Boogeyman (2005) User Reviews

Typical January Horror Flick

[christian123 · 3/10 · 18 April 2005]

Tim (Barry Watson) must return to his childhood home and confront the visions that have terrified him his whole life. When he gets there, the evil forces behind the visions are given another chance to get their hands on him.

The story sounds a lot like Darkness Falls from a few years back. That film was pretty disappointing but it was pretty stylish. Boogeyman is more or less the same. It offers a few decent scares and it is pretty stylish. However, the film is kind of a joke, using cheap tactics to scare it's audience. The attempted scares are all cheap loud noises, which might make you jump if you watch the movie in a theater full of girls. There were maybe a few scenes that did scare me. Like the first fifteen minutes or so are pretty creepy but then the film falls back into generic land. It rates a three on the horror scale.

The acting isn't as bad as one would expect. Barry Watson gives a decent performance but he isn't good enough to truly save the film. Emily Deschanel also gives a decent performance, nothing special. Lucy Lawless has a small role and she makes the most out of it. Skye McCole Bartusiak offers the worst performance and her character is pretty pointless. Director Stephen T. Kay can't really build up suspense well. All he does is film the main character scaring himself to death and it all becomes a bit silly after awhile.

A big problem with the film is the script. It's very poor and it doesn't make a lot of sense. The ending is especially random and nothing is explained at all. The reason why the story is weak is because of the very short running time. 85 minutes is too short to tell a real effective story with this type of material. If they had bothered to write a decent story with decent scares then the movie would have been a lot better. However they didn't and Boogeyman ends up being a ridiculous and disappointing horror film. In the end, while better than The Grudge, this lame horror film is still not really worth watching. Rating 5/10

Directors and Producers take note !!! Learn from this movie's mistakes.

[Error_PC_LOAD_LETTER · 2/10 · 15 March 2006]

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.

I Hate this film!

[HeartCollector · 1/10 · 15 December 2005]

Soooo I ended up seeing this film at the cinema cos my half brother is a moron who only likes bland Hollywood movies... I could have said no... no... I won't suffer the indignity but foolishly I figured "Hey, at least I'm not paying for it" and tagged along... but I did pay... oh lord I did pay...

This film is basically about a middle class twenty-something advertising executive (with a hot rich girlfriend and a really slick car)... who is frightened of cupboards!!!!!!!! CUPBOARDS!!!!! I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. This is apparently due to some childhood trauma that occurs in the opening scene but to be honest I'm not sure exactly what happened cos the sequence looked like it was shot and edited by an epileptic who had taken an amphetamine overdose. It seems to have become accepted in Hollywood that the best way to make a scary movie is to direct it like a Britney spears music video... admittedly thats pretty terrifying but not if you:

Cast bland, wooden actors... Base all your scares on tired haunted house cliché's (The wardrobe scene was one of the most poorly executed horror sequences I've ever seen, void of tension, void of style and the pay off is so lame even a black cat hissing and jumping on him would have been preferable)... Layer the most annoyingly intrusive score over everything... Make no attempt at narrative cohesion... Drench the final scene in childish CGI...

If this film had contained even a shred of lightheartedness about it I might have found it tolerable but everything about it was so po-faced and serious, I find it hard to believe anyone could enjoy this film on any level. It's almost impossible to relate to any of the characters, mainly because they are so miserable and unlikeable and as a result it's impossible to CARE whether they live/die/disappear/get snatched by a stupid purple comic book character.

I recommend that anyone who is remotely considering seeing this film does not do so for their own well being and the sake of their souls... Don't become like me! Don't become a bitter purple CGI freak who hides in cupboards thinking about how much he wants to flame this film on every website on the internet... I hate this film! AAARGH!

I've Coughed Up Scarier Stuff Than This

[moniker_jones · 2/10 · 6 November 2005]

The one genuinely scary moment in director Stephen Kay's laughable excuse for a horror film occurs during the end credits, when the audience discovers that it actually took three professional screenwriters to pen this abominable nightmare. The last few years have been a golden age for modestly budgeted fright flicks. Last fall's The Grudge proved that if you market a film well and release it at just the right time, there's no end to the money you can make. I walked away from that film rather disappointed, but my confusion paled in comparison to the slack-jawed bewilderment that consumed me during Boogeyman.

The film's opening sequence features a man being ravaged by an unseen monster while his son observes helplessly. Fifteen years later we discover that Tim (Barry Watson) has never properly dealt with his father's sudden, grisly death. After learning that his mother has passed away, Tim returns home for her funeral. While in town he decides to face his fears by staying overnight in his unusually creepy boyhood home.

A series of muddled, incomplete ideas figure their way into the plot, but ultimately the story is nonsensical and just plain stupid. As with most recent horror films, Boogeyman provides no real terror, and instead attempts to startle the viewer by adding abrupt, loud noises to the soundtrack. The final straw is the title character itself, revealed briefly during the film's climax to be nothing more than a ridiculous, computer-animated mess. Avoid this moronic snoozefest like the plague.

Rating: D-

Scary Effects, Promising but Empty Story, Awful and Ridiculous Conclusion

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 2 November 2005]

Tim (Barry Watson) is a young man with a great trauma: when his father left his family sixteen years ago, in his imagination his father was indeed taken by the Boogeyman. In Thanksgiving, while visiting the family of his girlfriend Jessica (Tory Mussett), his uncle Mike (Philip Gordon) calls him informing that his mother has just passed away. Tim travels to his hometown, meets his former crush Kate Houghton (Emily Deschanel) and advised by his shrink, decides to spend the night is in old home to face the monster of his imagination. Along the night, weird events happen with Tim and his closest friends.

"Boogeyman" was really a great deception for me. I saw the trailer and I expected a promising story, exploring the fear of darkness of children through the American legend of the monster in the closet. (Note: in Brazil, we do not have the legend of the "monster in the closet". The legend of the Boogeyman does exist (it is called "Bicho-Papão"), but its location is not specified and certainly is not necessarily in a closet). However, the story is very empty, without explanation, and with an awful and ridiculous conclusion. In the DVD, there is a not good alternate ending, but better and better than the released conclusion. The scary effects and the music score are the best this movie can offer. "Boogeyman" is watchable, not a masterpiece of the genre, but also not among "the worst horror movies" as commented by some users. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "O Pesadelo" ("The Nightmare")

Skip this one.

[jade_fine · 15 February 2005]

Something I've noticed lately is that horror movies make for great previews. When I saw the trailer for BOOGEYMAN I was thinking, "This film is gonna rock!" WRONG! This is another terrible Hollywood scare flick that couldn't scare a 12 year old. I jumped more at the preview than the movie. The worst part is the story is so heavy handed that it steals any fun out of this convoluted mess. Let's remember what were making here, guys, it ain't no Oscar contender. Too bad the movie wasn't just a shade worse so it could enter that so-bad-it's good realm. This one is just bad.

There are a lot of great horror movies out there these days so skip this one!

Not sure why everyone hates this movie

[dcwebman · 8/10 · 28 December 2006]

I watched this movie first on DVD with the lights turned off, no distractions, and was surprised at how thrilling the movie was. So much so that I had to buy the DVD. I came to IMDb to see some particulars of the cast and was amazed at all the people that did not like the movie.

I have certainly seen my share of horror movies starting back when Halloween first opened and through all the slasher flicks of the early 80's and the Japan-based horror movies of today. There have certainly been scarier movies than Boogeyman, but I sure got my share of thrills, jumps, and scares out of it.

Sure, there are some unanswered questions at the end but I find that often in this genre like stuff that doesn't make sense, why did that happen, and what happened to...? The reason you watch a horror movie is to be scared, thrilled, and frightened and with this movie you will be.

The best thing I liked seeing was that this movie didn't have to resort to all the blood and gore that most horror movies seem to have just to be scary. So pop that DVD in, get the kids out of the room, turn off the lights, and just enjoy the movie for what it tries to do, give you a thrill.

Boogeyman opens all the closet doors you could want from a horror

[bashfulbadger · 6/10 · 29 April 2014]

In this, the delectable Barry Watson has grown up into a big old scaredy cat after a childhood encounter with the titular character, who he believes he saw snatch his Dad and drag him into a bedroom closet.

Our sympathetic lead is frightened of his own shadow and subjected to a myriad of spooky goings on that would have many a more stalwart hero cowering under the bed. In a neat inversion of the stereotypical paedophile scenario, he's a man in an overcoat pursued by an unknown prepubescent girl (Skye McCole Bartusiak), nervously confronting and challenging her: 'Why are you following me around?'

The shocks come fast and furious; the acting is convincing; and the denouement, criticised by many reviewers, surprisingly satisfying. I think this deserves way more than 4.1, even though we don't have the boogeyman back here in the Old World.

Waste Of DVD Money

[darby777 · 1/10 · 20 April 2006]

The movie had so much potential just by the subject matter, but as usual the title was more exciting then the movie. No explanation of the Boogeyman, No real plot to think of...if there was ever a story line, it must be laying on the editing room floor or by now in some landfill. The acting was bad, the story line was bad, the direction was bad, the editing was bad, the writing was bad, the special effects were bad, and the short clip of the children in the house that were suppose to be victims of the Boogeyman could have been left out of the movie. It added nothing to the plot or mystery or even likability of the movie, it's characters, or even the Boogeyman. If someone decides to make a re-make of this movie about the Boogeyman, please call me. The nightmares I've had as a child about the Boogeyman far surpass the "should have been G rated" bad comedy about an evil that has frighten adults and children alike for centuries.

Boogeyman is the most horribly directed horror movie of the past few years.

[Dushku_Fan77 · 2/10 · 5 February 2005]

Boogeyman was an awful piece of cinema. I had a hunch before I saw it, but i thought it would at least provide enough action and/or entertainment to keep me happily occupied like Darkness Falls did. Who knew my low expectations would be so let down? Boogeyman is the most terribly directed horror movie i've ever seen. I've never felt so humiliated by a movie. As a horror fan, I go into most movies expecting a couple of cheap jump scenes, but at least a genuine fright or two after a few minutes of being kept on the edge of my seat. Boogeyman shat all over this theory. For example, out of nowhere, this loud ass music would blast me awake, show me a 2 second slide show of a dead child and green "scary" eyes, and then continue as normal as if it didn't happen. As this tactic was repeated several times, I began to become really frustrated. The scenes were totally pointless! The quick cuts came out of nowhere and were forgotten in sub-seconds. By the third or fourth time it happened, I wasn't evenly remotely scared.

I could also rant about the acting, or the lack there of, but come on, we are talking about a no-substance horror movie here. This isn't "The Ring" or a movie that contains heavy characterizations. So I won't spend much time on it other than saying it was craptacular, as one should expect.

The special effects were downright terrible. I've seen better in video games for PSone, especially during the climax. Then again, we the audience aren't the best judges of special effects at the end because, o yeah, you can't make out a goddamn thing that is happening! All the sudden characters are flying through the air and there are flashes of purple lightning. Even Hollow man makes an appearance, i think.

Anyway, from a fan of horror movies - including Darkness Falls - I'm warning you, don't see this movie! I am giving Boogeyman a 2/10 for the only two things I liked about it. First was an effective seen involving a bunch of dead children, and second was a great jump scene that involves Barry Watson's dead mother.

Utterly boring rubbish. Complete waste of time and money.

[gsh999 · 1/10 · 1 May 2006]

When I say waste of money, I mean both the $1 I spent to rent this DVD and the film makers who spent money to make this piece of garbage. I'm not so upset about losing the dollar - I mostly regret the waste of 90 minutes of my life. There is nothing entertaining in this move - not even any nudity.

We're supposed to believe that a monster lives in a kid's closet. No explanation where the monster comes from or anything. Is it a ghost? Is it an alien? Who knows? Who cares? The monster snatches the kid's father which freaks the kid out. Later the kid goes back to the house and confronts the monster. That's the plot. Woohoo!

Even a stupid idea like this could be forgiven or forgotten if the movie otherwise provided chills, thrills, or laughs. Unfortunately, none of that stuff here. The big showdown with the monster is a joke, and possibly the only (unintentionally) funny part of the movie.

This movie has no redeeming qualities and is not even worth a $1 rental. I gave it 1/10.

The only thing scary is Sam Raimi thinks this was releaseable!

[george.schmidt · 1/10 · 8 February 2005]

BOOGEYMAN (2005) 0* Barry Watson, Emily Deschanel, Skye McCole Bartusiak, Lucy Lawless, Tory Mussett, Robyn Malcolm, Charles Mesure. Vapid, convoluted non-sensical mess of alleged 'horror' film about a young man (vanilla Watson) making a reluctant homecoming to face his fears in the form of the urban legend of the closet monster that may (or may not; frankly who cares??!!!) have killed his father years ago. Not one sequence to the next has a cohesive thought or relation to the other is just the beginning of this inept genre flick with some laughable 'creature' f/x to say the least. Just plain sucks. Producer Sam Raimi should be ashamed of himself for torturing us with this crap. (Dir: Stephen T. Kay)

Good movie, when judged by horror standards.

[malkkontent · 7/10 · 3 February 2005]

Concept: It's the Boogeyman, you don't get a better concept then that. ever. It's also impossible to pull off... or IS it ?

Story: Pretty good, get weird near the middle too....

Acting: Pretty good. I think the lead guy did a pretty good Job, so good I thought he was the Nutboy from Freddy vs Jason (who is REALLY good IMHO). There's character aspects that it's hard to tell if they're intentional or not. I.E: Stars girlfriend being an idiot ... but it works. Some parts come off as trying too hard.. but there's no mindless screaming.

Atmosphere: They did a pretty good job, but blow it on cheap jumps... then bring it back up , then blow it on a jump ... it gets to the point where instead of getting into the atmosphere you wait for the next jump. BUT, and this is huge... It doesn't waste the bad guy at stupid moments. It keeps it till the end. I'll give 'em that.

Camera: Nice angles , great work , EXCEPT for when important!? "Bad things" happen then the camera just spins around like crazy. I know what they were going for: tension, Chaos , confusion, vulnerability.. and it worked.. the first time... then the head aches start.

SFX: Pretty awesome except for the Boogeyman.. seriously CGI DOESN'T WORK FOR HORROR !!!! O.k, for touch ups, atmosphere etc it CAN work... but not for the Bad guy...

Physics Or Film Reality: actually confused a lot of people.. personally I LOVE what they did regarding the reality of the story. they set the rules, and the rules kinda made sense. I'm a little iffy on the ghost thing... but other then that I say good job folks.

Ending: (I mean the ending ending) LAME! , Total tease. I was expecting one more jump since they've been tossing' em in all over... nothing. This was the one part where something extra could've ACTUALLY been useful.

Basically if they didn't over do it on cheap shocks/crazy camera, less cgi for the Boogyman they would've nailed it. But they tried to take on the Boogeyman, that's as ballsy as doing Lovecraft and as near impossible.

Great Movie

[main_production · 8/10 · 22 April 2005]

I don't really get all the people who say this is a terrible movie. I went to the theater yesterday with my girl and it's really scary. My girl was so scared so almost run out of the theater.

If you have no imagination than this movie is not so scary, but when you do... The cold chills run down my back now and then. It gave me the same feeling as "They" ...when I got home I had to check under the bed and in the closet. (I'm 24 years old and afraid of nobody)

Specially the beginning when the boy is laying in bed. Everybody can find himself in that. Because you don't see the Boogeyman very good, makes it really scary. I most admit that when you DO see him he is less scary then you thought. That's the only down thing on this movie.

One word. Great movie ;-)

Greetz Way2Evil

Under rated

[mm-39 · 6/10 · 16 March 2005]

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

Pretty Much A Disappointment.

[BraveHawk · 5/10 · 14 March 2005]

Boogeyman is pretty much your standard horror movie which tries too hard to be different, but in reality, is about the same as every mediocre new horror movie that comes out nowadays.

Barry Watson stars as Tim Jensen, who since he was a young child, has been afraid of the Boogeyman that not only lives in his closet, but seems to be able to beam himself to any closet in the world and he uses that power to take those who Tim loves. We are treated to a decent scene at the beginning, where Tim is a child and witnesses his father being taken by the evil Boogeyman. The entire movie is basically Tim running from the dark, similar to Darkness Falls in a way.

Boogeyman does do some things right, however. For instance, it makes you wait until nearly the end to see the Boogeyman face to face, but this is very anti-climatic. You never get a clear look and when you do, it looks like a human painted black. Not much to it there. The feel of the movie was great, with the eery sound effects of the wind whistling and the house always creaking. In surround sound, this has quite a creepy effect, but when it is non-stop and in every location, it becomes tiresome. Other than a few scenes that are designed to make you jump, there is not much else to this movie. The ending leaves you less than satisfied and not even sure what just happened. I give 4.5 of 10 stars.

Had its moments.... could have been better

[learn2swim · 5/10 · 6 February 2005]

I really enjoyed the first three-fourths of the film as the suspense, angles, and sound really worked. I found myself buying into the movie, characters, and most importantly, the villain. Unfortunately the ending comes all too quickly. The first thought which ran thru my head as the credits were rolling was this.."Hmmmm..it looks like they suddenly went over budget and just had to stop making the film". In fact, half the audience were staying in their seats, waiting for something outrageous to happen, as if the credits were just a muse. I think it is safe to say, I was not the only one who felt the movie couldn't end where it did. I enjoyed the overall experience, but it definitely left me wishing for more.

Not really that bad,with a few good scares,but still a bit of a missed opportunity

[DrLenera · 25 March 2005]

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.

annoying not scary

[shempzine · 3/10 · 5 February 2005]

This is yet another mediocre horror film. I really don't know why I wasted my seeing this. After THE GRUDGE, I should've remembered not to assume having Sam Raimi's name tacked on does not equal quality. (Is Raimi becoming the new Wes Craven?). Like other unscary films of late, this thinks quick edits and loud "shock" music make up for plot holes, zero characterization, and too many unanswered questions. The plot twists are nothing you haven't seen before in better supernatural thrillers. As for Lucy Lawless fans: don't bother. She's barely in it. Considering her husband is one of the producers, shouldn't she be getting better parts (or at least ones that showcase her talent). All this film made me want to do is dig out a copy of POLTERGEIST, PHANTASM, or the original HAUNTING. Skip this one altogether.

Laughable

[iamthehollow · 1/10 · 25 July 2005]

This is a warning, this film is dire. Its storyline is vapid and thread-bare, It appears to be three scripts cobbled together, very very badly. The 'actors' are weak, the lead looks like a cross between Daniel Beddingfield and Mathew Rose off Eastenders, he's poor and often looks bemused. Cant honestly remember what the female was like, was there one? This is how good it was, I stayed with it right till the end, but with hindsight that was an error, as the resolution was VERY poor and not surely what the script writers had in mind, as all signs were about something very different. Its like the director had a dream where he thought he was David Lynch and then woke up and wrote a film, but halfway through writing it he decided to watch 'celebrity wrestling' and got a bit distracted. Don't WASTE YOUR CASH.

I've seen worse

[Random439 · 5/10 · 31 July 2005]

This movie is about a man who had a traumatic childhood incident involving a boogeyman that left him permanently afraid of closets. Naturally, the boogeyman comes back into his life and trouble starts again. If this doesn't interest you so far, skip this film. If this grabs your interest, you may want to give it a try.

The Good: The directing was good overall, varying from crappy MTV-style shaky incoherent garbage to some strong mood building and memorable visuals. The acting was all well within acceptable limits. There are a number of suspenseful scenes that may make you jump, especially if you already have a thing about closets/boogeymen/The-Thing-Under-The-Bed. There is some very brief nudity.

The Bad: The main character has no real personality other than being traumatized by the boogeyman, and he doesn't even do that well. He should have post-traumatic stress, but he constantly will do things like position himself places where he can be seen, but cannot see anything creeping up on him. Most people I know with PTS sit with their backs to a wall at all times, and keep their eyes on the door. If this guy is so screwed up by the Boogeyman, you would at least think that he might take some precautions. Having no real personality, the main character gives the audience little to nothing to identify with. I found myself not really caring whether he lives or dies.

The Ugly: The main problem with this movie is a common ailment that I call "Why Is This Happening Syndrome." The main symptom of WITHS is that the only reason for the plot to occur is because somebody thought it would make a cool horror movie. Secondary symptoms include: -Shallow characters with little personality -An overemphasis on special effects over substance -Incoherent or badly written plot. In this case, there is no reason why the boogeyman should exist. His existence is not explained by the film, and the motivations and actions of the creature seem rather random from within the story, making sense only from the external perspective of "It would be scary for __________ to happen next..."

Overall, I give this movie a 5 out of 10 on my personal scale of 10 being perfection and 1 being Ang Lee's Hulk. It is watchable and enjoyable. There are a few boring bits, but the good scenes make up for the bad scenes (or at least balance things out fairly well).

not bad

[bobbie4life · 4/10 · 16 March 2005]

I thought this film wasn't that bad, it was better than i thought it would be. The scenes do make you jump with the sharp sounds , this does has an effect to the way he moves, well it did to me anyway, especially when his mum appears. I thought the story was that he came from under the bed, didn't really know he was everywhere. sounds has a wasn't that keen on the ending though, as you actually saw him it just looked like a better but still poor version of jeepers creepers killer. All in all i didn't think it wasn't that bad, it was good idea to bring 'The Boogeyman' to life as i'm sure nearly everyone has heard the stories, it is worth the look P.S. I really liked the song at the ending credits, i can't seem to find who it is, does anyone know?

Worst "screw you" ending I've ever seen.

[saviorofmetal · 1/10 · 8 June 2005]

My god. I've just finished watching this piece of trash thanks to my free monthly rental from Blockbuster. This movie has the worst "screw you" ending I've ever seen. Worst CGI ever. You never really get to see the monster. This movie ends very much in the style of the first Jeepers Creepers movie, except this movie sucks much worse. Important characters that disappear are completely forgotten about. All of a sudden, the main character thinks he may have figured out why everything is so f'd up, but he goes ahead and keeps it to himself....Never revealed!! I'm going to urinate on this piece of trash and see if it's flammable.

Statisticly bad, but individually great

[efebas · 10/10 · 26 August 2005]

Great movie for those who were afraid of boogeymen and darkness in their childhood, just like I did. I give it 11+ of 10. The movie has HQ special effects and the idea: face your fears, that is the way to fight them. And this is the way I used in my childhood. I recommend this film for those who know how it feels to be afraid of darkness. The movie has many "fast" scary scenes, which made me remember my childhood fears and this is the main reason why I enjoyed watching it. There are many bad opinions about this film on IMDb, but I do not recommend you listening to them. There is a great statistic possibility of that you will not like this movie, but still i insist you watch it cause you might lose such pleaser as I experienced watching this great movie. Take a risk and give it a try and maybe you will be scary surprised. P.S. sorry for bad grammar of English:)