The Sandman

Story: A dream demon named the Sandman is killing people in their sleep. It's not a bad concept, it worked for Freddy, so it could work here. There is something inherently scary about sleep, as you are vulnerable and not completely guaranteed to wake again in the morning. The overall narrative isn't bad. The writing, however, is beyond bad. I suspect that the writer came from a background in prose, as everything gets way over explained instead of relying on the visuals to tell the story. D

Acting: The acting is bad, but I think it could have been salvageable in the hands of a better writer/director/editor. I think the actors must be from live theater backgrounds, as they are way, way overacting. It's painful to watch, especially the Viet Nam veteran, the old lady that's obsessed with toys, and the walking 90's stereotype "cool" surfer-ish kid. Basically, all the actors should have been told to turn it down a few degrees and the script should have given them less monologues and more visual stuff to do to advance the story. D

Visuals: Well, the Sandman man looks like a giant Jawa from Star Wars mixed with one of the creatures in John Carpenter's The Fog. The main message is that it looks cheap, but passable as long as it stays in the shadows and the audience never gets a good look at him. Unfortunately, this is not the case as we get to see every glorious inch of him. The end result is not good. D

Direction: This director knows what a wide shot is. That's about it. He also doesn't seem to be aware that he can use takes that are less than ten minutes long. Again, movies are not live theater. The camera can get closer to the actor, and we don't have to hover on one angle for eternity. Also, the director and/or the editor should have trimmed each scene down to the point where the message was delivered and moved on. The direction is the big failure in this movie, because the script and the acting, while they weren't good, they could have been fixed by a competent director. F! F! F!!!

Overall: I can't really recommend this movie to anyone except for those who enjoy watching bad movies simply to poke fun at them. There was potential here, and I hope the writer/director learned the right lessons from his failing here, but skip this movie. If you see it for sale, run, don't walk. F

Not to be confused with the same years Sleepstalker this horror is as much comedy despite not being advertised as such.

Telling another story about the Sandman being an evil being that steals your soul while you sleep I found more enjoyment than I expected even if ultimately it is pretty damn bad.

Poorly made, terrible audio quality and advertised as an incorrect genre altogether yet retains a level of entertainment in other ways.

For a start the humour is often on point even though it was entirely unexpected and often not in keeping with the rest of the film. The characters are mostly likable, very much so in fact.

Yes the Sandman looks goofy alike everything else but the film was clearly made with a minimal budget and under the circumstances it probably should have been a lot worse.

Sleepstalker (1995) is a better Sandman tale but this isn't without its merits.

The Good:

Chat show segments are funny

Decent characters

The Bad:

Chat show segments aren't in keeping with the rest of the film

This was the first film I watched from Tempe (at the time, I ordered two others with it), and wasn't really impressed.

The photography is fine, but the story takes too long to go anywhere, and the music (guitar twangs) kind of repetitious. You have to respect any indie that gives a flick this much of a polished look (nice dolly shots, opening credits montage over the trailer park), but something felt missing. Maybe action (definately not fog - where is this trailer park - England?).

The story deals with folks in a small town where the residents all have a terrible habit of dying in their sleep. The locals in a trailer park start to think a supernatural force...a sandman (with glowing eyes resembling computer-superimposed Christmas lights), is behind it.

Good effort. Mediocre (at best) results. Great packaging.

JR Bookwalter is known for low budget straight to video movies, from No-budget ones like Robotninja to 8mm epics like The Dead next door. The lack of budget (and maybe the lack of talent...) on his movies is usually replaced by good old blood and gore. The problem with The Sandman is that it have no exploitation elements, no blood, no gore and no nudity. The movie is a low, near to no, budget SOV that tries to be "serious" and tries to imitate a Hollywood horror movie. The best of the no budget SOV is that because of the independence, they can make all kind of PI stuff....this is not the case, its a boring no budget movie. Not the best Bookwalter pic.

Gary is a guy who lives in a trailer and he is trying to be a writer. His girlfriend Maris works as a waitress and wants him to have a real job. Gary receives Ozzy, a relative `self- guest' in his trailer (by the way, this character has nothing to do with any plot along the story. Maybe he has lent some money for the `production' of this amateurish movie and required to participate somehow in the story). His best friend is Bud and his neighbor is a neurotic veteran from Vietnam. Gary realizes that persons in his community are being killed by The Sandman. This film is almost as bad as `Troll 2' and `Satanic Attraction': amateurish cast and direction, poor effects and locations. The greatest work on me is that Sandman made me sleep at least four times along the story and I, instead of going to the bed, used the `rewind bottom' to watch the missing parts. However, the screenplay with improvement, actors, actresses and director could be the basis for a reasonable movie. My vote is two.