Boogeyman

I saw this movie on a Friday it was a first date with this guy I like. In some ways this movie helped me. I spent the whole time laughing and getting to know my date. If it had been interesting we might of paid attention. This movie made me feel dumb from watching it. I have never been so happy for a movie to end. The acting was good the script was DUMB. Barry Watson walks into closets and ends up in different places and this seemed to confuse everyone in the theater. After that people started leaving....I didn't because my date spent $7 on my ticket. This movie has no purpose characters are tossed in and discarded randomly. If you REALLY must see this movie make sure you see it for free.....This movie wasn't even scary no one really jumped in surprise but many did laugh in spite. Please heed my warning....there's no point in explain the plot..there was barely a plot this movie made my head hurt!!

Something I've noticed lately is that horror movies make for great previews. When I saw the trailer for BOOGEYMAN I was thinking, "This film is gonna rock!" WRONG! This is another terrible Hollywood scare flick that couldn't scare a 12 year old. I jumped more at the preview than the movie. The worst part is the story is so heavy handed that it steals any fun out of this convoluted mess. Let's remember what were making here, guys, it ain't no Oscar contender. Too bad the movie wasn't just a shade worse so it could enter that so-bad-it's good realm. This one is just bad.

There are a lot of great horror movies out there these days so skip this one!

Let's acknowledge the fact that practically everyone HATES this movie. Yet it had a lot of potential. What went wrong? Producers, film students, TAKE NOTE. Its EVERYTHING BAD in a horror movie, and makes us feel cheated, insulted, and burned.

Its the kind of movie that LOOKS like something we'd be interested in. The trailer showed a pretty creepy scene: a slow walk to a front door of a Gothic-style Victorian farmhouse, a scary hand on the door. The stuff of childhood nightmares and imaginings.

Additionally, the movie had a lot going for it -- a spooky-as-hell soundtrack, a seriously creepy Gothic farmhouse which even old-house fanatics might shudder at being alone in at night. Small-town stagnation and isolation. Unhelpful country people who just don't like outsiders. The stuff of moody, haunting atmospheres.

But, rather than play on a slow, spooky, dreamlike ambiance the house, the terrors, the memories of the lost dad and his murder/abduction, we get a woosh of distracting angles and wild camera swoops and flashes of light that are neither realistic nor scary.

The eerie soundtrack is constantly interrupted by flashes of light and noise that are supposed to 'scare' but show nothing and only interrupt the brooding atmosphere.

And what is the Boogeyman in this movie, anyway? Balled lightning? An explosion of distorted, computer-animated birds? a malfunctioning transmitted cartoon image of the grim reaper? Hard to tell. Bad computer animation spoils the image. We can't even imagine.

We certainly do NOT see any Boogeyman. Not the guy with the creepy hand on the door in the trailer. If we see anything at all, it's like video game graphics distorted by a glitch in the imagery.

C'mon, producers -- GIVE US THE BOOGEYMAN. Not videogenic mess.The Boogeyman must be a CHARACTER we can see -- preferably something that talks or has some other habit that frightens us. Freddy Krueger, Jeepers Creepers, the Tall Man on Phantasm, Reverend Henry Kane on Poltergeist or the chauffeur on Burnt Offerings who is too thin and tall and has a freaky, inappropriate grin and piercing stare -- are Boogeymen. (Jason Voorhees, Michael Myers, and Leatherface are perhaps another type of boogyman, but their agenda is less frightening because they exist merely to kill)

Rather than being killed or abducted by the boogeyman which we see in the trailer,we instead see people being bounced around the walls of rooms and hallways like rubber balls. Just one impact at this overdone velocity would kill a person instantly, but here, we see people bounce around the walls and get back up, unharmed, to 'fight.' and see victims instantly wrapped in saran rap, etc. On and on it goes.

Directors, producers, please take note. It just doesn't work. Things that move faster than the eye can see are not scary. Cheap computer graphic effects don't work. Loud, startling noises are a cheap substitute for brooding horror or shocking terror, and don't work.

The true 'Boogeyman' archetype that really scares the crap out of us is a slow, menacing presence. We may only get glimpses of him or he may torment us from the closet or under the bed as in Poltergiest, or he may come a'calling like a traveling salesman or road menace. True Boogeymen must be seen in closets, we see him in the mirror on closet doors, we see him hanging like a scarecrow or hanging from a noose like a kite caught in a tree. They come uninvited to take what they want; they can appear out of nowhere and can seem to disappear just as fast; they usually have personalities and voices that creep us out no matter how many years pass; they are invincible, and they like for you to learn of their invincibility as you try to fight them off. They love to torment and terrorize their victims before killing/abducting/soul eating/dragging them off to hell or whatever they do.

True boogeymen may have some weaknesses. In better horror movies and nightmares, they can sometimes temporarily be resisted or staved off by certain psychological or spiritual disciplines, or religious rituals but they cannot really be destroyed. At best, they may leave us to find an easier target, but they usually get what they want.

I was not impressed at all with this movie; I'm even more disgusted by the fact that they had a lot of good actors/sets/technologies to work with.

For instance, the character of Franny Roberts (Skye McCole Bartusiak), a mysterious, attractive, but oddly troubled twelvish-year-old girl who seems to know what's going on, was by far a more interesting character in this film than the 'Boogeyman.' In fact, she was the most interesting character in the movie: weirdly sad, melancholy, yet somewhat a tomboy -- like a lost childhood friend we forgot about and kinda miss. Why wasn't she given a bigger role?

And the protagonist Tim (Barry Watson) did a pretty convincing act of being legitimately scared and haunted by a childhood memory. They (Tim and the little girl, Franny) should have been the ones, together, to thwart or vanquish the "boogeyman.' Not the guy and the ex-crush 'Kate.'

Remember, the boogeyman should be a menacing presence; a collector of souls, a tormentor who plays games with his victims before taking them away. Boogeymen may have vulnerabilities, but cannot really be destroyed. Please, no more computer-animated lightning explosions and MTV to represent the boogeyman.

Most of all, the Boogeyman needs to be a character, and not just be bad graphics a-flashing. The boogeyman needs a voice and creepy antics. He is an abductor of souls, the tormentor of children, he is somewhat invincible but can be driven away, and always takes his helpless victims to a fate worse than hell.

Remember this.

Boogeyman really isn't all that bad. It's an OK horror movie which provides a few scares and thrills. The problem is it should have been so much better. After all the premise-what is it that little children are scared of at night which could come out of the cupboard-is a good one,not totally original,but not too familiar either.

After a genuinely scary opening,we have our usual setting up of plot and build up for a while,than the scares start again. There is one truly effective 'jump'involving one,than a whole room full of,ghost children.There has been a lot of criticism of the way films like this and The Grudge use lots of sudden shocks and images but it works for me! However,after this great scene,the film just had nowhere to go. The hero must confront his fear,and that's it. The filmmakers attempt to atone for this by having it's characters constantly passing from one place to another in a kind of teleportation but it becomes overused and laughable. The weak climax is not scary and considerably weakened by MTV-style directing so you can't see whats always going on {a bugbear of much recent cinema}. Still,at least the monster is only shown briefly,making it more effective.

You could do probably do worse than see Boogeyman,it holds the attention for the first half at least and it's a good one for teenagers who want to be scared a bit but not actually disturbed. However,after it's over you may just want to cry "is that it?". It's very annoying when a film starts off good and promises a lot but fails to deliver.

The one genuinely scary moment in director Stephen Kay's laughable excuse for a horror film occurs during the end credits, when the audience discovers that it actually took three professional screenwriters to pen this abominable nightmare. The last few years have been a golden age for modestly budgeted fright flicks. Last fall's The Grudge proved that if you market a film well and release it at just the right time, there's no end to the money you can make. I walked away from that film rather disappointed, but my confusion paled in comparison to the slack-jawed bewilderment that consumed me during Boogeyman.

The film's opening sequence features a man being ravaged by an unseen monster while his son observes helplessly. Fifteen years later we discover that Tim (Barry Watson) has never properly dealt with his father's sudden, grisly death. After learning that his mother has passed away, Tim returns home for her funeral. While in town he decides to face his fears by staying overnight in his unusually creepy boyhood home.

A series of muddled, incomplete ideas figure their way into the plot, but ultimately the story is nonsensical and just plain stupid. As with most recent horror films, Boogeyman provides no real terror, and instead attempts to startle the viewer by adding abrupt, loud noises to the soundtrack. The final straw is the title character itself, revealed briefly during the film's climax to be nothing more than a ridiculous, computer-animated mess. Avoid this moronic snoozefest like the plague.

Rating: D-