Non Canon Review: Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2

SEPTEMBER 20, 2012

GENRE: COMEDIC, SURVIVAL
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (OWN COLLECTION))
LAST SEEN: 2010 (REVIVAL SCREENING)

For the life of me I can't remember his name, but for my first 2-3 weeks of my junior year at college, I had an extra roommate due to a housing issue, which drove me nuts as I was the type who hated having even one roommate, let alone another (the chosen roommate was my friend Steve. We haven't talked much since that year, incidentally). But I did try to make nice in my own way, and thus one night we watched Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, which had recently come out on DVD. I don't think he liked it much, but he got his correct room not too long after that, so he was spared further horror movies.

I bring it up because I think it was the only time I watched that version of the DVD, which had OK picture but TERRIBLE audio, and zero bonus features. The 2006 release (dubbed the "Gruesome Edition" and boasting new box art that looked like a Saw film) had a superior transfer plus lots of bonus features, and thus I tossed out that old one. Now, again six years later, we have the film's first Blu-ray release, which is just a port of that 2006 one, albeit with the image obviously improved thanks to Blu-ray's higher resolution. It's not a "night and day" transfer - in fact I was more impressed with the jump from the 2000 to 2006 versions (both on standard DVD!), but I guess one can't really complain about a solid representation of what was an improved transfer. It's an intentionally grimy looking movie - it's never going to be demo quality. Still, if you already own that edition, I should note that it's identical in every way as far as the bonus features (and box art), so the slightly improved image is really the only reason to upgrade.

But if you're still stuck with the original DVD from 2000, by all means run, don't walk, to the nearest store and pick this baby up, as it's loaded with great supplements and a much improved audio track - you want that chainsaw duel to sound amazing, not like it was recorded through a wall like it did on that hideous disc. Plus, this is one of those movies that just gets better every time I watch it; I pick up on more and more humor (and with a much clearer audio track, make out some of screenwriter Kit Carson's wonderfully gonzo dialogue and colorful profanity). Yes, this movie is more of a comedy than the suspenseful extreme horror of the original, but to me that works in its favor - they've already done that perfectly, so why copy it? Instead, they tried something new, and mostly succeeded.

By mostly, I refer to the film's odd structure, which puts the film's biggest chainsaw kill scene in the first 10 minutes (the two yuppie assholes in the car) and then pretty much leaves any chainsawing out of it until the very end, when Leatherface has his battle with Dennis Hopper's dual wielding (and equally insane) lawman. The only other kill in the film is LJ, who is mostly done in by Chop-Top and his hammer. There was a big massacre scene in a parking garage where the family took out more yuppies, but it was cut for pacing - possibly the first time in horror history where a big kill scene was removed because it was slowing the movie down. It also would have been the only actual "massacre" in a Texas Chainsaw Massacre movie, so its removal is a bummer.

Otherwise, the movie is just pure gonzo greatness. Hopper's nutty turn as Lefty can stand proudly alongside his much more "respectable" roles in 1986 - Blue Velvet and Hoosiers, the latter of which earned him an Oscar nod. The male protagonists in all five of the other films tend to be boring and forgettable compared to the Sawyers (or Hewitts) and their hysterical, ass-kicking heroines, but TCM2 offers not only Hopper's Loomis-esque nut but also LG, played by the late Lou Perryman. He doesn't get to do much, but his puppy dog crush on Stretch, colorful dialogue, and INSANELY high pain tolerance make for a memorable side character - it's a shame none of the following movies saw fit to have a character in the vein of either one of these guys.

It also gives an expanded role to Jim Siedow, who unfortunately had to pretend to be a good guy for half of his screentime in TCM1. Here he's allowed to drop the act for most of the film, save for an amazing bit early on (his first scene, in fact) where he wins a chili cookoff. Of course, WE know the secret to his tasty meat, so the scene is just a black comic treasure, with everyone (including our heroes) cheering on their unsuspecting cannibalism. And Siedow is firing on all cylinders here, playing a role that can be considered the most normal of the Sawyer clan in one moment and the craziest in the next. Or sometimes simultaneously - check out the bit where he orders Leatherface to kill Stretch but can't help but feel a bit of fatherly pride that his "Bubba" is crushing on her.

Plus: BILL MOSELEY. Possibly the most underrated genre actor working today (in that he can actually disappear into a role and play sympathetic easily, something that eludes guys like Robert Englund who always feel a bit creepy), this was his first big role, and like Siedow, gives it his all, making Edwin Neal's performance as the Hitchhiker in the first film (who is the twin brother of Moseley's character) look somewhat restrained at times. Keep an eye on him during scenes that are otherwise focused on other characters - out of focus and in the background he may be, but he's still completely committed to Chop-Top's human Tazmanian Devil routine.

I could go on and on: Savini's FX are top-notch (particularly the human skin faces), the set/production design is Oscar-worthy, it features the longest bridge in the world, etc. But it's been over 25 years - you're either on board by now, or you're missing out. Your loss!

For us fans though, again, this is a great special edition. Tobe Hooper's commentary is unsurprisingly low-key - he's never been much of a talker, and most of what he says is just repeating what the moderator says. He does get into some of the film's social commentary and a few production stories, but otherwise it's a track that is in need of a couple of Red Bulls. Luckily, the other commentary, with Moseley, Savini, and Caroline Williams (moderated by Michael Felsher) more than makes up for it - it's a terrific mix of information and trivia, shooting anecdotes, and just enough jokes about the movie to let you know that they're aware it's not perfect, but not so much that it becomes MST3k. With four participants there's some interruptions and talking over one another, but

Then there's "It Runs In The Family" a six part documentary that runs about 90 minutes all together (you can Play All or watch them individually). Hooper and Hopper are absent, but pretty much every other principal that's still alive is here, with a hefty part of the doc focused on Carson, whom we've rarely heard from over the years, so that's a great bonus as he discusses the constant rewriting and budgetary issues (it's amazing this movie is even watchable, let alone good). Everyone has great stories about the grueling production, and it covers just about everything you could want.

Less satisfying are the deleted scenes, as they are in the roughest of rough shape - seemingly taken from a duped VHS workprint, they aren't even close to complete. Sound FX and music are gone, dialogue is occasionally left out (subtitles provide the missing words), and they're stretched out to boot. Obviously it's interesting to see these things, but is this really the best they could do? There's gotta be a better copy (if not the original negatives) for this footage somewhere, right? Anyway, the aforementioned massacre scene is a hoot, as is the Joe Bob Briggs cameo (for which he still receives credit). There's also a little more between Lefty and Stretch, and a minor bit where we get proof that Chop-Top was blown up at the film's conclusion. Honestly, all of it should have been left in the movie; it's a longer film than the original but it never drags, and I don't see how any of this stuff would hurt it if it was edited and mixed properly.

As with Jeepers Creepers, FOX/MGM didn't see the need to give the film an actual menu screen, so the movie just starts up and will loop forever if you leave it on, which is fine since like I said it just gets better every time you watch it. So if you're watching it for the first time and don't care for it, but can't find the remote, just let it play again - you might be surprised to discover it's pretty dang good.

What say you?

Film score: 8/10 AV score: 7/10 Extras score: 8/10

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Non Canon Review: Jeepers Creepers (2001)

SEPTEMBER 15, 2012

GENRE: MONSTER
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (OWN COLLECTION)
LAST SEEN: 2003 (DVD)

I don't know where my DVD of Jeepers Creepers went; I know I owned it and I can see it in my mind's eye on the shelf next to Jaws 2, but I noticed it was gone when FOX sent me the new Blu-ray and I went to get the old DVD to compare the transfer. I guess I traded it in at some point, so props to FOX for re-releasing on Blu-ray! Who knows when I might have noticed it missing otherwise.

Because, while I obviously don't watch it often (as is the case for all movies since I began HMAD - you know I still haven't watched Inside a 2nd time?), it's a solid, scary flick that actually holds up quite well - the sort of movie I'd probably pick annually if I was one of those (lazy!) people who watch horror movies every day in October. Even though it takes place in the spring, there's something very Halloween-ish about it - I can almost see it being an entry in the anthology version of the Halloween franchise, had it taken off as intended.

Because, like Halloween, it works best when not much is being explained and the director is sticking to simple but effective scares. In fact this movie has probably one of my top 5 all time favorite subtle scares, and it's the first one in the movie. After passing a Winnebago on one of the lonely Florida roads where the best scenes in the film take place, we watch our heroes talk in their car, with the camera pointed at the both of them but also the road behind them. After a few seconds, we see the Winnebago suddenly pull off the road and stop, and then if you squint you can see the Creeper's truck further behind - nowhere near them, but visible. Thus, the old couple in the RV saw him in their rearview and pulled off, knowing that he was bad news. There's something so wonderfully creepy about the locals KNOWING about this guy and merely staying out of his way - not to mention that one could miss this entire exchange if they were just focusing on the kids. The timing of the (all one) shot and multiple things being revealed in the film's opening minute is just so impressive to me, and it's things like this that buy the movie a lot of much needed goodwill.

As my friend Jacob S. Hall said on Twitter last night when I said I was watching the movie, each third of the film isn't as good as the one before it; it never tops this first act, which is basically Duel but with an extended scene where our hero (Justin Long) discovers his pursuer's lair. The next act is some more road stuff, which is starting to get repetitive, as well as a rather extraneous scene where the protagonists encounter a crazy cat lady. There's a great scare here ("That's not my scarecrow...") but it just adds one crazy lady too many to this film, as we've already heard and are about to meet another one, who doesn't have cats but DOES have psychic powers.

Now, it's not that I don't believe in ESP and the like; I've had strange bits of clairvoyance myself (the other day I wondered if I'd ever run into a writer who I know works on the same (giant) lot I do at Universal - 5 minutes later I was sharing an elevator with him). But in movies, and in particular this one, it seems that the character with visions is just an easy way to get some exposition into the movie, and maybe try to juice another scare or two out of the audience. So she says "You'll hear this song and something bad will happen!" and then a bit later they hear the song and something bad happens. The problem I have is that it just raises more questions and distracts away from what's important - shouldn't I be wondering what the Creeper is and what he wants with our heroes? Now all I can think of is "Why is this psychic looking out for two kids who are passing through? Where are her powers when the Creeper (presumably) attacks these other folks we see on the "MISSING" posters at the police station? I always prefer the Ahab/Loomis type character who is merely obsessed with the story/killer, instead of information just falling into one's lap out of nowhere. It's not as obnoxious as the repeated use of a character who suddenly has ESP in the Final Destination films, but it's close.

That, plus a rather abrupt and low-key finale, does the 3rd act no favors, as now we know just about everything we're going to know and the film's low budget is getting a bit too apparent. Off-screen attacks are coupled with Hyams-esque low lighting making it difficult to see what IS happening in the camera's range, and just as it seems like we're about to start a big fight scene, the movie just sort of gives up - the Creeper grabs one of them and just flies away. The outcome is admirably grim (though the actual visual effect is slightly silly at first), but it's always bugged me that they don't even put up a fight.

The commentary by Victor Salva (p.s. yes, I know. I'm reviewing the film, not the guy who made it) explains this - there was a bigger, more explosive climax planned, but they had a budget/schedule cut right before production began, and things had to go - including this ending. I'd argue that there were other things that could have been removed instead (cat lady) but he points out that the ending is now more personal and emotional, and I can accept that - the film gets most of its strength from the believable relationship between Long and Gina Phillips as his sister - I've always loved that they weren't a couple but siblings who care about each other but bicker as siblings do throughout the film (love the bit where she's trying to squeeze up to the phone with him). So if the ending lost some of that in its more action-y incarnation, perhaps it was for the best that it was changed. The track as a whole is pretty interesting - he sounds a bit rehearsed at times, but it's chock full of interesting information about its production, and he rarely falls silent.

Some of what he says is repeated on the making of section, which is comprised of 6-7 featurettes that you can play back to back; all together they run just under an hour. Like the commentary, it's not the usual strokefest - there's a lot of actual production info to learn here, and it covers pretty much every aspect of the production (casting, shooting, music, etc). A shame producer Francis Ford Coppola is absent - as he got his start in horror and occasionally returns to it (where the hell is Twixt, anyway?), it would have been interesting to hear his thoughts on the project. Then there are just under 20 minutes' worth of deleted/extended scenes, most of which are simply more dialog exchanges between the heroes, as well as an alternate version of the ending where we can see the Creeper doing his thing in his basement throughout the shot, as opposed to the theatrical ending where we just see his new eye coming into frame. Then there's a useless bit where we see Salva's "cameo" as one of the corpses in the Creeper's basement - he points it out on the commentary so I don't know why they had to make a separate "bonus feature" about it. The trailer and a stills gallery round things out, though I do want to mention that the MGM logo is modified so that it starts with a closeup of the lion's eye - very cool little touch.

I was disappointed with the presentation and transfer, however. First off, there's no main menu - the movie just starts when you put the disc in (after some FBI warnings and company logos), and will loop forever if you fall asleep, as there's no "home" menu to go back to. Also, the transfer was a bit flat - this is why I was looking for my DVD, as that's pretty much exactly what it looks like to my eyes. It's not a BAD transfer by any means - the color and contrast look correct, and the sound mix is quite nice with selective but effective use of the surround speakers, but it lacked the detail and "pop" I have come to expect from my Blu-rays, so I wouldn't be surprised if this was just an upscaled DVD transfer. Add in the ugly new box art (it makes it look like a lost Dark Harvest "sequel") and the fact that the bonus material is identical to the original DVD release, and you come to the sad conclusion that there is absolutely no reason to upgrade if you have it already, unless you really want that 1/8th of an inch extra space on your shelf.

However, if you don't own it already, or somehow still haven't seen it, it's a pretty safe addition to your collection. It's got flaws, but there's a real old-school, late night horror movie vibe to it, not unlike what Ti West was aiming for with The Roost, and, again, "tis the season" for such fare. Just don't bother with the sequel.

What say you?

Film score 8/10
A/V score 5/10
Bonus score 7/10 (docked a point for the complete lack of new material - they couldn't do a new commentary or even a new intro from Salva?)
Overall 7/10

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

Non Canon Review: The Faculty (1998)

JULY 25, 2012

GENRE: ALIEN, POSSESSION
SOURCE: BLU-RAY (OWN COLLECTION)
LAST SEEN: 2000 (?) (DVD)

I remember reuniting a big chunk of the usual movie-going group for The Faculty, as it came out during Christmas break of our first year at college and thus everyone was together for the first time since the end of summer. But with the fun of seeing everyone again, I didn’t remember much about the movie until a few months later, when Dimension inexplicably re-released it and (during another visit back home) my friend and I saw it again (after Analyze This, if memory serves). And then I declared that it wasn’t perfect, but it was a charming attempt at blending the rampant teen genre of the late 90s with an acknowledged Body Snatchers story.

Actually, it’s in that scene where the movie hits its low point; as Elijah Wood and Clea Duvall discuss the possibility that previous alien invasion movies and books were warnings about when it happened for real, Wood includes Roland Emmerich along with Spielberg and Lucas, because in 1998 we still looked fondly on ID4. Now the joke almost needs to be explained, because his films are more about generalized destruction (or Shakespeare’s authenticity!), so a younger audience might not remember that he made an alien invasion film that was (sadly enough) the biggest hit of 1996.

Otherwise, the script hadn’t dated as badly as I feared, especially compared to Kevin Williamson’s other post-Scream films. The soundtrack is more offensive than anything, with the likes of Creed and Shawn Mullins covering Alice Cooper and David Bowie, not to mention the awful supergroup Class Of 99 churning out a Pink Floyd cover that was grating THEN. Now it’s almost comical. But the dialogue isn’t too overly clever; only Jordana Brewster’s character seems to have walked in from Woodsboro.

It’s also a treasure trove of great character actors (including the tragic Daniel Von Bargen, having a blast as a social studies teacher who doesn’t even care what chapter they’re on) and “faces to watch” – this was the first time I had seen Brewster or Severance’s Laura Harris, and was only Josh Hartnett’s second film after H20. And you got Piper Laurie, Robert Patrick, and Famke Janssen hanging around, plus a pre-Daily Show Jon Stewart, sporting a hilarious goatee and scoring one of the film’s most awkward lines (about putting a pen in his eye – it makes no sense at all other than to foreshadow the fact that he gets a pen in his eye an hour later).

I also like that it takes its time developing each of the kids on their own (almost none of them seemed to have much of a relationship with the others; Shawn Hatosy dated Brewster’s character and she worked on the school paper with Elijah Wood, but I think that’s it) before putting them in pairs, finally having them all converge around the halfway point. I assume Dimension’s budget forced them to trim down some set-pieces (even Rodgriguez’ Spy Kids movies have more action I think, and the ending here is quite abrupt), but I think it actually works in its favor – it’s a charmingly low-key affair, and works best when it’s just the kids standing around or working on a plan. Even if it’s a direct lift from The Thing, the scene where they test each other to make sure everyone’s human is easily the film’s highlight, mixing humor (they have to get high to prove they’re not alien) and suspense, since Williamson’s script had done a good job of keeping just about everyone a viable suspect. Actually it had been so long since I watched the movie that I forgot who was an alien in the scene; I remembered who the ultimate villain was, but couldn’t recall who was merely infected here.

On that note, I still don’t get how the character that gets their head removed (and spider-ized like, again, The Thing) manages to survive at the end. I can buy the “once the queen is dead the infection dies and the host is OK” process, but this person LOST THEIR HEAD. Otherwise, it’s also kind of charming to see that the body count is rather low, with everyone happy/changed at the end. The angle about the alien race allowing people to let go of their peer-pressured needs to fit in and such is sadly underplayed, but there’s enough of it to appreciate the epilogue (though why Zeke would join the football team is a bit of a puzzle). In fact, I am still curious if the movie was re-edited or something; it’s not noticeably short (104 minutes, just a few less than Scream) but I’ve always found it odd that Rodriguez almost never mentions it when discussing his work.

Nor did he provide a commentary, which is another rarity. In fact the film has never had any special features whatsoever, and this new Blu-ray follows suit – not even a trailer is included (indeed, the trailer had a few clips that weren’t in the movie). However, the transfer is terrific – one of the best I’ve seen on a Blu from Echo Bridge, and obviously a huge improvement from the DVD, which wasn’t even anamorphic. There are a few selections for sound as well – DTS lossless is the way to go, but there’s a 5.1 Dolby Digital track and PCM audio as well. Sounded great on my (not particularly stellar) system, I even turned it down as it was kind of late and didn’t have to fiddle to hear dialogue scenes.

Available for like 6 bucks at most outlets, it’s definitely worth the upgrade if you’re a fan, and if you’ve never seen it or haven’t checked it out from theaters, I think it holds up well. Some of the CGI effects aren’t really helped by the high def transfer, of course, but otherwise I found it just as enjoyable as I did back then. I’ve been debating whether to try to find a print for a HMAD screening – now I know it’s a good idea.

What say you?

Tweet

PLEASE, GO ON...

DVD Review: Dark Angel (1990)

OCTOBER 25, 2011

GENRE: ALIEN
SOURCE: DVD (!) (OWN COLLECTION)

AT LONG LAST! I have been bemoaning the lack of I Come In Peace on DVD ever since they started releasing library titles on the format, and… well, I still haven’t gotten it. No, MGM has actually gone back and put the film out on disc (via their “on-demand” service) under its original title: Dark Angel. Personally I think I Come In Peace is the better title, and it’s certainly the one most people know it under by this point (plus no one will confuse it for a stupid Jessica Alba show), but who cares what it’s called? It’s here!

And this isn’t some lame VHS transfer – the film is presented in its original 1.85:1 aspect ratio and enhanced for widescreen TVs, which means that not a single frame of this amazing movie has been compromised. It’s a pretty good transfer too – nothing award worthy, but there’s detail and vivid color that I had long since forgotten about, and the stereo sound makes U-Krew’s “Ugly” sound better than ever. The trailer is also included, and while it spoils way too many of the film’s awesome lines, it does have the best opening voiceover. “It’s Christmas. Someone special’s coming to town. And it’s NOT Santa Claus!”, which followed by an equally hilarious “Jack Cain. A cop who does things his OWN way!”

But the movie itself is the real bonus. Not only is it possibly the pinnacle in Dolph Lundgren’s career, Dark Angel is simply an awesome movie in pretty much every way. It’s from 1990, but few films define the 80s as well as this one. You get pretty much every generic action movie plot (revenge for partner killed, mismatched partners, drug dealers, and for the hell of it, aliens) rolled into one, and all the usual plot devices (cop being taken off the case, girlfriend who is sick of the hero’s lack of commitment, etc.) to boot. But through it all, the plot is actually pretty original – an alien drug dealer (!!!) has come “in peace” to Earth, in order to extract endorphins from human beings and mix them with heroin, which creates an incredibly potent drug that he will presumably sell on his homeworld to alien crackheads. There’s also a good alien out to stop him.

Dolph, of course, is the cop. He teams up with Brian Benben (then sort of popular due to Dream On; I recall the audience cheering with laughter when he was first introduced), making it one of the few white/white buddy cop combos as well. Dolph even has his hair dyed black (leftover from The Punisher), so they don’t even have different hair colors. But Dolph is of course, a supercop who plays by his own rules, and Benben is a bureaucratic nebbish who wears a suit and won’t drink on the job. But even this is played against type; instead of the usual messy apartment with pizza boxes lying all around, Dolph’s apartment is pretty ritzy, and he has vintage wine to offer. We never see Benben’s place though, but maybe his was a shithole, to offer another difference.

I also love how the drug dealers in the movie are presented as white collar yuppies. They have a boardroom and everything. Dolph infiltrates their headquarters by setting off their car alarms, which sends them all into a panic. Then the head dealer guy (played by Bernard from Lost!) bemoans how his partner had to fly coach on a recent flight to Rio. Hahaha, awesome.

Speaking of Rio, he’s there because he killed Dolph’s partner (Dolph got distracted by a liquor store robbery, a scenario sort of lifted by Seagal in Out For Justice). And he’s still there at the end. The dead partner turns out be a Macguffin, a rarity in a B-movie like this. However, at the end of the film Dolph suggests they vacation in Rio, so maybe I Also Come In Peace will just be about that, without any alien shit whatsoever.

And of course – the weapon: KILLER CDS! When I was 10 I had no appreciation for the foreshadowing in the first scene, in which a yuppie fiddling with his CD player is “attacked” by an overzealous eject CD button (as a kid I was just mesmerized by the idea of a CD player in the car; I don’t think the family car even had a tape deck at this point). It doesn’t get used much in the film, but when it does, oh man. Has there ever been a more awesome weapon in a movie? It even got ripped off in the game Revolution X.

One last thing I must mention, because someone will bitch if I don’t – the film’s final exchange between the alien and the Dolph. For the final time, the alien says “I come in peace!” (which is all he ever says in the movie; though the other alien seems to have a pretty good grasp on the English language), and Dolph, after loading up the cool-ass alien gun (not the CD one though; which would have been more awesome but lacked an explosion), replies “And you go in pieces, asshole.” It’s the “asshole” that really sells it, but in theaters it was hard to hear because everyone was already cheering and laughing from the first part of the line. But if you think about the greatest one-liners of the type in history, they are all punctuated by profanity: “Smile you son of a bitch.” “Get away from her you bitch!” “Yippie Ki Yay mother fucker!”, etc. Dolph just happened to have one that was awesome even without it.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Non Canon Review: Night Of The Living Dead (1968)

FEBRUARY 23, 2011

GENRE: ZOMBIE
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)
LAST SEEN: MAY 2010 (REVIVAL SCREENING)

I still remember my first copy of Night Of The Living Dead; it was a VHS I found in a ‘dump bin’ at the local Suncoast, which means I probably got it for 4.99 at the absolute most. At the time, I didn’t know about its public domain issues (or even what public domain WAS), so I thought it was a steal – this was a classic horror movie! Psycho and Rosemary’s Baby and such all cost 19.99! Of course, the quality was awful, though not as bad as some others I’ve seen/owned (all told, I’ve probably owned eight or nine copies of the film over the years). My second copy was that 2 tape edition that Elite put out around 1997, and I remember being so blown away by the awesome ‘before and after’ example at the top of the tape showing how much work they put into the transfer.

Well this most recent “A-level” release (2008 from Dimension/Genius, released in conjunction with Diary of the Dead) is once again remastered, and it does indeed look the best I’ve ever seen. The photography is actually quite striking at times, particularly in Barbra’s hectic run from the cemetery to the house, as well as the truck “escape” later on, and previous releases never offered this much detail and strong contrast ratios. Add in the quite worthy bonus features, and this is probably the best bang for the buck release ever of this movie (though the 1999 special edition was no slouch either, and in fact I am pretty sure the commentaries on this disc were taken from that release).

The movie, of course, is a classic, and I never tire of watching it. Even Dawn, which I more or less prefer, I really need to be in the mood to watch (partially due to the length), but Night I can throw on pretty much whenever and be just as entertained as I was the first time. And since it was I believe the first time I watched it back to back with the remake (I only did it in reverse because I knew I had to see Rubber today and had to make Night "non-canon" no matter when I watched it, so it just worked out that way), it was eye opening at times with regards to certain aspects, in particular the Ben/Cooper relationship. While their dynamic is antagonistic in both films, it’s more cooperative here. Even after the two come to blows, they still talk like adults and (in their own warped way) work together to come up with a plan, and I particularly like that Ben offers to carry Cooper’s daughter. At the same time, Ben’s more of a dick in this version – he won’t even let Cooper take some food down? What the hell, man?

And as I mentioned yesterday, it’s just a truly creepy film. I can’t imagine how blown away I might have been if I saw it when it was first released, when this level of “gore” and macabre thrills hadn’t really been seen before. By the time I saw it in the mid 90s, I had already seen Dawn, plus the remake and I think even Cemetery Man, not to mention Texas Chain Saw Massacre and any number of gory slashers. But that didn’t diminish its power; those early scenes are still quite effective, and the sense of dread and world-ending doom is apparent throughout the entire film. Even when it’s just the actors yakking in the house sans any zombies, you can FEEL the isolation and general feeling of “we’re all fucked”, in a way that Savini’s remake and pretty much every other non-Romero zombie film (and even some of his, most notably Diary) ever managed. And it starts right off the bat – one of the most effective little ‘scares’ in the movie is when Johnny’s radio suddenly comes back to life, and we realize that it wasn’t off during their drive – it was just ‘down’ due to the zombie plague that had already begun. Awesome.

I also truly appreciate that it set a good precedent for future zombie movies. While I’m not saying it CAN’T be done, I always prefer when the undead still roam at the end of the picture, and I suspect that if Romero had taken that route at the end of Night, it would have been far more common to see “problem solved” endings to these things, with the “it still goes on” endings considered nihilistic, instead of the norm. Interestingly, another concept never really caught on – the fact that zombies eat animals. I’m sure there are a few others, but for whatever reason, a zombie making a snack out of a woodland creature or whatever remains quite elusive (there IS that one shark, however...).

Another thing that elevates this movie above its remake (if you didn’t read that review – in short, I like that film’s ending more than this one, and some of the other little changes, but overall I think this is the superior film) is that it doesn’t introduce Harry and Tom so quickly. I think we’re about 40 minutes into the movie before they show up here (Ben’s arrival is also delayed a bit, allowing more time with an isolated Barbra), whereas they pop up around 25-30 minutes into the remake. I always prefer smaller groups in zombie tales for whatever reason (another reason why I like Dawn more than Night), so keeping it to just Barbra and/or Ben for a longer period totally works for me. Especially since the actors aren’t all that great – the females in particular are pretty stiff (love the delivery on “Don’t be afraid – I’m Helen Cooper!”).

One thing that the remake did better is the key/gas pump scene. Here it really doesn’t make any sense, the key just doesn’t work for some reason, and then Tom starts spraying the gas around like an idiot. He still behaves like an idiot in the remake, but at least they built in some irony with the fact that the gas pump key was clearly labeled and would have been found if Cooper wasn’t such an asshole (or if Ben had just gone into the cellar to begin with). The actual gas pump key in this version remains a mystery.

Speaking of this scene, in film school we had to do a project for our sound class where we got muted clips of a movie and had to recreate the sound design, and I got this particular scene (from the moment they leave the house to right after the truck blows up). I, being a wiseass, gave all the characters “funny” voices (including the insect that buzzes past Cooper’s face when he looks out the window) and did pretty much all the sounds (intentionally poorly) with my mouth: gunshots, explosions, etc. And for the zombies, I took the moaning from Day of the Dead. If I can find it I’ll put it up on Youtube or something.

As I mentioned, this release has some great extras, including a full length retrospective documentary featuring just about everybody of significance (plus John Russo) that is still alive, and contains some great behind the scenes photos and footage, including some priceless photos in color (real color, not colorized). It’s actually sort of jarring to see Johnny and Barbra in full color, but I wouldn’t have minded some more. They cover the entire production, including thoughts on the unfortunate copyright situation (apparently Russo and Russ Streiner are still trying to correct it), and there’s a touching bit about the late Duane Jones that I quite liked. Jones’ last interview (available previously) is also included, and even though he dislikes talking about the film, he still manages to sound personable and intelligent, making it worth a listen even if he barely reflects on his experiences shooting the film. A trailer is also included, and while it’s a typically terrible trailer from the era, I will never not laugh at the voiceover guy’s booming voice when he says “A night... of total ter-ROR!!!” (I also like his overlong dramatic pause for the title: Night!!! ..................of the Living Dead!”). There’s also a brief Q&A with Romero from some Canadian screening or festival, but most of what he says is repeated elsewhere and if there was any audience participation it has been removed; only the moderator asks anything. I prefer to hear the audience questions for these things, because you get more off-the-cuff nonsense.

Another reason I wish I was alive earlier is because I never got to see the movie in a drive-in or on a late night cable broadcast. I think it would be so awesome to be 10 or 11 and staying up late to watch it on one of the local channels (with or without a horror host), or in a drive-in, where I wouldn’t mind the film’s library score and mono soundtrack coming out of my little car speakers (I was recently at a drive-in shooting a movie and was amazed to see people going to see Unstoppable or Red– yeah that DTS sound mix must sound amazing coming out of 1520 AM or whatever the frequency was there). I mean, does it even air on late night broadcasts anymore? Seems the entire late night lineup is comprised of infomercials or actual programming (repeats of CSI, Law & Order and such). One of my favorite parts of Halloween II is when the guy is just sleeping in front of it even though it just started – almost like the movie is a sort of comfort for folks who like these things, the way It’s A Wonderful Life is for Christmas, or how ID4 is almost watchable on the Fourth of July. In fact, it seems almost counter-productive to be watching it on a pristine DVD with a bunch of bells and whistles – I would actually PREFER to go back to a low-quality version, just to retain some of that low-budget feel. But however you see it, if you haven’t yet – you’re doing it wrong. This one film inspired enough material for an entire week’s worth of HMAD entries (and then some), and even on that shitty VHS I first bought, when I was barely into high school, I could recognize its power. One of the few horror films that I truly believe will never ever be forgotten.

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Non Canon Review: Chopping Mall (1986)

JUNE 5, 2010

GENRE: TECHNOLOGY
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (REVIVAL SCREENING)
LAST SEEN: 2006 (DVD)

I remember seeing Chopping Mall (aka Killbots, which is catchy but not AS catchy) at my grandparents’ house back in 1987 or 1988, and being pretty happy. Gore, boobs, robots, Paul Bartel cameos - it was everything that a little kid could ask for in a movie (and it was really short, something that struck me even then). I even distinctly remember my grandfather spoiling that the male lead wasn’t really dead after one of the Killbots tossed a cylinder at him and seemingly broke his head in the ensuing fall. Yet, now in my 5th viewing, I still can never remember that the opening scene is a goddamn commercial, which made me momentarily panic as it began to play on the big screen.

See, I’ve had to PROGRESS to this point. I first saw it taped off of cable, and then again on a copied VHS. I rented a real copy in the mid 90s for my third viewing, and then got the DVD in the mid 00s, only to discover that, while probably better just from being digital, it was a dupe from a VHS (a pan and scan version to boot). So I’ve really never seen the movie in a clean format, and had been really looking forward to seeing a nice print. And then the movie started and I was like “Oh no, it looks like shit! AAARGH!!!” only to remember a few seconds later that it was just a lengthy commercial for the Killbots, a movie within the movie, if you will.

I think part of the problem is that the commercial inexplicably takes place in the same location that the things are about to be introduced to, instead of on a set made for the commercial. Why are people being invited to watch a commercial of something in action in the place it already did something in? Why not just have them come watch that live demo? But more importantly, why am I asking about logic in Chopping Mall???

I’ve been fairly dismissive of Jim Wynorski in previous reviews, but that’s partly because I know he can do better; Chopping Mall is proof positive of that. This is no award winner, but it’s FUN. It’s well paced (actually maybe a bit TOO fast, more on that later), the actors are decent, and looks like more than it cost. Why can’t he put this sort of effort into his modern movies, with all of the years of experience to aid him (this was only his second film)? It’s a damn shame.

It was great to see on the big screen (with Wynorski, co-writer Steve Mitchell, and stars Kelli Muroney and Tony O’Dell in attendance) though, especially the ACTUAL opening scene, which included the two leads from Wynorski’s Raw Force-esque debut Lost Empire (which played before), plus the bigger image allowed me to realize that Angus Scrimm (who also appeared in Lost Empire) is actually the guy asking about the robots. Also, since the last time I saw it wasn’t too long after I moved to LA, it was funny to see the Beverly Center (exteriors, and just a few blocks away from where we were sitting) and the Sherman Oaks Galleria on the big screen. The Galleria has been almost completely overhauled in the past 25 years, but the elevator and general layout of the area where the Arclight is now housed is still recognizable, as is the alley where the one couple’s truck breaks down.

Also, the movie is about killer robots. Not androids or cyborgs (i.e. human-esque ones), genuine rolling/little clawed robots, and the FX really aren’t bad at all. It’s a bit obvious when they have to cut in stuff that the robot isn’t actually doing (various actions with their “hands”), but the scenes where they chase our humans all look great - it’s obvious that the things (or at least, one of them) could actually move on their own, and without digital enhancement. The big screen betrays some of their rough edges (especially where the head meets the body) but they look a million times better than some CG piece of shit. But back to them being robots - there’s something just way more interesting to me about a clunky metal box rolling around killing folks than one that looks human.

The fact that it’s obviously shot in a real mall adds immensely to the film’s strength as well. The store signs are real (there’s even a McDonald’s), apart from a few obvious gags like “Roger’s Little Shop of Animals”, and the movie theater is showing real movies (Krush Groove!). In fact, the only setting that didn’t feel right was the paint store, which I discovered on the commentary was indeed a set. Sets can have genius designs, but there’s a fakeness to them that can’t ever be disguised. The irony is, of course, that the film was probably shot in a real mall because it was cheaper to do so than build a giant set and multiple stores, and not because of any creative reasons, but still, it was a great choice.

The heroes are fairly likable too. They kill off the two most annoying ones first, and even they were more tolerable than anyone in a movie like Slaughter High, which was released the same year. I just wish they had a bit more time before they all knew about the robots. The 2nd victim (not counting various mall personnel, including Dick Miller playing Walter Paisley) dies in front of all of the others, and so the rest is pretty much an extended chase/“let’s try to take one down with random shit that should not be in a mall” sequence. And be it from a budgetary limitation or one of the mall itself (the original Galleria was long gone by the time I moved here, so I have no idea how the mall really looked), it seems like they are running past the same 5 stores over and over. I think they could have cut down on the repetition a bit if they had two more kids had gone out looking for the others, or to break into another store, or something, with some action happening there. There’s a movie theater too - some fun could have been had in that location as well. But it’s never used.

Of course, the goofiness made it more fun at the New Bev. Where I might have scoffed at the notion of an assault rifle being sold at a mall while watching at home, now I applauded the moment along with everyone else in the theatre. And there’s sort of an unspoken rule that any explosion in a film is to be rewarded with cheering and applause, which meant the big finale went over like gangbusters. Plus, unlike a lot of these sort of things, the pace doesn’t let up very much, which made for an even brisker 77 minutes. I also want to point out that it may be the first time in New Bev history where I stayed awake for every second of the 2nd film. THAT is quality.

And you know you’re deep into Awesome B Movie territory when the picture credits at the end puts one over a girl’s exploding head:

It’s a shame that the DVD has such a shit transfer, as it has some decent extras, including a retrospective with Wynorski, Mitchell, and Bob Short, who created the robots, and a commentary with the two former men, which is pretty honest and enjoyable. But as the film is under some sort of legal holdup, it might be your best bet for a while - if you can find it I urge you to pick it up. If you’ve never seen it, it’s a lot better than Wynorski’s other work would have you believe.

Speaking of which, Lost Empire is pretty fun as well. Phil was actually the one to point out the Raw Force similarity, and he is definitely correct. The plot makes almost no sense at all, it combines multiple genres haphazardly (few are the films that include ninjas, killer apes, Satan, mud wrestling, and Native American mysticism), and there is no indication that would suggest anyone involved wasn’t having a blast making it. Plus it had a terrific Alan Howarth score to boot. Again, why did Wynorski seem to be a better filmmaker when he was first starting out? Hell, he even shot it scope! I didn’t stay for Demolition High, which I have seen (also at my grandparents I think, oddly enough), and if my memory is correct, once was enough. If anyone stayed - did you enjoy it?

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Non Canon Review: Scream 3 (2000)

MAY 14, 2010

GENRE: SLASHER
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)
LAST SEEN: 2001 (DVD)

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 Night and 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.

PLEASE, GO ON...

Non Canon Review: Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994)

APRIL 21, 2010

GENRE: SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)
LAST SEEN: 1999 (DVD)

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)?

PLEASE, GO ON...

Non Canon Review: Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991)

APRIL 15, 2010

GENRE: SLASHER, SUPERNATURAL
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)
LAST SEEN: 1999 (DVD)

Things were pretty awesome in September of 1991, because I got to see two R rated horror movies in theaters practically back to back (my first ones, at that - my only previous theatrical horror experience was the PG-13 Poltergeist II). First was Child’s Play 3, which I got to see on its first showing on opening day, as it was the last week of summer vacation before I went back to school. So when Freddy’s Dead: The Final Nightmare opened, I had to “wait” until Saturday afternoon to see it. Stupid school! Sadly this would end my streak; I think the next horror movie I got to see in theaters was Pet Semetary 2, in August of 1992.

I’ve gone back and forth on the film more than any other in the series. Seeing it on the big screen was a big thrill, and thus I “loved” it. But then I started thinking it really wasn’t all that good, only to like it again after a couple of viewings on VHS. And the last time, I REALLY didn’t like it, to the extent where I considered it the worst one. But now I kind of like it again. I dunno what it is about this goddamn movie that I can never really pick an opinion on it. Ask me again in 10 years and I may hate it.

What I like about it is that it’s the first film in the series that managed to be kind of creepy even when Freddy wasn’t around. The entire sequence where they go to Springwood, with its childless, possibly insane residents wandering about, is wonderfully strange (with a clear Twin Peaks influence), and I wish they could have stayed there for the whole movie. I also liked that the characters were actually kind of funny for once instead of just Freddy - John’s “Nothing will get me about of this bed!” bit is still worth a chuckle. Hell, even Freddy managed to make me laugh for once, when he’s dancing around and generally being an asshole behind the deaf kid.

Oh yeah, there’s some goddamn blood in the movie too. Deaf kid’s head explodes, and John gets impaled by a bed of spikes. And in one of the nightmare scenes, one of our heroines bashes her abusive father with an iron, resulting in a pretty kick ass effect. As with Dream Child, there’s only three deaths in the entire movie (all dudes too - has to be a first for a horror movie), but the less convoluted plot and genuinely interesting backstory keeps it from being an issue. And since only one of those deaths is worth watching (the deaf kid), maybe it’s for the best. Another excruciating death sequence like the one for Spence (Breckin Meyer!) could have killed this movie for good - it’s by far the absolute worst/most annoying sequence in the entire series.

I can’t recall if there was any uproar about Freddy having a daughter - it’s true that she was never mentioned before, but no one ever said he DIDN’T have one either. Most of his backstory either involved his conception or the final days of his human life, so there was never any reason to go into his stint as a family man anyway. And it makes sense - if he was killing kids for a while, I would assume that it’s because no one thought to suspect a guy with a wife and a kid of his own. A janitor who lived alone probably would have been suspected right off the bat, no? And I really liked the mystery as to which of our two (three if you count Tracy, though she was an obvious red herring to me even when I was 11 and didn’t yet know what a red herring was) characters was Freddy’s child. Unlike the previous two films, Rachel Talalay and Michael De Luca’s script pulls off the Psycho twist quite well - John really is our connection to the film, but Maggie was developed enough to easily take over the film once he died at the end of the 2nd act. It was a great surprise.

Oh yeah, those last two films? They’re not mentioned. Alice and Jacob aren’t around, and when Freddy lists off the different ways he’s been “killed”, he doesn’t mention being torn apart by the souls inside of his body, or... well, whatever the hell happened at the end of Dream Child. They also don’t even bother explaining his resurrection this time around - he just shows up in John’s nightmare (there’s a thing about how he’s the last Elm Street kid, which would also make more sense if you ignore the last two films). Innovation released a 6 issue comic series that sort of bridges the two films, but after reading it on the official NOES website, I can assure you you’re not missing much. The story was needlessly convoluted, involving Alice, Jacob, Dr. Gordon, Nancy, the Dream Warriors, Dan, Yvonne, etc. And it STILL doesn’t explain where John came from anyway, so it’s wholly unnecessary unless you love “funny” Freddy, as he just delivers pun after pun throughout the story, stopping only to deliver clunky exposition that rivals his nonsense in FvJ.

A “timeless” soundtrack rears its ugly head again, after the largely song-free Dream Child (the Kool Moe Dee rap song played over the end credits, remember). But it’s kind of amusing to hear pre-power ballad-only Goo Goo Dolls, who have two songs in the film, which is probably why the film finally got a soundtrack release in the mid 90s, at the height of the Dolls’ popularity thanks to their hit “Name”. Iggy Pop’s closing credits title tune is pretty far from a toe-tapper, but it’s better than the rap stuff, and plays over a montage featuring highlights from the previous movies (even 2, which was otherwise ignored throughout the entire series). And in keeping with series tradition, the film opens with a quote, only this time it’s followed by one from Freddy Krueger (“Welcome to prime time, bitch!”). Unlike Jason Goes To Hell, this “final” entry really catered to the fan base with these sort of shout-outs, instead of completely ignoring the bulk of the series and sending off its killer in a movie in which he barely appeared.

I do wish the ending was a bit better. It’s a bit anticlimactic to go to the “bring him into the real world” well, since that’s what they did in the first one (though Nancy was actually still dreaming that whole time, so I guess it’s OK), but that they just blow him up is kind of weak. And not even in Springwood at that! If you’re going to kill Freddy fucking Krueger, you gotta do it in an iconic fashion AND setting - not with a homemade pipe bomb in the basement of some halfway house.

Maybe this wasn’t the intention though. According to a (post-release) Fango article, the ending sequence was originally much more elaborate, but it had to be toned down due to the 3D eating up so much of the budget and time. If you ask me it wasn’t worth it - even in theaters (this was my first 3D experience) it was hardly amazing, and it doesn’t work at all at home. I mean, the gimmick was that Freddy was finally being killed - did it really need 3D on top of that? Plus, the idea that Maggie needs to wear 3-D glasses in her dream never makes any sense (nor does her laughable explanation that she’s still seeing things the way she does in her dream - so you’re seeing real life in three dimensions? WHOA!). If anything it sort of detracted from the experience - here we are, killing off one of movie-dom’s all time great monsters, and I’m too busy fiddling with a piece of cardboard so I can see it right, and looking at background/foreground depth instead of what’s happening.

Speaking of those Fango articles, it’s funny to see how the style of the magazine evolved just from reading the respective articles for the past 3 NOES movies. Whereas the articles on Dream Master and Dream Child were loaded with dirt and people complaining (Englund flat out says he doesn’t like the scripts for either film - in the article ostensibly promoting it!), the Freddy’s Dead articles are all happy and sunshine-y, with even comments about the previous films kept largely positive (basically just “this one’s going to be even better!”). There is also a lack of context or insight to the pieces for this film - nothing about why it ignores those films, why they had 3D in the first place, or even why they decided to kill Freddy off for good (heh) this time around. It’s all fluff, and it would just get worse over the years (I can barely even read any recent issue; when they’re not completely spoiling movies with photos and set visit descriptions, they’re ass-kissing all upcoming films and judging all others based on their box office performance). I guess you could say the glory days of Fango died along with Freddy, except they never really came back (ironic footnote - the magazine just underwent a massive overhaul, including a new editor - just as the new NOES film is about to hit theaters! Hopefully the mag will have a creative resurgence).

Back to the movie though: overall, I like more about it than I don’t like, which I guess qualifies it as a success. I think it improved on the previous two films, and it’s certainly more successful than Jason Goes To Hell (which is the only other definitive “final” horror franchise entry I can think of - there was never a Halloween: Michael Myers Dies At The End or Leatherface’s Last Massacre). And its box office success allowed for the daring and mostly great New Nightmare, so thanks for being pretty good and a total lie, Freddy’s Dead!

What say you?

PLEASE, GO ON...