[includs minor spoilers]
I was happy to rent "Boo" after reading that it was from the same producer as "Dog Soldiers," which I found wonderfully relentless. While "Dog Soldiers" is on my list of films to buy, I soon found "Boo" to be tedious. It is the sort of movie I began to watch in bits for it was becoming too aggravating to sit through in one stretch. While I appreciate horror films made on a small budget (and therefore, it can be assumed, made out of a passion for the genre and not a mere eye on box office returns), recent films, such as "Boo," rely on SUDDEN LOUD NOISES to elicit their scare moments. (It's the new 'screeching cat leaping out' gimmick.) This film made me jump once, when Emmett (as I believe was the character's name), is setting up the hospital for his friends and, upon lowering the object in his hand, sees the little girl staring at him. However, when a film uses a LOUD NOISE or sudden ghost/killer reveal a second time, the impact is usually lessened, and when this happens a THIRD time, and then again, the 'scares' become predictable for the audience now knows the rhythm of the film, that whenever there's a quiet moment, there will be a JOLT, or whenever a character is about to move out of frame, the ghost/killer will be standing there. And really, what suspense can be given to a film when there is an overuse of a creepy little girl suddenly, without actually moving, advancing toward another character, accompanied by A LOUD SOUND. The squeaking, slowly moving wheelchair was much more effective for then a sense of dread was built, a 'What's going to happen?' apprehension. JOLTS just become numbing, and then boring.
I can forgive bad acting but there are certain true reactions to which we can all relate and when a character does not REACT the way that we would, that is when the amateurish performance becomes distracting. If my girlfriend/boyfriend or best friend is suddenly shot dead, my reaction is horror and anger; in this film, there is shock (and the good boyfriend gets very upset and weepy) but then everyone just seems to gloss over this and resumes looking for a way to escape the hospital. The murder then becomes just a plot device, another 'reanimated dead' complication for our remaining cast to soon deal with.
Great use of the clown costume however, and it's always wonderful to see Dee Wallace Stone.
reply
share
PhillyBen
18 years ago
[minor spoilers]
Davitalvich, I liked and agreed with your review, so maybe you can help me to understand something. You liked the clown costume and thought it was well used. I was completely puzzled by it-- didn't think that there was any explanation for its presence in an old, abandoned hospital. I took it for just another "standard" horror movie convention that the film felt required to include, along with many other cliches (see my review for some of them, including the Freddy Krueger-esque villain).
So what was your take on the clown costume and its explanation? I thought that *maybe* it was supposed to have been used by the villain to lure children during his life, but of course even if that was the case he couldn't have used it when he was incarcerated in the hospital. And if memory serves the film doesn't provide any explanation at all.
Thoughts?
reply
share
conlee
18 years ago
I believe the costumes were supposed to have been put there by Emmett during his "haunted hospital" setup for his friends. I agree, it's not clearly explained.
I also agree that the use of loud stingers was too prevalent. Anthony and I have discussed this several times since the mix was done. Oh well, live and learn guys.
reply
share
davitalvitch
18 years ago
[major spoilers]
Conlee,
Greetings. I really don't get off making negative statements about horror films, a genre for which I have great affection and on which I spend an incredible amount of money. I think that these forums are good for feedback, though. If you, as a horror filmmaker and we, as your audience, can have this arena, then it lets you know what we don't like to see and helps you to create a more satisfying next project. The levitating clown scene I liked for there was that suspenseful air of 'Crap, what's going to happen?' The nice boyfriend punching his fist against the wall and having it explode into a gooey mess was quite good. I liked the nod to blaxploitation films, and the line -- in response to a white boy's offhand comment -- about how they weren't supposed to be FUNNY. (I'd wondered how these kids even KNEW about 1974 'Soul Cinema,' and the cop's response made it seem as if the white kids treat those films similarly to how they listen to Bob Marley: without a sense of the history or the underlying statements.) Also good was how the girl with the sword through her body plunged it into her killer, a nice 'take THAT' moment. (She was very good when freaking out over having that goo all over her body, too, a reaction to which the audience can relate). The JOLTS, however, just like screeching cats leaping out of cupboards, need to die a quick cinematic death. The squeaking wheelchair and silent clown -- those created a nice sense of dread.
Daved in DC
reply
share
PhillyBen
18 years ago
Conlee, 2 things:
1.) Thanks for your explanation. I guess you're right, although I also agree that it wasn't clearly explained in the movie.
2.) I just want to say that if everyone associated with the movie had given reviews and scores like yours-- which I think were quite responsible-- there probably wouldn't have been the kind of negative backlash that has occurred on IMDb. You gave it a 7, which I can understand (especially if you had special knowledge about the challenges that the crew faced). But many others have voted "10," which is just patently absurd, and have used the IMDb system as a kind of marketing tool to push for something like broader distribution. (One person actually made such a pitch in his/her review.)
You said in your review that someone has an agenda, and that the film has been unfairly treated on IMDb. I agree that someone has an agenda, but it's not the people who are ripping the movie. It's the people who inflated it ridiculously early on in the voting process and who are continuing to weigh in with "10" ratings (but without leaving comments).
THAT kind of thing is what got me so incensed in the first place. I rented "Boo" expressly because of the early, glowing reviews on IMDb. So when I watched it and saw what I described in my review, I was really P.O'ed. I think that not only I but many other viewers have wanted to make sure that others don't get suckered into thinking they're going to see a classic. That's not an agenda per se; it's an angry reaction to having been intentionally misled. If the early reviewers and raters had been honest about the flaws as well as the virtues I might have entered with much lower expectations and given the film more credit for its good looks (which it really does have, considering its budget-- script and acting are its real demerits).
I also think that my points about its derivative nature are right on the money and that, if you know the writer/director, you should make sure he's aware of them. There's a fine line between homage and rip-off and I think that he drove over it with a Mack truck.
For what it's worth, I'm a college professor and am not associated with any "competing" movie companies or interests. I just appreciate truth in advertising.
reply
share
davitalvitch
18 years ago
[really major spoilers]
I took the costume to have been brought by Emmett. There were other costumes, such as that black mask worn by the dark-haired girl before she had sex with her future killer. What those costumes were to be used for, I have no idea. (In hindsight, it all seemed rather elaborate if it was just to spook/entertain four of Emmett's friends; wouldn't having a large Halloween party there have made more sense? Carving those "welcome" jack-o-lanterns alone would have taken hours.) I hadn't given the costumes' inclusion much thought for I can overlook certain things if they don't cause for me a 'stumble' for the film. I liked the use of the clown costume because 1), having evil hiding behind a grinning mask amuses me, and 2), we, the audience, knew that it wasn't any of the people who'd entered the building, and the apprehension of what was going to happen made for good suspense -- especially when it was revealed that the suit was levitating.
The villain was one-note, and his not really dying was yet another boring convention, the "leaving room for a sequel" nonsense. If he entered the blonde girl's body and she showed him what "life" was like (in order for him not to want to live, and therefore to save her friends), then when did she slit her wrists, or was it just a dream, or her memories, and how did she survive?
Also, I'd expected the ghost taking over Meg, the sister, to be that of the little girl, seeking revenge against her killer. Instead, it was Dee Wallace Stone's nurse. So what about the murdered girl? Another tiresome convention, the creepy dead girl. If one is going to include her, and have her killed (and probably molested beforehand) by the villain, at least let her get some revenge!
I returned it this afternoon and the woman at checkout asked what I'd thought. It was the second negative review she'd heard about it.
Daved in DC
reply
share
conlee
18 years ago
Did she mention how many positive reviews she's had? Just curious. I have noted that the reviews on the external review links span the gamut from excellent to pretty aweful. Always interesting to see how people perceive something. Perhaps as PhillyBen said, if he didn't go into the movie with such high expectations, he wouldn't have felt let down. Probably a relatively common problem, even for "big" movies. I know I went into American Beauty thinking it was going to be the best film since the beginning of history, and was completely let down by it -- again, overhyped. What are you to do as a filmmaker, marketer, promoter, distributor? As they say, any publicity is better than no publicity.
As far as screeching stingers in the mix... Well... Maybe if I'm lucky enough to work with Anthony on another project we'll do something differently there. I'd still like to say that Anthony is an extremely talented and DEVOTED filmmaker. The shear hours, days, weeks, months of his life that he devoted to making this film for horror fans is incredible -- truly inspiring, actually. I'm guessing we haven't seen the last of his work, and it'll probably just keep getting better and better.
Also, there was mention of the characters not reacting very "realistically" after one of them is killed. Again, in defense of this movie, there is some pretty weird sh*t going on. What would you truly do in that circumstance? You hopefully wouldn't just shut down and succumb to the nightmare; you'd try to get the heck out of there. Kinda what the kid's do. And the moment leading up to the shooting are pretty doggone intense, if I do say so myself. Kudos to Anthony for even attempting that. Most films, especially in this budget range, don't even make a pretense of studying character. I'm always kind of impressed with the scene where Freddy confronts Kevin in the hallway of the 3rd floor. Not the kind of emotional scene you're used to seeing in low-budg horror. Your opinion, of course, may vary.
Chris
reply
share
davitalvitch
18 years ago
[major scene spoiler]
Greetings Conlee,
The person at the video store mentioned only the other negative opinion; I don't think "Boo" has been out long enough for there to be more, negative or positive.
To clarify, my gut reaction to the film -- being a major horror fan -- was the numbing use of sound (as has been discussed to death) and unrealistic reactions. Those were the fuel of my annoyance.
I understand grueling hours and hard work for I have a theatre company in California, but the effort does not matter, only end product. The director has talent, the editing was professional, and there was an obvious passion for the genre, as I originally noted. The likeable, nice boyfriend reacted as one should when witnessing a friend/girlfriend being killed, and the girl, before being shot, reacted realistically (i.e. in mounting horror) to being covered in goo and to the situation in general, and then to having a gun pointed at her by her lover. Those two kids did good jobs in that scene. However, when the blond male shoots her, in reality, there would be an immediate hostility toward him. The lead girl notes at one point about why should he care if he gets out, he's going to be arrested for murder anyway, which was an important inclusion. However, even when working with someone to escape an evil hospital, that new hatred for him would still be prevalent. Regardless of the circumstances, he MURDERED. OUR. FRIEND. The death of this girl seemed to be forgotten, when in reality, her death would be even more fuel for their escaping, and the frustration over being trapped would be taken out on the blond male, who already was responsible for their being there. That sense of urgency and hatred wasn't there and that is what I found frustrating, and not only during this film but others with a similar scene. Jacob wasn't the bad guy so much as the blond guy.
I've already noted the things I liked about this film -- such as the inclusion of a former blaxploitation star-turned-cop, who's not as brave as his old character (nice touch) -- but it is what overwhelmed me that caused me not to watch it from start to finish -- rather, in four chunks -- nor want to see "Boo" again. At least I stuck with it to the end, unlike the completely unwatchable "Skinned Deep." You guys have the passion and talent; 'live and learn' as you say, and we'll be on the lookout for the next film.
Daved in DC
reply
share
Mogaholic
18 years ago
I laughed so hard anytime anyone spoke. Unbelievable acting. Just a joke. decent scare tactics for a low budget film, but how could any credible director allow such terrible acting without trying to refine it with more takes? What was the audition process? Casting your old Frat friends from college along with their significant others? Have the actors of this campy film ever seen a real horror film such as the Shining, or even Aliens? This is what happens when you cast actors who think Scream was the scariest movie ever (1st scene of the flick? TOTAL RIPOFF).
"People either love my show, or they hate it, or they think it's alright" -M.H. 1968-2005
reply
share