Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Darkman

      Director Sam Raimi had a pretty good 1980's. From his smash hit Evil Dead in 1981, and its sequel in 1987, he would become something of a rising star, along with his good friends Joel and Ethan Coen (themselves rising on the opposite end of the indie circuit with films like Blood Simple and Raising Arizona). A longtime comic book fan, he sought out the rights to Batman and, later, the Shadow, but failed to get them. So, in the grand comic tradition, he decided to make his own character to tell essentially their story. He also took inspiration from the Universal Monsters, especially the idea of a tragic, freak hero and a doomed love story. He would turn in a 40 page treatment called "The Darkman", which he submitted to Universal. Universal accepted the script, and Raimi, his brother Ivan and some other writers hashed out the script. Originally, Raimi wanted his friend, Evil Dead star Bruce Campbell to star as the titular character, but Universal wasn't keen on it. Eventually, the role went to Northern Irish actor Liam Neeson, at the time a minor actor notable for his role in John Boorman's Excalibur. Francis McDormand, the wife of Joel Coen, was cast as the romantic lead. Danny Elfman, who had just come off Tim Burton's Batman, also did the score for this film. The film went through a difficult production, with Raimi finding some friction with cast and crew. The film would be a relative success critically and financially, spawning three sequels, two comics, and several novels. Of course, both Neeson and McDormand would be Oscar winners in later films, and Raimi would go on to direct some actual comic book films in the Spider-Man trilogy and, just recently, the Dr. Strange sequel.

     Dr. Peyton Westlake (Liam Neeson) is a scientist working on a new synthetic skin to help burn victims. His girlfriend Julie Hastings (Francis McDormand) is an attorney investigating a real estate developer Strack Industries, led by Louis Strack (Colin Friels). She confronts him with evidence that they're bribing the local zoning commission. In vengeance (and to get rid of incriminating evidence), Strack's ally Robert Durant (Larry Drake) breaks into Westlake's lab, killed Westlake's assisstant Yakitito (Nelson Mashita), and torture Westlake. After burning his hands and putting his face in acid, Westlake is left to die, but manages to barely escape, leaving Hastings to think he's dead. He ends up a John Doe, given a radical new treatment that makes him impervious to pain. He breaks out, and as with any good superhero story, decides to take vengeance on those who wronged him. 

     I'll admit, I never really cared for Tim Burton's Batman. It was well-shot, and the production design looks good, but the story is really haphazard and it gets kind of silly, especially towards the end. I honestly think this was a better execution of the general idea behind that film. Raimi manages to evoke the panels and settings of a comic (especially a Marvel comic book with the idea of a freak as a hero) onto film, including psychedelic features and really creative action scenes. It's always entertaining to watch. Of course, Liam Neeson and Francis McDormand are great actors, and they bring a lot of pathos to these characters and their interaction. I like that Raimi makes this a full-on tragedy, taking the best part of the Universal Monsters (the idea of the monsters as tragic heroes) and applying it to a superhero story, making this a very dark, dramatic film about injury and loss. With, you know, comic book villains and fight scenes. 

     Two main problems I can think of. Parts of this film are very slow, and they tend to stretch longer than they need to. This is a problem with the climax of the film. I also felt the film had too much information. Maybe it was just more anxiety focus, but I had trouble following parts of the film because the events tended to get to complicated with the zoning conspiracy and the details about the mask. 

    This is definitely worth a watch, if only to see two Oscar winners in a very early role, and an acclaimed director doing a prototype of his more successful work. Plus, it's just a really fun, really entertaining film that works as a drama. I highly recommend it to superhero fans, and for those who, like me, didn't really care for Tim Burton's Batman.

    Alright, November 1st, and I've finally caught up to my own schedule. This year.... Well, we close out on an excellent film that came out last year, Bit. Thanks for reading, and happy Halloween. 

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Silence of the Lambs

    The Silence of the Lambs, Harris' 1988 sequel to Red Dragon, was originally optioned by actor Gene Hackman and Orion Pictures, with Hackman starring in the role of Jack Crawford. Hackman would exit the film eventually (uncomfortable in violent roles after starring in the Civil Rights drama Mississippi Burning), but Orion covered all costs, confident in the film and the developing script from Ted Tally. Eventually, Jonathan Demme (known at the time for quirky films like Melvin and Howard, Swimming to Cambodia, and Married to the Mob) was chosen as director. Demme cast Anthony Hopkins as Lecter based on his performance in David Lynch's The Elephant Man. Jodie Foster was interested in the role of FBI agent Clarice Starling, but Demme didn't consider her until he had exhausted other actresses. Ted Levine (a friend of William Petersen and Michael Mann, the star and director of Manhunter) was cast as the villain Buffalo Bill. Filmed in Pennsylvania, the cast would research the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit and actual serial killers to study their roles. Released in 1991, it is, of course, one of the most iconic films ever made, and was the first horror film to win the Academy Award for Best Picture (indeed, the third film to win the Oscars for Best Picture,  Best Director (Demme), Best Actor (Hopkins as Lecter), Best Actress (Foster as Starling), and Best Adapted Screenplay (Tally, adapting Harris). The film would become a perennial favorite, and would make Hannibal Lector a household name. 

      Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) is a trainee at the FBI Academy in Quantico, who is called by Jack Crawford (Scott Glenn) of the Behavioral Science Unit. He wants her to interview notorious cannibal serial killer Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins), stuck in a Baltimore asylum run by arrogant Dr. Fredrick Chilton (Anthony Heald). Lecter could give insight into the whereabouts of Buffalo Bill (Ted Levine), who has been kidnapping women and murdering them. Lecter gives some clues, which is useful as Catherine Martin (Brooke Smith), the daughter of a prominent US senator, is kidnapped by Bill, upping the stakes.

         The film is very well shot. That's the first thing that stood out to me when I watched this many years ago. It's well shot, a lot of interesting angles, an especially interesting climax with complete darkness and night vision goggles. It helps build the tense atmosphere of the film, while providing both the investigation and the scares with intense action. Anthony Hopkins is iconic as Hannibal. Again, not necessarily sure if his performance is better than Brian Cox's, but it's definitely the definitive version. A lot of his quirks and coldness shine through, and Hopkins makes the character work despite him not being in the film. Foster does well as the main character, carrying the film with her chemistry with Hopkins and her Southern accent is fine. The film is easier to follow and less confusing than Manhunter. 

      The biggest thing hanging over my head watching this was the transphobia. As a newly out trans person myself, I did look at this film in a new light, especially an excellent documentary on Netflix you should watch called Disclosure, about transgender representation in film. Even as a questioning person, I figured that the film does explain that Bill wasn't actually trans, but merely thought themselves trans (itself a faulty concept in retrospect), so the film had an out in that . Rewatching the film, I'm less convinced of that. The character has all the signifiers stereotypically attributed to trans or other LGBTQ people, and whether or not they were actually  trans, the portrayal does resemble the stigma of us being mentally ill, especially the idea of a serial killer making a suit. So, that aspect is probably the most uncomfortable part of watching this in the modern day, especially as it may have contributed to the aforementioned stigma. Also, after a rather deliberate first two acts, the film just rushes to an end. Clarice doesn't even find out Buffalo Bill's identity, and she stumbles on them by accident. 

    It's definitely a well-crafted, well-directed film with good cinematography and good acting all around. The main specter on this film is Buffalo Bill and the transphobia, so I wouldn't quite know if to recommend this film. Maybe check the facts, and see if you, as an individual would be comfortable seeing this film. 

    I suppose it's an impromptu trilogy now, because for my next review, I'm doing the second adaptation of Red Dragon.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Body Bags

      Lucky me, not much history around for this. This was originally going to be a horror anthology TV series on Showtime, their attempt at aping the success of HBO's Tales from the Crypt. However, after filming three segments, they decided to just make this a standalone television film. John Carpenter had just come off the Chevy Chase comedy (yes, really) Memoirs of an Invisible Man, and Tobe Hopper had done several flops since directing the Stephen Spielberg produced Poltergeist. To continue the EC Comics host tradition, Carpenter himself is the host of the film's wraparound segments.  It was aired on Showtime on August 8th, 1993, to relatively positive critical reception.

     As an anthology film, there are three segments to this film, each introduced by a delightfully morbid coroner (John Carpenter). Segment one, "The Gas Station", features a gas station near Haddonfield, Illinois (why yes, John Carpenter did direct this one!), where Anne (Alex Datcher) is going to work for the night shift, replacing Bill (Robert Carradine). However, she is frightened by reports of a lunatic who escaped the local asylum. And she's keeping an eye out for all patrons. The second segment, "Hair" (not the musical), deals with Richard Corbets (Stacey Keach) a middle aged dude scared of losing his hair. He soon learns of a treatment from a television ad (always a great source), promoted by Dr. Lock (ha!)(David Warner). He soon gets a full head of hair, but maybe it works too well. The final segment "Eye" has baseball player Brent Matthews (Mark Hamill) losing his eye in a car accident, dooming his career. He soon learns of an experimental treatment where he gets an eye transplant. From a dead person. A very bad dead person.

     First and foremost, Carpenter as the host is a lot of fun. He just has a lot of energy, and he delivers his sardonic, dark humor with a lot of glee and fun. It gives the film a lot of irreverence, which makes it stand out. I kind of want to see a whole series just to see Carpenter doing this bit so more. It's just a lot of fun seeing him and the segments are very funny. The segments themselves are all pretty good. The first one is a good short riff on Halloween with a twist. It reminds me a lot of the better moments of that film. The setting and paranoia also works. The second seems like it wouldn't really work, but in Carpenter's hands, it's a good comedy short, in the vein of a comedy Twilight Zone episode. The third one, directed by Tobe Hopper, is a pretty good short horror film (and it's always great to see or hear Mark Hamill in anything.) An interesting thing: a lot of cameos. Wes Craven and Sam Raimi appear in the first segment, Debbie Harry of Blondie in the second, and Roger Corman in the third. That's a lot of fun.

    I think the biggest complaint I have is that these feel too cinematic. Like, for stuff written to be essentially segments of an EC comic book based show, the length and scale feel too much like these should be their own separate films, and thus, paradoxically, they feel a bit too short to be satisfactory. Compared to something like Creepshow, which was theatrically released, and whose segments felt appropriate. Here, the production values feel too good, and thus it feels a bit disonent as a TV movie. I suppose if "it feels too good" is a criticism, then the film isn't that bad. 

   This was a delightfully morbid time. A lot of fun action and gore, John Carpenter hamming it up as a horror host, and just well-written segments. I highly recommend this as a good anthology film if you ever want one. It's definitely an underrated classic if there ever was one. 

    Alright, tomorrow, we look at Hannibal Lecter. No, not Silence of the Lambs. Rather his first film appearance. Manhunter.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- The People Under The Stairs

   In 1978, a pair of burglars broke into a Los Angeles home. When police investigated, they found the couple who owned the home had kept several children locked inside, never having seen the light. The story made enough of an impression on Wes Craven that he decided to make a film based around the premise of two burglars coming across a home where the children were kept in a dark basement. The main villains in the film were played by Everett McGill and Wendy Robie, who played a married couple on Twin Peaks. The house used in the film was the Thomas W. Phillips residence in Los Angeles. In a Fangoria interview, Craven said this was closer to his visceral horror flick The Hills Have Eyes, than other pictures had done up until them. With a modest $6 million dollar budget, it was a box office success, and widely regarded as one of Craven's finest.

   Poindexter "Fool" Williams (Brandon Adams) lives in a Los Angeles ghetto with his family, including sister Ruby (Kelly Jo Minter), who gave Poindexter the name "Fool," from tarot cards, and dying mother Mary (Connie Marie Brazelton). Sadly, they are about to evicted, because the mysterious owners of the complex, the Robesons (Everett McGill and Wendy Robie, referred to as Mommy and Daddy) want to demolish it and set up a wealthy condominium. The two are very abusive to their daughter Alice (AJ Langer). Ruby's friend Leroy (Ving Rhimes) gains an idea to rob the Robesons after finding out they own both a local liquor store and a lot of the apartments in the ghetto. Leroy coerces Fool into participating by pointing out the looming threat of eviction and his mother's cancer. They scope out the place, and when their associate Spencer (Jeremy Roberts) is able to get in, they sneak in as the family moves out for a bit. However, they soon find that the Robesons have a very dark secret. Something within their very walls and under their feet....

     I honestly don't know where to start, there's a lot to cover. I see what Craven means by how this was close to The Hills Have Eyes. However, I would also give say this was something of an urban riff on Texas Chainsaw. That film was, along with a visceral, violent horror film, a satire of the Nixon-era "Silent Majority", which at that time was represented by traditional, conservative white families, represented in that film by the cannibalistic, impoverished Sawyer clan. The Robeson's are also psychotic and cannibalistic, but they represent the other end of that spectrum, being very wealthy, secluded old money, but with the same amount of inbredding and corruption that degraded their minds over generations. Along with their child abuse and kidnapping, they also maliciously destroy the larger community around them by raising the rents of long-time residents and forcing them out to build office spaces and condos for "nice people" (their racism throughout the film makes it clear what they mean by that). There could be an entire essay about the film's portrayal of gentrification and its relationship to property and capitalism. The Robesons hoard all the money they gain from extorting their tenants, which seems to make them more corrupt and more greedy, even kidnapping children and holding them captive to try to satiate that greed. Of course, it isn't very subtle that these degraded old money cannibals also represent Reagan-era conservatism, with their strong Christianity and focus on "traditional values", which they impose on Alice. It really manages to bring all those ideas together and balances them out, managing to connect them all in a way that also serves the plot. And onto it as a horror film, it is incredibly. Very good jumpscares throughout, that stick with you. Very good tension building as Fool and Leroy try to explore and figure out what's happening. Very sympathetic heroes and very manical villains. Others have pointed out how the burglars are sympathetic here, and  the more evil is with the homeowners, as opposed to most movies in general (imagine Home Alone if Kevin was the villain....). Perfect lighting, with it enough dark to create atmosphere, but light enough to see. Incredible score. A great twist that you could not see coming. There's so much that just works.

    I honestly don't know if there are any flaws. Maybe that some scenes do go on a bit long (especially during the second act, as Fool and Alice try to flee the house, and the ending), and I had kind of wished they had gone a bit more into the effects the Robesons had on the ghetto, and how they destroyed by their renting practices.  It was just handled so well that it could've worked even more had it been explored beyond Fool's family.

    I think this is one of my new favorite horror films. It really is truly something to behold, both managing to be biting social satire exploring the effects of gentrification, racism, and capitalism on the black community, and  a very terrifying horror film with some of the best scares and twists I've seen in a while. I highly recommend it to check out, especially if you like horror, but also for anyone wanting good fiction that explores this sorts of topics.

    Next week, it's Guillermo del Toro again, with The Devil's Backbone.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Scream

     In August of 1990, a Shreveport, Louisiana man named Danny Rollings murdered 5 college students in Gainesville, Florida. The sheer grisly nature of the murders and the meticulousness by which they were committed caught national headlines. When the show Turning Point did an episode on the incident in 1994, it caught the attention of a struggling actor and screenwriter named Kevin Williamson. Williamson, then shopping around his script Killing Ms. Tingle (later Teaching Ms. Tingle, which was released in 1999 with Williamson himself as director), got inspired to write about a killer who stalks and taunts a young women in her home. Eventually, taking influence from his childhood love of slashers (especially the first Halloween), Williamson proceeded to add meta-elements alluding to the cliches of horror movies. Williamson's agent put the script, then titled Scary Movie, on sale in 1995, where it became the subject of a massive bidding war. Emerging victorious was Dimension Studios, a division of Miramax, owned by Harvey and Bob Weinstein. The Weinsteins, as per usual, made some changes to the script to increase the killings and give at least some of the killers motivations, but also remove some of the gorier moments. Wes Craven (already beginning to tire of the horror genre he had helped define for 20 years) read the script and had some interest, but was pre-occupied with a remake of The Haunting he was involved with. When that project fell apart (and star Drew Barrymore signed on), he subsequently accepted an offer by Bob Weinstein to helm the director's chair. At this time, the title was changed to Scream, an allusion to a song by Michael Jackson. Craven and Williamson resisted the change, marking one of several conflict they'd have with the Weinsteins during production (including whether to shoot in the US or Canada, a conflict that almost got Craven removed from the film). Ultimately, the film was shot in some California suburbs. For effects, the killer's mask was a 1991 design by Fun World, which was dubbed "Ghostface" before the debut of the film. The film used 50 gallons of fake blood. After further cuts to get an R rating, the film was finally released on December 20th, 1996 (meant to be for horror fans during the drought of the holiday season), and while the initial weekend earnings were disappointing, word of mouth made it a massive box office success. It was a critical success, but it was also embroiled in controversy due to some copycat murders and especially in the controversy over media violence after the Columbine Massacre.

    Teenager Casey Becker (Drew Barrymore) is idly making popcorn and preparing to watch a horror movie, when a mysterious caller (Roger L. Jackson) begins to pester her, asking her about various horror movies. The caller soon escalates the stakes, saying he's just outside, and showing Casey's boyfriend Steve Orth (Kevin Patrick Walls) tied up in his backyard. Eventually, the killer breaks in, and after a struggle, kills Becker and hangs her as a warning to others. The killings make local news, and in particular impacts Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) whose own mother was killed in a similar fashion only a year earlier, despite the killer, Cotton Weary (Liev Schreiber), on death row. While her father Neil (Lawrence Hecht) is out for work, Sidney is left home alone, her boyfriend Billy Loomis (Skeet Ulrich, and given the debt this has to Halloween, the name was likely intentional) sneaking in every now and again. The two pal around with friends Tatum Riley (Rose McGowan), Tatum's policeman brother Dewey (David Arquette),Stu Macher (Matthew Lillard, sadly not playing it in his Shaggy voice), and Randy Meeks (Jamie Kennedy, being obnoxious as per usual). One night, the killer targets Sidney in her home, but manages to evade him. As she is besieged by the media, including Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox), who wrote a sensationalist book about the murder of Sidney's mother, she must figure out who is trying to kill her, especially when the principal of the high school (Henry Winkler. Yes, the Fonz is in this) is killed.

     First and foremost, Wes Craven remains a very effective director of horror. He uses tracking shots, subtle blocking, and lighting to make the kills and attacks even scarier and more effective. It helps to make it effective as a slasher, and keep the viewer interested. The mystery of Ghostface does provide a compelling impetus for the plot, and it does pay off with a good twist that is well explained (and does tie into slasher tropes of all types.) Some of the kills are pretty creative, and some of the jokes funny.

     Perhaps the metaness of the film was fresh in 1996, because the slasher boom of the 80's was starting to subside by then, but a lot of the tropes satirized is so spelled out that it comes off as tedious. Characters will literally stop and explain horror movies and their tropes and how it relates to the plot. It ruins any of the meta subtext working or even the scariness itself working in its own right. Sometimes, they'll explain movies, despite them being well-known or at least somewhat known. At one point, they describe the film The Howling. There's the famous scene of Jamie Kennedy describing horror tropes, which completely stops the movie cold. This is a big enough problem, given the whole film is centered on this aspect, but it also doesn't help that Ghostface is just not very intimidating as a villain. His phone voice sounds like I do at 6 AM, when I've got 2 hours of sleep, and he runs around like he forgot his keys. Sometimes, his deaths are entirely accidental, and he just runs with it. I thought he was going to be like a Wile E. Coyote type using gadgets, and he kind of is, only Wile E. Coyote mostly used inventions, and didn't alternate techniques.

    This is a very 90's movie, with a very 90's sense of postmodernism and irony lathered all over it like barbeque sauce on a pair of ribs. In this case, it's a good period piece for that particular point in time, and how a horror movie used it to comment on its predecessors. So, even if I didn't necessarily care for the film, it works to give what was the new horror of the 90's. So, if you're interested in 90's films, it might be some good viewing. Otherwise, I can't say this was a particular good slasher or a good deconstruction. A lot of it was just too blunt or tedious to really work.

  Tomorrow, we look at Brian de Palma's reinterpretation of the Phantom of the Opera with Phantom of the Paradise.  

Summer of Terror- Wes Craven's New Nightmare

    As I discussed a few entries back, Wes Craven wrote the concept of Freddy haunting the real life cast and crew of a new Nightmare on Elm Street film for the third film, which was rejected, but reused for this. Craven wanted a return to the darker, more surreal tone of the first one, as opposed to the increasingly absurd sequels (given the last two, this was probably the best move.) Heather Langenkamp returns, this time as herself, since the film was set in the real world, and part of the plot was based on a stalker she had dealt with following the cancellation of her sitcom Just the Ten of Us (a spin-off of Growing Pains). Craven himself, Robert Englund (both in and out of make-up), John Saxon, producers Robert Shaye and Sara Riser, and several of the actors also make appearances as themselves. Craven used many of the props from the original, including Freddy's original wardrobe. Given that the 1994 Earthquake had happened during production, that was incorporated into the script with shots of damage still being repaired in the film itself. Released on October 14th, 1994 (ten years after the first one), it would gross $19 million on an $8 million budget, and received mostly positive reviews from critics. This would be the penultimate performance of Robert Englund as Freddy Krueger (with Freddy vs. Jason being the last, but I already reviewed that, so it's the last film we're covering with him as Freddy.), and Wes Craven's last point of involvement for the franchise before his death in 2015.

     Heather Langenkamp is an actress who garnered attention as Nancy Thompson in the original Nightmare on Elm Street, and lives in Hollywood with her husband Chase Porter (David Newsom. Langenkamp's real husband apparently declined to appear) and son Dylan (Miko Hughes). She starts the film with a nightmare, where Freddy's (Robert Englund) glove attacks a couple of effect guys ( Matt Winston and Rob LaBelle), and has been dealing with a mysterious stalker who keeps quoting Freddy. Not helping matters is her child exhibiting strange behaviors, and dealing with a mysterious figure seemingly like Freddy, despite him never seeing any of the films. She is approached by producer Robert Shaye to star as Nancy in the new Nightmare film that Wes Craven is making (despite Freddy dying in the last one), which her husband (a special effects artist, much like Langenkamp's real husband David Leroy Anderson) has been working on. Sure enough, her husband is attacked by Freddy's glove and dies in a car crash. Afterwards, Dylan begins to becomes more and more unhinged, seemingly influenced by Krueger. Now, Heather must solve that, and why she seems to be having nightmares much reminsicent of the series that made her famous. And her co-star Robert Englund and director Wes Craven might hold the key to the whole mystery.

     Some see the metanarrative of this as a precursor to Craven's later franchise Scream. I've never seen any of those films, but I thought it worked well in this film. It forgoes in-jokes and subtle references in favor of exploring what happens when reality and fiction begin to overlap, and the power of symbols and representation (in this case, a single fictional character). There's a fantastic scene where Wes Craven shows an unfinished script, and the dialogue is what the previous scene had stated. It really has starts to get that way as the walls of reality begin to crumble, and what is a dream or fiction and what is real feels tenuous.  It helps that Freddy returns to being more of an ever-present menace that he was in the first scene, which makes some of these scenes truly terrifying, especially towards the end with him chasing people. Heather Langenkamp gives a great performance, probably my favorite of hers in the series in fact, where she seems naturalistic, but manages to retain a sense of terror, especially as her son is put into danger.  While it may lack the elaborate dream sequences of the previous films, the more grounded, very gory dreams in this more than make up for it, especially when it get towards the end. The effects are some of the finest in this series.

     I complained about the short length of the some of the earlier films, but this actually has the opposite problem. At 112 minutes, it is a bit too long. A lot of the first half of this film could be shortened or removed entirely, and the general jist of it would be the same. It does drag in some scenes because of this length issue. Also, I feel that Robert Englund as himself should've been in it more, or done a bit more in the scenes he was in. Also, a description of the Nightmare film that they were developing in film would've been interesting.

      I think this is probably the best one of these after the first (with the third a close second), and whether you are a horror fan or not, it is an interesting exercise in metanarrative, having a fictional character slowly invade the real world and the people making the films. It is really fascinating the way it integrates both elements.  It seems like a practice run for when Craven did his next big franchise Scream, which would come to define slashers for the next decade. I highly recommend it, (though watch the first for some context)

    Like I said, I already did Freddy vs. Jason, and even watching this, I really have nothing to say about it. This will be the last of the original continuity we'll cover, and tomorrow, we'll skip ahead to the 2010 reboot.

Summer of Terror- Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare

     The initial script for this had a grown up Jacob David Johnson (the child of Alice from the last film) fighting Freddy and the "Dream Warriors" from the third one coming back to assist him. Ultimately, director Rachel Talalay (making her directorial debut with this film, though having worked on some of the previous films as both an effects person and a producer) disliked the script and had Michael de Luca (a screenwriter and New Line executive who later wrote In the Mouth of Madness, which I discussed two years ago) re-write it. Another idea (from Peter Jackson. Yes, that one) had teenagers coming into Freddy's realm to beat him senseless. Several major celebrities made cameos including Alice Cooper (without make-up), Rosanne Barr, and Johnny Depp, making a return to the franchise that put his name on the map. The last ten minutes were in 3-D, though this feature was removed from some releases (including the one I saw). The late John Carl Buechler, who directed Friday the 13th, Part VII, did the effects for the film. The film did well, having highest opening-weekend box office gross of the series, and the fifth overall best, but was lambasted by critic, many placing on a list of the worst of 1991.

    So, Freddy (Robert Englund) is not in fact dead, but has wiped out all the children and teens in Springwood. However, one lone survivor (Shon Greenblatt) manages to wriggle his way out, but is knocked unconscious, and gains amnesia. While recovering in a troubled youth center, he becomes a patient of Dr. Maggie Burroughs (Lisa Zane, sister of Billy) , who also treats Spencer (Breckin Meyer), Tracy (Lezlie Deane) and Carlos (Ricky Dean Logan) at the center. She is fairly skeptical of her colleague's Doc (Yaphet Kotto) "dream therapy". Burroughs tries to take the survivor ("John Doe") back to Springwood, and the three teens hitch a ride in an escape attempt. And well, Freddy gets bored easily, apparently.

    Okay, this has some interesting moments, particularly exploring Freddy's youth and his death, finally giving hints as to how he manages to have these abilities. The effects are superb as usual, and the last ten minutes are pretty good, managing to conclude this incarnation of the series with a conclusive death.

       I complained about how cartoonish some of the deaths had been in the last one, and this one is far worse. There is literally a segment where a character is trapped in a video game, and Freddy spouts old Nintendo ad slogans. The other major deaths are potentially interesting, but they either go on too long or they're just absurd. I finally get why this version of the character got on people's nerves, because it does get grating to have him spout puns and jokes all the time, and it really took the menace out of him. Add to that, again, the writing isn't that good, with reused scares and ideas that never really get explored. This doesn't even have good dream sequences to make up for that, so there's really nothing to see here.

     Yeah, I'm going to go out on a limb, and say this is probably the worst of these. I think this is a good skip, unless you really want to finish the series or see how he was demolished before Freddy vs. Jason. Otherwise, I can't think of any reason to see this.

    Alright, now we get on to Wes Craven's New Nightmare tomorrow.

Current Film Reviews- Pokemon: Detective Pikachu

        Back when I successfully turned my October horror reviews from short reviews done on my Facebook to full reviews here, I experimented with other sorts of review series to do. One of those was "Pokecember", where I did reviews of the Pokemon movies every December. Since they reliably come out each year with the anime, I could hypothetically do it for a while. I successfully finished off the six films before the Advanced Generation, but after Jirachi Wish Maker, it tapered off. I was in Freshman year of college, and a lot of stuff got in the way of doing another. Ultimately, I never picked it back up, but have since started other series to pick up the slack for slow months. However, with this film bringing Pokemon back into the public consciousness, I might bring it back this December, so watch out for that.

     Based on the 2018 video game of the same name (part of the multimillion dollar franchise created by Satoshi Taijiri), the film follows Tim Goodman (Justice Smith), who gave up his dreams of being a Pokemon trainer in favor of being an insurance adjuster. He is forced to go to the non-region specific Ryme City, founded by billionaire Howard Clifford (Bill Nighy) as a place where humans and Pokemon can interact peacefully, without any of that battling nonsense, when his policeman father is reported dead from a severe car accident. However, while searching his father's apartment, he finds a Pikachu (Ryan Reynolds), who talks! And has his father's hat, meaning he was his father's companion. This leads to the conclusion that his father might still alive. This leads Tim and the Pikachu to become an unlikely team to investigate his death, with the help of intrepid reporter Lucy Stevens (Kathryn Newton) and her Psyduck, and eventually unravel a conspiracy involving Clifford's organization and the legendary Pokemon Mewtwo.

     I loved that the Pokemon are the right amount of realistic. They look like they exist in the real world, and their presence against living breathing humans isn't jarring. However, they still look like their game counterparts, and still have the traits of them. (The designs were apparently helped by  This sufficient level of realism really cements the respect the makers of this film have for the material. They take it seriously enough that it never becomes too camp or dumb (like some of the weaker anime movies tend to get), but it still has the right amount of fun, humor, and absurdity that the franchise has always had. The filmmakers were not embarrassed by the source material, and use its creativity and wonderful creatures to build a new story and setting to explore underappreciated parts of the franchise (like how Pokemon are integrated into human society). As a lifelong fan, I really appreciated all the little nods and references they make throughout and all the cameos that I can name, but I feel that it is still accessible to a general audience, especially the target audience of children. All that aside, this was just fun to watch. A real thrill that keeps you interested and intrigued throughout, it manages to use the standard three act hero's journey to great effect. I especially liked the twists (no spoilers), and how they are generally built up as you see the film, and makes you reconsider what you saw before. It also had one hell of an exciting climax.

    I had a massive problem with the pacing of the film. It feels like it goes too fast at parts, especially in establishing the relationship between Pikachu and Tim. They just start investigating the crime almost immediately after meeting. I wish a little bit more time had spent on their relationship, and how it grows throughout the film. Not to say there wasn't any time dedicated to this, but that there needed to be a little more time to allow it to be cemented. There are also parts that are underexplained, and feel like they are shown in cut scenes. It makes for an occasionally confusing viewing experience. I think they were hoping the viewer is intelligent to figure, but a little explanation.

    As I said, I am a big fan of Pokemon, so my opinion of this film is colored by that. Normally, the flaws that are in this would lower its reputation, but I was so enthralled by the world they create and how well they managed to make the Pokemon world feel like a real place, I choose to ignore those and just sit back for the ride. And really, when the good stuff is that good, I can easily forgive the small things. So, yeah, this is a definite recommendation for Pokemon fans. If you aren't (which is likely), I think it works well enough in its own right, but I also largely would recommend it for kids, who'll enjoy it. I should know, if this came out when I was a kid, this would've been my stuff.

  Next on the docket, I explore the reputation of Ishtar in another Dailles and Nightlies  

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- The Blair Witch Project

      The found footage sub-genre of horror was said to have been started by the 1980 Italian feature Cannibal Holocaust, where it was used to satirize Italian media coverage of terrorist groups during the "Years of Lead". In 1998, The Last Broadcast, an American film, used the format to tell the story of the Jersey Devil. In 1993,   Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez, students at the University of Central Florida, had the idea of a fictional documentary on a mysterious paranormal phenomenon, based on their shared opinion that paranormal documentaries were scarier than traditional horror films. They decided to combine more traditional horror tropes from films like The Shining and Alien with documentaries like the series In Search of...(narrated by Leonard Nimoy, incidentally) and, probably the biggest influence, Charles Pierce's 1972 docudrama The Legend of Boggy Creek (about the Fouke monster, a bigfoot like creature in Arkansas). They formed Haxan films to produce it, and spend years refining the concept, using multiple influences, including mystics like Rasputin and Edward Kelly, the Salem Witch Trials, and Arthur Miller's The Crucible. Leads Heather Donahue, Michael C. Williams, and Joshua Leonard were hired through auditions in the Musical Theater Works in New York. Eventually, the film would begin principal photography in Maryland, which lasted 8 days until Halloween, 1997. The actors were unaware that the mythology of the Blair Witch was entirely fabricated by the directors, or that the townspeople they interviewed were planted. They also improvised, due to unexpected events the directors threw in. Over twenty hours of footage was shot, which was cut down to 2 and a half hour film, which was screened at the Sundance Film Festival. Hoping at least for a television run, the directors were likely surprised when Artisan Entertainment (known for films like Reservoir Dogs and Bad Lieutenant) purchased the film for $1.1 million. Sure enough, the film, with a budget of only $60,000, grossed $284 million at the box office. The fictional mythology and footage of the film was trumpeted as real during publicity, which is credited as helping the film. The film spawned off two sequels and a larger media franchise.

      The film starts with a disclaimer that the footage we are about to see was recovered from the woods after the mysterious disappearance of Heather Donahue, Michael Williams, and Joshua Leonard in the Maryland woods. Said footage shows them interviewing various citizens of the town of Blair, Maryland about a local legend called "The Blair Witch". They hear of 1940's child murderer Rustin Parr, and of a woman in the 1800's, Robin Weaver, who saw an old woman floating when she was lost in the woods. The documentarians head into the woods in search of the legend, but gradually become lost due to Mike throwing the map in the creek. As tensions rise between the three, they find a number of strange occurrances have been happening. Starting as twig snaps in the night, they escalate as the three travel through the woods.

       Martin Scorsese once observed that "cinema is a matter of what is in the frame and what's out [of the frame]". I think this film is the most apparent example of that within the horror genre. A lot of the actual scares are mostly off-camera. The characters clearly see it, and react to it viscerally, but we the audience don't see it ourselves. This actually intensifies the scares, since we aren't sure what is chasing them. Sometimes, it works to great effect to reveal things, such as one evocative scare towards the end where a bundle of sticks reveals the remains of one of the leads, or the final scene. It is more effective than I thought, especially with the lack of music and the subtlety of it. Similarly, the realism really works, with the characters acting as people might act in this scenario. I did like the early scenes with the weird sub-documentary look to it. It really makes it seem like a real thing.

     The main problem with the film is that it lulls towards the middle, with the characters largely screaming at each other and walking in the woods. This really doesn't add much, and admittedly, a lot of this review was written while that part was happening, because I felt nothing of note was going on. It is also fairly short. I know that there is a longer cut somewhere, and maybe that has more scares and mythology, but I would rather not watch a film of just walking for 2 hours.

      I enjoyed this more than I thought I would. It was effective, it never actually showed what was haunting the people (unlike other films of this particular genre), and it has a surprising sense of folklore and mythology. Plus, it just feels like a real documentary. So, this is a recommendation, though bare in mind it is very boring towards the middle.

    Tomorrow, I deal with the Spanish film Spirit of the Beehive.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- In The Mouth of Madness

       The script for In the Mouth of Madness was originally written by Michael De Luca, then Vice President of Creative Development at New Line Cinema in the mid-1980's. One of the first directors he offered it to was John Carpenter... who rejected it, feeling the script needed more work. After Tony Randel (Hellbound: Hellraiser II, Fist of the North Star) and Mary Lambert (Pet Sematary) were briefly attached to the project, Carpenter finally came on board in 1992 after reading an improved version of the script, after finishing his work on the anthology film Body Bags. Carpenter (as he often does) did an uncredited rewrite of the script, along with novelist Evgenia Citkowitz. Carpenter felt he could use the film both as his way of exploring Lovecraftian themes and explore the hysteria that surrounded horror media(his included).Originally having a budget of $15 million, it was reduced to $10 million, and finally $8 million. New Zealander actor Sam Neill, whom Carpenter had worked with in the comedy film Memoirs of an Invisible Man , was cast as the lead, which would prove to be a casting coup, giving he was also the lead in Stephen Spielberg's Jurassic Park, which had been recently released. (Charlton Heston was also given a minor role). It was filmed in Ontario between August and October 1993. It released to mixed reviews, and disappointing box office ($8.9 million, Carpenter's lowest until 2001's Ghosts of Mars). Still, in recent years, it has gotten a critical reappraisal. Carpenter himself has stated this was the third in his "Apocalypse Trilogy" (The Thing and Prince of Darkness being the other two.)

       The film opens with John Trent (Sam Neill) being committed to an asylum. While in his room, he has a vision of a visitor, whom he recognizes, and asks if this was the end. The visitor then shows him a stranger vision. Later, a psychologist, Dr. Wrenn (David Warner) visits Trent, and Trent is able to recount his tale. Trent was an insurance fraud investigator, known for his thorough work, who is hired by publisher Jackson Harglow (Charlton Heston) to find missing author Sutter Cane (Jürgen Prochnow), a popular horror novelist whose work even exceeds Stephen King, and whose newest novel, In the Mouth Of Madness, is to be released. Trent deduces from the covers of the books that he must be in New Hampshire, in a town called Hobb's Lane not on any map. Cane is sent to find him, accompanied by Cane's editor Linda Styles (Julie Carmen). They find that Cane's fiction may be more than fiction. Then again, they also find reality a bit flimsy as well...

     This was a perfect Lovecraftian film. Very much in his themes and style, while not being a direct adaptation of one of his works. At first, it may seem to slowly lose coherence, but it actually makes sense when thought of in a Lovecraftian sense. To the character of John Trent, who has a worldview informed by his own rationalization of people's behavior (as shown when he exposes a fraudulent claim early in the film), who finds that reality is more flimsy than he thinks, and that his rationalization of the world is insufficient to explain the events around him. Slowly, his mind is destroyed by the knowledge that the reality he had clung to was just a facade, a playground for beings beyond his comprehension to play around with, changing the details at any moment. Cane is their agent, and he can also shape this reality to fit whatever their needs are. Sam Neill is especially good in conveying this growing unease and insanity. I liked the subtle references to Lovecraft and other cult figures (Quatermass and Stephen King, among others). The effects are good, and there are some incredibly creepy and terrifying ones. These all help create the atmosphere of incomprehensibility, and the fear of it. The disturbing imagery showing what lies beneath our reality once we bother to look. There is no rationalization for any of these, no real hope. Just one reality, with unseen players behind it.

    That said, some of the disturbing imagery was unnecessary.  It feels like it's there merely for the effect, and not really to advance the theme. It always remains grounded to the film itself and its universe, but sometimes, it felt excessive. There is also a "Enter Sandman" riff at the beginning and end, which are odd, and not reflective of the soundtrack as a whole. Very 90's, I must say.

      This was the best Lovecraft adaptation that actually wasn't by Lovecraft. It captures the essence of his stories perfectly, and provides a visualization of what the horror Lovecraft wrote about could look like. It is also a smart, legitimately scary horror film in its own right. I highly recommend any Lovecraft fans or horror fans to seek this film out. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

   So ends this years Masterpiece of Horror Theatre. Thank you for reading all these, and next time, I will do something a little different, and do a review of two TV seasons that came out recently. I'll hopefully get those out soon. 

Nostalgia

  Recently, I have gotten back into the animated television show "Ed, Edd, 'n' Eddy." My favorite show as a kid (and one of my  favorite shows of all time). It is better than I remember. I now get the sometimes subtle jokes that the show deploys. I also appreciate the slapstick, and the loose, wild animation.  However, I suppose that part of my newfound enjoyment of the show stems, in part, from an inherent sense of nostalgia. Nostalgia is an emotion many humans have, whether they know it or not. All humans feel an appreciation or a longing for the past. Because they are dissatisfied with the present, or they simply want to reflect on a time that was simpler (in their eyes).Nosalgia is a natural feeling to have. Why point this out? Well, I hope it mitigates the  response that I might get from this article.
      Recently, there has been a boom in 80's-90's nostalgia. There are entire websites and tv shows dedicated to the culture of these two cultures, and appreciation of them. ABC's "The Goldbergs" is a show that completely emmerses itself in 80's nostalgia. Buzzfeed has daily lists dedicated to the topic. Definitely, the internet has given us a whole new culture of old. This is of course nothing new. The 70's and 80's worshiped the 50's and 60's. The 90's had an affinity for the 60's and 70's. Now, it is the 80's and 90's that the disgruntled older masses have decided to latch on. Of course, there is no inherent problem in occasionally indulging your childhood likes and dislikes. However, if I were to leave it at that, there would be no use for this article.
   If internet nerds were merely expressing their love of their childhood, that's one thing. However, constantly proclaiming that your childhood is superior to anyone else's childhood is whole different matter entirely. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the point of this article. The people who will constantly degrade the present, and put divinity towards their childhood. Rational people are irritated by this. However, they infest every part of the internet. They will constantly say "Why, the 90's were BETTER. I mean we had (this) and (that), which is much better than the crap of today." You would see this comment at times on Youtube or Facebook. Now, before you chastise me for trying respond to irrelevant peoples who have no bearing on society whatsoever, I write this as a counterpoint to the mainstream nostalgia obsession, as well as this trolls.
      Were the 90's better? Well, you can't really answer that. Every historical era is flawed in one way or the other. One can find several things that would dampen 50's-60's. The 80's and 90's were no different. Yes, the Eighties had Star Wars, ET, and Back to the Future. It also had Troll 2, Heaven's Gate, Howard the Duck, and Mommie Dearest. You may have great music acts, too numerous to count, I will admit, but you also have equal amount of terrible music. It may not have cell phones, but it did AIDS, and crack, lots of it. The 90's also have flaws. Think of all of the Direct to Video films that Disney and other companies spewed out every year of the decade.  While there were many good video games from, there were also a lot really bad ones, many from the Giants Nintendo and Sega. This one fellow on Youtube said that we had less terror problems. Yeah, so Waco, the WTC bombing, the bombings at the Atlanta Olympics, Osama Bin Laden's 1998 attack on the Tanzanian Embassy all of a sudden don't count. And there were more obscure acts of terrorism that occurred during the decade. (When I confronted the guy, he claimed that "Waco wasn't terrorism (which I suppose is debatable), and that they caught Ramzi Yousef in 5 years (Why this matters, and how this makes the incident not count as terrorism is beyond me). I could go on, but then, I'd go into personal preference, which might compromise the piece.
     If you enjoyed something as a child, and you just like the show just due to that reason, that's fine. For the EE'n'E example above, I know that there might be people who will criticize that show for reasons that I'm sure are valid. However, I would like to challenge the idea that all nostalgic things are "good." I will take the example of Pokemon, particularly the first generation. A lot of people will tell you that they like only the first generations, and the other generations are "inferior." (I loathe such persons passionately, but that is neither here or now). Was the First Generation the best? In my opinion, no. The region is boring, the story is lackluster, the graphics really haven't aged well in 17 years. It was revolutionary in 1996, I am certain, and it was the first, so they had no precedent to work off of. However, that was 1996. In modern times, the games of generation 1 haven't held up. And that's not even going into the Pokemon, which are very childish, and very simple. (And don't tell me that is part of their charm. Yes, I suppose there is an appeal of sorts to simple Pokemon. There are simple Pokemon in every generation, yet people seem to loathe them too. So, why do you excuse the First generation for having a blob, a rock with arms, and a pokeball, but than proceed to heap hate onto Trubbish or Vanilluxe) I only like 5 or 6 pokemon from this particular generation. I freely admit this could be bias. I didn't grow up on Generation 1. I got into Pokemon in generations 2 and 3, and I prefer them, because that's what I grew up on, so perhaps I've fallen into the same mindset as the ones I condemn, but you see my point. (Further, I do understand if many find faults in later generations. I myself wasn't all impressed with Gen VI's lineup, but this isn't out of nostalgia, and more out of critical examination)  Nostalgia is not a marker of quality. Just because you played and/or watched something in the past does not make it the greatest ever. That is simply personal taste, and that is not quantitative.
       Do I get nostalgic? Well, not much. Sometimes, I watch Cartoon Network's current line-up, and I think of the shows that I grew up watching on the network. However, I don't bemoan that the network has somehow declined in recent years. It simply has different shows now, shows that are being watched by a generation not older than when I was watching it. These are their nostalgic shows, and they will forever cherish them, much as I, and the targets of this article, cherish our childhood memories. Nostalgia is not an inherently bad thing. However, when you are obsessed with the past and its supposed perfection, you ignore what was wrong with yesterday, and what is good about today, or what will be good for the future. The past is the past, and continually insisting that it was untarnished is not helpful in securing a good present or future. In the end, you must let go of the past if you want to have a bright future. Nostalgia is something that we will all have. However, if you let your nostalgia consume your being, you'll always be stuck in the past.