IMDb > Boo (2005) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Boo More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 11:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 101 reviews in total 

31 out of 38 people found the following review useful:

A cut above

Author: bugaboo-7 from Illinois
15 November 2005

I hate using back-handed, "well it's better than the worst" compliments but, having seen my share of low budget horror movies of late, I must say that Boo! is certainly a cut above most of them.

It's well shot, creating an atmospheric and eerie feeling not generally found in the genre today. The effects are well done. The plot itself is solid and there are some clever laugh out loud moments.

On the downside, the pace drags at times and some of the dialog is weak in spots but not too much to be distracting. Also, there are a couple horror movie, "why the Hell are they doing that?" logic issues.

The biggest distraction came with some of the casting. Most of the actors are capable although not great, but I felt one of the main characters was weak. On the plus side, the villain is terrific. (Sorry about mixing my tenses)

Horror movies are a crap-shoot, usually more crap than anything else. But if you're looking for something better than most, I would recommend Boo! It's performance will make me keep an eye out for other Graveyard Filmworks productions.

Was the above review useful to you?

29 out of 41 people found the following review useful:

Nothing New

Author: dyana_ro from Romania
5 November 2005

The only way I could have found this movie original, would be if I have never seen a classic teenagers horror movie. It is very predictable and almost not at all scary. The actors....absolutely unexperienced or at least the acted like robots and the lines and situations were so illogical that they would rather make u laugh. i am a fan of horror movies and I watch a lot of mediocre movies, but this one really bored me. Maybe it is good enough to borrow it and make fun o fit with your friends, but in my opinion it's not worth it. I don't know what budget did the crew had, but it looked like a very limited one. Not to mention the different and many mistakes in the movie...I'll let u discover them.

Was the above review useful to you?

25 out of 36 people found the following review useful:

BOO 'scare' tactics and bad acting, oh my!

Author: davitalvitch from United States
27 November 2005

I was happy to rent "Boo" after reading that it was from the same producer as "Dog Soldiers," which I found wonderfully relentless. While "Dog Soldiers" is on my list of films to buy, I soon found "Boo" to be tedious. It is the sort of movie I began to watch in bits for it was becoming too aggravating to sit through in one stretch. While I appreciate horror films made on a small budget (and therefore, it can be assumed, made out of a passion for the genre and not a mere eye on box office returns), recent films, such as "Boo," rely on SUDDEN LOUD NOISES to elicit their scare moments. (It's the new 'screeching cat leaping out' gimmick.) This film made me jump once. However, when a film uses a LOUD NOISE or sudden ghost/killer reveal a second time, the impact is usually lessened, and when this happens a THIRD time, and then again, the 'scares' become predictable for the audience now knows the rhythm of the film, that whenever there's a quiet moment, there will be a JOLT, or whenever a character is about to move out of frame, the ghost/killer will be standing there. And really, what suspense can be given to a film when there is an overuse of a creepy little girl suddenly, without actually moving, advancing toward another character, accompanied by A LOUD SOUND. The squeaking, slowly moving wheelchair was much more effective for then a sense of dread was built, a 'What's going to happen?' apprehension. JOLTS just become numbing, and then boring.

I can forgive bad acting but there are certain true reactions to which we can all relate and when a character does not REACT the way that we would, that is when the amateurish performance becomes distracting. If my girlfriend/boyfriend or best friend is murdered, my reaction is horror and anger; in this film, there is shock (and one character gets very upset and weepy) but then everyone just seems to gloss over this and resumes looking for a way to escape the hospital. The murder then becomes a mere plot device, another 'reanimated dead' complication for our remaining cast to soon deal with.

Great use of a particular costume however, and it's always wonderful to see Dee Wallace Stone on screen.

Was the above review useful to you?

23 out of 33 people found the following review useful:

Good setting and some nice atmosphere, but the rest is pretty terrible.

Author: Li-1
2 November 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Rating: * out of ****

The straight-to-video market has actually produced a number of quality horror films in the last few years, so no longer should we automatically expect crap from the genre just because it happens to end up on rental shelves first. Quite hyped up by straight-to-video standards, Boo is unfortunately one of the more disappointing films I've seen in recent memory, not nearly the taut, scary experience I'd expected. Heck, it's not even fun to watch, which is the least I'd hope for from a movie about a group of teens stuck in a haunted hospital.

What I just mentioned was the gist of the plot, though there's also a subplot about a guy searching for his sister in the hospital but it's about as awkwardly introduced as just about anything else here. Take, for instance, the opening scene, which seems to want to poke fun at the self-conscious horror flicks that once swarmed the market, but it's a scene that fails to produce any tension or laughs.

This is indicative of the rest of the film as a whole. Though the movie appears to be a straight-up horror flick, it's hard to tell if there's an underlying layer of self-awareness to the whole thing or if it's just because the acting is so stilted, it's difficult to discern if the cast was even taking the film seriously.

That's not to say there aren't already plenty of problems with the plot, the most obvious of which is that rather than playing it in a simple, straightforward manner, the script tacks on some of the most annoying plot devices the genre has to offer, most particularly the girl who has that inexplicable "psychic link" with the hospital. Any time the film looks like it might gain some momentum, this "psychic link" rears its ugly head and brings the pace to a griding halt.

But weak as the story is, the acting is definitely worse, with not a single passable performance among the entire cast. They're not even convincing when they're re-animated "ghosts," to the extent that the director even ends up resorting to using reverberating voices to make them sound scary. I'm usually lenient when it comes to quality acting in the genre, but I'm beginning to realize how important competent performances are, seeing as I'd like a character or two to root for or at least someone who genuinely looks terrified by the situation around them.

The gore is a mixed bag. Not badly done, but when created with CGI it fails to mesh in well with the more atmospheric approach that director Anthony C. Ferrante is clearly striving for. Though the film mostly fails to deliver, I've got to give the filmmakers credit for achieving a fairly decent sense of atmosphere and a pretty good setting, but that's as far as it goes. Such qualities do little good when the rest of the film is otherwise flat and lacking in scares, suspense, or even a sense of urgency. Worst haunted house flick since Dark Castle's Thirteen Ghosts? Probably so.

Was the above review useful to you?

25 out of 37 people found the following review useful:

I agree with the editor

Author: thekingofplain from United States
14 November 2005

After reading the comments by the editor on this film, I must wholeheartedly agree. Boo is not a perfect film, nor the best I have ever seen, but it is FAR better than any direct to video horror film I have seen. This film made me jump out of my skin several times, and it was very creepy. Yes, the plot is silly. Yes, it doesn't make a lot of sense in parts, but this is a fine offering of a horror film... and maybe I'm a toad, but I like how this film didn't feel the need to have pointless nudity and sex - it just seems to be a higher caliber DTV horror film. Everyone has their opinion, and I'm sure there are some who disagree, but I have seen a lot of horror films and I cannot see how anyone could think this to be one of the worst ever made. It is a lot of fun, so give it a chance. By the way, the editing on this film was outstanding, so cheers to the other reviewer.

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

I was scared by the horrible acting.

Author: MrTacchi from USA
24 May 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I don't get to write much reviews on IMDb any longer, but this movie made me want to join the bad reviews people had been giving this film. It's unbelievable that it actually made such a high score! I'm really led to believe that the actors and the crew had been voting here.

The main problem in this film is the acting : is so outstandingly bad that it gets annoying. I didn't even care for the stupid plot, because the lines were so fake and unrealistic that I couldn't focus on the story at all. I think the director should have dubbed the movie all over, maybe that would've helped a little. The actors lacked any kind of emotion expressions whatsoever. Some may blame the low budget here, but I don't think that's a excuse for such a bad execution. For example, in one scene, a moronic blonde dude is watching his best friend turning into a monster, right in front of his eyes , and instead of being shock or held disbelief, he starts screaming(calmly and not-that-convinced) to the one guy that is trying to shoot the monster "don't kill my friend, he is my best friend" ; and when the monster finally gets shot, the moronic blonde dude starts complaining "you shot my best friend, I'm gonna call the cops" but the cops don't take his call rightaway, so he decides to break the cellphone, his one and only way to communicate outside (they were locked inside the haunted house)... Really, a painful movie to see.

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Messy Ghost Story

Author: Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
9 July 2008

The friends Emmett (Happy Mahaney), Freddy (Josh Holt), Marie (Nicole Rayburn), Kevin (Jilon Ghai) and his reluctant girlfriend Jessie (Trish Coren) decide to spend the Halloween night in an abandoned hospital. Meanwhile, the younger Allan (Michael Samluk ) meets the old friend of his father Arlo Ray Baines (Dig Wayne) and asks him to help to find his vanished sister Meg (Rachel Melvin) in the same spot. The two groups meet each other in the mental institution section on the haunted third floor and they find that they are trapped in the place. Jessie has visions from the past and discovers that the ghost of Jacob (M. Steven Felty), a former patient that raped a little girl and burned the hospital, is trying to escape possessing their bodies that melt down with his evil spirit.

"Boo" is a messy ghost story, with a confused screenplay and poor development of characters, especially Jessie. This lead character and her relationship with her mad mother are the key point of the story, but their stories are awfully disclosed. Further, the character Kevin acts like an annoying moron. The group using an old elevator that works in an abandoned building is ridiculous. However, I startled in some moments with the eerie atmosphere. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "Hospital Maldito" ("Damned Hospital")

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Pretty bad.

Author: dalto from United States
16 June 2006

This movie was a distinct disappointment. The filmmakers had access to a very creepy location but really did nothing with it in the end. The pacing of the movie is very slow and the utter lack of tension in scenes that require it is embarrassing. Add to that the high school drama level acting and you have another waste of money and film. The only good performance came from Dee Wallace Stone and her performance matched to the other "actors" only show how really bad they all are. I really wonder how much was spent on this film and how many shooting days they had? Whatever it was, they misspent it. The chief problem is the director/writer. For a writer of horror film articles, he has little grasp of what is scary and no grasp of film-making. The camera is constantly in the wrong place and his sense of pacing is like molasses. I suggest this one goes in the avoidance column.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Insufferable...schlock of the worst kind...a stupid waste of time...

Author: Neil Doyle from U.S.A.
27 August 2006

SCHLOCK would have been a better title for this absurd excursion into a poor excuse for a fright flick.

Nothing redeems it. Not the story, the sub-par acting from a mostly teen cast, the witless dialog, the tired old explanation for all the goings on, and the complete lack of logic.

Whenever things get dull, another fright scene with someone gurgling on blood or turning into a gooey monster of decomposing flesh, is supposed to provide the kind of shock appeal to target a young audience.

Let's hope the kids today are a bit more discriminating in their taste for horror. This one is below the mark all the way.

The only redeeming feature is the sleazy look of the abandoned hospital grounds. Enough to make your skin crawl, disgustingly dirty, rundown and evil looking.

But the story and the characters are an insult to anyone's intelligence, poorly acted and directed to make this a complete waste of time. A writer like Stephen King could have done something with the basic idea--but it's too late now.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

The awfulness of this sad film is overwhelming

Author: Karly89 from Australia
2 August 2006

Haha i found this movie hilarious, at first i was all prepared to be scared, like had a good tag line : Nobody gets off the 3rd floor, then Oh my god, it was just so awful, WORST ACTING EVER ! then they go off into spiels about living and death and how they juxtapose, common u've just seen some crazy ass crap and you wanna break out into theories of life and death in the universe ? and the main girl shes so 'knowledgeable' for some bloody reason, what was the significance of the necklace or her mother, there was none! This movie was just plain funny it was like a D grade movie and thats really bad. I wanna know who funded this piece of crap, i want names, i will go down there and kick his or her ass personally, anyone wanna join me ?

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 1 of 11:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history