# Sleepwalkers (1992)

### reviewed by
Richard John Rauser

                                      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
    rauser@sfu.ca

    .

The review above was posted to the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due to ASCII to HTML conversion.

Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews