John Carpenter's Suburban Screams

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 ------

I'm just gonna come out and say it.. John Carpenter was the king of the 80s. But he hasnt been on that throne in over 3 decades. He had a couple passable movies in the 90s but the dude lost his touch tbh. He's been thriving producing synth music for a while now. That's where I think he should've stayed.

His last movie The Ward was so awful I was like yea dude, retire already lol.

So when I saw that he was doing this series, I literally had no interest at all. But... then I saw that it was a documentary series and that had my intrigued! Like wow a true crime series hmmm. This could possibly be worth a watch maybe.

Unfortunately all of these "cases" seem really unbelievable and honestly very uninteresting. I found myself bored to death through the whole thing. I also felt somewhat phony. Like these people recounting the events were actors or something. Not to mention the re-enactments were REALLY horrible. Like that's to be expected from your run of the mill true crime series.. but this is John Carpenter right?? It should be better I would think...

I mean for comparison.. ID has a series called Real Detective that was rebranded to The Case That Haunts Me and that series has amazing re-enactments and it's on the discovery channel..

Anyway... it's not like the worst thing I've ever seen (hence the 3 stars) but it was definitely boring and I can't really recommend it either.

I don't understand the rating of the season. It's 4.4 (Date: 17.10.2023).

But, comparing this rating 4.4 with the individual ratings of the six episodes of season 1

Season 1 - Episode1: 5.4 / Episode 2: 6.2 / Episode 3: 7.1 / Episode 4: 7.1 / Episode 5: 6.5 / Episode 6: 7.1

something is not right. The average of ratings of the six episodes is 6.6.

Some reviewers here haven't even seen all episodes of this first season, but write a review and rating more or less after watching just two episodes. Sorry, but this is no good practice and gives a false impression of this series. Furthermore, how is it possible, that the season gets an overall rating of 4someting, but the average rating of the episodes is 6something? Makes no sense.

I suggest, please check the individual rating of each episode.

Some thoughts on the show: The show has some old-school flair, is not groundbreaking or needlessly overproduced and follows some traditional horror story telling. It uses the true-crime setting with interviews and storytelling as flashbacks. If this kind of story telling is not your flavor, than skip this show.

John Carpenter is one of the shows executive producers, directed episode 6 and composed the main theme music with his son Cody. Furthermore, his voice is in the intro of the episodes.

I liked the stories, the atmosphere and the good production values of this show. It's a solid horror show for gloomy sundays.

My overall rating for this first season is somewhere near six stars.

----

18.10.2023 Ratings update:

season rating: 4.5

episodes ratings: E1: 5.4 / E2: 6.5 / E3: 7.2 / E4: 7.3 / E5: 6.5 / E6: 7.3 = average episodes rating 6.7

--> difference between season rating 4.5 vs average episode rating 6.7

----

19.10.2023 Ratings update:

season rating: 4.4

episodes ratings: E1: 5.2 / E2: 6.0 / E3: 7.0 / E4: 7.2 / E5: 6.1 / E6: 7.2 = average episodes rating 6.5

--> difference between season rating 4.4 vs average episode rating 6.5

----

23.10.2023 Ratings update:

season rating: 4.4

episodes ratings: E1: 5.4 / E2: 6.2 / E3: 6.6 / E4: 6.4 / E5: 5.7 / E6: 6.7 = average episodes rating 6.2

--> difference between season rating 4.4 vs average episode rating 6.2.

----

07.11.2023 Ratings update:

season rating: 4.6

episodes ratings: E1: 4.9 / E2: 5.9 / E3: 6.0 / E4: 5.7 / E5: 5.2 / E6: 6.2 = average episodes rating 5.7

--> difference between season rating 4.6 vs average episode rating 5.7.

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?

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.