More about this DVD  •  DVD Info  •  Movie Main Page  •  Message Board

On a dark, still, Wednesday night, I plopped a chair down in the center of my home theater set up, popped the DVD in my player and cranked the audio system. I hid the cell phone, unwrapped an awesome $100 Grand candy bar, and lowered my expectations to the fleas in the carpet (just kidding about the fleas). After hitting my remote's play button, my thoughts echoed famous words of the snarling 1980 Pat Benatar song, “Hit me with your best shot.” Boogeyman cracked the whip with a frightening opening that eventually put Goosebumps on my arms. A young boy literally has a boogeyman in his room, mainly in his closet, and at night he is terrified by its provocation. Certainly, we've all probably been scared of the dark as a kid, and . . . gosh, it's just hard not to remember flying into our beds, carefully avoiding where the covers hit the floor to . . . under the bed! Or staring at the closet and thinking a monster might pop out. I had cousins stay with me when I was around 11, and one hid under my bed one evening - yeah, you know what I'm going to say. Sure enough, as I stepped into bed, he grabbed my ankle from underneath - my heart shot out of my mouth.

The boogeyman seems to follow this boy, Tim Jensen (Barry Watson) into adulthood. And a sad event compels Tim to return to his childhood home for one day to face his fears and put an end to it. This was even the advice of Tim's impatient psychiatrist, who certainly doesn't believe him. Tim's Uncle Mike is sometimes present, renovating the vacant house, but the boogeyman is salivating to ramp up the intensity when Tim arrives. Would we have a movie otherwise?

This very supernatural film makes the boogeyman “the physical embodiment of fear.” Okay, because so many things are outrageous, one really has to park the brain - preferably in a neighboring state. But we had to do that with Raider's of the Lost Ark and even the Laura Croft films with Angelina Jolie. They were rip-snorting films that generally had their credible shit together as they served up outrageous plots that they managed to resolve by the closing credits. While there are a few answers in Boogeyman ‘s plot structure, beware that the movie doesn't tie things up as well. It provides some imaginative concepts and events, gives us a funhouse of effects and teasing terror, and lingers on contemplative moments of Tim Jensen staring and wondering what the hell to do, then Boogeyman adds some more elements to the plot.

But many plot introductions just . . . float. The Boogeyman is interesting, so it would have been fascinating to understand his genesis, whether its all in the kid's mind or really a horrific person, event, ghost or something in between. The ending doesn't resolve a checklist of plot points introduced or inferred. There is also the unclear subplot of other missing children, perhaps absorbed and or killed(?) by the boogeyman or something. Huh? Too much information! Granted, introducing supernatural events and expecting them to be taken seriously for around 90 minutes is challenging to resolve. And this lack of follow-up was the film's biggest flaw; that's why critics grilled it. Frankly, it's difficult to defend.

With that criticism out of the way, I want to explain why I got a kick out of the film. At PG-13, the film isn't a bloody slasher flick. This disappointed some hard-core horror fans, but I was relieved. The vaguely Victorian house in the middle of an unkempt field, which was past its glory days, intrigued me. Despite my having an idea of how the film would end, I had no idea where the film was going in between. So the twists and turns were fun, imaginative, and interesting; getting creeped out along the way was the most fun for me. Sure, a few moments were stolen from A Nightmare on Elm Street (unexpected astral projection between rooms), but there was no dreaming. And the closet concept is reminiscent of Poltergeist , but what other clever options are available in a bedroom at night?

The acting was better than expected and dialogue was reasonable. Barry Watson has an interesting face that reminds me of Skeet Ulrich. Watson really has to carry this film and he succeeds; we root for him. My main complaint with his character is that I think a normal person of his age would have spilled his guts to other people of this haunting, especially his girlfriend. During the conflicts, director Stephen T. Kay inflicts odd angles, dolly rushes, and other camera tricks. I thought it was fine for the material and not overboard. Yes, Kay does this as much as possible, and he can sometimes try to make the keyhole of a door, a piece of paneling, or nail in the wall look scary, but I liked it. Furthermore, it wasn't like this all the time; many scenes are quite still and sober. So I was stunned to read that many critics nearly castrated this director for the fast editing of the action sequences, making it sound like the entire film was nonstop and irrational. That's simply false. Had he not given the confrontations zest, Kay would have been called spineless! I will agree that a few frightening sequences would have been scarier with a less-is-more technique, especially the ending. Still, Kay managed to get good performances and directed with a sure hand. Could another director have done a better job? Perhaps. Cinematographer Bobby Bukowski invokes moody and creepy scenes with interesting compositions and thoughtful lighting. I'm writing too much and sound like a defense attorney. Suffice it to say I simply got caught up in the moments and got scared silly more than a few times. But, sure, I'm conflicted with some of the film's plot elements. I'll admit, that sometimes I was scratching my head thinking, “what the?” after I was scared out of my seat by surprises. Yes, the ending will not answer all your questions or resolve all the film's concepts; don't expect it. This is a wild film, and frankly, I was more entertained with Boogeyman than The Grudge; that film's villain had a more confusing motivation to kill. And while Boogeyman may not be for everyone, I couldn't take my eyes off of the screen. And I was enveloped in the thrilling surround sound. If you can make a better, newer haunted house story, get an agent and write a script.

The Video: How Does The Disc Look?

This film is presented in its 1.85:1 theatrical aspect ratio in anamorphic video. It has a deliberate, icy hue. Colors appear moderately washed out, but a supplemental featurette had the director note that this was intended (though he didn't say why). With that in mind, the picture looks strange yet interesting. It reminded me of the opening of Blade , though Blade looked better and it harmonized more effectively with the comic book story. Contrast is really put the test with many whites that look like they are on the cusp of blooming, but usually do not. Colors are as saturated as much as possible and skin tones appear natural as they try to harmonize with the film's palette. Blacks are impressively deep enough to be consistent with the widescreen bars, but sometimes layers of blacks can crush each other and dampen shadow detail. Despite this imparting to the film a hard edginess at times, overall I didn't like it and preferred a more realistic scheme. The grain is kept quite tight, though on a few occasions (notably 47:15), night driving showed an increase in grain. During the still, well-lit scenes, sharp detail allowed for clothing textures, the wood and worn paint of the house, and hair to be quite revealing. The subtle uses of CGI during the first 75% of the film are fairly seamless and, hence, very creepy. The CGI Boogeyman near film's end has a reputation of being poorly rendered and, admittedly, it's just not as great looking as we'd expect from modern film technology. The whirlwind effects of his presence eventually got more confusing and the bathtub scene just didn't look right, although the evil intent of the Boogeyman was certainly evident. Frankly, had they made his presence simple and quiet instead of stormy, it would have been far more compelling. The beginning of the film accomplished this much better. Compression problems weren't evident, though edge halos were faint during some outdoor panning of the old town and of dead grass lawns. Although I didn't care for some of the icy coloring very much, overall, this is a good-looking presentation and decently transferred.

The Audio: How Does The Disc Sound?

The audio is presented in 5.1 Dolby Digital. The smashing audio track is great fun, just like a haunted house story should be. Dialogue is well spaced between the center speaker and the left and right fronts. It's also quite natural sounding, though occasionally it can sound dubbed. The front soundstage has a pleasing depth with breezes, thunder, and effects that slide around to the surrounds with above average sidewall imaging that at times made the hair stand up on my arms. The .1 LFE was very smooth and deep and made my pant legs vibrate a few times, otherwise, it doesn't call attention to itself. Making sure you are strategically and properly seated in the center of your home theater system will yield you the enveloping and potentially “airy” benefit of the swirling supernatural sounds from the very discreet and very dynamic surrounds. Oh, this soundtrack is fun! From the quietest creaking stairway of the house inside to the pounding, rushing conflicts, this audio track is certain to give your home theater a work out. There are other audio tracks from expensive, hi-profile films like The Day After Tomorrow that will demonstrate more finesse and richer dynamics, but Boogeyman delivers an excitement of its own. A French Dolby Digital 5.1 track is also offered. English Closed Captions are included as well as English, French, and Chinese subtitles.

Supplements: What Goodies Are There?

A healthy amount of extras are included here. It is strongly recommended that you watch the film before going through these supplements, since they will reveal many spoilers.

First up are two “Making-Of” featurettes . The first runs 15:07 and includes interviews with the cast, producer Rob Tapert ( Evil Dead ) , and the director. They talk about how the film was conceived and describe some of its development. The actors mostly talk about their roles, casting, and themes from the film. You may be surprised by who has different accents. There is some behind-the-scenes footage, and of course too many clips from the film, which ultimately feels like filler (sigh). The second featurette runs 19:36 and is mostly an extension of the first one. However, this second short is mostly the cast sweet-talking and fawning over each other. While it's enormously “blah blah blahing” us to death, one has to look at the actors and think, “well, what else are they supposed to do?” They kind of have to praise one another to play the actors' game of keeping good ties and gaining future employment. So how can we blame them? And truth be told, the actors were quite good. If I were a low-profile or medium-profile actor I'd probably do the same thing. Still, if the producer of this featurette is going to have actors talk about themselves and their characters, it would be more interesting to hear them talk more about stories on the set. An exception was Lucy Lawless' interesting story about how she got her role. A tour of the film's infamous house would have been far more interesting.

Six deleted scenes are also included, with a total runtime of 12:46. Thankfully, we have the option to “Play All” in addition to being able to select each one. The shots are in rough widescreen with diminished audio, so they don't appear to have made it into post-production; the color is usually more rich and natural (my preference) as opposed to the icy, tweaked treatment in the final result. The six scenes are: 1) Trying to Rescue Dad, 2) Tim Strapping Himself to Chair, 3) Owner of the backpack, 4) Bedroom Flashback & Dead cat, 5) Park & Street Scene, 6) Photocopy Room & Jessica in Office. It's entirely reasonable that these scenes were cut for pacing, but after you watch the film, they do add more to the story. I happened to like scene five the most; it was more frightening than what was edited into the film. However, scene three really puts a tail-spin on things and adds huge confusion. Discovering the owner of the backpack just makes one scratch his or her head and once again ask, “huh?”

The alternate ending running 5:58 is certainly interesting and does add a few subtle details. It seems like a tough call between this ending and the theatrical version. Regardless, it still kind of leaves one with the same emotional feeling after the climax. There is no sucker punch as I thought.

Next is a featurette called Animatics , which is a misnomer, because this is really just Storyboards mixed in with scenes from the film. It's interesting and certainly provides a roadmap. This featurette runs about 9:21 and the three sequences are Opening Sequence, Missing Children, and Climax. Interesting stuff, though not that detailed - it's just the drawn pictures with very little directional text. Still, film students who happen to like this film should really enjoy this part.

Visual Effects Progression is just what it says and it is fascinating. Each scene has about four progressions. While it's interesting, I debate within myself that such things can potentially take a bit of the magic out of the film's emotional impact if you watch the movie again. Still, film tech buffs will likely enjoy it. The featurette runs 4:30 and includes four scenes including Bath tub, Plastic Wrap, “What are you doing?” and the Climax. Finally, trailers include: Guess Who, D.E.B.S., Man of the House, The Grudge, The Forgotten, Anaconda: The Hunt of the Blood Orchid, The Cave, Lords of Dogtown, and Stealth.

Exclusive DVD-ROM Features: What happens when you pop the disc into your PC?

No DVD- Rom features are included on this DVD.

Final Thoughts