O Pesadelo

This movie is geared for a young audience. With the young audience in mind the movie makers left out much of the gore, and tension that a harder rating and smaller audience would bring. With the previous comment in mind one would rate the film in a PG 13 light instead of an R rating. Horror fans have change from my day in the 80's. No longer geekie guys, with there dads, and hard core horror fans with the glazed look. Mostly younger females, in the audience, with a few guy friends. A few of the older hard core horror fans. No "Dawn of the Dead", but a script that follows hard and fast which follows the past sleep fear of the lead actor. The directing speeds up the pace once the movie develops a story and takes on a faster pace; similar to the "Nightmare on Elm Street" films. A closet scene is done well. The movie could hit harder, but the Boggieman effects and directing keep the viewer from yawning. I would rent it again. 6 out of 10. Notice the film makes the lead actor look like the killer if anyone investigated the people who disappeared

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.

A young boy witnesses her father(Charles Mesure) is taken by a strange spirit, the Boogeyman. Years later, one time grown-up, Tim(Barry Watson) while is visiting the family his fiancée(Musset), he receives a call by his uncle, telling him his mother(Lucy Lawless)has just deceased. Tim trips to his hometown, there he encounter his former childhood friend(Emily Deschenel). In the location inexplicable disappearance occur. Caught in a series of otherworldly events , he becomes inextricably involved and seek to find out their own nightmares at whatever cost. Then he decides stay the night into creepy home and confronting the monstrous Boogeyman.

This eerie film displays bone-chilling scenes, suspense, tension and several images have you on the edge of your seat. It's terrifying entertaining with slick edition and mesmerizing use of shock scenes. The plot stretches plausibility to the break point for a twisted final with similar premise to Forbidden planet. The film is well played by known television actors, Barry Watson(7th heaven), Emily Deschenel(Bones) and the parents, Charles Mesure(Crossing Jordan) and Lucy Lawless, both actors in Xena,warrior princess. Eerie musical score by Joseph LoDuca and adequate cinematography by Bukowski. The motion picture is rightly directed by Stephen T. Kay, he's a nice secondary actor(Angel eyes,Mod squad) and TV director(Saved,Friday night light,Shield) and occasionally cinema director. The movie will like to terror genre enthusiastic.

"THE BOOGYMAN" was entertaining, at the least. For me, it was more then that, but, for it's target crown, a disappointment.

The plot DID go somewhere, contrary to popular belief. The matter is it just went places we would have preferred it not to go. I liked it, but sounds like many others had some trouble. And yes, there are some gaping plot holes you could drive a truck through, but if you ignore these, you can enjoy it.

The acting of SOME characters was head on, while other needed to be cut entirely (i.e. the uncle, mysterious man entering hotel, possibly the unfinished "mother" portion) For a while there in the middle, the plot takes on a bit of a physiological thriller feeling, and starts to drop horror and suspense...i personally liked how it was changing, but most were disappointed.

The overall tone was suspenseful, (using a nice camera filter and nicely placed music) and some good jumps, but over all, this was advertised as horror, and it was not. THAT was this films biggest downfall (kinda like The Village)The camera work itself could have been improved, it kind of had that home made feel to it, and the CGI was far from scary.THings i DID like include the overall moral and point of the plot, Barry Watsons internal conflict with his paranoia, and, you have to be with me on this one...

They Did NOT leave it open for a Sequel!

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.