Imagine my confusion when I spotted a new horror movie playing at the theaters this weekend, and it was one I’d already seen months ago. Or so I thought. Upon closer inspection, Bagman is actually a different pic altogether; the movie I was thinking of was really Baghead. And while I was lukewarm on that British chiller, it looks comparatively better after having watched Colm McCarthy‘s Bagman.
First off, I’m always pleased whenever horror movies dig up obscure monsters of folklore once the more popular examples have been exhausted. However, writer John Hulme didn’t look all that far when scanning mythology for inspiration; the title character of Bagman is basically another Boogeyman. Except he carries a sack in which he puts children. To be more specific, naughty children. It’s not clear if that last part quite applies to the story of this movie, seeing as none of the snatched kids are particularly misbehaved. If annoying your mama with an instrument is grounds for being abducted by a supernatural entity, then, well, damn. That kid didn’t have a chance, Bagman or no Bagman.
Bagman does make a point to say bad things happen to good people, or something equally as unimaginative. This movie, in general, has a lot of generic dialogue. Not even the stylized and sorta surreal Shyamalan type of writing, either. Everything these attractive but uninteresting characters say is colorless. Which is a shame because you have Sam Claflin and Antonia Thomas in the lead roles. Alas, nothing in their collective talent pool can make this script sing.
Despite a low but decent budget, Bagman is too modestly shot for a theatrical release. I appreciate the bright day shots and the lack of yellowy filter that has become standard in today’s films and television shows, but overall this production looks offensively flat. It’s borderline anti-cinematic.
As far as characters go, Claflin and Thomas’ roles are paper thin as can be. If not for their apparent financial strain, they wouldn’t have anything to say or do. They just exist without leaving any considerable impression on you or the world around them. Of the two, Claflin is afforded the more complicated role; Patrick is haunted by the movie’s namesake after encountering him as a boy. Meanwhile, Thomas’ character spends more time complaining about her adorable child’s toy recorder than anything else. And don’t ask me to identify any unique trait about the brother or sister-in-law. Or the useless police chief. Even Patrick’s father is only in the story to either info dump or be a dick to his young son.
While it’s easy to bag on Bagman, at least it features a fair share of practical effects as well as a passable design for the monster. This villain (Will Davis) is at his best when hidden by robe and hood, and his creepy antics are appropriately uncanny. Admittedly, the obligatory standoff between good and evil also isn’t as happy and clean as first anticipated. This PG-13 horror movie ends on a rather grim note.
Bagman would feel right at home with direct-to-video horror of the early to mid ’90s, except this movie has nothing exceptional or even average going for it. It has neither charm nor personality. It cops from other and better horrors, and will ultimately fail to make any impact on audiences today or down the line. In fact, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this movie wanted to cram itself into a bag and disappear.
Bagman is now playing in select theaters.
Tales from the Paulside 
I just watched Bagman today! In fact as I am watching it.. I wondered if it was a creepypasta story. I found your article and I am so glad I did . As much as I love independent horror and folklore movies, it also lead me to a Dungeons & Dragons character! It’s pretty bleak and honestly I think a better story would have made a huge impact on the audience! Not many outside of the D&D world know too much about “Bagman” and I think his character is pretty wild! Other than that the movie could have been way better!
LikeLike