I really did enjoy the first boogeyman. i thought it was a change of pace away from either the gory horror movie-saw, hostel, and stepped away from the ghost horror movie, the ring-the grudge. i am not saying i have high hopes for the second one but i did enjoy the freshness of the original
Only the penitent man will pass *Indiana jones
All you can get in a hurry is trouble
[deleted]
I liked the first one for about 30 minutes. The creepy atmosphere and all that was pretty boss. Then all the sudden it went into "we forgot to write the plot" with the time-shifting magical closet riding capers. Plus, it was nothing more than a carbon copy of Darkness Falls
shareThe reason the horror genre is dying on us all is because of the use of CGI! It completely destorys the horror becoz you see and go "oh it's computer animated" what ever happened to the good years where horror was make up and lighting based? I studied media and I should know!
I know people say remakes are *beep* and all that but most of the remakes in themselves are wank but they don't use CGI i think the horror genre would be re-born if CGI wasn't touching them.
P.S Paul anderson should die!
No offense, but the first movie sucked. Not that you are not entitled to your opinion! I just thought it was terrible and didn't make any sense.
"We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams."
...And the ending was lame. Very anti-climactic. It was a big disappointment, to me.
share[deleted]
I've mentioned this in other horror movie threads, and am going to restate it here. People always confuse mediocre with bad. Boogeyman was in every way mediocre, but not a horrible movie by any stretch of the imagination and people who say so simply haven't watched truely bad movies. Though of course nothing is black and white as I'm alluding to to begin with, and the first half of the movie(which would be considered "good") was far superior to the second half(which could have easily been considered outright "bad"). Just don't neglect the positive moments, and the potential they show, to trash it based on the negative moments(though there is something to be said for potential wasted as well).
shareYou make an interesting point. Yes, mediocre is a fantastic way to describe the first Boogeyman. However, I believe it is also very much bad.
Mediocre is specific; bad is a considerably more general, blanket term under which the term mediocre falls. Ergo a film can be bad because it is mediocre, it can also be bad because it is poorly written, poorly shot, poorly conceived, etc. You see where I'm going with this? Mediocre is a much better description, I agree, but the movie is, without a doubt, bad.
So at the risk of belaboring the point.
While the film began with potential, the crap-tacular second and third act more than justifies the considerably more vague term "bad."
The best thing about the first one was that i forgot all about it 15 minutes after it was over.
everybody sit tight, hold the fort, and keep the home fires burning and if i"m not back by dawn.....CALL THE PRESIDENT!
I loved the first one. It was amazingly creepy and had a great storyline. I'd rank it as one of the best horror movies made. I was let down by the ending tho; I thought the alternate ending was much better.
share