Reviews
FEAR THE DARK (BEHIND YOUR EYELIDS): ‘The Boogeyman’ (2023) Review
I believe that cliché slashers and creature features that retread the same beats are fun. Cliché demon movies that do the same are not. Every Friday the 13th movie or Nightmare on Elm Street entry has a horde of imitators with varying levels of quality, the latter of which are especially entertaining and deserve an article all their own. But they’re forced to stand out, forced to make themselves special through their story or their directing or their creature design. Demon movies, often, aren’t backed into that corner and forced to fight. They’re the easiest for big studios to pump out with copy-paste plots ad infinitum, they take no risks, and they’re taken more seriously by both studios and audiences despite being infinitely more underwhelming, and usually sillier. Would you like to hazard a guess whether The Boogeyman cares to break that streak?
The Boogeyman: A Familiar Horror Story
The Boogeyman follows older sister Sadie and younger sister Sawyer, whose therapist father Will is one day confronted by a would-be patient named Lester, claiming his children were killed one by one by a malevolent entity that can mimic voices and lurked in shadows. Disbelieved by everyone, Will is driven to commit suicide in the family’s home. The entity then moves on to terrorize Sadie and Sawyer, beginning to brutalize the two as he grows nearer and nearer to taking them.
That sounds familiar, right?
Because this movie was so poorly advertised, I assumed it was a remake of the Eric Kripke-penned movie of the same name. No, it’s an adaptation of the Stephen King short story of the same name, though this is mostly different and radically inferior. Put aside the fact the movie is without a pulse, it is definitively the worst Stephen King adaptation yet, which is like adding a triple homicide charge onto whatever crime derailing a multi-million-dollar train would be (public endangerment? I don’t know, I’m a writer, not a lawyer).
Failing Stephen King’s Legacy
It’s bad enough that it rejects the massive sprawling spider-web that is Stephen King’s beautifully messy, interconnected works; an ironic choice given how spider-like the monster is. It also fails at the one thing King is most adept at: making you care for the characters being put through their paces. This is not The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon. This is not Under the Dome. It’s not even The Langoliers. It is, emotionally, borderline nothing. I could not tell you the characters’ names three hours after without searching them up. The stock characters we get are as lifeless as it gets, and it hurts to see this happen to even a minor, relatively unimportant piece of King’s bibliography.
It’s ironic double jeopardy that the movie bumbles as it steals its whole third act from Stranger Things season 1, because 21 Laps Entertainment, who produced this movie, ALSO produces Stranger Things, a show which at least understood the basic elements of what makes King stories great. It’s like a matryoshka doll of aping Stephen King’s works! I’d be impressed if I wasn’t so ANNOYED.
Lackluster Performances in a Big-Budget Horror
Beyond the realm of King, let’s touch on those performances. For a movie with a $35 million budget, the cast sure doesn’t say $35 million budget. I don’t mean they lack star power, just that they lack screen presence. When it comes to performances, there are two redeeming ones: Dastmalchian as bereaved and haunted father Lester, and Vivien Lyra Blair as little sister and “boogeymagnet” Sawyer. Everybody else generally faceplants through a dark corridor several times over.
Sophie Thatcher’s Underwhelming Role
This is a shock since Sophie Thatcher is a great actress. If you haven’t seen her in Yellowjackets, you’ve probably seen her in the short film Blink, where she carries the entire performance through her eyes alone as a paralyzed woman haunted by a monster. If you haven’t seen that, watch it here.
But here, it’s abundantly clear that either Thatcher is actively fighting to phone it in, or subject to some of the worst directing available. This also doesn’t make any sense because I know from Host and Dawn of the Deaf (which you can watch below for proof!) that Rob Savage is an outright INCREDIBLE director who knows how to lead his actors! Surely, it’s not him being intimidated by the scale of things, since he’s proven he can manage low-budget and more official affairs with equal skill. Something fishy is going on.
Studio Interference and a PG-13 Letdown
Of course, readers, all this coupled with a neutered PG-13 rating and a lot of hype-building nonsense articles about being too scary means I smell a whole lot of studio interference. And as much as I can sympathize, I can’t in good conscience recommend this movie because I know they’re not responsible. It hasn’t had time to get its Blair Witch 2 treatment, it hasn’t aged enough in 24 hours.
In terms of technical details, the film ranges from nice to disappointing. Savage’s directing is good, as usual, but you would think a movie this focused on playing with light and dark would be better lit. I’ll give it credit where credit is due, The Boogeyman has a handful of good jumpscares that hinge on flashing and flickering lights, and despite how needlessly loud they are, the visual build-up is effective. It’s just a shame the best one was spoiled in the trailer.
Toothless Horror and Uninspired CGI
When we do get to the action in the light with our titular boogey oogey, it’s all toothless as far as these movies go, with everything going blurry and cutting away just as the truly terrible stuff is happening. You never have a sense anyone, most of all Sawyer, is in danger, or that the Boogeyman even wants to kill them that much. What else would you expect from a PG-13 horror movie? I don’t need everything to try and outpace Terrifier 2 levels of nastiness. I just want a bit more peril in my movie which is fundamentally about parents leaving their children alone and the horrors that concept entails.
(And splurge on a bit more blood if you’re going to rip someone in half. Come on, cheapo.)
But above all, this movie’s greatest crime is having the same old uninspired CGI creature design since the late 2010s (i.e. the studio screaming, “We wanted something Javier Botet would play without actually having to pay Javier Botet or makeup artists because we hate actors, and we hate practical effects artists even more!”).
And all of that would be fine if they just didn’t show it so much. I feel like by the end, I’ve seen more of the creature than I have of Sadie or Sawyer. This is impossible given its only 99 minutes, but somehow even that is too long. I’m aware it sounds drastic, but this could stand to be 8 or even 10 minutes shorter for the sake of brevity. Not that the film is badly paced, quite the opposite. Just that its good pacing is wasted on an unoriginal story.
The Boogeyman: A Forgettable Horror Flick
And so, The Boogeyman (2023), is like many of its “the demon has been passed onto you, and you must defeat it to save your family” counterparts: you’ve seen this movie, ten thousand times. Which I would be okay with if it just grew a personality and stopped hiding behind the ajar door. It fully fails to capture everything that makes being a child, or hell, even an adult staring into pure dark scary. It doesn’t relish the quiet, it clumsily dances in loudness to little entertainment value. It might work well as someone’s first horror film to give them an idea of genre tropes, but it doesn’t work for me, and probably won’t for you.
I have made it a personal principle of mine to avoid telling people not to watch movies, even if they suck. But don’t waste money on a ticket and steer clear until this comes to streaming or cable. And even then, you’re better off watching something on Shudder. We’ve got more than enough recommendations. Take your pick.
Reviews
‘The Bay’ Turns Fact Into Fiction
As much as I love horror, genre fans can be a bit…gatekeepy. Over the years, we’ve seen prominent comedy legends dip their toes into horror (Jordan Peele, Chris Rock, Danny McBride) to varying success. Many genre fans want nothing to do with comedy legends getting into horror, though for Peele and Rock, there’s probably another reason people look down on their horror films. We’ve seen something similar the past few years with YouTubers getting into the horror game as well; why are horror fans so weird about who writes/directs horror films? But what many people don’t know is that one of found footage’s most powerful films was created by a truly incredible non-genre filmmaker. So, how exactly did The Bay come to be?
The Bay’s Found Footage Story and Plot Breakdown
Investigative reporter Donna Thompson (Kether Donohue) finds herself in the crosshairs of one of the 21st century’s most prominent stories. Denizens of Clairidge, Maryland, are falling ill to a mysterious disease that’s covering them in boils, lesions, and pustules. Told through a series of leaks, after the government desperately tried to wipe this reporting, Donna retells the harrowing story that killed nearly the entire town. But what exactly is behind these illnesses, and can they even be stopped?
How Barry Levinson Created The Bay
The Bay writer/director Barry Levinson is one of film’s heavy hitters. His directing (and in some respective cases writing) credits brought us some of the greatest films of all time, with Rain Man, Sleepers, Good Morning, Vietnam, and Man of the Year, to name a few. How did this Oscar-winning director find his way into genre filmmaking, and found footage at that? From what I can tell, Levinson was approached to make a documentary about the Chesapeake Bay and its ongoing pollution. Since this topic had already been covered in documentary form, Levinson decided to take a fictional and horror approach to this all-too-real problem. From there, The Bay was born.
Timely Environmental Horror and Real-World Commentary
Taking real issues in the world and adding a horror flair to them has been one of the best ways for filmmakers to disseminate issues and deliver hard-hitting commentary. Around this time, 2012, is when Vice was really becoming a voice online with some groundbreaking work. For Barry Levinson to decide to tell this story, about the real pollution in the Chesapeake Bay, in the found footage medium, was the best decision he could have made. Levinson’s decision brings an air of authenticity and exists almost as a call to action. It’s more or less a feeling of, “this is happening in a town near you.”
Why The Bay Is One of the Best Found Footage Horror Movies
What really makes The Bay work more than most other found footage films is Levinson’s experience in traditional filmmaking. I love this subgenre; it’s my favorite. But I know, as well as most found footage fans, that there is an overwhelming amount of trash. While the subgenre, now, merely exists as a conduit for aspiring filmmakers to tell a story on a shoestring budget, it’s lost its way. Have an idea for one scare? Throw 60 minutes of aimless meandering through the woods and give someone a Canon Vixia! You have yourself a found footage movie. And while I love and appreciate how many people try to make films in this subgenre, it’s become as polluted as the Chesapeake Bay.
The Bay is one of the few found footage films that uses its subgenre to its advantage, rather than as a budget constraint. Granted, Levinson is in a much better position to do that than most filmmakers. But the director’s understanding of traditional storytelling makes The Bay one of the most captivating films within the subgenre. While The Bay excels with its storytelling, it’s SFX department head Chris Bridges who brings the true terror to life.
Practical Effects and Body Horror That Just Work
From the isopod-filled fish to the gory, decimated citizens of Clairidge, The Bay is a truly disgusting film. Many found footage films find themselves blowing their budget on one, maybe two, stinger(s). The Bay, once it really gets going, constantly hits you with blood, viscera, and squirmy things. It uncomfortably wriggles under your skin until you just can’t take a second longer.
The Bay and the Decline of Found Footage Horror
To wrap this up, there is an interesting parallel to The Bay and the subgenre as a whole. Found footage, at this time, was ramping up to be a landfill of ideas; it was figuratively being polluted by chicken shit. The Bay stepped up to show audiences that new, exciting, and terrifying films could still exist within the subgenre. But that also means we shouldn’t sit idly by to be force-fed garbage. We can step up and say enough is enough. Don’t make justifications for bad found footage films (garbage) as it floods the subgenre (waterways). Because if there is enough bad found footage (garbage/chicken shit), then the subgenre will collapse (water will become polluted/we will all die).
Reviews
‘Disclosure Day’ Review: Gorgeous Visuals Battle Over-Stuffed Script
Steven Spielberg’s Disclosure Day is a film so close to greatness, but one leashed by itself from attaining it. The first science fiction film from Spielberg in eight years has base elements which are truly fantastic. The mystery is compelling, and the performances can be emotionally resonant. And despite how simple and familiar the set pieces and genre tropes it revels in are, Disclosure Day has some of the most thrilling moments audiences will see in a film this year.
But what should be a knockout summer blockbuster becomes bloated. It’s a film that could easily be a perfect score but suffers from its approach. Considerable pacing and scripting issues dial back the appeal of its ten out of ten visuals and leave you thinking about what could have been one of the best Spielberg films of all time.
What Is Disclosure Day About?
As international tensions rise, the world reaches a tipping point. Nations prepare to go to war, and the conflict of nuclear powers threatens to send humanity back into the Stone Age. But an insurgent group hopes to avoid destruction by unlocking a secret chapter of human history and sharing it with the world: the story of humans and their first contact with aliens.
Up against the shadowy government contractor Wardex, a rogue group races to unveil the truth. Caught in the web of intrigue are a hacker named Daniel (Josh O’Connor) and a weather reporter named Margaret (Emily Blunt), whose proximity to the struggle and its origins becomes impossible to ignore. Hunted by Wardex director Scanlon (Colin Firth), the fate of the world hangs in the balance as the duo attempts to give the entire human race full disclosure.
A Balancing Act Between Tension and Wonderment
For the most part, Disclosure Day has Spielberg in rare form. The immediate mental leap that fires off is to try and drive home comparisons to Close Encounters, though that instinct detracts from the unique balancing act on display. The film is able to juggle between evoking a sense of wonderment and a sense of pure dread with just how it’s shot. Crossing the spectacle of psychic phenomena with the tension of a Cold War spy-thriller is something we haven’t seen from him in any one project. It’s a hybrid, and a fascinating blending of genres at that.
This balancing act is primarily driven by an absolutely packed and powerful ensemble cast. Emily Blunt plays Margaret with effortless odd and endearing charm as she gets thrown headfirst into the deep end. The quirks of her character evolve into a fully fleshed out persona that reminds you why Blunt has top billing. Josh O’Connor plays his part as the yin to Margaret’s yang beautifully as well; his sober terror as he finds himself on the run is a fun contrast that, when placed opposite of Blunt, renders great chemistry between the two as they’re magnetically drawn to each other in search of the truth.
Disclosure Day Gives Us One of the Best Sci Fi Villains
Colin Firth’s absolutely nefarious Noah Scanlon is one of the best villains in a science fiction film in a long time, especially during the movie’s most memorable confrontation against Daniel’s girlfriend Jane. His performance is about as finely tuned as it is frightening. And as far as Colman Domingo’s rebel leader Hugo goes, it’s clear why his pivotal dialog was the core of all the marketing material. There’s a steady calmness that could only come from an actor as seasoned as Domingo slipping into his role like a glove. He and Firth are highlights, even if they are delegated mostly to supporting roles. Together, the entire cast moves like clockwork.
Lack of Confidence, Thy Name Is Dialogue
But while the cast feels perfect for the roles they’re given, and they do great with what they can, the nature of so much dialog in Disclosure Day is repetitive and obvious. There’s a wild number of moments that would be truly golden if they weren’t shot down by characters stating not only their emotions but also the obvious things that are happening in front of them.
Some moments should fundamentally feel like characters are having a massive breakthrough or emotional catharsis, but more often than not, it feels more like the audience is having these emotional arcs explained to them. Thematically, the movie is supposed to be about this search for fundamental truths. Truths not just about our place in the universe and in the eyes of God, but about our place with each other. It’s that thematic richness it seeks that makes the bad lines feel like so much salt in the wound. There are moments where these intrinsic questions could be asked with dimension and depth, but instead they’re flattened out by how the characters speak to each other bluntly.
This is the aforementioned proximity to greatness; there’s a hypothetical cut of this film that has so much of this verbal bubble wrap sliced away which would be perfection. But just like on our Earth and the Earth of Disclosure Day, this is not a perfect world. It can only really be chalked up to a diffidence that plagues the writing: a lack of confidence in being able to communicate something subtly, and a simultaneous lack of confidence in the audience to receive that information.
Small Tears in a Sentimental Tapestry
As the film continues with this pattern, the small tears in this emotion driven tapestry become more noticeable. The CGI can be wonky at times. The score can feel leading rather than complementary. The blocking is far from inspired, especially given how many scenes there are of our characters surrounded by a crowd with bated breath; with this many bodies in motion, the way he places his actors and moves through them feels less thought out.
And most noticeable of all, the film’s hefty runtime is paced poorly, especially in its third act. Make no mistake: it’s a final reel that is visually and sonically gorgeous in where it goes. If cinematographer Janusz Kamiński was ever in a flow state, it is here and now with this film. It feels like there was an abundance of footage and no haste to actually edit out any of it. It feels like a director’s cut that just goes on too long, like many scenes in the film. This is especially apparent in a finale that should be awe-inspiring for how incredible it looks, but ultimately lingers too long and overstays its welcome.
It’s understandable that when working with the most influential voice in cinema history, one might be reticent to cut anything. But Disclosure Day’s lack of restraint with how it unfolds exacerbates many small issues that will leave some viewers with regret. Not because it’s irredeemable, or even a movie you won’t enjoy watching, but because it has so much to give and is so captivating in its cinematic vision. And because sadly, that vision is weighed down by the desire to be easily digestible and show all of its emotional tricks. It’s a desire that turns a borderline perfect film into simply another aesthetically pleasing one.


