Support NeoGAF

strobogo · Oct 16, 2012

Aske said:
#16 - A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors
Trailer

Generally regarded as the best of the straight sequels to A Nightmare on Elm Street, this movie delivers almost everything: a solid follow-up story to the original film, a great cast, a few excellent effects (Freddy snake!) and a good dose of creativity. Despite all this, watching it again straight after the original film, it feels rather toothless. Puppet-jump has some dramatic weight and looks excellent, but with that exception I can't help but feel it's much more fun watching Freddy screw with people before delivering the coup de grâce this time around. The actual kills aren't that special - not remotely comparable to those of the first film - and Freddy doesn't get enough lines to establish or strengthen his character in any kind of meaningful way. Given that it's only the third film, it seems like the script takes audience familiarity with Freddy for granted, missing every opportunity to display more of his personality.

That sounds very critical, but I still enjoyed the film a great deal. It used to be my favourite of the initial six, and though I'd still say it's technically stronger than the first movie in terms of scope, writing, acting, production, etc; the original still carries enough weight to trump it as a superior vehicle for the franchise's star player.

#17 - Wes Craven's New Nightmare
Trailer

This is what happens when you blend a psychological horror film with a character slasher, and it's magnificent. New Nightmare is a film that redefines horror and utterly abandons every established slasher staple; yet it's also the best Elm Street sequel, if not simply the best Freddy film. Not only do we have Robert Englund's finest portrayal of the character - Freddy at his darkest and most menacing - we witness Heather Langenkamp's bizarre descent into madness as she and her son become lost in Craven's fiction. While the audience knows from the outset that her sanity is not in question, the film expands and revitalizes the well-worn "is this a dream?" setup into something much more ominous, reminiscent of a series of psychotic breaks inexorably increasing in duration and severity. Craven peppers the first half of the film with shots of background characters wearing red and green stripes: little needles in Heather's subconscious slipping into her perception. The viewer is poignantly aware of the slow, torturous pressure that Freddy is building in her mind, and the scene in which she finally breaks is one of the most powerful in the film.

My only criticism is with the kills. They're are handled adequately given the film's tone, and I'm not suggesting an increase in the body count; but I feel there's room for a little more panache. While the movie doesn't suffer due to this restraint, I'd have felt balance was restored if we were granted a Glen 2.0 to go along with the magnificent Tina callback. Still, it's a minor criticism. This is a magnificent film, and a triumph for the horror genre.

What is really interesting to me is that Wes already wanted to do the New Nightmare story for Dream Warriors. If New Nightmare was ahead of its time as a bizarre meta, post-modern horror movie in 1994, think about it how that would have been received in 1987.

And despite the comedy and fantasy elements of 3, it is surprisingly and shockingly dark for such a successful movie in the Reagan Family Values era. All of the movies are essentially Freddy making it look like kids are committing suicide. But this is a group of troubled, actually suicidal kids in a mental institution being made to look like they are killing themselves in the ways they are being put in the institution for in the first place. While the people (well, person, that cunotary of a doctor) in charge refuse to believe them and end up making things worse.

Did Wes have anything to do with the writing of Scream or was Kevin Williamson inspired by New Nightmare and then by chance had Wes attached to his project? Because NN did what Scream did first and really to a more extreme level, but Scream gets all the credit. Well, Wes gets part of the credit too, but not for New Nightmare at all. I think New Nightmare is clearly and unquestionably the best movie of the series. It's like...legitimate art and not just a schlocky horror flick. It's so much more...intelligent and professional. But it isn't the most fun one to watch. A Freddy Krueger movie about the movie character of Freddy Krueger that includes the making of a new Freddy Krueger movie because the character of Freddy is invading the real world. It's like Adaptation but for horror movies. 8 years earlier.

Ridley327 · Oct 16, 2012

If I'm not mistaken, Craven was more or less a hired hand for Scream that the Weinsteins were able to pick up on the cheap, due to his then-recent string of flops. All the meta-commentary stuff was in the script back when it was called Scary Movie.

One of the films I picked to watch for this week's theme (Fade to Black) was chosen because it sounds like it was doing that stuff at the peak of the slasher cycle; I'm sure it won't be as professionally well-made as Scream, but I find the idea of commenting on trends like that while it's still happening to be rather fascinating, especially given how brain-dead those films tended to be.

Count Dookkake · Oct 16, 2012

FWIW, It was called SCARY MOVIE throughout most of the production. Had nothing to do with the arrival of Craven.

Ridley327 · Oct 16, 2012

Count Dookkake said:
FWIW, It was called SCARY MOVIE throughout most of the production. Had nothing to do with the arrival of Craven.

IIRC, Craven even tried fighting for them to keep that as the title, but the Weinsteins thought it was too jokey of a title.

To think, we could have had Scary Movie stopped before it even had the chance to exist.

Riptwo · Oct 16, 2012

avengers23 said:
But we don't get to explore how that Final Girl lives after the villain has been vanquished. We don't see how Laurie Strode feels knowing that she survived encounters with Michael Myers. The idea of survivor's guilt (or post-traumatic stress disorder, which now counts survivor's guilt as a significant symptom) is a rich idea that could be made manifest in horror films that isn't explored often or well enough.

Funny that you used the Strode example since that's basically the central premise of Rob Zombie's Halloween 2.

BattleMonkey · Oct 16, 2012

#24 Savage Weekend (1979)

- Pretty forgettable low budget slasher that apparently sat on a shelf for years in the mid 70's before being given a release when it appeared slashers were going to be big. Pretty poor in all regards and the best part of the film is playing spot the boom mike which could make for a great drinking game perhaps. The killers mask was kinda creepy... that's about it for the movie. Bunch of yuppie New Yorkers go on a weekend trip upstate to see a boat being built (what?) and end up getting stalked and killed by our masked man.

Aske · Oct 16, 2012

strobogo said:
What is really interesting to me is that Wes already wanted to do the New Nightmare story for Dream Warriors. If New Nightmare was ahead of its time as a bizarre meta, post-modern horror movie in 1994, think about it how that would have been received in 1987.

It's amazing to think about a 1987 version of New Nightmare; not to mention the direction the franchise would have taken as a result. Still, I'm very glad the studio rebuffed him. Not just because I like Dream Warriors, but because I think New Nightmare works much better ten years after ANoES; with the benefit of the schlocky sequels in between. New Nightmare doesn't just recall the original portrayal of Freddy, it contrasts it with the way the character was handled for a decade, and does the same with the time period. 84 vs 94 really distances the world of the movies with the reality of the mid nineties, and this is especially effective combined with the age of the actors and the direction fictional Wes seems to be taking the fictional Elm Street sequel.

strobogo said:
Because NN did what Scream did first and really to a more extreme level, but Scream gets all the credit. Well, Wes gets part of the credit too, but not for New Nightmare at all.

Audiences viewed New Nightmare as an Elm Street sequel. As far as New Line was concerned, it might as well have had a 7 slapped on the title. It would have been much less ambitious and would have lost a rich layer of meta plot if it had just been a movie about horror movies, without Freddy (or using a generic character obviously satirizing Freddy); but it would have been much easier for people to digest.

Cabin in the Woods has the same problem: people are judging it as a horror movie because that's how its being sold, but that's not really what it is. Both are movies about horror movies, but while any 'horrific' content in Cabin should be viewed as gravy, New Nightmare succeeds at being every bit as much a legitimate horror movie as it is a movie about horror movies.

But plenty of people think of New Nightmare as nothing more than a weird, experimental Elm Street sequel; and while that's primarily what it is, judging it solely from that perspective misses the point.

strobogo said:
I think New Nightmare is clearly and unquestionably the best movie of the series. It's like...legitimate art and not just a schlocky horror flick. It's so much more...intelligent and professional. But it isn't the most fun one to watch.

That's the only thing that bugs me about it: it could have been the most fun one to watch so easily.

There are four kills: two special FX guys at the beginning, Chase, and Julie. Instead of simply showing the hand come alive and impale the neck of the first guy, have the razors stab him in the eyes. Instead of showing the claw dance on the chest of the second guy before the camera cuts away, have it burrow inside him - give the kill a fraction more weight. Or go the whole hog and have it disappear only to burst out of his face. All the horrific weight is titled towards "the hand is alive, OMG!" but the kills don't have to be cheesy to be more memorable, delivering more horrific punch to the film as a whole. I'd even be happy to leave those kills as they are if more was done with Chase. Julie's Tina redux was spectacular - imagine if we'd had the claw pull Chase into his car seat and watched him liquify into a geyser of blood like Glen - maybe leave his head and limbs intact to maintain the illusion of a really bad car wreck.

Turn the horror up a few more notches, and you'd have the total package with this film.

# 18 - A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master
Trailer

This is Robert Englund's favourite Elm Street movie. More ambitious than Dream Warriors in almost every way, it sacrifices plot and a decent cast in favour of some stunning practical effects that still look incredible today. Screaming Mad George returns for the cockroach scene, and Freddy's defeat during which the souls of the children he's killed break free is still jaw-dropping. But aside from special effects, this film is very empty. Tuesday Knight is a poor substitute for Patricia Arquette, and the new cast's performances vary from mediocre to offensive. Lisa Wilcox's portrayal of Alice is decent, but that's as much due to her inherently expressive Gillian Anderson face as it is her delivery. The plot is dire, especially after Dream Warriors, and while the premise is sound (Freddy returns, Kristen 'infects' her friends' dreams), everything around Freddy's games of cat-and-mouse is pretty awful, especially the way in which he's finally beaten.

If you want to watch Freddy murder teenagers in creative but cartoonish ways with a smile and a wink, this movie delivers - and on that score it's entertaining. But there's no darkness to him this time around, and there's very little in the way of film to support the killing.

Oh yeah - Elm Street 4 also gave us this. Good thing I don't give these movies numerical scores, because I'd have no idea whether to add or dock points for it.

MattyH · Oct 16, 2012

‎31 days of horror #16 The Evil Dead

NekoFever · Oct 16, 2012

#16 - Two Evil Eyes

A double bill of two hour-long films, one from George Romero and the other from Dario Argento, both inspired by Poe. Sadly, neither lives up to how great that premise might sound.

The first, Romero's The Facts in the Case of M. Valdemar, feels like a TV episode more than a movie. While it does get quite creepy and has some nifty effects towards the end, it's not that interesting and really hits you over the head with its social commentary. Romero did a much better job of satirising capitalism in Dawn of the Dead, which was the two directors' previous collaboration.

Whereas Romeo's film started with a discussion with a lawyer about liquidating assets, Argento's The Black Cat begins with a woman cut in half by a bladed pendulum in the first of a few references to other Poe works. It's far more interesting than Romero's effort, starring Harvey Keitel as a photographer whose distaste for his girlfriend's cat turns murderous. Still no classic, but some great effects (spot the Tom Savini cameo), an awesome ending and more ambition than your average Tales from the Crypt episode elevate it and make it worth watching.

3/5

jon bones · Oct 17, 2012

rewatched A New Nightmare last night and remembered why I love it so much. no need to parrot everyone's talking points - still such a damn fine horror movie.

runlikehell · Oct 17, 2012

16) Paranormal Activity 4

The film was pretty good.

Ending spoilers:

However, all the goodwill built-up by the film was ruined in the final 30 seconds. The witch coven stuff pops up again, but isn't fully explored or resolved. Also, having a woman running at you screaming would be frightening enough, but giving her a stupid demon face really ruined it and actually made me laugh.

Plasticine · Oct 17, 2012

#16 Night of the Creeps (October 16)
Thrill me.
After a couple of college friends liberate a cryogenic corpse, alien slugs hatch and unleash a zombie nightmare on their campus. Zombies, aliens and slashersFred Dekker's loving homage to B-Movies pretty much has it all. Quick paced, with colorful characters that are armed to the teeth with quotable dialogue. The script largely hangs together, but makes a few leaps of logic all in the name of keeping the breakneck pace going. The legendary Tom Atkins turns in the film's signature performance as a burnt out detective, haunted by his vigilante past. The sky high production values means we get lots of great splatter and creature effectsmost notably a zombie slasher that's gone a little ax happy. Oh yeah, there's a fucking zombie cat, too. If you're out for an 80s horror romp, they don't come much more joyous than this.

Ridley327 · Oct 17, 2012

Oct. 16: Nightmares in a Damaged Brain (dir. Romano Scavolini)

Technically, it's better known simply as Nightmare, but I like the other title a lot better.

A brutal entry into the genre, the film at least earns its reputation as one of the preeminent entries into the notorious "video nasties" list on sheer gore alone. Even for a genre that already had entries with absolutely nutso displays of violence, the film certainly leaves very little to the imagination. But if we were interested in gore alone, we'd be recommending a lot more films, so what else does this film bring to the table?

For the first twenty minutes, we get into the head of our protagonist/antagonist George Tatum, a deeply troubled man on experimental drugs that were given to him to reshape him into an upstanding citizen, after nightmares threaten to consume his sanity and lead him down a path of murder. Smart editing that calls into question just how the sequence of events are truly happening serve to put you right in his mindset? Is he dreaming of being stuck back in the hospital while in a dingy motel room, or is it the other way around? The film makes the most of the schizophrenic nature of George, as flashbacks cut in jarringly in an attempt to disorient the viewer just as much as he is surely feeling the same sensation. You think to yourself, "hey, this movie is gross, but this could be going somewhere."

And then the rest of fucking family shows up and they won't shut their mouths. You see, George is on a road trip to get back in touch with his family, who, going by their new last names and their eagerness to move around, would suggest that his eagerness is not mutual. For the next 70 minutes, the film focuses more on George's son, C.J., a impish miscreant who loves nothing more than fucking around with his family and babysitter with cruel pranks and gags (what mother doesn't love the old "cover your shirt in ketchup and pretend you got stabbed by a weirdo outside" trick?), that take up a rather inordinate amount of screen time. Peppered in between are the aforementioned scenes of ultra-violence, but at that point, they feel rather out of place. What happened to the film promised early on? I don't know if it was the screenwriter running out of ideas, the production running out of money (all the dialogue sounds like it was recorded with a tape player bought at Sears), or what, but it stumbles early and never finds its footing until the very end, where we finally see what drove George so daffy in the first place. This seems like the kind of film that would actually benefit greatly from a remake of the non-Platinum Dunes variety; the idea is certainly strong enough to see it done justice.

Day 17 preview: Our northern neighbors already blessed us with the template for slashers to come with the rightly hailed Black Christmas; does their good luck strike again with Curtains?

Count Dookkake · Oct 17, 2012

Plasticine said:
#16 Night of the Creeps (October 16)
Thrill me.
After a couple of college friends liberate a cryogenic corpse, alien slugs hatch and unleash a zombie nightmare on their campus. Zombies, aliens and slashersFred Dekker's loving homage to B-Movies pretty much has it all. Quick paced, with colorful characters that are armed to the teeth with quotable dialogue. The script largely hangs together, but makes a few leaps of logic all in the name of keeping the breakneck pace going. The legendary Tom Atkins turns in the film's signature performance as a burnt out detective, haunted by his vigilante past. The sky high production values means we get lots of great splatter and creature effectsmost notably a zombie slasher that's gone a little ax happy. Oh yeah, there's a fucking zombie cat, too. If you're out for an 80s horror romp, they don't come much more joyous than this.

Which ending?

Plasticine · Oct 17, 2012

Count Dookkake said:
Which ending?

The Director's Cut.

The Take Out Bandit · Oct 17, 2012

Kicking it into overdrive.

Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer - Recall seeing this on VHS around 1987, and I recall feeling dirty then. Watching it again. Still feel dirty. It's a bit slow, but I can appreciate the sickness of it.

The moment at the end when Henry drives off with Becky and you think for a moment these two broken people could have found solace in each other. . . but no.

Vamps - Saw this back in the day too, but it didn't leave an impression. Watching it again, I found I rather enjoyed it. A bit silly and unevenly paced, but fun characters who are a bit smarter than your average horror flick protagonist these days.

I'll double down this weekend. Found a new Jeffrey Combs joint on Netflix. YEEEAAAAH!

1. Nosferatu
2. Dolls
3. Grave Encounters
4. Tales From The Hood
5. Henry Portrait of a Serial Killer
6. Vamps

Count Dookkake · Oct 17, 2012

Plasticine said:
The Director's Cut.

If I am not mistaken, this was the first time I realized that a movie could have more than one ending. I had seen it several times on VHS with the

zombie dog

ending. One day, it played on the USA channel, with the

ufo flying over the cemetery

.

My young mind was blown.

Divius · Oct 17, 2012

#18 - The Innocents (1961)
A young governess for two children becomes convinced that the house and grounds are haunted. Boasted by a fantastic performance by Miranda Kerr accompanied by convincing child actors, gorgeous cinematography with perfect use of deep focus and contrast, which combines nicely with Kerr's character and clothing (white dress/black dress), this brilliant movie becomes an instant classic in my book. It really was thoroughly creepy as well due to the atmosphere of the big yet claustrophobic mansion. 9/10

strobogo · Oct 17, 2012

It's amazing to think about a 1987 version of New Nightmare; not to mention the direction the franchise would have taken as a result. Still, I'm very glad the studio rebuffed him. Not just because I like Dream Warriors, but because I think New Nightmare works much better ten years after ANoES; with the benefit of the schlocky sequels in between. New Nightmare doesn't just recall the original portrayal of Freddy, it contrasts it with the way the character was handled for a decade, and does the same with the time period. 84 vs 94 really distances the world of the movies with the reality of the mid nineties, and this is especially effective combined with the age of the actors and the direction fictional Wes seems to be taking the fictional Elm Street sequel.

Audiences viewed New Nightmare as an Elm Street sequel. As far as New Line was concerned, it might as well have had a 7 slapped on the title. It would have been much less ambitious and would have lost a rich layer of meta plot if it had just been a movie about horror movies, without Freddy (or using a generic character obviously satirizing Freddy); but it would have been much easier for people to digest.

I agree that it needed to be in 1994 instead of 1987. I don't think it could have worked with just one sequel. I think it would have had to have been significantly different. While the concept of a writer writing a movie about a writer writing a movie about a writer writing a movie and the character of a previous movie coming to life in the real world wasn't new (I'm SURE something similar was probably done in the horror genre in the 30s, or probably even in silent films, or probably a section of the Bible), I do think NN kicked off the meta trend over the next few years, not just in the horror genre. Charlie Kaufman's whole career owes a debt to New Nightmare and Wes Craven, I think. I think NN made that style more viable on a mainstream scale.

Although it could have just as well all been a book that Phillip K. Dick wrote.

# 18 - A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master

This is Robert Englund's favourite Elm Street movie. More ambitious than Dream Warriors in almost every way, it sacrifices plot and a decent cast in favour of some stunning practical effects that still look incredible today. Screaming Mad George returns for the cockroach scene, and Freddy's defeat during which the souls of the children he's killed break free is still jaw-dropping. But aside from special effects, this film is very empty. Tuesday Knight is a poor substitute for Patricia Arquette, and the new cast's performances vary from mediocre to offensive. Lisa Wilcox's portrayal of Alice is decent, but that's as much due to her inherently expressive Gillian Anderson face as it is her delivery. The plot is dire, especially after Dream Warriors, and while the premise is sound (Freddy returns, Kristen 'infects' her friends' dreams), everything around Freddy's games of cat-and-mouse is pretty awful, especially the way in which he's finally beaten.

If you want to watch Freddy murder teenagers in creative but cartoonish ways with a smile and a wink, this movie delivers - and on that score it's entertaining. But there's no darkness to him this time around, and there's very little in the way of film to support the killing.

I really love this. Although, the scene with Freddy on the fucking BEACH with sunglasses is probably the most ridiculous thing in the entire series, beating out everything in Freddy's Dead. And being resurrected by a dog (named Jason, no less) pissing fire on his burial site might actually be more ridiculous than the beach. I've always disliked both of those things, but loved the rest of the movie. The best kills. I always found Toy Newkirk super hot. How often even today do you get the tiny yet stacked nerdy black girl in a movie? You'll get a nerdy black guy quite a bit, but not the nerdy black girl (which is basically my dream). Her kiss of death, Rick's invisible kung fu fight, Joey in the water bed (which is almost like an inverse of Glen's death in the original), the pull back after Kincaid's death, the roach motel, the diner scene (fucking meatballs!), the awesome ending. It's really a high mark of special effects.

miller_time22 · Oct 17, 2012

#13 Land of the Dead

So, I haven't seen this since theaters. I remember really looking forward to it, but since that time don't remember much about it. Now, I can tell why. The movie has some good gore effects (mixed with some bad CGI), but the story just isn't that interesting. Overall, this continues the downward slide of Romero's zombie films (although Night and Dawn are neck and neck as the best of the bunch in my book).

Pros
- The movie has moments of insanity that I like, such as the cowboy dwarf holding the pit fighting with zombies. But, these are few and far between.
- Dennis Hopper's

dispatching of his #2 man. Very reminiscent of the Joker's "Bob, gun" from Tim Burton's Batman.

- The aforementioned gore effects.

Cons
- I'm not really wild about any of the characters in this. The Mentalist is the star of the show, but he's not really very memorable. John Leguizamo is fine, but I've never been a huge fan. Dennis Hopper is normally great even in terrible movies, but he seemed to really be phoning this one in. Although Asia Argento is pretty hot, she's also a pretty bad actress. Overall, no one here leaves much of an impression.
- Although possession of the "Dead Reckoning" is a major plot point of the movie, I don't feel like we ever got a real feel for how significant of a weapon this vehicle is supposed to be.
- Romero's zombie movies have always been full of subtext and social commentary, but I feel this is the first movie of his where that subtext was far more overt and the driiving point of the story as opposed to telling a story and having the subtext layered in.

Aske · Oct 17, 2012

strobogo said:
I really love this. Although, the scene with Freddy on the fucking BEACH with sunglasses is probably the most ridiculous thing in the entire series, beating out everything in Freddy's Dead. And being resurrected by a dog (named Jason, no less) pissing fire on his burial site might actually be more ridiculous than the beach. I've always disliked both of those things, but loved the rest of the movie. The best kills. I always found Toy Newkirk super hot. How often even today do you get the tiny yet stacked nerdy black girl in a movie? You'll get a nerdy black guy quite a bit, but not the nerdy black girl (which is basically my dream). Her kiss of death, Rick's invisible kung fu fight, Joey in the water bed (which is almost like an inverse of Glen's death in the original), the pull back after Kincaid's death, the roach motel, the diner scene (fucking meatballs!), the awesome ending. It's really a high mark of special effects.

As much as I loathe this representation of Freddy, I'd agree with you about the movie if the rest of the narrative framework was more impressive. Toy Newkirk and Lisa Wilcox are good; but Tuesday Knight is poor, Andreas Jones (Rick) feels like he's trying really hard to act, and Brooke Theiss (Debbie) is a walking crime against cinema.

The resurrection scene was so good. Watching Freddy's flesh slowly materialize onto his bones...One of the greatest moments in the franchise. I think Jason was trying to warn Kincaid rather than contribute to the resurrection, but the film doesn't make it all that clear. On the one hand you have Jason biting Kristen in her previous dream. Was he just scared due to the trauma, as Kincaid later claimed, or was Freddy gaining control of him...perhaps through his own dreams? Yet Jason always seems very protective of Kincaid, and Freddy's resurrection comes off as more of an inevitability to me: Jason's pawing at the earth and fire-piss seemed like a warning. Someone should probably write a book about this.

Xisiqomelir · Oct 17, 2012

ThirstyFly said:
And finally, I don't want to go into too much detail, but the final scene of the movie also leaves a poor taste and the stink of Studio involvement as they attempt to end it on a happy note - which just falls flat on its face.

Are we talking about the same

keel me...keel me

ending? I've always found that horrifying, tbh.

strobogo · Oct 17, 2012

The part that REALLY, deeply bothers me about the resurrection scene is "You shouldn't have buried me. I'm not dead" being looped in. Not only did Robert Englund not say that, he didn't say ANYTHING and they didn't even try to make it look or sound natural. And you can give me some "but it is the dream world and he doesn't have to open his mouth to speak" bullshit, because that was just something they added last minute. Drives me crazy every time I watch it.

Also, I'd like to mention that the ANOES series scores and music gets so little credit. It had some great music through the series that is just as good as most of the Halloween music. Although, I don't think anything can top the main Halloween theme.

Rockandrollclown · Oct 17, 2012

strobogo said:
I really love this. Although, the scene with Freddy on the fucking BEACH with sunglasses is probably the most ridiculous thing in the entire series, beating out everything in Freddy's Dead. And being resurrected by a dog (named Jason, no less) pissing fire on his burial site might actually be more ridiculous than the beach. I've always disliked both of those things, but loved the rest of the movie. The best kills. I always found Toy Newkirk super hot. How often even today do you get the tiny yet stacked nerdy black girl in a movie? You'll get a nerdy black guy quite a bit, but not the nerdy black girl (which is basically my dream). Her kiss of death, Rick's invisible kung fu fight, Joey in the water bed (which is almost like an inverse of Glen's death in the original), the pull back after Kincaid's death, the roach motel, the diner scene (fucking meatballs!), the awesome ending. It's really a high mark of special effects.

I'm gonna second how great NoES 4 is. My second favorite in the series after Dream Warriors. You guys can keep serious Freddy, wisecrackin Freddy is where its at. The dog pissing on Freddy always bugged me for how random it all was, but recently I've come to accept it. In NoES3 they beat Freddy by concecration, I guess it would stand to reason that desecration undoes that.

Divius · Oct 17, 2012

miller_time22 said:
#13 Land of the Dead

Went in expecting something like Snyder's 2004 Dawn of the Dead... it wasn't. Highly disappointing movie overall.

BattleMonkey · Oct 17, 2012

&Divius said:
Went in expecting something like Snyder's 2004 Dawn of the Dead... it wasn't. Highly disappointing movie overall.

Why would you expect that?

Divius · Oct 17, 2012

BattleMonkey said:
Why would you expect that?

Because of zombies, the shared [..] of the Dead name and at the time I thought Dawn of the Dead (2004) and Land of the Dead were to have the same director and/or I thought it was a sequel. I don't think I ever even saw/knew about Night/Dawn78/Day of the dead back then.

miller_time22 · Oct 17, 2012

&Divius said:
Went in expecting something like Snyder's 2004 Dawn of the Dead... it wasn't. Highly disappointing movie overall.

Yeah, I can see particularly with those expectations the movie being disappointing. I had read enough ahead of time to know that this was a different animal from Snyder's movie, but it still disappointed me. And this is coming from someone who really enjoyed the original Day of the Dead, which I know can be a polarizing film. My expectations were that Romero was finally getting major studio distribution and financing to acheive his vision and in the end, that didn't really make a big enough difference due to the weak script.

Count Dookkake · Oct 17, 2012

&Divius said:
Went in expecting something like Snyder's 2004 Dawn of the Dead... it wasn't. Highly disappointing movie overall.

Haha.

bjork · Oct 17, 2012

Nightmare 4 is definitely the best of the old ones, second best total after 2010.

Blue Submarine No. 6 · Oct 17, 2012

#15 Shaun of the Dead (2004) - Love this movie more with each viewing. I think it's one of the best horror comedies ever made, up there with Tremors, A Comedy of Terrors and the Frighteners.

#16 The Exorcist (1973) - This movie builds so meticulously, so carefully, and then just hits you again and again and again... still a damned scary movie after all these years. I can't imagine what it must have been like for audiences in 1973 (even I was too young to be allowed to see it then)...

#17 Count Yorga Vampire (1970) - In 1977, my second year of high school, the school held a Halloween Horror Movie night for the students (our school always had a kick-ass Student's Council)... They got prints of this movie and The Omen and sold out the school's auditorium for $2.50 a ticket or something. You were supposed to be 16 to get in, but I was new enough to the school that I got by the chaperoning teachers by carrying my motorcycle helmet in with me (it was a dirt bike - I came across the fields and down a couple side streets to get there)... I only remember flashes of that night but it was an amazing experience; some girl fainted during Count Yorga and had to be carried out of the hall! I was in the first row balcony and loving every minute of it... True, this movie suffers from uneven pacing, variable acting and perhaps a touch of Hammer envy, but even though it's getting a little long in the tooth (pun intended), I'll always be a fan...

Xisiqomelir said:
Are we talking about the same

keel me...keel me

ending? I've always found that horrifying, tbh.

You mean the

Please help me!... Help me-e-e!

ending... and ya, it's haunted my nightmares since I first saw it forty years ago...

dat spider

They have the WAV files of that scene up here: http://www.wavsource.com/movies/fly.htm

Count Dookkake · Oct 17, 2012

bjork said:
Nightmare 4 is definitely the best of the old ones, second best total after 2010.

These opinions conform to my observations of those who post while watching.

Blue Submarine No. 6 said:
#17 Count Yorga Vampire (1970) - In 1977, my second year of high school, the school held a Halloween Horror Movie night for the students (our school always had a kick-ass Student's Council)... They got prints of this movie and The Omen and sold out the school's auditorium for $2.50 a ticket or something. You were supposed to be 16 to get in, but I was new enough to the school that I got by the chaperoning teachers by carrying my motorcycle helmet in with me (it was a dirt bike - I came across the fields and down a couple side streets to get there)... I only remember flashes of that night but it was an amazing experience; some girl fainted during Count Yorga and had to be carried out of the hall! I was in the first row balcony and loving every minute of it... True, this movie suffers from uneven pacing, variable acting and perhaps a touch of Hammer envy, but even though it's getting a little long in the tooth (pun intended), I'll always be a fan...

It's total cheese, but I like the vampire myth explored in the swinging 70s.

harSon · Oct 17, 2012

Movie #30 - Stigmata, dir. Rupert Wainwright (1999)

I'm not really into religious horror, and pretty much the only reason I watched this was for its setting within my hometown of Pittsburgh, and the fact that I find a younger Patricia Arquette to be incredibly attractive (which is part of the reason I find Juno Temple to be stunning). I kind of wish I hadn't given the film a chance considering I came away relatively indifferent towards the film, and it was incredibly heavy handed in its underlying religious message which was a tad bit off putting to someone who does not believe in God.

As for the premise, according to IMDB, Stigmata is about: "A young woman in the U.S. begins to show signs of stigmata, the wounds of Christ. The priest from the Vatican links up with her and cares for her as she is increasingly afflicted by the stigmata. Her ranting and raving finally begins to make sense to the priest who starts to question what his religion has stood for for the last 1900 years."

I suppose the film is relatively interesting in its chastising of established religion, or more specifically, religion that is funneled through a conglomerate like entity (ie. the Catholic Church). This concept is solidified within the final act when a high ranking church official is found to be corrupt in his attempt to hide away the Gospel of Thomas and its requests that people be allowed to practice Christianity on their own accord, and without the middle man that the Catholic church has embodied for centuries. Had this been the only idea entertained, I probably could have stomached the religious undertones of the narrative, but the film is ultimately a story about faith in the face of doubt (especially those resulting from science). It's almost propaganda like in that regard, and pretty much solidified the fact that I would not come away from the film with a favorable attitude.

The film actually has a pretty interesting look to it, choosing to make Pittsburgh into a much more dreary, morally questionable and overall unpleasant looking city than it actually is. I take exception to such a depiction, but I don't deny the fact that it's an appropriate tone in regards to the movie, nor can I question the fact that there was something incredibly pleasing in its visual composition. With the exception of the surreal flashbacks of Patricia Arquette's character super imposed within Jesus' experiences that occurred during her bouts of Stigmata injuries, that were downright hokey looking and incredibly jarring, I felt that the cinematography (sans the camera work which merely competent) was good enough to be considered a strength.

I honestly don't have all that much more to say. I do wish they would have played with the possession/hallucination aspect of the narrative a bit more, and while thank angle is certainly overplayed, there were pockets of the film that were relatively boring that could have definitely used some sprucing up. The acting was decent I suppose, Patricia Arquette and Gabriel Byrne's performances aren't detrimental to one's enjoyment of the film, but at the same time, they really don't add anything either. The soundtrack was forgettable, and outside of Bjork playing softly within one scene, I honestly can't recall any specifics regarding it. The film is just completely forgettable and does nothing to add to the genre, and as I said, you come away from the film completely indifferent. It's not bad, and it's not good... it sort of just... exists.

Rating: * 1/2 out of ****

After watching something so terribly uninspired and generic, I feel like watching something relatively fresh and completely foreign to my expectations for the horror genre.

Count Dookkake · Oct 17, 2012

harSon, give EXCISION a watch.

harSon · Oct 17, 2012

Count Dookkake said:
harSon, give EXCISION a watch.

I want to actually, but Redbox doesn't have it, and it was checked out at my local video store when I looked yesterday. But I have it reserved (I love mom and pop video stores) so I'll definitely be watching it soon.

bjork · Oct 17, 2012

Count Dookkake said:
These opinions conform to my observations of those who post while watching.

The dog pisses fire and Freddy is reborn. God tier.

avengers23 · Oct 17, 2012

Riptwo said:
Funny that you used the Strode example since that's basically the central premise of Rob Zombie's Halloween 2.

Cool. That gets me a little interested in Zombie's Halloween 2.

avengers23 · Oct 17, 2012

16. Bloody Birthday

My expectations were low when I started watching Bloody Birthday, but I can at least say that it exceeded my expectations. It's a tight, energetic little slasher thriller where the monsters are prepubescent children. I hadn't heard of Bloody Birthday before I began this movie marathon, and I'm glad I've seen it, if only because it's a movie that probably wouldn't be made today.

There are only so many ways to dispose of the antagonist in a horror film. It either dies (with a way to wring a sequel out if there's demand), gets captured (so it can escape in the event of a sequel), or evades capture altogether (to set up the sequel). Depending on the film, the most satisfactory climax involves the death of the antagonist. So what do you do when the antagonist are children? Killing children, even ruthless, murderous children, on screen is taboo, so they can only be captured or escape.

The film explains the children's murderous tendencies through a silly astrological explanation, but it taps into parents' fear about how much control they actually have about imbuing their children with morals and ethics. As far as we can see, the three killers were born into stable, nuclear families, so the (false) correlation between single-parent families and children's tendency to anti-social behavior can't be made in the film.

It also struck me that these children weren't just killers, but they were surprisingly interested in sex. It's apparently an open secret in the movie's elementary school that the blonde, pigtailed, female killer has a peep hole into her older sister's bedroom so she can charge boys for a peek. (It also sets up a memorable kill later in the film.) The only characters that we see use the peep hole are the two boy killers. The film's first victims are a teenage couple who were making love in an open grave, and one of the boys watches a couple have sex in a van before killing them. If the film didn't establish its astrological explanation for their immorality, I could see the film try to link their pre-mature exposure to and interest in sex to their murderous tendencies.

Given how experienced the three children seemed at killing, you'd expect that they've been practicing their craft for some time, so I wonder why it took the deaths of two teenagers in an open grave for the police to begin an investigation.

There are some surprisingly good performances; the most notable is Billy Jacoby as the smug, bespectacled Curtis. He struts around with a revolver in his jacket with an air of invincibility that persists even after he's captured. I wonder how the child actors and actress were able to tap into themselves for their performances.

Divius · Oct 17, 2012

#20 - Session 9 (2001)
Not scary, not particularly creepy and no fun to watch at all. Didn't care for the cast nor the cheap direct-to-video look of the movie and while some of the ideas are interesting the execution is severely lacking. By the end when the 'big reveal' comes it already didn't matter any more, my attention was lost. 4.5/10

Aske · Oct 17, 2012

# 19 - A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child
Trailer

Robert Englund's least favourite Elm Street movie. While this may be due to the lack of Freddy rap played over the end credits, I believe he felt that the subject matter was too dark, and didn't play well with the franchise formula. I, and I think most Freddy fans, would say the opposite: the darkness is one of this movie's strengths; the other being an excellent cast and a story that makes sense both as an episode and as a part of the broader Elm Street mythology.

This film is much more coherent than part 4, and has a good deal more in common with part 3. However, I find it to be one of the least consistent films in the franchise (a criticism I'd also level at part 6). It starts out very strong with some incredible scenes depicting Englund as Freddy's father, efficiently introduces a likeable cast of teens (Wilcox's Alice is much stronger this time around), and then leads its protagonist down the rabbit hole into a glorious resurrection scene. Gothic atmospheres and some enjoyable effects set the tone, and the film is on a high as it transitions into the first kill. At this point, I feel things go downhill. The plot stays strong and the atmosphere remains ghoulish, but it almost feels like the film is so pleased with itself that it rests on its laurels. The second and third acts lack punch, especially in terms of the kills, and while those on display work well enough, the effects are infrequent and far less ambitious than those of part 4.

At the same time, Freddy feels rather inconsistent as a character, and his various dream assaults feel thematically jumbled. The first is quite dark, and more in line with the atmosphere of the rest of the film; but the others come off as both goofy and - criminally - underwhelming. The film ends in a similar way to part 4, and suffers by comparison: its climax makes far more sense in terms of plot, but has far less visual impact because the effects are considerably weaker.

In some ways this is the most frustrating Elm Street movie, because while the others generally succeed at whatever they're attempting to do (regardless of how misguided their direction might be), part 5 feels like it's close to brilliance but fails to pull it off. But that doesn't make it bad. When it works, it really works, and is almost on a par with part 3; surpassing it in a handful of significant ways even if it doesn't work quite so well overall. This is generally the most underrated Elm Street movie, and certainly one of the strongest of the original six.

I'm not planning to re-watch A Nightmare on Elm Street 6: Freddy's Dead as part of the marathon, because I last did so just a few months ago. However, I'm going to throw out a few thoughts just because I love this franchise.

Trailer

Freddy's mainline sequels go out with a bang, but it's the kind of bang that tries to please everyone while distracting them with gimmicks, and feels ultimately unsatisfying.

For fans of the mythology, we have some great flashback scenes to show off Freddy's upbringing, his teenage years, and elements of his adult life before he was burned to death and became a dream demon. Alice Cooper pops up to portray his foster dad, and the teenage Freddy is superbly creepy. Sadly, adult Freddy comes off as more mischievous than threatening: there's no darkness to the character at all, though Englund plays the role magnificently. A couple of his kills are pretty brutal, but for the wrong reasons:

the traumatized kid who had his eardrums poked out by his mother and the girl who was raped by her father don't gel well with the stoner trapped in a videogame.

Rather than darkening the tone of a movie gone too light, these elements feel incongruous, perfectly exemplifying the disharmonious nature of the film as a whole.

The plot is all over the place, but the cast is decent; and for all its faults the movie remains entertaining throughout. The finale is terribly weak, and having seen both the versions with and without 3D Freddy vision, the gimmick does nothing to salvage it. Freddy's denouement is reduced to a poor execution for one of the most iconic characters in horror cinema, and a weak end to a confused franchise that never quite found its feet despite five bites at the cherry, and almost a decade of attempts.

Thankfully, New Nightmare and Freddy vs Jason nailed their respective takes on Freddy, magnificently capturing the Nightmare and the Monster respectively; and while I don't care to remember Elm Street 2010, I'm still hopeful that some day we'll see Freddy return in all his glory to haunt horror cinema once again.

Kayo-kun · Oct 17, 2012

5. Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) (Oct 17)

Invasion-of-the-Body-Snatchers-1978_gallery_primary.jpg

I remember watching Invasion of the Body Snatchers back when I was a kid and frightened. Rewatching it now when I'm an adult the movie didnt even feel creepy, apart from one particular scene in the ending. That scene is also one of my favourite endings to a movie, so brilliant. Anyhow, the movie seemed too slow and picks up halfway in, but it's a classic nonetheless.
7/10

miller_time22 · Oct 17, 2012

This thread is reiterating one thing to me: Nightmare on Elm Street had some really awesome poster art back in the day.

Aske · Oct 17, 2012

&Divius said:
#20 - Session 9 (2001)
Not scary, not particularly creepy and no fun to watch at all. Didn't care for the cast nor the cheap direct-to-video look of the movie and while some of the ideas are interesting the execution is severely lacking. By the end when the 'big reveal' comes it already didn't matter any more, my attention was lost. 4.5/10

I'm so glad to see someone else felt this way about Session 9. I've never understood the praise, and had the exact same reaction you did. I'm normally an easy sell when it comes to this kind of movie, but it left me utterly cold.

miller_time22 said:
This thread is reiterating one thing to me: Nightmare on Elm Street had some really awesome poster art back in the day.

The posters are god-tier. Since I posted the others, here's the one used for Freddy's Revenge. The poster is a better movie than the film was.

Endo Punk · Oct 17, 2012

Aske said:
I'm so glad to see someone else felt this way about Session 9. I've never understood the praise, and had the exact same reaction you did. I'm normally an easy sell when it comes to this kind of movie, but it left me utterly cold.

Yeah I didn't care for it either when I saw it a couple of months ago. It just dragged on with nothing particularly compelling happening.

MattyH · Oct 17, 2012

31 days of horror #17 Evil Dead 2 (write up tomorrow)

miller_time22 · Oct 17, 2012

Aske said:
The posters are god-tier. Since I posted the others, here's the one used for Freddy's Revenge. The poster is a better movie than the film was.

Exactly. So very cool, thanks for posting them.

strobogo · Oct 17, 2012

Those are probably the most positive reviews of both 5 and Freddy's Dead I've seen. Dream Child really has some fantastic moments in it. Everyone talks about Super Freddy and It's a booooyyyy, but that discounts some truly gross and disturbing things the movie does. Just the idea is about as dark as any horror series that doesn't involve rape can get. I don't think the concept lands very hard with the main audience, which are teenage boys. But the older you get, the idea that a dream demon is using your unborn child's constant dream state to kill people and forever taint is pretty intense. I mean, presumably the baby was seeing all of the kills that happen, right? And that isn't really the kind of thing that is good for a developing fetus, I'd imagine.

I think it took some risks that didn't pan out in the end. The whole movie is so garish and nightmarish. The real world is actually more bizarre and weird than the dream world in this. And despite Freddy's trajectory towards comedy, he has some particularly menacing and sadistic scenes. The scenes that stick out to me are Freddy after Yvonne and the pool. He's in...whatever that tank is, so pissed, so rapey, so mean, so evil. The look he has when he scratches the door and it slams shut is one of the most menacing shots in the entire series to me. The second one is Gretchen's death scene. It's the only one in the whole series to truly bother me every time I see it. It's disgusting in the actually disgusting way. I love the stop motion food rotting, but the meanness of the Freddy character comes across so well in that whole scene, all the way up to the slamming of the fridge. Dan's death is also brutal, but in a way more awesome way. Gretchen's is just...I think it is the grosses and most visceral in the entire series. I'm torn on Freddy's make up job in this. Sometimes it looks awesome, and sometimes it looks cheap (although not as cheap as it looked in Freddy's Dead). I think his face looked too dry for most of it. In the previous 4, he always had a shiny, oozing look to him that was pretty much completely gone in this and Freddy's Dead.

Freddy's Dead...well, it's bad. I think everyone agrees on that. I love it anyway. It's so over the top, straight up cartoony throughout a lot of it. It wasn't even pretending to be a horror movie anymore. It has horror as part of its genre in the same sense that Army of Darkness and Shaun of the Dead have horror in their genres. Yeah, it's Freddy Krueger and kids get chopped up and killed, but it is all played for laughs. Except for the scene with Tracy and her dad, which is creepy as fuck. I think it being in a movie where everything else is straight slap stick, it makes it all the more disturbing. Fuck y'all, I love the Power Glove! Super weak way to end the franchise, though. I'm glad New Nightmare came along to give it a real send off. I prefer repeat viewings of it to FvJ, though. The cast of that is so utterly terrible and unlikable that I can't stand to watch even for Freddy gonna Freddy.

And fuck it, I really enjoy ANOES 2. Freddy is probably the absolute darkest, meanest, and scariest in that movie than any other, even New Nightmare and Demon Freddy. The gay subtext (which really isn't even subtext) makes the whole thing so weird and more interesting to me. Some really awesome things in that, too. It's my favorite horror series. I went as Freddy for Halloween when I was THREE, because my mom was completely irresponsible and let me watch Freddy Krueger movies as a toddler. Thanks, mom. You're the best.

flipping_heck · Oct 17, 2012

12. Black Christmas (1974)

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysBKrRtBuag

Time for the 'original' slasher, if you want to know more about why some people thought this was the movie that started it all, i recommend checking out Cinemassacre's review on this: http://cinemassacre.com/2009/12/17/black-christmas/

The movie is pretty slow to start but very creepy, it has a great beginning and great last arcs but falls kind of flat in between. I also loved the ending, how it isn't the usual set up. I watched this film by myself and I felt shivers down my back, just thinking about the disturbing POV shots and imagining random phone calls. I recommend this film for full creep out factor, Overall: 8/10

13. Event Horizon (1997)

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gd0nQUF00Sg

Rewatch

Re-watching this awesome cult movie, it brings back memories of fear and my first thought of hell in space. This is a great sci-fi film and an even greater horror film; disturbing and it has some of the goriest scenes on film. Sam Neill and Laurence Fishburne are fantastic actors and play their roles extremely well, the story was great at the time and horror factor still retains to this day. Overall: 9/10

NekoFever · Oct 17, 2012

#17 - Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers

Awful. Not scary, a nonsense plot involving pagan cults and Michael Myers' niece's son's third cousin twice removed or something, Donald Pleasance looking like he's on the verge of death (which he was), and Michael Myers, an unkillable murder machine, taking a beating from fucking Paul Rudd. It's basically everything that was wrong with slasher movies before the likes of Scream came along and gave them a self-aware streak.

On the plus side, it gave me a new appreciation for the subtlety and tension of the first movie.

1/5

Count Dookkake · Oct 17, 2012

bjork said:
The dog pisses fire and Freddy is reborn. God tier.

Certainly, but the rest not so much, except for Freddy's "death."

"Welcome to prime time, bitch" and Freddy's re-animated skeleton are god-killer tier.

strobogo said:
And fuck it, I really enjoy ANOES 2. Freddy is probably the absolute darkest, meanest, and scariest in that movie than any other, even New Nightmare and Demon Freddy. The gay subtext (which really isn't even subtext) makes the whole thing so weird and more interesting to me. Some really awesome things in that, too. It's my favorite horror series. I went as Freddy for Halloween when I was THREE, because my mom was completely irresponsible and let me watch Freddy Krueger movies as a toddler. Thanks, mom. You're the best.

Yup.

The movie is unfairly bagged on for things that don't match up with later films, but it is a solid, mean-spirited flick.

Gets bonus points for being the first one I ever saw, at a third-grade sleepover.

Support NeoGAF

31 Days of Horror 2 |OT| The October Movie Marathon

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

hot hot hanuman-on-man action

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Neo Member

Member

Member

Banned

lookwhatyou'vedone

Member

Member

Member

Neo Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Neo Member

Member

Member

Member

Neo Member

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads