John Carpenter's Suburban Screams

The stories, from both the US and Canada, are set in idyllic locations away from the hustle-bustle of city life that would appeal to a more mature audience in general, and viewers like me geared toward a more quiet setting.

The horror is a mix up of gore, human inflicted and the supernatural. Though its somewhat watchable, what makes it irritable is the constant switching between the mock interviews and the story narrated through flashbacks. Ideally perhaps, it would have been better suited if they started off with a short mock interview preparing the viewers for the story ahead, before delving into it without further disruptions, and finally concluding with the continuation of the interview to sum it all up.

This is "true crime" garbage, joining the list of other such shows polluting the streamers.

It is quite idiotic, on so many levels. Lame "reenactments" and talking heads. Obvious fictionalizing of supposed real stories.

It is cheap programming, and apparently, the masses are eating up this tripe, or they wouldn't keep producing this stuff. It's lowest common denominator output.

I've seen this genre produced first-hand. This past year, for some money, I worked a true crime series, which I swore that I would never do. It was as bad as I expected, and I left the job. Everything about it was lame. The pay, the producers, the cheapness of it all. Very "Z level."

This series ups the ante, I suppose, by buying off John Carpenter.

I was watching this while on the treadmill, for a distraction, but I am not moving beyond the third episode. The same thing happened with the even worse "Phrogging" series on Hulu. I found myself yelling at the screen with this one, too.

There are some GREAT "true crime" documentaries out there, as opposed to this formulaic series nonsense.

Do. Not. Watch. This.

I'm just gonna come out and say it.. John Carpenter was the king of the 80s. But he hasnt been on that throne in over 3 decades. He had a couple passable movies in the 90s but the dude lost his touch tbh. He's been thriving producing synth music for a while now. That's where I think he should've stayed.

His last movie The Ward was so awful I was like yea dude, retire already lol.

So when I saw that he was doing this series, I literally had no interest at all. But... then I saw that it was a documentary series and that had my intrigued! Like wow a true crime series hmmm. This could possibly be worth a watch maybe.

Unfortunately all of these "cases" seem really unbelievable and honestly very uninteresting. I found myself bored to death through the whole thing. I also felt somewhat phony. Like these people recounting the events were actors or something. Not to mention the re-enactments were REALLY horrible. Like that's to be expected from your run of the mill true crime series.. but this is John Carpenter right?? It should be better I would think...

I mean for comparison.. ID has a series called Real Detective that was rebranded to The Case That Haunts Me and that series has amazing re-enactments and it's on the discovery channel..

Anyway... it's not like the worst thing I've ever seen (hence the 3 stars) but it was definitely boring and I can't really recommend it either.

6.5/10

This really reminds me of "Unsolved Mysteries" just minus the unsolved mysteries. The style is very reminiscent of that, and that's probably why I enjoyed it moreso than the show itself. The stories being told weren't the most interesting or exciting, nor were the people telling them, but the reenactment videos were well done & kept my interest enough that I continued to binge watch the entire series in a day.

There's nothing new or groundbreaking here, and it's not anything so exciting or great that I'd tell someone to rush to watch it, but if you enjoyed watching Unsolved Mysteries and/or are interested in people telling personal ghost stories, it worth the watch.

Only two of these "stories" felt even remotely true. The rest felt like they were very loosely based on only some actual events at best. So many of the details were derived or interpreted from presumption, or portrayed in such a way that is all assumed through implication. Some of the "truth" to the stories are merely assumed as truth cuz "there was a police report" so therefore...it must be true, right?! It's like Unsolved Mysteries met Goosebumps, but you're just supposed to take everyone's word as truth, despite there being very little to suggest it's anything other than a local legend. A lot of the acting in the dramatic recreations were also lame. And yet they portray the recreations in such way where they expect you to believe that's exactly how it happened. Here's the issue - MANY of the recreations didn't have ANY eye witnesses to them, so how on earth do you present alleged facts with no supporting evidence? This might as well have been kids telling you ghost stories they heard from other kids, who heard it from other kids...but you're just supposed to believe it's all true? Even when there's no documentation, evidence, or anything else at all?