Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Scream

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

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

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

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

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

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

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre-- The Fly (1986)

     I don't think I've done a David Cronenberg film during the 6 years I've been doing this, and that's a huge blindspot, given his immense influence on the genre. Born in Toronto, he was inspired by college classmate David Secter's film Winter Keeps Us Warm to go into filmmaking, starting with small arthouse productions before going in partnership with fellow Canadian filmmaker Ivan Reitman, who produced his breakthrough 1975 film Shivers, the first to show his signature brand of body horror. By the 1980's, he had gotten more acclaim for surreal horror films like Videodrome, Scanners, and The Dead Zone. He was working on an early draft of Total Recall (adapted from Phillip K. Dick's story, "We Can Remember For You Wholesale") for producer Dino DeLaurentiis when he was approached to a remake of The Fly, which he had to turn down due to that prior commitment. The idea to remake The Fly originated from producer Kip Ohrman, who approached screenwriter Charles Edward Pogue (Psycho III, The Hounds of Baskerville) to write the project. Together with producer Stuart Cornfield, they pitched a remake idea to 20th Century Fox,  with the conceit that, unlike the original's sudden transformation, the remake would feature a gradual metamorphasis. Fox was impressed, but was unimpressed with Pogue's first draft. Cornfield was able to get Fox to distribute the film if they got a new producer. Mel Brooks (yes, that one) agreed to be that producer. (He produced a number of serious films, including David Lynch's Elephant Man, through his company Brooksfilms and kept his name off the credits so that people wouldn't expect a comedy, which he also did here). Eventually, Cronenberg left Total Recall over creative differences, and was able to accept the role as director, as well as completely rewriting Pogue's script, only keeping the element of gradual metamorphosis. A then-mostly unknown Jeff Goldblum was cast after many actors were approached or auditioned, in spite of the studio fearing that he couldn't carry a feature film by himself. Chris Walas, a special effects and make-up artist whose credits included Airplane, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and Gremlins, did the effects for the film, including the legendary transformation sequences. Released in 1986, the film would gross $40 million at the box office, and would garner critical acclaim, and even an Oscar for Best Make-Up. The film still holds a 92% on Rotten Tomatoes, and the tagline "Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid" is now a cultural touchstone.

      Scientist Seth Brundle (Jeff Goldblum) wants to impress journalist Ronnie Quaife (Geena Davis), so he shows her his newest project: a teleportation device. Brundle wants Quaife to remain silent on the issue, at least until he could test it appropriately. Quaife documents Brundle's experiments and eventually becomes romantically involved with Brundle, earning the ire of her jealous editor Stathis Borans (John Getz). After a failed experiment with a baboon and a successful one with the baboon's brother, Brundle decides to take the plunge himself, testing the device with himself inside. However, he doesn't seem to notice a fly coming into the other pod. And while he emerges fine, he starts to exhibit strange symptoms.....

     First, the special effects and production design of the film are stellar. Especially the teleportation and transformation sequences, and Goldblum's make-up. The pods look distinct, the computers look real. The dark corridors of the lab, lightened only by the lights of the teleportation or blue street lights, help set the mood of the film, especially at the end. The make-up and effects on Goldblum as he steadily transforms into a bizarre fly-human hybrid is very terrifying and visceral,, especially as it reaches its later stages. It is hard to watch because it is so disgusting (especially the skin). That in and of itself might've worked all to sell the horror on its own, but what really cements it is Goldblum's performance. Not only does he subtly show the personality changes the character goes through, but he shows a lot of physicality in his performance, making subtle changes to his gestures, movement, and voice as the transformation ramps up, and he has to deal with both wanting to change back and the increasing fly take-over of his mind and body. This kind of subtle acting shines through, even under the layers of make-up. I complained about the slow story in the original, but since this one has more of an emphasis on the gradual transformation, it works to build up the eventual monster, and the pain it causes both for Brundle and Quaife.  Finally, the score by Academy Award winner Howard Shore is very creepy and gives an impression

    If there was a problem, it's a bit too short. I feel more could've been done to show Goldblum's transformation before the physical changes become more and more prominent. The changes to his personality and physiology worked incredibly well, and I wish they had more scenes focusing on that, especially since it could showcase Goldblum's performance even more.

     I think I love this movie. It was so good, it's somewhat stunning. This movie is of course, something of a cultural milestone, but I didn't expect it to be this good and this powerful. This is quite a masterpiece, and I highly recommend to anyone, not just fans of horror and science fiction. Even if it is disgusting, the craftmanship is so well-done, it can be forgiven.

     Alright, we continue on Friday with the first Scream. 

Masterpieces of Horror Theatre- The Fly (1958)

       It's that time of year again! Yes, boils and ghouls, it's the annual Masterpieces of Horror Theatre, where we look at horror film past and present. And to begin the last one of these for the 2010's, we will discuss both the seminal 1958 horror film the Fly and its 1985 remake. (Just as a reminder, I don't spoil anything in the synopsis, but I do in the benefits/flaws sections.)

       French-British writer George Langelaan had an interesting life, serving as a spy during World War II, helping the French resistance, escaping a Nazi death camp, participating in the Normandy invasion, and being friends with occultist Aleister Crowley, among other things. However, his biggest legacy was his short horror story "The Fly", first published in Playboy magazine in 1957. The story of a scientist who becomes a monstrous hybrid of man and fly during a mishap with his teleportation device was noticed by Kurt Neumann, a German born director who had been working in Hollywood since the early 30's, focusing on B-movie pictures. He showed the story to Robert Lippert, the head of 20th Century Fox's subsidiary Regal Pictures, who decided to make the feature. While Lippert was initially announced as lead producer, Fox, fearing the repercussions of Lippert's then-conflict with the Screen Actor's Guild over residuals, replaced him with Neumann (who also directs the film) and made the film an official Fox release instead of a Regal one (though Lippert would remain an uncredited producer, and Regal, known for their low budget production style, would handle much of the film.) Screenwriter James Clavell (later a prolific screenwriter and director, known also for The Great Escape) stayed close to the original short story, only changing some elements. Fox boasted in publicity material that much of the equipment used in the film was army or air force surplus loaned to them. Make-up artist Ben Nye made a 20 pound fly head for actor Al Hedison (who would later go by his middle name David, and would be cast as James Bond BFF Felix Leiter in the 70's and 80's), which Nye would remain very proud of. Multiple sources list different budgets for the film, with one going as high as $495,000. Regardless, the film was a smash financially when it was released in July of 1958 (though Neumann would sadly not live to see it, having died a month later.) Though the critical reception was decidedly mixed upon release, it has come to be seen as a classic in the genre.

      At a Montreal laboratory, a night watchman (Torben Meyer) witnesses scientist Andre Delambre (Al or David Hedison, whichever works) crushed under a press, and his wife Helene (Patricia Owens) fleeing the scene. While Helene confesses the murder to Andre's brother François (Vincent Price), she becomes more erratic when interrogated by François and Inspector Charas (Herbert Marshall), and obsessed with flies, in particular a white headed fly. François knows how happy the couple and their child Phillippe (Charles Herbert) were, and in a bid to get the truth, claims to have the white headed fly, which prompts Helene to divulge the true circumstances of his death. Largely, how his tireless pursuit for an effective teleportation machine ultimately isolated him from his family, and lead him to a very... small place.

    First and foremost, this is a very immaculate production design. The house that serves as the primary setting, the laboratory, the outdoors, all of it looks great, and very appealing to the eye, which helps keep the viewer watching. This extends to the two big special effects of the film. The fly costume looks great, very terrifying to watch whenever it's on screen, especially the head and the claw arms. Apparently Hedison disliked the make-up, but it honestly works to make his performance a lot more physical, showing the angst as he struggles with his mind slipping and his grotesque appearance. The second big effect is Hedison's head in the fly's body, which, while only on screen for a moment, is quite terrifying, and leads to a horrific final scene. The terror is still present, even some 60 years later, and it is quite disturbing, especially since a lot of it is off screen. It is very suspenseful at times, particularly when Delambre is fully revealed as a monstrous hybrid.

     I could tell that this was particularly close to the source material, and that works against the film. The long build-up would likely work better in a short story, but the film drags a little as it goes into Andre slowly becoming estranged from his family and acting strangely, and Helene's obsession with the flies and where it leads. It's only an 1 hour and 33 minutes, so it doesn't get too tedious, but it does feel the mystery of it did need to be shortened a little. It is, after all, called The Fly, and people won't be confused by the infusion of a monster called the Fly.

     Right as I was watching the scene where the Fly monster is revealed, an actual fly landed outside my window. That was a funny little anecdote about the film. Anyway, this was pretty good and still very scary, despite being 60 years old with 60 year old effects. It was still very scary and somewhat depressing to watch, especially towards the end. I highly recommend it to horror fans and fans of old science fiction films all the same.

    So, tomorrow, I will take a look at David Cronenberg's version of these events.   

Current Film Reviews- The Goldfinch

     Hey, an Ansel Elgort feature that is being released in theaters.  Despite having now designated myself as his nemesis (which would mean something if he was aware of my existence), I didn't know whether or not to review this film. That is, until its debut at the Toronto International Film Festival, where it was scorched by critics. I knew the book was controversial when it won a Pulitzer, but even that didn't prepare me for the savaging this film got. And then and there, I decided to do this review. I'll say this: it didn't disappoint.

    Based on Donna Tartt's 2013 Pulitzer Prize winning novel of the same name, The Goldfinch tells the story of the life of Theodore Decker (Oakes Fegley  as a child; Ansel Elgort as an adult), who survives a terrorist attack on MoMA, which takes the life of his mother (Hailey Wist). However, as he stumbles through the wreckage, he comes across the mortally wounded Welty Blackwell (Robert Joy), who entrusts him with Carel Fabritus' 1654 painting The Goldfinch. Decker keeps the painting with him, as he journeys through life. From staying with family friend Samantha Barbour (Nicole Kidman) and her family, including his best friend Andy (Ryan Foust), and apprenticing with Backwell's partner James Hobart (Jeffrey Wright) as well as meeting Blackwell's niece Pippa (Aimee Laurence as a child; Ashleigh Cummings as an adult) before his deadbeat father (Luke Wilson, being very Luke Wilson-y) drags him to Las Vegas, where he befriends Ukranian expatriate Boris (Finn Wolfhard as a child, Aneurin Barnard as an adult). Through it all, he still has the painting, seemingly.

       This is going to be a very negative review,  but I'm obliged to at least point out things that work. There are some flashes where young Theo and his friends are having fun or enjoying each other's company which work and are actually mildly interesting. There's a shot here and there that kind of works. Occasionally, it gets bizarrely melodramatic, or overly serious enough to be unintentionally funny.

     The film this most reminded me of was M. Night Shyamalan's The Happening. Stiff acting all around; pretentious, absurd themes and dialogue; weird, out-of-place cartoon characters in otherwise stern serious work. This feels like a very bad late period Shyamalan movie (ironically, his own movie this year is actually better), and all the flaws that entails. It's a shame, because the director, John Crowley, did Brooklyn , which has the bright lighting, but had a charm and warmth to it, that this film severely needs. It takes itself way too seriously, with its themes of terrorism, abuse, the value of art, antiques, family but it never focuses on one theme long enough for any of it to matter or for it to have a coherent message. Like I said, sometimes, it's untentionally funny sometimes, it gets so melodramatic and offbeat. Bigger than that, though, is that the film is just boring. There is no narrative structure to it, so it's very hard to tell when it's going to end, and it just keeps going. It just goes on with dull acting and painfully boring dialogue. I almost fell asleep watching this a couple times. It crosses the threshold into terrible with its crushing length. 2 and a half hours! Virtually nothing happens in this, and it takes that long to tell this story.

     If I hadn't gotten a literal headache watching Godzilla:King of Monsters, this probably would be the worst movie I've seen this year. I struggle to find things that really work about this film. I considered just getting up and walking out, I was so un-invested in this film. It is simply terrible, and I can't think of any reason to see it. Even if the accidental humor intrigues you, it is so few and far between to really make this worth 2 and half hours, and it's mostly tedium in between. I was worried that I wouldn't have enough to write this before I saw the film. Now, I think I have too much, because there might be stuff I've forgotten!

   Anyway, thanks for reading, and join me on the 28th, for the start of my annual horror review, beginning with the 1958 version of The Fly.

Dailles and Nightlies- Crash (2004)

     When Green Book won best picture at the Oscars a couple months ago, the inevitable comparison was to the Best Picture winner at the 2005 ceremony, Crash. Both were dramas revolving around racism, involving the idea that racism was simple misunderstanding and that one could redeem themself of this bigotry. Because of that, both appealed to the liberal, yet very old and white Oscar voters. There was a massive backlash to the win for both (though, in Crash's case, the backlash, in part was because it beat out favorite LGBT+ romance Brokeback Mountain), and both are prime examples of the kind of insultingly simplistic racial dramas that tend to curry favor at the Academy Awards. As I enjoyed reading the reviews and retrospectives of Crash (cultural commentator Ta-Neshi Coates called it the "Worst Film of the Decade"), I came to the realization that I've never actually seen this film. I've seen clips of it, but never the entire thing. Well, this is a whole series for movies outside of recent releases or horror films, so why not explore this, and see if it really deserves its reputation (spoiler: it does)

     So, there is not really cohesive plot to this, but rather a group of interlocking narratives involving several characters. Graham Waters (Don Cheadle) is a detective investigating a crime scene, after getting involved in a fender bender while driving with his girlfriend Ria (Jennifer Espicito) with an Asian driver, resulting in a racial scuffle (setting the tone for all the dialogue in the film). The day before, carjackers Anthony (Chris "Ludacris" Bridges) and Peter (Larenz Tate) steal the car of DA Rick Cabot (Brendan Fraser) and his wife Jean (Sandra Bullock). Director Cameron Thayer (Terrence Howard) and his wife Christine (Thandie Newton) are pulled over by officers John Ryan (Matt Dillon) and Tom Hansen (Ryan Phillippe). Shop owner Farrad (Shaun Toub) and his daughter Dorri (Bahar Soomekh) are trying to buy a gun. Each of these stories intersects and shows how people can be subject to prej... I feel disgusted just finishing that sentence.

    Good things, good things..... There are some decent performances, like Don Cheadle, Ludacris, and Brendan Fraser. It does manage to end most of the stories in a satisfactory manner, without any sort of dangling threads or plot holes. Sometimes, it gets so melodramatic, it's somewhat entertaining.

   First things first, the lighting in this film is horrible. It is often either too bright that it overwhelms the scene, or it is just dim enough that it makes the characters hard to see. The combination makes the film literally hard to watch sometimes. Sometimes, it leads to unintentional hilarity, as serious needle drop moments are staged like some bizarre parody. The big moment in this got a laugh from me. Well, both for the odd lighting which emphasized the wrong things, and how contrived the whole thing was. Which leads to my next problem: the plots in this are very contrived. Only a very specific set of circumstances can lead to the events that occur, and it really stretches disbelief, especially when this is allegedly set in a real-world setting. The way the plots intersect and weave are so absurd, it's almost comical. It's like one of those Gary Marshall holiday movies, where the varying plots are related in weird ways. Finally, of course, there is the writing and the message. Much has been written about this. How all the dialogue somehow finds its way to reveal racism, even when it makes absolutely no sense. How each character is just a vehicle and not a full character. How the characters do absolutely heinous things, but are redeemed in over-the-top ways that ultimately don't address the things they did or really tries to redeem (or even say that some people are beyond redemption). The thing I want to focus on is how... confused the message is. It's either a.) racism is just misunderstanding and can be solved by grandstanding acts, or, b.) it's institutional and possibly can't be solved. The movie ends with the big metaphoric snowstorm in LA, and with people arguing again, which seems to contradict the entire rest of the film.

    I haven't seen Brokeback Mountain, but I can postulate it is far better than this. This was just awful. I can totally see why someone would call this the "Worst Film of the Decade", and get mad this won an Oscar (though it is a superb example of Oscar Bait). I disagree that Green Book was a worse Best Picture win than this, because, in spite of its horrid messaging and bending of the truth, Green Book is mostly competent and well made. I wouldn't recommend watching this as a good movie, but there are moments of unintentional hilarity that can be gained from watching it and how deadly serious it takes itself.

     

Current Film Reviews- Fast and Furious Presents: Hobbs and Shaw

     So, I've never seen a Fast and Furious film. I may have seen part of the second one years ago, but I've never seen any full film from the franchise, despite its increasing acclaim as an internationally, intersectionally minded blockbuster franchise. I just don't really know where to start, given that the continuity of the films is famously bizarre, and its shift from street racing to international spy thrillers equally such. So, given this, I decided to do this review with that mindset. Having not seen any of the Fast and Furious films, does this spin-off stand up as its own film to a non-fan such as myself, who isn't immersed in this particular franchise.

     A group of MI6 agents try to capture a device containing a virus that could wipe out most of mankind (sadly, it is not called "Thanoslite"), from the terrorist organization Eteon. However, an Eteon operative named Brixton Lore (Idris Elba), with superhuman abilities, comes out to retrieve their device. He kills all the agents, except Hattie Shaw (Vanessa Kirby) who injects the virus capsules into herself before fleeing. Brixton promptly frames her for the attack. The CIA then recruits Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) and Hattie's brother Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) to find Hattie and bring her to justice. Of course, Brixton is on the trail, and complications arise.

    First, the chemistry between Dwayne Johnson and Jason Stathem basically is the entire film. I've heard that they get on pretty well in real life, and it does show. I could just see them trash talking each other for a feature-length film. It helps especially during some of the sequences where they are forced to work together. Most of the other actors do fine in their roles (Idris Elba seems to be having fun in this). The actions sequences are spectacular, with elaborate set pieces and a lot of activity going on, making all of them exciting and fun . This could be attributed to director David Letch, who did similar large scale action scenes with John Wick, Atomic Blonde, and Deadpool 2 (Funnily enough, Ryan Reynolds plays a small role in the film). Best of all, there is no reliance on continuity, aside from some nods or subtle references (I don't know how much the two interacted before in the franchise, but they clearly have some history), and the big theme of family that has been through the franchise. It works as a standalone action film, with a lot of heart and sentimentality. 

     This was way too long. An hour and a half long story extended to nearly 2 hours and 15 minutes. It really starts to grind down in the second act, as the action sequences seem to go on too long. I know people don't really care about the story, and I don't really either in this case, but there are a number of continuity errors and plot holes that were a little distracting, even in a movie like this.

    So, I can't speak to whether fans of the franchise will enjoy this, but just as a fun action movie, I enjoyed it. I had a lot of fun, and there was a large amount of heart to this. I might actually check out the others in this series if they're all this fun and jovial. Even if you've never seen another one of these, I think one could watch this, and follow it with ease.  

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: