Error_PC_LOAD_LETTER Reviews

The Grace Card (2010)

"The Grace Card" is a realistic but miraculous portrayal about loving people who don't deserve it, overcoming old wounds, and forgiveness.

[8/10 · 9 July 2010]

Some will reject this movie from the offset because it is a Christian-themed movie, which is unfortunate. It portrays life as it really is, and the struggles we have with wrongs done to us in the past, and the profound moments of letting go, of grace and reconciliation and forgiveness.

Although we see God working through the hearts, actions, and circumstances of people, it is not one of those films that portrays this in a triumphal, miraculous, or unrealistic way.

It's the story of a Memphis cop, Bill "Mac" McDonald, who, 17 years prior, lost his 5-year-old son who was an innocent bystander when police were conducting a drug bust on their street. "Mac" turns inward and becomes very bitter, a racist and a perfectionist, straining relations with his wife and other son, and has an attitude problem which keeps him from getting promoted as a cop.

Seventeen years later, still deeply embittered and racist, Mac looses out on a promotion that goes to an African-American cop Sam Wright.

Sam has struggles of his own. He is a preacher in a small, somewhat declining Church of the Nazarene congregation that seems to be growing stagnant. Sam had hoped that God would bless his ministry and be able to commit full time to it, but in order to support his family, must remain on the Police force. He's a pretty good preacher, but God seems to be using him in even more effective ways on the Police force.

Sam Wright and Bill "Mac" McDonald (the racist, embittered cop) are temporarily placed together as partners on the police force.

Despite being emotionally with it, even Sam is deeply hurt by Mac's nonacceptance, unfriendliness, hurtful remarks and scowling hatred merely because Sam is a black man. As a result it hurts his ministry which wants him to preach forgiveness and reconciliation.

Without giving away too much, it is Sam's grandfather (played by Louis Gossett Jr.) who helps Sam deal with his feelings, and produces a short letter from his grandfather the 1880s that becomes the miraculous premise for helping Sam overcome his hurt.

A NEW tragedy in Mac McDonald's family brings Sam and Mac closer together in Mac's hour of desperate, prayer-fraught need.

Yes, there is a surprise twist or two in the plot.

It should be noted that this movie is the work of a first-time director David G. Evans and scores of first-time actors, sponsored mainly by one church (Calvary Church of the Nazarene, Memphis). Even so, the results are remarkably good. The actors, the police force -- all seem like down to earth, ordinary people pulled together by miraculous circumstances, and a few surprise twists. We see God working profoundly through hearts and circumstances rather than divine intervention and miracles. Only a couple of actors are less than professional and their lines or scenes are short, unobtrusive. Louis Gossett fits in well with his stellar performance.

The film also has great shots of Memphis, portraying the city as it really is -- many of the familiar but less known streets and intersections.

Don't expect a high-tech thriller. But this is a realistic, down-to-earth slice of life film with a powerful Christian theme of Grace and reconciliation.

Santa Claus: The Movie (1985)

Both Underrated and Overrated -- as the beauty fades.

[7/10 · 25 August 2006]

There are mixed reviews out there on this movie, and the reason being is, this movie starts out very good (not excellent, but very good) as it attempts to tell the story of how Santa Claus got started and established, to his first flight, and a few scenes down through the ages. But when it gets to our own time, the hero elf, Patch, turns against Santa and one of the corniest movie plots ever takes over.

This movie is NOT pure garbage, or bad on all levels. It is actually quite good. The cast selection and costumes are excellent (The inside of Santa's home may have a few too many garish toylike colours for adult tastes). The first part of the movie (all the sets, really) are beautiful, and especially the flight scenes, star scenes, our first glimpse of the magic city/kingdom/castle of the elves. But, if you watch this movie, let me warn you to turn it off as soon as it starts getting too stupid for you. Because, whether you hate it from the beginning or like it to the end, it definitely declines in plot, storyline, and standability. I saw most of the way to the end, and it may have had an ending worth seeing. But by that point, I was waaayyy too sick of it to watch any more.

Worth seeing is the beginning -- a family in a northern, Germanic/Teutonic house in the forest on a blizzardly-cold winter's night is telling the legend of the elves, little people who live at the north pole beneath the 'north star' (a huge, but beautiful phenomenon, nothing like tiny little Polaris as we know it) -- when Santa Claus (a mere man, but much loved) arrives.

The excited children delight at his gifts, and he departs to give gifts to children on the other side of the forest. But the blizzard picks up, and he can go no further. The reindeer halt and lie down in the blizzard, as Santa tries to coerce them to go on. The blizzard nears white-out conditions, when Santa gives up to help his all-but-dead wife. The two seem to freeze to death in the blizzard.

Then, Santa and his wife and two reindeer seem to wake up, with the gleam of the North Star, in a magical world concealed by the North Star's magic. An amazingly huge, snow-covered Nordic castle/town, home of the elves, proves to be the thousands-of-years-in-the-making place where the elves had prophesied their 'chosen one' would come to. Santa is given immortality, and soon sets about settling in and preparing for his fist flight, his first WORLDWIDE mission.

All is OK to this point.

A few scenes down through the ages are revealed, but ultimately, when Santa needs an assistant, the 'loser' of the the top two candidates strikes out on his own, goes to New York, and lands a multimillion dollar contract to produce a magic lollipop that makes people fly. Patch, the elf, usurps Santa in worldwide popularity , whom he has a grudge against. Soon, everyone loves Patch the Elf and Santa is forsaken, in the public's eye.

Patch seems to repent a little and want to go home, but is too wrought up in the fame and fortune and pressure of staying in the limelight, and his human agents have a plan to 'do away with Santa' once and for all, and become the new kings of Christmas gifts and commerce.

By this point, the movie had gotten so dull and monotonous and un-Santa like that I quit watching. I just cannot fathom the whole world hating Santa Claus over a lollipop by Patch the Elf.

There are many breathtakingly beautiful Christmas scenes in this movie: the stars, the North star, reindeer flight, New York, etc. But this movie was made in 1985, and while still very pretty, much of the eye-candy is VERY dated by today's standards. The Santa Clause, for instance, has MUCH better flight scenes. Polar Express is more credible, and Santa Claus is Commin' to town has a MUCH more moving Christmas message and theme.

My advice is, watch it for the pretty stuff at the beginning and for the novelty and the history. But once the movie gets too corny for you, (cornification is gradual, but it gets worse in definite stages) you might as well turn it off because it will only get stupider and stupider until it's an absolute headache-inducing bore -- like the stupid films your librarian showed the children at a birthday party (e.g. it gets like Santa Claus Conquers the Martians).

It was NOT AS GOOD AS I HOPED, but mildly worth watching for the pretty stuff and attempt at writing a faux history of Santa's mission.

The Witch's Sabbath (2005)

Not a 'B' movie. Not a 'C', nor 'F', nor even 'G', but more like a Z-

[1/10 · 28 March 2006]

This has got to be the worst movie ever produced, bar none. The film's colors are garish as a cheap beach-party 1960s 3-D cartoon and the filmwork appears to be that of a 13-year-old filming his older brother's best buds. The script itself could have been written by someone even younger, with lots of artificial profanity (wish this forum would allow me to script a line of it just to show how fake and cheesy the neopornographic dialogue is) and talk about girls who are 'hot'. About 65 percent of this film is devoted to artificial teats and pornography. Blood flows like cherry cool-aid throughout, and the excessive gore/blood is not terribly done, but no better than a C- or D+. Satan does make a cameo appearance late in the film and he looks like the cool-aid monster puppet re-done for a funhouse/spookhouse.

The only thing that can be said about a plot is, a coven of four witches must have a quota of 666 souls (decapitation murders) by Halloween (though all the action appears to be early summer) night in order to exist in the world one more year. So, to complete their task, they invite four high school/college students (who hang out at the witches' stripper club) to their halloween party in order to drug and murder them. The Witches' house. which is supposed to be a hundred-year-old mannor, is really just a well-decorated modern suburban condo with lots of angel statues and semi-elegant chandeliers.

(One poster in this forum described a scene where one of the characters drove a car over a cliff, and another character crapped in his pants at the opera. These scenes are not in the movie or referred to. The plot's only what I described above, and all the action takes place in the afore-mentioned witches condo, the strip-club, or the bedroom of one of the main characters, filmed with a cheap camera)

This film could have been made by a thirteen year old with a home movie camera and a big budget for cherry cool-aid and cherry syrup (for blood) and porno-star clothing. The only good things I can say about it is, most of the actors/actresses were reasonably attractive and I wondered why such normal- to above-average looking young adults would stoop to such a sucky movie (getting to keep the artificial teats, porno clothes and plastic halloween weaponry may have been part of the deal). The sound track was fairly decent to very good if you like, say, Black Sabbath and AC/DC. But these do not justify the awfulness and lack of talent you'll expose yourself to if you watch this. The best thing about this movie was there was a character named "Craven Moorehead" which was sorta a chuckle, but now that I told you, there's nothing else of value worth knowing.

Go rent Scooby Doo meets Bambi, Goldilocks vs. Broom Hilda,, or a cheesy porn flick instead.

The Amityville Horror (2005)

Bad remake of 'the shining' steals Amityville Horror's good name

[4/10 · 26 March 2006]

I am giving this a 4 out of 10 only under the condition that it is seen for what it is, a movie in an of itself which in fact bares little resemblance to the true story from which it borrows the name. People who like the original story (the book, not the first movie) will be very disappointed.

The main mistake, in my opinion, was the writers/producers trashed many good elements of the original horror story and substituted them with cheap scares and cliché' rip-offs from other well-known horror movies (The Shining, Darkness Falls, Dark Water, to name a few). The original story (book) was disturbing and creepy enough, and a true artist would be glad to capture this threatening atmosphere in a psychologically unsettling movie.

It is necessary to discuss the book a little in order to explain why this movie falls short. In the original story, George and Kathy Lutz move into the infamous c.1925 Dutch Colonial house on Ocean Avenue in Amityville, Long Island, and almost immediately experience tension and uneasiness that leads to domestic problems. Then there are some very unsettling supernatural occurrences, typical of the frightening hauntings and poltergeist activity we occasionally read about and lose sleep over. The demonic/ghostly/poltergeist activity increases, becomes more malevolent and nightmarish. The local priest is earnest but suffers extreme demonic thwarting of his own. The 5 year old girl has an imaginary friend, a talking pig named 'Jodie' who seems only mildly disturbing at first to the parents, but soon it becomes apparent that the child's imaginary friend is probably some kind of demonic entity, a dark, menacing presence with glowing red eyes. When the children become the main targets of the malevolent demonic activity, targeted to die,the family struggles to flee. The overall story has a growing, brooding nightmarish feeling while staying matter-of-fact in describing the bizarre occurrences.

Now, let's talk about the movie. Here, instead of a believable 1925 Dutch Colonial house, we are given a Victorian seaside resort that looks like it was built in the 1890s and told it was the oldest house on Long Island, built in the 1600s as, out of all things, a Jesuit sanitarium where American Indians were confined and tortured to death. I'm already sickened by this un-authentic agglomeration. Instead of an imaginary talking (male) pig, the little girl's friend Jodie is a girl ghost who was murdered in the house previously (possibly a rip-off from 'Dark Water'). The imaginary playmate is not the threatening demon / pig /hooded boogeyman of the original story, but much more like little Danny's imaginary friend 'Tony' in the Shining -- Jody instead sorta becomes a good 'spirit guide' that helps the child escape axe-wielding dad.

The house seems to show grizzly scenes from its overly-sordid past as a direct rip-off of the resort hotel does in "the shining.' Even George Lutz, who in the original book strove desperately to save his family from an enemy he couldn't fight or even see, is instead transformed (in this movie)into an axe-wielding "here's Johnny" maniacal killer rip-off from The Shining. I don't know, but I'm not scared of a man threatening me with an axe (ever hear of a deranged person? that's all it is). Rather, I'm scared of menacing demonic entities I cannot even see or fight threatening my loved ones. The only 'monster' in this movie was George Lutz.

This movie made the usual mistakes of other bad horror movies (Boogeyman, the Tooth Fairy (darkness falls), etc) of using sudden, loud thrashes of sound and light (over 400 times) in order to startle people since it has very little power to truly scare anyone.

Also, the idea of Jesuit priests torturing American Indians in a hospital so that they become demonic entities simply is not credible. In truth, the Shincock Indians believed the area was swarming with demons, and that's good enough. No need to bring in the torture asylum. John Ketchum, portrayed in this movie as a 1600s Jesuit priest, was in fact a semi-famous colonial-era practitioner of demonic arts and was eventually charged with witchcraft -- far more scary than a (supposed) religious hypocrite.

It is my hope that someday, someone will produce an Amityville Horror movie that sticks to the original unsettling story, rather than try to cram every horror cliché into one cheap-scare B-minus piece of crap.

Don't waste your time/money on this movie. Read the book instead, and it will scare the hell out of you.

The Skeleton Key (2005)

Horror/Suspense; Folk magic that feels authentic. The supernatural and the evil are for real.

[7/10 · 25 March 2006]

Spoilers possible, but I speak extremely generally for the sake of those who want to know what type of movie this is and the 'universe' the setting is in. Others have done a good job at summarizing and reviewing the movie. I'd like to speak more generally.

The plot is very suspenseful, and the movie is set deep in the bayou country. It's an old plantation-type setting where the plantation home has a long history of blood, tears, and black magic; the settings and the theme have a very authentic feel to them. Anyone who has ever traveled in the deep Louisianna Bayou country around New Orleans will appreciate the mysterious, creepy, atmosphere.

Some will appreciate the fact that although it deals with an African-American based folk religion/magic, it isn't racist. Whites practice the folk magic as well (as they do in reality in the bayou country); and there are good, helpful people who practice the magic also; the folk magic itself is not portrayed as evil. It's a way of life -- albeit an almost secret one.

Don't expect to see monsters or horrid creatures in this film, though there is plenty of supernatural activity going on in potent, somehow believable magic, which is being wrought by very evil (and credible) human being(s).

No moral lessons here. Good people suffer immensely, Evil people use powerful, evil (folk-type) magic to work their evil (though are pretty much content to keep it to themselves until some do-gooder who sincerely wants to help a victim starts to meddle). The evil works as intended. (Don't be deceived by the statement, "It only works if you believe it." This is true, but it really does work if you believe it). The outcome is an interesting plot twist, but some will see it coming. And yes, it would be horrible if it really happened to you. That is what makes it a horror movie. A+ for authenticity. B for suspense. B+ for horror. I didn't like the ending, but you probably will. It completed the movie in the direction it was going.

The Addams Family (1964–1966)

On Comparing the Addams Family and the Munsters

[21 March 2006]

Although I liked both shows immensely, I prefer the Addams Family and always have, mainly because Herman Munster was so imbecilic whereas Gomez Addams had class and character -- traits associated with eccentric Victorian buildings. Nonetheless, I would like to compare the two shows without bias.

The Addams Family kept their house neat as a pin. Lurch dusted everything, even the yard. The Munsters, on the other hand, showed off their cobwebs, applied dust with a sifter, and even tarnished the silver.

The Addams Family relished in pain and torture applied to their bodies, and loved explosions and a good train wreck. The Munsters, on the other hand, hated pain immensely, and tried to avoid accidents, and tried to live like a perfectly normal family.

The Addams Family's yard was comparatively bleak and bare, though there was at least one reference to swamps. The Munster's yard was a foggy, cemetery / swampland. Both families loved Victorian architecture, strange art, and creepy cemeteries, and incorporated them onto their properties.

The Addams Family lived in a Victorian mansion of undetermined size, probably 3-4 stories (one story being under a mansard roof)plus a basement, comprising about 25-35 rooms. It had a French Victorian tower with a mansard roof that was at least five or six stories. The Munsters house, though still in the Mansion category, was a much more credible size: a large Queen Anne style mansion that appeared to be built in the 1880s. The Munsters' house was more like a creepy 'haunted house' whereas the Addams Family's house was really too spacious and open to be seriously creepy. It was, nonetheless, eccentric as hell.

The Munsters "believed" themselves to be a normal family, oblivious to their odd appearance. The Addams Family probably knew that their family wasn't the norm, but their attitude about their oddness was that they just felt sorry for everyone else.

Morticia Addams (Gomez' wife) and Lilly Munster (Herman's Wife)had a lot in common, though Morticia was calmer, sexier, Lilly was creepier. Both women cut the flowers off the stems when tending their plants.

The Munsters closely resembled classic movie monsters. Herman was Frankenstien's monster, Grandpa was Dracula, Eddie was a werewolf.

The Addams Family, despite their odd appearances, only faintly resembled movie monsters. Maybe Lurch was a vague Frankenstien character, and the grandmother was a witch. Wednesday was the ultimate little Goth child, and would have eventually married Eddie Munster probably, had the two met and the age gap closed. The Munsters had a normal (attractive) teenage daughter named Marilyn, I think. The Addams Family's other child, Pugsley -- was just your typical 'problem child' with his getting in trouble at school and he seemed like a loser. But his mom, Morticia, was always well pleased at his misbehavior. He was usually calm and proud at home, as his mom read letters from the teacher of his misbehavior. Mrs. Munster wouldn't stand for her son's misconduct in school. He'd surely be punished.. Uncle Fester, on the Adams Family, was a classic 'Lunatic' asylum character but hard to place where his image/character came from.

Both shows had their good and bad points and there's really no reason to pit one against the other. When I watched these shows as a kid, I guess I'd just rather be like Gomez Addams than Herman Munster.

Don't Be Afraid of the Dark (1973 TV Movie)

The little creatures themselves / what about them scares us / remake possible

[8/10 · 20 March 2006]

(Possible spoilers in that I paused the VCR in 1984 and photographed the creatures. Let's face it, you the reader's not knowing what they looked like made the movie scarier)

Rather than summarize the movie (as other posters have done), I would like to comment on the primal fear in which movies like this evoke. I would also like to offer some suggestions for a remake.

I first saw this movie when I was eight or nine years old, in 1973, first on a bad, wavy black-and-white T.V. and later on a sharper color t.v. that same year. About 10 years later, in 1984, someone taped the movie and I borrowed it, pausing the VCR to photograph (with a 35mm camera) the creatures themselves in the instantaneous frame or two when the creatures were actually visible.

There really wasn't much to see. Their bodies were dark, probably furry and anthropoid, their faces/heads were bald, shriveled and ghoulish, their eyes dark as if covered with glasses (giving possibly a skull- or possibly alien- effect), and they had small hands with claws. Like mice, they were impossible to corner, you could only see parts of them as they departed into unknown exits/gateways. They definitely had some physical limitations because of their size but were extremely efficient at improvising and overcoming these obstacles. They could have been anywhere from 12 to 20 inches in height, I tend to favor saying 16-18.

They feared the light, which we presumed anything brighter than a candle or two was extremely painful or lethal, like a wall of fire.

It was this undeniable sense of mystery and fear of the unknown that made this movie so creepy: Being watched -- merely that, is shocking enough. Then, the foul, threatening-yet-beckoning whispers in the dark, echoing weirdly and sharply in a big, dark old house; the fear of having some unseen presence tug on your clothing but only getting a glimpse of what the thing was before it glides off into the corner or around a piece of furniture, the fear of being abducted and taken to foul, netherworldly dimensions, and the fear of transformation itself: being changed from a normal human who thrives in daylight and open freedom into something unspeakably foul, grotesque and sub-human, and confined to darkness even when 'freed'.

Even though the creatures seemed quite physical, they had a certain ghostly quality about them, and the ability to appear and disappear and get through places where there was no opening or route of escape. I tend to side with the posters who do NOT think of these creatures as 'demons' -- but something else. (Demons are too broad a category). Thank God so much was left to the imagination. I tend to think of these creatures as a nasty, vile, sub-anthropoid species perhaps like trolls, goblins, or some type of primitive hominid which, nonetheless, had vast inter-dimensional gate/teleportation abilities. Something perhaps banished from the earth or imprisoned long ago, accidentally released and reimprisoned, released again, and desiring to replenish or repopulate.

A remake of this movie could be done, but the creatures, if shown, would have to be uglier and more repulsive than has been done with similar-sized creatures in Gremlins, Ghoulies, and similar movies. Glaring red eyes (not in the original movie, but associated with, say, the Amityville Horror) from the darkness has a horrific shock effect, even filth-dripping bloody cloaks like the Jawas wear (and the dwarfs on Phantasm) might temporarilly shield them from the light, but a few disrobed scenes could be done as well. I still think that the actual sightings of the creatures should be brief, leaving much to the imagination as the original movie did. But in the brief seconds they are bare and exposed in the flashlight beam (before inexplicably retreating and escaping), something along the line of ghoulish, putrid, decomposing monkeys, nastily clawed and with horribly rotting skull-faces and rotting teeth, rapidly and evily putrefying and decomposing in the light, would be in order.

If one should attack (the handyman, for instance), the attack should be as ferocious as the African doll scene on Trilogy of Terror (1975). A scene like in Gremlins, with Sally actually confronting some of the creatures, would be a nice touch throwing some of the hideous things in blenders or microwaves might be in order, though little identifiable evidence would remain (just an extremely foul, putrid, nasty mess)of what the creatures were before being destroyed. Horror writer H.P. Lovecraft typically had his Mythos creatures putrefy to almost nothing when their bodies were (temporarilly) killed. Even light could make these three creatures explode. Glaring eyes, weird sounds, an unbearable, unidentifiable stench in the basement, would be other horror elements. Substances and damage about the house might add to the physical evidence without giving away the full reality.

A remake might want to show the creatures as capable of some type of physical, sleep- or sexual assault (incubi) as well, as such have been suggested on the movies Poltergiest and Amityville Horror. This makes them far more threatening than their merely pulling off ash trays from end tables. Believing one's self to be sexually assaulted in the dark or while half asleep, while these creatures are in immaterial form would add a new dimension to the horror of what the victim is experiencing.

But a remake ought to follow the same storyline, with the same end result.Just a few grosser and more interesting details along the way.

Being kidnapped and taken away is a fate worse than death, and is probably the deepest-pitted fears of ghosts, aliens, boogie-men, etc. The entity does not want to kill us (a mere thug could do that), rather it wants to take us away forever for its own purposes.

Boogeyman (2005)

Directors and Producers take note !!! Learn from this movie's mistakes.

[2/10 · 15 March 2006]

Let's acknowledge the fact that practically everyone HATES this movie. Yet it had a lot of potential. What went wrong? Producers, film students, TAKE NOTE. Its EVERYTHING BAD in a horror movie, and makes us feel cheated, insulted, and burned.

Its the kind of movie that LOOKS like something we'd be interested in. The trailer showed a pretty creepy scene: a slow walk to a front door of a Gothic-style Victorian farmhouse, a scary hand on the door. The stuff of childhood nightmares and imaginings.

Additionally, the movie had a lot going for it -- a spooky-as-hell soundtrack, a seriously creepy Gothic farmhouse which even old-house fanatics might shudder at being alone in at night. Small-town stagnation and isolation. Unhelpful country people who just don't like outsiders. The stuff of moody, haunting atmospheres.

But, rather than play on a slow, spooky, dreamlike ambiance the house, the terrors, the memories of the lost dad and his murder/abduction, we get a woosh of distracting angles and wild camera swoops and flashes of light that are neither realistic nor scary.

The eerie soundtrack is constantly interrupted by flashes of light and noise that are supposed to 'scare' but show nothing and only interrupt the brooding atmosphere.

And what is the Boogeyman in this movie, anyway? Balled lightning? An explosion of distorted, computer-animated birds? a malfunctioning transmitted cartoon image of the grim reaper? Hard to tell. Bad computer animation spoils the image. We can't even imagine.

We certainly do NOT see any Boogeyman. Not the guy with the creepy hand on the door in the trailer. If we see anything at all, it's like video game graphics distorted by a glitch in the imagery.

C'mon, producers -- GIVE US THE BOOGEYMAN. Not videogenic mess.The Boogeyman must be a CHARACTER we can see -- preferably something that talks or has some other habit that frightens us. Freddy Krueger, Jeepers Creepers, the Tall Man on Phantasm, Reverend Henry Kane on Poltergeist or the chauffeur on Burnt Offerings who is too thin and tall and has a freaky, inappropriate grin and piercing stare -- are Boogeymen. (Jason Voorhees, Michael Myers, and Leatherface are perhaps another type of boogyman, but their agenda is less frightening because they exist merely to kill)

Rather than being killed or abducted by the boogeyman which we see in the trailer,we instead see people being bounced around the walls of rooms and hallways like rubber balls. Just one impact at this overdone velocity would kill a person instantly, but here, we see people bounce around the walls and get back up, unharmed, to 'fight.' and see victims instantly wrapped in saran rap, etc. On and on it goes.

Directors, producers, please take note. It just doesn't work. Things that move faster than the eye can see are not scary. Cheap computer graphic effects don't work. Loud, startling noises are a cheap substitute for brooding horror or shocking terror, and don't work.

The true 'Boogeyman' archetype that really scares the crap out of us is a slow, menacing presence. We may only get glimpses of him or he may torment us from the closet or under the bed as in Poltergiest, or he may come a'calling like a traveling salesman or road menace. True Boogeymen must be seen in closets, we see him in the mirror on closet doors, we see him hanging like a scarecrow or hanging from a noose like a kite caught in a tree. They come uninvited to take what they want; they can appear out of nowhere and can seem to disappear just as fast; they usually have personalities and voices that creep us out no matter how many years pass; they are invincible, and they like for you to learn of their invincibility as you try to fight them off. They love to torment and terrorize their victims before killing/abducting/soul eating/dragging them off to hell or whatever they do.

True boogeymen may have some weaknesses. In better horror movies and nightmares, they can sometimes temporarily be resisted or staved off by certain psychological or spiritual disciplines, or religious rituals but they cannot really be destroyed. At best, they may leave us to find an easier target, but they usually get what they want.

I was not impressed at all with this movie; I'm even more disgusted by the fact that they had a lot of good actors/sets/technologies to work with.

For instance, the character of Franny Roberts (Skye McCole Bartusiak), a mysterious, attractive, but oddly troubled twelvish-year-old girl who seems to know what's going on, was by far a more interesting character in this film than the 'Boogeyman.' In fact, she was the most interesting character in the movie: weirdly sad, melancholy, yet somewhat a tomboy -- like a lost childhood friend we forgot about and kinda miss. Why wasn't she given a bigger role?

And the protagonist Tim (Barry Watson) did a pretty convincing act of being legitimately scared and haunted by a childhood memory. They (Tim and the little girl, Franny) should have been the ones, together, to thwart or vanquish the "boogeyman.' Not the guy and the ex-crush 'Kate.'

Remember, the boogeyman should be a menacing presence; a collector of souls, a tormentor who plays games with his victims before taking them away. Boogeymen may have vulnerabilities, but cannot really be destroyed. Please, no more computer-animated lightning explosions and MTV to represent the boogeyman.

Most of all, the Boogeyman needs to be a character, and not just be bad graphics a-flashing. The boogeyman needs a voice and creepy antics. He is an abductor of souls, the tormentor of children, he is somewhat invincible but can be driven away, and always takes his helpless victims to a fate worse than hell.

Remember this.

Burnt Offerings (1976)

"Burnt Offerings" -- is it about fertility rites/ renewal via death?

[7/10 · 13 March 2006]

This comment may contain a spoiler or two -- it is for those who have seen the movie and are baffled.

I have not read the novel, and have only seen the 'edited for T.V. version (about four times). But from reading other posters' comments and reviews, it seems that many people are baffled by what the title 'burnt offerings' means and what the heck is going on in the movie. From what little I have seen on television, the theme seems to be that the house injures and even kills its resident occupants in order to renew itself. Sort of a fertility rite, where death was enacted to bring about the Springtime, or renewal. Whenever someone gets hurt, or killed, the house renews a part of itself. Minor injuries may only repair a simple light bulb, or bring a few dead potted plants back to life or restore a cracked mirror. But look what happens at the end !!

The old lady upstairs, Mrs. Allardyce (?sp) is supposedly an eighty-five year old woman'. Isn't that the approx. age of the house (in 1976? Wouldn't you say the Dunsmuir house looks about that old, built in 1891, perhaps?) When the professor / renter asks the owners of the house what 'the catch' is (why it's so inexpensive to rent), the response from one of the owners (who are insulted at the idea that it's a 'catch' -- their response is, 'it's our mother.' -- is that intended as the 'catch? that the house is their mother? (then the conversation shifts to that she is an eighty five year old woman, and that she stays in the upstairs room). I think there may be some symbolism here of the death-and-renewal, earth-goddess sort.

And, by the way, this is NOT a 'haunted house' but what might be described as a slightly different genre' -- a 'living house.' Not haunted, as on the changeling or The Haunting, nor 'demon possessed' as on the Amityville Horror, but a 'living house' -- this one with an appetite and a penchant to renew itself. Lots of old houses, to me, seem to have a soul and thoughts and demeanor of their own. Enjoy the renewal rites.

Sigmund and the Sea Monsters (1973–1975)

A few more details about the show

[12 March 2006]

"Sigmund and the Seamonsters" was probably the last Sid and Marty Kroft show I ever watched, except for maybe Land of the Lost. Like H.R. Puffinstuff, the Bugaloos, and Lidsville, I watched the shows every week and even knew the order the shows fell in when they did re-runs.

Just a few details some people may have forgotten since they are not being included and some people seem a little hazy. There were at least two theme-songs (the early one, started out 'Nothing like a day out on the beach' and the main chorus was, "Friends, friends, friends (everybody needs friends). After season 1, the theme song shifted to something in a more minor-key.

The name of the town/beach was Dead Man's Point. There were rocks so it was probably in California or Maine. Zelda was a housekeeper, not an aunt, and she was very matter-of-fact down to business.

The boys' names, of course, were Johnny and Scott. They had a troublesome next-door neighbor, Mrs. Eddles, who would occasionally see something involving the boys and the sea monsters and would get hysterical and call the sheriff or Zelda. The Sheriff's name was Sheriff Bevins, and he seemed to have a crush on Zelda.

As for the sea-monsters themselves, Sigmund's troublesome brothers names were 'Blurp' and 'slurp'. They were very destructive and rude. Sigmund's mother and father (Sigmund ran away from home to live with the boys, staying in their clubhouse) were simply referred to as "Big Daddy" and "Sweet Mama." They were awful, too. Big Daddy was something between Archie Bunker and a gangster in his personality, the mother was whiny and pathetic and repulsive, always miserable. They did have a pet lobster named Prince which barked like a small dog.

The sea monsters lived in a cave in the cliffs by the sea, and usually (the way the plot worked) whatever was going on at Johnny and Scott's place was being paralleled at the sea monsters' cave. For instance, if Zelda the Housekeeper insisted on cleaning the house on a certain day, Sweet Mamma, the Seamonster mother, was usually forcing her family of sea monsters to do the same thing.

Most episodes involved the monsters' harassing Sigmund or stealing something from the humans which had to be retrieved, and most episodes involved Johnny and Scott deceiving the dimwitted sea monsters and escaping with their prize. Pursuit would follow, and many scenes involved running around the dark caves.

What a life -- every kid wants to live by the sea, and discover caves, treasure, sailing, surfing, and sea monsters. A classic childhood dream. Maybe Sheldon the Genie was OK in the second season, but the show certainly took on a different character then, and eventually lost my interest.

the two boys also did promos for the Heart Association and for the Boy Scouts, in their characters.