Boogeyman (2005) Reviews

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

  claudio_carvalho2005-11-02

  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")

  More

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

  Error_PC_LOAD_LETTER2006-03-15

  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.

  More

• I Hate this film!

  HeartCollector2005-12-15

  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!

  More

• Not sure why everyone hates this movie

  dcwebman2006-12-28

  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.

  More

• I've Coughed Up Scarier Stuff Than This

  moniker_jones2005-11-06

  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-

  More