John Carpenter's Suburban Screams

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.

Biggest mystery... why would John Carpenter attach his name to such a terrible series??

This series is NOT horror. It's low-grade late-night-network-tv-true-crime suspense at best. Sure there are some scenes that are more gory than network tv would allow, but gore does not equal horror. If gore is surrounded by really atrocious acting and storytelling, it's just gore for the sake of gore. At no point would I classify this series as "horror". It's true crime with boosted gore for some scenes.

Most scary thing.. the earrings and flattop on the guy in the first episode - especially the earrings.. just odd. Makes ya wonder... does he not have any friends or family to tell him how stupid the earrings look? Or do his friends/family all lie to him about them??

I watched 3 episodes.... that's really all I could tolerate. 3 because I had to confirm more episodes were poor, not merely the premiere. The first three episodes are at the same D-grade level in acting, story, and direction, leading me to believe so are the rest of the episodes. I'm not a masochist. So, I didn't bother with the last 3 episodes.

It's rather boring and "cheap" in my opinion.

A low-rent, knock-off, pseudo "True Crime Stories" with a sort of misguided "supernatural" notion surrounding them. It's got heaps of D-level acting and story telling. I just couldn't get past the over-the-top-forced-drama trying to push suspense as much as possible. It's borderline clichéd and somewhat comical and is so poorly acted that it essentially works against what it's trying to achieve.

I think some reviewers are rating this series MUCH higher than it deserves merely because John Carpenter's name is attached to it. I've rated this series based upon what I saw.... and not based my rating on some sense of loyalty or nostalgia because Carpenter has done truly excellent work in the past. Even the most adept director, writer, producer can falter... as Carpenter has in this series.

----- Pass ------

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?

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.

5 of the 6 stories can be verified. 2 of them are in Canada and the last time I checked Canada is NOT "hometown America". The Jamul, Ca. Story is the only one (so far) that cannot be verified. It is typical John Carpenter with unnecessary scenes, stupid dialogue and long held shots that are annoying, not suspenseful; and it takes too long to tell the tale. It's all of John Carpenter's trademarks. If you don't like JC, don't watch it. That simple. I like JC, so the stories are interesting, and I know how he's going to tell them. Also, all the stories but one have multiple sources to back up the stories. Canada has strong libel laws so the first two episodes have the most sources. I will say that the 'Ouija" board is pronounced "we - ya", as in oui the french word for yes and ja the German word for yes; not "we-gee". In what universe has the "a" ever been pronounced "eee"? Otherwise the show is the John Carpenter version of true story, NOT true crime as some of these reviews have stated. It's about the story.