The Boogeyman (2023) Movie [tobacco rant]
The Boogeyman (2023) Movie [tobacco rant]
WTF is this!
I Don’t Understand Anything
A heroic effort was made to watch this film, but my efforts stalled at the 1 second mark. I initially believed this to be my fault, but soon realised it’s everyone else that’s the problem. As usual.
That doesn’t mean I won’t watch it, only that I need some time to change my mind. Otherwise my review will be terribly biased. Maybe it should be?"
When I heard there was a ‘Boogeyman’ film, I believed it would be a sequel, or reboot, to ‘Boogeyman’ (2005); a watchable, yet mediocre horror movie. It was good enough to warrant a sequel in 2007 and another in 2008. I’ve seen all 3. More times than probably warranted.
The 2005 iteration, I believe, had nothing to do with ‘The Boogeyman’ (1980). Which also had 2 sequels; 1983 and 1994. Weird.
I’m not bothered if this is a reboot or sequel, so long as it’s well made. If it’s a continuation, then it must stay relevant to the source. Reboots have fewer limitations and anything else is free to go bananas.
All I know about ‘The Boogeyman’ (2023) is it was labelled ‘horror’. Bearing that in mind, here was the first image shown…
What… the soul destroying fuck, is that.
A horror movie. A HORROR MOVIE. Which opens with a warning regarding tobacco depictions. These snowflakes today do not deserve life.
I go in to these movies blind. Not literally. If something has a decent title and box art, I’ll give it a gander. Synopsis’ frequently contain spoilers so I avoid reading them. Although this is a rare instance where reading a few paragraphs may have saved me a Sunday night of disappointment.
Upon investigation, it turns out this is a PG-13 rated horror movie. It’s for kids. That should not, can not, be a thing.
The goal of a horror movie is to scare. Children aren’t meant to be scared and they’re the target demographic. Else why would it be restricted to a PG-13 rating? That severely limits content.
There are 2 options:
It’s not scary and therefor can’t be labelled as horror
It is scary and therefor can’t be rated PG-13
I assumed option 1. That would partially explain the opening snowflake warning. Though if tobacco is the scariest thing in this movie, there is no age group who would be scared watching it. In 41 years I have never encountered anyone, of any age, who had nightmares over seeing a cigarette.
Does the tobacco kill people? Does it strangle them? Is the boogeyman tobacco?
Alternatively, we have the bad parenting angle. Perhaps this warning is for parents, not kids. Then why are parents exposing their children to horror movies, but are scared to let them see tobacco? None of this makes sense.
A parents job is to protect their child, shield them from horrors until they’re mentally developed enough to process them. Filling their minds with terror and suspense at an early age triggers severe mental disorders. They grow up with a warped view of morality and society.
So ‘The Boogeyman’ (2023) is either fraudulently labelled horror, or is horror and fraudulently marketed to children.
The concept of a child-friendly horror movie bothers me greatly. If you want to be a bad parent, go for it. Don’t label horror movies as child friendly. By definition they can’t be.
A Child-Friendly Alternative
I decided to watch the trailer for ‘The Boogeyman’ rather than the full movie. It should never have been granted a PG-13 rating. This is not a movie remotely appropriate for children.
Though it doesn’t appear to contain extreme violence, vulgar language or gore, that doesn’t make it child friendly. People need to speak out loudly when those in charge think it’s appropriate to show children extreme psychological horror.
I’m disgusted by this films rating. Parents rarely have time to watch entire movies before allowing their kids to. The rating system exists for parents to gauge whether something is appropriate. A PG-13 rated film titled ‘The Boogeyman’ must be family friendly right? Perhaps they become friends and go on adventures?
No, it’s not!
The trailer looks fairly good though and I’ll give it a watch. Maybe. But that PG-13 rating, combined with snowflake tobacco warning, made me turn it off. For now.
I don’t see why I should give this anything more than a bad rating, even having never seen it. No one needs a tobacco warning on a movie. Ever. Plus the rating system is clearly compromised.
If your kid wants to watch something spooky, I highly recommend ‘Goosebumps’ (2015). The sequel was not as good, but watchable. It’s a lighthearted adventure the whole family can enjoy. There are no wet-the-bed scares and it has a PG-13 appropriate ending.
Maybe I Understand the Warning Now
After donning my cap of infinite intelligence, that opening warning makes a little more sense.
It appeared before all studio logos. That tells me it likely wasn’t part of the movie, but the platform I was watching on. Therefor I shouldn’t penalise the movie. I’ve never before seen a warning like this on any film, child or adult. So why now? Is it something the platform introduced or is it legitimately the movie? I would have to buy the DVD to find out and that’s not happening.
Or maybe it has to be shown because this adult movie is rated PG-13 and has specific references to tobacco? Maybe to achieve this rating, the warning had to be included?
I don’t know who’s to blame, but I’m actually thankful the warning exists. Without it I wouldn’t have found out about the PG-13 rating. My stance hasn’t changed on anything though.
This is a PG-13 rated horror movie and, judging by the trailer, should have been rated higher.
That tobacco warning is inappropriate for any age. Kids should be warned about the possible dangers of smoking. They should also not be terrified of tobacco, as though they’ll die if encountering someone who once smoked.
What a state the movie industry is in.
The Real Terror!
Here’s an article published by real scientists, not propagandists, on the most common artificial sweetener; Aspartame:
It claims children are far more at risk from sweeteners than adults. It damages DNA, triggers obesity and diabetes, also causes severe neurological damage.
Around the late 1980’s, synthetic sweeteners began being heavily pushed as a healthier alternative to sugar. Since then obesity, diabetes and neurological diagnosis have grown exponentially.
Tobacco has been smoked by humans for an estimated 12,000+ years. During which time the species thrived. There were WW2 veterans who smoked every day, ate bacon for breakfast every day, lived to be over 90 years old.
In case you’re wondering, sugar cane has been used for around 10,000 years. But it will kill us all!
Why is there a tobacco warning and not a sweetener warning? Evidence shows they are, at least, equally detrimental to health. This is what made me switch off and go on a PG-13 crusade.
No, I don’t smoke and never have. I can’t because of a medical condition. However I’ve read the research, understand science and know history. More than the brainwashed do.
What a Shitty Weekend
That’s 2 movies in a row I’ve switched off. ‘The Last Voyage of the Demeter’ (2023) and ‘The Boogeyman’ (2023). Maybe it’s a bad year for movies? Or I’m the wrong kind of person to be writing reviews.
So much for putting aside some time and finally reviewing stuff. At least I’m getting some writing practice. Little goals make for easy wins.