Geophyrd
09-Jun-2006, 12:51 PM
I caught Boo on SciFi the other night. I wasn't expecting a lot, as anything that airs on Sci Fi is generally low budget even if its got something greater on its mind. That isn't often. SciFi, aside from Battlestar Galactica and the occassional Stargate derivative, isn't generally all that good. The channel's a great idea, but the execution isn't all that.
Having said that, I actually found myself enjoying Boo. I said its appropriately titled in that time after time, this pop up, much like a little brother startling you, yelling boo.
First, the good. The sets are remarkable. I understand they actually used an abandonned sanitorium and (if the cross advertising can be believed) the cast and crew of the film actually had some ghostly encounters themselves. The sets (the sanitorium) are (is) amazing and creepy and should probably qualify for a starring credit above pretty much anyone else. I saw someone say it was the creepiest location since the movie Session 9 and I would agree. Like Session 9, the location (which they probably got for free) was the best special effect going.
Also good was that the bad guy was genuinely nasty. Freaky guy, all he had to do was show up to getcha.
Last for the good: there were some actually creepy moments. Never mind the gore, of which there was quite a bit, the elevator that only goes to the third floor, the stairs which only lead to the third floor (you can descend only to find yourself back where you started), the hole in the wall and the ghostly reveals all work pretty well. Ironic that the creepiest parts of the flick probably cost nothing.
Now, the bad. The direction in this movie was terrible. I don't know if there was a script but all the dialogue seemed improvised. While several of the actors were actually kind of likable, they seemed like they were having a hard time with their dialogue, like it didn't fit in their mouths.
Next, the actual story was kind of weak. I don't know how or why the villian could do what he could do. Apparently, he could possess bodies but the bodies wear out pretty quickly (aka Collie Etragian in Desperation). They (the bodies) also explode if shot and immediately splatter anything near. If a person is splattered, they get possessed. Or something, 'm not sure what .
Last, the inclusion of certain characters (Dee Wallace Stone for example) seems to be simply for marquee factor. I'm not sure when Dee Stone (from Cujo) became a draw, but then again I'm a little confused about the whole movie.
Its a little perplexing. Here is a movie that is actually better than some of the old Italian horror flicks (Let Sleeping Corpses Lie, almost anything by Mario Bava, Fulci or Dario Argento) that they seem to owe a debt of descendence. The movie is obviously a tv movie. No one would pay to see this in a theater and yet, here it is, on television with many many edits for obscenity (curse words dangit), an obvious missing sex scene or two, etc. Someone miscalculated. Dunno, maybe the foreign market will like it.
Anyhow, its worth watching very late at night, for free, particularly if on a cable station where it will maybe be uneditted for language or content. Don't bother renting, watching on SciFi or taping. Not worth the time.
Having said that, I actually found myself enjoying Boo. I said its appropriately titled in that time after time, this pop up, much like a little brother startling you, yelling boo.
First, the good. The sets are remarkable. I understand they actually used an abandonned sanitorium and (if the cross advertising can be believed) the cast and crew of the film actually had some ghostly encounters themselves. The sets (the sanitorium) are (is) amazing and creepy and should probably qualify for a starring credit above pretty much anyone else. I saw someone say it was the creepiest location since the movie Session 9 and I would agree. Like Session 9, the location (which they probably got for free) was the best special effect going.
Also good was that the bad guy was genuinely nasty. Freaky guy, all he had to do was show up to getcha.
Last for the good: there were some actually creepy moments. Never mind the gore, of which there was quite a bit, the elevator that only goes to the third floor, the stairs which only lead to the third floor (you can descend only to find yourself back where you started), the hole in the wall and the ghostly reveals all work pretty well. Ironic that the creepiest parts of the flick probably cost nothing.
Now, the bad. The direction in this movie was terrible. I don't know if there was a script but all the dialogue seemed improvised. While several of the actors were actually kind of likable, they seemed like they were having a hard time with their dialogue, like it didn't fit in their mouths.
Next, the actual story was kind of weak. I don't know how or why the villian could do what he could do. Apparently, he could possess bodies but the bodies wear out pretty quickly (aka Collie Etragian in Desperation). They (the bodies) also explode if shot and immediately splatter anything near. If a person is splattered, they get possessed. Or something, 'm not sure what .
Last, the inclusion of certain characters (Dee Wallace Stone for example) seems to be simply for marquee factor. I'm not sure when Dee Stone (from Cujo) became a draw, but then again I'm a little confused about the whole movie.
Its a little perplexing. Here is a movie that is actually better than some of the old Italian horror flicks (Let Sleeping Corpses Lie, almost anything by Mario Bava, Fulci or Dario Argento) that they seem to owe a debt of descendence. The movie is obviously a tv movie. No one would pay to see this in a theater and yet, here it is, on television with many many edits for obscenity (curse words dangit), an obvious missing sex scene or two, etc. Someone miscalculated. Dunno, maybe the foreign market will like it.
Anyhow, its worth watching very late at night, for free, particularly if on a cable station where it will maybe be uneditted for language or content. Don't bother renting, watching on SciFi or taping. Not worth the time.