The Boogeyman (1982) Poster


User Reviews

Add a Review
11 Reviews
Sort by:
A father is losing his children one by one...and his sanity.
Kenny-292 January 1999
This mega-cheap, college film has a way of getting under your skin. The main character is so weird that I didn't know if I was watching a good performance or a bad one. Watch this one late at night with the lights off, then check your closets! I found it when I rented Stephen King's Nightshift Collection which showcases this one along with "The Woman in the Room".
9 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Awful adaptation
camachoborracho15 April 2004
Not because it's a college short film, but because:

a) it butchered possibly Stephen King's best short story &

b) as a film alone it doesn't really make any sense

the acting left something to be desired too and I really found the music annoying. The main protagonist (Lester Billings) was interesting but I was unsure if this was a good or bad performance, I want to say good but the direction was bad and the effects were cheesy thus bringing down the actor. Too bad.

Final verdict: Stay away from the film. Read the book.
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
From the works of Stephen King.
Joseph P. Ulibas7 August 2005
The Boogeyman (1982) was a lame adaptation to the eerie short story that was written by Stephen King. This story can be found in the short story collection called Night Shift. Quite a few of these stories were adapted into film (either shorts or features). The film makers of this one fell a sleep at the wheel. I understand about budget limitations, but this is no excuse. The movie was boring and the actors over acted big time in this one.

The story is about a scruffy and unpleasant man who seeks psychiatric help from a professional (i.e. a psychoanalyst). In his meeting, he describes the deaths of his children to him. He's guilt ridden over how his children died and he wants to relive himself of the burden of his children's deaths. Who killed his children? Is the dude responsible? Will I enjoy this movie? I don't know, you'll have to find out for yourself when you watch the Stephen King short film adaptation of......THE BOOGEYMAN!!!!

Not worth it but you might want to take a gander.
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Boogeyman (1982)
C. Dennis Moore19 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This is the reason I love YouTube. When I learned in the late 1980s that there was a short film version of Stephen King's NIGHT SHIFT story "The Boogeyman", all I wanted was to see it, just once. Being a huge horror fan and a huge King fan , and having seen all of the other movies based on his works, it was the missing piece of the puzzle.

But when you're a 15-year-old kid in the Midwest in a small town before the internet's been invented, what are you gonna do? So thank God for resources like YouTube where things like this can finally be seen?

"The Boogeyman" was the first of King's famous Dollar Babies (he's had a longstanding open deal where student filmmakers pay him a dollar and they get the rights to film one of his stories), filmed in 1982 by writer/director Jeff Schiro and starring Michael Read as the main character Lester Billings. In the story, Lester's children are dying. Not all at once, but over the years each of his three children have died, and all three deaths have been ruled crib deaths. But Lester knows the truth is that the Boogeyman has taken them.

The story is told from Lester's point of view as he's relating the events to his psychiatrist. Michael Read shines in these moments as a paranoid, hyper-aware Billings, a man nearly at the end of his rope, whose mania is about to cause a nervous breakdown because he feels responsible for the deaths of his children even if he knows the real killer was the Boogeyman. His guilt stems from the fact that, after the second child died, Lester knew it was the Boogeyman who was killing his children, but when the third child began crying and becoming more fearful of being left alone in the dark, instead of sticking around to protect him, Lester fled in fear, desperate to save himself instead. When he returned, the child was dead, just like the two before him.

The first time I read "The Boogeyman", I was 13, on a drive down to Florida to spend a week visiting my aunt. The story blew me away, both in its narrative voice and the twist ending which, at that age, I didn't see coming. But further reading, and seeing this movie, show me it's more than just a twist at the end, the entire story is so well-plotted, it gives us a chance to further understand Lester's character and gives a much deeper sense of the guilt he feels.

Schiro made a really decent short film given it was 1980s technology and he couldn't have been working with a very large budget. I thought the film was too dark in some places, but I feel that may have been on purpose to further obscure what we're allowed to see and what we have to leave up to our imaginations. Certainly the extensive use of shadows creates a much more foreboding atmosphere.

The subplot with the cop ultimately went nowhere and I feel it should have been deleted and let us focus solely on Lester's story, but when those cuts come, they're timed in a way that it gives this short 28- minute film a much larger, more cinematic feel.

For what it was at the time of its creation, THE BOOGEYMAN is a pretty good movie. It may be a bit simple for those unfamiliar with King's work and will probably give naysayers more ammunition in their "Stephen King is a hack" argument, considering it is, in the end, just a movie about a man telling his psychiatrist that the boogeyman killed his children. But for those folks, they're missing the nuances of this story, which, unfortunately, I don't think the movie makes as clear as it could have. A few extra lines of dialogue would have made those subtle details stand out.

However, as a long time fan of the original short story, I like this movie. It brings with it a lot of nostalgia and helps complete that Stephen King movie puzzle.

King on Film Carrie (1976) 1003625/content_91443072644 Salem's Lot (1979): 1040466/content_620198661764 The Shining (1981) 1018844/content_621040144004
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Decent Telling of the King Story
Michael_Elliott9 October 2012
The Boogeyman (1982)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

Stephen King adaptation has a father (Michael Read) being arrested for killing his child but the story he tells Dr. Harper (Bert Linder) is quite different than what the police think happened. The father claims that his son was murdered by the boogeyman who lived in his closet and he tells the doctor his story. This student film from Jeff Schiro actually managed to get released back in the day and while I think it has a few good moments the end result isn't quite as good as one would hope. I thought the first five minutes were quite effective and I think they really captured the heart of the story, which is meant to say that the boogeyman kid's fear is living in their closet is real and it can kill them. The middle section of the picture is where it drags as we get some rather boring dialogue scenes that I'm sure were meant to work as psychological horror but they never really reach a creepy level. The ending of the film finally picks up some but at 28-minutes there's no question that it feels a tad bit too long. The performances are really hit and miss but I thought both Read and Linder were fine, although I think some better editing could have helped both. The music score isn't all that good and appears to be trying to copy THE SHINING. With that said, fans of King's short story should get a few kicks out of this but a better version is certainly needed.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
seveleniumus27 August 2009
This one is probably misunderstood by many, because of it's genre. It's short but very powerful story and I can't see any way in which it could have been done better. It perfectly reflects the horror and disturbance in the main characters mind. It doesn't really give you too much of a plot, but because of it's genre it's not what it's supposed to do. The main thing here is psychology and this short delivers that part perfectly. And I guarantee that some words said here will haunt you for some time. I'm a fan of Stephen King and can really see his reflection here, it really reflects his style - madness, disturbance and despair - that's the glorious mix of Mr. Stephen King. Watch it if you have some free time to waste.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Could've been a lot better and probably deserved a better adaptation, but still a very decent and worthy production of one of Stephen King's best early short horror stories.
Foreverisacastironmess5 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
A distraught and unhinged father who has lost all three of his children over the years to which he had gradually come to realise was all the work of an evil entity, is interrogated by the police and then by a shifty doctor who has a very scary secret of his own to share... As a short film this is noticeably cheap and very rough, in fact it's a bit of a hack job, but again overall I do find it to be a fair adaptation of that classic King story "The Boogeyman", which if you've read will know was never going to be one of his earlier efforts to do screen justice in any event.. I don't think this short deserves to be outright panned though, its murky shadowed visuals and choppy sound design and even weird synthy music score give it an extra touch of pretty effective atmosphere, and while most imperfect and not particularly satisfying by the time it wraps up, I do find it to be a very compelling and eerie little watch. The ending really doesn't do it any favours though, after what I find to be a solid and unsettling buildup, sadly the rushed and confusing final scene falls flat on its butt thanks to a poor makeup effect and some I'll-fitting trippy lights. It ends on a bit of a 'huh?' But it's still creepy! Of course you can never capture the kind of superior dread and atmosphere that the original story had, but that said I also thought the ending of the story was a slight weak point and a bit of an anticlimax in comparison to the build up to it. It's not exactly my era but it does have something nostalgic about it and I love how it's so old, being made in 1982, it could have by the grace of the sadly late George A. Romero been another chapter in his masterful anthology movie Creepshow. Watching this made me fondly want to dust off the book and read the story again. So perhaps this is one that should be left to Stephen King fans who may want to check out a more obscure adaptation of one of his stories, but it's still a a cool curio of a horror short that commands an effectively spooky tone and is well worth seeing at least once. Don't be afraid of the dark! x
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Closet case
ctomvelu123 May 2010
Amateur-grade adaptation of a Stephen King story from his legendary NIGHTSHIFT collection. A screwy father's three children die, one by one, which he attributes to a monster in the closet. Now he is worried he will be next. Most of this short film has the dad telling his story to a kindly psychiatrist. A very static film, consisting mainly of one actor at a time appearing on screen to spout his dialog. Michal Read is the nervous dad, and the best part of this odd little thriller. The surprise ending is a hoot. Bert Linder is the benevolent shrink. The editing is on the choppy side, so be prepared. It is worth watching if for no other reason than to see what lies on the other side of that closet door.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The scariest things...
tabaddon26 May 2004
The scariest things about this ultra-low budget short are the opening titles and jarring score that tries far too hard to mimic Wendy Carlos' 'The Shining' score. It does not succeed.

Even as a student film, it's contrived and poorly executed. Framing is off (and not in an 'artistic' way), direction seems scatterbrained (and not in a 'good horror film' way), and the soundtrack seems out of sync in places (enough to draw attention away from the story). The climactic end scene is anything but, and even confusing.

Steer clear of this slow, tired adaptation - it doesn't represent the story well at all - and read King's original composition. The out-of-print VHS (part of the 'Nightshift Collection') is only worth hunting down if you're a serious collector of Stephen King or amateur/student horror attempts.
1 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not sure where this was supposed to be heading
Warning: Spoilers
"The Boogeyman" is a live action short film from 1982, so this one has its 35th anniversary this year and it is the most known work by American writer and director Jeff Schiro. Admittedly, he wasn't too prolific at all in his career and the fact that this one here is not entirely forgotten also has to do with the fact that this is based on a work by the very well-known writer Stephen King. I have not read it, but I can hope that it's better than this 25-minute movie which I found really forgetting. It is never scary and it also does not deliver from the thriller perspective. The one or two good moments aren't memorable enough either and even for a film of under half an hour, it just doesn't deliver enough. Can't really blame the actors as they are trying to elevate the material, but it rarely works. One for Stephen King completionists only. Everybody else can skip it because it just isn't a rewarding outcome overall.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews