Sleepstalker (1995 Video) User Reviews

Does the Sandman do more besides put sand in your eyes?

[fortevox · 5/10 · 23 March 2001]

I have only seen SLEEPSTALKER twice: and that was on cable.

I saw it first in 1997 and then recently this year (2001).

The thing in this movie that is really scary is the sad, mournful lullabye "Sleep baby, sleep...down where the woodbines creep...be always like the lamb, so mild and kind and sweet...sleep baby, sleep." TOO HYPNOTICALLY SCARY!! Woodbine is a plant that is remotely associated with the Grim Reaper (Death)

The whole premise of a convicted killer offering his soul to satan in exchange for immortality is nothing new to the horror movie genre...but the dialogue and special effects were pretty pitiful.

The similarity between the Sandman and Freddy Krueger (Nightmare on Elm Street) is that both of these "nightime nightmare boogeymonsters" had rotten childhoods wraught with child abuse, and grow up to be killers... Hmmmm...interesting concept. I give this one a five out of ten.

Pretty bad low budget horror nonsense.

[poolandrews · 4/10 · 26 May 2007]

Sleepstalker is set in Los Angeles where 17 years ago the family of 7 year old Griffin Davis (Jay Underwood) was slaughtered by a serial killer known as the Sandman (Michael Harris), the police managed to save Griffin & arrest the Sandman. Now, 17 years later, the Sandman is due to be executed in the gas chamber. He is visited in his cell by a weird preacher (Michael D. Roberts) who gives him a cross made of heated sand & empowers him with some black magic satanic spell or something like that. That night as the real Sandman dies in the gas chamber another Sandman is born in the desert from, surprise, real sand. Stop me if this is too exciting. The Sandman must track Griffin down & kill him within three days to gain eternal life or suffer the consequences of eternal damnation! I think.

Co-written & directed by Turi Meyer I think Sleep Stalker is the type of horror film which you always find in supermarket & video store bargain bins where the almost unsellable rubbish ends up in a desperate attempt to get rid of them, yep that just about sums up Sleep Stalker. The script by Meyer & co-producer Al Septien feels like an attempt to create a film along the lines of A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) with is sleep obsessed killer, luckily this never turned into a franchise despite the obvious ending which left the door wide open for a sequel. The plot has several holes, the black preacher guy & his stone throne are never really explained, the plot twist towards the end is just rubbish & if Griffin knows that water can harm the Sandman why doesn't he arm himself with a water pistol or a bucket of water or something liquidy along those lines? As a character the Sandman is rubbish, he never does anything particularly exciting or clever, his powers seems to consist almost entirely of turning into sand & travelling through pipes. The kills are few & far between with only four death's in the film & they are all very unimaginative, just think of the possibilities of a killer who can turn himself into sand & then completely forget all about them as Sleep Stalker doesn't have anything even remotely approaching it. The film is slow, the more human character's are poor, the dialogue dull & by the time Sleep Stalker had eventually finished I was on autopilot.

Director Meyer tries to inject a little style into the film & isn't entirely unsuccessful, there are definitely one or two nice moments here but it doesn't really make up for the banality of the rest of the production & the fact it's simply not a very good film. There's no scares, there's no excitement, there's no tension, there's no atmosphere & there's no gore, violence or nudity. Enough said, right? The prison the Sandman is held in has to be the most underpopulated prison in all of film history, there doesn't seem to be another inmate anywhere! Hey, it's just an observation...

Technically the film is alright, it's a bit flat & forgettable but it's quite well made considering. There are some early Sandman CGI computer effects, they are used sparingly & when you see them you'll understand why. The CGI magnificence of the Sandman from Spider-Man 3 (2007) this ain't! The acting isn't great although it's always nice to see Dawn of the Dead's (1978) Ken Foree in a genre flick.

Sleep Stalker is the sort of generic dull horror film which like the title character will send you to sleep & definitely won't be giving you nightmares. Difficult, nay on impossible, to recommend when there are so many more better horror films out there so I won't, if you want to watch a proper Sandman watch Spider-Man 3 instead, hell just watch Spider-Man 3 instead of this full stop.

sandy scary movie

[jfarms1956 · 4/10 · 6 April 2013]

This movie is for those 10 and up. Maybe kids shouldn't's see horror flicks, but let's face it, they love them. This is a true popcorn cruncher. Just like many horror movies, it starts off slow. It builds slowly but keeps you hooked. You get hooked by a murder within the first ten minutes of the movie. Maybe a better title of the movie should have been Sandman. The cast helps make this movie work and yet none of them are what I would call superstars. This movie would be good for sleepovers and slumber parties. The movie offers little surprise in plot and ending.An average horror film with average entertainment value.Enjoy the flick for what it is. Four thumbs up.

It is memorable only for the lullaby at the end

[adashiel · 27 January 2003]

I've seen this movie a couple times on cable, but the only thing about it I remember is the haunting lullaby ("Sleep, baby, Sleep") at the end. It took me awhile to even remember its name. It's far from being a good movie, but at the same time, it's not bad enough to have much camp value. That lullaby, though, is amazing.

Oh, well... at least it's got Ken Foree in it.

[Vomitron_G · 5/10 · 11 January 2006]

That's right, Ken Foree from DAWN OF THE DEAD, FROM BEYOND and THE DENTIST. But SLEEPSTALKER is not nearly as good as any of those movies. It has got a Freddy Krueger/Candyman/...-type of villain. You know, the one who had a traumatic experience in the past, then dies and comes back as a supernatural slasher. The way he dies is by execution in prison, much like in SHOCKER or THE HORROR SHOW (aka HOUSE 3). He's been brought back with the help of a black voodoo-priest, an idea which shows some similarities with CHILD'S PLAY. The Sandman himself looks a lot like Morty from THE FEAR, but he's made out of sand instead of wood. So, you see, SLEEPSTALKER borrows from so many other horror-movies that it would be impossible for it to be original. But still, the whole killer-made-out-of-sand-thing kinda is original to some extend. Sadly, SLEEPSTALKER isn't by far as good as the movies it borrows from (except THE FEAR might be worse).

So what's good about it? The Sandman looks creepy and his outfit is okay. The scene were he's created is atmospheric. The acting of Michael Harris and Ken"ate too much fast-food"Foree is good. The Sandman kills off our protagonist (extra point for that). Some special effects and killings are mildly amusing.

So what's bad? The acting's mediocre at it's best. The Spanish gangster from da hood is so bad(-ass) he's fun to watch ("Get reeeal close... and sssmoke his ass!"). There's way too little gore. The video-box read "with dazzling special effects": sorry, but the CGI, though amusing at times, looks fairly dated (and filming falling sand and playing it backwards is not 'dazzling' to me).

So in the end SLEEPSTALKER is a horror-movie that's neither good or bad. And Turi Meyer's just an average director which he once more proves with CANDYMAN 3 (but strangely enough, when his name came up on a BUFFY-episode, I got excited... maybe I'm a sucker for Turi Meyer-movies, I don't know... so then I have to see ALIEN EXPRESS... I don't mind).

Initially I was to give 4 out of 10 stars for SLEEPSTALKER, but hey, Ken Foree is in it, so: extra point! See this flick on one of those sleepless nights.

Sandman's Last Rites

[Scarecrow-88 · 2/10 · 27 August 2006]

Absolutely dreadful horror film about a young journalist named Griffin(Jay Underwood)who is being stalked by a killer made of sand. The killer(Michael Harris)slaughtered several families before he got to Griffin's and as he was about to kill him{..after killing Griffin's parents}, a cop(William Lucking)is able to stop him. Griffin's only ally{..because the cops thinks he's crazy and behind three murders, two of whom were his best friends}is his photographer friend, Megan(Kathryn Morris of "Cold Case")who has seen what the Sandman can do. The film is really cheap, with only average special effects, the killer isn't very convincing{..while also being quite laughable}, the premise is bit of a joke especially in how the killer is able to come back aided by a weird devil preacher, & the acting goes from bad to very bad. The film never builds suspense, the effects are never fully effective enough to scare, and the whole film is one longish, boring ride. Seek your thrills elsewhere because there in short supply here.

Decent idea fails because of not-so-special effects

[Scream-11 · 4/10 · 20 December 1998]

The basic idea, a killer coming back from the dead as a guy made of sand in order to kill people again, isn't bad, and the movie has a few scary moments, but the effects are far from special. One of the effects that gets incredibly over-used happens whenever the killer turns into sand and defies gravity to pour himself up into air vents or whatever happens to be nearby. At first, it looks pretty cool, but if you turn your head upside down to watch the scene, it's pretty obvious how it was done, and the entire movie looks cheaper. If I remember right, there's a great plot twist towards the end, but it's too little, too late to save this movie. I don't recommend Sleepstalker.

Mediocre 90's straight to video horror flick

[Stevieboy666 · 4/10 · 28 October 2021]

With the help of an evil priest the spirit of an executed serial killer known as The Sandman comes to life to continue his killing spree, a young man called Griffin being his ultimate target. Very much typical of straight to video fodder, don't get your hopes up for this one. As a slasher movie there is a distinct lack of slashing, most of the rather weak kills involve sand, and I found Sandman himself to be quite lame. Interesting concept, just not done (or acted) very well. There is an obligatory female in the shower scene but zero nudity. The acting is passable. Ken Foree (of Dawn of the Dead fame) has a welcome small role. The film does have plenty of CGI effects, to be fair they are better than some of the awful ones to be seen in much newer movies. At 95 minutes I felt that this was a bit of a stretch, it gets a bit slow at times. The soundtrack features a haunting lullaby, "Sleep, Baby Sleep", for me this was the only really memorable thing, it was still going around in my head long after the closing credits. In the UK this is certified 18, I really don't know why, it is pretty tame, i'm sure that if a distributor bothered to resubmit it to the BBFC that it would be reclassified 15.

Below average, typically gimmicky 90s horror.

[capkronos · 4/10 · 14 January 2014]

If you asked a sample group of dedicated horror fans, "What has been the worst decade for the genre thus far?," chances are the majority would tell you it was the 1990s. Not that all 90s horror films were bad; there are actually many good ones from this time... "Sleepstalker" just doesn't happen to be one of them. In fact, this is the exact type of gimmicky, one-idea film that ran rampant throughout the decade that gives the 90s horror haters their case in the first place. Slasher films in particular had gone incredibly stale by this point. Jason, Freddy, Michael, Pinhead, Chucky and Leatherface had literally bled the sub-genre dry throughout the 80s and early 90s. By the time the mid 90s hit, desperate filmmakers were coming up with some of the dumbest and most absurd concepts imaginable to try to keep the ball rolling. It wouldn't be until the following year that "Scream" (1996) revitalized things. Only "Scream" ultimately ended up having an even more disastrous effect on these kind of movies when everyone started annoyingly trying to copy the smart-ass characters, constant "clever" film references and self-aware humor. But that is another story for another day... Now back to "Sleepstalker..."

A serial killer known as The Sandman (Michael Harris) has already killed five families. As he's busy slaying mom and pop from Family #6, young Griffin manages to escape. The police, led by Detective Bronson Worth (William Lucking), show up and finally apprehend the psycho. Seventeen years later, The Sandman is on death row awaiting execution. Luckily for him, the man assigned to give him his last rites is a Satanic, white- eyed preacher (Michael D. Roberts) who offers him a chance at revenge. He's given an upside down cross, uses it to cut his hand, bleeds into the sand and then - after his execution in the gas chamber - returns to life. Now a monstrous-looking supernatural entity who has the ability to transform into sand at will (to sneak under doorways, through keyholes, etc.), The Sandman has three days to hunt down and kill a now-grown Griffin (Jay Underwood), who's working in L.A. as a freelance journalist. If The Sandman is able to track down and dispose of Griffin, he will also gain immortality in the process.

After establishing its premise, we are then treated to... Well, not a whole lot actually. The Sandman (who is given an utterly predictable childhood trauma back story in brief flashbacks) kills a few people in surprisingly tame ways. Someone's thrown off a balcony. Another is drown in sand. A head is knocked against a wall. There's nothing memorable or clever going on here despite ample opportunity for both, and there's also a curious absence of blood and gore; almost as if they were trying to avoid an R rating (which the film got, anyway). Though the makeup design on the killer is actually really good, the other fx; a mixture of simply reversing the film (for the sand fx) and primitive and dated early CGI; are quite poor.

The absolute worst thing about this one though is its complete lack of logic and how stupid the characters are. Our heroes learn early on that water is an effective means of fighting off the reanimated killer (who is - of course - made of sand and easily dissolved), so what do they do? They run from him, attempt to shoot him, heave a Molotov cocktail at him and fight him in other silly ways. If I were around to help, I'd be yelling something like, "Hey, go stand in the shower!" or "Why not take a relaxing dip in a hot tub until this guy's time runs out?" Speaking of time running out, the killer is given his three days to kill his target and has ample opportunity to do so throughout the film. During one scene, Griffin is even behind bars when The Sandman pays him a visit. Instead, the killer decides to taunt him and waits until the last minute of the last day to really make his move.

I really do have to give some credit to the cast, though, for at least trying. Despite being given some extremely corny dialogue, Harris gives an effective performance as the killer, and Underwood and Kathryn Morris (playing the obligatory love interest) are as appealing as possible under the circumstances. Cult horror star Ken "Dawn of the Dead" Foree, looking atypically dumpy here, gets a few scenes as one of the detectives, but it's a forgettable, throwaway part.

Sleep Baby Sleep...

[Philip_Pugh · 7/10 · 30 November 2003]

A serial killer, thinking he's the sandman goes on a rampage trying to kill families that match a certain description. He is caught by police just as he's about to kill his intended victim, a little boy Griffin. The sandman is locked away. He later kills himself and upon his reincarnation he takes up from where he left off and sets out to kill a grown up Griffin.

Incredibly low budget and looks very cheap, but it's not the worst film in the world. It is infact moderately entertaining with a pretty good story. The production team make the best of what little budget they have, using some very low budget camera shots in places allowing them to spend a little more money on some bigger effects shots else where.

The acting and direction is fairly average but doesn't lower itself to being bad or too cheesy. The sentimental bulls**t is also thin on the ground which is pleasantly surprising for a film like this where they would try and make up for the lack of budget with sentiment and crap dialogue in the script.

Fairly good, watch it if it comes on TV but don't go out of your way to see it.

7/10

'Ate too much fast food...'

[wellthatswhatithinkanyway · 4/10 · 22 July 2005]

STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits

As a child, Griffin (Jay Underwood) was sent to sleep by his parents who rested his troubled little mind and told him there was no such thing as 'the Sandman.' On that same night, a serial killer going by that very name breaks into their home and 'puts them to sleep.' Now, seventeen years later, he's executed on death row and Griffin, now a successful writer, is able to lay his past to rest. Or so he thinks-the 'Sandman' just made a pact with the devil to be resurrected and come back to finish the task and kill Griffin. But, as the story progresses, twists and turns occur that shed a different light on the whole topic...

I've been in a horror kinda mood all of this week, and so, out of the many films I've had piled up to be watched, I selected this little horror piece.

I can't say it succeeds in being really scary in any way, and the soundtrack is kinda irritating ('sleeeeeeeeeeep, baby, sleeeeeeeeeep'-I'd turn into a serial killer if I heard that all the time!) And some of the character motivations and dialogue shed a whole new light for me ('I've heard all the serial killer excuses in the world...ate too much fast food...', never heard that one before!!!) As for the performances, they're generally all pretty terrible with the exception perhaps of Michael Harris as the Sandman, even though he kept reminding me of Henry Silva out of Nico and Morty out of The Fear.

But, there is a clever twist at the end of it, I suppose, and some okay effects in places. So generally not much to write home about, but not a completely wasted horror experience.

'Ate too much fast food...' **

Although it was not entirely original it had enough creepy moments to make it all worth while, especially the Sandman's Lullaby

[NostromoX · 8/10 · 29 December 1998]

Although the movie reminded me of the "Freddy" films and the movie "Dust Devil," It had enough creepy moments to make it a worthwhile viewing. A repeated flashback/dream sequence was exceptionally disturbing and the Sandman's Lullaby was really chilling. Also, the ending was unexpected. Some thought and creativity went onto the Special Effects and for once the killer was underplayed.

Interesting but flawed.

[billybillgratie · 6/10 · 27 November 2017]

This was playing over at my friends's house recently, so to be fair I missed the first twenty minutes but what I did see was a movie that had a lot in common with Freddy Krueger and Horace Pinker. For a knockoff, it had relatively solid pacing. The casting was slightly off but all the performers could act. I wouldn't say it's a horrible way to waste a evening. So much 90's-ness in it too.

C to the AMP

[jaxjag03 · 2/10 · 25 March 2006]

I don't get why no one has seen this movie. In retrospect, it fills all three of the qualifications that should be necessary for it to gain eternal infamy. Those are:

1. Campy 2. Crappy 3. Cult

I mean, come on, who couldn't love dialogue like, "That freaking freak!" or the classic, "You psychotic sack of #%$@!" And the special effects are so awful, you've got to love them! Can't afford to use computers to make sand fall up? Hey, no problem, just dump it out of a ceiling vent and play the tape in reverse!

And the acting, oh man, you've gotta love the acting! There's Michael Harris, who actually looks like he's trying to make something of the Sandman--though he's working way too hard to be semi-scary--and Jay "OHMIGOD!!!!!!" Underwood, who makes William Shatner look like a student of William Shakespeare, and whose most famous role might (sadly) be the one he was (mercifully) never seen in--as The Human Torch in the unreleased 1994 version of "The Fantastic Four," which actually sucked considerably less than the big-budget 2005 version (but still sucked, nonetheless). Honestly, the only actor in this movie who seems to recognize this project for what it is (and play her role as such) is Kathryn Morris, who adds the obligatory moderately-attractive chick to the film. She's just helpless enough to be a B-movie horror villain, yet just resourceful enough to be a B-movie heroine. It's worth noting that Morris is literally the ONLY person involved with this film who is still doing anything more significant than the odd one-shot guest appearance on Law & Order clones.

Listen, this movie is not a masterpiece, and suggesting it as such is just ludicrous. In fact, it may be one of the worst movies I've ever seen, but it's bad in an endearing way. What's most unfortunate of all is that if a talented horror director like Wes Craven with a decent budget and a competent cast were to get their hands on this script, it could be a pretty good film. The story is there, but the acting, the directing, the special effects, and, you know, the intelligence aren't. As it stands, you can do a whole lot worse in those $5 bargain bins at Wal-Mart, but you can make your $5 go a whole lot farther if you spend it on a bag of chocolate. Unless you've got a sense of humor as sick as mine, you'll enjoy the chocolate a lot more than you will this 90-minute running gag of a film.

yawn!

[davethorne700 · 11 February 2003]

At first glance this looks like a complete rip off of the far superior "Dust Devil" (check out the opening credits). The characters are laughably wafer thin - especially the Hispanic gang banger. But fair play the guy who plays the evil priest hams it up to superb effect (the funniest thing about this movie). I can't believe I actually sat through this and I can honestly say as a long time horror movie fan, there is nothing to report here. Zero suspense and about as scary as a big fluffy bunny!

Exit light, enter ripoff

[BandSAboutMovies · 2/10 · 31 October 2018]

Sometimes, I'm a glutton for punishment. Other times, my acid reflux wakes me up at 3:30 AM and I stay awake watching 1990's direct-to-video horror. This would be both of those things at once. Imagine a movie that rips off both Shocker and A Nightmare on Elm Street at the same time, but also has voodoo and a bad guy made out of sand.

Seventeen years after slaughtering all but one member of Griffin's (Jay Underwood, Bug from Uncle Buck) family, The Sandman is finally set to be executed. But just like Horace Pinker, he has an escape plan. The minister who delivers his last rites is really a voodoo priest who transforms him into a man made of sand. Now, the Sandman must find Griffin, who he has a connection to, and kill him.

Look, here's the spoiler, because no one should have to suffer through this film like I have. They're brothers. Are there any other reasons to watch this? Ken Foree from Night of the Living Dead is in it. He's also in Death Spa and Phantom of the Mall: Eric's Revenge, if you want to further go down the rabbit hole that is 1990's video store horror.

Come for the Sandman, stay for the Mexican gang subplot, stick around for the voodoo, fall asleep before the end. I guess the Sandman lives up to his name!

A blast!

[Lenoir-2 · 2/10 · 6 July 2000]

This movie tried so hard to make itself scary even though the plot was crap. It's great fun to watch. The special effects are terrible and the acting is worse. It's hysterical the way that Griffin's jaw drops. I recommend seeing this if you're not prepared for a good movie.

Sleep is certainly an apt theme for this movie

[dowling1981 · 1/10 · 3 November 2006]

This is quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen. The fact that I saw it quite late at night without falling asleep halfway through is probably due more to the power of caffeine than any qualities inherent in this film - of which there are zilch. It is clichéd, abysmally acted, frighteningly dull and rather confusing. It is one of those films where you cant quite believe that during the course of filming no one in the production company stopped and said "hang on, this is rubbish, people wont buy this!". The only circumstance in which someone would voluntarily sit through this movie would be if they had just arrived here from Mars and had never seen a movie before and had no concept of what a movie was. Now let us never mention this film ever again - "Sleepstalker" never happened.

Lame idea, lame special effects...(*SPOILER*)

[palm21 · 3/10 · 14 December 2000]

I decided to watch this movie, because there was absolutely nothing on television(25 channels and nothing to watch, sigh...). I didn't really expect a good movie, but in the end it even exceeded my expectations. SPOILER ALERT It was WAY worse. The story is so simple you get bored of it in approximately 5 minutes. The movie is full of stereotypes(the fat policeman, the weird writer and his photographer girlfriend). The sand man himself is absolutely not scary(c'mon he kills people by drowning them in sand). Also the scenes in which he chases them are really lame, since he never runs and still somehow always catches up with them. The acting is so poor that it's really annoying. The ending is also enormously weird. It gave me the idea that the main character's actor suddenly decided to quit with the movie, because suddenly he's dead and then never seen again. Most of the movie is involved in keeping the main character away from the sandman and then suddenly he's dead! The part of the sandman being his brother is just so cliche. Conclusion: B horror movie, with the lamest special effects in years and really really poor acting...

If you need a film to fall asleep to, this is it.

[Rob_Taylor · 1/10 · 25 December 2002]

I saw this movie a little while ago. For a killer who is apparently made of sand, two things were immediately obvious to me, the viewer. Water would slow him down and as I suspected, there would be a fiery demise for him.

The hero is someone you don't actually care about so it's mostly just a big sigh of relief at the end when the Sandman offs him.

But why oh why do all directors, when the scene calls for a handgun, pick a Desert Eagle? IMI (the company that makes them) either has the biggest product placement deal in the universe, or are simply rubbing their hands in glee at all the free coverage it gets. They are in everything. Simply because they are the biggest handgun in the world doesn't make them the best. But as far as directors go, size apparently does matter.

Anyway, the film sucks terribly and seems to go on forever. If you need a film to fall asleep to, this is it.

too typical but still worthwhile

[Semih · 6/10 · 19 June 2000]

{possible spoilers} This move is one of those horror wannabe movies where the actors never do the one thing that would actually kill the stalker. We've got this sandman dude who is made from sand so he can pass through the tiniest cracks. So what would be the best weapon to get rid of a sand stalker? Of course it's water. There even is a scene where the stalker can' step into a room because there is water on the floor. And here are our heroes running away from sandman and I am sitting in front of the TV going "water, throw water!" but it never happens. The chase scenes were very typical hollywood stalker chase scenes, the acting and special effects were decent enough to make the movie watchable.

If Spider-man's arch villain became a homicidal killer.

[Aaron1375 · 4/10 · 30 March 2009]

Yes, this movie has a man executed and returned as the Sandman a supernatural killer that does in fact have about the same powers as the villain from the Spidey comic books. He must kill now and his main target is his younger brother. Creepy music played, strange truths revealed near the end, and lots of sand and not all that much gore. In fact, he does kill his victims in rather different ways from other movie slasher/monsters. The movie has some good in it, with that it has just to much bad. The whole using sand to kill gets old and is a bit lame, sand is just not all that scary. Well unless of course you are in the desert and in the middle of a sandstorm. There are some interesting plot points, and there is one kill that occurs near the end that makes one who watches this type of movie go "that is not supposed to happen". They try to kill the sandman in differing ways, one of those ways backfires and leads to the death above. I do not know, I think they had an interesting concept going for them, but maybe they needed to do something with the killer perhaps making him more of a supernatural slasher who turned to sand only to get to his victims and not as a means to kill them. I mean that one scene involving that girl in the bed was really over the top.

Fascinating

[Jiji-3 · 10/10 · 22 February 2005]

It's a haunting movie, rather fascinating and I fail to understand why the ratings are so abysmal. There's more depth and subtlety to it than people would expect from this genre (maybe that's the problem), and the supernatural elements never seem forced or out of place. The antagonist is the kind of antagonist you're expected (and given every reason to) hate and fear and although you do, at the same time you don't because understanding him comes naturally. The storyline is far from predictable, the acting is good, and the soundtrack has its moments of brilliance. However, in my experience the ambiance was what made Sleepstalker unique. I saw it once on TV a year after it was released and it's been with me ever since. Highly recommended.

'Sandman's coming to dust more than your eyes, baby!'

[Weirdling_Wolf · 7/10 · 4 March 2022]

'Sleepstalker' is the rare exception to the oft reiterated internet theorem that most low-budget 90s horrors were pony, as, for me at least, this modestly marvellous DTV doozie rocked a little less timorously than you might have originally thought!! Turi Meyer's mythically menacing 'Sleepstalker' (1995) also features beloved horror icon Ken Foree as Stoic Detective Rolands!!!! Hellz yeah, dude!!!! While ultimately it's a cheap and skeevey 'Shocker' knock-off, it's got a deliciously dusted, hoodoo-voodoo terror-twist in the tale! Right on!!!! 'Sandman's coming to dust more than your phooken eyes, baby!' And, ohhhh!!! Yeah!!! The deliciously rudimentary CGI scene is a legit double-take gasser!! While 'Sleepstalker' is the frequently forgotten fright-flick that can usually be found on a budget DVD collection with 3 other wholly unrelated, infinitely more grot-laden titles, its ignominious relegation to the B-Horror 'dust' bin of DVD doom is not entirely justified!

Rip-off with great effects

[Leofwine_draca · 5/10 · 21 August 2015]

SLEEP STALKER is a mid '90s straight-to-video horror flick that borrows heavily from the NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET series. In it, a kid is terrorised by a serial killer who kills his parents. The guy is sent to Death Row and executed years later, but unfortunately for the now grown up boy, his spirit returns in the literal form of the 'Sandman' and now he wants to finish his earlier job.

The similarities between this film's villain and Freddy Krueger are too obvious to ignore, but otherwise this isn't bad at all for an STV horror film. I quite like the look of these mid-'90s horror efforts, with their crisp photography and good use of set locations for lots of action-focused horror. The acting is nothing to write home about, but since when did we watch these films for the acting anyway? Where this film excels is in its use of special effects. I'm normally not a fan of CGI work, but the early CGI in this film is much better than it is in more recent efforts. The villain is literally a man made of sand and the blowing sand effects look great. The kills are pretty creative too, and despite the usual B-movie trappings this turns out to be an entertaining little movie; much better than it should be given the circumstances.