Reviews & Ratings for
They More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 27:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

261 reviews in total

---

38 out of 47 people found the following review useful:
not all that bad..., 18 October 2004

Author: foilbeany from ohio

Some SPOILAGE...

I didn't think this movie was all that bad...certainly wouldn't call it trash or a classic. It did "borrow" some from "Darkness Falls" but for whatever reason, i found this a bit more creepy....maybe because i find creepy, shapeless, unseen-moving-shadow-type monsters (like those from our childhood fears) more frightening than a screeching witch-like thing flying about as if on a broomstick....i've seen the moving shapeless shadows moving in the dark corners of my room; i've yet to see a flying witchlike thing. The star could have been more voluptuous, but then that's kind of what i liked about this movie...none of the standard gore, sex, and slash. The slightly open doors of the dark closets which hid the monsters of our childhood as they observed us, worked for me; I made sure my closet doors were shut that night. Also the abandoned pool scene was somewhat of a flashback-fright for me. All in all, I thought this was an entertaining movie that was technically well done. Contrary to most, i also liked the ending. "They" definitely works better on viewers who are home alone at night...those dark areas of the house seemed a bit darker; and all the little unexplained creeks and bumps a sleeping house makes seemed more meaningful. I do wish they would have expanded more on the brief theory that darkness may be the channel used to travel from one dimension to another... In truth, there is really a limit to how many different ways a horror movie can scare you; we've seen them all over and over...it is just like a thrill ride, we all know what is going to happen; the challenge in a horror movie is to touch something in us that results in a fear response; i guess therein lies the key as to whether you like or dislike this movie.

---

34 out of 51 people found the following review useful:
A surprisingly solid genre picture that delivers first-rate atmosphere and scares., 8 December 2004
Author: Li-1

Rating: *** out of ****

In this era of modern horror, it's really the little films that come through and surprise me the most, so I'm glad to include They among this recent bunch (which also includes the terrifically frightening Dead End and the surprisingly funny Monster Man). I must admit to having relatively low expectations; the film was promoted with the heading "Wes Craven presents" and the film's director, Robert Harmon, hasn't done anything worth mentioning in years.

But the movie works, and if it's not particularly original or outstanding, it's at least very well made and makes smart decisions (i.e. a more atmospheric, quietly creepy approach) that lesser films would have avoided. In fact, the movie is so low-key I'm surprised it wasn't just given a straight-to-video release, as nothing in this picture screams box office success the way a noisy, thrill ride approach that Darkness Falls employed might.

They stars the very cute Laura Regan (sporting an adorable haircut!) as Julia Lund, a psychology grad student who's contacted by an old friend of hers. They reunite in a coffee shop, with the friend mentioning some half-comprehensible blather about "they," then kills himself right before her eyes. At his funeral, Julia meets a couple of his more recent friends (played by Ethan Embry and Dagmara Dominczyk), and upon a few conversations, discover they all have something in common. They've experienced night terrors as kids and believe something in the dark that once branded them as children is now back to collect.

Even running at a scant ninety minutes, it could be debated They still runs too long. The subplot with Embry and Dominczyk doesn't really go anywhere and only provides the opportunity for two lengthy sequences where we know these two are going to meet a particularly horrifying fate. Had these two scenes been less effective, I might have complained, but these setpieces are directed with the right amount of build-up, tension, and atmosphere, making the pay-off worth it. And at least those two aren't as fundamentally useless as Marc Blucas, who plays Julia's disbelieving boyfriend. It's a cliché role and nothing about him stands out in the slightest (see The Grudge for a very similar role).

As the lead, Laura Regan proves a very competent performer who's sympathetic and likable. The little discoveries she makes are creepy and intriguingly enthralling. There's hints of an alternate "universe" these creatures live in and the brief views we get of this world are among the film's most visually engrossing moments.

The monsters themselves are mostly kept out of plain sight, kept hidden in shadows and darkness so that what little we can see only enhances the scares. The sounds they make also build a nice sense of unease, a trilling noise that gives the creatures an otherwordly feel to them, not unlike the mysterious creatures in Signs.

The film is mostly a collection of effectively frightening setpieces. Most of the concepts the movie introduces are left both satisfyingly and frustratingly unresolved; there's just enough to fascinate, but maybe just a few more answers or theories would have been appreciated. They comes to an abrupt end, but that works in favor of the movie, finishing things off on a startlingly high note.

---

25 out of 35 people found the following review useful:
Imaginary creatures who live in the dark come to get their victims., 8 December 2003
Author: icelandknight from Reykjavik, Iceland

This film has it's good and bad sides. There's a lot of potential and beautiful scenes in this movie. I don't know how they managed to find that country scene with mists, the moon, a country road and everything just perfect!

It also succeeds in scaring the viewer quite a few times with startling attacks and creepy camera work. I would even have liked to see more of this, but true, it might become repetitive, and we know how how we hate repetitive stuff in the world of the short attention span! Also sound is used to scare, like the telephone ringing in the 'Exorcist', at a tense moment.

It also slightly over uses the "monster coming to get the camera" scene, where a scary monster comes at the camera (/viewer). These are good methods of scaring people.

There are some terrible logic errors and they do spoil the film for 'thinking' people. If it was a real scenario her boyfriend, for example, wouldn't let her out of his sight! Much of the plot relies on the people isolating themselves from others for anything to take place. The strange thing is, even though they know they are in danger, they still go off on their own, where no one is there to help them. Whenever there are people present, nothing happens.

This flaw ruined the film a bit for me. I kept thinking "why is she doing THAT", when nothing would happen if she did THIS. Very frustrating... but I guess they were out to make a movie about people being attacked when they were alone, and this is what they ended up with. (The British "Lenny Henry Show" did a great parody of this kind of movie, with the actors always saying: "We've got to split up, it's more likely we get chopped up that way!" and "oh-oh, the music's changed, that must mean - here comes the bad guy!")

Also, without spoiling anything, there are some places where people just seem to willingly ignore the facts. Like when a window is broken -inwards-, into a closed chamber. No one even noticed that, and one is left asking - and then what? Just another missing person from a locked room? How many of these can there be? Where are the paranormal investigators when you need them? Where are the university geeks want to become the "ghost busters"? They investigated stuff like this in "The Entity" and that was supposed to be based on a true story.

Coming back to the positive side, I can imagine the actress playing the main part was chosen because she bears a striking resemblance to a young Mia Farrow in "Rosemary's Baby". Those types are always believable when scared to death. One seems to identify with a skinny (almost anorexic (was that possibly the comment they were making with her vomiting in the railways station?) sweet young thing. Her boyfriend is far too conservative for his own good. Letting her sleep alone in a double bed! What kind of gentleman is that, in this day and age! Just think: If her impotent shrink had been played by Bruce Willis he'd have followed up on her story and we'd have seen some aliens splattered all over the subway! - Now that'd been juicy! Sorry wrong film. That's "Mimic".

"They" is one of these movies that end up being rather annoying the more you see it. From all sides... and I agree there was a LOT of potential in there. Just not quite enough attention to detail.

Still: *** /5

---

38 out of 66 people found the following review useful:
Quality Horror, 9 October 2004

Author: Butterfingers02 from Yorkshire, England

This is a great horror movie, it had my girlfriend hiding behind the couch all the way through, and to be fair it had me flinching at the horrible dark lurking monsters as well! The movie itself lets the viewer use their own imagination as to what these monsters actually look like..you'll find yourself squinting trying to make out 'what the hell is that!?'

A very simple storyline which does its job well. I found myself questioning 'has she gone mad? or is she truly in danger from these monsters?' only to the very end do you find the answer. The story lasts about 1hr and 30mins and fits everything in nicely. I recommend this film to anyone with a good imagination.. Best watched with the Boy/Girlfriend... Seems as though a sequel is on the way!?

---

12 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
A typical genre piece but a reasonably enjoyable one on those terms, 11 December 2005
Author: bob the moo from Birmingham, UK

When Julia Lund goes to a late night diner to meet friend Billy she assumes he is on something when he starts babbling about how "they" come for him in the dark and how he has to work nights to survive. However she did not expect him to kill himself, claiming that it is his only way to escape the monsters that he fears in the dark. At the funeral she meets some friends of Billy who seem to believe his ramblings and tell her stories that cannot possibly be true. When Julia herself starts seeing things in the dark, she starts to doubt her own sanity.

Opening with a scene that trades nicely on childhood fears of the dark and dark spaces, this film continues with the one idea that there are monsters out there but cannot ever get above the level of basic and rather obvious horror. Not that this is a bad thing in itself but put it this way – it is very much a "Wes Craven Presents" affair even if his name was taken off it for wider release. The story isn't great as really it is just enough narrative to string together lots of flickering lights, shadowy movements and jump scares; it never gets below the surface and is never intriguing enough to really engage but then I suppose that is not what the film is aiming for. Rather it just wants to be a horror that trades on sudden things and half seen creatures and, as such, it works well enough. The creatures stay hidden even when you see them (a good thing) and the ending does not betray the mood of the majority.

The cast aren't anything to write home about but they are as good as the standard you expect for such films. Regan is impressive even if a lot of her role involves screaming; she still does manage to descent convincingly and her fear is believable. As director Harmon enjoys the ominous places such as cupboards and corners and he uses them well even if he is never above having something suddenly jump out – it is hardly Ring but it suits the type of film he is trying to make.

Overall this is not a great film but it is an enjoyable genre film – a horror with unseen beasts and lots of basic jump scares. It doesn't work above that level but thankfully it doesn't really try to. It may be bad grammar, but if you like this sort of thing then "They" is worth checking out, even if it is a bit samey and predictable for the majority.

---

11 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
"They come for me.", - "Who comes?" ........"THEY", 10 February 2008

Author: (Sam_Movie_Buff) from California

"They" is a hidden gem, and an extremely underrated horror.

This is real Horror. The kind that makes you scared to turn off your light. The physicological kind. The very thing nightmares are made of. We have all had "those dreams", whether in our childhood or adult life's. We always have a fear that something is coming for us. Something bad. We don't know what, all we know is - they are going to get us. "They" is a well crafted modern horror, with a slight old school vibe. Forget all the new high budget, best CGI Hollywood offerings. This is far better.

It's now 2008 and "They" still remains in my top 10 favourite Horror movies of all time. Why? It's everything you want in a great Horror. Scary, eerie, creepy, unsettling, claustrophobic - that's what we want, right? When making a Horror movie (that you want to be successful) you have to have suspense - great suspense. "They" has a tremendous amount of suspense from start to end. It has all of those "No, don't go in there moments", but not like your typical, average Horror. It's different. It understands it's audience, and what the audience wants. It delivers in all the right ways.

I've read a lot of bad reviews for this movie - why I don't know. It makes no sense to me. Does no one know what a great Horror movie is anymore? Has almost everyone been fooled by the (oh so generic) Hollywood cheap scare tactics? - maybe so. One thing I do want to point out is, "They" was released in 2002. "Darkness Falls" was released in 2003. So "Darkness Falls" took all of They's ideas. I'm tired of reading reviews were people are complaining saying how "They" ripped of "Darkness Falls". Get all the facts before you accuse.

All in all "They" is one of the best Horror movies I've ever seen. It scares you to your core. It leaves a lasting impression. It's genuinely frightening. It will leave you feeling more than satisfied.

Well, what are you waiting for? Get "They" now!

---

14 out of 22 people found the following review useful:
intriguing premise, but doesn't hit the mark, 29 January 2003
Author: Special-K88

Well-crafted thriller that plays upon night terrors and the old "monster in the closet" legend. An ambitious young psychology student is occasionally frightened by memories of old childhood nightmares. She, along with a group of strangers, eventually come together believing that they were all traumatized as children by mysterious night demons, the very same demons who may be returning to complete some unfinished business. Occasionally spooky thriller holds your interest the way it should, but it never really tops its effective opening sequence, or gets informative enough to be really satisfying. **

---

15 out of 24 people found the following review useful:
Huh?, 7 October 2003
Author: kibler@adelphia.net (jere816@verizon.net) from PA

Wes Craven Presents: They (2002) Laura Regan, Marc Blucas, Ethan Embry, Dagmara Dominczyk, Jon Abrahams, Jessica Amlee, Jonathan Cherry, D: Robert Harmon. Psychology major Regan suffers from `night terrors' (or panic attacks) and shares them with her childhood friend Abrahams, who later explains to her about nocturnal hopping creatures from another dimension that are seeking them both, and then he commits suicide right in front of her. At his funeral, she meets two of his friends (Embry, Dominczyk) who also claim they had traumatic childhoods from `night terrors'. Little by little, the trio finds markings on each one of their bodies as `they' are coming for them to feed! Very bizarre horror movie with hardly any logic, coherence, or clarity never answers our questions (like what on earth was Harmon trying to make and why not have some of Craven's contribution?), but has better-than-most visuals and uses atmosphere. The second and final half is merely a creature feature that becomes mundane and dumb after a while. Running Time: 90 minutes and rated PG-13 for terror/violence, sexual content, and language. * ½

---

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Not a bad horror film, 20 June 2003
Author: criticx from USA

Slow off the start- but picks up a little speed by the second quarter of the movie. Considering the unknowns staring in the film, I think it was well acted and not over played. If you want to watch a film that will jump you out of your seat from time to time- this would be one of them. In all, it wasn't a total waste of my time.

---

6 out of 8 people found the following review useful:
In case of emergency, PLEASE USE THE STAIRS., 20 February 2004

Author: Michael DeZubiria (miked32@hotmail.com) from Luoyang, China

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

(spoilers herein) The basic plot of They involves three characters who delve into the world of nocturnal, computer-generated monsters, whose behavior is conveniently explained through their friend's journal, which they carry with them like some sort of talisman against being killed by these things. The basic premise leading to the `scary' part of the movie is the fact that darkness evidently opens up some sort of portal between our world and their world, whatever that world may be. I like that the movie taps into the uproar surrounding the rolling blackouts that were going on around the time that the movie was released. Unfortunately, as in real life, the rolling blackouts are quickly forgotten in the movie and, very soon, the scariness behind the story expires.

The main character, Julia, is a psychology student (very fitting, as we soon find out) preparing to deliver her thesis when a friend chooses that as the best time to reveal to her that unseen creatures are coming to kill him, and then they'll be after her, too. He informs her that she's next, her childhood night terrors return, and thus the formula has been administered. The creatures to which the title refers are never revealed very clearly, and I'm actually not really sure if we're supposed to just see blurs of their true forms or if they are really just shaped like inkblots or something, but the important thing is that they're supposed to be big and mean and scary. Sadly, they're not. They're big and mean, yes, but that third characteristic is really rather important in this genre.

The movie has a few redeeming moments, I suppose but the movie is peppered with simply bad scenes, scares that are such a horror cliché that they come off as completely contrived and boring, like when someone tells you the same joke for the 40th time. You get a little tired of hearing it, you know? There are, for example, FAR too many scenes where characters wander off into the dark alone and we're supposed to grab the edge of our seats wondering what in the world is going to happen to them. There's a scene, for example, where Julia leaves the safety of her boyfriend's house and heads straight for a deserted subway station in the middle of the night. Brilliant. Wasn't she paying attention to her friend when he told her the creatures were coming for her? Has she been daydreaming through the whole movie so far?

This lack of creativity is actually partially justified later in the film, when it turns out that everything could be happening just in her head (hence the relevance of her being a student of psychology). The reason the creatures never ate her or anything was because, apparently, she had been imagining them, so to speak. Although, to be fair, he conjuring of these things was a result of slightly more than imagination. I think it was something more along the lines of paranoid schizophrenia, but that raises yet another problem. The ending presents her fear partly as a result of an ability to conceptualize perfectly normal life, which is not true of paranoid schizophrenia. One of the old adages is that people with true, serious mental illnesses like paranoid schizophrenia are not aware that anything is wrong (this is even pointed out in a Megadeth song, with the lyrics "If I know I'm going crazy, I must not be insane"). Multiple personalities are not aware of each other, for example. Madness is loosely defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. In the movie, Julia is very aware of what is going wrong and very aware of the safe world that she is trying to return to.

The storyline is hardly original, obviously, but given the ham-handed and uncreative insertion of mental illness into the story, the ending is made even worse than you might have thought while sitting through this thing. Since everything is in Julia's head, she's left to be, I don't know, eternally knocked down by hideous beasts that never seem to do her any real harm. That could possibly simply be the state of her madness, but that leads to a depth beyond what should really be expected from a PG-13 horror film. An alternate ending puts the entire film inside her head, with everyone else in the film simply being other patients in the hospital, and she has created this world involving them. The subtitles in this ending are simply weak writing though, and I suspect are the reason that this ending is alternate.

They is a film that routinely reflects the creativeness of its title, plodding through every horror movie cliché in the book and spouting cheap scares between every scene. The movie is ironically more famous for being meaninglessly connected to Wes Craven than it is for anything that happens in it, which is a bad sign for the movie and a bad sign for Wes. I've read a lot about the movie and have yet to come across any reason for why the alternate title is `Wes Craven Presents: They,' other than a mention that the theatrical release generated disappointing box office numbers, so they connected his name to increase interest in the movie. Sadly, what little interest it gained was from people who watched the movie and wondered at how a horror veteran like Wes Craven would have willingly attached his name to this. That's like Bill Gates `presenting' a box that some kid threw together and called a computer.

---

---

Page 1 of 27:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Awards
Newsgroup reviews	External reviews	Official site
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user reviews
Your vote history