Boogeyman 3

I watched "Boogeyman 3" without having seen the previous 2, although they are in my collection. So I had no expectations to the movie, and I had little clue what it was all about. And it seemed that you didn't really need to have watched the first two movies to be in the loop.

"Boogeyman 3" is not rich on shocks, creepy moments or scares, though I have a decent enough amount of gore in it. I found this to be a rather dull movie for a horror movie. I wasn't thoroughly entertained and I sure wasn't feeling any sense of dread.

The story told in this movie, well it was a bit weak and there were some gaps in the overall flow of the story. But it did manage to pull through and close up nicely enough.

Not being familiar with the boogeyman from the previous two movies, I found the make up to actually be quite nice. He looked sinister enough, especially the face. However, and I must point this out, the noises he made, what was up with that? They were more of a hilarious thing than a scary thing. That really didn't work well for the movie. And why would he be chasing people when he can apparently just appear from any shadow or dark place? What was the point of chasing the tail of people? For shocking and scaring the people, sure. But if you think about it, it really made no sense.

The effects and CGIs in "Boogeyman 3" were good enough, and I liked what I saw. The blood, however, was a tad too red. But other than that, good enough job.

As for the acting and the people starring in this movie. I found most people to actually do a good enough job with their roles. Nothing award-winning here, but still good for a horror movie of this caliber.

If the "Boogeyman" series is an attempt at a slasher like Jason Voorhees or Freddy Krueger, then it is not much of a memorable character they have as the killer. There is nothing iconic about this boogeyman, sorry to say.

For a horror movie, "Boogeyman 3" came off quite weak, and there are lots of other horror movies out there far better. Now that I have seen it, I can honestly say that I will not pick it up and watch it again. I will, however, watch part 1 and 2, just for the sake of having seen them.

A supernatural force known as the Boogeyman is stalking a campus dorm in Northern California. It's fuel is people believing in it's existence.

The film opens with a young woman named Audrey who is the daughter of Dr. Allen from Boogeyman 2. He was the lead supervising doctor at the clinic where Henry went on a murderous rampage while dressing up as the boogeyman. One night as she mourns his death, a shadowy figure comes from under her bed and pulls her under. We then go to a university in Northern California where we meet psych major Sarah and her group of friends. Audrey comes to her dorm room late at night and tells her about the boogeyman and within hours she is dead.

The boogeyman makes it look like a suicide, but Sarah saw the figure strangling Audrey. While reading through Dr. Allen's journal, Sarah reads that he believed there was some sort of actual supernatural boogeyman which got life from others believing in it. Pretty soon, she tells the entire campus her beliefs of the boogeyman through a university radio show. This gives the boogeyman strength and makes the body count rise. Will anyone survive?

Boogeyman 3 isn't a bad horror film, I enjoyed it way more than the original movie despite the much lower budget. It takes back to the supernatural boogeyman like n the first film and doesn't follow the serial killer story from the sequel. I do think this movie made the idea of the boogeyman haunting people who believe in it much more enjoyable to watch than part one. It follows a simple story and doesn't try so hard to break away from that.

The acting is definitely the weakest of the series. Erin Cahill leads the way as the main character of Sarah and does a fine job. Everyone else is fairly unknown and not all that impressive. The characters are also not really written well either. That was a flaw for me as I didn't really care who survived or not. I also found the ending to be a bit of a letdown.

Overall, Boogeyman 3 is a fine low budget horror film. It definitely felt and looked like the lowest budget in the entire series and took a step back from a pretty good second movie in my opinion. But worth a watch at least once for horror fans.

5/10

The whole Boogeyman movie series is one I just can't understand. I just don't know what it is trying to do and be exactly and the series as a whole is one you can easily do without, even if you really are into horror stuff.

Thing with the whole series is that it's trying to be horror but at the same time also serious movies with drama in it. The results are a whole bunch of slow moving and not that very interesting movies, that besides also hardly do anything new or original. They fail at being good movies and they just don't work out the way they were supposed to. They were persistent though, since this is actually the third movie out of the series. Seems that it also is the last one out of the series though, fortunately.

Seems that this movie was a tiny bit trying to be more like a common modern horror/slasher. It just isn't being a very good one though. As earlier mentioned, the movie is just moving too slow and is not being very interesting with its story or any of its characters. It also does a poor and lazy job with its story really. It doesn't ever explain anything, though I admit that this movie still did a better job at it than any of the previous movies, out of the series. But still, it's mostly relying on all of the events that happened in the previous movies and does very little to try and delve deeper into things and search for a clear explanation for all of it. It's actually funny how all of the movies are heading into a totally different direction with their stories and as a series, the 3 movies just aren't being connected very well or convincingly to each other.

At times the gore and some of its other horror elements were still OK but overall it's being nothing too exciting or surprising.

And I was about to rate this movie just as 'highly' as its two predecessors but then came its moronic ending, which was something totally unconvincing and just did not worked out very well.

Just really not worth watching.

4/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

The boogeyman lives in closets, that's the urban legend in the US. Over here he lives under your bed and in other countries it's also somewhere else. What I mean is, the boogeyman is everywhere and curses anyone that crosses his destiny. And so all movies with boogeyman in it were cursed. From the first one in the eighties unto today nobody really liked them. Or they were cursed with poor effects, or with sad CGI. But number 3 in the franchise, is the best of them. Again it is a mix between CGI and at last a real person. And that makes it all a bit creepier. to compare it with the first one, there is already T&A in the first minutes and there is already blood too, two things we missed in the first part. And there is a lot of blood. Sometimes gallons of the red stuff flows on screen. They even put a bit of gore in it. A bit of lack of suspense in the storyline but it's a good starter for an entertaining evening.

After Sarah (Erin Cahill) witnesses the supposed suicide of her friend, she must fight to prove that her friends and the rest of the college campus are under attack from a malicious force known as (you guessed it) The Boogeyman.

There's something I've learned while spending the majority of my film-watching life consumed by the horror genre: No matter how good or bad a film is, a sequel is always a good idea (in the minds of the producers, that is). From the ten Friday the 13th sequels (which range from great to insultingly bad) to the thirteen (with more coming) Witchcraft films (all of which are awful), no matter how unnecessary a sequel seems, you can always fit one in. These days, it seems even worse. Even seemingly unknown films are getting countless sequels. Now, I can understand the annual Saw installment. They're perfect Hollywood moneymakers: Lots of earnings with minimal risks. But, Boogeyman? Does this really need two sequels? The first one was bad enough (yet still somehow managed to earn more than double its budget at the box office), and the second was pretty bad as well. . . so, why a third? Well, they've got that $28 million they earned at the box office burning a hole in their pocket and, instead of using it on something worthwhile, why not throw a couple million at what they assume is a built-in audience. Is there a built-in audience? Would I count as a part of that simply because I've seen both? I sure hope not. Regardless, before watching, I had actually heard some not-so-bad things about this installment, so I thought I'd return to the subpar franchise once more. This is the last time though, I swear! Anyway. . . the film itself is pretty bad. Most notably, the amateurish acting and script make for a dull and unlikable movie. The direction seems very "TV movie" and the editing is awful, exchanging MTV-style jump cuts for real scares. As a whole, the film stands as a typically underwhelming, unscary, and poorly made low-budget horror that should be avoided by anyone other than the truest of fans of the first two Boogeymans (then again, if you like both of those, I don't know what you WON'T like).

Obligatory Horror Elements:

• Subgenre: Demonic, I guess? Or ghost, or something.

• Violence/Gore: There's a good bit of blood but none of the violence is really explicit enough to make it worth it.

• Sex/Nudity: A teensy bit of the homely girl at the beginning, but nothing too sexy.

• Scares/Suspense: A for effort, but flash-cuts aren't really all that scary. The acting was pretty frightening though.

• Mystery: Not really. Just pretty stupid.

• - -

Final verdict: 3.5/10. Lame, unoriginal, and unscary. Pass on this one.

-AP3-