Functional little horror

Rating: 6/10 (5 April 2015)

'Babadook' has come in for some 'high praise' from a lot of the people who have seen it. I'm not sure that I'd go as far as to praise it highly here, but it's not that bad. I think that the reason it's been so well received is because it is slightly better than the average horror movie. Let's face it... just because there are load of horror films around right now, that doesn't mean that most of them are totally forgettable.
The 'Babadook' is vaguely better than the average modern horror film. It's dark and moody, yet at the same never really reveals the 'time period' it's supposed to be set in – people dress and speak like they're from the nineteen forties then use a mobile phone (couldn't spot an iphone though).
It's about a single mother and her son. The youngster clearly suffers from various 'behavioural problems' – many of which stem from his father's untimely demise on the day of his birth. He's expelled from school and his mother does her best to raise him. Only there's a bad book (or anagram of 'Babadook' if you noticed?) in their house that seems to bring on an equally bad presence in the house.
And the 'bad presence' is pretty eerie and nicely done. That's another plus point. Then you also have the child actor. Now, ninety per cent of kids in films deserve to be eaten by monsters and, despite this young boy spending much of the early part of the film screaming, he just about does enough to stop you from completely hating him.
There's nothing new here. It could almost be 'The Ring' under another name. If you don't watch much horror, you may enjoy it more as you probably won't have seen as much like it before. However, if – like me – you've seen a hundred and one different spooks tormenting a hundred and one different families, then there's a certain amount of de ja vu going on here. It's not bad. I didn't resent sitting through it. I just can't promise not to forget it totally in a few months time.