(Corona-) Summer of Terror/Masterpiece of Horror: Psycho

    This summer has been rough for everyone on Earth. It was definitely rough for me. I unfortunately didn't plan out this series very well, admittedly, and the anxiety just got very overwhelming (Seasonal depression has also reared its head). However, I do feel like finishing off the Universal Monsters. However, this went into October. As I laid in bed, suddenly, an idea came: Why not do a transitionary phase here. 

    Okay, like I said last time, this film is a lot more of a stretch to be on here, namely in that it technically originally wasn't even a Universal film. Let's go back a bit though. In 1957, a Wisconsin handyman named Ed Gein was arrested for the murders of two women living nearby. A search of his place revealed that items made from various parts of the human body, including skin lamps and shrunken heads. At the time, this was unknown to horror writer Robert Bloch, despite living only 57 miles away. A correspondent and friend of HP Lovecraft, Bloch started out in that style and genre before the advent of the atomic age caused him to switch instead to psychological horror. He wrote a story about a man isolated from civilization in a motel who has an overbearing mother and kills multiple women. When he heard about Gein, he was disturbed to learn the parallels. Nevertheless, the book would be a big commerical success, and it would reach acclaimed director Alfred Hitchcock, fresh off hit North by Northwest through his assistant. Hitchcock, very impressed, chose this project over several others, including an adaptation of Casino Royale, and even bought up all the copies he could of the novel to prevent the twist from being revealed. However, Hitchcock saw resistance from tradition backer Paramount, so he shot the film on a low budget, using the crew from his television show in the Universal Studios lot (part of the reason I decided to include it here), and shooting the film in black and white. Joseph Stefano (later the co-creator of the 60's Sci-fi anthology series The Outer Limits) wrote the screenplay. Starring in the film were Vera Miles (who had appeared in several Hitchcock productions beforehand), John Gavin  (who starred in the critical success Spartacus that same year), Janet Leigh (who had starred opposite Charlton Heston in Orson Welles' A Touch of Evil) and as the unsuspecting killer Norman Bates, relatively unknown supporting actor Anthony Perkins was cast on account of his boyish charm. Hitchcock regular Bernard Hermann would do the iconic score. Entire books and even films have been made about the production of this movie, so not too much more detail here, but the film was fairly controversial upon its release in 1960, as the Production Code was dying due to an influx of racy European films. It was also extremely successful, with audiences shocked by the big twist of the film. It has gone on to become one of the most iconic films of all time, and is something of the prototype for modern horror as we know. Also, despite Paramount releasing the films, the rights were ultimately sold to Universal, so it does count. 

     Marion Crane (Janet Leigh), a secretary in a real estate company in Phoenix, Arizona finds herself in hot water when she steals some money from a client, to pay for a home for her and boyfriend Sam Loomis (John Gavin). She flees to California, and eventually, comes across a motel run by the mysterious Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins), who has a close relationship to his mother.... (You know what, you probably already know how the rest goes, so, yeah.)

      It's hard to really discuss this film, because it is  monumental in the history of film. Everyone knows the central twist, everyone knows the plot, the music cues, the shower scene. Given this film has been studied, dissected, and parodied so many times since 1960, does it still hold up as its own film? Yeah, it definitely does. It helps that it constantly keeps you on your toes, changing its focus multiple times to throw you off. First a standard Hitchcockian thriller, than a proto-slasher, then a murder mystery. The film does a good job of hiding all the necessary elements, especially with its now iconic twist. (NORMAN BATES WAS DRESSING AS HIS MOTHER WHEN HE COMMITS THE MURDERS, in case you don't know). Anthony Perkins shy, delightfully charming, but ultimately psychaotic presence also helps to cement the character as a new kind of monster, less supernatural, but no less menacing. He is easily the most interesting part of the score. And the things to praise about this film have been noted. Hermann's score, Russell's cinematography. 

     The film does spend a lot more time than I thought was needed on the investigative part. Maybe it is the fact that the twist is very well known now, but the audience might've been able to piece together part of the twist towards the middle of the third act. Also, the subplot about the private investigator could've been cut, but does serve an important plot driver, so eh. 

     Even though you probably know how the film goes, I still recommend seeing it, if only to see the various techniques used both narratively and cinematically. It is still a fascinating film, and it is still very scary when it needs to be. I very highly recommend it as a piece of horror history, and just film history. 

    I was going to end this with an overall look at the Universal Monsters, but I'm really tired and just want to end this, so I'll make it brief here. Needless to say, they have had an incredible influence not only on the horror genre on film, but on the general culture. Most people, even if they've never actually seen any of these films, have a good understanding of them. And despite the presence of more contemporary monsters in films like this and Targets, they still have a presence in the culture, whether through the various Hammer remakes in the 50's and 60's, or the severely botched Mummy remake from 2017. 

  Speaking of..... Tune in tomorrow for a review of that.

(Corona-) Summer of Terror: Creature from the Black Lagoon

    The story of this film begins with, of all things, Citizen Kane. William Alland, a good friend of Orson Welles, played the role of the reporter investigating Kane in the film, making him the point of view character. At a party celebrating that film, he met Mexican cinematographer Gabriel Figueroa, who had worked with filmmakers like Howard Hawks and John Huston. Figueroa told the story of a fishman in the Amazon who would come to villages once a year, steal women, and vanish. The idea stuck with Alland as he became a major producer of science fiction films in the 50's, including It Came from Outer Space, with a script from Harry Essex (based on a story treatment by Ray Bradbury) and directed by actor-turned-director Jack Arnold. Alland eventually wrote down the idea, which was expanded into a treatment and later script by Maurice Zimm, Essex and Arthur Ross. The story mostly took its cues from Beauty and the Beast as well as King Kong. The creature's legendary costume was designed by Milicent Patrick, who had been one of the first female animators at Disney before coming to Universal as part of their special effects and make-up department. Unfortunately, her assistant Bud Westmore became jealous, and overshadowed her contributions to the Gil-Man design, obscuring her role for decades. Released in 1954, it is something of a staple for the science fiction horror genre. Guillermo del Toro released his riff on the film with The Shape of Water in 2017, earning the Academy Award in the process. 

      After an intro describing evolution, basically, the film opens with the discovery of a strange fossil in the Amazon. A large claw fossil to be exact. (They could resurrect it at Pewter City if they wanted.) The discoverer, Dr. Carl Maia (Antonio Moreno) soon brings in marine biologist Dr. David Reed (Richard Carlson), and persuades his boss, Mark Williams (Richard Denning) to tag along. Sure enough, a real fish creature is swimming around nearby, and takes a particular liking to David's girlfriend Kay Lawrence (Julie Adams), who is tagging along. 

      The "Gill-Man" has an excellent, very monstrous look to it, thanks to Patrick's design. It helps sell the creature as a real creature and not just a guy in a costume (which it still does appear to be). Ben Chapman also does very well conveying the physicality of the creature as a fish who learned how to walk upright, basically. The sets, especially the caves and parts of the jungle is very well done, and I did like that they did attempt (however tenuous) to tie this to the idea of evolution. I did like that they took the main emotional core of King Kong (the "Beauty and the Beast" aspect) and spun it around in a different setting

      Like many of these films, after a good first act and a great third act, it has a really slow second act. It just sort of builds a lot of tension and we don't see a lot of Gill-Man. I drifted during this part. Luckily, as I said, it manages to pick up during the third act and does its iconic scene , which still holds up. 

     The biggest film that hangs over this one is The Shape of Water. Del Toro discusssed how that film was inspired by his sympathy towards the monster in this film. Honestly, I do see it. The creature is ultimately sympathetic, like Frankenstein, but is besieged by colonial forces beyond its control. There's a certain tragedy to its death at the very end. For that alone, I recommend this film. That, and it's still a pretty fun film. 

     Alright, after three months and many cancellations, we're finally at the end of this with an unorthodox choice (and not technically originally a Universal film, but bare with me): Psycho.

(Corona-) Summer of Terror- The Wolfman

    (So,  my anxiety got particularly bad since writing the last one, I was unable to write the planned entries I had intended, or see the films. It's been hard and its almost October. Thus, I've decided to just skip to the last three major films in this franchise to finish off. I may get to the sequels and spin-offs in later entries. With that...)

    This film was based on the experiences of its screenwriter Curt Siodmak. A minor writer and filmmaker in Germany, he was forced to flee when the Nazis came to power due to his Jewish heritage. He channeled the shock of this sudden chaos into a story about a relatively normal man who becomes a werewolf. Siodmak invented many werewolf myths for the film, including the poem cited in the film and was the first to depict a relatively uncommon myth about the werewolf being affected by a silver bullet. Directing the film was actor-turned-director George Waggner. The role of the werewolf (with make-up once again by Jack P. Pierce, reusing the unused make-up from Werewolf of London) was considered for stars Bela Lugosi (who ultimately appears in the film as "Bela", which must've been hard for him to remember) and Boris Karloff before going to Lon Chaney, Jr. Born Creighton Chaney, he was the son of Lon Chaney, Universal's silent era star, who, both directly and indirectly helped pave the way for the Universal Monsters. Chaney resented the name change, forced on him by Universal, commenting that he was proud of the name "Lon Chaney", but not "Lon Chaney, Jr." Chaney would have difficulties in the production of this film, corraling with lead actress Evelyn Ankers and suffering through a long make-up sequence. However, with the major success of the film (one of the biggest films of 1941), Chaney would go on to portray the character six more times, the only actor to portray the same character in all his appearances.

    Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney, Jr.) returns to his father John's (Claude Rains)  estate after the death of his brother. Talbot, an engineer, soon becomes acquainted with Gwen (Evelyn Ankers), owner of an antiques shop. Gwen tells Talbot of a very interesting poem about the werewolf: "Even a man who is pure in heart, and says his prayers by night; May become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms and the autumn moon is bright". Sure enough, when Larry, Gwen, and Gwen's friend Jenny (Fay Helm) go for a forest jaunt, they find an old Gypsy woman (Maria Ouspenskaya) and her son Bela (Bela... Lugosi), and are attacked by a strange wolf creature. Larry is bitten attempting to save Jenny (who is killed). When the police investigate, the gypsy woman suddenly claims that the Wolf was in fact Bela, and that Larry might have... urges. 

     The make-up in the film is better than the last film. Definitely looks like a human-wolf hybrid, and there is a certain menace to the character. Lon Chaney, Jr. doesn't necessarily do well when he has to be Larry Talbot, but when he's the wolfman, his physicality and viciousness help sell that particular character. The mysticism and tension in the film helps keep the film at least somewhat interesting throughout. Overall, the kills are better done, especially with the ambiguity of it. 

    As said before, Lon Chaney, Jr. doesn't really do well when in human form. He has this forced normal affectation to him that's a bit distracting and he looks like an extra and not the lead of the film. Perhaps his other appearances fix this, but he struggles in this role. The second act tends to drag and despite being 70 minutes, it does feel very long. 

     I enjoyed this more than London. Definitely worth a watch for the tensions and the origins of many current werewolf myths and legends, and just for the fun of seeing effectively a Code-era slasher film (so, no blood). It's not my favorite, but it was definitely a lot of fun. 

    So, yeah, I'm just going to skip forward into the last technical Universal Monster with Creature from the Black Lagoon.  

(Cororna)- Summer of Terror- The Universal Monsters: Werewolf of London

    Werewolves were a major part of European folklore dating back to the time of the ancient Greeks. Myths around lycanthropy vary across regions, but the prevalence of wolves in Europe prior to mass hunting (and possibly medical conditions like porphyria and hypertrichosis) lead to myths of humans becoming wolves becoming a common motif. The specifics were refined from other incidents (such as the 18th century cryptid Beast of Gévaudan, killed by a silver bullet). With the colonization of the Americas by both the Norse and later the rest of Europe, lycanthropy would even spread to some native American cultures, with the most notable being the skin-walker of Navajo myth, who were witches who could change shape into various animals, including wolves. The first werewolf film, The Werewolf from 1913, (now lost) was about a Navajo skin-walker. There was no literary books on werewolves until 1933, when Guy Endore's The Werewolf of Paris explored a man inflicted with lycanthropy as he stumbles through the Franco-Prussian War and the Paris Commune. This film is, in fact, not an adaptation of that book. It's instead an original story by Robert Harris, going through several screenwriters. Not much on the inspiration or impetus for the film, though some sources cite this as a response to Paramount's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Many of the modern werewolf myths (biting to spread lycanthropy and turning under a full moon), come from this film. Jack Pierece's initial make-up was rejected when star Henry Hull noted that the characters should be able to recognize the protagonist as the werewolf. It has had a mixed reception, both then and now. 

    Botanist Dr. Wildfried Glendon (Henry Hull) is in Tibet (where they apparently speak a lot of Cantonese), searching for a rare mariphasa flower He has a brief encounter with Dr. Yogami (Warner Oland, in yellowface)  When he sees the flowers, a mysterious creature bites him. Glendon takes the plant back to merry old England, where he lives and cultivates the plant in the home he shares with wife Lisa (Valerie Hobson). Yogami warns that the plant is a potential cure if you're bitten by a werewolf. Glendon is incredulous, until he starts becoming more violent. 

    The make-up is very well done, with a very intimidating look to it. It feels like a real animalistic creature is on screen. Henry Hull does well in his performance, giving the creature some degree of menace and terror. I liked the shadows. The climax and transformation sequences are very well done. 

    Yeah, the fact that the Van Helsing role is played by an actor in yellowface is very distracting. The fact that it's Warner Oland, who also did Fu Manchu makes it equally uncomfortable. It's easily the biggest part of the film that has dated it significantly. Also not helping is the story just sort of grands until the climax of the film. Not a lot happens during it, and it's a bit dull. 

     As a historical document, it's probably worth watching as effectively the originator of the modern werewolf movie. As a film, it's mostly just okay. I feel it may be notable as just a trial run for the first very big werewolf film, which we will cover soon enough. 

    Well, hopefully I can expediate the end of this, so tune in next time for an overview of some of the other Universal monster movies released during the 1930's.

(Corona-) Summer of Terror- The Bride of Frankenstein

    The 1931 Frankenstein film was very different from Mary Shelley's novel, removing, among other changes, a subplot where the monster forces Dr. Frankenstein to make him a mate, which the latter complies with, until he doesn't. This would form the basis for the sequel to the film, which was conceived during the previews of the first film. Indeed, the ending was changed to have Dr. Frankenstein live specifically so that he could return for a sequel. Initially, however, James Whale didn't want to do a sequel, having had a falling out with Boris Karloff during the production of the film The Old Dark House and feeling that he had done all he could with the concept. Ultimately, he agreed to make the film in exchange for Universal backing his project One More River. Whale was dissatisfied by the scripts offered, including a treatment by Robert Florey, and gave the script to John L. Balderston. Balderston was the one who centered the film on the subplot, making it about the "Bride of Frankenstein" and even wrote a prologue with Mary Shelley herself. Whale, still dissatisfied, pushed the script to William J. Hurlbut and Edmund Pearson, who polished the final script. Karloff and Colin Clive returned, with Valerie Hobson replacing Mae Clarke in the role of Elizabeth Frankenstein. Whale's old friend Ernest Thesiger plays the villain Dr. Pretorius. In the titular role of the Bride was Elsa Lancaster. Born to a bohemian artistic family in London, Lancaster studied dance in Paris under Isadora Duncan, before returning to England and starting a number of venues to pursue theatre and cabaret. Eventually, she started appearing in small scale productions in Britain with her husband Charles Laughton, eventually accompanying him to Hollywood. Laughton managed to carve out a niche for himself, including in The Old Dark House. She had returned to London when Whale offered her the role. She based her signature hiss on swans in Regent's Park, London. Jack P. Pierce and Kenneth Strickfadden return in their roles, with Pierce's original make-up modified slightly to allow the monster to speak (an element Karloff was vehemently against).  Pierce also designed the Bride with Whale, basing it off the Egyptian queen Nefertiti. A very young Billy Barty was prominently featured before his scenes were cut. Released on April 20th, 1935, the film would garner critical acclaim, and is widely regarded as one of the greatest sequels ever made. 

    The film begins with a prologue featuring Lord Byron (Gavin Gordon), Percy Shelley (Douglas Walton), and Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley (Elsa Lancaster) stuck in Byron's villa in Switzerland during a thunderstorm in 1815. Byron and Shelley praise Mary's tale of Frankenstein, and ask that she continue with the story. She agrees, and begins the story: shortly after the events of the first film, Frankenstein (Boris Karloff) emerges from the wreckage of the windmill burned in the original and begins to wander. Meanwhile, Dr. Frankenstein (Colin Clive) recovers back in the village with his bride Elizabeth (Valerie Dobson) by his side. They're approached by Frankenstein's old teacher Dr. Pretorius (Ernest Thesiger), who really wants Frankenstein to help him with his own life creation experiments. Eventually, as Frankenstein tries to survive paranoid villagers (including befriending a hermit (OP Heggie)), Pretorius' begins his grandiose scheme: To create a bride. For the Monster. 

    Again, the highlight of the film is Karloff's performance. There's a lot more instances of his physicality and his innocence, conveyed well by Karloff's own movement. For all his opposition to the monster talking, he manages to do the voice well, making that aspect of the character as iconic as it is. Elsa Lancaster does well in her brief appearances as both Mary Shelley and the Bride. Her performance at the end is really good, especially at showing the fear that the creation has at the world around her. Her hissing is very precise, and she makes an impression even though she only appears in the last ten minutes. Dr. Pretorius is very fun in his giddiness, the way Claude Rains was in Invisible Man. I like that the film continues to show the monster as sympathetic, continually despised and misunderstood despite only making mistakes. It really makes the film tragic, as the monster is rejected by all aspects of society, including his creator, the villagers, and even the bride crafted specifically for him. There's been speculation of a queer subtext, given the director and some of the actors and the camp factor of the film. Personally, I think if there is such a subtext, it's in the Creature being besieged by a society that mistrusts and hates him, finding solace only in the relationship he forges with the Blind Hermit. 

    The opening is a little slow, and a bit confusing, especially when Dr. Pretorius arrives and shows the homunculi he created. While the make-up in this film is iconic, I kind of prefer the ones from the original. It looked a lot more natural and this makes Karloff's face look bloated. It doesn't feel right. 

     As with the first one, this is something of a quintessential American horror movie or even quintessential American film. Beyond the horror genre, this has been homaged or referenced so many times, that it's hard to not to at least know of its existence. Even Mel Brook's Young Frankenstein utilizes the imagery and menace that this film had pioneered. In that sense, it's almost required viewing for that reason. Helps that it is really, really good in its own right. 

    I feared this would happen. Yes, unfortunately, I have to take this into September. Like everyone else, it's just been a hard year for me, and writing these tends to be a more intensive form because of the research. Hopefully, I will be able to finish by mid-September. Anyway, next time, we will look at Werewolf of London. 

Summer of Terror-The Universal Monsters: The Invsible Man

     HG Wells' The Invisible Man was inspired in part by references to invisible men in a WS Gilbert poem and Plato's Republic. It, along with War of the Worlds and The Time Machine, would be seen as one of the classics from Wells. The film version began production as early as 1931, but ran into a number of production problems. The film had multiple treatments with wildly different takes on the story, including one set on Mars. RC Sheriff (who wrote Journey's End, which director James Whale had produced on stage in 1928) eventually found the original novel in a secondhand bookstore, and wrote the script around that. Even that had issues, as the script was helped by then-famed science fiction writer Phillip Wylie (later known for proto-superhero work Gladiator and When Worlds Collide, who integrated elements of his novel The Murderer Invisible into the script) and future Oscar winner Preston Sturges, who were then taken off the project. Director Cyril Gardner was replaced by the reliable James Whale. Originally, Boris Karloff and Colin Clive were considered for the role of the Invisible Man. However, Whale had a small falling out with Karloff and Clive declined, so the role went to a newcomer to film named Claude Rains. Rains, a British World War I veteran, had been a rising star on the London stage (thanks, in part, to him modifying his Cockney accent into a trans-Atlantic accent) , and had been an instructor in the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts, where John Gieglud and Laurence Olivier were his students. He had appeared in a silent film in 1920, but largely remained a theater actor and came to Broadway in 1928. In 1931, he was offered a screen test for an RKO picture called A Bill of Divorcement. While the screen test failed, James Whale happened to overhear it, and impressed by Rains' voice, hired him as the Invisible Man. Even still, production remained troubled, with a fire breaking out at one point, shutting down production. The Invisible Man effect was well-regarded in its time. Wires on set were used to display the invisible man running around, but the actual effect when Rains took off his mask was achieved through a special velvet black suit Rains wore against a velvet black background, which was combined with a location shot through a matte. Released in 1933, the film was Universal's biggest success after Frankenstein , and would launch Claude Rains into an incredibly illustrious film career. Wells himself would have mixed feelings on the film, commenting that while he enjoyed it, he didn't like that the scientist had gone insane from the process.

    A bandaged man (Claude Rains) walks into a hotel and asks for a room. It's revealed that this bandaged stranger is in fact, Dr. Jack Griffin, a scientist working for Dr. Cranley (Henry Travers, aka "Clarence" from It's a Wonderful Life), and engaged to Cranley's daughter Flora (Gloria Stuart). They, and Dr. Kemp (Willaim Harrigan) have concerns for Griffin, especially when they come across a dangerous formula in his collection. Sure enough, when the innskeeper (Forrester Harvey) tries to kick him out, Griffin dispatches him, and grandly reveals that he has gained the ability to become invisible. 

    So, the special effects hold up really well. The invisibility effect is extremely well-done in close up, and I was shocked when I read up on how it was done (hence why I noted it in the intro.) It also helps that the other invisibility effects are also well-done, making the character feel present even if you can't see him. Claude Rains does well in his de facto film debut, delivering the grand villainous monologues with energy and gusto that makes him very appealing to watch. Helps that he also has legitimate malice and menace to him that makes him a very real threat. I also liked that the film had some good intentional humor that was legitimately funny, but also felt more like fun than the relatively dour films prior to it. It also has a conclusion that feels like an actual conclusion, rather than feeling like something was cut out.

    Some parts, like the opening and some of the middle, were a bit confusing and hard to follow. I only learned from looking at the synopsis what a discovery in the middle of the film actually meant, and some of the extensive middle part felt confusing. Also, the way he's dispatched at the end was a bit anti-climatic, especially with his grandiose gesturing throughout the film.

    Pretty entertaining film overall, and an interesting companion piece to the very recent remake (if you managed to see it in theaters before... everything.) I'd say I prefer the new one a little more, but this is definitely worth a watch, if only for the insane monologues Claude Rains delivers and the incredible special effects. 

    Next up, the very  first sequel in the Universal Monsters franchise with The Bride of Frankenstein.

Summer of Terror- The Universal Monsters: The Mummy

           Mummification in ancient Egyptian culture is believed to started in the years prior to the rule of the pharaoahs, and became an integral part of their funeral practices , as detailed in the funerary texts collectively called the "Egyptian Book of the Dead." It was believed that proper mummification (with the preservation of skin and removal of organs) would allow the ka or lifeforce of a person to travel to the afterlife. The Egyptians would have different funeral practices for different classes, with the pharoahs having the most elaborate and ornate. Egyptian mummies would become something of a craze during the early 19th Century, after Napoleon's invasion of Egypt, with mummies becoming something of a collector's item, and the luxuries of the tombs plundered for European consumption, shown at parties, cut up, and examined by the curious. As a result, mummies and the idea of their resurrection would become a fictional theme. Writers like Edgar Allan Poe, H. Rider Haggard, Arthur Conan Doyle and even Louise May Alcott would explore the idea in a more romantic or satirical way. The allure of the mummy faded as the tombs were excavated and the appeal wore off. That is until 1922, when British archaeologist Howard Carter uncovered the untouched tomb of minor pharaoh Tutankhamun, still with its riches, which revived the Ancient Egypt craze. Among those inspired by the find (and the subsequent overhyped "curse" associated with it) was Universal producer Carl Laemmle, Jr. who wanted to make a mummy the next monster to scare audiences. With that in mind, he sent Richard Schayer to find a good mummy book to make into a film. When he couldn't find one, he and cartoonist Nina Wilcox Putnam instead wrote a treatment based on 18th century Italian occultist  Alessandro Cagliostro.  Impressed, Laemmle had John L. Balderston write a script. Balderston had a fascination with Egypt, and had in fact covered the story of Tutankhamun's tomb as a journalist, so he modified the script, renaming the lead Imohotep (after an historical architect and cult figure) and setting the action in Egypt. Karl Freund, the de facto director of Dracula, directed this as his first American feature, and Boris Karloff, now a superstar thanks to Frankenstein, assumed the lead of Imhotep. Jack P. Pierce once again does Karloff's make-up as the resurrected mummy (though the iconic make-up only appears in the opening), and Karloff found it extremely difficult to deal with. Freund and romantic lead Zita Johann didn't get along during the feature. Much like the other films prior, the film was cut up, especially a long historical segment.  Released on December 22nd, 1932, The Mummy would become another critical and financial hit, prompting more sequel. 

      In 1921, British archaeologists Joseph Whemple (Arthur Byron) , Dr. Muller (Edward Van Sloan), and Ralph Norton  (Bramwell Fletcher) uncover the tomb of Imhotep (Boris Karloff) in an Egyptian dig. They note some irregularities with the mummy, indicating he was buried alive. Sure enough, Norton is late one night to find Imhotep very alive in his bandages, scarring him. 10 years later, Whemple's son Frank (David Manners) and Professor Pearson (Leonard Mudie) met a mysterious man named Ardeth Bey in Egypt, who gives them mysterious instructions about the tomb of Princess Anck-su-namun....

    First, the best thing about this film is still Boris Karloff. Unlike the very emotionally charged Frankenstein, he manages to exude quiet menace and presence in the film. The way he walks, speaks, and acts manages to be terrifying with every step. His performance is definitely the strongest, and he really sells the villain. The set design (especially the recreation of ancient Egyptian tombs) is very well done, and Jack P. Pierce's make-up is exquisite.

     The story is a little thin. Seemingly starting as just the fact that this maleviolent ancient Egyptian is back, the film just sort of becomes about said Egyptian trying to resurrect his long lost love. It's not even the focus, it's just the lack of attention given to it. Again, this film isn't very long, but the way the relatively thin story is stretched out makes it feel longer. Not helped is very clear edits, and cuts, which makes the pacing even more disjointed. This also makes the film more than a little dull at times. 

    Overall, much weaker than the previous films. Still, Karloff's performance and the great effects are enough to give this a relatively high recommendation. Probably not one I'd revisit though (except for the sequels most likely. 

    Next up, a film which had a pretty good remake this year, The Invisible Man.

Summer of Terror- The Universal Monsters: Frankenstein

     Mary Shelley's 1818 novel Frankenstein; or the Modern Prometheus needs no introduction. Not its origins in the electric experiments conducted by Luigi Galvani, showing that electricity can induce movement in dead limbs, nor the real Castle Frankenstein, where alchemist  Johann Conrad Dippel did experiments on human bodies. Not how Shelley conceived it while stuck in a Swiss cabin with future husband Percy and poet Lord Byron. Nor its place as the first work of modern science fiction and horror. I suppose let's begin with adaptations. Frankenstein started being adapted into plays during Shelley's lifetime, with 1823's Presumption; or, the Fate of Frankenstein being the first, followed by The Man and the Monster! in 1826 and Frankenstein; Or The Model Man in 1849. In 1887, a musical adaptation, Frankenstein, or The Vampire's Victim was made. As film came into prominence, film adaptations also followed. In 1910, J. Searle Dawley wrote and directed the first, a short adaptation for Thomas Edison and his film studio. Life without Soul in 1915 and Italian adaptation The Monster of Frankenstein  (both lost) followed. The story of this film begins in 1924, with another stage adaptation by British playwright Peggy Webling, commissioned by Hamilton Deane, who made the stage adaptation of Dracula made into the 1931 film. Notably, the monster (unnamed in the Shelley novel) was named Frankenstein after its creator. With Dracula's towering success, Universal purchased the rights to John L. Balderston's (who also produced the successful Broadway version of Deane's Dracula) unproduced Broadway version of Webling's play. (Ultimately, said version never made it to stage). Bela Lugosi originally wanted to be Victor Frankenstein, but was relegated to being the monster. In the original version with director Robert Florey at the helm, Lugosi's monster would be simple killing machine, a charaterization Lugosi resented and eventually led to his and Florey's ouster. In their place was  James Whale  a successful British stage director, who had recently made the transition to film as director and an unknown minor character actor named Boris Karloff as the monster. Boris Karloff, despite the name, was not in fact another Eastern European refugee. In fact, he was an Englishman, born William Henry Pratt, from a diplomatic family (his maternal great aunt was Anna Leonowens, most famous for being the subject of The King and I). Pratt would change his name to Boris Karloff when he became an actor to avoid embarrassing his family (Accounts vary on where he got the name). After years in Canadian and American acting troupes, he would eventually make his way to Hollywood, where his relatively darker skin complexion (owing to some Indian ancestry) would cast him in minor ethnic roles throughout the silent era. Whale purportedly cast Karloff because of his intimidating size. The supporting cast was rounded out: Colin Clive (who had appeared in Whale's production of the play as Journey's End and it's 1930 adaptation) as Henry (not Victor) Frankenstein, Mae Clarke (who appeared opposite James Cagney in The Public Enemy earlier that year) as Henry's love interest Elizabeth Lavenza, and Dracula's Edward van Sloan and Dwight Frye as Dr. Frankenstein's mentor Dr. Waldman and his hunchback assistant Fritz respectively. Set designer Kenneth Strickfaden would design the iconic set describing the creature's creation (including a Tesla coil from none other than Nikola Tesla himself), which was used in later films. The iconic make-up of the creature was done by Jack P. Pierce, and was so evocative that Universal trademarked it (which it still holds) and has been associated with the character since. Released on November 21st, 1931, Frankenstein would be a commercial and critical success, and is now regarded as an iconic piece of American cinema. 

    In some nondescript place in Central Europe in some nondescript time, Henry Frankenstein (Colin Clive) and his assistant Fritz (Dwight Frye) dig up recently buried corpses for a project to create a living being from the parts of dead bodies, but needs a brain. He sends Fritz to steal a healthy brain from his teacher Dr. Waldman (Edward van Sloan), but Fritz screws up and brings a criminal brain meant for comparison. Henry's fiancee Elizabeth (Mae Clarke) and friend Victor Mortiz (John Boles), along with Dr. Waldman, find Henry about to perform his act: using lightning to bring his Creature (Boris Karloff) to life...

    The best thing about the film definitely is Karloff as the creature. The performance is incredible. He manages to have unique mannerisms, the way he moves his arms, his expressions, his grunts, the way he moves, all helps create a very convincing portrayal of the monster as very sympathetic and misunderstood. He can be intimidating, but the film shows very well how the monster is constantly besieged and misunderstood by people. Karloff's performance as the Monster really makes the film work in the way it intend, and is really the main thing that is most memorable, especially the iconic scene  with the little girl. Not to say the rest of the film is very well done. Strickfaden's sets are very meticulous, with a German impressionist look to the architecture and a very haunting look to the electrical equipment in Dr. Frankenstein's office. The cinematography is also very well done, with some very well done long shots and overviews which increase the drama of each scene. I liked that the film took full advantage of its relatively short running time and  told the story it intended to tell well, and with very few interruptions. 

     That said, there were some scenes towards the end celebrating Frankenstein and Elizabeth's wedding, that felt a bit like padding. Or was the studio trying to do big celebration scenes like in The Hunchback of Notre Dame. It ultimately felt superfluous except to establish the crowd which later hunts down Frankenstein. The short length probably makes this worse. And like Dracula, the film just sort of stops rather than have a proper conclusion, though this at least feels like the film should've ended at this point. 

     One might call this the quitessential American horror film. Every horror film that followed either followed at least parts of the precedents it set or rejected it. Even early New Horror film Targets relied on the intimidating power of Boris Karloff's performance. So, I think it's worth a watch on that ground. It's also really quite good and affecting in its own right, with the stand out being Karloff's performance and the large scope of the story. So, it's definitely worth a watch. 

    Next comes the first original property with The Mummy. 

Summer of Terror- The Universal Monsters: Dracula (Spanish)

     Not too much history on this one. In the early days of sound, many were skeptical of audience expectations and the limitations of the technology, especially when it came to dubbing in other languages. Thus, many films had a completely separate version filmed in another language (usually Spanish,  French, German, and Swedish), with different native speaking actors, but which usually had the same sets and wardrobes than their English counterparts. Aside from that,the films were actually given a little more license and laxer restriction by the main studios to just improvise with their material. Given Latin America was a large market for American movies, Spanish language versions became the main examples of this. Such was the case here. The Spanish version of Dracula was filmed on the sets at night after Tod Browning concluded filming during the daytime. The director, George Melford, didn't speak or understand Spanish, so his co-director Enrique Tovar Ávalos was the main interpreter. The film was done on a lower budget, but the production ran much smoother than its English counterpart, completing a few days before the latter. The Spanish version is more than 30 minutes longer, mainly because Melford didn't cut as much of the film, and censorship wouldn't be a big issue in the countries it was released in. The film is also more explicit in terms of violence and sexuality because of that. However, much like other productions of this nature (which eventually lead to the discontinuing of the practice), the actors were from different parts of the world. For instance, Dracula was played by Spanish actor Carlos Villarías, while Eva (Mina) was played by Mexican Lupita Tovar (notably a centenarian who lived to 106 and the star of one of Mexico's first sound films.) The result was a mismatch of differing accents and dialects. Of the actors, only Villarias was allowed to see rushes of concurrent English version, so that his performance could emulate Lugosi's. The film was unknown and incomplete until the 1990's, where it had resurgence on home video.
    No real need for a synopsis here, since it's the same story.
    The longer length of this film definitely improves a lot of it. A lot of the scenes feel a lot more complete, there is a lot more development given to the characters and to the titular character, who does feel like more of a menace disrupting the lives of these people. The more explicit nature of the film helps increase the horror of it,  with more explicit and definite biting and death scenes (especially at the end.) It's much more of a satisfying watch. Spanish actor Pablo Álvarez Rubio does a much more intimidating and interesting Renfield than Dwight Frye. Big question: is Carlos Villarías better than Bela Lugosi? Well.... he's certainly different to some extent. Villarías is a lot more emotional and feral than Lugosi, having adverse, stronger reactions and emotions. That doesn't necessarily make the performance better, but it does provide an interesting contrast between the two. Lugosi plays Dracula with more finasse and menace, while Villarías has a lot more energy and viciousness to his performance. They're different, but one isn't really better than the other.
     While the extended length is generally a good thing, part of the film does drag a little, since it feels a lot slower in the middle. It's not too grating, but it definitely has a lot slower pace. Maybe to build the horror, but it was hard to keep interest until the climax and ending happened. Also, like the English version, the Spanish version just ends. It doesn't really have a satisfying ending, just kind of stops before the conclusion can come through.
      I wouldn't say this was better than the English version, but it definitely feels a lot more of a complete film. A lot less editing, and a lot more focus on developing the characters and story. It's definitely an interesting watch, especially if you see the Bela Lugosi version first to compare and contrast.
     Next up, we're looking at one of the most iconic films ever made: Frankenstein.

Summer of Terror- Universal Monsters: Dracula

     Bram Stoker's 1897 vampire novel, based on folklore of Eastern European vampires and the infamy of Vlad Tepes (aka Vlad the Impaler, aka Vlad Dracula or "Son of the Dragon") was already adapted into a German film in 1922: FW Murnau's Nosferatu . However, that adaptation was unauthorized and Stoker's widow Florence sued to have all copies destroyed (which was a failure). The origins of this film lie instead in a 1924 English stage play adaptation by Irish playwright Hamilton Deane that was approved by the Stoker estate. This stage play would be revised by John L. Balderston for Broadway in 1927, starring Bela Lugosi in the title role. Lugosi, a one-time bit player in the Hungarian National Theatre, had appeared in German silent films after his exile from Hungary in 1919 (for organizing an actor's union following the failed 1919 communist revolution), before immigrating to the United States in 1920, and became a stage actor. This would be Lugosi's first major English speaking role. Carl Laemmle, Jr., a producer under his father at Universal, saw Stoker's novel as a potential historical tragic epic in the vein of Hunchback and Phantom and bought the rights to Stoker's novel as well as the stageplay. The writers used the stage play as the basis, with some inspiration from Nosferatu. Laemmle was reluctant to cast Lugosi, despite his good reviews in the play, looking instead to actors like Paul Muni, before Lugosi lobbied heavily to reprise his role. Also reprising his role from the play was Edward van Sloan as Van Helsing, the effective hero of the story. Directing the film was Tod Browning, a former Vaudville actor who directed several Lon Chaney movies during the silent era (including the vampire picture London After Midnight, which would've been covered, had the film not been lost). Browning initially envisioned the titular character as largely unseen figure played by a relative unknown, but the studio overrode it. By most accounts, Browning delegated much of the directing cinematographer Karl Freund (who was most notable for his cinematography on Fritz Lang's Metropolis), effectively making the latter co-director. The film was shot on the Universal lot with the sets being reused for a Spanish language version being made at the same time. While there were fears that a straight forward supernatural horror movie may not do well, it was an resounding success, though for a 1936 reissue, some scenes, including an epilogue by Van Helsing were cut, and subsequently lost. The film would be considered a seminal film in the development of the Universal monsters and the horror genre in general.

     Renfield (Dwight Frye) is an English Solicitor on business in Transylvania in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. He is visiting the castle of Count Dracula (Bela Lugosi), but is warned of his proclivity for vampirism by some of the residents. Sure enough, Dracula brainwashes and enslaves Renfield to take him in a coffin back to England. There, Dracula steadily begins a killing spree, while getting the attention of Mina (Helen Chandler), her fiance John Harker (David Manners), and her friend Lucy (Frances Dade). While Dracula terrorizes them, Mina's father Dr. Seward (Herbert Bunston) and Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan), investigate Renfield's vampirism, which brings them into conflict with the count.

    The definite highlight of this film is Bela Lugosi. He exudes a quiet menace to him, being dignified as an Eastern European count but also being incredibly creepy and threatening when need be. He doesn't talk much during the film, so a lot of his performance is conveyed through his motion, especially as he attacks or threatens people around him. It is a stellar performance. Surprisingly, given how it's saturated in pop culture, Lugosi's accent isn't all that thick in the film. It sounds almost English, with some slight indications Dwight Frye's Renfield (taking the role Harker had in the book) is also a joy to watch, showing the opposite with his psychaotic mannerisms and insane ramblings. The film had exquisite set design, and especially good use of shadows and lighting, tying of course to the other two films covered before. It truly enhances the terror of it, especially the lack of a soundtrack (which was apparently more of a cost saving measure, but makes a lot of the film's main set pieces work well).

    The film is surprisingly short, at only 71 minutes. I can tell a lot was probably cut because of censorship, particularly during the Hays Code era. There are some scenes that abruptly end or cut in the middle. The ending is the biggest example, where the aforementioned epilogue is not there and the film just ends on the characters climbing a set of stairs. While this sometimes enhances the horror, it also makes parts of this film confusing. Another, smaller complaint is that the effects haven't aged well. Especially the bats and the clear use of the fog machine.

    This was surprisingly effective, even today. It's not "scary" in a traditional sense, but the way the film uses subtle acting and editing to convey its scares was definitely an influence on modern day horror movies. It's an interesting historical film, and definitely should be sought out for that, and just as an entertaining, well-made film in its own right.

    Apologies for the lateness of this. I had a breakdown a few days ago, and couldn't muster the energy to do much writing. As such, this Summer of Terror will be a lot more erratic and spread out. I might not finish until September, but we'll see. Anyway, next time, after someone suggested it, we'll take a look at the briefly mentioned Spanish language version also produced by Universal.

Summer of Terror- The Universal Monsters: The Silent Era

      From 1921 to 1960, the Universal Monsters terrified and enthralled audiences across America with their grotesque, but sympathetic creatures, all of whom represented something about mankind that spoke to them. While they have mostly entered the pop culture lexicon as fixtures stripped of their original horror elements and reduced to kitsch items, their legacy can still be felt in horror to this very day. And with a new decade ahead of us, I figured there was no better franchise to start off a new decade than what is considered the first true horror franchise. If you haven't really noticed, I do actually burn out a lot when I do these, and I have a lot of trouble with this, given there is a large number of films outside the classic monsters, and the nebulous definition of a "Universal Monster" film. So, I'm going to do this a bit differently. The big films with the big creatures get full reviews. However, smaller films get smaller mini-reviews that are compiled together. They won't have a full in-depth look, but just a brief examination. This is especially true of these first two features, both of which are silent. Silent movies aren't exactly my area of expertise, so instead of doing my usual schtick, I'll just list stuff I enjoyed about the film.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923)

    Of course, based on Victor Hugo's 1831 novel of the same name, it follows the story of Quasimodo (Lon Chaney), the titular hunchback who rings the bells of the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, during the reign of Louis XI (Tully Marshall) in the 14th Century. Quasimodo ventures out to a large festival being held, with his master Jehan (Brandon Hurst), Jehan's brother, clergyman Dom Claudio (Nigel De Brulier, analogous to Claude Frollo from the book), and dancer Esmeralda (Patsy Ruth Miller) in attendence. He is celebrated, only for people to turn on him upon learning of his deformity. Only Esmeralda shows sympathy, causing a chain of events involving Esmeralda, Jehan, and Phoebus (Norman Kerry)
     Popular legend attributes the creation of this film to producer Irving Thalberg (later a seminal figure at Universal's rival MGM and whose life was later fictionalized by F. Scott Fitzgerald in The Last Tycoon),but the film by most accounts, was the idea of Lon Chaney, having then established his reputation as a versatile character actor and who lobbied heavily for the role of Quasimodo. He later chose the director Wallace Woolsery (who had worked with Chaney on some productions at Goldwyn), after his first choice, Erich von Stronheim, was fired by Thalberg. Thalberg did originate the idea to make the film more of a large scale dramatic epic instead of a straight forward horror movie. Because of censorship prohibiting mocking religious figures, the villain of Claude Frollo (a Catholic priest) in the book was instead given a brother, who would take up the role.
    What really works about this film is the large scale of it. The massive sets, the extras, the sheer sizeof it can be overwhelming. Yet, despite this large scale epic scope of the thing, it does manage to have some intimate moments, especially with Quasimodo. Speaking of, Lon Chaney does pretty well as the Hunchback. He imparts his performance with a lot of physicality and emotion, giving an audience enough to sympathize with him, especially at the end. Finally, it uses its sets very well, especially with dark scenes set in the corridors of the Cathedral.

The Phantom of the Opera (1925)

     The Paris Opera House suddenly finds itself in the thrall of the mysterious "Phantom" (Lon Chaney), who has taken an interest in a young understudy named Christine (Mary Philbin). While the new owners and Charlotta (Virginia Pearson) laugh off the threat, the Phantom soon makes his presence known, which guides Christine at first, but slowly, the Phantom makes plans to kidnap her, and the Vicomte Raoul de Chagny (Norman Kerry) must navigate the strange architecture of the Paris Opera House to stop him.
     Gaston Leroux's 1910 novel was based around various myths and legends centering around the Opera House (including the use of a real skeleton in an 1841 production.) Leroux met Carl Laemmle, the head of Universal, in 1921 during a visit by the latter to France. Leroux gave Laemmle the book, and Laemmle envisioned it as a vehicle for Lon Chaney. Chaney made up his own make-up for the film. The film's turntable set would continue to be used for another 90 years after the completion of the film. The film's gigantic success would be the impetus for the Universal monsters.
   I remember being terrified of the Phantom's make-up as a kid. Never actually saw the film until years later, but the make-up just scared me. It (meant to apparently invoke a skull) is still effective, especially when the Phantom is unmasked towards the middle of the film. Again, Lon Chaney is the star here, and even more so, he is the main reason to watch, with his physicality and his ability to balance menace with some humor. The set of the Paris Opera House also looks incredible, even today, and it also has a massive scope.

----

Well, that begins this Summer of Terror. Apologies for the lateness of this. As with all of us, the pandemic hasn't been exactly great for me, and it's been a struggle to muster the energy to do this. Not helping is the fact I tend to burnout on these, and I had a pretty bad case of burnout yesterday. If some entries are late or come a few days after the last one, that's probably why. Apologies in advance if this ends up inconsistent as a result. Nevertheless, I feel like starting off this new decade with something different, and what better than the first horror franchise, one that was influential for years to come. Join me tomorrow for Dracula.

And as always, if you enjoy this or other works, I have a Ko-Fi page to donate to, if you're interested: https://ko-fi.com/rohithc

Summer of Terror- A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

      I talked about Platinum Dunes, and their horror remakes a bit last year. With the success of the Texas Chainsaw and Friday the 13th reboot, a reboot of A Nightmare on Elm Street was the logical next step.  Producers Brad Fuller and Michael Bay, as well as director Samuel Bayer (a music video director making his first and last feature film, at least as of this writing), screenwriters Wesley Strick (known for writing the 1991 remake of Cape Fear) and Eric Heisserer (who would write the script to Arrival) followed the approach Platinum Dunes took with Friday the 13th, and simply took the best elements of the series to try to capture its essence, in particular making Freddy a darker character. Notably, Freddy was made a child molester rather than killer, an idea Wes Craven had discarded for the first film, and given a redone design more realistic for a burn victim. However, they also decided to make a straight remake of the first film, unlike the composite Friday the 13th. While Craven himself was upset at not being consulted, Robert Englund was more supportive of the remake, feeling that CGI could better capture the dream sequences. Replacing Englund in the iconic role was Watchmen's Jackie Earle Haley (who had, incidentally, played a child molester in Little Children),who had auditioned for the first film, but was passed over for his friend Johnny Depp. The film was shot in two high schools in Illinois, specifically for their pools. Released on April 30th, 2010, the film would be box office success, but panned by both critics and audiences.

       The film opens with Dean Russell (Kellan Lutz) in some diner, where he falls asleep and encounters a mysterious man. He wakes up when friend Kris Fowler (Katie Cassidy) meets with him. When Kris leaves for a bit, Dean falls asleep, and the man (Freddy Krueger (Jackie Earle Haley)) slashes his throat, in front of Kris and their classmate Nancy Holbrook (Rooney Mara). At his funeral, Kris has her own dream of Freddy, and finds an old photo of her and Dean as pre-schoolers, even though they met in high school. Kris soon encounters Freddy in her dreams, and Freddy quickly murders her while her ex Jesse Braun (Thomas Dekker) watches. Jesse warns Nancy about Kris death, before his arrest, where Freddy kills him as well. Now, Nancy and friend Quentin Smith (Kyle Gallner) must find out their connection to this man they call Freddy and why he's going after them.

      First and foremost, I like Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy. He's definitely not doing an impression of Robert Englund, and tries to make the character his own. Haley's Freddy is more seething and methodical than the more proactive, cackling Freddy Englund did. Not saying it's necessarily better, but it is different, and Haley's presence as an actor really helps sell this performance. The fact that his appearance is more realistic also helps.  As a straight remake, it works, not entirely imitating the 1985 film but still having the basic elements. The practical effects were well-done.

     Instead of the elaborate, dreamlike, well, dream sequences from the franchise's past, we get really dark corridors and a really bad looking version of the boiler room. That also extends to the actual scares, which forgo the terrifying and interesting kills in favor of boring, poorly edited kills. This is really the central problem of the film: it feels less like a Nightmare film, and more like a Saw knock-off. Very little about it stands out amongst other slashers of the 2000's, and it might not have garnered much attention had it not been a remake of one of the most iconic horror films of all times. Out of all the movies, even the bad ones, there were memorable or interesting parts to them. I saw this film only last night, and I'm already beginning to forget large chunks of it. Even though I wrote a whole review on it, I'm going to forget I saw this film or even I do remember, I won't remember what happens in it.
   
     So, this really takes the spot as the worst one, but only because it is so bland and generic. If it were more hilariously or absurdly bad, it would at least be memorable, but unlike those entries, this just feels like a Nightmare film with all the edge, all the intrigue sanded out, replaced with generic Aught's era "scares", and bland Platinum Dunes production design. Definite skip.


     So, that ends Summer of Terror for this year. Overall, yeah, Nightmare on Elm Street definitely had more consistent quality in their films than Friday the 13th. I've liked a majority of the films in the franchise, and they are pretty interesting both as horror and just films in general. Like I said in this review proper, even the bad ones (except this) had moments that were interesting or warranted a second look. I can tell that the people making these had passion for the material, and were willing to make decision to explore the world of this franchise and its characters, even if it didn't always work. Of these, the first one is probably the best, followed by New Nightmare and the 3rd one. So, yeah, I recommend watching some of these, if only for the fantastic segments some of them have. I wish I could say good night or something, but it's the early afternoon when I'm writing this, so.... here's a photo I took of a Freddy sweater signed by Robert Englund at the Museum of Pop Culture in Seattle a few weeks ago:

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.

Summer of Terror-Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child

    So, the idea of this, (originating from Leslie Bonham) was pitched for the second film, but rejected because of the pregnancy of one of the executives. Bonham got the chance to write the chance to write this as the fifth film for the franchise. However, the process of actually filming it was strenuous with director Stephen Hopkins having only four weeks to actually shot the movie and four weeks to edit. On top of this, the film was heavily cut down from its original vision to avoid an X-Rating, resulting in watered-down death and continuity errors. Released on August 11th, 1989 (about a year after the last one and apparently one of the last slasher films of the 80's), it was not only the lowest grossing of the franchise, but the most negatively reviewed up until this point. Even director Stephen Hopskins stated he was dissatisfied with the final result. Does it deserve this treatment? Let's take a look.

      Alice (Lisa Wilcox) has finally settled down after the events of the last film and graduated high school. However, she is haunted by visions of the conception and birth of Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) in an insane asylum. In the last one of these, she sees him getting resurrected in the church where she defeated him last movie, and he hints that he's found a way to get back. She tries to contact her boyfriend Dan (Danny .... Hassel), but Freddy gets him while he's en route. Alice faints, and finds out from nurse friend Yvonne (Kelly Jo Minter) that she is pregnant with Dan's child, which Alice realizes is Freddy's conduit to make his comeback.

      The dream sequences in this series just get better and better, and this easily has some of the best. Dark, surreal, scary, with some interesting twists and excellent visuals. It truly pushed the effects of the period while also looking great today. I don't really want to spoil some of these because these are some really original stuff.

     The best thing about this film is also its biggest drawback. The superb effects are in fact often on full display and are very clear. It's scary, but as it goes on and especially as it serves the often haphazard, ludicrous plot, the film really starts to come off as more campy, and that's where it really starts to fall apart. I tolerated Freddy Krueger's wisecracking persona, but here, it becomes unbearable, and it really diminishes his threat. A lot of the deaths are also way too over the top to invoke any real terror. In fact, a lot of them seem more like Looney Tunes gags than horror movie deaths. It also doesn't help the story is confusing and kind of ridiculous, with too many moving parts to take note of. I think a lot of these problems can be attributed to the cuts made, meaning some scenes are not in the film, and there are continuity errors here. So, maybe the uncut version is better.

    So, this is easily the weakest the series has gotten so far. Again, the effects are the probably the best of the whole series, so if you want to see that, it is a recommendation. However, there really is no reason to see this unless you want to see all of them.

    Alright, so we finish off the original continuity with Freddy's Dead (since I already did Freddy vs. Jason)

Summer of Terror- A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master

        The initial idea for this film from Wes Craven and partner Bruce Wagner involved dreams as a vehicle for time travel. This was rejected out of hand for the producers, who instead went with an idea from Brian Helgeland (recommended by Robert Englund himself, because Halgeland had written Englund's directorial debut 976-EVIL. Helgeland would go on to write LA Confidential) and brothers Ken and Jim Wheat (who would later write the ... Stepford Husbands. Well, they can't all be winners). Finnish director Renny Harlin (later known for Die Hard 2 and The Long Kiss Goodbye) got the job after pestering the producers for a while to get the job. Harlin would get inspiration from a Chinese ghost story and many of his own nightmares, though his initial vision for the film was cut down by the producers. Not helping was a then ongoing writer's strike, which forced Harlin and the actors to improvise many scenes. Patricia Arquette, seeking a wider range of roles, turned down a hefty offer to return to her role as Kristen Parker, which went to Tuesday Knight instead. The film had a budget of $14 million, the highest of the series thus far, and grossed $49 million, though with mixed reviews.

      After the deaths of Nancy Thompson and Freddy (Robert Englund) in the last one, Kristen (Tuesday Knight), Kincaid (Ken Sagoes), and Joey (Rodney Eastman) try to adjust back into normal life. However, Kristen is still haunted by him, and pulls the other two into her dreams frequently, where they have to calm her. In the meantime, Kristen has a new circle of associates, including boyfriend Rick (Andras Jones), his sister Alice (Lisa Wilcox), Sheila (Toy Newkirk), and Debbie (Brooke Theiss), while keeping in contact with Kincaid and Joey. However, lo and behold, Freddy's back, and he promptly dispatches Kincaid and Joey. Before he kills off Kristen (the last of the children whose parents had killed Freddy), she transfers her abilities to Alice. Now Alice and her friends must stop Freddy, who decides he likes this gig.

     This definitely has some of the best dream segments and scares of the franchise thus far. Very inventive, very scary, using a variety of interesting and disturbing imagery, ranging from the mundane gone wrong to the eldritch. There's a martial arts setting early in the film that's a particular highlight. The idea of Alice having the ability to absorb the abilities of her dead friends, along with bringing them into her dreams is an interesting conceit that works well overall. Robert Englund is, as ever, an excellent presence that manages to be slightly intimidating in his own way. I also like that this ends with a full on fight sequence.

     I'll admit, I wish that the survivors of the last film had been in it more, or had at least put up more of a fight against Freddy. Given that we had seen them fight off Freddy so effectively, it would've been nice to have them put up more of a fight. It also feels somewhat derivative of the last one in some parts, particularly how it involves a team-up and Freddy dispatches the main teens one by one. It manages to be distinct, but it is quite galling.

     So, this has some of the best sequences of the series, but also not really the strongest writing of them. That lands it at a solid okay. Not my favorite per se, but definitely worth watching just for some of these sequences.

     Next is The Dream Child.

Summer of Terror- A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors

   (Apologies for the lateness of this. I had an unexpected engagement and I couldn't finish the movie. This, however, might allow me to start writing these the day after, so that some time has passed. So, win?)

    So, as I discussed last time, Wes Craven didn't really want a franchise out of the first film. However, success of the second film convinced him the viability of it, and he returned to write the story for the film (with the intention of ending it as a trilogy). He originally conceived of a metanarrative, where the cast and crew making a new Nightmare were haunted by Freddy (ha! Unintentional pun, and yeah, this was reused for New Nightmare,which we'll look at soon enough), but the studio rejected it in favor of his other idea for the film, where a group of teens in an institution fight off Freddy with the help of Heather Langenkamp's (who returns for the film) Nancy Thompson. The script by Craven and Bruce Wagner was then re-written by director Chuck Russell (making his debut with the film) and his partner Frank Darabont (who would go on to write the Academy Award nominated film The Shashank Redemption ). Speaking of the Oscars, the film is also incidentally, the acting debut of future Academy Award winner Patricia Arquette. The filming was a tad arduous (full of long shoots and special effects mishaps, in part caused by a reduced budget for the film), but grossed $44 million on a $5 million budget, as well as mixed reviews.

    Kristen Parker (Patricia Arquette) is a young woman who, naturally, falls asleep on night, and has an encounter with Freddy (Robert Englund), who chases her around an abandoned house before slashing her wrists, which causes obvious concern to her mother (Brooke Bundy), who commits her to a psychiatric episode. There, her clear somniphobia causes her to resist the orderlies (including Max (Laurence Fishburne)) and attending physician Dr. Neil Gordon (Craig Wesson), before an intern therapist Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp) manages to calm her by reciting part of Freddie's nursery rhyme. Thompson then meets Kristen's fellow patients, including Kincaid (Ken Sagoes), Phillip (Bradley Gregg), Jennifer (Penelope Sudrow), Taryn (Jennifer Rubin), and Joey (Rodney Eastman). Thompson and Gordon, however, have a different agenda in mind for them: being the last surviving children of Freddy's lynch mob, they hope to train them to battle him. And with Parker revealing a special ability to bring people into her dreams, they just might have a chance.

     I really like that they again focus and elaborate on another aspect of Freddie's actions. In the second one, it was specifically him trying to possess someone to come back. In this one, there is more of a focus on the psychological effects of Freddy's actions. The fear of sleep and dreams, how Freddie's actions can be interpreted as some sort of psychosis. The Dream Warrior aspect is also well-done, in assembling a team of people haunted by Freddy to control their dreams and use it to vanquish him once and for all. It was nice to see Nancy Thompson in a more mature role, using her own experience to help others. Each person is given enough time to really develop and make them full characters and not slasher fodder. I also like that they do delve into Freddy's backstory a little, and reveal a bit about why he ended up the way he did. Despite the apparently cut budget and some dated one (like a Harryhausen skeleton at the end), the effects are still great, and are quite terrifying to watching, particularly one involving tongues. While Freddy's wisecracking apparently wasn't seen as kosher by many people, it distinguishes him from silent killers, so I'll give him a pass, and he is threatening most of the time and still omnipresent. Finally, there's a funny gag with Dick Cavett and Zsa Zsa Gabor  (which was apparently unscripted, because Gabor didn't know what movie she was going to be in).

     Again, some dated special effects that look funny rather than horrifying today. I didn't like how they handled John Saxon's character (also returning), which seemed like a staunch departure from the way the character was in the first film. The ending was a tad confusing (which makes sense, given it was rewritten from a finale to the franchise written by Craven), and I sort of wish that the titular Dream Warriors had fought together, Avengers-style. Just a thought.

   Another win, and another very interesting, unique entry into the franchise. I'm curious as to what they'll do next. Anyway, recommendation, though watch the first one at least for some context into this one.

   Alright, Number 4: Dream Master . 

Summer of Terror- A Nightmare on Elm Street, Part II: Freddy's Revenge

     Despite the success of the first film, Wes Craven refused to return to direct a sequel, not wanting to have a franchise. So, the duties for this film went instead to Jack Sholder, who directed the slasher Alone in the Dark (unrelated to the game series). The idea for the film came from Leslie Bonham, who had initially pitched a pregnancy plot homaging Rosemary's Baby, before switching to a demonic possession. After attempting to replace Robert Englund, it was realized that it just didn't work without his iconic performance. The screenwriter, David Chaskin, added more focus between the male lead, Jesse, and his girlfriend. He also added a homoerotic subtext to the film, particularly in showing the main character as a closeted gay man dealing with repressed feelings. The actor, Mark Patton (himself closeted at the time) resented this and Chaskin for many years. Released on November 1st, 1985, the film grossed over $30 million on $3 million budget, and received mixed reviews.

     Five years after the first film, the Walsh family has moved to the now named Springwood, into the old home of the Thompsons. Sure enough, the son, Jesse (Mark Patton) starts to have strange visions of Freddie Krueger (Robert Englund), following him, terrorizing him. Eventually, he and his girlfriend Lisa Webber (Kim Myers) find the diary of Nancy from the first film, learning of her experiences. Soon, there are a number of strange events occurring throughout the Walsh house, and Jesse is told to kill by Freddy. And as he struggles, he slowly succumbs to that command.

    Despite Craven not being at the helm, Sholder does a competent job, managing to capture the feel of the first film, with its ominous atmosphere and bright lights, while putting his own spin. That, and the unique plot of Freddy trying to seize control of a person in the real world, make this feel a lot different than the first. It has different scares, a different plot, different characters. It feels almost like an entirely different franchise, connected to the first only by Freddie's presence and the prominence of dreams. I did enjoy the ways they portray Krueger slowly taking over Jesse's body, even having Freddy jump out face-hugger style towards the hour mark. While it is very distinct from the first one in many ways, it manages to retain one of the key elements of the first that worked best: defeating Freddie through sheer willpower and overcoming fear. Finally, the scenes have even bigger scares and even bigger stakes, which is appropriate for the film.

    Like the last one, it feels too short, and a lot could've been elaborated on or explored, including Jesse's relationship to his family and his new schoolmates. It also has the cliche criticism of second act problems, where it drags a bit and it stops for a bit, (though that has some good scenes of Jesse's descent). Copying the first's ending was a bit much, especially since the rest was very distinct from the first.

      If I hadn't read about it, I probably wouldn't have picked up on the famous gay subtext of this film, but having read it, it does contextualize a lot of the film, especially how Jesse's internal rage was manipulated. So, as an artifact, it is pretty interesting and I suppose it can be recommended for academic purposes? Otherwise, pretty good horror movie, would recommend to people who liked the first one.

     Alrighty, tomorrow is Dream Warriors.

Summer of Terror- A Nightmare on Elm Street

    Alright, with the relative success of last year's Summer of Terror, I figure I might as well continue with the most logical successor: The Nightmare on Elm Street series. I've heard, on the whole, this series has a more consistent quality than the Friday the 13th series. Plus, there are fewer films to review. I would've done this back in June, but I've been busy. Anyway, let's start at the beginning with 1984's A Nightmare on Elm Street.

(Reminder, I will not put spoilers in the synopsis, but if needed, I will put certain spoilers in the critique, so be warned)

      I've discussed Wes Craven and his seminal work in horror genre in a couple of these. Born into a staunch Baptist family in Cleveland, Craven became an English instructor, both on the high school and university levels, following his graduation from John Hopskins, before eventually going into filmmaking. He would do some very low-budget, X-rated feature under pseudonyms before finally hitting it big with the visceral horror film The Last House on the Left, and following it up with the also visceral The Hills Have Eyes. He would do several more films in the early 80's, Deadly Blessing, an adaptation of the DC Comics character Swamp Thing (that film inspired Alan Moore's celebrated run, among others), and a sequel to The Hills Have Eyes. He was almost destitute due to the failure of the former two, before coming up with the idea for Nightmare. Its conception had a number of origins. An old vagrant that Craven had seen as a child. A horror parody his students at Clarkson University produced on Elm Street, Postdam, New York A number of sleep related deaths amongst Southeast Asian refugees. The Gary Wright song "Dream Weaver". The DC comics character Plastic Man. The fact that red and green are the two most contrasting colors to the human retina. All of these elements were put into the character of Freddie Krueger, named for a childhood bully of Craven's. After finishing the script in 1981, shortly after the production of  Swamp Thing, and shopped it to several studios, before film distributor New Line Cinema (then just starting film productions through some films by John Waters) agreed to produce (though money troubles would cause the budget to inflate from $700,000 to $1.1 million). Craven was determined to make a great movie villain. Inspired by the masked killers of the time, he made Krueger heavily disfigured as his "mask", and considered having a stuntman play him, like Jason. However, after several screen tests, it was decided that an actual actor was needed. He was also changed from a child molester to a child killer due to a number of child molestation stories popping up in the news at the time. Robert Englund (at one point, considered for the role of Han Solo and having played a large role in the show V) was soon cast, and put into heavy make-up, coming to embody the role for the rest of the franchise. After actor Charlie Sheen passed up the role of Glen, other actors were considered and auditioned. Eventually, Craven's daughter picked out an actor accompanying a friend to their audition from a headshot, and Craven cast a young Johnny Depp in the role. Filmed in and around Los Angeles, it would use 500 gallons of fake blood and other extensive special effects (including an oatmeal-glue mix for the melting staircase scene, and of course, Freddy's glove, made with steak knives). Released on November 9th, 1984, the film make $1.2 million on its opening weekend,and $25 million over its run in theaters. The success would push New Line into the mainstream, making it "The House that Freddy Built". It has come to be seen as one of the greatest horror films ever made.

      In an Everytown, USA, high schooler Tina Grey (Amanda Wyss) is chased in a dream by a mysterious disfigured man with claws (Robert Englund). When she awakened, there are tears in her nightgown. While her boyfriend Rod Lane (Nick Corri) is unsympathetic, her friends Nancy Thompson (Heather Langenkamp) and her boyfriend Glen Lantz (Johnny Depp) comfort her. Sure enough, the next night, while Rod and Tina are sleeping together, Tina is again hounded by the man, who catches up, and kills brutally. Rod witnesses her body being torn under the sheets, and flees. He is subsequently accused by Nancy's father, Police Lieutenant Donald (John Saxon) of her murder. However, Nancy is unsure, and she herself is pursued in her dreams by the man, now calling himself Freddy. She would soon find herself in a seemingly unwinnable situation, all while learning stunning truths about her mother (Ronee Blakely) and the other parents on Elm Street.

     I did this film back when these were short Facebook reviews. I remember not liking it, feeling it was too cheesy and weird. Now watching some 5 or 6 years later, I definitely didn't give it its due credit. The atmosphere of this film is amazing. It is all pervasive, slowly invading even the most calm settings around, and it seems never-ending. This is helped by Freddy's reliance on dreams, which means the characters are always going to encounter him because of the need to sleep. It makes for some great, inventive scares, and the creeping sense that follows you as you and the characters try to determine his next move. There is some great, iconic imagery, especially the boileroom, which is shot in a dream-like quality. I appreciate that Freddy himself is distinguished from other slasher by his facial scares and his lively personality, as well as supernatural abilities. He is a great villain, constantly around, and even when things seem safe, he pops back up. The way he's defeated is especially clever, using the logic established in the film and personal growth to slowly diminish his power. I like that some scenes are indefinite as to whether they're dreams or not.

    If I had one criticism, it is too short. A lot happens, but it is wrapped up very neatly. It might've been nice to explore the community a little, Freddy's crimes in life, how the dream world works, but the film is only 90-some minutes. I also feel that it lags in certain parts, especially the scenes where they try to determine the cause of Nancy's problems, and I wish they had gone a little more into how Freddy got to be a supernatural ghost, but perhaps they explain it in the sequels.

   I was way off about this movie. This was actually pretty good, and this time around, I enjoyed it a fair bit. I recommend it to horror fans or thriller fans as well, or for historical purposes to see the origin of a horror icon. It does pique my interest in the sequels as well.

      Speaking of which, join me tomorrow for Freddy's Revenge.
     

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre's Summer of Terror- Friday the 13th(2009)

    In 2003, the same year Freddy vs. Jason came out, the remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was released. The original 1974 feature, along with that year's Black Christmas  had typified and started the slasher craze of the 70's and 80's. So, it is fairly appropriate that it would start off its own chain of remakes (including Rob Zombie two Halloween remakes, and  a 2007 remake of Black Christmas). The Chainsaw remake was the first film produced by Platinum Dunes, the production company belonging to director Michael Bay and producers Andrew Form and Brad Fuller. The Chainsaw connection goes deeper, as New Line, inspired by the success of that film, approach Platinum Dunes with the idea of reinvigorating the Friday the 13th franchise the way they did for the Chainsaw franchise. After the director for that film's prequel, Jonathan Liebsman (later known for those forgettable Ninja Turtle reboots) was considered, Chainsaw director Marcus Nispel was chosen to direct. Instead of creating another sequel, they decided to reboot the franchise, using elements from the first four films, . Freddy vs. Jason writers  Damian Shannon and Mark Swift were brought in because of their adept knowledge of the franchise and its history. They tried to avoid being another sequel or origin story, but still pay homage to the series.  Since Platinum had to work with all the rights holders for each part of the franchise, this would be the first time Paramount was involved in a Friday the 13th since the failure of Jason Takes Manhattan in 1989, as international distributor (New Line would continue as US distributor). In the long tradition of stuntmen playing the man behind the mask, Derek Mears was cast as Jason, reinterpreted more as a territorial killer than a methodical revenge seeking one. Released on the February Friday the 13th of 2009 (which is one day before Valentine's day, incidentally) it would be the second highest grossing film of the franchise, with mixed reception. In the past 9 years, a 13th film has been planned, but is currently stalled due to an ongoing legal battle between Victor Miller (the screenwriter of the original), and current rights holder Crystal Lake Entertainment (headed by Sean Cunningham).

      Beginning in June 13th, 1980, in a remake of the climax of the original, a camp counselor (Stephanie Rhodes) at Camp Crystal Lake beheads Pamela Voorhees (Nana Visitor) after the latter went on a rampage through the camp. Her son Jason (Caleb Guss) watches on. 30 years later, a group of teens, including Whitney (Amanda Righetti), Wade (Jonathan Sadowski), Richie (Ben Feldman), Mike (Nick Mennell), and Amanda (America Olivo) head to the area to set up camp and find some marijuana growing in the bushes. There, Wade tells the story of Jason Voorhees, which the other initially dismiss. However, as Whitney and Mike explore an old abandoned house (with a familiar shrine), Jason subsequently kills them off one by one, until only Whitney remains. Two months later, another group of teens, now Trent (Travis Van Winkle, apparently playing the same character he did in Transformers. Jason vs Transformers....),  Jenna (Danielle Panabaker), Chelsea (Willa Ford), Bree (Julianna Guill), Chewie (Aaron Yoo), Nolan (Ryan Hansen) and Lawrence (Arlen Escarpeta) are heading to Trent's summer house for vacation. They have a brief run in with Clay (Jared Padalecki. I kind of wish there was a Dean joke I could make, because it's rare that I can make an appropriate Gilmore Girls reference), who is looking of his sister Whitney. While Trent has an aggressive encounter, when he comes back around the cabin, Jenna is willing to help him look. Jason begins his own attack, and we learn Whitney is still alive, trapped because she resembles a younger version of Pamela.

        It's clear that the screenwriters had taken the best parts of the first four films and condensed them. We see Pamela's death, the shrine that Jason keeps to her, Clay looking for his sister (a reference to the Hitchhiker in the Fourth one, with elements of Tommy Jarvis), Jason getting the hockey mask, and various teens coming camping. It works, and helps get to the meat of the entire film without any tedium or distractions. I was worried when the film seemed shadowy and unwatchable, but you can see everything fine. It has the signature series excellence in effects and gore, with some creative ways of showing the various character. I was a little apprehensive of Jason being more of an aggressive killer, but it works, though I will say it feels more like Leatherface than Jason. Most importantly, despite the more modern setting, and updates, it feels like a Friday the 13th film, with all the tropes and elements that make a good entry in the series work. It was also nice to hear the old theme for the series.

       It's established that, even when Michael Bay isn't directing, his fingerprints are all over anything he's involved with (I can't imagine what that documentary about elephant poaching he's involved with will be like). This is not an exception, with his various minor annoyances all over . It's especially worse that a lot of these characters are the slasher film teens, so their unlikeability increases with Bay's tendency towards distateful characters. There's characters to root for, but you kind of just wait for those you don't like to be offed. Honestly, while the "back-to-basics" part is not bad, I think it could've benefited from the supernatural twist that later films gave Jason. This would make more distinct from Leatherface. I also feel it might've worked with more fan service.

       I enjoyed this, despite my own trepidations going in. It feels like a Friday the 13th film, in a good way. It has what makes the series work, and knows how to use it to great effect. If you're a fan of the series, or just want a good horror film for this Friday the 13th, this is a good option, and a good film for those unfamiliar with the series.

     Well, that's it. 12 films in 12 days. I wasn't terribly into the first one, but as I've gone through each of these entries, I see what made this series such a classic. It might get formulaic, but some were able to take that formula, and bring it in interesting directions, or even just make it entertaining without really becoming too repetitive.  Regardless of who's playing him, Jason, despite his lack of emotions, is a dynamic, interesting presence, and whether he is haunting Crystal Lake, roaming the streets of New York, or is in Space, he is always the best part of any of these films. I've only disliked two of these (the two New Line Cinema ones), and even those still had some elements that made them enjoyable. Of these, I'd say the second and sixth ones are my favorite, because they were able to use the formula to its maximum potential, and I've had a good time watching most of these. I'd end with a glib reference to the series (i.e. So, next time you plan a visit to Crystal Lake), but frankly, I'm glad I'm done, because I did have to watch a film a night, and a review the very next day. At least, nothing major happened that disrupted this general schedule. Anyway, thank you all for reading all of these and joining in my journey through this series, and next week, I am doing The Equilizer 2, so hopefully you join me for that.