Horror Movie Legend Wes Craven Dead at 76

Image from source, MSN

It's hard to relate how much horror maven Wes Craven impacted my life. As a pop culture sponge, I was particularly fond of the horror films of the 70s and 80s. I came from my late teens into early adulthood at precisely the same time as the home video boom. And as a rather shy and retiring sort, I spent a lot of my scant money and ample free time on weekends watching movies gathered from the local West Coast Video.

As luck would have it, home video was driven by two forces in those days, porn (naturally) and horror movies! And horror movies were available in abundance. The horror trend was powered by Halloween, ripped off by Friday the 13th, and then beaten into the ground by further ripoffs. And then there was A Nightmare on Elm Street. Even my easy-to-please early 20s self could see this was a whole new, much more creative entry into the field.

Nightmare took horror movies into a whole new realm, from what had been a rather mindless, plotless killer stalking nubile teens, into a mind-bending, complex and unpredictable area. The first film was really groundbreaking and impactful. On first viewing, the viewer is unsure of just what is a dream, and what is reality. Wes Craven was the man responsible for this revelation, but he of course didn't start his career or make his first mark with Freddy Krueger.



If Craven had only ever invented Freddy Krueger,
he'd be a horror legend on that alone.

He did that back in the 70s, with what is arguably one of the most disturbing films of the era, The Last House on the Left, and the nearly-as-creepy The Hills Have Eyes. And he kept going, obtaining a whole new level of fame, and relevance with Scream. Needless to say, though all of these films had sequels and or remakes, and countless imitators--both good and (often) bad--it's the ones Craven had a hand in that were the best installments.

Of all the films in my video library, Craven's are among the ones with the most repeat viewings. His passing was one of those "oof" punch-to-the-gut ones for me, and those are rare for this jaded soul. RIP, Mr. Craven. You left a mark. A big, messy, bloody mark. And we loved it!

[Excerpt]

Wes Craven, Horror Maestro, Dies at 76

Wes Craven, the famed maestro of horror known for the Nightmare on Elm Street and Scream franchises, died Sunday after a battle with brain cancer. He was 76. Craven, whose iconic Freddy Krueger character horrified viewers for years, died at his home in Los Angeles, his family announced. Survivors include his wife, producer and former Disney Studios vice president Iya Labunka. . .

Read more at: MSN

Greenlee Gazette's Guide to Friday the 13th

Happy Halloween! If you have not yet picked out your scary movies for your Halloween weekend, here is another of my lists from the early days of the blog, this one a run-down of the famous Friday the 13th series. When I originally wrote this, news of a "reboot" of the series was fresh. Now it is available on DVD and Blu-ray, and I definitely recommend it.

Photo from Wikipedia.org

Sprinkled throughout this blog is ample evidence that I am a horror movie nut. That's in addition to being a comic book/superhero nut, a 70s ABC-TV nut, and a far-left loony moonbat political nut!

With Halloween coming up, there will undoubtedly be a heavier focus on the horror movie nut side of me. Previously, I commented on how much I did not want to see Rob Zombie's re-imagined Halloween. I still don't, but I'm sure someday I'll get the DVD. Anyway, unlike the original Halloween, I'm not sure anyone would put Friday the 13th in the "classic" category. At least not good classics. The series is loved with a heavy dose of nostalgia, and not a lot else.

Sure, it's iconic, was amazingly influential, and made a whole lot of money for both Paramount and New Line studios. But the Friday the 13th string of movies was easily the hollowest, least plotted, acted and impactful storywise of the horror movie franchises (Nightmare on Elm Street, Halloween, Hellraiser). Each Friday film pretty much follows a mindless killer, stalking stupid people.

There were variations along the way. And if you try to assign a real-world continuity to the films, you'll give yourself a headache that feels like a machete in your skull. Here are some short recaps (star ratings do not relate to the real movie world, only within the horror movie genre!):

Friday the 13th - The first film is by far the best. Jason does not appear (outside of a possible hallucination), but his storyline is set up. Notable for Betsy Palmer's iconic performance as Jason's mother. Sets the tone and atmosphere for the first four to seven movies. Genuinely scary for the uninitiated. Plus, Kevin Bacon. ***

Friday the 13th, Part 2 -Almost as good as the first, though very short (especially considering the recap at the beginning). Notable for Amy Steel's strong performance, the VW bug scene, and the guy in the wheelchair. Struggles to find a reason why Jason didn't drown, and why he was motivated to start his killing spree. Though the explanation is weak, it is used as the basis for the rest of the series. **

Friday the 13th, Part 3 - This (originally) 3D installment is one of the weakest, with very little story, and shots that were intended for the 3D audience. Most notable for hand-walking guy's death, and Jason's acquisition of his iconic hockey mask.  I initially thought this installment was terrible, but it's better in retrospect. *

Friday the 13th - The Final Chapter - Yeah, right! It's the best of sequels, and could have served as the finale, but there was more money to be made. Jason ventures out of Camp Crystal Lake, and seems to meet his end. Considering that this was 1984, I'm sure you know that it wasn't to be. Plus, Corey Feldman and Crispin Glover? ***

Friday the 13th (Part V): A New Beginning - Close to as good as part 4, reviled by fans for its plot twist, but very much in line with the tone of the first four movies. And Corey Feldman only wishes he grew up to look like John Shepherd!  Woof. **

Friday the 13th, Part VI: Jason Lives - Yeah, I guess he lives. Often considered one of the best sequels, it left me cold. It felt like a different studio picked up the reigns. This edition has a vastly different tone from the first five films, and the gory kills just aren't there.  But I guess the MPAA is to blame for that. *

Friday the 13th, Part VII: The New Blood - They throw a psychic girl into the mix, and tack on a ridiculous ending, which puts Jason into the same scenario as the end of the last movie--making this one irrelevant. On the plus side the tone of the first five movies is back. And for you gay fans out there, this one is known as FriGAY the 13th for the high number of gay actors in the movie. *

Friday the 13th, Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan - The tone is still there, as Jason stows away on a cruise ship bound for New York. Most of the action is on the boat, and there are some great scenes. But it feels like the series is running on fumes. And that ending. What the hell? *1/2

Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday - Speaking of Hell, New Line Cinema took over the franchise from Paramount here, and it is very, very obvious this was made by others. Some of the feel is still there, and the film is undeniably fun. Adds a bunch of new story elements that wreck any (already strained) continuity from the first 8 films. Also ignores the end of Part VIII. Fun anyway. And it sets up the movie after the next one.**1/2

Jason X - Tenth installment puts Jason in space, with no context to the rest of the storyline. Continuity-wise has no home, and is akin to a comic book "elseworlds" or "imaginary story." Has its fun parts, but utterly skippable. But the cryogenic scene? Priceless. *1/2

Freddy Vs. Jason - I loved it. They took the monster from the best horror franchise (though it had run out of steam) and the worst (but still loved), and pitted them against each other. Truly, one of the best outings for this type of movie in a long, long time. That said, not the least bit scary. Plays like gory comedy. ***

Friday the 13th (Remake) - I was right that they couldn't really mess up the remake. It's a hoot. The twist--apparently--is that most of the characters you kinda want to see dead. And Jason is given a much heftier back-story. Unfortunately, they still don't explain what happened that made Mrs. Voorhees think he died when he didn't. Still, I'd put this in the top three with the first two installments. I don't know if there will be a part 2 (actually XIII), but I'm game. ***

Halloween Horrors: Nightmare & Friday Documentaries are Bloody Good!



Image from Wikipedia

 I often will watch a movie or two on the weekend, and write up quick reviews on the blog.  I'm usually way late in my review, sometimes reviewing a flick that's a decade old. The weirdest reviews come from watching two completely different genres of film, and finding a connecting thread between the two.  But they're often disconnected to anything going on right now, other than the fact that I happened to pick them randomly.

This weekend, as a pre-Halloween treat to myself, I purchased two documentary films of iconic horror movie franchises, A Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday the 13th.  Both series caught me at precisely the right age and era in time.  I caught the first Friday film first-run, by sneaking into a drive-in theater at 14.  The first Nightmare was watched on VHS video, not long after it was released. The whole concept of home video was only a few years old, and horror movies were a driving force in that phenomenon (well, that and porn). At one time or another, I've owned them all--in multiple formats--and watched them many, many times.

I'm also one of those people who likes to watch outtakes, gag reels, retrospectives, and sometimes even listen to the director's or actors' commentary tracks. I'm the guy "DVD extras" were invented for. So, buying Never Sleep Again: The Elm Street Legacy and His Name was Jason: 30 Years of Friday the 13th was a foregone conclusion. The Friday documentary was priced at $6.99, so that was an easy pill to swallow.  But I didn't even hesitate that the other one was $19.99.  Somehow, the pricing structure seemed appropriate to the quality of its respective franchise.  Little did I know, it also relates to the quality of the productions.



Image from Friday the 13th Blog

 His Name was Jason (2009) isn't bad, in fact I'd recommend it to any Friday the 13th fan.  It features a number of original cast members, which is akin to a class reunion, where you get to see how everyone's aged.  Betsy Palmer looks terrific by the way.  Each installment of the franchise is discussed, with every Jason actor interviewed (two of them in the case of Part 2).  If you're a hardcore fan, you probably know a lot of what's being discussed, but it's great to get it all in one place, from the mouths of people who were actually there.  They didn't cheap out by only covering the Paramount selections, or glossing over the New Line years. They even cover a bit of the remake.  It's good, hosted by Tom Savini, creator of the original Jason Voorhees makeup, though in a thoroughly cheeseball way.  Another interesting thing, is that the kills and gore, cursing and nekkid boobies are all here. A lot of documentaries would be a lot more censored, but this one pulls no punches.  There's even some unflattering things said about certain people involved, and acknowledgement of things that didn't work so well.  The film is only an hour and a half, so they don't get to spend much time on each film (of which there are so far 12 editions). Also, the special features are limited to some extended scenes with the various actors and stunt people who played Jason.  Well worth the $6.99 though.  By the way, series stars Kevin Bacon, Corey Feldman and Crispin Glover do not appear. But Amy Steel does, and that's all I cared about!

I was glad I watched Never Sleep Again second, but wish I'd started watching it earlier in the day. This sucker is long. 240 minutes, to be exact, and clearly a labor of love by all involved.  The Nightmare series spans nine films counting the remake (which is not covered, at least not in the main feature), not to mention that one of them actually crosses over with Friday.  Each edition is covered extensively, and I'm tempted to say too much, except that I was never tempted to turn it off.  It's narrated and executive produced by Heather Langenkamp, the most iconic star of the series, besides Robert Englund's Freddy Krueger.

Each edition is relatively self contained, with many of the original stars and crew interviewed, with plentiful clips and behind-the-scenes action. The motivations for what was included, what was left out, what worked and didn't are all discussed, including backstage friendships and feuds.  I can't think of much of anything a fan wants to know not being in the film. It's really a rip-roaring good time,and is highly recommended to any fan--though you may want to watch it in stages if you don't want to burn through an afternoon.

Unlike the Jason documentary, Never Sleep Again is chock full of special features, though I haven't gotten around to them yet. They include a filmmaker commentary, slashed scenes, Return to Elm Street, Freddy in comics and novels, a condensed A Nightmare on Elm Street in 10 Minutes and other stuff I haven't discovered yet. If there is any letdown, it is that stars Johnny Depp, Patricia Arquette and Jason Ritter (not in the Friday doc either) were not involved.

And though I know these two films were bound to be related, I did find a little connection that struck me as interesting.  Gay fans of horror films know that A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2 and Friday the 13th VII: The New Blood are "the gay ones."  ANOES2 because of actor Mark Patton (who is openly gay) and the film's so-much-more-than-subtext gay vibe; and F13VII because a large chunk of the cast was gay.  In Never Sleep Again, the issue is discussed at length with just the right touch, and with humor.  In Jason, the issue is never brought up.

Halloween Horrors: Rating the Horror Remakes (All New!)

I'm in the middle of rerunning some of my old favorite Halloween movie lists, but fear not, this is a new one!  I've finally over the last year gotten to viewing a slew of the new remakes and reboots of classic horror films.  There have been quite a few, and some are better (or worse) than others. Here's a handy guide for you, to help you out with your holiday video viewing.  (*Star ratings are for within-the-genre only)

Greenlee Gazette Modern Horror Remakes Guide

Image from Wikipedia

Rob Zombie's Halloween (2007) - If there was ever a horror series that needed a change, it was Halloween. Though the original is an all-time classic, and there are a few enjoyable sequels sprinkled in there, but the last three sequels run the gamut from bad to worse.  But Zombie's reboot of the franchise isn't promising. The movie itself is fine, and if it had no legend to live up to might be be rated higher.  It is tied to the previous series--interestingly enough--by having the star of parts 4 and 5 as one of the actors.  But you won't be scared by this one, and anything promising for a new series here is trashed by the immediate Halloween II remake, which is bizarre and confusing, trying too hard to shoehorn in supernatural elements.  You could certainly do worse, but you can do so much better by renting or buying the original.  **  (Sequel: No *)

Friday the 13th (2009) - This reboot had no real legend to live up to.  The Friday the 13th series is an interesting mixture of nostalgia and "so bad, it's good" in the pantheon of horror, and literally couldn't be wrecked.  Also, Jason Voorhees' character and back-story were already muddled, and continuity between editions was so loose, re-starting the story is no big deal.  You might call it more of a ret-con than a reboot. Anyway, this is by far the highest quality, best produced edition of the series.  You've never seen such clarity and crispness in a Friday film, which were usually muddy and dark.  Acting is better than the original series, and the effects are fun.  This is really a remake of Part 2 of the original, which was one of the better original sequels, and it's not bad.  They fleshed out Voorhees' background, adding in a couple of odd elements, neither improving or detracting much from what we know. It has a few surprises, and a couple of jolts. But scary? Not so much.  More fun than later Friday sequels (except for maybe Freddy vs. Jason). Amazingly, this film still doesn't explain why Jason's mother thought he was dead, how he survived, or why he was there to witness his mother's death!  Any future sequel would play like an extension of the first series, rendering the reboot kind of moot.  ***

Image from Wikipedia

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) - This one had me the most worried, going in.  The original Nightmare is an undisputed classic. Sure it was low-budget, had some problematic acting, and is hopelessly mired in the 80s. But it was so original, mixing the dream world with reality, rateable nightmares and a terrifying villain in Freddy Krueger. Later sequels kind of neutered Freddy though, so a reboot, Wes Craven's New Nightmare was made several years ago.  New was not a success, even though it was critically praised, so this remake came to be, recasting and rebooting the entire franchise.  It's a mixed success. There's a new guy playing Freddy, and while he did a fine job, Robert Englund is a tough act to follow.

This isn't like the other horror franchises, with masked killers.  Englund is Freddy. That's the toughest aspect to get around.  I was surprised that they didn't focus on Nancy's house much at all, which was an iconic aspect of most of the original series.  Also, Freddy is made more creepy and disgusting than scary.  He was always a "child killer" but the implications of that were obscured before. Here, he's very definitely a pedophile and killer, which makes you more queasy than terrified.  All in all, a decent remake, but the original is still better. **

The Hills Have Eyes - You couldn't really damage the original in this Wes Craven flick.  Hills falls into the Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Wrong Turn sub-genre of films, with ordinary people finding themselves in desolate places ruled by murderous, cannibalistic mutants/hillbillies/inbreds.  It's nasty, it's bloody, and you will want to cover your eyes in parts.  If you like it messy and nasty, this belongs on your rental list. The sequel falls right in line, playing like an extension of the first. Not Shakespeare, but what horror is?  *** (Sequel **1/2)

April Fool's Day (2008) - The original is a personal favorite, though not very well known. By the same people as the Friday the 13th series, April Fool's Day was a novel twist, with better acting, humor and an interesting premise of a "murder mystery weekend" going horribly wrong (or did it?).  The "remake" is really in name only. There's some decent gore, and even the acting isn't too bad. But it's a terrible movie. No stars.

Image from Wikipedia

The Last House on the Left (2009) - Another remake of a Wes Craven film, and this one is better than the original.  The old one was gritty and dirty, and disturbing, feeling almost like 70s porn.  This one is more standard-issue modern horror, but more disturbing than your typical slice & dice.  The acting is terrific, with Tony Goldwyn (Ghost) and Garrett Dillahunt almost unrecognizable as the bad guy, Krug (apparently based on the same bully of Craven as Freddy Krueger).  The film--though it does have a few typical "oh, they wouldn't do that" horror movie moments--is quite engaging and suspenseful, and is only marred by an ending that seems kind of out of left field.  It's satisfying, gory and nasty, but not entirely believable. Overall though, the best of this list. ****

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) - Unlike the other remakes in this list, I've never seen the original Tobe Hooper film.  I've caught a handful of the sequels though, and this one is better than any of those.  Some decisions by main characters are completely unbelievable, but that's a critique of most horror films, so it goes with the territory. This one plays like a better-produced installment of the never-ending original franchise.  **

There are others, of course.  George Romero's Dead series of zombie films has the unique distinction of having different folks produce remakes of each of the original three movies, and even sequels to them.  There's Prom Night, Psycho, Children of the Corn. . .but a good rule of thumb is this: get the original.  It's almost always better.

DVD Review: A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge

Images from source, X-Entertainment



EDITOR'S NOTE: I started writing this post in the wee hours of Sunday morning. I decided to watch A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge right after the Betty White episode of Saturday Night Live. And then a funny thing happened. I was alternatively watching the DVD and typing my review, and I damned near fell asleep.  So, I saved my spot on both and hit the hay. Today, upon reflection, I'm not sure I know how to finish the write-up.  But I also didn't want to throw it away after all that typing. So what I'm going to do is tack on this prologue, followed by a quick epilogue, and then a link to a much better review! How's that for having your cake and eating it too?

ORIGINAL POST:

Inspired by the new "reboot" of the A Nightmare on Elm Street franchise, I decided to re-watch the first sequel to the original movie. The movie has long been considered to be the worst of the sequels, and has also been assigned to be the gayest horror movie ever.  I'm inclined to agree with the latter, but not with the former.

While part 2 is not on par with 3 or 4, (and the less said about 5 and 6, the better), it isn't bad. In fact, much of the feel of the original is present here.  And while it is absolutely skippable in the whole scheme of the Nightmare franchise (part 3 picks up the story after part 1), it is still a pretty good movie.

It must be a challenge for writers and actors in a Part 2 of any franchise that wasn't intended to have a sequel. They've got to keep the vibe of the original, without overly rehashing it, or betraying it. And they will hopefully make it better.  Part 2 doesn't make it better, but it doesn't trash it either.  The acting for one thing is well above average. The writing takes the plot a little far astray from the original--Freddy can be supernatural in the real world?--but the feel of the original is still there, in my opinion for the last time in the series. Part 3 set up a whole new direction in both look and feel.  Sidenote: you could argue that without part 2 there never would have been a franchise. It made lots of money, inspiring the studio (and Wes Craven) to pull out the stops for the third chapter. It also continued the iconography with the house, which carried on through most of them.

Mark Patton is the protagonist, Jesse, in this one. Which alone is a strange choice in a horror movie. The "last girl" is a horror movie cliche that has lasted far beyond the vintage of this picture.  So casting a young man in the part is right away a unique way to go.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with Patton as an actor--he's very good--but much has been made over the years of his androgyny. What? Really? Why?

He's not buff like Grady, Jesse's best friend, but he doesn't come off girly to me. Plus, Jesse has a girlfriend in Lisa (Kim Myers), who is probably the best actress the series has seen (possibly excepting Part 3's Patricia Arquette).  Jesse (who lives in the iconic Elm Street house of Part 1's "last girl," Nancy) and Lisa find Nancy's diary, and figure out that Freddy Krueger is haunting Jesse's sleeping and waking life.  Freddy is trying to break through to the real world by taking over Jesse's body.

So while the dreamworld is a little under-represented in this chapter, I don't think--like many fans of the series do--this anomaly is a bad thing. Freddy has tried a variety of ways to keep up his murder spree, so his attempt to take over Jesse's body is just one more thing he tried. But back to the gay stuff (and yes, I realize that Freddy wanting Jesse for his body--"You've got the body, I've got the brains!"--is just one more thing that makes this flick have a queer vibe.

I watched this movie for the first time in 1985 or '86, a time when I was well aware of my sexuality, but still keeping it under wraps. I was not as savvy to homoerotic allusions then, but I definitely noticed even then that this movie was working for me on more than one level! Some of it is overt and leans slightly homophobic. But casting Patton (who is very attractive in a non-threatening way) and Robert Rusler (Grady, who is very attractive in a bad boy way), and then getting them out of their clothing much of the time was much appreciated by me! And while Jesse's and Grady's relationship can only be seen as gay in subtext, I have to say I picked up on it, even in the 80s. I think only Jeepers Creepers 2 gives ANOES2 a run for its money for gay subtext in a mainstream horror film.

EPILOGUE: So that's where I left off, musing about the gayness of the movie. This particular facet of the film has been covered--and much better--by others. So rather than beat a dead horse, here is one of those better reviews.  But before you go there, you might want to read this excellent interview with the star, Mark Patton, who oddly enough has been "missing" for 25 years. That interview is here.  Now, onto the review.

[Excerpt]

A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge; The Man of Your Dreams is Back!

Nightmare On Elm Street 2 is probably the least heralded of all the Kruegerfests, and rightfully so. Compared to the rest of the series, Freddy's Revenge displays a severe lack in scares, gore, and yes - even the main man himself. I found the movie pretty watchable on the whole, but can easily understand why fans collectively aimed their assholes at it before taking a sh*t. If you erased this one from the continuity entirely, nobody would know the difference. . .


Read more at: X-Entertainment

Movie Review: A Nightmare on Elm Street

Image from Wikipedia


I've been a horror movie fan since I shook my fear of Frankenstein at about eight or nine. By the time I was in my teen years--and especially once video stores started popping up--I became a ravenous gore hound. Luckily for me, my late-teen to early-adult years were spent in the 1980s, the decade of the slasher movie (and slasher movie sequel) boom. I wasn't too fussy either. I could be just as happy with Terror Train or Hello, Mary Lou: Prom Night II as a genuinely scary movie.

Discriminating or not, I could appreciate the difference between schlock and quality.  The general pattern of the big horror movie franchise was that the first one was the best, the second occasionally okay, a few better-than average chapters sprinkled in, and most just a tick above crap.  Halloween started the trend with a genuinely excellent first chapter, a sequel that made folks like me happy, but left critics cold, and then a string of lesser and lesser sequels.  Friday the 13th cribbed from Halloween making a first installment that is only good due to nostalgia (and in comparison to the rest of the series).  And then A Nightmare on Elm Street managed to be different.

The first Nightmare is one of my all-time favorites. It's low budget to be sure, but diverted from the mindless killer stalking nubile teens motif of other shockers. Its villain, Fred Krueger, was a child murderer who was himself murdered by the neighborhood parents.  Somehow, Freddy manages to get revenge by attacking the neighborhood children in their dreams.  If you die in the dream, you're dead for real.  The genius of the first film is that as it is playing out, you are often unsure if what is happening is in the dream world, or the real one.  And the dreams had an authentic quality to them that was truly unsettling.  It didn't hurt that the actors were either good (Johnny Depp, Robert Englund), memorable (Heather Langenkamp, John Saxon) or endearingly bad (Ronee Blakely).  And the villain was extra creepy, and seemingly omnipotent in a way that made more sense than writers ever bothered to think up for Jason Vorhees or Michael Myers.

Part 2 diverted from the first by bringing Krueger into the real world (with mixed success), Part 3 had troubled teens with the ability to team up in the dream world (to great effect), Part 4 followed the theme of the previous one, and the rest don't much bear mentioning (though you can find a breakdown here if you are interested). And while I enjoy them all to one degree or other, the first was and remains one of the most-watched movies in my collection.  Still, there are those that argue that after 8 movies and a TV series, Freddy Krueger was over-exposed, and not scary anymore.  And so (finally), they decided to reboot.

The new A Nightmare on Elm Street attempts to start over at the beginning, giving a fresh take on the story. Freddy's original origin--which had been hinted at, then fleshed out  (continuity be damned) in the sequels--is changed to a much more disturbing one. The characters are all different (though a couple retain the same names), as is the story.  The previews are a little misleading here to a veteran Nightmare watcher, giving the impression that this is a shot-for-shot remake.  Not so, though several scenes take their inspiration from the original story.  What remains is a pretty good thriller, a definitely creepy Freddy, and an enjoyable, good time.

What makes this film difficult to review objectively (aside from presenting spoilers), is my extreme familiarity with the original and its sequels. They couldn't change much about Freddy, or fans would revolt. So they also couldn't surprise me very much. And since I've seen the original a couple dozen times, I can't say if it still holds up, or was even as good as I remember it to be. It is too colored with nostalgia, and my affinity for the original actors is too strong.  This was not a problem with the Friday the 13th remake, since the original wasn't all that great to begin with.  And I can't speak to the Halloween remake, which I still have not seen.  But I can tell you, it was better than I thought it would be, and I did not walk out disappointed.

What works: They kept the old Nightmare theme music. They kept "1, 2, Freddy's coming for you. . ." They explored the science of sleep deprivation more. Freddy looks like a real burn victim.  Freddy does not feel like an anti-hero in this one.  The ambiguous ending is different from, and better than the original.

What doesn't work as well: The slow-motion effect of the jump rope wasn't used, making it feel less like a dream. The main house looks far less iconic, both inside and out. The cast is capable, but the kids mostly look too old, or just. . .not special? There's no Heather Langenkamp or Johnny Depp in it, literally or figuratively. 

Over all, I have to recommend it to a newbie or an old-hand like myself.  It's a damned sight better than it could have been, and it is obvious that effort went in to make it a notch-above-average reboot.  But I doubt that I'll watch it 25 times. Oh, I'll get the DVD, maybe even the blu-ray. And who knows, maybe it will grow on me. But my copy of the original is not going anywhere.

Billy Bob Thornton to play Freddy Krueger?

Photo from source, DListed

Krueger image from source, Wikipedia

I'm a big 70s and 80s horror movie fan, which has been (over) documented here in the past. One of the very best of the genre, in my estimation, is A Nightmare on Elm Street by Wes Craven. The original film has had its reputation altered--sometimes enhanced, sometimes not--by countless sequels, spinoffs and merchandising. Even though I'm a fan of nearly all of that, somewhere along the way, audiences began to like the villain, Freddy Krueger, rather than fear him.

Krueger, played by Robert Englund, was a horrifying creation--a child murderer, and presumably molester--who haunted teenagers in their dreams. The hook of the first film was that you were never quite sure what was real and what was a dream. The original film, and some of its sequels, are beloved by horror movie fans. And Englund is so closely associated with the series that a remake without him is something akin to blasphemy.

But Hollywood has never much respected horror films. Since Universal's heyday with Frankenstein and Dracula, they've churned out sequels, spoofs, team-ups and remakes. Sometimes it works. Most times, it doesn't.

Billy Bob Thornton is a good choice to play Krueger, though. He's creepy in real life, so imagine him with Hollywood magic. Still, I'm wary.

[Excerpt]

Billy Bob Thornton As Freddy Krueger?!

One...two....Billy Bob's coming for you. No. That doesn't have a nice ring to it. Michael Bay is currently working on butchering the classic "Nightmare on Elm Street," and apparently he's signed Billy Bob Thornton to play Freddy Krueger. Billy Bob would make a better Crypt Keeper instead. . .

Read more at: DListed

Featured Blog: Totally Looks Like

Image from source, TotallyLooksLike.com

I'm often ruled by my inner child. . .which is a nicer way to say that I'm immature. Because of this, there are a chunk of posts on my blog that are probably ill advised. So, how freeing it would be to have a blog that consists of little else!

Actually, that's probably overstating things a little. TotallyLooksLike.com features "separated at birth" type match ups, and certainly they aren't all insulting. And even those that are can be uncannily accurate.

Take for instance, Cindy McCain:



Source: TotallyLooksLike.com

And some of my own!

Cindy McCain Plagiarizes Recipes?
Separated at Birth: John McCain & Lon Chaney, Sr.
Horrible Monster or Presidential Candidate?
Sean Hannity & Lou Costello Separated at Birth

More Horrible Tattoos

Images from source, Asylum

With apologies to Stupid Monkey Planet, my tattooed-iest friend, here is another collection of bad tattoos, this time from Asylum. I couldn't resist after seeing the tattoo of an Eames chair and ottoman, which is imagery my brother uses for his antiques business. My brother, you see, has his own bad tattoo of Freddy Krueger Frank Sinatra.

Enjoy.

[Excerpt]

Bad tattoos: a gallery of ink that stinks

Chair and Footrest: The choice for furniture salesmen/bikers everywhere.

Skull Face

"What? What do you mean the auditions for Skeletor are over? But I..."

See lots more at: Asylum

Previously:
Featured Blog: Horrible Tattoos

Halloween Horrors: A Nightmare on Elm Street

Image from Wikipedia.com

Back to frivolity. This is of course October, month of Halloween, and season of the horror film. I've been a fan of horror movies since I was old enough to stay up all night on Fridays, and watch Chiller Theater with Dan Immel on WBNS-TV in Columbus, Ohio. I grew up being fearless in the daylight hours, and terrified at night to go past our attic in the dark--because I knew there was a Frankenstein pull-string doll in there.

Arguably the best of the horror movie franchises of the last 25 years is A Nightmare on Elm Street. Sure, John Carpenter's Halloween jump-started the "slasher flick" in 1978, and Sean S. Cunningham's Friday the 13th kept it going in 1980. But Wes Craven's Nightmare injected originality, humor, and the undeniable (and almost limitless) possibilities of nightmares. Anything can happen in nightmares, and everyone can relate to them.

I have watched all of the movies in this series multiple times (some more than others), and all of them have something to offer. Well, except part 6, unless you like Roseanne and Tom Arnold cameos. . .

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) - The first, and best in the series. The movie follows a group of teenagers, all experiencing the same bogeyman in their dreams. The seeming protagonist bites it early in the film, surprising the audience (oops, sorry!). Another protagonist (Heather Langenkamp as Nancy) emerges, and becomes the icon of the series. Robert Englund (Fred Krueger) is far creepier in this film than in the sequels, and you're never quite sure what is a dream and what is reality. Johnny Depp did very well in this introductory role, and the only flaw in the film is the really bad performance by Ronee Blakley. Awesome. ****

A Nightmare on Elm Street, Part 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985) - The obligatory sequel ditches the "is it a dream or reality" hook of the first film, and tries to bring Freddy into the real world. Freddy becomes a little more of a quip-master, and there is a disturbing anti-gay undercurrent to the film. Fortunately, the protagonist (Mark Patton) acquits himself well, and is also very cute. This movie is sort of a stop-gap, before the superior sequel. **

A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987) - They pulled out all the stops for this one, and what a fun movie it is. Even though Freddy has become almost an anti-hero, this film is nearly as good as the first--better maybe, except the novelty is gone. Patricia Arquette (of Medium) did a great job, and the effects are top-notch. Several teenagers (in a mental institution) discover that they have powers in their dreams, and can band together to fight Freddy. Heather Langenkamp is back as the iconic Nancy, and the nightmare/reality scenario is played to the hilt. ****

A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988) - Another goodie, with the power of protagonist shifted from Patricia Arquette's character (now played by another actress) to "The Dream Master," Alice, who has mastery of the dream world. Follows the setup of the last movie, with characters having powers in their dreams. Very good, but Freddy's jokes are getting a little too calculated. ***

A Nightmare on Elm Street (5): The Dream Child (1989) - A logical extension of part 4, but a little thin. Some great moments, and unfairly maligned as a bad entry. Plays like an extended addition to part 4. Still enjoyable, if you liked parts 1-4. **

Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991) - By far the weakest of the series, but still a must if you are a fan. Freddy's killed all of the kids, and must now branch out. Adds more mythology to Freddy's history, and feels a little shoe-horned in. Freddy "dies," but he's died in every installment. Still, Robert Englund is great. Finale 3-D sequence--rendered 2D on video--is lame. Johnny Depp has a cameo. *1/2

Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994) - Wes Craven is back, and it is obvious. This film takes the Freddy character into the real world, with the "spirit" of the character haunting the makers of the original film, including Heather Langenkamp and Wes Craven. Very well done, inventive and original. I love me some Heather. Where is she these days? A must for fans. ***

Freddy Vs. Jason (2003) - The inevitable (after New Line's acquisition of the Friday the 13th series) match up of Jason and Freddy. Much better than you might think (as I reported in my Friday the 13th reviews). A heck of a lot of fun, and the Freddy character has so much more to offer. You almost forget he was a child molester/murderer to begin with! Heh. ***

I hope that helps with your Halloween movie rentals! Stay tuned for more!

A final note: This is one franchise that would be utterly spoiled by a "reboot," like Halloween or Friday the 13th. Nobody, but NOBODY could play Freddy like Robert Englund. Only if he should pass away should any other actor play the part.