Boo

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. 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 murdered, my reaction is horror and anger; in this film, there is shock (and one character 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 a mere plot device, another 'reanimated dead' complication for our remaining cast to soon deal with.

Great use of a particular costume however, and it's always wonderful to see Dee Wallace Stone on screen.

A group of friends trapped in an abandoned building is hardly original, but this movie actually had a deeper story that was pretty good and would have served as a fine framework for a horror flick.

Parts of this movie were really good (like an 8), but unfortunately much of it was also a 4. It just wasn't consistent. Some of the horror elements and effects, for example, were very creative and creepy, but many were also bland, like a body on a gurney under a sheet sitting up. *Yawn. The acting too ranged from pretty good to pretty not good.

Overall, while a good story, it was a bit disjoint, skipping around a lot and hard to follow. Too much of it felt like someone walking through a haunted house going from one scare station to another and not really connected well to the story. Also, the dude-popping-up-behind-you scenes are okay in a handful or less, but I think there was about 20 of those.

In totality this probably isn't a 6, but it does have those few moments that were really well crafted and worth a watch. If those moments could have been consistent throughout and there had been another round of editing, this could have been really good.

You can't kill what's already dead Sounds like a cliché? It is. This is a movie that only it's mother could love, still for horror fans this has some campy entertainment value, the setting is a dark abandoned hospital, and who doesn't like that? The acting is hilarious and and it's a hailstorm of horror clichés, seriously, you could make a drinking game out of it. It really get's quite funny after a while. But then we have the dog. My god what was that?? ! truly the stuff of nightmares! Some special effects are actually quite good and gory but not used much, surprisingly maybe. Still It does drag on a bit so be sure to have your chosen beverage ready when you watch this.

SCHLOCK would have been a better title for this absurd excursion into a poor excuse for a fright flick.

Nothing redeems it. Not the story, the sub-par acting from a mostly teen cast, the witless dialog, the tired old explanation for all the goings on, and the complete lack of logic.

Whenever things get dull, another fright scene with someone gurgling on blood or turning into a gooey monster of decomposing flesh, is supposed to provide the kind of shock appeal to target a young audience.

Let's hope the kids today are a bit more discriminating in their taste for horror. This one is below the mark all the way.

The only redeeming feature is the sleazy look of the abandoned hospital grounds. Enough to make your skin crawl, disgustingly dirty, rundown and evil looking.

But the story and the characters are an insult to anyone's intelligence, poorly acted and directed to make this a complete waste of time. A writer like Stephen King could have done something with the basic idea--but it's too late now.

This movie was a distinct disappointment. The filmmakers had access to a very creepy location but really did nothing with it in the end. The pacing of the movie is very slow and the utter lack of tension in scenes that require it is embarrassing. Add to that the high school drama level acting and you have another waste of money and film. The only good performance came from Dee Wallace Stone and her performance matched to the other "actors" only show how really bad they all are. I really wonder how much was spent on this film and how many shooting days they had? Whatever it was, they misspent it. The chief problem is the director/writer. For a writer of horror film articles, he has little grasp of what is scary and no grasp of film-making. The camera is constantly in the wrong place and his sense of pacing is like molasses. I suggest this one goes in the avoidance column.