IMDb user comments for
Sleepwalkers (1992)

advertisement

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 9:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Index

88 comments in total

---

10 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :-
As Much as I Want to Hate This Film, I Love It, 6 February 2007

Author: Gavin Schmitt (gavin6942@yahoo.com) from Kaukauna, Wisconsin

A shape shifting young man (Charles Brady) and his mother (known as "sleepwalkers" for some reason) arrive in a new town. But the mother needs to feed, so her son Charles must find him a pure young woman. But who will he love more, his mother or the beautiful Tanya? Right off the bat, I want to call to everyone's attention two things: first, that Stephen King movie adaptations are cursed. Some work wonderfully, while others are just utter crap. We know it's not King's writing, or we wouldn't have such classics as "The Green Mile" or "Shawshank Redemption". Yet, we still get horse apples like "The Langoliers". This film takes somewhat of a middle ground. Not a great film, but worse has been done.

Who can we blame for this lack of greatness? Subpar director Mick Garris, that's who. The man who not only created the "Masters of Horror" series but is also running it into the ground in his own little way. This might be the only thing Mick Garris will be remembered for (at least in my mind) and that is a sad thing.

This film also has the distinction of some great cameos: Cindy Pickett and Lyman Ward, the parents from "Ferris Bueller" -- also the parents in this movie, and married in real life. Mysterious. Who else is in here? Mark Hamill ("Star Wars", "Silver Bullet") and many horror notables and directors: John Landis, Stephen King, Joe Dante, Tobe Hooper, Clive Barker.

Ron Perlman ("Hellboy", "Pro-Life") plays a cop and doesn't get nearly enough screen time. In fact, the most time goes to the female lead, who has a mysterious beauty (the kind that is both alluring yet retracting). She is quite good and I wish she was in more horror films. Her little dance in the movie theater really makes the whole movie for me, and traps the film in a timelessness. While filmed in the early 1990s, this could take place any time and anywhere.

This review is all over the place. But here's the point: this film is not good, and most people will tell you to avoid it. As for me, I love it. It's one of my guilty pleasures, a film like "Head of the Family" I know to be awful but yet worth watching again and again. Maybe it's all the cats or maybe just the way the film melts in my mind like cotton candy. I can't explain it.

---

4 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
There is bad, there is terrible and then there is this, 6 August 2007
Author: Diogenes81

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I am not one of those reviewers who give 1/10 to EVERY movie they don't like. Even when I dislike a film I try to be objective: I think few movies deserve the lowest possible rating. But Sleepwalkers...oh, my.

Unbelievably, this pathetic movie has been written by Stephen King, the master of horror himself. While many adaptations of his atmospheric books are mediocre, screenplays written by King *himself* have been Rose Red (a fun haunted house tale) and the memorably creepy The Storm of the Century : since I enjoyed both I had positive expectations. However, after watching Sleepwalkers I was not merely disappointed, but incredulous. This is an unwatchable film with no entertainment value whatsoever. And this is from a horror fan who doesn't mind gore and also enjoys a hilariously bad movie or two from time to time.

Young Charles (Brian Krause) and his mother Mary (Alice Krige) are vampire-like creatures, able to assume both monstrous and human appearances. They are also afraid of cats, their mortal enemies. The two monsters have just arrived to a small town. Charles befriends classmate Tanya (Madchen Amick), planning to kill her.

Not much really happens, so the movie tries to stretch itself as long as it can. Therefore, from time to time, we have long, boring and ludicrously gory scenes of the monsters killing extras, and interminable shots of cats meowing and running around the garden of the evil family.

Sleepwalkers is uninteresting, tasteless and silly: it's campy in a tedious rather than amusing way, and offers nothing enjoyable or even passable. Although a couple of scenes involving the fights of Charles and Mary against the cats could have been laughable in a "come on, this is ridiculous!" kind of way, the stupidity is also partly intentional, and this kills the fun. The poor actors desperately - and uselessly - fight to give decent performance in the midst of this monstrosity.

I suppose that, buried behind overacting, stupidity and bad taste, there is an attempt to "humanize" the monsters and to show their solitude and sadness: a potentially interesting idea, but it couldn't have been executed worse. Avoid this movie like a plague.

1/10

---

4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
sub-par, could have been a better movie, 5 May 2006

Author: jonathan45 from United Kingdom

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Based on the average short story by horror writer Stephen King about so called 'Sleepwalkers' ancient and immortal cat-like creatures that suck the life out of virgins in order that this energy may sustain them They have supernatural abilities- they can make themselves 'dim' which means they become invisible and can create subliminal mirages to fool people.They have been fleeing humans for century's we are told and have one by one been picked off till there are only two left.The film starts when a beautiful mother and her son arrive in a sleepy town, they are the last of the sleepwalkers and they are on the prowl for virgins to feed on. The mother sends her son out to enrol at the local high school so he can find a virgin, he does (Madchen Amick) and proceeds to try to get her alone so he can suck her dry. It is not made clear why the mother cannot seek out virgins herself- it would make things easier one would imagine as teenage boys are much more apt to follow a older beautiful woman to a secluded area than a teen girl follow a teen boy. However his plans are thwarted as the girl fights back, jabbing a pencil in to his ear. The police are called and the hunt is on!. The son is sick from his injuries and so the mother goes on the rampage killing cops left and right in her hunt for the girl who hurt her son and spouting some painfully unfunny one liners amidst the gore. Finally the girl kills the mother- end of movie. This movie is rubbish!. The acting is variable, from the average Brian Krause to the excellent Alice Krige. The special effects are average,and showcase some early computer effects which is mildly interesting as it shows how far such things have progressed in such a short time. The direction is muddled and the film falls in to camp in places. The director seems unsure whether we are supposed to fear the sleepwalkers or sympathise with them and when in doubt allows the film to become hysterical. Stephen King makes a mildly amusing cameo as an annoying gardener as does Mark Hamill, as a puzzled cop. Alice Krige seems to shoulder the film, her character is given depth and she gives an indication of what the film could have been with a better screenplay and better direction.

---

4 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
Very weird story, 7 April 2007

Author: raypdaley182 from Coventry

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

OK, I taped this off TV and missed the very start. The film was about 10 or so seconds into the titles (I assume) so if anything happened before that I missed it.

Lots of people say Mark Hammill is in this, I didn't see him. I did recognise Clive Barker, John Landis and obviously Stephen King doing some really awful acting as the graveyard attendant.

Alice Krige looks lovely apart from the scenes where she has the cat face or is in full alien make-up.

Even with the opening titles it's never really explained very well exactly what Sleepwalkers are or where they come from. From the title sequence I assume they are catlike bipeds who live by extracting life-force from humans. I assume they live a long time and these particular 2 are possibly the last of their kind.

Add to this a very large dose of incest (Yes! I thought it was a bit suspect too), shapeshifting, killer cats and invisibility and you have Sleepwalkers.

It's a very bad story that has no real explanations behind the main 2 characters and far too many cameo's to try and distract from the simple fact that not enough is explained to the viewer.

Avoid.

---

2 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Silly ,but not without its moments, 17 June 2001

Author: John Taylor (jdtaylor@btinternet.com) from Bedfordshire,England

Sleepwalkers comes under the category of one of Stephen Kings poorer adaptations but by no means the worst. This is about a mother and son who move from town to town living on the blood of young virgin women. They are monster like shapeshifters that are incestious and charming when trying to lure their victims. The only way they can die is if they are scratched by a cat! i know it's hardly a steak through the heart but thats the story. The first 45 minutes is quite good and does have it's scary moments but the longer the film goes on the sillier it gets. Stephen King makes his obligitory cameo appearance as the caretaker of a graveyard. 6 out of 10.

---

3 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Madchen Amick dates a cat hating, mother loving freak of a monster, 26 June 2003
Author: Dr. Gore (drgore@hotmail.com) from Los Angeles, California

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

*SPOILER ALERT* *SPOILER ALERT*

Stephen King must have been petting his cat one day while listening to "Sleepwalk" by Santo and Johnny when he was struck with inspiration. "Cats, cats, cats. I love cats. I love this song. How can I get these two loves in one movie?" Thus "Sleepwalkers" was born.

Two freaky monsters move to a small town so that they can suck the life out of a virgin girl. They both despise cats and love each other. Yes. Mom and son getting it on like all monsters should. The son finds the last supermodel virgin on Earth. The romance is brief as life sucking takes precedence over anything sexual. Besides, he's got a hot mom aching at home. There is much blood and mayhem as super virgin tries to fight off the freaks with the help of an army of angry cats. Go Clovis!

I enjoyed this simple little movie. Monsters find virgin, virgin fights back and the cats go wild. There was plenty of blood and guts to keep a smile on your face. Speaking of smiling, Madchen Amick is at her hot babe peak in this one. She has one move that lets you know she's a shy, sweet girl: She bites her bottom lip and then slides her teeth slowly off. This move happens at least a dozen times. I could have watched it a dozen more. Mmmmmm...Virgin teasing. The monster was hooked at that point. So was I.

One last thought, what decade is this movie supposed to be set in? The main monster loves "Sleepwalk" and Madchen Amick is shaking her groove thing to "Do you love me?". In other scenes there will be loud modern rock blasting away. King obviously loves his 50's rock and roll but I had a hard time imagining a 90's girl doing the Twist and the Mashed Potato.

---

8 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :-
Very Underrated, 10 October 2002
Author: spiderguy524 from San Bernardino CA

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

This could have been one of the best horror movies ever made if Mr. King had worked on it a little longer. The Incest story actually had little to do with sex but was actually about survival (they were the only two sleep walkers left after all). Some of the visuals were great as well. If it just would have cut the crappy scenes like the corn on the cob it could have been brillant. The last scene actually got me teary eyed the first time I saw it. Itsjust frustrating when you see a film that SHOULD have been great.

---

The Cat in the Hat Goes Splat, 3 April 2008

Author: Jonny_Numb from Hellfudge, Pennsylvania

Director Mick Garris has commented on how "Sleepwalkers" was a troubled production, and one only has to watch in disbelief to see what he means. Before its 1992 theatrical release, I remember the film being heavily hyped as Stephen King's first foray into cinema with a completely original screenplay (and as was true with most adaptations of his work--with or without his involvement--at the time, the reviews were less than sympathetic). Ironically, Garris would become better known for helming TV-miniseries versions of some of King's best-known works ("The Stand"; "The Shining"; "Desperation"), directing right from the author's own scripts. Needless to say, these made-for-TV works outshine "Sleepwalkers," which simply further proves that King's writing style (heavy with internal dialogues and detailed, unspoken perceptions) is better suited to a format that can fully develop his themes and characters. This tale of an incestuous mother/son duo who shapeshifts into bloodthirsty felines, roaming from small towns to dine on virgin prey, is fairly decent for the first 50 minutes--King's use of 'local color' (and the resulting humor) is well-rendered, and Garris does a fine job of creating an atmosphere of mystery and intrigue. But just when "Sleepwalkers" seems headed for the zone of good (if not truly memorable) King adaptations, its final third devolves into overblown, ridiculous action sequences (as though the producers chopped away 30 pages of King's script for explosions and shootouts) and a queasy imbalance between absurd humor and sentimental melodrama. The end result hobbles the overall experience--had King's ideas been thoroughly fleshed-out, "Sleepwalkers" may have been a solid entry in his filmography...but as it stands, it feels like a lament over what could have been. The cats are incredibly cute, though.

---

Silly and fun, 31 March 2008

Author: rose-294 from Finland

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Although written by Stephen King, an overrated writer if there ever was one, this is actually quite entertaining B-movie. Vampiric, incestuous creatures who live in the candle-lit house and drain the life-force of virgins, great graveyard scenery, heroic cats and very pretty virgin. The soundtrack even has Enya's music, an idea which I found quite... nice. I'm sure King is disappointed to this little movie, although it HAS crappy dialogue and ideas, all of them from a true and tedious King potboiler. (Albeit Sleepwalkers, if I'm understood right, is a script without any novel or short story behind it). Still, those touches of sewer-odors show he DIDN'T use a ghost-writer after all...

---

not spectacular,but entertaining, 23 January 2008

Author: disdressed12 from Canada

this Stephen King adaptation was entertaining but not great,by any means.it's worthwhile to pass time.it''s probably as weird as any of the King adaptation i have,and even weirder than others.this movie sort of felt like a fairy tale to me.although not a kid's fable,obviously.i did like the cast,many of whom have gone on to other things,since then.Brian Krause also appeared in the TV show Charmed,Madchen Amick (who could be Kim Delaney's twin sister)has been in several smaller budget pictures.Alice Krige was seen most notably as the Borg Queen in Star Trek:First Contact,while Ron Perlman was previously seen in The TV series beauty and the Beast.his most notable role(In my opinion)was in Hellboy as the title character.like in most King movies,king himself appears in a cameo.at least three other modern horror masters(Jon Landis,Joe Dante,and Clive Barker also have cameos.anyway if you wanna pass 90 minutes or so,i'd say this movie is worth it.for me,Sleepwalkers is a 6/10

---

---

Page 1 of 9:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Amazon.com summary
Ratings	Awards	Newsgroup reviews
External reviews	Parents Guide	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user comments	Your vote history