244) 1408 (2007) Halloween 2026's Haunted Cinematic Playback Extravaganza – The Manifestation of Ectoplasmic-Saturated Spook, Spectre, or Ghost Movies (Part II)

Halloween 2026's Haunted Cinematic Playback Extravaganza – The Manifestation of Ectoplasmic-Saturated Spook, Spectre, or Ghost Movies (Part II)

"Hotels are a naturally creepy place."

Director
Mikael Håfström

Cast

John Cusack - Mike Enslin
Samuel L. Jackson - Gerald Olin
Mary McCormack - Lily Enslin
Tony Shalhoub - Sam Farrell
Jasmine Jessica Anthony - Katie Enslin
Len Cariou - Mike's father


Horror writer Stephen King observed that hotels are naturally creepy places. How true that is. When I was a kid, hotels were a huge added bonus to the vacationing experience. Now, I'm kind of wary of hotels. Basically, I see everything in a hotel room as dirty. Everything has been used by hundreds of strangers before me. How many people have slept in the bed I'm sleeping in? How many people have used my towels to dry off their bodies and heads of hair? Did someone sit on the couch in my room bollock naked just to get a laugh at the thought that someone will sit in that same spot later? And these considerations come no matter how luxurious a hotel I'm staying in might be. Honestly, I don't stay in fancy hotels often. I'm willing to settle for a La Quinta or a Drury Inn. At least the Drury Inns have complimentary cocktails and complimentary dinners aside from the standard continental breakfasts.
Still, I can be paranoid about hotel rooms. On the other hand, it's best not to think about these kinds of things.
If only hotels would count hauntings as being part of their many amenities. I guess some do? It's usually the inns and motels that could use a gimmick to attract clientele. Free Wi-Fi. Free breakfast. Weight room. Hair dryer. Pet-friendly. Free on-site parking. Some rooms available with full complimentary poltergeist activity. Children under 12 stay free.
The 2007 movie "1408," based on the short story by Stephen King found in his book "Everything's Eventual," is a gem among paranormal horror flicks.
In this movie, John Cusack plays author Mike Enslin, whose catalog of published works deals with supernatural topics. His books include "Ten Haunted Hotels," "Ten Haunted Lighthouses," and "Ten Haunted Graveyards."
He stays at these "haunted" locations, conducts his paranormal research with all the usual ghost-hunting gadgetry, and yet doesn't believe in any of the things he writes about. Basically, he puts in a lot of work for something he doesn't really believe in. The big catch of his trade arrives when he receives a postcard from an anonymous source telling him not to stay in room 1408 at the Dolphin Hotel in New York City.
Of course, to Mike, it's an invitation to some great source material.
His intrigue spikes when he calls the Dolphin to book 1408, but he's told immediately that it's "unavailable" no matter what date he tries to book it for.
Thanks to Mike's publisher, Sam Farrell (Tony Shalhoub), and the publishing company's attorney, there's a legal loophole that if a hotel room is unoccupied, the hotel must give it to a paying customer upon request.
Just before checking in, the Dolphin's manager, Gerald Olin (Samuel L. Jackson), pleads with Enslin not to stay in 1408. Despite bribing him with expensive merchandise and a free stay in a nearly identical room, Enslin still insists on staying in 1408 for one night, just as he does with all the other haunted locations.

John Cusack as Michael Enslin in "1408."

But Enslin won't budge. He refuses to dupe his readers. Olin knows, however, that no one lasts more than an hour up in 1408. 
That's what Enslin quickly realizes within an hour of checking into the room. In that time, he realizes he should have heeded the advice on the postcard... whomever sent it. Maybe the room sent it? 
The evil that's staying in the room with Enslin seems to resemble the ghosts of his own past. His stay becomes an emotional breakdown once he has to wrestle with the evil as it uses memories of his deceased daughter, Katie, as well as his walking out on his wife after Katie's death, and his loss of belief in God.
"I've lived the life of a selfish man, but I don't have to die that way," he admits to himself.
There's something I like about this movie. Seldom, if ever, does a movie's creep factor stay with me to the point of making me wary of doing something or going someplace in particular...like a hotel room. That's thanks to one line in this movie: "Hotels are naturally creepy places."
My initial thought when I saw this movie shortly back in 2007 was that it would just be a jump-scare flick about a haunted hotel room. But it digs deeper than mere scares and creepiness. It's a story of a luxurious haunted hotel room. However, whatever resides in the room and prevents guests from leaving pulls its paranormal fireworks from within the guests themselves.
I read the short story just before writing this review. In the short story, just like in the film, room 1408 is the antagonist that pins the main character, Michael Enslin, against himself while nudging him around like a kid tormenting a bug.
But the attacks aren't just a scare here and an unusual happening there. The room attacks Enslin personally, digging into what he values most and tormenting him with his own memories, regrets, religious and supernatural skepticism, and emotional wounds.
That's well depicted in the movie, giving the haunted room emotional weight rather than making it just another ghostly gimmick.
It also gives the audience insight into Enslin and why he suddenly dedicated his life to writing about haunted locations after his young daughter dies. He claims he doesn't believe in God, and yet he's chasing entities he claims he doesn't believe in. Obviously, he does, as Enslin is really on a mission to get back at God for taking his daughter. Casting off faith and belief isn't enough of a revenge tactic against God. Enslin has to put in all his time and effort to convince himself and others that God doesn't exist, but nothing spiritual does either. 
"1408" is really a masterclass in showing and not telling.
King embraces uncertainty in his short story, making everything within Mike Enslin's reach inside room 1408 unreliable—the telephone, the room's door, and even time. He leaves Enslin with nothing to depend on.
I love how the movie doesn't make the monster thoroughly explained. It leaves a lot of ambiguity around whatever is in 1408. But whatever it is, the audience gets to sit and watch what it can do.
One scene sets this aspect off nicely.
When Olin realizes Enslin isn't going to bend on staying in 1408, he gives him the room key. To Enslin's amusement, the key is an actual key and not a magnetic card like hotels now hand to their guests.
"Most hotels have switched to magnetics. An actual key. That's a nice touch, it's antiquey," Enslin says.
"We have magnetic cards also, but electronics don't seem to work in 1408. Hope you don't have a pacemaker," Olin replies.

John Cusack and Samuel L. Jackson.

Throughout the movie, Enslin often talks into a small voice recorder he carries around with him when on an assignment for his books.
Enslin speaks into his voice recorder, "General manager claims that the phantom in room interferes..."
"I have never used the word 'phantom,'" Olin cuts him off.
"I'm sorry. Uh, spirit? Specter?"
"No, you misunderstand. Whatever's in 1408 is nothing like that."
"Then what is it?"
Olin leans in and whispers in his ear, "It's an evil f**king room."
The short story gives a bit more insight.
"There are no ghosts in 1408 and never have been. There's something in there—I've felt it myself—but it's not a spirit presence. In an abandoned house or an old castle keep, your unbelief may serve you as protection. In room 1408, it will only render you more vulnerable," Olin tells Enslin, begging him to reconsider.
I'm only on the second movie for this thread, and already I'm bending the rule with this review. The movie, like the short story, centers on something paranormal, but there's not really any ghosts except those of Enslin's past.
It's fitting that Enslin is a writer as the movie is his entrapment in his own mind. Writers are odd people because, among other oddities, they linger way too long in their own thoughts and considerations trying to craft clever ways to describe otherwise obvious truths and mundane observations. Writers generally love to artful ways of imposing their own ideas into truths and spaces where they don't necessarily belong. I'm probably doing that right now. It's like writers have to outperform the last guy.
And in typical King fashion, no one escapes their terror in the ideal way, and not without some kind of scar—external or internal, or both.
"1408" is a redemption movie. Evil inadvertently ignites a path back to God for Enslin. He ventured into evil despite being warned not to do so. He then got himself trapped. And that evil tried its darndest not to let him go. Even the skeptical Enslin turns his frightened and desperate glance to God and says, "You win."
Lastly, "1408" manages to turn the song "We've Only Just Begun" by the Carpenters into an unsettling experience. Nice move, movie!

243) Burnt Offerings (1976) Halloween 2026's Haunted Cinematic Playback Extravaganza – The Manifestation of Ectoplasmic-Saturated Spook, Spectre, or Ghost Movies

Halloween 2026's Haunted Cinematic Playback Extravaganza – The Manifestation of Ectoplasmic-Saturated Spook, Spectre, or Ghost Movies

Introduction

Halloween season is back, and with it comes another thread of horror flicks. That means it's that time of year when I dedicate the month of October to a specific genre of horror and thriller films. 

Last year, I watched a bunch of 1980s horror movies, one movie from each year of the decade, and commented on each one in a string of reviews I collectively called, "Halloween 2025’s rewind of terror ’80s horror movie thread extravaganza - the revenge!" 

The year before that, I dedicated October to vampire movies. Before that, it was the Leprechaun movies. And before that, I watched the first 15 Godzilla movies. This year, I'm going all in on paranormal horror, or haunted horror. Ghost flicks! Call it what you will. I'm referring to movies that involve ghosts depicted in some way or another so long as the movies are clearly about ghostly hauntings. 

Make no mistake. The antagonists in these movies I'm watching for this thread are spirits. Not zombies. Not demons. In fact, I'm intentionally staying clear of demonic/ occult movies. They're not vampires either, or any other form of the living dead. They're just...dead! 
When it comes to movie monsters, I'd have to say ghosts are my personal favorite. The "what-if" factor when it comes to ghost stories and hauntings is captivating. But don't worry. I'm not one to actually attempt to conjure up ghosts, nor do I have any desire to. 

I don't need ghosts flying around my house, opening my fridge and cupboards at 3 am, moving my car keys six inches to the left, using my checkbook to write bad checks, knocking on walls for no obvious reason, calling my name from the basement when I get up during the night to go to the bathroom, and doing whatever else ghosts do because they won't get a job and have to rub it in my face.

When it comes to the paranormal, the whole thing is more mysterious than outer space. Once someone's in the spiritual realm, there's no coming back. 
When the body and the soul are separated from each other, both things are considered disturbing. People are repulsed by dead bodies. And ghosts freak us all out. 

Plus, the term "haunted" is as quintessential a Halloween gimmick more than anything else. It's a term that can be slapped on anything just to make it Halloween-appropriate. Haunted houses. Haunted malls. Haunted Cadillacs. Haunted hospitals. Haunted dolls. Haunted bowling alleys. Haunted office supply stores. Haunted computer passwords. Haunted hamster cages. Haunted utility closets. The list goes on! 

This year, I have a sizeable list of titles, and many of those films I really want to watch. Since I'm starting this thread in May, instead of just picking out 10 titles I'm going to work through as many titles as I can get to and then post whatever I finish. Maybe it'll be 10. Maybe it'll be more. Maybe less.

There's a lot of good titles I could start off with, but I think this one is perfect. "Burnt Offerings" from 1976. 

The REVIEW

"The house takes care of itself." 

Director

Dan Curtis

Cast
Karen Black - Marian Rolf
Oliver Reed - Ben Rolf
Lee H. Montgomery - Davey Rolf
Bette Davis - Elizabeth Rolf
Burgess Meredith - Arnold Allardyce
Eileen Heckart - Roz Allardyce
Dub Taylor - Walker
Anthony James - the Chauffer


I'm starting off the creepy season with a supernatural horror flick I've had on my "gotta watch" list for years. That's no exaggeration.
"Burnt Offerings," directed by Dan Curtis and based on the Robert Morasco novel, is a movie with a haunted house as its main character. And it's a haunted house that studies its inhabitants while it haunts them.
But it's not just haunted. The house seems to be alive.
"Burnt Offerings" attracted me primarily because of the big names attached to it. The film stars horror legend Karen Black, Oliver Reed (each time I see Oliver Reed, my mind goes to his performance as Bill Sikes in "Oliver!"), Bette Davis, and Burgess Meredith. And what's even better, at least for me, is that the movie was filmed at the Dunsmuir House in my hometown of Oakland, California.
The Dunsmuir-Hellman Historic Estate, built by rich coal magnate Alexander Dunsmuir in 1899, is a huge house that's been seen in other popular movies, such as "Phantasm" (1979), the James Bond flick "A View to a Kill" (1985), and "So I Married an Axe Murderer" (1993).
I used to attend the Scottish Highland Games at the Dunsmuir House back when I still lived in Oakland. I have a fondness for the house and its grounds. They're absolutely gorgeous! The location is perfect for a movie like "Burnt Offerings."
There's dread hiding beneath the surface of such a beautiful home, bubbling and waiting to erupt. The creepy uneasiness wafts through the entire story, growing stronger, little by little, from the beginning. 

Oliver Reed and Bette Davis in "Burnt Offerings."

In this movie, Marian Rolf (Karen Black), her husband, Ben (Oliver Reed), their son, Davey (Lee H. Montgomery), and Ben's mother, Elizabeth Rolf (Bette Davis), move into an old mansion for the summer at the too-good-to-be-true price of $900 for the whole summer. The home's owners, brother and sister Arnold (Burgess Meredith) and Roz Allardyce (Eileen Heckart), ask the Rolfs to take care of their elderly mother, who remains locked in her bedroom upstairs while they stay. Marian loves the house and is eager to spend the summer there. Ben, meanwhile, is uncomfortable and doesn't want to stay. Of course, Marian talks him into it.
As far as the Allardyces' mother goes, all the Rolfs need to do is leave meals outside her door each day. That's all.
While the house is livable, it's certainly in need of repairs.
Strange events begin occurring, which doesn't sit well with Ben. However, Marian is all right with overlooking these oddities because she loves staying in the house so much.
Among these strange occurrences is the house actually repairing itself. Various injuries and mishaps coincide with the frequency of the house's self-repairs. Each time one of them gets hurt, something in the house is restored all on its own.
The more it does this, the more it feeds on their life force.
Meanwhile, Marian leaves the Allardyces' mother her daily meals outside her locked bedroom door. She also attempts to speak to the mother through the door, but the mother never responds. However, the meals are being consumed. Surely someone is secretly living in the bedroom.
Meanwhile, Ben starts having nightmares and hallucinations of an eerie chauffeur (Anthony James) in black clothes, sunglasses, a pale face, and a wide grin, whom he first saw in his youth driving the hearse at his mother's funeral many years ago.
This grinning chauffeur often appears to him at random times.
The family certainly suffers as a result until Ben realizes what's going on and what the house is really doing to them. It's not something coincidental. And it doesn't take long before he understands what the house actually wants.
But his wife is so taken by the house that she can't, nor does she want to, escape it. When the paranormal happenings reach their peak, and Ben and Marian realize they absolutely need to go, only one issue remains: What are they to do about the mystery woman locked in her bedroom whom they haven't actually seen the whole time?
I love the premise of this movie. And I love that the house is a crucial character in the story.

Right away, "Burnt Offerings" gives off sinister and foreboding vibes as soon as it begins.
It's Burgess Meredith and Eileen Heckart who give the story that initial ominous tone. And with Oliver Reed's character suspicious and cautious about staying there right from the start, only to be talked into it by his wife, the mood is perfectly set for the rest of this paranormal horror movie.
There's a similarity between this movie and Stephen King's story, "The Shining." Both stories have a husband, wife, and young son staying in an eerie and unsettling inn or hotel where a hidden evil lurks, preying on them slowly.
"The Shining," though, wasn't published until the following year. And Stanley Kubrick's famous movie based on King's novel wasn't released until 1980. Still, I definitely picked up on some "Shining" vibes as far as the general premise goes. I'm sure it's purely coincidental.
Lately, I've been thinking more about movies, horror and otherwise, that center on the subjects of family, isolation, and familial struggles.
As far as "Burnt Offerings" goes, it's a family up against an evil house. The house is the antagonist, whether it's haunted or simply an evil home. Something unseen and sentient is there with the family. It's the monster in the movie. It thrives little by little on their pain. And both Marian and Ben seem to transform under its influence.
The movie doesn't tell. It shows. My curious mind wanted more explanation, as the movie leaves plot points open to interpretation.
Maybe there's some deeper meaning in that premise regarding family secrets or a family's desire for wealth that leads to their deterioration. Or maybe it's simply a creative idea for a horror film.
The chauffeur adds an extra bit of perplexity to the whole thing.
There's certainly some personification of death, and of the fear of death that's always looming.
This chauffeur drives a hearse, after all. I mean, that's a little on-the-nose! Am I right? Of course, I'm right!
He also appears to Ben, whether in his memory or as an apparition, in moments of helplessness and tragedy, and when Ben recalls his personal trauma.
And when he shows up, an unnerving, predatory, and somewhat mocking grin grows on his pale face.
If the house is the killer, he must be the collector!

Anthony James as the Chauffer in "Burnt Offerings."

Overall, the movie has a slow feel and expects the audience to let their imagination fill in the spaces while conjuring up fear and uneasiness.

Bette Davis's supporting performance gives the impression that she has enough experience to recognize these occurrences. Having the legendary Bette Davis in such a grandmotherly role gives the family's experiences substance and uneasiness.  

And Burgess Meredith! I haven't seen a single one of his performances I didn't like. Versatile isn't a big enough word when it comes to Burgess Meredith. 
The movie doesn't throw the scares in the audience's face. It trusts the audience enough to let their minds help with the scary parts. Is there really a mother staying in that locked room upstairs? What was the deal with the Allardyce siblings? What is actually possessing the house? And while that may give the impression that the film lacks impact, it's the way a story is meant to be told—by showing rather than telling.
It's a good movie to kick off this thread with.

242) Obsession (2026) - New to horror

"I'll be anything you want me to be."

Director
Curry Barker

Cast

Michael Johnston - Bear
Inde Navarrette - Nikki
Cooper Tomlinson - Ian
Megan Lawless - Sarah
Andy Richter - Carter

There is, in the movie "Obsession," a reflection of the type of isolation that modern society has found itself in. 

The popularity of this movie, which somehow garnered a lot of attention despite being up against Steven Spielberg's highly anticipated alien flick, "Disclosure Day," is very telling of just how much this movie gets to its audiences.
In an age increasingly dominated by spectacle, technology, and artificial/digital connections, audiences evidently gravitated toward a movie whose appeal lies in something much more intimate, unsettling, and difficult to categorize. "Obsession" feels almost like an anomaly. It wasn't a big production. It has a small cast. Its budget was approximately $750,000.
Upon its opening release in May of this year, it earned over $17 million domestically at the box office, according to Box Office Mojo.
"Obsession" feels like an original movie, but its story feels pretty familiar, as if it has been told before.
It strikes a chord with audiences because it centers on loneliness. Its popularity may say as much about the audience watching it as it does about the movie itself. Perhaps modern audiences aren't looking to be blown away by another mega-blockbuster spectacle like "Disclosure Day." Instead, it seems they're looking for something that reflects themselves.
As I've mentioned before, horror movies more often than not reflect the societal anxieties and fears of their respective decades. I'll get to that in detail after I finish writing this review. Few fears are more unsettling and emotionally moving than loneliness.
Things such as digital communication, political polarization, and even the decline of a shared popular culture, which conservative commentator and filmmaker Matt Walsh calls the "death of the monoculture," have brought about this wave of loneliness and isolation among a lot of people. It's an unraveling of social connections.
"Obsession," directed by YouTuber Curry Baker, is a tale similar to the Monkey's Paw, with some "Romeo and Juliet," "Fatal Attraction," "Frankenstein," "The Twilight Zone," and a dash of "The Exorcist" to taste. Even so, it still taps into something that should be recognizable and blatantly obvious about our modern society.
Even with that said, "Obsession" still has something that's very much its own.
In this movie, lovestruck Baron Bailey (Michael Johnston) — "Bear" to his friends — is head-over-heels in love with his friend, Nikki (Inde Navarrette).
Bear and Nikki's friends and coworkers, Ian (Cooper Tomlinson) and Sarah (Megan Lawless), know how much he loves Nikki. But Nikki doesn't realize it. Or does she?
Bear wants to tell Nikki how he feels, but doing so might wreck their friendship. Maybe it won't? It's a gamble the likes of which a majority of audiences can surely relate to.

Inde Navarrette and Michael Johnston in "Obsession."

Instead of manning up and just letting her know, he's too apprehensive. She sends out vibes that she also has feelings for him, but then sends out signals indicating that she doesn't want a relationship with anyone.
On a whim, and in an act of desperation at its most ridiculous, Bear purchases a novelty wish-maker called a "One Wish Willow." It's supposed to grant the person who uses it only one wish.
So, Bear wishes that Nikki will love him more than anyone in the world. Then he breaks the "One Wish Willow." And it works. Nikki falls in love with him, but in the worst possible way.
Her affection for Bear starts off as a consuming obsession that can only intensify.
While it seems like a dream come true for Bear, he quickly feels trapped by her jealousy, attachment, violence, and emotional blackmail.
Just as Bear wanted a relationship with Nikki and got it in a supernatural way rather than an honest way, he becomes desperate to get out of it.
Obsession" turns unhealthy attachment, the desire to be loved, and what happens when someone tries to control another person's affection into a supernatural horror story in a way that is neither ridiculous, over-the-top, nor campy. The general premise of a boy in love with a girl is very relatable. And to make it into a nail-biting tale about loving someone versus loving the idea of someone deserves applause.
I love the realism behind the fantasy within this all-too-familiar scenario of unrequited love, or the uncertainty of whether or not someone we fall in love with, with what feels like a solid and unmovable love, shares those same feelings.
Heaven knows I've been in such a scenario. And there's absolutely no doubt that when that happened, somewhere within my hopes and imagination, I wished I could just wave a magic wand or say the right words, and that object of my affection would immediately like me back. No doubt that kind of thought has crossed the minds of millions of other hopeful young men and women at least once in their lifetime.
Well, what if that actually happened? We can see, without rose-colored glasses, what that might actually look like.

There are a few well-known movies somewhat similar to "Obsession" as far as the story's control-disguised-as-intimacy-or-affection plot point is concerned.
The movie that comes straight to mind after seeing this is the 1990 movie "Misery," based on the novel by Stephen King. That's certainly a story of infatuation and love turning into imprisonment.
"Fatal Attraction" from 1987 is also similar insofar as the actual obsession trope goes. However, "Fatal Attraction" is about someone becoming obsessed with someone else, whereas "Obsession" has someone making someone else obsessed with them.
I'm also reminded of the 1997 movie "Wishmaster." That movie is about getting precisely what you wish for, but with terrible consequences. In "Wishmaster," the supernatural forces that make the wishes come true interpret those wishes in horrific ways.
In "Obsession," with his initially innocent wish, Bear is trying to take on powers that don't belong to him by controlling Nikki's emotions.
By doing this, Bear ends up bringing destruction and chaos.
He starts to really doubt whether it's actually love. And that's the big question: Love or infatuation?
The latter is really the anti-love in that it's utterly selfish. The obsessed person projects their own desires onto another person. They don't actually love the person for who they are. Rather, they love their own idea of the person they're infatuated with, convincing themselves that they love them. It's a regrettable and easy fault to fall into.
The acting is absolutely amazing. Michael Johnston has to portray a character who second-guesses his decision rather quickly, and then second-guesses his own doubts as he does love Nikki. But his forced relationship brings misery and fear. Meanwhile, Inde Navarrette has to be both in love and terrifyingly smitten. She has to go from a likable character to a terrifyingly overbearing girlfriend more and more as the story progresses.
But even though Nikki acts obsessed, she's really going through all the motions of being completely in love, with random and short-lived moments of lucidity, only to be taken over again by what Bear initially wished for. It must have been difficult for both actors to portray constantly conflicting emotions throughout the story and to do so convincingly.
They also have to convince the audience that no person would be sincerely happy or satisfied with someone who loved them by force. Their performances are nothing short of amazing.
I'm sure "Obsession" will find a popular and respected place in the genre. Between this movie and another that came out this same year, "Backrooms," I think it'll be regarded as a decade-defining horror film. And Bear's terrible wish will be one heard around the world.

Fear through the decades

A scene from "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920). 

Silent-era horror, which spread from approximately 1895 to the first talking picture "The Jazz Singer" in 1927, reflects upon themes of death, spiritualism, the unknown in general, and industrialization, as seen in films like "The House of the Devil" (1896), "The Haunted Castle" (1897), and "The Bewitched Inn" (1897). 

This was a perfect era for someone to film the earliest adaptation of, perhaps, the most famous of ghost story ever told, "A Christmas Carol," British filmmaker Walter R. Booth did turn "A Christmas Carol" into a movie called "Marley's Ghost." 
This very early period is best known for a genre called trick film. This genre, developed by French filmmaker Georges Méliès, was designed to show off and wow audiences with novel special effects they had never seen before. So, ghosts and the supernatural were certainly well-fitted subjects for trick films.
As the 1920s rolled around, the subject of ghosts and the supernatural morphed into fears of invisible threats and invasive outsiders, as well as psychological fears stemming from the aftermath of World War I.
"The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" (1920), "Nosferatu" (1922), and "Faust" (1926) scared audiences during this period.
The 1920s ended with the beginning of the Great Depression. The film industry was booming at the same time that societal anxiety over widespread unemployment, poverty, industry, and social decline was growing, thanks to that lingering sense of uncertainty.
Horror became a mix of looming monsters and scientists practicing their evil deeds without moral restraints.
"Frankenstein" (1931), "Dracula" (1931), and "The Invisible Man" (1933) came out during this decade. This was the era of the Universal Monsters, including these three iconic monsters. And these monsters  came from foreign far-off places. 
Monsters transitioned rather well into the 1940s as World War II waged on throughout the decade.
America was certainly fearful of foreign invaders, along with the general paranoia over whether those around us were friends or foes.
So, the idea of monsters transitioned more into monsters hidden among us, perhaps disguised as ordinary people.
"The Wolf Man" (1941), "Cat People" (1942), and "Dead of Night" (1945) come to mind when I think of 1940s horror movies.
Things really changed once the U.S. bombed Japan and World War II ended. Things got really atomic in the 1950s. In fact, that era of horror, much of which melded with science fiction, is often called the "Atomic Age". By the way, I've read a lot about this kind of stuff. Does it show?
Anyway, this is the era when giant mutant monsters began attacking cities and towns.
"The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms" (1953) is such a perfect example of atomic horror, if anyone were to ask me. 

Godzilla (1954)

I would be terribly negligent (oh, yes...I would) if I didn't mention that the "King of the Monsters" himself first arose from the depths of the ocean thanks to hydrogen bomb testing, and first attacked Japan in 1954. Obviously I'm referring to Godzilla. Over 70 years later, they're still making Godzilla movies. Alien invasions were also a huge problem in this mesh of horror and science fiction back in the 1950s. So, alien flicks such as "The Thing from Another World" (1951), "It Came from Outer Space" (1953), "Invaders from Mars" (1953), "The Blob" (1958), and "The Day the Earth Stood Still" (1951) were just as frightening as giant-monster movies. There were a lot of these sci-fi horror/thriller flicks in the 1950s. But in my opinion, a lot of these movies were gimmicky.
Horror really took a dark turn as social upheaval, loss of faith, and attacks on conservative values sprang up in the 1960s. Horror became more plausible. Evil moved out of the dark castles and scary old mansions of Europe and moved in right next door.
Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho" (1960) and "Rosemary's Baby" (1968) really cap the sixties with that premise.
That realism and plausibility became even more pronounced in the 1970s, especially as Americans were losing faith and trust in American leadership. It seemed that institutions were failing society. There were even radical changes occurring in the Church. Nothing seemed as dependable as it used to be. But evil was still real.And it was very plausible. 

So, horror got real, and filmmakers loosened a lot of restraints.
"The Exorcist" (1973), "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" (1974), "Jaws" (1975), "Halloween" (1978), and "Alien" (1979) show how scary horror can be when given the chance. This era also introduced the trope that police can't always protect us and our neighborhoods.
When the 1980s came around, realism stuck around to a certain degree, but fantasy made a sort of comeback into horror.
While confidence seemed to be restored in our political system (the Reagan years, baby!), consumerism, materialism, body transformation, suburban anxiety, and the sins of our parents from the 1970s took over.
So, films such as "A Nightmare on Elm Street" (1984), "The Fly" (1986), "Hellraiser" (1987), and "Child's Play" (1988) were released during that period.
When it comes to the 1990s, I have trouble putting my finger on what the horror genre was trying to convey. Cold War anxiety seemed to fade a bit throughout the decade.
The Los Angeles riots took place in the 1990s, as did the Waco, Texas, siege—events that led to distrust of and heavy criticism toward law enforcement and government leadership.

"A Nightmare on Elm Street" (1984)

The suburban paradise of the 1950s and 1960s was long gone. Neighborhoods deteriorated, traditional family structures and ideas were far from what they used to be, and youth violence and gang activity continued to rise all thanks in large part to the Great Society agenda of Lyndon Johnson—a sorry failure, indeed.
"Candyman" (1992), "Scream" (1996), "The Sixth Sense" (1999), "The Faculty" (1998), and "The Silence of the Lambs" (1991) came out during all this turmoil.
America's fears and anxieties shifted considerably after the September 11th terrorist attacks.
Between 2001 and 2010, Americans seemed to think hard about random victimization, survival tactics, foreign threats, and surveillance. The world saw what unsympathetic, raw evil was capable of. Catastrophe can happen anywhere, anytime, unexpectedly!
And this certainly was reflected in the genre, with films like "Saw" (2004) and "Hostel" (2005).
That brings me to 2010 to 2020. The internet. Political polarization and division seem to be interwoven in our current social climate. The beginning of modern isolation also came about quickly, thanks in part to the introduction of the smartphone and social media. Constant accusations of racism. Radical progressivism taking over normalcy. And I did mention the internet, didn't I?
"Get Out" (2017), "Hereditary" (2018), "Midsommar" (2019), and "Us" (2019) were, perhaps, the biggest horror titles from that decade. These films depict isolation, societal polarization, and alleged racism.
So, here we are now in 2026. We're inundated with isolation as we all struggle to pry our eyes off our phones. And we're witnessing the scary reality of AI the uncertainty it brings. One of its side effects is that it has brought about a large distrust of almost everything. It's as though we're continually being lied to. Scammers are constantly calling us or trying to get us to click on something. It's difficult to tell what's legitimate and what's not sometimes.  

As a society, we've already been struggling with a lack of trust in others. Everyone seems to be out to scam us.
Now, we can't even believe our own eyes. What's real? What isn't?
Our phones are such a convenient escape from reality. Trust in others isn't what it used to be. 
I don't think we've ever been this isolated. 
And two horror movies were released this year that press that painful wound of loneliness in our society in ways that seemed to strike a nerve. One was "Backrooms," which I'll get to later. The other is this one—"Obsession."

Not a Review Necessarily - My 'Carrie' trailer reaction

Summer H. Howell as Carrie White in the upcoming miniseries "Carrie." 

Horror writer Stephen King's first novel, "Carrie," published in 1974, is getting a new movie. I don't know what to write that would best convey how unenthused I am. It's been done already. More than once. 

Well, it's not just a movie. It's a miniseries. And the trailer for this new adaptation of King's story dropped July 25th. 

I have to add that it seems Stephen King miniseries are more often terrible or mediocre at best. I think I can count on the fingers of one hand those that are actually good on the fingers of one hand. 

"Salem's Lot" from 1979 is one of the best vampire movies I've seen. "The Stand" from 1994 is also pretty good. And "11/22/63" is certainly worth checking out. My wife even liked that one, and she's no Stephen King fan. "Welcome to Derry" which is based on characters from King's "It" was alright. Not mind blowing but I tuned in to finish the whole series. I'll throw in the series "Castle Rock" which is based on multiple stories by King just to give the good list a solid five titles. The second season was better than the first. 

But it's easier to remember the awful ones - "The Tommyknockers" (1993), "The Langoliers" (1995), "The Shining" (1997). That's "The Shining" with Steven Weber and Rebecca De Mornay. It was certainly underwhelming. And "Rose Red" (2002) was, as I recall, boring. 

"Carrie" is about a 16-year-old high school girl named Carrie White, living in Chamberlain, Maine, who has the power of telekinesis. She's mocked and ridiculed at school. And she lives with her overly zealous religious mother who thinks everything about her own daughter is an abomination before God. Fast forward to the infamous prom scene where some bullies dump pigs' blood on her, and all hell breaks out. Audiences have seen it over and over again, even if they didn't read the book. 

The first adaptation of King's novel, and the most well known in the horror genre, is director Brian De Palma's 1976 movie of the same name starring Sissy Spacek as Carrie. and Piper Laurie as her fanatical mother. John Travolta also stars in a supporting role along with William Katt.
In 1999, "The Rage: Carrie 2" was released as a direct sequel to De Palma's movie. Directed Katt Shea, the sequel stars Emily Bergl as Rachel Lang who is the younger half-sister of Carrie. Like her older half-sis, Rachel also possesses telekinesis. It was released in theaters and panned by critics. 

In 2002, a made-for-TV version of "Carrie" was released and premiered on NBC. It stars Angela Bettis in the lead role along with Patricia Clarkson as Carrie's mom. Like most other Stephen King made-for-TV stuff, it bombed. 

And then in 2013, a third adaptation was released starring Chloë Grace Moretz and Julianna Moore. I saw this in theaters when it was released. Despite the good acting, I found it poorly cast. Chloë Grace Moretz does not strike me as an unpopular girl at school. She has all the characteristics of being the kind of high school teen other students would be fumbling over themselves to vote for as prom queen. She doesn't seem like the kind of teenage girl who would have any trouble finding a date to the prom, neither. But she was cast as Carrie. Though her acting was great, the role didn't fit her. 

This new adaptation of "Carrie" is directed by Mike Flanagan and starring Summer H. Howell in the title role alongside Samantha Sloyan as her mother.

While the trailer looks like it'll be more of the same, all I really can say is that it better add something new to the prom, the likes of which hasn't been seen in previous adaptations. 

Maybe the acting will be phenomenal. Maybe as a miniseries, "Carrie" will be an edge-of-your-seat thriller. Still, based on the trailer, I'm not holding out for anything even partially mind-blowing. I don't know anything about Summer H. Howell, but I will say she does seem to fit the part of Carrie White. She certainly does way more so than Chloë Grace Moretz. 

Director Mike Flanagan is, I'll say, a decent director. He directed "The Haunting of Hill House" (2018) which I enjoyed. He also directed the Stephen King movie, "Doctor Sleep" in 2019 which is based on King's novel sequel to "The Shining." And I thought it was a well done! It's also not the only other King IP that Flanagan directed. He did "Gerald's Game" in 2017 which I watched but I don't remember much about it except the ending. 

And speaking of Flanagan's horror movies, he did the movie "Oculus" also in 2017. That was a pretty well put-together film. So, maybe "Carrie" will be a great series. I'm still not waiting with shaking anticipation to see it. Why? Well, it looks like more of the same.  

Too often, Hollywood producers, who are often too stupid to realize how out-of-touch they are, often mistake familiarity for demand. Just because audiences recognize the title and maybe have a nostalgic love for an IP like "Carrie" doesn't mean they're asking for another version of the exact same story again and again. But, as I said, Hollywood is painfully out-of-touch.  

Maybe I'll watch it should someone else recommend it.

The series is scheduled to premier October 7, 2026 on Amazon Prime. I'll probably be tuning in to something else. 

241) Children of the Corn (2023)

"I think the little ones have been breathing in too much rotting corn fungus."

Director
Kurt Wimmer

Cast
Elena Kampouris - Boleyn Williams
Kate Moyer - Eden Edwards
Callan Mulvey - Robert Williams
Bruce Spence - Pastor Penny
Stephen Hunter - Calvin Colvington
Erika Heynatz - June Willis
Anna Samson - Sheila Boyce
Andrew S. Gilbert - Sheriff Gebler
Joe Klocek - Calder Colvington

The film "Children of the Corn," based on the short story by horror writer Stephen King found in his 1978 book "Night Shift," is one that still seems to be referenced even by people who may never have seen it. Who hasn't driven through a small town that seemed eerie, and someone tossed out a reference to "Children of the Corn."

Somehow, the 1984 film directed by Fritz Kiersch has managed to tarnish the veneer of most, if not all, small rural American towns. Norman Rockwell might still be spinning in his grave. But I'll come back to the aftermath later. 
The first "corn" film adaptation, which I wrote about a few years ago on this blog, was the 1983 American supernatural short film "Disciples of the Crow."
Then the 1984 movie came out, followed by a string of sequels: "Children of the Corn II: The Final Sacrifice" (1993), "Children of the Corn III: Urban Harvest" (1995), "Children of the Corn IV: The Gathering" (1996), "Children of the Corn V: Fields of Terror" (1998), "Children of the Corn 666: Isaac's Return" (1999), and "Children of the Corn: Revelation" (2001). 

These subtitles kill me. Why not "Children of the Corn: Extra Butter" or 'Children of the Corn: Ear Today, Gone Tomorrow," or even "Children of the Corn: Please Stop Planting So Many Sequels?"
Anyways, after all of those sequels came the SyFy original movie "Children of the Corn" (2009).
That was followed by two stand-alone films, "Children of the Corn: Genesis" (2011) and "Children of the Corn: Runaway" (2018). That's a lot of corn! 
That brings us to the 2023 adaptation I'm writing about. Interestingly enough, this movie is the third film adaptation of King's original story and the first in the string of movies since the 1993 sequel to receive a theatrical release.
Getting back to the story's influence on the image of small American towns, especially those in the Midwest, "Children of the Corn" has associated rural isolation with danger. 
Religious communities now seem a little more suspect. Cornfields seem menacing. In popular culture, the distinction between rural backwoods Americans and supernatural evil cultists can sometimes become blurred.
And thanks to "Children of the Corn," along with films like "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (1974), horror has embraced the trope of "don't stop in the little town" as one of its major staples. The story and the movie helped lay the groundwork for both roadside thrillers and folk horror.
But give the horror genre enough time, and eventually everything innocent becomes a source of terror.
So, after all that, on to the 2023 remake.
This adaptation certainly takes plenty of liberties with King's short story.
The movie is set in the farming town of Rylstone where failing corn crops have pushed the community toward financial ruin.
However, the cornfields are somehow influencing the town's children.
The story begins with a gruesome murder that shatters the already struggling community. Afterward, a young orphan girl named Eden (Kate Moyer) leads a violent band of children who turn on the adults with no remorse or restraint. They do whatever Eden tells them to do.
Eden, along with her band of merry young'uns, believes they are carrying out the will of a supernatural entity they call "He Who Walks."
The number of adults in town quickly dwindles. It's up to one teenage girl, Boleyn Williams (Elena Kampouris), who has been trying to save the adults, to stop Eden and the supernatural monster festering within the cornfields once and for all.

Kate Moyer as Eden in "Children of the Corn."

Aside from "Disciples of the Crow" and this remake, I've only seen the 1984 film. It contains some genuinely creepy moments, not to mention an unforgettable atmosphere and an eerie performance from John Franklin as the disturbing child preacher, Isaac. Unfortunately, it all builds toward one big, corny, and stupid ending.
This remake tries to become an unforgettable horror experience but never quite reaches that goal.
The dialogue is flat and unconvincing, and the CGI effects look about 15 to 20 years behind the times.
However, Kate Moyer really carries this movie. She was only 12 years old when she starred in it, and her performance is easily the film's greatest strength. Moyer fully embraces the stone-cold, self-righteous, and utterly unsympathetic nature of Eden. She gives the character an intimidating presence that dominates nearly every scene she's in. It's a remarkable performance that just might surpass John Franklin's Isaac in terms of sheer menace.
The 2023 film is certainly more disturbing and graphic than the 1984 version. While the original relies more heavily on unsettling atmosphere and creepy children, this remake leans into brutality and shock.
Sadly, everything feels both underdeveloped and rushed at the same time. The movie simply wants to get to the scares so audiences feel they've gotten their money's worth before the credits roll. It's a cheap thrill.
There are themes of rural decline, failing leadership, and perhaps even generational conflict, all set against the backdrop of small-town America. Unfortunately, none of these ideas receives much exploration. Instead, the film rushes from one horrific moment to the next.

For anyone familiar with King's story, and the 1984 adaption, this remake could easily be a prequel film. King's story takes place 12 years after all the adults in the town (Gatlin in the book) are killed. 
From the looks of things, Hollywood is still making—and remaking—movies based on Stephen King's works.
Personally, I think King's best years as a writer are behind him. The last truly worthwhile adaptation I remember watching was the eight-episode miniseries "11/22/63," based on King's novel of the same name and starring James Franco, which streamed on Hulu in 2016.
The last King novel I genuinely enjoyed was "The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon" (1999).
I tried reading "Sleeping Beauties" (2017) and "The Institute" (2019), but I struggled to get invested in either one.
Around 2016, as I've mentioned before on this blog, King experienced something of a renaissance. A sudden wave of adaptations hit theaters, thanks in large part to the enormous success of "It" (2017) based on his novel of the same name.
That renaissance has since tapered off, although several of his previously un-adapted stories have continued making their way to the screen.
"The Long Walk," based on King's 1979 novel, was released in 2025.
"The Monkey," based on his 1980 short story, was also released in 2025. That one wasn't too bad.
"Children of the Corn" feels like a respectable attempt, but it misses too many marks to be considered one of the better or more memorable Stephen King movies. At the same time, Kate Moyer's performance makes Eden worthy of being remembered as one of the franchise's most memorable villains—perhaps even more so than "He Who Walks" or Isaac from the original film. Sadly, despite its efforts, "Children of the Corn" ends up being just another remake.

240) The Hand (1981)

"It was just one of those things. A freak accident."

Director

Oliver Stone

Cast
Michael Caine - Jon Lansdale
Andrea Marcovicci - Anne Lansdale
Mara Hobel - Lizzie Lansdale

Annie McEnroe - Stella Roche
Bruce McGill - Brian Ferguson
Rosemary Murphy - Karen Wagner
Viveca Lindfors - Psychologist

With a title like "The Hand," I expected a simple cheesy flick with a plot pulled from a truck stop horror paperback novel that's now long out-of-print. 

"The Hand" is about a hand. To be more specific, it's about a severed hand that crawls around and kills people with an unmatchable strength that none of the two arms, muscular strength, nor both hands of its victims can match.

I never heard of this movie. So, I was surprised when I found out Oliver Stone directed. That almost seems like a scenario conjured up in a Mad Libs book. 

And yes, I'm talking about "JFK," "Wall Street," "Natural Born Killers" director Oliver Stone! I was never a fan of his, but he's still famous...and stuff. 

With Stone attached to this schlocky sounding flick, it goes from cheesy B-flick to psychological thriller. 

Stone turns the story's focus towards exploring the protagonist's crumbling mental state rather than watching a disembodied hand skitter around attacking people and as they scream in terror trying to escape. The audience gets to see all that happen from the hands point of view.

Reading that back in my head, "from the hand's point of view" sounds a little dirty. So, never mind.

In this movie, Michael Caine plays successful comic book artist Jon Lansdale. While driving with his wife, Anne (Andrea Marcovicci), they start arguing as their marriage is on the rocks. Anne, who's driving, loses control of the car and they end up in a gruesome accident. Jon's drawing hand is completely severed. This, along with his crumbling marriage, pushes Jon into serious emotional turmoil.

He has a difficult time coping with the loss of his hand. And as expected, his career as an artist suffers. It's just about completely over. Signs of a mental breakdown start bubbling to the surface. 

This, of course, is a huge weight for Anne. Jon's behavior has become erratic and unpredictable. 

He also starts becoming suspicious of his wife's yoga instructor, thinking Anne is cheating on him. 

All this emotional strain causes Jon to have hallucinations. 

Meanwhile, his severed hand is alive and crawls its way around killing those close to Jon.

After a community college in California offers Jon a job. He leaves their house in New York and moves to a small California town to take the job. Anne and their young daughter, Lizze (Mara Hobel) stay in New York. 

But the hand somehow follows him. 

Jon has to eventually confront the increase of deaths around him thanks to his hand before he completely loses his mind!

Many a timeless cinematic tale have involved the loss of a hand - "The Empire Strikes Back," "Peter Pan," "Army of Darkness" (Groovy!) and I'll throw in "The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King" into the list even though Frodo lost half a finger rather than his whole hand. 

There's a lot going on in this movie though it sounds like a simple plot about a crazy artist and his undead hand. Still, it feels like the story doesn't dig deep enough into Jon's psychosis.

Sure, he has all these terrible things happen but despite how bad life is treating him, it doesn't seem like it's enough to drive him to the crazy state he finds himself in. 

Michael Caine is a fantastic actor. So, he plays this role seriously. He builds up the insanity in Jon.

The key observation is "build up." His character goes through grief, rage, guilt and depression before arriving at full psychological collapse. It doesn't seem like his problems are so crippling and emotionally crushing that they warrant the extreme reaction of splitting his personality right down the middle. That's not to say his character wouldn't go through serious emotional turmoil. He did lose his hand which he depended on for his career, and his marriage is on the rocks. 

If it wasn't for the living severed hand, I wouldn't know if I was watching a horror movie or a tragic drama. 

Even so, Caine seems committed to the role. Most instances, Caine really puts in the emotion - anger, frustration, and fear. Other times, he's staring blankly waiting for his line. 

The whole thing is obviously a showcase of symbolism and allegories for Jon's identity loss, anger, and lack of control over his life.  

That's obvious because all the victims of "the hand" are people connected to Jon's problems. When those bodies start piling up, the ending becomes all the more obvious. 

I've never been much of an Oliver Stone fan as he seems to take too many liberties with the historical content that he bases his movies on. 

This movie, despite its best efforts, is original and also underwhelming. And Jon's descent into madness didn't convince me. That's not because Caine is a terrible actor. It's because Jon's development isn't executed well. 

The extent of his mental decline feels more like a requirement for the plot to roll along rather than something genuine. 

The movie, though, does fit into the type of films Oliver Stone is known for. His movies generally revolve around men, damaged to some degree, who either suffer paranoia or obsession, or something along those lines. Stone's films are often intense, and "The Hand" is no different. 

His movie "Platoon" centers on soldiers damaged by war. The movie "Wall Street" is a story of ambition becoming corruption. Stone's movie "Nixon," which is an objectionable movie, depicts President Nixon as struggling with political power amidst personal insecurity. 

In "The Hand," Stone seems to be trying to find his niche, and it's a project that deserves attention despite the problems it has. It has all the feel of something experimental.

It also sounds like the perfect popcorn creature feature. It's a psychological thriller that tries to be deep and impactful. It doesn't dig deep enough into the main character and ends up a little too far on the silly side as the hand crawls around while Jon is having his emotional roller coaster ride. 

I'll give Oliver Stone credit for attempting something ambitious. I'm taken with the premise of a loose hand that's alive and scaring everyone. I actually wanted more of that! 

Ha

239) Boogeyman (2005)

"For fifteen years, everybody told me I was making it up. Everyone said it was just a story. There's no such thing as the Boogeyman. But I was right."

Director

Stephen Kay

Cast
Barry Watson - Tim Jensen
Emily Deschanel - Kate Houghton
Skye McCole Bartusiak - Franny Roberts
Tory Mussett - Jessica
Andrew Glover - Boogeyman
Charles Mesure - Rob Jensen
Lucy Lawless - Mary Jensen
Phil Gordon - Uncle Mike
Jennifer Rucker - Pam

It's about that time where I start getting next Halloween's thread of horror films to review figured out. I know the theme I'm going with. I just need to get a movie lineup figured out. I have plenty of titles written down to choose from. But what to watch? I'm really excited for this year's thread and the horror theme I chose. This'll be a good one. 

It dawned on me while watching the 2005 supernatural horror movie "Boogeyman" that I need to get moving on those ten films I plan on posting for October. It takes me this long to watch and review that many movies. 

"Boogeyman" is a movie I see everywhere. It's practically on every streaming service under the horror category. I stumble upon it wherever people are selling off their horror DVDs. I'm sure I've seen it buried in just about every bargain bin I've come across. I even managed to obtain a copy, and I don't remember where or how I got it. Seriously! I have no recollection of ever buying it. It's not a movie I would buy, even if the price was right. It's just there amongst my DVD library. Somehow it got into the house. Maybe it crawled in underneath a door or through an open window? Maybe it was living in the walls or something since before we moved into this house? Weird! But I decided to let it stay out of the goodness of my big stupid heart, and with a spec of hope that maybe it might be worth hanging on to. 

I often wondered if this movie was based to any degree on the short story "The Boogeyman" by Stephen King. 

In 2023, King's story got the movie treatement also called, "The Boogeyman." I've already watched and reviewed it. I remember enjoying it for the most part though I remember very little about it. Otherwise, I've been confused a bit by all these Boogeyman movies. But let me clarify that "Boogeyman" is not based on King's story. What a shame!

The film starts as young Tim Jensen witnesses an evil paranormal entity hiding in his closet snatch his father into the dark abyss of the closet. Since then, he never saw his dad come out of the closet. I feel like I have to mention that. 

Anyways, witnessing this paranormal abduction scars Tim rather deeply well into his adulthood.
Later, now an adult, Tim (Barry Watson) grows up fearing this entity's return. He has also developed a fear of closets. I'd be terrified of closets and the people who come out of them if I witnessed such a spectacle as little Tim did.
After his mother suddenly dies, Tim decides to go back to his childhood home as a way to cope with the trauma he's carried with him since his dad went into the closet. 

While living in his old home by himself, he finds evidence that the closet monster, which is never referred to as the "boogeyman," is still lurking about. And he's claiming more victims. 

Tim's friends, including his girlfriend Jessica (Tory Mussett), begin disappearing as if the monster is trying to get back at Tim because... that's what monsters do? 

Tim realizes that he's going to have to face this thing head-on. He doesn't know how to defeat it, nor does anyone else. Tim's guess on how to defeat this beasty is anyone's guess. But he knows he's going to have to find the monster's weakness and use it. 

This is one of the most mundane and bland horror flicks I've seen. I get the impression that the writers must have wanted audiences to take this horror movie seriously despite using as many cliches as they could hoping nobody would notice. 

It's such a generic movie, it's almost extraordinary. I mean this is the epitome of generic. The title should have been a big indication how flat and stock the story is. "Boogeyman" in this case is just as scary as calling the movie "Big Scary Closet Monster."   

It starts off with a twist on the old boogeyman-in-the-closet trope. The rest is the same old closet monster stuff. That's all this movie is all the way to the end. 

The ending is nonsensical. We see Tim confront the Boogeyman and attack it through means that were lost on me. It's as though the movie thinks the audience is in on on something that Tim knows about defeating the monster, so there's no need to explain anything. I must have missed something because I definitely felt out of the loop. Basically, it made very little sense how Tim knew how to defeat the Boogeyman, and what the Boogeyman's motives are in stealing kids from their bedrooms in the first place. I think the final conflict has something to do with conquering fears. Yawn! 

All the movie has to rely on is all its jump scares and the Boogeyman himself portrayed in beautiful early CGI. Sarcasm intended! 

Nor is there any explanation as to why it has its crosshairs on Tim but never actually did anything to him outside of causing a lifetime of trauma after little Tim saw it take his father right there in the safety of his own bedroom. Why does it want to torment him and make his loved ones disappear? 

There's a lot missing in this movie. Even monsters and demons have motives. 

"Boogeyman" is neither scary nor enticing. It's a generic movie with it's seemingly paint-by-numbers premise about a scared kid confronting the Boogeyman. It overrelies on jump-scares, and has a protagonist that's flatter than the actual premise. It's a movie best left in the closet. And my copy is taking up precious shelf space in my library. I better take care of that.