They (2002) User Reviews

Falls Short Again and Again

[gavin6942 · 5/10 · 25 October 2009]

What happens in the dark? Do monsters lurk in our closets and under our beds? Are they coming for us? Some children think so... and they may just be right. A small group of adults begins to be terrorized by "night terrors", a condition that causes them to believe they are being visited by creatures. Are they? This film was very hit and miss with me. While I have to say it wasn't overall one of the better films I've seen, including some questionable acting and just a rough plot... it has a really good basic story beneath it, some interesting scientific backbone, and a nice role for Ethan Embry. I would have enjoyed more Embry and less of the lead actress, who was not someone I was able to sympathize with.

The film was produced by Wes Craven, which is supposed to be a draw, but anyone following the horror scene knows two things: the producer has very little effect on the finished product, and even if he did, Craven's best years are probably behind him. Even with occasional success like "Scream", he will likely never regain his once-cherished mantle. This film doesn't help.

They Come With the Dark

[claudio_carvalho · 5/10 · 1 April 2006]

While preparing for the examination of her Master Degree in Psychology, Julia Lund (Laura Regan) is called by her friend from childhood Billy Parks (Jo Abrahams) to meet him in a bar. They both had nightmares when they were children, and Billy is totally disturbed with demons from the dark that would be chasing him and commits suicide in front of Julia. The traumatic experience, plus the meeting with two friends of Billy, Sam Burnside (Ethan Embry) and his girlfriend Terry Alba (Dagmara Dominczyk), in the funeral make Julia having nightmares again. When Sam tells her that they four have been tagged in their childhood, and demons are coming to get them to the darkness, Julia becomes afraid of the dark and asks for help to her boyfriend Paul Loomis (Marc Blucas).

"They" is a promising good movie that fails in the conclusion, which is not satisfactory. This movie is not totally bad, but I prefer "Fear of the Dark" (2002), which explores the same theme using the psychological factor of the common fear of the dark that children might have. The option in "They" of making the demons real, with reasonable special effects, is sillier, unexplained and not so scary. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "Habitantes da Escuridão" ("Inhabitants of the Darkness")

Worth your time. (spoilers)

[jerronspencer · 5/10 · 28 September 2004]

PITCH BLACK meets DARKNESS FALLS. What? You want more? Okay. Well shot with great lighting and good script, this Wes Craven backed film is well worth your time.

****SPOILER****

When a friend, Billy, commits suicide in front of her, Julia (Laura Regan) has a recurrence of her childhood night terrors. She meets some friends of Billy, and learns that they all had night terrors as children. When neither her boyfriend (Blucas) or her childhood psychiatrist believes that she is being stalked by They, dark-dwelling creatures, Julia must try and survive on her own. In the end, Julia is committed to a psychiatric ward, where she is promptly snatched and killed by They. Unless you like the alternate ending, where the entire story is just a delusion. What? Oh, now it's too much info. Aren't you ever happy?

I think this film deserved a theatrical run. It was at least as good as half of the Nightmare on Elm Street movies, and better than most of the Friday the 13th flicks.

Why do people hate this movie so much?

[Svperstar · 3 August 2003]

I rented this movie last night with a friend of mine because I had heard it was sooooooo awful on this website and wanted a bad movie to laugh at.

I was suprised to find out it is actually a decent horror movie. People who say this is one of the worst movies ever must have only seen 5 movies in their whole lives and they all must have been in the top ten here at the imdb.

I do have a couple of problems with it.

1)The CGI monsters are very fake looking in a few scenes, this really detracts from suspense.

2)They show too much of the monsters too early on in the movie. They should have watched The Others where suspense was created by not showing The Others till the very end.

Other then that I thought this was a decent horror movie, what else do people expect out of a horror flick then this? It was kinda creepy and interesting to watch the people die, the plot was decent involving the whole psychology aspect. People who think this is one of the worst movies ever need to watch Fear Dot Com or any of the Freddy/Jason movies after number 3 or so.

7 / 10

"Wes Craven presents" means Wes got paid

[SnoopyStyle · 3/10 · 12 January 2004]

Nineteen years ago, young Billy Parks was taken by a mysterious force in his bedroom. In the present, Julia Lund (Laura Regan) is working towards her masters degree in psychology. Paul Loomis (Marc Blucas) is her boyfriend. She meets childhood friend Billy who claims that they were marked as children and warns her about the dark. He then shoots himself in front of her.

This thing is devastatingly slow. There is no tension whatsoever. The story is stripped down to basically nothing. It doesn't maintain any creepiness. As a horror, there is nothing to be afraid of in this. The jump scares are really telegraphed. Laura Regan screams but that's all. The "Wes Craven presents" is the first warning. Essentially, it means that Wes collected a paycheck but otherwise has little to do with the filmmaking.

One of the worst films ever.

[theslickdick · 1/10 · 28 November 2002]

Let me start off by saying this movie sucks. The entire plot was poor from start to end. Bad acting, bad everything, a waste of money, a waste of time. Everything was predictable. If the movie is playing for free, its still not worth the time and effort.

Every copy of this movie should be burned.

[SatyrKitty · 1/10 · 28 November 2002]

This movie started from a good concept... and they totally failed to follow-through... in any way. The ending was unfulfilling. I don't want to give spoilers, since apparently, it's not allowed. But, suffice it to say, after I left the theatre, I had to go BACK in, paying full price, to see "Treasure Planet" just to cheer up before I went home.

Please, for the love of your own mind, don't waste your time or money on "They."

not all that bad...

[foilbeany · 7/10 · 18 October 2004]

Some SPOILAGE...

I didn't think this movie was all that bad...certainly wouldn't call it trash or a classic. It did "borrow" some from "Darkness Falls" but for whatever reason, i found this a bit more creepy....maybe because i find creepy, shapeless, unseen-moving-shadow-type monsters (like those from our childhood fears) more frightening than a screeching witch-like thing flying about as if on a broomstick....i've seen the moving shapeless shadows moving in the dark corners of my room; i've yet to see a flying witchlike thing. The star could have been more voluptuous, but then that's kind of what i liked about this movie...none of the standard gore, sex, and slash. The slightly open doors of the dark closets which hid the monsters of our childhood as they observed us, worked for me; I made sure my closet doors were shut that night. Also the abandoned pool scene was somewhat of a flashback-fright for me. All in all, I thought this was an entertaining movie that was technically well done. Contrary to most, i also liked the ending. "They" definitely works better on viewers who are home alone at night...those dark areas of the house seemed a bit darker; and all the little unexplained creeks and bumps a sleeping house makes seemed more meaningful. I do wish they would have expanded more on the brief theory that darkness may be the channel used to travel from one dimension to another... In truth, there is really a limit to how many different ways a horror movie can scare you; we've seen them all over and over...it is just like a thrill ride, we all know what is going to happen; the challenge in a horror movie is to touch something in us that results in a fear response; i guess therein lies the key as to whether you like or dislike this movie.

Ummm, ok...

[norg · 1/10 · 27 November 2002]

CONTAINS SPOILER!!!! This was a pretty bad movie, I wouldn't suggest for anyone to see it. I thought I would be scared, but I wasn't, and I could guess exactly what would happen next, and not once was I wrong.

An upside to this movie are the witty remarks that Sam (a character being stalked but "they") makes. My favorite was (spoiler):

Terry - I wonder what was going through his head before he did it.

Sam - A bullet.

also

(at Billy's funeral) Sam - I guess the prozac didn't work.

Besides those two lines, the movie was not worth watching.

Any possible reason for going back 18 years to this?

[jrarichards · 7/10 · 5 February 2021]

One of many issues with Robert Harmon's "They" is that it never stops being creepy - not for more than a second or two, so ultimately that's bound to be wearing. Laura Regan as the star is effortlessly hot, but at some point we probably do switch from thinking passively that that has long been the fate of beauties in horror movies ... and isn't she gorgeous? to feeling some actual something for a character that loses it steadily as the movie progresses. That is an achievement of sorts.

However, since Dagmara Dominczyk who also appears is similarly devastatingly good-looking, we do come close to exploitation here, and all the more so as other (male) characters in the movie mainly prove highly ineffectual (and of course disbelieving) so we don't have much (else) to gain from a lot of what happens on screen for 90 minutes or so. Furthermore, a key feature here is that "there is no escape" - that always has its plus- and minus-points in any movie context. Hints at directed plot, forging of alliances and all that kind of content associated with a film all come to naught in the ascendant chaos.

That said, the fairly atmospheric "They" is a movie that deploys (as usual effectively) that old spooky dodge of "it rains nearly all the time" (seen for excample in "Se7en" (made 7 years before this one) and that denotes a world that is not quite ours. Thus it would be fair to say that what happens on the absolute margins of this tale is actually much more interesting than what unfolds on centre stage. By willing yourself as far as possible, you might just transport for a moment into the dystopia that is this dingy, grey, troubled and clearly semi-moribund alternative world, and there's an appreciative shudder waiting for you if you manage that. Drop the horror tag and watch this as sci fi, and you'll soon cotton on to this being an alien invasion flick, and on that basis it is creepy, and just about convincing enough to hold its own.

So I watched again today after a gap of umpteen years (still stuck in pandemic world) and I don't actually complain too much ... this movie is sufficient as entertainment in an hour and a half of downtime.

Could the lead in this movie have been ANY more annoying?

[Jothos · 3/10 · 30 April 2009]

You ever have your mind boggled as to a directors choice for a lead in a movie? Laura Regan was soooo annoying in this role. from her acting, to her overall look. The way she screams in the bathroom after a scare made me want to punch her lower jaw off to quiet the irritating noises and facial expresions she was making. am i being overly hostile? lol. I wonder if Laura Regan was related to the director or producer to get the lead. In my book, Dagmara Dominczyk, who was a supporting actress in this film, would have made this a MUCH better film if she was in the lead. She is so exotically sexy, and also captivating as an actress. She would have been a much better choice than Laura Regan as the lead. Dagmara is 10 times the actress Laura is as well. Sorry Laura, you suck.

Quality Horror

[Butterfingers02 · 8/10 · 9 October 2004]

This is a great horror movie, it had my girlfriend hiding behind the couch all the way through, and to be fair it had me flinching at the horrible dark lurking monsters as well! The movie itself lets the viewer use their own imagination as to what these monsters actually look like..you'll find yourself squinting trying to make out 'what the hell is that!?'

A very simple storyline which does its job well. I found myself questioning 'has she gone mad? or is she truly in danger from these monsters?' only to the very end do you find the answer. The story lasts about 1hr and 30mins and fits everything in nicely. I recommend this film to anyone with a good imagination.. Best watched with the Boy/Girlfriend... Seems as though a sequel is on the way!?

Surprisingly Good

[Ephemeriis · 7/10 · 16 June 2003]

"They" is a surprisingly good thriller, the likes of which I haven't seen in quite some time. The concept of suspense seems to be something that the modern film industry has forgotten. Not so with "They". This movie lives and dies by its suspense.

There is a constant tension to the movie. Is she insane, or really being stalked by demons? Will they get her, or will she escape? Every single scene is dark and gloomy, providing plenty of opportunities for these dark demons to attack...even the ones that should be brightly lit. There's a true sense of isolation and hoplessness.

Having said all that, there is very little meat to this movie. It is basically the story of one woman fleeing from demons, both symbolicly and literally. We are never told where the demons come from, or where they go to, or what they want.... We never really see a lot of backstory, or resolution. It's just a chase. One long chase...but a suspenseful one.

Terrible, terrible, terrible...enough said.

[saprater · 1/10 · 17 June 2003]

This had to be one of the worse movies I have ever seen. The ending positively sucked. And what came before it was trite and filled with a weak story-line and bad acting.

I never thought I'd say this, but the best actor in the film (besides the CGI monsters) was the guy that played Riley in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. The heroine they chose was this annoying little actress that remained wooden in all but the most dramatic of scenes. And not to be too superficial, but she looked like the poor man's Calista Flockhart. No wonder she couldn't fend off the monsters: eat some Wheaties lady!

Save yourself a few bucks and pass this one up at the video counter. Trust me, it's a boring ride filled with tons of questions and no answers. It told absolutely no "story", which in hindsight was a good thing...otherwise the ending would have really pissed me off. But since I didn't know what the heck was happening anyways, it didn't leave me with a big empty feeling or mad. Nothing gets resolved and nothing makes sense. You don't know what the monsters are, where they come from, what they want with the characters: nothing, nada, moot. The idea that they were eating the characters is ridiculous b/c why would they limit themselves to those particular morsels...not to mention that the main chick looked like she had about 1% of body fat on her entire body. It'd be like eating rattlesnake for dinner and trying to get that full feeling.

Reminded me a lot of the Blair Witch Project 2: Waste of time and waste of money.

The theme of this movie is one of men's primal fears: darkness... and what may be in the darkness...

[chev-errant · 23 September 2006]

An excellent little horror-movie. It probably did not too well at the box office (not even with the "Wes Craven Presents" attachment), but this is worthy to check out. Don't expect stupid, obnoxious teenagers who can't act in the leadroles, don't wait for silly, embarrassing one-liners, don't relay on cheap CGI (not even on expensive CGI, for that matter). What we get is a tense horrorthriller, well acted throughout by a cast of fairly unknowns, which relays on atmosphere, minimal special effects and leaving a lot to the imagination of the audience (which, as most of true horror-fans know, can't be beaten by the most expensive and amazing FX). To my opinion, great horrorfilms are those which are taken seriously, by the creators, the actors, by everyone involved. Take a look at Night of the Living Dead (1968), The Exorcist(1973), The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974), Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), Dawn of the Dead (1978), Halloween (1979), The Thing (1982) etc. (to name only a few of 60ties, 70ties and 80ties horror classics). What they have in common is seriousness. They might contain some humour, but it never takes over the movies to a degree that the audience is allowed to lean back in their seats and grab a next handful of popcorn in anticipation of the next shocking sequence... What these movies are capable of is to keep the audience at the edge of their seats, to scare the audience into believing and fearing what its sees and not sees but make believe seeing it) and to make the audience go home afterwards with a feeling of unease. That is what THIS movie does very well: make the audience uneasy, because it deals with a primal fear: darkness and what may be IN the darkness. Its a little gem, and i think it will be considered as a "classic" in years to come.

It has been the worse film i ever seen

[thundder · 1/10 · 17 April 2003]

It has been the worse film i ever seen...

It is simply a very good piece o sh**.

In this film nothing happens, from the the beginning to the end, the script its extremly poor that compits with our worst suburbs like "cova da moura", its a waist of time and money.

THEY...should be dragged out in the road and shot.

[ddepkin · 1/10 · 9 July 2003]

This film is one of the worst I have seen in a long, long time. It started out with great potential - a psychology grad student, Julia Lund (played without much depth by Laura Regan) witnesses a close childhood friend's suicide, right after he drops hints about their shared night terrors actually being real. She then begins to see dark, skittering things at night, and begins to re-experience her own childhood nightmares.

This had all the makings of a great spooky story, and as it was presented by Wes Craven (the man behind the superb "Nightmare on Elm Street" stories), I expected a very good scare.

Simply put, this movie does not deliver. The acting is WOODEN, and not even beautifully frightening set design or a good plot can salvage it. The only real horror was the wasted potential onscreen. So many loose ends were left hanging, that it looked like an afghan sewn by a one-armed man. In addition, the ending SUCKS! I can't even find a gentler way to say that. I was extremely disappointed with the wrap-up of the movie. No spoilers here, but it looks like the filmmakers ran out of budget, and just said, "What the heck, we'll just stop it right here."

Final words of advice - don't waste your time.

Tales From The Horror Genre #2

[thelastcritic · 2/10 · 22 February 2010]

It seems fitting to review a film like "They" so soon after reviewing a film like "The Covenant". Both are PG-13 horror films. Both are about as dumb as rocks. But, unlike "The Covenant", "They" never realizes just how dumb it truly is. Rather, it tries to convince us that it is the scariest film of all-time, but it would be lucky to even be called the scariest film of the day. Packed with uninspired "boo" scares and lots of things that go bump in the night, this film seems to be running on empty right from the starting line, offering only a mish-mash of themes, scenes, and ideas that have been done before and done better by earlier films. I learned from the IMDb that, though only one screenwriter is credited (Brendan Hood), all of his ideas were thrown out by the studio and no less than ten writers assembled the dodgy script that was then turned into this film. It's funny, but not surprising that none of them could come up with a good idea and yet it was Hood who was unwillingly thrown under the bus. Come on, guys. Give credit where credit is due; that way we, at least, know who to blame when the outcome is as bad as "They".

Please read my full review on my blog: www.thelastcritic.blogspot.com

Underrated

[mareshal21 · 7/10 · 7 June 2014]

First of all, I absolutely believe that this movie is underrated.

This movie is somehow different from the other horror movies. It leaves a mark in your mind, you remember this movie. It has a interesting storyline. Acting is not bad. Maybe the ending could be improved and the graphics could have been better. But compared to the movies nowadays "They" should have at least a note of 6,5. It is creepier and more interesting than the young-group-gets-trapped type of movies. Also it has a atmosphere that catches the viewer and forces him/her to lock to the screen.

I'd agree to disagree anyone who thinks this movie doesn't worth a 6,5.

In case of emergency, PLEASE USE THE STAIRS.

[Anonymous_Maxine · 4/10 · 20 February 2004]

(spoilers herein) The basic plot of They involves three characters who delve into the world of nocturnal, computer-generated monsters, whose behavior is conveniently explained through their friend's journal, which they carry with them like some sort of talisman against being killed by these things. The basic premise leading to the `scary' part of the movie is the fact that darkness evidently opens up some sort of portal between our world and their world, whatever that world may be. I like that the movie taps into the uproar surrounding the rolling blackouts that were going on around the time that the movie was released. Unfortunately, as in real life, the rolling blackouts are quickly forgotten in the movie and, very soon, the scariness behind the story expires.

The main character, Julia, is a psychology student (very fitting, as we soon find out) preparing to deliver her thesis when a friend chooses that as the best time to reveal to her that unseen creatures are coming to kill him, and then they'll be after her, too. He informs her that she's next, her childhood night terrors return, and thus the formula has been administered. The creatures to which the title refers are never revealed very clearly, and I'm actually not really sure if we're supposed to just see blurs of their true forms or if they are really just shaped like inkblots or something, but the important thing is that they're supposed to be big and mean and scary. Sadly, they're not. They're big and mean, yes, but that third characteristic is really rather important in this genre.

The movie has a few redeeming moments, I suppose but the movie is peppered with simply bad scenes, scares that are such a horror cliché that they come off as completely contrived and boring, like when someone tells you the same joke for the 40th time. You get a little tired of hearing it, you know? There are, for example, FAR too many scenes where characters wander off into the dark alone and we're supposed to grab the edge of our seats wondering what in the world is going to happen to them. There's a scene, for example, where Julia leaves the safety of her boyfriend's house and heads straight for a deserted subway station in the middle of the night. Brilliant. Wasn't she paying attention to her friend when he told her the creatures were coming for her? Has she been daydreaming through the whole movie so far?

This lack of creativity is actually partially justified later in the film, when it turns out that everything could be happening just in her head (hence the relevance of her being a student of psychology). The reason the creatures never ate her or anything was because, apparently, she had been imagining them, so to speak. Although, to be fair, he conjuring of these things was a result of slightly more than imagination. I think it was something more along the lines of paranoid schizophrenia, but that raises yet another problem. The ending presents her fear partly as a result of an ability to conceptualize perfectly normal life, which is not true of paranoid schizophrenia. One of the old adages is that people with true, serious mental illnesses like paranoid schizophrenia are not aware that anything is wrong (this is even pointed out in a Megadeth song, with the lyrics "If I know I'm going crazy, I must not be insane"). Multiple personalities are not aware of each other, for example. Madness is loosely defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. In the movie, Julia is very aware of what is going wrong and very aware of the safe world that she is trying to return to.

The storyline is hardly original, obviously, but given the ham-handed and uncreative insertion of mental illness into the story, the ending is made even worse than you might have thought while sitting through this thing. Since everything is in Julia's head, she's left to be, I don't know, eternally knocked down by hideous beasts that never seem to do her any real harm. That could possibly simply be the state of her madness, but that leads to a depth beyond what should really be expected from a PG-13 horror film. An alternate ending puts the entire film inside her head, with everyone else in the film simply being other patients in the hospital, and she has created this world involving them. The subtitles in this ending are simply weak writing though, and I suspect are the reason that this ending is alternate.

They is a film that routinely reflects the creativeness of its title, plodding through every horror movie cliché in the book and spouting cheap scares between every scene. The movie is ironically more famous for being meaninglessly connected to Wes Craven than it is for anything that happens in it, which is a bad sign for the movie and a bad sign for Wes. I've read a lot about the movie and have yet to come across any reason for why the alternate title is `Wes Craven Presents: They,' other than a mention that the theatrical release generated disappointing box office numbers, so they connected his name to increase interest in the movie. Sadly, what little interest it gained was from people who watched the movie and wondered at how a horror veteran like Wes Craven would have willingly attached his name to this. That's like Bill Gates `presenting' a box that some kid threw together and called a computer.

Better than it's Ratings

[cjstanford-65097 · 7/10 · 20 September 2022]

I haven't read the other reviews. I watched with know prior knowledge and thought it was one of the better horror movies I've seen. I had heard of Wes Craven before. And assumed he produced better films in the genre. Horror is a recent genre of mine. I have have binged probably 30 or more films this summer watching one's offered by different streaming services with little selectivity on my part except I have screened out those with IMBD ratings below 3 usually. Overall, the genre has more cheaply made, amateurish productions than any other I have come across.

"They" is in the top 10 percentile in my view which gives it at worst a 7 at best an 8, since I have never seen any 9 or 10 in the genre. The acting is good, production quality is good; character development appropriate for horror, special effects good, plot is good, story development is probably among the best with the right amount of flashbacks and at the right time. The only negative is that there aren't really any plot surprises. The story is tolerable to empathetic viewers because the ending is pretty much given at the beginning, but there's enough uniqueness in the protagonist that the audience can hope for a unique resolution.

Lame, dull and utterly useless (1/2*)

[Ronin47 · 1/10 · 2 December 2002]

This is about as lame and pointless as a horror movie can get.

The full title is "Wes Craven Presents They", but I couldn't find anything on the IMDb about Wes Craven having anything to do with it. He should count himself lucky; the man can direct a good movie, but apparently hasn't a clue when it comes to "presenting" something (the last movie he "presented" was "Wishmaster", which was even worse).

The film is about a group of young adults who all suffered from night terrors (sudden, intense fears in the night) as children. So the plot the writers pasted on has to do with the idea that these night terrors were caused by these slimy, spider-like creatures from, I don't know, an alternate dimension. Now, for some reason, these creatures HAVE COME BACK FOR THEM! (gasp in terror).

What are they? Where do they come from? What do they want? Why are they coming back for these characters? What do they really look like? Why am I watching this? The screenplay doesn't even attempt to answer any of these questions (especially that last one), and instead just settles for the highest number of "What was that noise/Who's there?" scenes I've ever seen in one movie. One literally follows another the entire time.

"They" steals from so many movies it's hard to keep track, but most blatant is a scene lifted directly from the entertaining, little-seen 80's horror/comedy "House", in which a medicine cabinet becomes a doorway into another world.

Repetitive, dull, predictable, not scary, and it has an attempted "Gotcha!" ending that instead just comes off as annoyingly anti-climactic.

Star Laura Regan is pretty and doesn't seem to be that bad an actress, but as her boyfriend, Marc Blucas (who was so good as Riley in the 4th season of "Buffy The Vampire Slayer), is astonishingly bad.

Skip it. You'll thank me.

"They come for me.", - "Who comes?" ........"THEY"

[Sam_Movie_Buff · 10/10 · 10 February 2008]

"They" is a hidden gem, and an extremely underrated horror.

This is real Horror. The kind that makes you scared to turn off your light. The physicological kind. The very thing nightmares are made of. We have all had "those dreams", whether in our childhood or adult life's. We always have a fear that something is coming for us. Something bad. We don't know what, all we know is - they are going to get us. "They" is a well crafted modern horror, with a slight old school vibe. Forget all the new high budget, best CGI Hollywood offerings. This is far better.

It's now 2008 and "They" still remains in my top 10 favourite Horror movies of all time. Why? It's everything you want in a great Horror. Scary, eerie, creepy, unsettling, claustrophobic - that's what we want, right? When making a Horror movie (that you want to be successful) you have to have suspense - great suspense. "They" has a tremendous amount of suspense from start to end. It has all of those "No, don't go in there moments", but not like your typical, average Horror. It's different. It understands it's audience, and what the audience wants. It delivers in all the right ways.

I've read a lot of bad reviews for this movie - why I don't know. It makes no sense to me. Does no one know what a great Horror movie is anymore? Has almost everyone been fooled by the (oh so generic) Hollywood cheap scare tactics? - maybe so. One thing I do want to point out is, "They" was released in 2002. "Darkness Falls" was released in 2003. So "Darkness Falls" took all of They's ideas. I'm tired of reading reviews were people are complaining saying how "They" ripped of "Darkness Falls". Get all the facts before you accuse.

All in all "They" is one of the best Horror movies I've ever seen. It scares you to your core. It leaves a lasting impression. It's genuinely frightening. It will leave you feeling more than satisfied.

Well, what are you waiting for? Get "They" now!

Very, very good

[lagriff05 · 7/10 · 16 June 2007]

Wow, did Freddy Krueger just get shot in the foot or what. This is like Nightmare on Elm St. 3 except less goofy and much scarier and darker. Shades of Hellraiser make their appearances here and there, but overall this movie is like the last nail being hammered into the coffin of Krueger's bloated corpse. Since those movies can't bother to be cool or worthwhile anymore, we need something to replace the over-exaggerated pop culture idol that Freddy Krueger became, and Wes Craven realized this, thus cranking out something just as good as Nightmare on Elm St. 1 and 3. This is just the apology we needed for what Freddy became, and oh is it wonderful.

I was initially skeptical---was this one another PG-13 ghost story for young campers? There are too many of those floating around. But I can proudly say that this is the real deal, as this movie is pretty damn creepy. It's a bit on the predictable side---you always know when something bad will happen---but you never really know WHAT. The weak of heart will be looking over their shoulders after this one, as even I was taken aback at some of the scares used here. Never are they mindless 'Boo!' make-you-jump scares so often used in modern crap, but actually very suspenseful, well thought out ones, enhanced by excellent directing skills (the scene before she finds her 'mark'---very well done) and acting.

Negative points? Nope, no real glaring flaws here, except for the fact that the main character can be slightly irritating (seems to be the case with a lot of horror heroines). This is a solid movie through and through. I'm sure I could find something to pick at if I really wanted to, but what fun is that? This is a real gem, and very rewarding to those who pick it up by chance, as I did. Highly recommended.

Avoid at all costs!

[mojo-obp · 1/10 · 20 July 2004]

this ain't no horror, this ain't a suspense/thriller as you might have hoped for. the title would maybe suggest that it has an sci-fi element, but it doesn't. and the thing that bothers about this movie is, that it's technical production isn't bad at all, the shots, the lights, the scenes, the props, photography and editing are at a standard Hollywood blockbuster level even! but the story itself, the screenplay is so incredibly stupid, pointless and incoherent, that it could barely pass as something written by one person. i'm serious like, it's as though they gave a 200 word assignment with the topic called "child bad dreams" to a buncha 8-year olds, and than randomly mixed them together to form a screenplay, only cleverly changing the names of the characters to a unique predefined set :) i mean, LOTR is kinda boring, so it would be inappropriate to call this crap "boring" cause it ain't the same feeling. yes, yes, if after reading this you still decide to watch this movie (you must be a mazohist), do your family a favor and buy some ventolin before you do, because even if you never had an asthma attack in your life, i guarantee, you will now. i mentioned that the scary thing is that it looks like a real movie, only it's incredibly stupid. we all must think, where is the industry leading film nowadays, if people like the makers of this crap get this kind of a budget to make a movie.