Subject: REVIEW: SLEEPWALKERS

From: [email-masked] (Richard John Rauser)
Date: 15 Apr 92 14:42:44 GMT

[Followups directed to rec.arts.movies.  -Moderator]

				  SLEEPWALKERS
		       A film review by Rick J. Rauser
			Copyright 1992 Rick J. Rauser

     I know, I know.  Stephen King on the screen = two hour groans.
But there *were* exceptions: THE SHINING.  MAXIMUM OVERDRIVE (no
flames!  I know everyone hated it but me!).  MISERY.  PET SEMATARY.  And
considering the fact that SLEEPWALKERS was written "expressly for the
screen" I had hopes.  High hopes.  They came a-tumblin' down.  

     What makes this film such an abysmal failure are two main
weaknesses: (1) It is a *stupid* film.  (2) Nothing in the film is ever
explained to the audience (gee, this is sounding like BASIC INSTINCT all
over again).

     Before I begin to sound like an unintelligent reviewer, let me
explain.  Point 1: This film is stupid.  It's that simple.
SLEEPWALKERS is a silly story.  Without giving away anything that
happens (though I really should to prevent anyone from seeing this piece
of garbage) let me give you a few tidbits: savage cat-people called
"sleepwalkers" (we don't know why) come into town.  They are terrified
of cats (we have no clue why) and to survive they suck "energy" (my best
guess) from "pure, untainted" virgins (again, we have no clue why).
There are two sleepwalkers in the film, a mother and son.  They have an
incestuous relationship.  (We don't know why and don't *want* to know.
This is typical King-esque grotesqueness ... usually effective.  But
this time it doesn't wash).  

     The son is infatuated with a cute high school girl (staring at this
girl is the only thing I salvaged out of the two hours...that and seeing
Mark Hamill in a short scene in the beginning of the movie) and tries to
kill her.  Does he succeed?  Gee, take your best guess.

     SLEEPWALKERS is agonizingly cliched.  We have scary Sixties
"horror" music every time one of the sleepwalkers appears on screen (I
keep cursing CAPE FEAR for reviving that style of score) and the film
bombards us with ridiculous dialogue such as:  

  Mother Sleepwalker: Do you love me?
  Son Sleepwalker: Of course.
  Mother Sleepwalker: Are you going to get her? (the virgin girl)
  Son Sleepwalker: Tomorrow.
  Mother Sleepwalker: (licking her lips). Good. I'm SOOO hungry.

     The problem is that Stephen King expects us to take this tripe
*seriously*.  As a spoof on horror films this would work fine.  But the
audience laughs nervously and/or with embarrassment as they realize that
this is intended as a bona fide horror movie.  Scenes such as the one
above are actually suppose to *scare& us.  Trust me, they don't.

     This film slips into absurdity with the sleepwalkers' fear of cats.
Cats are drawn to the sleepwalkers until by the end of the film there
are about one hundred cats lounging around their home and yard (again we
have no explanation for this and by this time we don't want one).  This
is supposed to be eerie, to be scary.  The cats are supposed to be a
premonition of doom, a symbol of bizarre cosmic justice (remember the
cats in PET SEMATARY and CAT'S EYE?).  The problem is that real cats are
much less scary than the hissing demonic felines portrayed in the movie
poster.  MUCH less.  Each time the audience saw this swarm of cats at
the sleepwalkers' home, we laughed.  It just looked funny and cute.
When the cats attacked the sleepwalkers, jumping at them screaming
MEEEEOWWW!  (this happens throughout the film) we laughed even harder.
It looked like something from an Archie comic or a bad sitcom.  There
was nothing scary about it.

     How's this for intelligent dialogue?  Son sleepwalker in his trans
am offers a ride home to beautiful high school girl.  He jumps in the
car without opening the door.  

    Girl: You know, some people use doors (smiling).
    Boy: Do they? I've heard that.
    Girl: Have you? (smiling).

     Mere words cannot describe how bad the acting in this film is and
how unbelievable the characters are.  SLEEPWALKERS is a study in bad
acting, bad characterization, and *bad* dialogue, things that King is a
master at in his novels.  Why does it translate so badly to the screen?
I wish I knew.

     I almost forgot to mention: the sleepwalkers can alter their
appearance as well as their surroundings (they can turn invisible and
change a car from a Mustang to a Trans Am).  Again, *this is never
explained*.

     Aside from the horrible acting, I think that this is SLEEPWALKERS'
main flaw.  It makes no sense.  Point 2: We are given so many little
clues and hints and suggestions about these strange creatures with their
strange powers and incestuous relationship (yes, we actually see mother
and son in bed) yet we are never told about their origins, their
background, their history ... it's like the last half of the film was
chopped out.

     Stephen King has a very short cameo which is quite humorous (this
time the humor is intentional) and as I said earlier, Mark Hamill is in
the first five minutes of this film as a Sheriff in the town the
sleepwalkers were last in.  It's neat seeing Luke Skywalker.  It's also
nice looking at the high school girl almost killed by the sleepwalkers.
Horrible acting aside, she has a beautiful smile.

     In the above paragraph I outlined the good things about this film.
Everything else is bad.  Score another turkey for Stephen King.  On a
scale of 1 to 10, I would have no choice but to give SLEEPWALKERS a 0.
It is boring, confusing, laughable, *un*-scary, and decidedly
*un*-interesting.  I can say with all honesty that this film has no
redeeming qualities whatsoever.  Not only was I kicking and screaming
when the credits rolled for the loss of my eight dollars, but I also
felt cheated of two hours of my life, two hours I will never get back.

     In short, SLEEPWALKERS is a horrible disappointment.  It's one of
those films that is so bad the viewer is amazed.  Did the producers
actually think this film would be scary?  Did they think people would
like it?

     I can say with all honesty that having suffered through this film,
I cannot imagine the answer to that question being yes.

--
Richard J. Rauser
[email-masked]