Boogeyman (2005) User Reviews

Fun. Worth a viewing.

[CMUltra · 5/10 · 7 November 2005]

Pros: An enjoyable take on the boogeyman we fear as children. Nice Raimiesque shock editing.

Cons: Terribly incoherent storyline. Bad acting.

Spoilers follow.

Boogeyman takes the mythos of the monster in the closet and the monster under the bed… or, as seen in the film, above the dropped ceiling panels… and gives it a bit of a spin. Tim, our protagonist, is a little boy when the story begins. He's in bed on a scary night and the shadows are playing tricks on him. Or, are they? Was that a hooded man standing in his room? No, it's just his jacket slung over a chair back. But wait, did it move? He turns on the light and, sure enough, the jacket is now strangely on the floor. He makes enough noise in his fear that his dad comes in to check.

This is a nice beginning as director Kay nicely captures the feelings many of us had when we were little. Afraid of the dark. Able to read all sorts of looming danger into dim sights and faint sounds. And then, finally, a parent coming in to dispel all the notions.

Then the story breaks the rules. The boogeyman is real, pulls dad into the closet and takes him away! Oh, and they weren't really "faint" sounds. This is a very loud house. It creaks and groans like a ship. Kay is not subtle with the sounds for shock value either as sudden screeching and hissing will jolt you out of your seat. Yeah, it's a cheap way to deliver a shock but it worked.

Tim is traumatized and we cut to 15 years later. He's never gotten over the ordeal. He has no closets in his apartment and has even removed the doors from the cabinets. Somehow, though, he's managed to score both a really mint '67 Mustang and a hot, rich blonde (dyed) girlfriend. That's pretty impressive since he doesn't show many qualities. Tim really doesn't do much in the movie other than mumble and give looooooong silent looks of concern.

At his hot girlfriend's house he has a vision of his mother (Lucy Lawless) telling him to look at her. I didn't understand this, and it was never really explained. In fact, there were a lot of disconnected plot lines and loose ends in the movie. Noting multiple writers, I'm guessing this was not a concerted effort but instead went through a lot of patching and overhauls.

Anywho, he knows something is wrong and sure enough, even as he is explicitly stating that something is wrong, his Uncle Mike calls. His mom is dead. Well, Tim has gone along with what his psychiatrists have told him, that there is no boogeyman, that his dad "left" them for no reason, etc. But he darn well knows that the boogeyman is not only real but apparently powerful enough to kill Xena, the Warrior Princess. If the official cause of death for Xena was mentioned in the movie, I missed it. But her face was covered with unnatural scarring. So, I'm guessing the boogeyman did it.

Not only does he return for his mom's funeral but also decides to face his fears and stay in the house. Facing the boogeyman is a theme that the movie sticks in front of us several times. Tim turns out to be rather reluctant to do so, and actually ends up boarding all the closet doors shut at one point.

While at home, he reconnects with a childhood friend who seems to have pined for him, and perhaps him for her as well. Like so many plot points this was incredibly vague and seemed to be another subplot shoehorned in from one of the many revisions. His hot girlfriend also shows up unannounced, having driven to see him. Both of these ladies are due for a visit from the boogeyman.

He also finds a little girl hiding in the tool shed. She explains that she lives nearby and leaves her backpack. He discovers lots of missing posters of children. The children from the poster suddenly appear to him in another vision, all crowded around, looking perfectly healthy (unlike his mom) and calm. They did all grasp at him though so that must mean something dire.

There are some incomplete segments that follow involving his hot girlfriend being taken by the boogeyman from a motel room. His childhood friend almost getting the same. And the little girl turning out to have been abducted in 1985 when she takes him to a house where another man lived who also tried to face the boogeyman.

Oh, and the boogeyman hiding spots (closets, beds, dropped ceilings) are also portals.

We're not sure who lives and dies, since his hot girlfriend was clearly seen alive at some point and still struggling. This may have been a time warp, though, since he left a blood smear on the bathtub which was not there when he first noticed her missing, was there when he went back with the childhood friend, but just made when he struggled… If that sounds confusing, so is the movie.

Another neat concept (to me) was revealed at the end where it seems the boogeyman is able to manifest himself through those same familiar items that take on a more sinister image in the dark. By destroying the items, Tim was able to destroy the boogeyman.

Not all plot points will be resolved but the movie is a fun ride. Relaxed and expecting a bad movie, I got an enjoyable thrill. Slow pacing and a muddled story made the experience uneven.

I wasn't familiar with Kay but noted during the movie how much he had picked up from Raimi, particularly his Evil Dead style close-ups and pans. Then, during the credits, it looked like the Xena crew with Raimi and Rapert, Chloe Smith, Joseph LoDuca, etc. so that made sense.

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-

What the heck?!!

[windjockey · 1/10 · 5 February 2005]

SPOILERS BELOW!!

Apparently very little continuity is required to bring a movie to the screen these days. This is one movie that would have benefited from a massive ground-up screenplay re-write. Boogeyman begins in the childhood bedroom of our hero, Timmy. It is here Tim witnesses his father being brutally...um...what? Killed? Abducted? Sucked into another dimension? I guess we will go with killed for now, killed by something in his closet. Why do we not see the assailant at this time? Because of the stunning plot twist later that reveals the horrifying truth as to the identity of the true killer? Actually no.

Flash forward fifteen years and we have a psychologically unstable Timmy (Barry Watson-or "Matt" from 7th Heaven) living a door free lifestyle in the city. Staying with his girlfriends parents he is visited(?) by his mother in a vision yelling at him to look at her?! What?! Why!? Huh??? The reason for this event will be revealed later in the movie. Wait, no actually it will not.

His mother had just died and Timmy decides to go back to his childhood home, the one with the killer closet, to settle family affairs. Here is where stuff gets weird. While at the house he is visited by a young girl with a basic understanding of what is going on.(she may be the only one) She is found with a backpack full of missing children posters which Timmy open and rifles through. These missing children suddenly appear around our hero clamoring for him.(?) It is later suggested these are all the children that were abducted by the Boogeyman. Why these children are able to visit Timmy and explain what is going on-yet his father cannot, is important and will be revealed later in the movie. Wait, no actually it will not.

Later Timmy leaves the house and stays at a motel where his girlfriend is abducted (not killed!?) by the Boogeyman. Here is where Tim finds a 'portal' in the closet at the motel that leads back to the house.(?) Later in a suggested time warp(?) Timmy finds the Boogeyman fighting with his still alive(?) girlfriend and begins to pursue the evil entity in earnest.(it is at this time the film abandons the fear of the unknown and show us the boogeyman, making this film just a little less thrilling) After destroying all his childhood trinkets in his room, the Boogeyman is sucked into the closet for good, never to return….What?!?! What happened to his girlfriend? Is his father and uncle still alive? In the epilogue the nature of the Boogeyman and the fate of those taken by him will be fully explained. Wait, no actually it will not.

Roll credits.

With a myriad of unanswered questions still lingering, one understands the true importance of a complete plot. Which is why this movie needed a severe re-write. The acting was good enough and the cinematography and direction was typical for a thriller. But the damn thing just did not make sense. Childhood fears coming to deadly fruition can be a great concept if fleshed out with complete ideas and good direction. You wont find that here. For a well done 'monster under the bed' type movie, check out this classic from your video store. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084516/

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!

CGI-man

[ianmutimer · 2/10 · 9 May 2006]

Thanks to this movie, i will now be taking a break from movies of this CC (crap calibre).

Unlike most of my adventures finding a crappy horror movie, i didn't rent this 'movie' because i was attracted by the sleek graphics on the cover, and i sure as heck didn't buy it because of the innovative title. Actually to this day i am still wondering why, why, why God, why?!

Concerning the storyline - this has to be one of the most shallow movies i have ever seen, and i'm not talking about end at the swimming pool shalllow, i'm talking about that drip in the bottom of your coffee/tea mug that you can never get out.

On with my review: The movie starts by introducing the main character as a young boy in bed at night, he is scared because of something - the boogeyman i presume, or CGI-man as i like to call him. Anyway his dad comes in to calm him, and reassure him that 'there is no such thing as the boogeyman'-yes he really says that line. Then he get's pulled into his son's closet by some wind or something. The movie then skips 15 years to him as a mid-twenty year old man. He is fairly successful as i understand - he has a hot girlfriend and a hot car. The only thing that isn't hot is the fact that he manages to find everything scary. I mean everything. I thought it would just be closets - logically as his dad was took into one by CGI-man 15 years ago, but it's everything. Every 10 seconds he suddenly stops walking and turns to stare at a random object with a worried, but confused look upon his face, like he's a little scared but at the same time wondering if he has left his macaroni burning on the stove. It's quite amusing at first, but after around 100 times it becomes a little irritating.

The scariest moment in the movie is when he is driving his car and a bird flies into the window. The best and funniest part is straight after the bird incident, when he stops his car, gets out and just stands there to stare at the road looking quite upset and moved by the bird's death?!

Then his mother dies so he decides to do what anyone would do who is scared of everything - he goes to stay at his childhood house - where his father died/got pulled into a closet. He then meets a childhood friend who is randomly in need of some ice, they then talk about his mothers death, where she says 'sorry about your mom', he responds with 'me too', and she replies with 'how about that ice then?', sweet girl!

Toward the end of the movie the guy is obviously under the illusion he is in 'narnia' and proceeds to walk through the back of the closet in his old house into a hotel room a few miles away? Then his girlfriend disappears, and then his uncle, so he just presumes the boogeyman took them...well what other possible explanation could there be? - well plenty actually - maybe taking the dog for a walk or trying to find the movie director so they can persuade him that it is a lame movie and they should stop filming now.

The ending is not a firework spectacular finale, but then again i didn't expect one after watching 90 minutes of monkey poo. He goes to some house abandoned house and sits on a chair (where some other dude before him attempted to face the boogeyman, but he got to scared and died). He then confronts the boogeyman and he tells him he is not scared of him, there are a few gusts of wind, then the boogeyman dies. The end! You can watch it if you wish, but i suggest you spend 89 minutes trying to find the boogey/CGIman in places such as: your closet/under your bed or on you N64 where similar graphics are displayed.

Feel free to check out my other horror flick reviews. Peace out.

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.

Absolutely terrible.

[BA_Harrison · 1/10 · 12 June 2008]

Tim (Barry Watson), twenty-three years old and a successful editor for a magazine, is scared of dark closets and cupboards, because, as a child, he saw his father pulled into a wardrobe by the Boogeyman. When Tim's mother dies, he returns to the family home, where, once again, he finds that the creature that likes to lurk in dark places is still up to his old tricks.

Boogeyman begins in exactly the same way as Monsters Inc.: with a frightened boy cowering in bed, imagining that everything in his darkened room is a monster. Unlike Monsters Inc., however, this supernatural tale from producers Robert Tapert and Sam Raimi (of Evil Dead/Spiderman fame) is a load of old toss!

Utilising a vast array of pointless visual gimmickry, and relying on an annoying amount of cheap scare tactics to keep its audience from nodding off, Boogeyman is yet another bland Hollywood horror which concentrates on delivering style over substance, winding up resembling an MTV music video in the process.

Towards the end of the film, director Stephen T. Kay gives up on any pretence that he knows what he is doing, and lets loose with a barrage of really bad CGI effects in a finalé so utterly awful that I wince just thinking about it: after flying through all kinds of interspatial doorways, Tim counts to 6, hits a toy bird with a baseball bat (turning it into a flock of real birds), smashes a spherical electric plasma lamp, and breaks his action man figure, thus destroying the objects that have caused his fear and, consequently, the creature. Easy when you know how!

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.

not much of a story

[MLDinTN · 2/10 · 6 January 2006]

This movie is basically based on the old child hood fear of the Boogeyman. Tim is afraid of closets and the boogeyman. He sees his father taken by the boogeyman as a child. From there, he's spent time in a child psychiatric hospital and eventually tells people his father simply left him and his mom. His mom passes away and he goes back home for the funeral. He decides to spend the night in his old house even though he is terrified of what he may find in the closet. We get quite a few "jump" moments, but the plot still has more holes than swiss cheese.

What did the strange vision of his mother at his girlfriend's house have to do with anything. And why all of a sudden do the closets turn into portals? And what about the ending, what happened to uncle Mike or Jessica? And the way Tim gets rid of the Boogeyman is stupid. The Boogeyman reminded me of the Creeper in Jeepers Creepers, except not as scary or creepy. The boogeyman was rather bland.

FINAL VERDICT: Not a very good horror film. Don't waste your time.

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.

It's Scary but for the Wrong Reason's.

[evabba · 1/10 · 6 February 2006]

When will Hollywood give us horror film fans a good horror movie? I don't think we're being unreasonable. During the last couple of years, they have given us "Darkness Falls", "They", "The Ring 2", "The Grudge", "Hide and Seek" and poor remakes such as "The Haunting", "House On Haunted Hill", "Amityville Horror", "House Of Wax" (in-name only remake),"The Fog" and "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre". Not to mention the countless other horror atrocities that have gone directly to video/DVD.

To be fair the "Amityville" remake was technically better than the original and the newer "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" was a pretty good time- waster with some genuine thrills. Even some straight-to-video releases such as "Dead Birds" and "Toolbox Murders" had their moments but they were not on the same level as some of the earlier classics such as "Black Christmas", "Halloween", "The Shining", "The Exorcist", "Poltergeist", "Suspiria", "The Changeling", "The Howling", "An American Werewolf In London"... you get my point? Judging by Hollywood's recent track record, I'm getting the impression that today's film-maker's really don't give a darn about the "horror" genre. Which is a shame because there are millions of horror film fans out there just waiting for that one horror masterpiece.

The wait will continue because BOOGEYMAN isn't it. As a matter of fact, this film has got to be the worst horror film of the last 10 years.

The film stars a very stiff Barry Watson (whom I believe has no facial muscles since his expression does not seem to change for the duration of this film) who plays a traumatized magazine editor who returns to his childhood home to confront his childhood fear- the CGI created title character. Sounds interesting? It really isn't. Maybe with a different cast, different script and a different director, this may have been worth the while but everything about this film is "bottom-of-the- barrel". The entire adult cast including Lucy Lawless is stiff and uninspired. The child protagonist Skye McCole Bartusiak doesn't fare any better. I never thought the day would come that I'd utter these unfortunate words: "Dakota Fanning- where are you?"

As for the Boogeyman himself, once he's revealed to the viewer, he is as frightening as Gonzo from "The Muppet Show". But wait, even the muppets have more depth, more character than this flat, dreary, one-dimensional entity created using someone's laptop.

There is an obscure, low-budget, early 80's horror film called "The Boogeyman" starring the life-less (I am sensing a trend here) Suzanne Love and the always creepy John Carradine. Although it is no masterpiece and the film suffers greatly from it's obvious low-budget and bad acting, it is still a lot more entertaining and creative than this stinker. "Boogeyman"(2005) has nothing to recommend it. There's not one memorable scene or character. Even as a B-movie this fails.

If it's thrills, chills and action you're looking for then watch an episode of "Iron Chef-America" and thank me later.

Highly not recommended.

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.