: 5.7 / E6: 6.7 = average episodes rating 6.2

--> difference between season rating 4.4 vs average episode rating 6.2.

----

07.11.2023 Ratings update:

season rating: 4.6

episodes ratings: E1: 4.9 / E2: 5.9 / E3: 6.0 / E4: 5.7 / E5: 5.2 / E6: 6.2 = average episodes rating 5.7

--> difference between season rating 4.6 vs average episode rating 5.7.

6.5/10

This really reminds me of "Unsolved Mysteries" just minus the unsolved mysteries. The style is very reminiscent of that, and that's probably why I enjoyed it moreso than the show itself. The stories being told weren't the most interesting or exciting, nor were the people telling them, but the reenactment videos were well done & kept my interest enough that I continued to binge watch the entire series in a day.

There's nothing new or groundbreaking here, and it's not anything so exciting or great that I'd tell someone to rush to watch it, but if you enjoyed watching Unsolved Mysteries and/or are interested in people telling personal ghost stories, it worth the watch.

The stories, from both the US and Canada, are set in idyllic locations away from the hustle-bustle of city life that would appeal to a more mature audience in general, and viewers like me geared toward a more quiet setting.

The horror is a mix up of gore, human inflicted and the supernatural. Though its somewhat watchable, what makes it irritable is the constant switching between the mock interviews and the story narrated through flashbacks. Ideally perhaps, it would have been better suited if they started off with a short mock interview preparing the viewers for the story ahead, before delving into it without further disruptions, and finally concluding with the continuation of the interview to sum it all up.

Biggest mystery... why would John Carpenter attach his name to such a terrible series??

This series is NOT horror. It's low-grade late-night-network-tv-true-crime suspense at best. Sure there are some scenes that are more gory than network tv would allow, but gore does not equal horror. If gore is surrounded by really atrocious acting and storytelling, it's just gore for the sake of gore. At no point would I classify this series as "horror". It's true crime with boosted gore for some scenes.

Most scary thing.. the earrings and flattop on the guy in the first episode - especially the earrings.. just odd. Makes ya wonder... does he not have any friends or family to tell him how stupid the earrings look? Or do his friends/family all lie to him about them??

I watched 3 episodes.... that's really all I could tolerate. 3 because I had to confirm more episodes were poor, not merely the premiere. The first three episodes are at the same D-grade level in acting, story, and direction, leading me to believe so are the rest of the episodes. I'm not a masochist. So, I didn't bother with the last 3 episodes.

It's rather boring and "cheap" in my opinion.

A low-rent, knock-off, pseudo "True Crime Stories" with a sort of misguided "supernatural" notion surrounding them. It's got heaps of D-level acting and story telling. I just couldn't get past the over-the-top-forced-drama trying to push suspense as much as possible. It's borderline clichéd and somewhat comical and is so poorly acted that it essentially works against what it's trying to achieve.

I think some reviewers are rating this series MUCH higher than it deserves merely because John Carpenter's name is attached to it. I've rated this series based upon what I saw.... and not based my rating on some sense of loyalty or nostalgia because Carpenter has done truly excellent work in the past. Even the most adept director, writer, producer can falter... as Carpenter has in this series.

----- Pass ------

5 of the 6 stories can be verified. 2 of them are in Canada and the last time I checked Canada is NOT "hometown America". The Jamul, Ca. Story is the only one (so far) that cannot be verified. It is typical John Carpenter with unnecessary scenes, stupid dialogue and long held shots that are annoying, not suspenseful; and it takes too long to tell the tale. It's all of John Carpenter's trademarks. If you don't like JC, don't watch it. That simple. I like JC, so the stories are interesting, and I know how he's going to tell them. Also, all the stories but one have multiple sources to back up the stories. Canada has strong libel laws so the first two episodes have the most sources. I will say that the 'Ouija" board is pronounced "we - ya", as in oui the french word for yes and ja the German word for yes; not "we-gee". In what universe has the "a" ever been pronounced "eee"? Otherwise the show is the John Carpenter version of true story, NOT true crime as some of these reviews have stated. It's about the story.