Boo

A group of teens decide to go party in an abandoned hospital on Halloween. Unfortunately for them, the place is haunted by some very nasty ghosts who don't want them to leave. "Boo" is a decent genre flick, but ultimately it disappoints. The performances are mediocre at best, the script is pedestrian and first-time scribe/director Anthony C. Ferrante (a former Fangoria writer) relies too heavily on predictable pop scares throughout most of the film (though to his credit the flashback sequences were very well-shot). There's nice gore content and the special effects are often very good (loved the skinned dog thing), unfortunately these are too sparse and insubstantial to give the film the push it needed. "Boo" is by no means a bad movie, it's simply too mediocre to deliver on it's initial promise. Could have been much, much worse though… 5.5/10.

After reading the comments by the editor on this film, I must wholeheartedly agree. Boo is not a perfect film, nor the best I have ever seen, but it is FAR better than any direct to video horror film I have seen. This film made me jump out of my skin several times, and it was very creepy. Yes, the plot is silly. Yes, it doesn't make a lot of sense in parts, but this is a fine offering of a horror film... and maybe I'm a toad, but I like how this film didn't feel the need to have pointless nudity and sex - it just seems to be a higher caliber DTV horror film. Everyone has their opinion, and I'm sure there are some who disagree, but I have seen a lot of horror films and I cannot see how anyone could think this to be one of the worst ever made. It is a lot of fun, so give it a chance. By the way, the editing on this film was outstanding, so cheers to the other reviewer.

This movie was a distinct disappointment. The filmmakers had access to a very creepy location but really did nothing with it in the end. The pacing of the movie is very slow and the utter lack of tension in scenes that require it is embarrassing. Add to that the high school drama level acting and you have another waste of money and film. The only good performance came from Dee Wallace Stone and her performance matched to the other "actors" only show how really bad they all are. I really wonder how much was spent on this film and how many shooting days they had? Whatever it was, they misspent it. The chief problem is the director/writer. For a writer of horror film articles, he has little grasp of what is scary and no grasp of film-making. The camera is constantly in the wrong place and his sense of pacing is like molasses. I suggest this one goes in the avoidance column.

SCHLOCK would have been a better title for this absurd excursion into a poor excuse for a fright flick.

Nothing redeems it. Not the story, the sub-par acting from a mostly teen cast, the witless dialog, the tired old explanation for all the goings on, and the complete lack of logic.

Whenever things get dull, another fright scene with someone gurgling on blood or turning into a gooey monster of decomposing flesh, is supposed to provide the kind of shock appeal to target a young audience.

Let's hope the kids today are a bit more discriminating in their taste for horror. This one is below the mark all the way.

The only redeeming feature is the sleazy look of the abandoned hospital grounds. Enough to make your skin crawl, disgustingly dirty, rundown and evil looking.

But the story and the characters are an insult to anyone's intelligence, poorly acted and directed to make this a complete waste of time. A writer like Stephen King could have done something with the basic idea--but it's too late now.

I was happy to rent "Boo" after reading that it was from the same producer as "Dog Soldiers," which I found wonderfully relentless. While "Dog Soldiers" is on my list of films to buy, I soon found "Boo" to be tedious. It is the sort of movie I began to watch in bits for it was becoming too aggravating to sit through in one stretch. While I appreciate horror films made on a small budget (and therefore, it can be assumed, made out of a passion for the genre and not a mere eye on box office returns), recent films, such as "Boo," rely on SUDDEN LOUD NOISES to elicit their scare moments. (It's the new 'screeching cat leaping out' gimmick.) This film made me jump once. However, when a film uses a LOUD NOISE or sudden ghost/killer reveal a second time, the impact is usually lessened, and when this happens a THIRD time, and then again, the 'scares' become predictable for the audience now knows the rhythm of the film, that whenever there's a quiet moment, there will be a JOLT, or whenever a character is about to move out of frame, the ghost/killer will be standing there. And really, what suspense can be given to a film when there is an overuse of a creepy little girl suddenly, without actually moving, advancing toward another character, accompanied by A LOUD SOUND. The squeaking, slowly moving wheelchair was much more effective for then a sense of dread was built, a 'What's going to happen?' apprehension. JOLTS just become numbing, and then boring.

I can forgive bad acting but there are certain true reactions to which we can all relate and when a character does not REACT the way that we would, that is when the amateurish performance becomes distracting. If my girlfriend/boyfriend or best friend is murdered, my reaction is horror and anger; in this film, there is shock (and one character gets very upset and weepy) but then everyone just seems to gloss over this and resumes looking for a way to escape the hospital. The murder then becomes a mere plot device, another 'reanimated dead' complication for our remaining cast to soon deal with.

Great use of a particular costume however, and it's always wonderful to see Dee Wallace Stone on screen.