John Carpenter's Suburban Screams

Only two of these "stories" felt even remotely true. The rest felt like they were very loosely based on only some actual events at best. So many of the details were derived or interpreted from presumption, or portrayed in such a way that is all assumed through implication. Some of the "truth" to the stories are merely assumed as truth cuz "there was a police report" so therefore...it must be true, right?! It's like Unsolved Mysteries met Goosebumps, but you're just supposed to take everyone's word as truth, despite there being very little to suggest it's anything other than a local legend. A lot of the acting in the dramatic recreations were also lame. And yet they portray the recreations in such way where they expect you to believe that's exactly how it happened. Here's the issue - MANY of the recreations didn't have ANY eye witnesses to them, so how on earth do you present alleged facts with no supporting evidence? This might as well have been kids telling you ghost stories they heard from other kids, who heard it from other kids...but you're just supposed to believe it's all true? Even when there's no documentation, evidence, or anything else at all?

Biggest mystery... why would John Carpenter attach his name to such a terrible series??

This series is NOT horror. It's low-grade late-night-network-tv-true-crime suspense at best. Sure there are some scenes that are more gory than network tv would allow, but gore does not equal horror. If gore is surrounded by really atrocious acting and storytelling, it's just gore for the sake of gore. At no point would I classify this series as "horror". It's true crime with boosted gore for some scenes.

Most scary thing.. the earrings and flattop on the guy in the first episode - especially the earrings.. just odd. Makes ya wonder... does he not have any friends or family to tell him how stupid the earrings look? Or do his friends/family all lie to him about them??

I watched 3 episodes.... that's really all I could tolerate. 3 because I had to confirm more episodes were poor, not merely the premiere. The first three episodes are at the same D-grade level in acting, story, and direction, leading me to believe so are the rest of the episodes. I'm not a masochist. So, I didn't bother with the last 3 episodes.

It's rather boring and "cheap" in my opinion.

A low-rent, knock-off, pseudo "True Crime Stories" with a sort of misguided "supernatural" notion surrounding them. It's got heaps of D-level acting and story telling. I just couldn't get past the over-the-top-forced-drama trying to push suspense as much as possible. It's borderline clichéd and somewhat comical and is so poorly acted that it essentially works against what it's trying to achieve.

I think some reviewers are rating this series MUCH higher than it deserves merely because John Carpenter's name is attached to it. I've rated this series based upon what I saw.... and not based my rating on some sense of loyalty or nostalgia because Carpenter has done truly excellent work in the past. Even the most adept director, writer, producer can falter... as Carpenter has in this series.

----- Pass ------

The stories, from both the US and Canada, are set in idyllic locations away from the hustle-bustle of city life that would appeal to a more mature audience in general, and viewers like me geared toward a more quiet setting.

The horror is a mix up of gore, human inflicted and the supernatural. Though its somewhat watchable, what makes it irritable is the constant switching between the mock interviews and the story narrated through flashbacks. Ideally perhaps, it would have been better suited if they started off with a short mock interview preparing the viewers for the story ahead, before delving into it without further disruptions, and finally concluding with the continuation of the interview to sum it all up.

Please stop talking trash about John Carpenter's Suburban Screams! It's a decent series! Ok! Carpenter it's not the same as in the 70's or 80's but it' s Carpenter at 75 years old! Cronenberg or Argento are not better! Please give the master some support! Do you want him to make nothing?

He is involved in:

• Comic books;
• videogames ( toxic commando);
• music;
• and now tv series.

The man is one of the best directors ever! Please show some respect! Is clint eastwood making better movies? Hell no!

So in this terrible world we live in it's very good to have something new from a master to see. Thank you Mr. Carpenter and Sandy King.

This is "true crime" garbage, joining the list of other such shows polluting the streamers.

It is quite idiotic, on so many levels. Lame "reenactments" and talking heads. Obvious fictionalizing of supposed real stories.

It is cheap programming, and apparently, the masses are eating up this tripe, or they wouldn't keep producing this stuff. It's lowest common denominator output.

I've seen this genre produced first-hand. This past year, for some money, I worked a true crime series, which I swore that I would never do. It was as bad as I expected, and I left the job. Everything about it was lame. The pay, the producers, the cheapness of it all. Very "Z level."

This series ups the ante, I suppose, by buying off John Carpenter.

I was watching this while on the treadmill, for a distraction, but I am not moving beyond the third episode. The same thing happened with the even worse "Phrogging" series on Hulu. I found myself yelling at the screen with this one, too.

There are some GREAT "true crime" documentaries out there, as opposed to this formulaic series nonsense.

Do. Not. Watch. This.