Good movie but grossly overrated

A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

The first must-see film of the year.

After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

Well, well, well, what have we here? Yes, that's right, yet another average Stephen King film. This one is slightly different from the others in that King actually scripted the film, instead of it being an adaptation of one of his stories. And sad to say that the plot of this film is very poor indeed. We are offered no explanations of what these 'sleepwalker' creatures are, how they came to be, or why they turn into big rubber suited monsters when they get near cats. Also, like other King films (for instance PET SEMATARY) the film is very glossy and slick.The acting ranges from adequate to poor, especially in the case of Alice Krige, who seems to think she is in some kind of melodrama instead of a cheapo horror film. The rest of the actors are just not taking the film seriously, which is something I don't like much. This means that you laugh at the film, and there is no chance of identifying with any of the characters. Other than that, it's your typical "monsters disguised as humans" film, with a few twists in the tale to differentiate it from all of the others we've seen in the past. The use of cats is quite original, and at least the cats are realistic in this film (unlike THE UNCANNY). They're the good guys too, so expect to see a lot of them broken in half, thrown about, and caught in bear traps before the credits roll. The film does boast some good special effects work in its favour. There are a number of clever post-TERMINATOR 2 morphing scenes which are nice to look at. Unfortunately only the first, unexpected morph is shocking and then you simply wait for the next one to happen.The film also has a high gore level, which surprised me a bit seeing as it's a mainstream film. There is lots of hand violence: hands are a) cut off b) slammed in doors c) have their fingers bitten off and a lot of blood everywhere, with people being stabbed in the eyes. There are also a number of cameos to look out for, from Joe Dante to John Landis to Clive Barker. Even Mark Hamill pops up as a policeman in the opening scenes. Stephen King also puts in his expected 'comedy' appearance. The film is entertaining with all the violence and gore on offer, but it's not exactly involving or intelligent in any way. If you're looking for cheap thrills then you've come to the right place.

Stephen King's "Sleepwalkers" introduces you to these mysterious creatures that cats don't like. They appear human most of the time but can change either voluntarily and sometimes involuntarily into their cat like forms. They feed off human virgins it seems they suck their souls right out of them per oral. The plot is kind of thin and it could have been more developed, but it was still pretty good. The movie leaves a lot of questions about what these things are. If you are a movie watcher that likes to know all the facts this may not be the movie for you. The special effects were not all that great and I think the monster's appearance could have taken a little more attention, but I have never rated special effects above the plot. Plot holes? Certainly. Cameos by directors who ought to stay behind the camera instead of in front of one? Definitely. While the movie isn't exactly played for laughs and never fully descends into the campy netherworld, it's hard to take it too seriously. The cast is extraordinary for a rather cheap production such as this. Alice Krige, who some might remember as the Borg Queen of Star Trek fame, is excellent in the role of the evil mother. Also a must- see seeing is young Mädchen Amick, whom we know from "Twin Peaks" - she is as sexy as it gets and pulls off some really cute dancing that really blew me away. As a special bonus you get short appearances of Mark Hamill (Star Wars), Clive Barker (Hellraiser) and Stephen King himself. The visual F/X were cutting-edge when the movie came out it 1992 - it was one of the first to feature computer-generated morphing effects. Still looks good today although not spectacular. What I enjoyed is that the filmmakers didn't try to take the film too serious which enables the viewers to just have a good time watching the film. Many may call the film campy, yeah there is some camp to the film. But I think that Alice Krige and Dan Martin carry the film very well with their performances.Overall rating: 7 out of 10.

Nope! Horror of today is not as good as it was 20 odd years ago. Once or twice we see a couple of scary ones like Insidious and the Lady in White. But these type of horror films rely on sound and surprise.Plot: teen girl gets swept away by the new boy in Town. Only he is not just a boy...What horror Movies lack today is mood and color. By "mood" I mean the style John Carpenter shows off in his early Movies like Halloween, the Thing, Escape from New York, They Live, Attack on Presinct 13 and Prince of Darkness. It is, of course, difficult to explain "mood", but those of you who know Carpenter's work and/or are horror fans do likely know what I mean. By "color" I mean the tone of the print, it is kind of bleak or dull which adds so much to the mood.Mood and color is what makes Sleepwalkers so enjoyable, as well as the effects which are good and still hold.The cast is convincing, the then soon to be Twin Peaks star Mädchen Amick is Lovely, Brian Krause works both as the innocent boy and villain. Ron Perlman appears as well, he hasn't changed a bit since then, neither his acting nor looks.There are a couple of goofs, illogical moves and bad acting from some of the cast.Sleepwalker is one of the better King adaptations I have seen. Much better than the terrible the Langoliers, just as good as Salem's Lot, slightly below Pet Sematary and the Dead Zone.I give it 7 out of 10 due to mood, color, high production values and its compact storytelling, i.e. there is no dull moments slowing down the story.

Sleepwalkers (1992) * 1/2 (out of 4) When this film was released there was a lot of hype because it was the first time Stephen King had written something directly for the screen. The hype quickly faded when everyone realized that it was a dud. A son and mom (Brian Krause, Alice Krige) move to a small town where they need a virgin (Madchen Amick) to keep alive. It turns out the duo are "sleepwalkers," which is a form of cat people. The entire story to SLEEPWALKERS is rather stupid and silly and I often wonder if King or director Mick Garris were taking it overly serious. I've heard that there was a lot of trouble with the production so perhaps this is the best that they could turn out but there are so many questionable and rather silly moments here that you can't help but call this a dud. The horror elements are extremely silly, never make too much sense and I wonder what King was even trying to do with this. I mean, were these creatures supposed to be something between werewolves and vampires? Did the son and mom have to have so many sex scenes together? Was this meant to be dark humor? For some strange reason when the son does start to attack the virgin girl, instead of any drama or suspense we're given really bad one-liners and attempts at humor and it just doesn't make any sense. I say no one took it serious because this is followed by a long line of horror cameos including King, Tobe Hooper, Joe Dante, John Landis, Clive Barker and Friday THE 13TH PART 2 fans will notice Stuart Charno. Both Krause and Krige are good in their parts but Amick easily steals the film as the victim. SLEEPWALKERS is a real mess of a movie and it's a shame that King's first direct screenplay was such a bust.