The folklore character called the bagman, which in English would be bagman, is one of the variations of the legends of the boogeyman, babai, and other creatures that have always frightened naughty children. The mystical creature, as its name implies, goes everywhere with a big sack, which he uses to kidnap children. There are similar stories in almost every corner of the world, and the image of the bagman is quite universal and interacts with the deep fears of humanity of the unknown and the inevitability of punishment.
Therefore, at the level of the idea, the script of Bagman sounds even intriguing. After all, adaptations of folklore into horror stories can produce some good works. For example, The Watchers turned out to be one of them. But unfortunately, Bagman is a stereotypical and sterile horror movie that will only bore fans of the genre, and will not be able to interest other viewers.
| Title | Bagman |
| Genre | horror, thriller |
| Director | Colm McCarthy |
| Starring | Sam Claflin, Antonia Thomas, William Hope, Stephen Cree and others |
| Studios | Temple Hill Entertainment, Media Capital Technologies, Lionsgate Films |
| Timing | 1 hour 33 minutes |
| Year | 2024 |
| Website | IMDb |
The main character of the film, Patrick (Sam Claflin), has been familiar with the stories of the Big Man since childhood, which his father used to scare him. These stories had such a strong impact on Patrick's psyche that he believed in the mythical character and even began to see him with his own eyes. Years later, the protagonist has grown up and is now responsible for his wife and son. Circumstances force the family to return to the man's family home, where forgotten nightmares about the Bagman begin to come to life again. However, now Patrick's son is in danger. So the latter will have to face his fears personally if he wants to save his loved ones.
[caption id="attachment_247087" align="aligncenter" width="1600"]
Still from the movie Bagman[/caption]
The synopsis of the film should seem as formulaic as possible to horror fans. Ghosts of the past, a creature from legends, an emphasis on family problems and worries - all this is present in almost every horror. Blumhouse Productions is especially fond of such tropes. The production company adds them even to scripts that don't really go well with them. And even though she had nothing to do with Bagman, the influence of her films is noticeable from the very first minutes of the new story.
The desire to follow roads that have been trodden a long time ago is the main disadvantage of Bagman, which seeps into all its elements. The camera angles, the scenes of the monster's appearance, the general atmosphere and even the color correction - absolutely everything has already been seen somewhere, in a more creative and perfect form. The filmmakers seemed to really want to tell a scary story, but they had about zero idea about the genre. Therefore, they began to borrow elements that are most commonly found in horror films. The result could not be of high quality already at the level of the approach to production.
[caption id="attachment_247083" align="aligncenter" width="1280"]
Still from the movie Bagman[/caption]
Part of the blame for the sterility of the movie lies with its director. Colm McCarthy is known primarily for his work on television series. And quite good ones at that. His portfolio includes several series of Sherlock, Peaky Blinders, Black Mirror, and Doctor Who. It's obvious that McCarthy feels more comfortable in a shorter format. It often happens that directors of short films and TV series run into a lot of trouble when they make their feature debut.
However, the situation with McCarthy is different, because Bagman is not his debut. The director has worked on feature films before, and his Outcast (2010) is also a horror film. That is, it is impossible to attribute everything to the author's inexperience in a new genre. It turns out that it is precisely his talents that are not enough for such a delicate genre as horror.
[caption id="attachment_247085" align="aligncenter" width="1594"]
Still from the movie Bagman[/caption]
Bagman is artificially stretched with unnecessary dialogues and scenes. The focus on family drama often prevents us from fully experiencing the scary moments. And the attempts to scare do not go beyond the methods that cinema has been using for many years. There are almost no elements in the movie that you can catch on to. The only thing that stands out is Sam Claflin's acting, which is really good, and the legend chosen for the horror adaptation is interesting.
But here's the interesting thing. The horror movie genre is full of works that are terrible on every level. And it's not about the feeling of fear, but about the low quality of such films. Therefore, to get a horror that is at least not blatantly stupid is already a good reason to watch it in the theater. And Bagman falls into this category. It's definitely not the best horror movie, but it's not the worst either. It is somewhere in the middle, in a huge cemetery of stories that are almost impossible to distinguish from each other. However, even they are liked by someone.
[caption id="attachment_247081" align="aligncenter" width="1600"]
Still from the movie Bagman[/caption]
For example, Bagman is well made on the technical side. No revelations, but it doesn't raise any complaints either. The image of the titular behemoth turned out to be a good one. He resembles a more real, almost physically tangible creature through the movie screen, rather than something abstract. The movie has no problems with structure and pacing, and it reveals its thoughts, no matter how simple they may be, successfully.
So it turns out that Bagman is more of a mediocre, almost no movie than an outright bad and failed one. But mediocrity in art is one of the worst things that an artist can get as a result of his or her work. That's why this movie gets another minus point from the average score.
P. S. If you see that this movie is called a new installment of Sinister, don't believe it. This is another stupidity of Russian localizers.