Film The Boogeyman (film)

[Ds]

Another Stephen King book making it to the big screens in June.


Apparently the movie was so scary that the audience testers screamed to much.

Can't wait to see it because in my last psychosis I saw the boogieman.

 

[Jerry Atrick]

Another Stephen King book making it to the big screens in June.


Apparently the movie was so scary that the audience testers screamed to much.

Can't wait to see it because in my last psychosis I saw the boogieman.

The Boogeyman is a short story from a Stephen King collection call Night Shift.

I was exposed to that story on while on a camping trip when I was a kid. Scared the bajeezus outta me. I mean really, when you're camping there is nothing to separate you from the boogeyman outside but a thin ass layer of nylon. And we all know you hear everything out there when you're in a tent.

 

[ChemicallyEnhanced]

I was excited for it until I found out it's PG-13. I hate that. It seems a trend for a lot (maybe even most) horror movies to do this in recent years. It's so frustrating because you end up with a basically watered down movie. I'm not saying every horror movie needs to be Saw X or Terrifier 2, but PG-13? Really? It very rarely works and doesn't even make sense from a money grossing aspect as statistically, R rated horror movies almost always gross significantly more than PG-13 ones. There was even a thing in the 80s (but when a single "fuck" could get an R rating) directors would literally just have a character say "Fuck" at some point to ensure an R rating if they weren't sure which rating there were gonna get.

EDIT: Has anyone seen this who can post a (spoiler free!*) opinion on it? I've heard mostly bad things, but a couple good.

*yes, I've read the story but as a kid in like 2003, plus given it's a feature-length movie based on a short story I'm gonna assume the movie is very different anyway

 

[Ds]

I was excited for it until I found out it's PG-13. I hate that. It seems a trend for a lot (maybe even most) horror movies to do this in recent years. It's so frustrating because you end up with a basically watered down movie. I'm not saying every horror movie needs to be Saw X or Terrifier 2, but PG-13? Really? It very rarely works and doesn't even make sense from a money grossing aspect as statistically, R rated horror movies almost always gross significantly more than PG-13 ones. There was even a thing in the 80s (but when a single "fuck" could get an R rating) directors would literally just have a character say "Fuck" at some point to ensure an R rating if they weren't sure which rating there were gonna get.

EDIT: Has anyone seen this who can post a (spoiler free!*) opinion on it? I've heard mostly bad things, but a couple good.

*yes, I've read the story but as a kid in like 2003, plus given it's a feature-length movie based on a short story I'm gonna assume the movie is very different anyway

Yes. I saw it in theaters. It made me jump at least 6 occasions.
Never read the book though..
It didn't really have a lot of violence and gore, like some R rated movies did. Maybe just enough to keep it PG-13.
The Directors cut version of the movie will probably be the best version of the film worth watching because he edited some shit out because it was to 'scary for viewers'.

 

[ChemicallyEnhanced]

The Directors cut version of the movie will probably be the best version of the film worth watching because he edited some shit out because it was to 'scary for viewers'.

Umm...he WAS aware that he was making a HORROR movie, right?

 

[Ds]

Umm...he WAS aware that he was making a HORROR movie, right?

Not sure honestly. They usually come out with unrated along with the DVD I'm guessing.