John Carpenter's Suburban Screams

Only two of these "stories" felt even remotely true. The rest felt like they were very loosely based on only some actual events at best. So many of the details were derived or interpreted from presumption, or portrayed in such a way that is all assumed through implication. Some of the "truth" to the stories are merely assumed as truth cuz "there was a police report" so therefore...it must be true, right?! It's like Unsolved Mysteries met Goosebumps, but you're just supposed to take everyone's word as truth, despite there being very little to suggest it's anything other than a local legend. A lot of the acting in the dramatic recreations were also lame. And yet they portray the recreations in such way where they expect you to believe that's exactly how it happened. Here's the issue - MANY of the recreations didn't have ANY eye witnesses to them, so how on earth do you present alleged facts with no supporting evidence? This might as well have been kids telling you ghost stories they heard from other kids, who heard it from other kids...but you're just supposed to believe it's all true? Even when there's no documentation, evidence, or anything else at all?

Title: Suburban Screams: Unmasking the Horrors of Small Towns

Introduction: John Carpenter's documentary, "Suburban Screams," delves into the unsettling underbelly of seemingly idyllic small towns, unearthing true tales of terror that occurred within their confines. This thought-provoking exploration challenges the viewer's perception of safety and reveals the macabre secrets lurking beneath the surface of suburban tranquility.

Summary: "Suburban Screams" takes viewers on a chilling journey through a series of meticulously researched and narrated stories. John Carpenter, known for his mastery in the horror genre, brings his expertise to the realm of non-fiction storytelling, creating a captivating and spine-tingling experience. The documentary explores multiple cases of horrifying events that took place in small towns, shattering the illusion of peaceful neighborhoods.

Carpenter's meticulous attention to detail is evident throughout the documentary, as he weaves together interviews with survivors, law enforcement officials, and experts to provide a comprehensive understanding of each case. The storytelling is masterfully executed, with suspenseful reenactments that heighten the tension and immerse the audience in the eerie atmosphere of these suburban nightmares.

The documentary covers a range of themes, including serial killers, unsolved mysteries, and paranormal occurrences. Through extensive research and careful curation, Carpenter presents a diverse selection of cases that offer a nuanced perspective on the dark side of small-town life. Each story is thoughtfully examined, drawing viewers into the psychological and emotional impact these events had on the communities involved.

One of the most commendable aspects of "Suburban Screams" is its ability to balance entertainment with sensitivity. Carpenter handles the subject matter with respect for the victims and their families, focusing on the human aspect of these tragedies rather than exploiting them for shock value. This approach resonates with the viewer and elevates the documentary beyond a mere compilation of horror stories.

Another noteworthy element is the documentary's visual aesthetic. Carpenter's signature style is evident in the atmospheric cinematography, which evokes a sense of foreboding and unease. The use of lighting, shadows, and haunting musical scores enhances the storytelling, immersing viewers in the dark undercurrents of these small towns.

While "Suburban Screams" excels in many aspects, some viewers may find the pacing to be uneven at times. The documentary's structure occasionally jumps between stories, which can disrupt the immersive experience. Additionally, certain cases may receive more attention than others, leaving some viewers craving a deeper exploration of certain.

5 of the 6 stories can be verified. 2 of them are in Canada and the last time I checked Canada is NOT "hometown America". The Jamul, Ca. Story is the only one (so far) that cannot be verified. It is typical John Carpenter with unnecessary scenes, stupid dialogue and long held shots that are annoying, not suspenseful; and it takes too long to tell the tale. It's all of John Carpenter's trademarks. If you don't like JC, don't watch it. That simple. I like JC, so the stories are interesting, and I know how he's going to tell them. Also, all the stories but one have multiple sources to back up the stories. Canada has strong libel laws so the first two episodes have the most sources. I will say that the 'Ouija" board is pronounced "we - ya", as in oui the french word for yes and ja the German word for yes; not "we-gee". In what universe has the "a" ever been pronounced "eee"? Otherwise the show is the John Carpenter version of true story, NOT true crime as some of these reviews have stated. It's about the story.

Biggest mystery... why would John Carpenter attach his name to such a terrible series??

This series is NOT horror. It's low-grade late-night-network-tv-true-crime suspense at best. Sure there are some scenes that are more gory than network tv would allow, but gore does not equal horror. If gore is surrounded by really atrocious acting and storytelling, it's just gore for the sake of gore. At no point would I classify this series as "horror". It's true crime with boosted gore for some scenes.

Most scary thing.. the earrings and flattop on the guy in the first episode - especially the earrings.. just odd. Makes ya wonder... does he not have any friends or family to tell him how stupid the earrings look? Or do his friends/family all lie to him about them??

I watched 3 episodes.... that's really all I could tolerate. 3 because I had to confirm more episodes were poor, not merely the premiere. The first three episodes are at the same D-grade level in acting, story, and direction, leading me to believe so are the rest of the episodes. I'm not a masochist. So, I didn't bother with the last 3 episodes.

It's rather boring and "cheap" in my opinion.

A low-rent, knock-off, pseudo "True Crime Stories" with a sort of misguided "supernatural" notion surrounding them. It's got heaps of D-level acting and story telling. I just couldn't get past the over-the-top-forced-drama trying to push suspense as much as possible. It's borderline clichéd and somewhat comical and is so poorly acted that it essentially works against what it's trying to achieve.

I think some reviewers are rating this series MUCH higher than it deserves merely because John Carpenter's name is attached to it. I've rated this series based upon what I saw.... and not based my rating on some sense of loyalty or nostalgia because Carpenter has done truly excellent work in the past. Even the most adept director, writer, producer can falter... as Carpenter has in this series.

----- Pass ------

The stories, from both the US and Canada, are set in idyllic locations away from the hustle-bustle of city life that would appeal to a more mature audience in general, and viewers like me geared toward a more quiet setting.

The horror is a mix up of gore, human inflicted and the supernatural. Though its somewhat watchable, what makes it irritable is the constant switching between the mock interviews and the story narrated through flashbacks. Ideally perhaps, it would have been better suited if they started off with a short mock interview preparing the viewers for the story ahead, before delving into it without further disruptions, and finally concluding with the continuation of the interview to sum it all up.