Halloween Horrors: Greenlee Gazette's Guide to the Scream Franchise

More from the vaults, my take on the Scream movie series. Not the TV series, which I've yet to watch, but the original four films.

ORIGINAL POST:

News has come out recently that Wes Craven's and Kevin Williamson's Scream movie franchise is coming to the small screen as an MTV series. Questions about why MTV has become what it has aside, that's good news if they manage to keep it in the same vein. The series influenced nearly every horror movie that has come since, if not within the films themselves, at least in the movie posters and DVD/Blu-ray box art. That lineup of attractive stars in front of a splashy logo, some drippy, bloody and/or torn looking graphic? Scream did that first. It spawned I Know What You Did Last Summer, Urban Legend and countless other imitators, many (including Scream itself) with a string of sequels.

What set Scream apart from earlier slasher movies was a subversion of horror movie cliches, a winking "genre savvy"-ness by characters within the film, a writer that was raised on  pop culture (hell, he created Dawson's Creek), a mixture of humor and horror, and the biggest thing of all: known stars. In the old days, horror movies--especially the slasher type--might have a marginally known character actor (Hope Lange, John Saxon, Betsy Palmer), but were mostly stocked with a bunch of unknowns. Your Kevin Bacons and Johnny Depps became well known of course, but nobody knew them when they starred in the first Friday the 13th and A Nightmare on Elm Street, respectively. Scream started the trend of stocking a horror movie with a roster of up-and-coming young (typically very attractive) actors, often from hit teen TV shows. And all of this new stuff was put into the hands of the very capable Craven, creator of Nightmare and several other standout horror classics.

But Scream was a long time ago now. All of that novelty has been absorbed and trodden and retreaded to death by now. We've segued through (and passed?) torture porn like Hostel and the endless Saw series. Scream--often thought of as something of a horror parody itself--was parodied in the first of the also endless Scary Movie (which curiously was the working title of Scream) films. Indirectly, Scream is responsible for the horrible stream of parody "Movie" movies that came after. So the movie that started all of that, and its sequels, are now part of nostalgia, with a patina of prestige and respect. But, how do they hold up?

 [Here there may be minor spoilers]


Scream (1996) starts the ball rolling in a seemingly novel (but cribbed from Alfred Hitchcock's 1960 classic Psycho) way, by killing off the seeming star of the flick early on. Neve Campbell turns out to be the central figure (the last girl, in slasher-speak), and she is aided by bitchy newswoman Courtney Cox and goofy cop, David Arquette. This sets up a sort of triad of stars that runs through all of the films, including the new one.  As in many old 80s slasher pics, the new murders happen one year after another terrible event. Not surprisingly, the events are related in obvious and not so obvious ways. The movie misdirects you into thinking several people could potentially be the killer, and also plainly directs you to doubt yourself. Along the way, several characters comment on the events as though they know that they are in a horror movie. They mostly die anyway. Nothing about the movie hints that there is an inevitible sequel.

Scream 2 (1997) picks up a couple of years later, with Neve's character now in college. Her genre savvy pal (Jamie Kennedy) is there with her, being one of the few to survive the first movie. Neve's got a hotty boyfriend (Jerry O'Connell) and new friends, and she's a budding actress in the college play. And then, suddenly people start dying again, seemingly at the hand of the same ghost-faced killer from the original story. The problem is, the original killer(s) died. Of course, in a horror movie, dead doesn't always mean really dead. Is it the same guy(s)? Is it the new boyfriend? The surviving pal? Goofy cop Dewey? Bitchy reporter Gale? Cotton (Liev Schrieber), the guy who almost got executed when Neve's Sydney character misidentified him? Or someone else? The answer(s) feel a little out of left field, or at least they did on my first viewing. But today, in context with just having watched the first movie, it didn't feel like such a bad fit. Not as good as part one, but pretty good.

Scream 3 (2000) looks and feels different, and indeed it is largely written by a different person. The setting has also changed from small town America to Hollywood. The movie-within-a-movie idea began in part 2, with Stab, a slasher picture based on Courtney Cox's character's tell-all book. Here, Stab 3 is in production, and much of the action takes place at the movie studio, which has rebuilt the original small town on a set. Movie in-jokes abound, such as "Jennifer Jolie" playing a version of Cox's reporter, and being told "sorry it didn't work out with Brad Pitt."  There are new characters, an old character that comes back (sort of) even though he's dead. And the killer still looks the same, but is a different person, that manages to tie in to the rest of the story.  By itself, Scream 3 is an enjoyable movie. But it suffers in comparison to the first two.  Also, Neve Campbell is at best a supporting player in this one, with Arquette and Cox (the latter with an atrocious hairdo) doing the heavy lifting.

Overall, they did a commendable job of tying the three films together. It stretches credulity a little, that the killer in the third movie motivated the killers of the first. Much like Back to the Future Part III, where they managed to create back story that worked, and Saw (from part 2 forward) where it got too convoluted, Scream 3 uses story elements from the first movie, and substantially rewrites what really happened, without contradicting anything. One thing I have to wonder though, is if they ever considered casting Neve's brother, Christian Campbell for the role that Scott Foley played? It would have been a very good fit, but might have given away the ending too easily.

Scream 4 (2011) - I'll confess that "SCRE4M" doesn't stay with you as well as the first three, maybe because I haven't had repeated watchings over years. But here are my impressions: it manages to keep the same flavor of the first three while bringing it into the modern day. It develops some new characters should there be further sequels (unless the series makes that all moot). And it manages to surprise and delight, very much like the first one did. I think it accomplished what it set out to do, but was just a little bit underwhelming. It's certainly worth a view, and a must if you liked the first three.

Scream: highly recommended
Scream 2: highly recommended
Scream 3: if you liked the first two
Scream 4: a must if you liked what came before

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

Halloween Horrors: Greenlee Gazette's Guide to the Scream Franchise

Images from Wikipedia

News has come out recently that Wes Craven's and Kevin Williamson's Scream movie franchise is coming to the small screen as an MTV series. Questions about why MTV has become what it has aside, that's good news if they manage to keep it in the same vein. The series influenced nearly every horror movie that has come since, if not within the films themselves, at least in the movie posters and DVD/Blu-ray box art. That lineup of attractive stars in front of a splashy logo, some drippy, bloody and/or torn looking graphic? Scream did that first. It spawned I Know What You Did Last Summer, Urban Legend and countless other imitators, many (including Scream itself) with a string of sequels.

What set Scream apart from earlier slasher movies was a subversion of horror movie cliches, a winking "genre savvy"-ness by characters within the film, a writer that was raised on  pop culture (hell, he created Dawson's Creek), a mixture of humor and horror, and the biggest thing of all: known stars. In the old days, horror movies--especially the slasher type--might have a marginally known character actor (Hope Lange, John Saxon, Betsy Palmer), but were mostly stocked with a bunch of unknowns. Your Kevin Bacons and Johnny Depps became well known of course, but nobody knew them when they starred in the first Friday the 13th and A Nightmare on Elm Street, respectively. Scream started the trend of stocking a horror movie with a roster of up-and-coming young (typically very attractive) actors, often from hit teen TV shows. And all of this new stuff was put into the hands of the very capable Craven, creator of Nightmare and several other standout horror classics.

But Scream was a long time ago now. All of that novelty has been absorbed and trodden and retreaded to death by now. We've segued through (and passed?) torture porn like Hostel and the endless Saw series. Scream--often thought of as something of a horror parody itself--was parodied in the first of the also endless Scary Movie (which curiously was the working title of Scream) films. Indirectly, Scream is responsible for the horrible stream of "Movie" movies that came after. So the movie that started all of that, and its sequels, are now part of nostalgia, with a patina of prestige and respect. But, how do they hold up?

 [Here there may be spoilers]

Scream (1996) starts the ball rolling in a seemingly novel (but cribbed from Alfred Hitchcock's 1960 classic Psycho) way, by killing off the seeming star of the flick early on. Neve Campbell turns out to be the central figure (the last girl, in slasher-speak), and she is aided by bitchy newswoman Courtney Cox and goofy cop, David Arquette. This sets up a sort of triad of stars that runs through all of the films, including the new one.  As in many old 80s slasher pics, the new murders happen one year after another terrible event. Not surprisingly, the events are related in obvious and not so obvious ways. The movie misdirects you into thinking several people could potentially be the killer, and also plainly directs you to doubt yourself. Along the way, several characters comment on the events as though they know that they are in a horror movie. They mostly die anyway. Nothing about the movie hints that there is an inevitible sequel.

Scream 2 (1997) picks up a couple of years later, with Neve's character now in college. Her genre savvy pal (Jamie Kennedy) is there with her, being one of the few to survive the first movie. Neve's got a hotty boyfriend (Jerry O'Connell) and new friends, and she's a budding actress in the college play. And then, suddenly people start dying again, seemingly at the hand of the same ghost-faced killer from the original story. The problem is, the original killer(s) died. Of course, in a horror movie, dead doesn't always mean really dead. Is it the same guy(s)? Is it the new boyfriend? The surviving pal? Goofy cop Dewey? Bitchy reporter Gale? Cotton (Liev Schrieber), the guy who almost got executed when Neve's Sydney character misidentified him? Or someone else? The answer(s) feel a little out of left field, or at least they did on my first viewing. But today, in context with just having watched the first movie, it didn't

feel like such a bad fit. Not as good as part one, but pretty good.

Scream 3 (2000) looks and feels different, and indeed it is largely written by a different person. The setting has also changed from small town America to Hollywood. The movie-within-a-movie idea began in part 2, with Stab, a slasher picture based on Courtney Cox's character's tell-all book. Here, Stab 3 is in production, and much of the action takes place at the movie studio, which has rebuilt the original small town on a set. Movie in-jokes abound, such as "Jennifer Jolie" playing a version of Cox's reporter, and being told "sorry it didn't work out with Brad Pitt."  There are new characters, an old character that comes back (sort of) even though he's dead. And the killer still looks the same, but Scream 3 is an enjoyable movie. But it suffers in comparison to the first two.  Also, Neve Campbell is at best a supporting player in this one, with Arquette and Cox (the latter with an atrocious hairdo) doing the heavy lifting.

is a different person, that manages to tie in to the rest of the story.  By itself,

Overall, they did a commendable job of tying the three films together. It stretches credulity a little, that the killer in the third movie motivated the killers of the first. Much like Back to the Future Part III, where they managed to create back story that worked, and Saw (from part 2 forward) where it got too convoluted, Scream 3 uses story elements from the first movie, and substantially rewrites what really happened, without contradicting anything. One thing I have to wonder though, is if they ever considered casting Neve's brother, Christian Campbell for the role that Scott Foley played? It would have been a very good fit, but might have given away the ending too easily.

Scream 4 (2011) - I'll confess to writing this review using elements of earlier reviews, and at that time, SCRE4M wasn't out yet. I'll have to rewatch it at some point, because it's become a bit hazy. I can give you my impressions: it manages to keep the same flavor of the first three while bringing it into the modern day. It develops some new characters should there be further sequels (unless the series makes that moot). And it manages to surprise and delight, very much like the first one did. I think it accomplished what it set out to do, but was just a little bit underwhelming. It's certainly worth a view, and a must if you liked the first three.

Scream: highly recommended
Scream 2: highly recommended
Scream 3: if you liked the first two
Scream 4: a must if you liked what came before

Halloween Horrors: Rating the Horror Remakes

I've finally over the last year or so, 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

The Thing (2011) - This one is almost brand new, having only been around for a couple of weeks. Apparently it isn't tearing up the box office records, but then neither did the 1982 installment. If you liked the original, I can't see why you wouldn't like this one. There is no big Kurt Russell-type star. But it's basically the 1982 version, spruced up, and with improved effects. It has genuine suspense, and in some ways is more satisfying than the original one was. And if you hate the cold? You'll have a little more to shiver about. The 2011 Thing is more gooey, and more gross, so of course I recommend this one. Be sure to watch through the end credits. Something happens there that could potentially make this one inappropriate for this list. But whatever. ***

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, 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 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, relateable 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.

Blast from the Past: Master of Horror, Wes Craven

Quick, name a famous creator of horror movies. If I had to guess, I'd say there are only three names that spring to mind before having to mull it over: Alfred Hitchcock, George A. Romero and Wes Craven. Yeah, there's Hammer and Corman, but really, I think my top 3 would be in anybody's top five, am I right? Anyway, I was thinking up topics for my weekly Blast from the Past segment, and I kept coming back to Wes Craven, largely because of my Scream marathon on Saturday. The fourth of the series doesn't come out for a couple of weeks, but what the heck.





1 - The Last House on the Left (1972) - One of Wes Craven's earliest--and certainly his most controversial--movies was this low budget, disturbing revenge picture. It'll stick with you. Just keep repeating, "It's only a movie. . ."

2 - The Hills Have Eyes (1977) - Another cult favorite (and also remade like Last House) was in the genre of "crazy mutant/hillbillies", kind of like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, only more disturbing.

3 - A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) - Of all the horror movie franchises, few have an inaugural entry as classic as this one. Genuinely scary, and spooky throughout--what's real, and what is a dream?--this one is still fantastic, 80s cheese and all.

4 - Deadly Friend (1986) - Okay, this one is stinky cheese. Not without its moments, and it has been a long time since I watched it. But it is mostly a misfire if memory serves, except for Throw Mama from the Train's Anne Ramsey getting her head exploded by a basketball (yes, really!) and cute Little House on the Prairie star Matthew Laborteaux.
5 - Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994) - After having little or nothing to do with most of the A Nightmare on Elm Street series (parts 2-6), Craven came back to do this creative edition, with a "Freddy crosses over into the real world" story. It's one of the best of the series, even if it didn't do very well at the box office. A favorite.

6- Scream (1996) - Though it's now 15 years old, it is safe to say that Scream influenced--for the better--most of the horror movies that would follow, becoming a benchmark in the genre.

The fact that Wes Craven's movies continue as sequels or remakes (with or without his involvement) is a testament to his impact on the genre. I think he's going to stay in that top three for a long while.

Okay, that's it for today. . .have a good week!

Halloween Horrors Twofer: Last House on the Left & Quarantine

Images from links source, Wikipedia

[WARNING: Here there may be spoilers. But not much.]

OK, so I had something of a lazy weekend (not counting many hours working on my Windows 7 upgrade). I have an excuse in that my back is bothering me, and I'm trying to avoid throwing it out altogether. So, I watched some movies. And this being nearly Halloween, I decided on some of today's recent horror offering.

The first one I selected was Quarantine, apparently a remake of a Spanish horror movie. It stars Jennifer Carpenter and Jay Hernandez, and is fairly well made. There is the problem with the central conceit of the film, that a news reporter is playing tag-along with some firemen. Not only does this lead to a seemingly endless setup, with the cameraman following the lovely female reporter around the firehouse, it also means that the entire film is from the perspective of the news camera.

I get that these kinds of things are kind of interesting and different. Something similar was done with Cloverfield, and I guess that new movie Paranormal Activity. But it grows a little tiresome in this one, and stretches credibility sometimes. This cameraman is one freaking cool cucumber given what he's shooting. Anyway, the story involves some sort of disease that turns people into zombies/creatures, kind of like in 28 Days Later. The twist is, the news people and the firemen are trapped in a building while the virus takes its toll.

Quarantine does have high tension, squirm inducing special effects, and a few genuine shocks. The film is well crafted, and well acted too, though Carpenter will begin to drive you nuts when she has her little breakdown. The only problem with the film? Well, the ending was spoiled by the trailer. And me telling you that won't change anything, because if you've seen the trailer (or even the cover of the DVD), you'll have been wondering, "When is THAT going to happen?" And by the time it does, you are well aware you've reached the end. FAIL.

My second choice was The Last House on the Left. It's a remake of a classic, cheapie Wes Craven film, by Wes Craven himself. The subject matter is harsh, and hard-core. It involves the brutal attack and rape of a couple of teen aged girls, and the scene where this happens is almost unbearable. We get it, Wes, we get it! Move on! But an argument could be made that the brutality is necessary for us to believe what happens next.

As in the original film, the group of attackers coincidentally seeks refuge at the home of one of the young women. Eventually, the hospitable parents deduce what happened, and who dunnit, and then you've got yourselves a revenge picture! The formula works, and the acting is decent. There are cringe-inducing moments, and a jolt here and there. I was along for the ride until. . .the ending. No, this one wasn't spoiled it was just stupid. Great special effect, don't get me wrong. But up until that point, a story could have been spun that would have gotten the couple off scot free. After that point? Well, there's no way you could sell that as self defense, or even an accident. Considering how the "big bad" was done away with in the original, it was all anticipation, and a weird payoff.

Over all, both films are worthy of a rent, particularly in your Halloween movie viewing marathon. Just don't expect a kick-ass ending to either one, and you'll be fine.

UPDATE: I just wanted to add, that I didn't realize that Krug, the big bad from Last House was played by Garret Dillahunt until I just read the Wikipedia article. He was one of the stars of the late, lamented Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles, and I managed to watch and review the film without even realizing who he was. Who knew that a beard and his demented character could render him unrecognizable? That's acting. And hey, if T:TSCC had featured him shirtless, as this movie did, that show might still be on the air!

Halloween Horrors: Guide to A Nightmare On Elm Street

This is the latest in a series of re-posts from last year, to help you with your Halloween weekend scary movie viewing. With a few tweaks and edits.

Image from Wikipedia.com

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 easy on the eyes. This movie is sort of a stop-gap, a quickie cash-maker for New Line, 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. This film begins filling in Freddy's back-story, a theme that would continue in further sequels, sometimes to the series' detriment. ****

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. The "is it a dream?" vibe is back. 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. Joins Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter in the "false title" game. *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, John Saxon 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.

UPDATE: It would seem that Hollywood has not heeded my advice from last year, and the Nightmare series is on for a remake.

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

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.