O Monstro Embaixo da Cama

Two brothers, the older of which has returned home after setting his house on fire and inadvertently killing his mother, must do battle against a man in a rubber suit who lives under their bed. Okay, so it's actually a monster, but, when you see it, you'll probably think, 'Oh, there's a man in a rubber monster suit.' Yes, that's the tone of the film.

Naturally, the boys' parents think they're crazy and their dad is a complete idiot at all times (whether they're talking about monsters or asking for a drink of milk, he seems to find it in himself to start shouting and threatening to lock everyone in their rooms forever... or something like that – in short, he's a douche). Then you have your clichéd bullies who think he's crazy and they live next door (do you get the impression this film is lining up plenty of characters who are going to fall foul from the thing under the bed?). But it's not all bad news for the older brother... no sooner has he returned to his home town then he's met the one hot girl who finds surly, reclusive arsonists who ride BMXs really attractive. So there you have your 'love interest.' Yawn.

The film starts off slow. I'm guessing this is to 'build tension.' But it just involves things moving in the house. Personally, I've never found a washing machine's door shutting by itself that horrific.

Yeah, there's a climax and some funky coloured lights here and there. They even throw in a chainsaw by this time to try and spice things up, but, by now, do you care? I didn't. It's not terrible, just nothing remotely new enough to warrant me paying it any real attention.

http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/

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.

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.

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.

This is a difficult film to review, as it appears a loving and sincere tribute to old school video store rental horror from days gone by, but slides a little too off the rails to truly get excited about. First, we meet Neal, a teen with a mysterious past, now returning home. Reconnecting with his younger brother Paulie, the two slowly uncover what forced Neal away. Convinced he was crazy, and after his mother's death, Neal was sent away to live with relatives in Florida. Neal discovers Paulie has dealt with the same mysterious being that tortured him in the past. Of course his father thinks he's crazy, and his well meaning step mom tries, but does not understand. The boys will have to face what lies under the bed - alone. There's a fascinating setup, but the payoff is all over the place. The brothers are great in their roles. The parents appropriately hapless. I think vintage horror fans will enjoy, but the back half of the movie is confusing and feels less developed than the first. It's an interesting idea and throwback to simpler times, that just doesn't gel the way it should. For genre fans only.