At first I felt bad for skipping Deadly Blessing for all these HMAD-ified years, as it's the only theatrical feature from Wes Craven that I hadn't seen (besides Music of the Heart, which I contemplated reviewing as a horror movie to amuse myself), but on the commentary he claims that he couldn't even find a copy for himself to prepare for its recording, so I guess I have a good excuse. Thanks to Shout Factory, it's now back on shelves, in a pretty terrific special edition Blu-ray to boot as part of their Scream Factory line.
So was it worth the wait? Yes and no. It's got a few terrific setpieces, but the movie as a whole doesn't quite gel together as well as his best films. It's also fairly backloaded; ask anyone what their favorite scenes are and just about all of them would be in the film's final half hour - Sharon Stone's extended barn sequence at around the 45 minute mark is the only exception. As with Shocker, it takes a while to get everything in place to reach the point that people will say the movie is about - Stone's character isn't even introduced until the 20 minute mark, and there's a good hour or so before the three female leads are being terrorized by whoever seems to want them dead or at least out of their house.
It's also got a somewhat clunky slasher angle (spoilers for 30 year old movie ahead!). Someone/something kills the would-be male lead early on, and all signs point to the Hittites, a farming community that is even more extreme about being anti-technology than the Amish (also: they are encouraged to marry cousins). Among their number is Michael Berryman, who is of course the prime suspect since he had an altercation with the dead guy just a few hours before... but then he is killed as well. It's a good surprise, but it also sort of kills the mystery way too early. The Hittite community is too tight to suspect any of their members, so it has to be... well, I won't spoil that, but there's only one other option at this point, and no one else of note is introduced. I guess we could suspect the brother of the guy who died at the beginning, who rejects his father (Ernest Borgnine!) and the Hittite ways, but I never considered it.
But once it gets going, it's pretty solid. Craven gets a lot of mileage out of things anyone's afraid of: snakes, spiders, scarecrows... hell, he even manages to get a jump scare out of a bunch of chickens. And even though I pegged the villain (SPOILER AGAIN!), I didn't count on them having an accomplice, nor did I (or presumably, any rational thinking person in the world) see that accomplice's own little secret coming. It's a slow burn on a plot level, but also on an insanity one - even Stone's character (a heroine) starts going crazy by the end, to the point where heroine Maren Jensen has to defend herself from the villains AND her best pal. Add in the completely bonkers final scare (apparently inspired by Carrie and Friday the 13th, but not a dream in this case) and you have a movie that hides its true identity as a batshit near-classic, like a girlfriend that you date for three years before realizing she's cool with roping her best friend into the bedroom. Let us know up front!
Another surprise was how great the movie looked. I enjoy Hills Have Eyes, but it and Last House (which I don't enjoy) are hardly easy on the eyes, so I wasn't expecting such a 180 on his next feature (well, if we don't count the TV movie Summer of Fear, which is referenced here). But it's actually quite lovely to look at; as I've said before it takes effort to make Texas look bad (even when subbing for Pennsylvania!), and Shout's typically strong transfer elevates it even further. Of course, maybe the high def is a bit TOO good - Borgnine's fake beard was probably best seen on VHS - but it's not like Star Trek TOS in high def, where you can see every mistake in Nimoy's makeup.
Shout has also provided a healthy supply of bonus features - more than they even list on the back of the DVD! The biggest draw is the new commentary by Craven, moderated by Sean Clark, which isn't always very screen specific, but rarely falls silent as Craven discusses how he got involved, working with the actors (he hints more than once that Stone was a bit of a pain in the ass), an accident that put Borgnine out of commission for a while, etc. He also explains that the ending was a late addition that he wasn't happy with, which should surprise no one. In addition to the track are four interviews, that run about an hour all together. No Stone, sadly, but Berryman, co-star Susan Buckner (who looks a lot like Anna Gunn in the film), creature designer John Naulin, and finally Glenn Benest and Matthew Barr, who wrote the original script. Theirs is by far the most interesting, as they aren't too pouty about Craven's changes and have some great anecdotes from the shooting, as well as their thoughts on the stupid final twist. Berryman's is notable for being the only guy on the set who seemed to be OK with Stone (though he alludes to her fighting with one of the other girls, an issue not explained elsewhere), and both his and Buckner's include thoughts on some of their other films, for a little extra value. The usual collection of TV spots and photo galleries round things out for close to three hours' worth of bonus material (including the commentary), much more than the back of the disc lets on as it only mentions the commentary and "interview".
While not up to his classics, Wes certainly has worse entries in his filmography, and it's interesting to see him playing with a few of his common themes (dreams, tyrannical fathers) long before Nightmare On Elm Street, Shocker, etc. That said, I can't believe there aren't any booby traps in the movie! No wonder he didn't own a copy himself, this must be like an illegitimate child in his eyes.
While I knew Scream 4 wouldn’t live up to either the quality or the financial success of the first two films, I wasn’t expecting it to outright tank either, barely matching its 40 million production budget (getting trounced by Insidious in the process). Talks of a 5th film continue, but I wouldn’t hold my breath, at least not with the core team returning; a DTV “Wes Craven Presents” film with a cameo from David Arquette is probably the best Scream fans can hope for unless sales for this DVD are astronomical. Is it worth the purchase?
Well, yes and no. As I explained in my original review, the film is an improvement over 3, and it’s great to see our trio again. But a second viewing has also revealed other problems, and even though the disc comes from Anchor Bay and not Weinstein’s own label, there isn’t a lot of behind the scenes info or dirt on the production’s well publicized problems (i.e. the rewrites; Ehren Kruger, who is likely to blame for every single one of the movie’s script issues due to the fact that he is a terrible, terrible writer, isn’t mentioned once), so those looking for a candid look at the film’s shooting/editing will be disappointed.
The main problem is that the movie never successfully blends its two main storylines. The new kids (Hayden Panettiere, Emma Roberts, Rory Culkin, etc) are actually pretty fun and likable for the most part (only weak link is the guy playing Roberts’ boyfriend), but they never get the time/chance to come into their own because the movie has to devote too much time toward bringing Sid, Dewey, and Gale back into the fold. Add in the other new characters: the pair of cops, Marley Shelton’s lovestruck deputy, Roberts’ mom (Mary McDonnell), Alison Brie’s bitchy assistant, etc – and you just have way too many characters for a film like this. As much as I hated the deaths of Randy and Cotton, it’s good that they’re no longer around or else the movie would be even MORE overstuffed. Plus, as it is a whodunit, they are forced to try to paint every character as a possible suspect until their demise, which again takes time away from really developing our real heroes. Excising 3-5 of these characters (the two cops and Olivia in particular) might have resulted in a lower body count, but a better film for sure.
The movie also suffers from the usual Dimension bullshit, such as the fact that Bob Weinstein clearly thinks we’re all idiots. A plot thread would have had the killer recreating the murders from the first film, right down to even having the 3rd victim die with a doggy door around her neck (a la Tatum), but Weinstein ordered it dropped because he didn’t think anyone would get it. Does he think that the audience for Scream 4 is going to be made up of newcomers that wouldn’t understand a fairly obvious reference to the first film? So this stuff is dropped, along with other scenes, resulting in several plot holes and a pace that never finds its groove.
Still, it’s a decent enough slasher, and again, much improved over the last entry. The humor is much more in line with what I’d expect from a Scream film, and even on a second time I found myself chuckling at some of the dialogue and references. Panetierre steals the film away from even Campbell and the others, playing a girl who looks like a typical best friend bimbo at first but is also as much of a horror nerd as Randy was, which was a nice play on expectations. The reveal of the killer is a reasonable surprise, though the logic of both their motive and their size with regards to Ghostface is best left un-thought about.
Anchor Bay has provided a standard set of bonus features, with the most interesting being the nearly half hours’ worth of deleted scenes, most of which deserved to be left in the film. Nearly all of them were apparently cut for time according to Craven (who provides optional commentary on all), except for those few aforementioned scenes that were taken out because we’re all too stupid to understand a reference to the previous film(s), according to big Bob. Another tells us that Sid’s dad has passed away, a minor question mark in the theatrical version, though it hardly seemed necessary to kill him off. We also get to see the original versions of two of the early death scenes, both of which are superior to the dragged out, less exciting theatrical versions. It’s funny that so many scenes were cut for time; had they not needlessly added 5 minutes to the runtime with these reshoots, maybe some of these other moments could have been left in. There is no extended version, unfortunately, but this being Anchor Bay I wouldn’t be surprised to see a “director’s cut” release of the movie next year.
The rest of the stuff isn’t particularly essential. The “making of” is largely generic interviews taken from the junket, the gag reel isn’t particularly funny (though it’s fun to see the actors getting scared by Ghostface popping out somewhere he isn’t supposed to be), and the video game promo (actually listed as a bonus!) is just a still image telling you how to access the game on your iPhone. That leaves the commentary, which might have been OK if Wes was alone and providing insight, but alas he is joined by Panettiere and Roberts, who mainly repeat their dialogue, giggle at the jokes, and discuss OMG, how hard it was to shoot this or that scene (oh, and everyone in the movie is “great”, in case you were wondering). Campbell also pops up for about 45 minutes’ worth of the track, phoning in from London, but she doesn’t have the movie in front of her, so Wes has to tell her what’s going on (“Neve, we’re at the scene where Marley gives David the lemon squares”) – needless to say, her brief comments are hardly necessary, and you probably wouldn’t even notice she was gone until Wes points out that she had left. Again, the rewrites, Kevin Williamson’s departure, etc are never mentioned, but apparently Matthew Lillard stopped by, which delighted one of the girls very much because she had a very big crush on him from the first Scream (I say “one of the girls” because I couldn’t tell them apart unless they were specifically discussing their own character).
Picture and audio quality are sufficient for a modern film, nothing blew me away but I didn’t have any issues either. I should note that even though the reliable Peter Deming came back to shoot the film (he shot the other films as well), this is hardly the best looking film in the series; frankly, it looks cheap. And I don’t know if it was intentional or not, but the halo-y lens flares around the numerous cop cars in the movie drove me up a wall, making every shot of them (and there are many) look like a cut-scene from a PS1 game.
Ultimately the biggest problem with the film was that it was too little, too late. After 11 years, they had plenty of material to work with both from a character standpoint (they never actually explain what Sidney has been DOING for the past decade) as well as a chance to send up the modern horror trends, but instead it just largely felt like another rushed sequel, with new technology and the current state of horror given little more than cursory references before returning to the same old shit. Hell, if you remove maybe a dozen lines of throwaway dialogue then there’s nothing about this movie that couldn’t have been done in 2002. Improving on 3 might be enough for one viewing, but they needed to do more than that to give the film the sort of longevity that the original has; now that this review is done I’ll probably never watch it again, though I’ll still pull out the first 2 from time to time. Hopefully they will let the series die, or at least drop Sidney from the proceedings for a while – there’s just no way in hell I will buy yet another killer with a voice box pulling off the murders of a dozen people just to get back at her for everything that’s gone wrong in their life. Frankly, she’s not all that interesting anymore.
I’ve become such a spoilerphobe as of late that I went ahead and turned off anonymous questions on Formspring in case anyone decided to ruin Scream 4 for me just to be a dick (I’ve since turned it back on! Troll away!). I’ve also avoided pretty much every news article and trailer that I could (I saw the first trailer, once, months ago), which resulted in me winding myself from laughing so hard at a particular joke that was actually in the trailer. I didn’t even know Adam Brody or Mary McDonnell were in the movie until they showed up. A far cry from where I was when Scream 2 came out, where I found/read the script beforehand and asked somebody who was coming out of the previous showing who the killer was and if Randy still died.
But again, this is due to my spoilerphobe nature – not a lack of interest. Indeed, it’s the most excited I’ve been for a sequel in ages, and I was really looking forward to seeing the three returning characters (Sid, Dewey, and Gale) again, and more importantly, seeing how Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson (filtered through Ehren Kruger yet again – of all the writers in Hollywood, WHY HIM?) tackled the horror genre all over again. Unlike when the other sequels came out, the horror genre is in a very different place than it was when the first Screamwas released, and I was quite eager to see how these guys would tackle torture porn, found footage, Asian ghost girls, and of course, remake/reboots.
Well, except for the latter, they really don’t do much of anything about it. The extent of the “satirizing” of these sub-genres is seen in the trailer (literally, just that one line reference from the Randy-wannabe character). There’s a bit more to the found footage aspect, but it just amounts to a few variations on people seeing things on surveillance footage that the in-camera characters do not – which they already did in the first movie anyway. The Randy guy even puts his camera on backwards at one point, so it’s filming what’s behind him instead of what he sees, but they don’t even use this for a scare – Ghostface doesn’t appear until he realizes it’s backward and turns it around. So why even bother? Torture porn also could have been a good element – perhaps the new Ghostface would be into torturing his victims (with accompanying commentary), but for the most part it’s just the standard stabby-stab that he’s always done.
Remakes/reboots, however, are certainly addressed, and provide the bulk of the movie’s jokes and satire. There is a positively brilliant bit where a character rattles off every remake of the past 5-6 years (this is the joke I was referring to that’s presented in the trailer, though in the movie I am pretty sure it’s a longer list), and it’s just astonishingly funny when they’re all listed back to back like that. For an added dose of hilarity, I happened to be sitting next to Alex Aja, whose Piranha and Hills Have Eyes were among the movies that were name-checked. Since the man has no discernible sense of humor (he got offended last summer when I asked him if he enjoyed making something more “fun” for once with Piranha – he claimed it was a very serious and scary film), I found this quite amusing. They also mock the Stab series, which is now up to part 7 (part 5 apparently included time travel), and no longer has anything to do with Sidney – a small but effective joke on Dimension itself, who ran all of its franchises into the ground with similarly stupid decisions.
However, I couldn’t help but wonder – maybe Scream should have taken a page from Stab and started to ignore Sidney, and/or the other returning characters. If you think about the slasher franchises, they don’t often focus on the same hero characters over and over. If it’s a whodunit based series (as opposed to Halloween or Nightmare On Elm St, where you know who the killer is every time), I think it’s more successful when they do something like Urban Legend, where it’s a new cast of folks, with one minor character (the security guard lady) returning for continuity’s sake. Otherwise, maybe a survivor will come back for a second go around, but very rarely a 3rd and almost NEVER a fourth. The only other one that comes to mind is Jamie Lee Curtis in Halloween, but she was practically a non entity until the final 20 minutes of Halloween II, and killed off instantly in her fourth appearance (Resurrection). Plus, there she was always dealing with the same guy with the same motive, whereas all four Scream films have centered around Sidney being targeted by someone new, forcing the writers to come up with yet another reason someone would want to kill her.
I was also surprised/disappointed by how little the script addressed the changes in technology. Twitter and Facebook get name-checked, but not used in any meaningful way, and despite texting and more advanced cell phones, Ghostface still calls people and they still answer, same as always. There’s a certain “app” that comes into play, but that’s just scratching the surface of both the possibilities on a narrative level, as well as making a statement on the usual remake approach of utilizing the new toys at their disposal. Come on, a twitpic of his own carnage would have been awesome!
The rest of the review will have spoilers! Stop reading now if you don’t want anything else spoiled, I’ll just leave you with the fact that it’s a better movie than Scream 3, and quite a lot of fun thanks to some great lines and likable characters, but with a weak villain reveal and a severe lack of scares or suspense.
Last warning! SPOILERS ahead!
So without saying who the killer actually is, it once again comes down to someone blaming Sidney for everything that has gone wrong in their life. It worked for Billy, and perhaps it was a bit clunky but Billy’s mom made sense, but Roman in 3 was just silly, and this one comes closer to him than Mrs. Loomis in terms of “Oh come ON!”. And again, I won’t say who the killer is, but if you listen to their “woe is me” speech and think about where that person actually was in their life when Sidney was the center of attention (i.e. 10-15 years ago), it doesn’t even make sense. I was as happy as everyone else to see Sid/Neve coming back, but I think they have officially exhausted their ideas when it comes to finding reasons for people to want to kill her (in fact, it almost mirrors some of Mickey's motivations in S2).
They should have had someone with a beef against Gale and/or Dewey, in fact. Not only would it have spared us some déjà vu, but it would have been kind of amusing if Sid THOUGHT the killer was after her but turned out to be of little interest to him. It also would have given David Arquette and Courtney Cox more to do; they’re in the movie a lot (and have a few “in real life this is awkward” conversations about the importance of sticking together and what not) but their characters are just going through the same motions they did in the other sequels – Dewey is trying to solve the crimes before anyone gets hurt, Gale wants to further her career and acts like a total bitch to every other female character in the movie. I was also dismayed about Dewey and Sid’s relationship here; they were practically like brother and sister in the other sequels, but here it almost seems like they barely speak anymore, and they also share few scenes together. And Marco Beltrami, sir, with all due respect, you are no Hans Zimmer. As with S3, there is a pitiful attempt to recreate “Dewey’s Theme” from Scream 2 (which was just licensed Broken Arrow score) and again it’s just embarrassing; either borrow the music again or just do something else entirely.
They also don’t do as good of a job of keeping folks as viable suspects until the very last minute as they did in the first two films. One suspect in particular is shown miles away as Dewey takes a call from someone being attacked, and this person had no reason to be in the scene – all it does is cancel them out as a feasible choice. The two cops (Brody and Anthony Anderson) arrive on the scene one second after Ghostface runs off after a murder in the first act, and a whole bunch of characters are present at a news conference when Ghostface tosses a body off a roof nearby a few scenes later. And yes, it’s Scream so there are two killers, but if you go back and watch the first film, there’s only one instance where there would HAVE to be two killers in order to keep everyone as a suspect. It should be a surprise (especially after 3, which only had one killer), not a necessity in order to keep folks as possible killers. Also, apart from when Billy was stabbed, one Ghostface never attacked the other (outside of their costume), but here the killers are constantly menacing the other, so after awhile it gets to the point where there HAS to be two just because we’ve seen every character in the same shot as Ghostface! Kind of a cheat.
As for the new kids, they’re fine. The basic idea is that the events of the first Scream are being “rebooted” in real life, so the new batch of kids are all more or less in the same roles as the core group in the first movie. I actually quite liked Hayden Panettiere’s character, Kirby, who was sort of like Tatum but also a film nerd (she owns Suspiria!), and the two Randy guys weren’t nearly as annoying as I thought they might have been based on the trailer - if anything they were kind of charming, particularly in their later scenes. The less said about Trevor (the Billy stand-in), the better, and I’m not sure who Olivia was supposed to be, but she’s dead before making much of an impression anyway. That leaves Jill Roberts, Sid’s young cousin, played by Emma Roberts (not sure if this is another joke, since Emma is also a relative of a much more famous woman – if so it’s kind of mean). So now SHE’s the one with a boyfriend climbing through her window, dealing with sexual hang-ups, etc. It’s a strong idea in theory, but by dividing the time we spend with them and the time we spend with the original trio (with far too little crossover), they don’t get to have as much fun with it as they could have. Apparently the script was around 138 pages, which would make for nearly a 2:20 movie, but this final cut is just under 1:45, which makes it the shortest in the series despite having the biggest cast.
Another odd thing about that is that it drags at times. I could watch Alison Brie all day long, and it almost seemed like I would get my “wish” during her (spoiler, again!) kill scene, which just goes on far too long considering how simple it is (just her in a parking garage). There’s a “Stabathon” party that fails to capitalize on its isolation and obvious allusions to Stu’s party in the first film, and instead our heroes go from there to a smaller party for some carnage, and then a hospital for the actual climax – it’s clunky, to say the least (the hospital scene also stretches credulity even for a slasher movie - two characters detach their monitors and such but not a single orderly or nurse comes to check? Massive chaos is caused in a room and no one seems to hear it?). This is the only film in the series not edited by Patrick Lussier (who has gone on to directing his own films), and his presence is definitely missed. But ironically enough, it also feels rushed in other aspects, particularly in the details of what exactly Sid (or Dewey and Gale, for that matter) has been doing for the past ten years. At the end of 3 she was seemingly once again open to being part of the world, but here she seems almost like she has just come out of hiding again in order to promote her book (or did it just take her ten years to write it?).
I also missed KNB’s FX from the first two films. Gary Tunnicliffe’s work is fine, but CGI knife blades are lame, and there’s a lack of inventiveness to any of the kills or violence. The new Ghostface mask design is also lousy; the mouth is far too elongated – that poster with the jaw turning into a knife isn’t really much of a stretch from how it actually looks in the movie. There are other little things I missed or couldn’t understand why they changed; no “Red Right Hand”, different font for the credits/logo, etc. I mean, these things were tradition for the other films, and this one is very much a “let’s get it back to basics” affair, so why all the changes? On the other hand, unlike S3, they have definitely returned to the real-world approach of the first two – the movies they mention and watch are real movies, not Roger Corman-esque made up ones. Someone mentions the Saw series, the characters watch Shaun of the Dead (and say “We’re watching Shaun of the Dead”), etc. The only thing that’s not real is that they have the Stab movies instead of Scream, a somewhat confusing meta-concept that is lampooned to great effect in the opening scene.
And that’s the thing about this one – it’s possibly the funniest in the series. Maybe it’s just my own somewhat jaded attitude toward modern horror helping me along, but I found the jabs at remakes and reboots and such very funny, and the other references/jokes hit more often than missed for me. Ghostface’s sarcastic replies were a hoot, and some of the character-based jokes (mainly from Gale) got hearty chuckles from me as well. But fear not – the tone is very much in line with that of the first film; I was laughing a lot but I never felt like it was more of a comedy than a horror movie. Scream is always a blend of humor and horror (I was pleased to see that Ghostface is STILL a pretty clumsy and oft-floored killer); it’s just that the humor portion was made from stronger ingredients. The scare scenes here are fairly basic, and apart from a relatively quick bit in a barn with Gale, I never really felt any tension, and there are no really great set-pieces that I might want to revisit on their own. Even S3 had the great chase through the Sid’s House/Stab set, but here it’s all just the same old stuff: phone call, Ghostface proves he’s watching them, they look in a closet, Ghostface jumps out of a doorway behind them – lather, rinse, repeat. And if it’s just a joke about the repetitive nature of sequels (or of remakes redoing the same scares), then it’s not a successful one.
But overall, it’s fun. I wouldn’t have minded trading a few laughs for a few thrills, but I guess either way I’m reacting and being entertained as intended, which is more than I can say for S3 with its stupid Star Wars jokes and Jay and Silent Bob cameos. I was happy to see my old “friends” again, and even though it was shot in a different location, the town and populace felt very much in line with the one in the first film (there’s also an amazing sight gag of sorts that you have to be super quick to notice – keep your eye on the left side of the frame on the first interior school scene for a wonderfully cheesy tribute to a fallen former cast member). I would love to see what Kevin Williamson’s original script was like before it got Kruger-ed, but what remains doesn’t feel like a Frankensteined movie – apart from Brie’s extended/isolated sequence, it felt very fluid, and even though the trailer has some scenes that aren’t in the movie, I didn’t notice any obvious edits or jarring shifts in the narrative (though there is some mention of a missing cell phone that had no setup). Perhaps it’s not a movie worthy of an 11 year wait, but I think most fans, as I was, will just be happy to have a real sequel again, not a lazy wannabe like the 3rd film. Imperfect as it may be, this is very much a legitimate Scream film.
It's odd that two of the biggest 80s comedy stars would go on to work with the two biggest modern horror directors in the 90s. Chevy Chase and John Carpenter "collaborated" on Memoirs Of An Invisible Man, and later Eddie Murphy and Wes Craven teamed up to bring us Vampire In Brooklyn. Neither film was particularly successful critically or commercially, and I think both suffered from being the unfortunate followup to two of their respective stars' least loved films (Chevy's Nothing but Trouble, Eddie's Beverly Hills Cop III) more than from their own inherent problems.
Because really it's not all that bad, especially for a mid 90s horror movie. I appreciate that Eddie was trying to do something new, and he stays remarkably straight as the vampire (as this is an Eddie Murphy movie, he plays multiple characters), with the humor being more of the dry and matter-of-fact type than outright jokes ("kind of itches a little"). Chevy couldn't help but dip into wiseass mode at times, which threw off the more serious tone more than once, but with the multiple characters, Eddie was able to play a unique role (for him) while still bringing the funny via the other two guys (who only appear in two scenes each).
He also lets Kadeem Hardison and the great John Witherspoon get most of the laughs, as his Renfield-esque "ghoul" and said ghoul's uncle, who notices that his nephew is literally falling apart but doesn't seem to find it strange. Some of Hardison's mugging gets a bit annoying, but it's interesting to see how he's basically playing Reggie Hammond or Axel Foley as a 20 year old; if this movie was made in 1982, Eddie would almost assuredly be playing the role, with someone like Billy Dee Williams in the lead.
Unfortunately, it's just not that compelling of a movie. I think it was a big mistake to let him "find" his long-lost soul mate (Angela Bassett with hideous hair and makeup) in the first 10 minutes of the movie - they could have at least milked it for a bit. He literally meets her within 20 minutes of his arrival, which is just dramatically weak on all counts. And the screenwriters attempt a love triangle of sorts with Bassett's partner, a guy hilariously named Justice, and they include some contrived nonsense about her suspecting he slept with her roommate. There's also some go-nowhere stuff about her mental health. In short, it bears the mark of a film that was rewritten heavily from its original concept (there are four screenwriters listed, including Eddie's brother Charlie), with too many characters and not enough time given to really develop them all.
It also has voiceover (by Eddie), which more often than not (for a film that doesn't involve flashbacks or a framing device) means that the film was messy on a narrative level and they needed a quick way to fix things. Maybe if it was Kadeem's character, it could have worked, since the film begins and ends with him (and he has the biggest "arc", relatively speaking), but Eddie just sounds awkward, and I failed to really see the point in any of it.
Despite the narrative problems, I was entertained. I loved the Preacher character (who convinces everyone that evil is good), and Wes was in fine form throughout (though his attempts to make an LA backlot look like Brooklyn weren't entirely successful). KNB's FX were also terrific; they don't usually do full character "normal" makeups, but they did a terrific job (particularly with Guido, a white hood that is only recognizable as Eddie from the voice). I also enjoyed the gradual transformations for both Eddie and Kadeem, with Eddie getting more evil looking the closer he gets to the full moon deadline (why'd he wait until 3 days before, anyway?) and Kadeem turning into a rotting zombie. There isn't a lot of bloodshed or carnage, but it's still a remarkable showcase for KNB's talents.
Plus, I just like seeing these guys try something new. I'll take an underwhelming Eddie Murphy vampire movie over ANY Eddie Murphy family movie, especially nowadays. I remember when he did Dr. Dolittle it was sort of like a novelty. "Oh, it's a kid's movie, but with Eddie!" (and even that was PG-13). Now it's just another sure sign of mediocrity, with no signs of him returning to edgier fare in sight. In fact this was one of his last R rated films, only Metro and Life came along after. Now we're lucky to get a PG-13. Imagine That or Meet Dave, anyone?
The disc's only extra is a pretty terrible trailer. Seeking more info, I went back and read the two Fangoria articles about it. Whether it was just him being political or not, Wes seemed pretty happy working with him at the time despite reservations (he apparently even went to Landis asking him if he should be worried), though in recent years he's dismissed the film and claimed that Eddie wouldn't do what he wanted him to (I suppose being sandwiched between two of the most acclaimed films of your career doesn't help matters when it comes time to reflect). The other article detailed the writing process, which, as I suspected, was the result of a lot of studio notes, Eddie's wishes, etc. Moral of the story - if you're a huge star and want to do something new, direct it yourself with a really good DP, instead of bossing around our horror icons.
At one point during My Soul To Take, I leaned over to the esteemed Simon Barrett and said “I just want to understand ONE line of dialogue in this movie”. It’s in English, and the surround mix is perfectly professional, but no one in this movie sounds like a human being. It’s sort of like The Room, where you get the impression that the writer has never actually conversed with another person before, except in this case we know perfectly well that he has, because the writer is Wes Craven himself.
Mr. Craven is, undoubtedly, smarter than anyone that was in the theater at the time (he carries a masters degree in philosophy and a bachelor’s degree in psychology), but he’s also pushing 70, which is perhaps not the ideal age to be writing for 16 year olds. Much of the first act has them involved in confusing “high school mafia” antics, where one of the girls declares it “Fang Time” and locks off the girl’s bathroom to discuss whether “3s and 8s” were properly administered. Seriously, I had no idea what the hell any of our protagonists were talking about for a good 60% of the movie. It reminded me of the poorly translated Hong Kong movies that they show at the New Bev every now and then, with replies sounding in no way like a natural response to what was just said (which, more often than not, didn’t make such sense to begin with). Or they just offer baffling advice like “If things get too hot, turn on the prayer conditioning.” Even Diablo Cody would be scratching her head at this stuff.
And when they’re not speaking some foreign language that simulates English, they’re spouting paragraphs of exposition, much of it completely worthless. A character that is about to die spends at least 90 seconds just describing the process of how he got there, as if it mattered to anyone. The villain and hero explain to each other how they were able to get everything accomplished in a small amount of time. “I put the knife in the sink while you were downstairs getting a glass of water!” One of the "Riverton Seven" (our main characters) explains the backstory of the Riverton Ripper to one of the other seven, as if he didn’t know the story yet. And so on. It’s the rare film that I wish just had a scene of someone looking up information at the library or on the internet, so it would keep the characters quiet for a few minutes.
And it’s a shame, because that’s probably the reason why everyone is currently hating on the movie. If you can look past it (just sort of let their dialogue be background noise; assume it’s just kids being kids and that the particulars don’t really matter), you will be rewarded with one of the more original concepts for a horror movie in quite some time. The press synopsis and such will probably tell you that the soul The Riverton Ripper has been transferred to one of 7 kids, and they are trying to figure out who as they begin getting picked off one by one. But it’s actually more complicated and interesting than that. Nor is it clearly explained; it takes some brainwork (and possibly a second viewing) for everything to become clear. I won’t give it away, but I’ll nudge in you in the right direction by asking you to consider two plot points: the manner in which Harris Yulin’s character dies (not a spoiler, it occurs in the first 5 minutes), and the defining characteristic of one of the Riverton Seven.
It also has its fair share of batshit “WTF” moments, such as when our hero, nicknamed “Bug”, and his best friend give a class report on the California Condor, complete with the friend dressed as a Condor and spraying fake puke all over the place. They’re also all prone to random violent outbursts, the highlight of which has to be when Bug’s older sister suddenly beats the ever loving shit out of him. Then they both smash some childhood possessions to smithereens. Even the end credits are a delight – we get a rather poorly animated condor flying around some artwork, followed by storyboards (in 3D!) for the film running on the sides, including boards for scenes that aren’t even in the movie. You all know me, I love this sort of out of nowhere nonsense. And the odd violence helps break up the rather puzzling lack of kill scenes – one of the 7 dies early on (the one in the trailer), another basically dies off-screen, and the other 3 die almost simultaneously. A couple other deaths occur off-screen as well, most likely to preserve the mystery.
However, the biggest surprise was probably the 3D conversion – it’s probably the best convert I’ve seen. It does make the film darker, and there are a few instances where characters appear to be further apart from each other than they should be, but otherwise it’s pretty solid. I noticed none of the strange artifacting and blurry “halos” that crippled Piranha’s presentation, and Craven’s rather laid-back camerawork is a good fit for the limitations of the process – there isn’t a lot of fast movement and complicated tracking shots are pretty rare as well. If you move your glasses up (off) and down (on) during certain shots, you can really see how much depth and separation has been added (as well as how much darker the glasses are making the image). I’m not saying you should definitely pay the extra dough for it if you have the choice, but if it’s your only option, it’s luckily not the end of the world. It’s a shame whoever did the conversion here didn’t do it for Piranha though – if this is what they can achieve for something not intended for 3D presentation, imagine what they could have done with something that WAS.
I also laud Craven’s choice (assuming it was his) to cast his film with new/unrecognizable actors (Frank Grillo as a cop is pretty much the only one you might be familiar with). I can’t say for certain that I’ve seen any of the kids before, which, apart from Bug, makes it much less obvious who will be around for the long run, who “couldn’t” be the killer, etc. The movie benefits from having a cast that will be on a level playing field for 99.9% of the audience, plus it’s just nice to see a studio horror film that’s not populated by Gossip Girl folk for a change. That said, I want to see Zena Grey more often (I later realized I HAVE - she was one of the cast who came along with Wes to the HMAD Shockerscreening last year, which means I like her even more).
Apparently, 50 pages were re-shot, and the original ending was more straightforward. I’m not going to say that the film doesn’t seem like it was tinkered with (some of those giant exposition chunks are likely the result of removing scenes that SHOWED these things), but it’s too interesting and out there to be considered a total misfire. With a dialogue polish (OK, overhaul) and a restructured 3rd act that didn’t all take place in a not-very-interesting house, this could have been a triumphant return for Craven. Instead it’s one of his most curious efforts, one that demands a look but not necessarily any acclaim. As with the climax of Shocker, and some of the plot elements of New Nightmare, he’s got some really interesting and unique ideas, but they don’t always translate to film clearly. As I’ve been saying to friends – if Tommy Wiseau and Chris Nolan collaborated on a slasher movie, it might end up something like My Soul To Take. Love it or hate it, I think we can all agree – it’s certainly not as generic as many of us initially feared.
While I had no desire to revisit Scream 3, readers have requested that I do so quite a few times since I did the first two back in October of 2007, and I figured with S4 now finally happening, I’d eventually need a refresher, assuming the new film addresses this one at all. See, my main issue with the film is and always has been that the new screenwriter (Ehren Kruger) brought a completely different tone from the others, plus some rather revisionist plot developments, and thus I wouldn’t be surprised - nor would I mind - if Kevin Williamson (who is writing 4 as we speak) just ignored it entirely.
Before I explain away why this one doesn’t work for me, I will point out what I DO like. For starters, it’s perfectly good on a technical level. Peter Deming is one of the hands down best DPs in the business, and while the reported 40 million budget isn’t on the screen (I’m guessing a big chunk of that went to paying the principals to return), it still looks far and away better than any other horror movie of the era (and yes, the eye candy doesn’t hurt - Jenny McCarthy in particular has never looked better). Likewise, Patrick Lussier’s editing is as good as ever - the scare scenes are tight, and even with a few viewings, still manage a few thrills. The chase in the set for Sidney’s old house is a wonderful sequence - not only does it actually work as intended (since Neve was clearly not in the film as much as usual, it was actually feasible that she WOULD indeed be killed off halfway through, especially since it comes after Randy warns she’s just as in danger as anyone), but it’s just a terrifically constructed chase scene, with a great, unexpected punchline that pays off the whole “Hollywood is fake” thing, and then another beat that continues the series’ charming tendency to make Ghostface a really clumsy, oft-knocked to the ground killer.
And I like that no one has been replaced or curiously left out. Few part 2s in slasher series ever have returning cast and crew, let alone part 3. But with the exception of Williamson, everyone that matters is back - Craven, Neve, the Arquettes, Liev Schrieber, the producers, composer Marco Beltrami (though his attempts to copy the Zimmer/Broken Arrow themes for Dewey are terrible - why didn’t they just license the score again?)... even Sid’s dad shows up again. There are no characters of note who simply got written out or ignored entirely - if they were in Scream, and not dead, they’re here. Hell, they even bring back Billy’s dad for a single shot! It gives the film a consistency that few horror franchises ever have.
Unfortunately, that just makes the script’s failings all the more apparent. Everyone comes back and gives it their all, but they’re stuck with a script that rewrites the history of their previous adventures. It’s the type of ret-conning thing I never care for, ESPECIALLY when it’s another writer. If Williamson wants to say that Billy and Stu were hired by some douchebag, one who then spent another 4 years not bothering to do much to find Sid (she wasn’t in hiding in part 2, Mr. Bridger!), then he can. Ehren Kruger, as far as I’m concerned, hasn’t earned the right to do that. Especially for such a weak and plot-hole ridden revelation as this one - how is it that Gale, in all of her book writing and research, never came across anything about Sid’s mom being an actress? It’s just dumb.
The humor is even worse. Instead of referencing horror movies, Kruger has a bunch of shitty meta-humor that wouldn’t feel out of place on Family Guy. By the time Carrie Fisher (not as herself) is bitching about losing the part of Princess Leia because she didn’t sleep with George Lucas, I wanted to give up entirely. Plus: Jay and Silent Bob cameos? Roger Corman bemoaning violence in the movies? Come on, this is Mad Magazine shit, not clever satire. And again, it doesn’t seem like Kruger has any real love for the genre, which makes even the somewhat appropriate meta-jokes (actors complaining about their scripts being rewritten, an actual problem with both Scream 2 and 3) feel forced and sort of mean-spirited. Worse, since they aren’t referencing legitimate horror movies, the film has completely lost the “real world” appeal that the first two had. We cared about people like Randy not just because he was a good character, but because he, like us, watched things like Prom Nightand Dorm That Dripped Blood in his spare time. It gave the first two films a sense of realism that most horror films lack, and the fact that everything in this movie is about fake movies just makes it doubly problematic.
It also feels like Kruger’s script tries too hard to copy the first film’s structure, right down to having the entire final third set at a party in a giant house (and the less said about this movie’s version of the voice scrambler, the better). Again, this makes its flaws all the more apparent (i.e. the finale is a complete bore), but it also keeps the film from feeling surprising at any turn. Supposedly, this being the end of a trilogy (HAH!), “all bets are off”, but the film plays it remarkably safe. The new characters are all unmemorable, so you can forget about being upset when any of them die, as you might have been for Randy, or Tatum, or even Derek from 2. The only new character who managed to strike a chord with me is Patrick Dempsey’s cop (and his partner, who is sadly absent from the 3rd act for some reason). Not only is he the only viable red herring in the entire movie (another giant step down from the first film, which excelled in this department), but once it became clear that he was NOT the villain, he was the only one whose fate I wasn’t sure about. We know Dewey’s indestructible, and if they were going to kill Sid they would have done it halfway through when they had a chance (and used Neve Campbell’s limited screen time in a more creative way - instead of having her disappear for large chunks of the film, they could have gone the Psycho route, putting her front and center for a while and then BAM!). And they curiously leave Gale out of the action for the finale once Sid shows up, though not in a red herring type way because we already know it’s not her. So can someone explain why I’m watching a Scream movie and the only person I care about is Patrick Dempsey*? I should also mention the bummer opening, which sees the death of Cotton Weary (way to put me in a bad mood right from the start), who was an interesting character, not to mention played by one of the series’ best actors (Liev Schrieber, who I’ve been a fan of since his expanded role in Scream 2, and continue to find him one of the more interesting actors in his age group).
Speaking of the lack of red herrings, I think the idea to only have one killer this time around was a mistake. Sure, the audience was probably expecting it, but was it worth the trade off, to have so few suspects, and have characters occasionally act suspicious for no reason whatsoever to make up for it? I think not.
They also bring back the “going in sequence” concept from Scream 2, and again, pretty much drop it as soon as they bring it up. This time the killer is killing everyone off in order of when their characters die in the Stab 3 script, but as soon as it’s mentioned, we discover that there are multiple scripts for the movie, and thus the next victim could be any of three people. So we have an instantly worthless plot contrivance. And many of the victims in the movie aren’t actors from Stab (the Patrick Warburton character, Lance Henriksen, Cotton’s girlfriend...), so why even bring it up? Just to get to a meta-joke about how Scream sequels tend to have various drafts?
And I HATE the completely misguided nightmare scenes (gee, I wonder how Mr. Kruger came up with those), which don’t fit at all and waste Neve’s restricted screentime. Again, this is where the fact that everyone else has returned betrays the film’s design. If it was a new director, and an entirely new cast (save for maybe one minor character), then the huge shifts in tone and style would sort of be expected, or at least easier to swallow. But for a part 3, why are the same people going about it all differently? Even Dewey and Gale’s love-hate relationship feels forced. I’m not saying the movie has to be the same thing over and over (that would actually be worse), but large sections of the film simply don’t feel like Scream to me.
Oh and the Randy scene? Ridiculous. Since none of his rules are followed anyway (for example, he says “some of you will die”, but he’s addressing the only 4 people in the movie that DO live), and some of them don’t even make sense. What the hell part 3 had a suddenly supernatural killer? Jason didn’t turn into a zombie until part 6, Freddy and Pinhead were always supernatural, Michael wasn’t even IN his part 3... hell, even Randy’s beloved Prom Night actually went the supernatural route with the 2nd film. I just don’t have the slightest idea why they thought this scene would be a good idea. Sure, it was nice to see our favorite character again, but was it worth it at the expense of suspending our belief more than ever (he actually refers to the rules as his “life’s work”, as if it was the only aspect to his character)? Christ, if Randy was so worried that he was going to die that he would actually make a tape for his friends to watch in case a 3rd killer came along, why was he egging on the killer in 2? Again, the things we learn in this movie ruin things about the first (and superior) two films.
And why use a cover of “Red Right Hand” instead of the Nick Cave original? Come on, work with me here!
At least the DVD meets expectations. Alternate cuts of the opening and ending, a few other deleted scenes, outtakes, TV spots (including one that makes Deon Richmond look like a main character and plays rap music over the tail end of it - OK?), bios, trailers, a Creed music video (Creed is all over this movie, in fact, and yet it’s the least of its problems)... the whole nine yards. There’s also a commentary with Craven, producer Marianne Maddalena, and Lussier, where they talk a lot about the cast and technical details, and, perhaps tellingly, almost nothing about the script, though they do mention that it originally had a lot of scenes of Ghostface talking on camera (as opposed to over the phone), which again confirms my belief that Kruger had no idea what he was doing. They also reveal that they never had a test screening, which is a shame. I mean, there are problems with the film’s very core, and a few edits or reshoots probably wouldn’t help much, but a 95 minute disappointment is better than a 117 minute one. Wes also makes a hilarious “Macarthur Park” reference, which is incidentally the best laugh on the disc (though I do like Dewey and Dempsey’s “Was that a threat?” face off).
In a way, it’s sort of like the Die Hard 4 of the series; in that it’s a passable entry in its genre, but it’s a lousy one with respect to its franchise. Like the former film, it seems written by someone who failed to understand what made the earlier films so special, and ultimately delivered something that didn’t elevate the standards of its sub-genre, but simply catered to them. I’m pretty forgiving for slasher films in general, but I expect more from my Scream films.
What say you?
P.S. When looking at the IMDb page for the film for research, I noticed people on the board claiming this one was their favorite of the series. If any of those folks are reading, I IMPLORE you to explain your reasoning in the comments. I can see liking the film more than me, but if it's your favorite of the series, I have to assume you simply just didn't like the first two.
*I also actually kind of liked the Matt Keeslar character. He's not in it much, but he's got a great little bit with Gale and manages to come across as likable even though he's written as sort of a douche. Go figure.
In my early teen years, my local theater proved to be a terrible indicator of how well a movie was performing elsewhere. Wes Craven’s New Nightmare is the least financially successful entry in the entire series, ultimately selling only a few more tickets in its entire run than Freddy’s Dead did in its first weekend. But you could have fooled me, seeing the film in a sold out (some people were standing) screening on Saturday night, with fans running around and generally having a grand old time. It was the first time I had gone to a movie and seen a genuine REACTION in the crowd, not unlike you’d see for the opening night of a Star Wars movie or whatever. Ironically, it was the same sort of atmosphere Craven would create for the opening scene of Scream 2, which played with a lot of the same themes that New Nightmare did.
But the film is actually far less meta than some might expect. After the opening scene (which is just a nightmare), there isn’t really any of the “Freddy goes after the people who make Freddy movies” stuff, which was I originally thought the movie was about. In fact, and this is possibly part of the theme, the only people Freddy kills in the movie (four, though we only see two) are also pretty much the only people playing wholly fictional characters - Freddy doesn’t kill John Saxon or Wes Craven. When I mentioned that I was watching the film over Twitter, a colleague commented that he was disappointed that the film didn’t offer a Freddy vs. Robert Englund scene, but I actually appreciate that. When I was 14 I’m sure it would have blown my mind, but I think movies like Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back (which - WHOA! - has Wes Craven playing himself as well) have soured me on that sort of thing. The best thing about New Nightmare is that it’s actually pretty smart, instead of being cute to make the audience laugh once and never again.
Actually, the most clever joke in the movie might not even be one. Early on, Heather Langenkamp (Heather Langenkamp) is at a funeral for her husband, and a few of her Nightmare co-stars are there for support, such as Nick Corri and... Tuesday Knight? Now, Knight was in Dream Master, and Langenkamp was not. BUT, Knight was replacing Patricia Arquette, who DID work with Ms. Langenkamp in Dream Warriors. So is Tuesday Knight actually “playing” Patricia Arquette in this scene? Is she replacing her in real life? It’s a philosophical sight gag! I mean, it’s not like any of the Nightmare folks are high demand actors (save for Johnny Depp, who Wes was too afraid to ask to be in the movie, which is odd since Depp did a cameo for Freddy’s Dead despite not owing Rachel Talalay a goddamn thing), so they could have had any number of people in this scene, which makes me suspect that Knight’s appearance is more than just a random shoutout for fans.
One thing the movie definitely could have used was a more tyrannical editor. Don’t get me wrong - Patrick Lussier is a fantastic editor - the scares work, the action bits are well constructed, etc. But the movie is just too long (barely under two hours - with only two kill scenes!), and 10 minutes or so could have been pared down easily. There are WAYYYY too many earthquakes in the film, to the point where it’s practically a xenophobic depiction of the phenomenon. I’ve lived here for 4.5 years, but I haven’t seen/felt as many quakes as these folks do over the course of a week. There’s a scene early on, pretty much the first real scene of the movie, where Langenkamp is getting ready to leave for a TV interview, and it just goes on forever - cutting the earthquake out of this scene alone could have helped matters. And the earthquake stuff doesn’t seem to be part of the actual plot (i.e. Freddy isn’t causing them), so I’m not sure why it’s such a presence in the movie.
I also wish he had cast an unknown in the role of Dylan. While Miko Hughes is a terrific child actor, it was sort of hard to buy into the “this is the real world” thing when I recognized the kid from like 3-4 other movies (including another creepy kid hallmark, Pet Sematary). The guy playing Langenkamp’s husband was an unknown (at least to me), so that worked, but whenever they showed the kid freaking out all I could think of was “No fair, Daddy.”
But I loved the overall concept, that Freddy was just the latest embodiment of evil, and that the Freddy in the other 6 movies was essentially keeping it at bay, only to be set loose “for real” when Freddy was killed off in the last movie (once again, the ending of Freddy’s Dead proves to be a disservice to the world). And I like how Englund, Craven, etc are only in a scene or two each, so we can focus on Langenkamp and her son. Not only does it help separate the film from the others, but it, perhaps ironically, gives the series its first true hero since Nancy in the first film. 3-5 were basically ensembles, and Freddy’s Dead was split between John and Maggie. And Freddy's Revenge... well, let’s just ignore that one. But this is Langenkamp’s show start to finish (the only time she’s not onscreen is during those two kill scenes), giving us someone to truly care about instead of just stringing together a bunch of kill/nightmare scenes.
On the commentary, Wes talks about how it’s pretty much the only film of his career that isn’t compromised in any way. He was allowed final cut as long as the film scored a certain number in test screenings, which it apparently easily surpassed. And the MPAA left him alone as well. He also points out that the horror movie-hating nurse is named after Richard Heffner, the then-head of the “censorship board”, a joke I never picked up on (Jack Valenti was the guy in charge when I started paying attention to such things). And I must extend some kudos to Wes for not soapboxing about such matters throughout the film, as he easily could have given the nature of the plot. It’s obviously been a sore spot for him throughout his career, but he basically keeps his thoughts on the matter to himself, settling for just using the Heffner name. In fact, Langenkamp’s real life stalker, which was part of the basis for the film, wasn’t a fan of the Nightmare movies but of her sitcom Just The Ten Of Us, which I’m also surprised he didn’t find a way to point out (i.e. that people are crazy/obsessive over everything/anything, not just horror). He also talks about how he wanted to redesign Freddy a bit to make him darker, though I’m not sure how making his hat green (from brown) qualifies as making him darker. I hate that fucking green hat.
The Nightmare Encyclopedia disc (aka Disc 8 on the boxed set) offers about 15 minutes’ worth of interview with Craven, where he talks about how he got into filmmaking, why he came back, etc. Nothing particularly earth-shattering, fans will already know his backstory and he goes into much more detail on the Freddy stuff on the commentary. However, he does point out that he couldn’t follow the later sequels (we’re with ya!), which is pretty funny/sad. The original teaser trailer is also included on this disc, which is worth a look because of how much the documentary approach was played up on the trailer vs. how it was actually depicted in the film (not at all unless you count the largely hand-held camerawork), and doesn’t even include Freddy coming out and saying “Miss me?”, a moment in the film that seems like it was designed specifically for a trailer. In fact, Freddy doesn’t really appear in the trailer at all, which makes me wonder if there was ever a more traditional trailer, because if not, it’s no wonder that the movie didn’t do that well - the trailer basically only makes sense if you’ve already seen the movie. Weird.
So now I’ve come to the end of my pre-remake Nightmare retrospective. It’s interesting to see how my opinions have changed since my last viewing on pretty much all of the movies, with the exception of this one, which I really liked then and I really like now. My final ranking is: 3/1, 7, 2, 6, 5, 4/FvJ (pre-retrospective was 3/1, 7, 4, 2, 5, 6, FvJ). I just hope I can at LEAST say “Better than Freddy vs Jason” about the reboot.
What say you?
P.S. I used to have the novelization for this movie, but it’s nowhere to be found. I remember the author tried to join in on the meta-fun, in that it was about him being hired to write the novelization, or something? Maybe it was just an epilogue. Anyone have it? Worth yelling at my mom for selling it for 25 cents or whatever (she had a big yard sale when I was away at school and many a “I still NEED that!” item was forever lost)?
With the “looks rather half-assed” remake coming up, I figured I’d take a look back at the original Nightmare On Elm St (and it’s sequels, not counting 2 and 3 which have already been reviewed here - look for one a week leading up to the remake’s release!), which I hadn’t seen in years. In fact, I would guess I’ve probably only seen the film maybe 5-6 times in my life. I’ve seen Dream Warriors probably 20 times, because it was my favorite as a kid (and probably still is), but otherwise, I was never as big on Freddy as I was the other horror icons.
I have no reasonable explanation for this - the films are, if nothing else, better made than any Friday the 13th movie, and it also has the suburban flair that drew me to the Halloweenmovies. But also, the films that came out around the time I started getting into horror (the late 80s) are also the ones that moved further away from horror and into comedy - I knew wisecracking Freddy first, and then discovered his darker version (in this film, and part 2, a slightly lesser extent) later. So basically, I was robbed of a proper introduction to the character, and by the time I finally got around to seeing the original (which, I think was the LAST one I saw of the original 5 films), I had already sort of gotten tired of him. It is the biggest irony that Freddy was always the least likely horror villain to give me nightmares - to this day I don’t think I’ve had one (Jason has chased me several times, however).
Now, of course, I realize how great of a film it is. In fact, it just dawned on me for the first time that Tina is actually sort of set up as the heroine of the film, only to be killed at the end of the first reel (another downside of watching the films out of order, though the film’s final poster “spoiled” this too). Nancy is introduced as the friend and only really takes center after Tina is dispatched. It must have been a great shock back in the day, but now it still works as evidence of how fast paced this movie is. In fact, despite the rather compact cast of kids (only 4, as opposed to the usual eight to ten-ish that the Friday films had offered), it moves along faster than most other slashers of the era, and it’s far more creative than the others to boot.
I also enjoy, and always have, how Craven depicts dreams in a fairly realistic way. People change into other people, locations change on a whim, there’s an odd sense of logic in that you can follow what is happening but actually describing it wouldn’t make a lick of sense... the sequels got away from this idea, staging big set pieces that were obviously written before the actual story of the film was. Here, the nightmares are organic to the story start to finish. Sure, it may not be as visually exciting as parts 4 or 5, but it’s more grounded in reality, and thus, far more interesting/scary - Freddy jumping up behind Tina at the beginning still gives me a bit of a jolt.
Less successful (in retrospect) is the standard Craven scene of a character setting booby traps. Not sure why he always goes back to this well, but at least five of his films have such devices, and it’s somewhat laughable. Are all of his heroes natural survivalists? I’ve said in the past that unlike Carpenter, Craven doesn’t have a particular visual style that would instantly identify one of his films to a viewer, but I guess if you see the film’s hero setting up tripwires and small shocking devices, you are probably watching a Wes Craven film. Or Home Alone.
Another thing I noticed this time around that I never gave much thought to before - why doesn’t the doctor at the Katja Institute (played by Charles “Roger Rabbit” Fleischer) ever follow through with his research? His subject breaks all of his known nightmare threshold levels, and then pulls a goddamn HAT out of her dream, but it seems he doesn’t consider this any sort of breakthrough. It’s a shame Craven was left out of the sequels for the most part, as I think he would have returned to this character in some way.
The effects still hold up quite well. The effects in the jail cell (first phasing through the bars, and then the magic blanket/noose) still impress, and the revolving bedroom is still a wonderful invention that, again, remains a remarkable visual. And the scene where Freddy attempts to break through the wall above Nancy’s bed is still chilling - and even moreso in the wake of the laughably bad CG version seen in the trailer for the remake.
And with that - the remake rant. Most notable about the original is that it’s not even that dated. Apart from the mom smoking in a hospital, there really isn’t anything in the movie that a new audience couldn’t identify with. Johnny Depp listens to a record while he watches a TV that is so small he can move it around his room with ease - will changing this to an iPod and a 27 inch LCD really make any fucking difference? I really don’t want to go down this road again, but I guess it bears repeating - Rob Zombie is a guy with a vision. It’s one I don’t always agree with, but he brings something to the table, creatively and technically. So the idea of him doing a remake of a perfect movie like Halloween is, in theory, a solid one, if remakes must exist. Friday the 13th, on the other hand, is NOT a perfect movie. It’s got a cheat ending, and it’s sort of an anomaly due to the franchise taking on a different life once Jason was introduced. Therefore, it made sense to redo Friday the 13th - it could give him a rebirth that was worthy of his iconic stature. But the Platinum Dunes factory cannot possibly improve on Nightmare on Elm St with the way they make films (combining scripts from multiple writers, hiring a director who producers Brad Fuller and Andrew Form can push around, etc). The only way a new Nightmare could be a viable prospect is if a filmmaker with an actual vision AND IDEA wanted to do one. Now, I haven’t seen the film, and for all I know it’s entertaining. But it won’t change the fact that all of their money and efforts should have been utilized elsewhere, because this Nightmare still works splendidly, as both a horror film AND as an important piece in the career of its sole creator: Wes Craven (who wasn’t even given a courtesy call when the Dunes put their remake into production, let alone involved in any way as he was with the Hills Have Eyes and Last House remakes, both of which are “upper level” remakes).
/End rant.
While I still have the old boxed set from 1999 (at the time, the most money I had ever spent on a single thing besides my car; I can now get it for less than the cost of a new Blu-ray), I recently picked up the new-ish (2006?) Infinifilm release, which has a new commentary track and some other bonus features, all of which are worth a look. First is a look at the history of New Line (aka “The House That Freddy Built”), which is an unusual feature to have on any movie, let alone a horror movie (let’s see Dimension put something together like this for the inevitable Scream Blu-ray). It’s a slightly bittersweet piece, as New Line has been since folded into Warner Bros., but it’s still a nice tribute to a studio that really did take chances on genre fare (Se7en was rejected by every other studio due to the ending - New Line gave them enough to hire Brad Pitt to star in the damn thing). Then there’s a brief look at the history of dream studies, with some professors (one of whom seems to be a bigger Freddy nerd than anyone I know, despite the fact that he looks about 70) and Craven offering insight into the subject. Then there’s a 45 minute “making of” that’s really a retrospective, featuring many of the participants (no Johnny Depp, sadly) as they walk us through the entire film’s production. Actual behind the scenes footage is rather scarce; it’s mostly limited to stills - but there are some alternate takes where Englund is using his own voice for Freddy, which is kind of creepy in and of itself. The sequels aren’t really mentioned, oddly enough - surely Craven and Heather Langenkamp could have offered a thought or two on the ones they were involved with (as for Englund, the man can talk for twenty minutes straight about his shoelaces, so if asked for his perspective on the sequels, it could yield enough for an entire full length documentary).
The two commentaries are packed with info. The one with Craven, Langenkamp, Saxon, and DP Jacques Haitkin is held over from the laserdisc (apparently Haitkin’s kids have been bugging him to get one - wonder if he ever did?), but it’s screen specific, and has an equal balance of technical and creative stuff, as well as between anecdotal and insight. And Craven mentions Shocker once or twice, so that’s a plus (the track cuts out in mid-sentence though - weird). The other one is edited together from interviews with the above as well as Englund, Bob Shaye, Amanda Wyss, etc; some info is repeated, but the comments from the folks who aren’t on the other track are certainly welcome. Both are recommended.
Dream Warriors is still my favorite of the series, but the original runs a very close second, and it’s actually held up even better than Warriors has (those skeleton effects in the graveyard NEVER looked good). And I’m kind of glad I never really watched it a lot, as it allows me to look at it more or less with a fresh pair of eyes, without nostalgia clouding my judgment as it probably does for other childhood horror movies (again, Shocker, plus some of the Friday and Child’s Play sequels). And with this new viewing, I remain more convinced than ever that the upcoming remake is as unnecessary as they come.
HMAD-ing is actually somewhat expensive! If you can, help BC pay for his various movie-getting services (Netflix, Amazon, buying used DVDs, etc.)! Thank you!!!
