| Author | Message | ||
     Kate (Kathleen) Username: Kathleen Registered: 09-2009 Posted From: 213.122.209.76 |
While the final F13s are on their way, we've embarked on the Nightmare on Elm Street films.  A Nightmare on Elm Street One of my all-time favourite horror films and highly nostalgic. Lord P and I could probably perform the whole thing from memory. It's a contender for our next 10-minute terror re-enactment.  Nightmare 2: Freddy's Revenge Utter rubbish. Is this really the best they could do with one of the all-time great horror concepts? It gets half a point for the unintentional comic value of gratuitous and pointless homoerotic visions of half-naked teenage boys at every flimsy excuse and a bizarre S&M gym coach. JLP says it's one of the worst horror films ever made. Coming from him, that's saying something. Nightmare 3: Dream Warriors Now this is more like it! I was an impressionable teen when this came out, so I was in nostalgia heaven again watching this one. I still love the concept of a group of hospitalised Freddy victims all sharing the same dream and being thought mad because of it. Finding your special dream power and fighting the oppressive monster... ah, potent stuff for an awkward, neurotic 16-year-old. **sigh** And hey - the final moment in the Dokken video was brilliant fun! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee2YFJKYF8Y Nightmare 4: The Dream Master Now we're starting to get silly, with Freddy turning into some freakish James Bond type figure and spouting double entendres at every turn. Still, a fun film if not a good one. And Alice was a cool Final Girl. Nightmare 5: The Dream Child Oh dear. Is this one worse than Part 2? Freddy on a skateboard? "Super-Freddy!" "Don't dream and drive!" "Die, bitch!" Yes, I think it probably is. Truly abysmal. Granted, you're bound to be running out of ideas by the fifth instalment in ANY franchise but come on - we're dealing with dreams here. Anything goes! Tonight it's Part 6, which I remember liking. At least the flashback to pre-nightmare Freddy disturbed me. And wasn't Alice Cooper his dad? No probing psychological issues to explore in Freddy's case (Jason is the enigmatic strong silent one), but we both think the "son of a hundred maniacs" element was a bit silly. Was he not scary enough as a harmless-looking man who killed "at least 20 kids in the neighbourhood"? And just how long IS Elm Street? If new kids in each film have never heard of the multiple murders, it must stretch on for miles and cross state lines. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
The original film is brilliant, and the very good New Nightmare prefigured the post-modern shenanigans Craven utilised in the Scream films. Like you, I have a soft spot for #3. the rest are awful, though, aren't they? I think the "son of a hundred maniacs" things is so stupid that it's great. if that makes any sense.  | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
You know, Craven is an enigma to me...he directed some of my favourite genre films (The Hills Have Eyes, Nightmare on Elm Street, Last House on the Left, The People Under the Stairs), but he's also respnsible for a ot of terrible commercial-inspired dross. | ||
| Mark West (Mark_west) Username: Mark_west Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.39.177.173 |
I agree. I loved the first - saw it on video very early on, very impressionable, scared me to death - and gave all of the others a chance but, aside from “Dream Warriors”, they all disappointed (even the ‘New Nightmare’). I find, with Wes Craven, that I really want to like him and I often give him the benefit of the doubt, but he generally falls well short for me. Elm Street was inspired, obviously, I quite enjoyed “The Hills Have Eyes” (because it was stupid), didn’t like “Last House” (but that’s just me), hated his TV stuff and tolerated “Scream” (but none of the sequels). And then there are the ‘presents’ tags, including the remake/rip-off of “Carnival Of Souls”. | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.253.174.81 |
I could go on (and on and on, believe me) about how much I love Lady P for (amongst other things) enjoying these movies as much as I do, but what I will say is that I saw all the Elm Streets at the cinema when they came out, and they were a breath of fresh air after the Friday the 13ths. I had also forgotten that the producers actually contacted 'proper' writers to try and get ideas for scripts (William Kotzwinkle for Part IV and JOhn Skipp & Craig Spector for Part V). I got to read the Craven & Wagner original script for Part III and believe it or not the Frank Darabont & Chuck Russell rewrite improved on it quite a bit but did bring in all the 'Bastard Son of 100 Maniacs' stuff which is daft, but no dafter than the original idea that Freddy's power all lay in his glove and that had to be disposed of in a special way. I know far too much about these films. Just don't get me started on the music!  | ||
| John Forth (John) Username: John Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 217.20.16.180 |
The original, Dream Warriors and New Nightmare are all very entertaining. The rest, pretty forgettable (4 and 5 tend to merge into one in my mind, 6 I only really remember for the hatchet-faced lead and the dreadful 3D at the end). Craven can be hit and miss. Last House... and The People Under the Stairs are great. Scream, on the other hand, I hold solely responsible for a generation of horribly self-referential horror films. Like Tarantino's films, it's a bit like being trapped in a house by a hyperactive teenager who's just discovered horror and who insists on showing you his favourite bits of every single film he's ever seen. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
“The Hills Have Eyes” (because it was stupid) In what way is it stupid? I totally disagree, btw. I think it's a very clever modern horror-western-dark comedy, which examines the notion of the outsider and unconventional (and hideously dysfunctional) family values at the same time as satirising the modern ideal of the all-American nuclear family unit. Throw in a bit of 'nam-era social dissatisfaction, and you have a very potent mix. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
Scream, on the other hand, I hold solely responsible for a generation of horribly self-referential horror films I totally agre...yet, at the time it was brilliant. Nobody had even thought of doing that before, and Craven became a victim of the film's success. The sequels are shite, mind. | ||
| Kate (Kathleen) Username: Kathleen Registered: 09-2009 Posted From: 213.122.209.76 |
The Hillls Have Eyes IS seriously unsettling. So much so that I really don't want to see it again. Hillbilly horror makes me feel unclean. **shudder** And you're absolutely right about Scream, Zed. However, I loved Part 2; it got to poke fun at silly sequels by BEING a silly sequel. I tend to think of them as one film, with Part 3 utterly forgettable. | ||
| Mark West (Mark_west) Username: Mark_west Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.39.177.173 |
Maybe I have the wrong "Hills..." Gary, I was thinking of the one where the dog dreams. John Forth - spot on about "Scream" | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
That's the ill-conceived sequal, mate. Again, another example of Craven following pure quality with a money-chasing turd. | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.253.174.81 |
I was thinking of the one where the dog dreams Mark that's Craven's "Hills Have Eyes Part 2", made at a time in his life when he admitted "I was so desperate I would have directed Godzilla Goes to Paris" | ||
| Mark West (Mark_west) Username: Mark_west Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.39.177.173 |
John, I think I'd have prefered "Godzilla Goes To Paris", to be honest. Especially over the Emmerich version. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
"gratuitous and pointless homoerotic visions of half-naked teenage boys at every flimsy excuse" I can see I've misjudged Wes Craven. (Note to self: nip out to Blockbuster tonight.) The last word on the WC (sic) is Mad magazine's poem 'The Craven', talking about the Scream franchise: Why was Craven making films that mocked the films he'd made before? Because Craven was a whore! | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
But the common misconception is incorrect. The Scream films satirise the slasher sub-genre (among other things), and Craven never made a slasher. It's easy to be clever; it much more difficult to be precise. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
Also, his (best) films have often mocked themselves: Hills, People Under the Stairs...both of these are blackly comic and self-parodying. | ||
| Kate (Kathleen) Username: Kathleen Registered: 09-2009 Posted From: 213.122.209.76 |
I can see I've misjudged Wes Craven. (Note to self: nip out to Blockbuster tonight.) Trust me, Joel. It sounds much more enticing than it is. | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.253.174.81 |
Craven never made a slasher Interesting - I'd argue that Nightmare on Elm Street is a slasher, albeit a very different, and far more creative, one than we were used to seeing at the time. Joel - Craven had nothing to do with Elm Street 2 and I've always wondered where all the homo-erotic stuff came from. It's certainly not present in director Jack Sholder's follow up for New Line Cinema "The Hidden". I don't think screenwriter David Chaskin did anything else much but perhaps he or someone else scribbled (wearing only his very tight underpants) below Mark Patton's character name pretty much every time it appeared before the script went before the cameras. And if that's the case then presumably the sane naughty person with a pencil scribbled the entire bit that must have said 'He goes to the silliest and most unconvincing S&M gay bar in movie history where he hooks up with his PE teacher who takes him for a run round the gym before the teacher gets tied up with skipping rope and has his naked bottom whacked with a towel in one of the daftest scenes in a horror film ever.' | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
JLP: albeit a very different, and far more creative, one than we were used to seeing at the time. There's the rub. I'd agree that he took slasher convention, but he played with them, parodied them even (Craven's black hunour rarely gets recognised; as well as being genuinely scary the first Elm Street film is very funny). Craven fascinates me. he's like two totally seperate directors - one of them good, the other terrible. Sometimes these two guys even work on the same film (Deadly Blessing). | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
Now you're just winding me up. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
Comment addressed to John, obviously. | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.253.174.81 |
Joel as my dear Lady P says, it probably sounds more enticing than it is, but you may have to find out for yourself. Such hilariously inappropriate scenes certainly kept us more entertained than Part 5, & I'm sure she'll agree with me that pretty much everything I've described happens in the film. Oh, and I forgot that as well as (wearing only his very tight underpants) the pencil person must have also scribbled (his body coated in glistening sweat) because there's far too much of that going on for it to be coincidence as well. Go on admit it - you can't wait to get to the DVD shop now can you? | ||
| Joelmurr (Joelmurr) Username: Joelmurr Registered: 04-2010 Posted From: 82.169.25.44 |
Chaskin claims Elm Street 2 was homophobic by design: "...there was certainly some intentional subtext but it was intended to play homophobic rather than homoerotic. I thought about the demographics for these types of films (young, heterosexual males) and tried to imagine what kinds of things would truly frighten them, to the core. And scary dreams that make them, even momentarily, question their own sexuality seemed like a slam dunk to me." (Interview at http://www.bloodygoodhorror.com/bgh/interviews/09/19/2007/david-chaskin) What a crap film that was. | ||
| Kate (Kathleen) Username: Kathleen Registered: 09-2009 Posted From: 213.122.209.76 |
Yeah, so crap they couldn't tell phobic from erotic. Gay fail! | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.253.174.81 |
Zed - as always I seem to find myself agreeing totally with you (Lady P will have something to say about that-again-when I get home ) - this time about Wes Craven. I loved 'Hills Have Eyes' & Elm Street and yet at the same time as these came out we were being 'treated' to awful TV movies like 'Chiller' that seemed to have been directed on a laundanum-enhanced auto-pilot. Weird. I never liked 'People Under The Stairs' myself - perhaps that needs a rewatch but I didn't find that scary at all. On the other hand there were bits of 'Shocker' that I really liked, most of all the central idea, and it was a shame it wasn't a bit better put together. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
 Oh, yes, I agree about Shocker. It was almost great but didn't quite get there. The People Under the Stairs is best viewed as a dark comedy. I like it a lot. | ||
| Kate (Kathleen) Username: Kathleen Registered: 09-2009 Posted From: 213.122.209.76 |
Oh, you two! I rented People Under the Stairs as soon as it was out on video and it really disturbed me. I can't remember anything specific about it but it's one of those that triggers a real sense of unease in me when I hear the name. I'd be curious to see it again (although not alone this time!) but it's not a high priority. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
My wife insists that John and I are enjoying a "bromance".  | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.254.153 |
One of Craven's best, most moving, most poignant and tender scenes, from none of the films mentioned above: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSW2pPlZF-M | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.170.179.157 |
From Why Jason Wears the Mask thread (posted by me); 'Kate - tell me when you get up to Jason Goes to Hell, yeah? I reached there recently. After that does anyone fancy a Freddy season, leaving Freddy v Jason till last?  | ||
| John Forth (John) Username: John Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 82.24.1.217 |
It's been a while since I've watched The People Under the Stairs and while I don't remember it being all that scary, there were a few disturbing moments in it. One scene, where the 'parents' dump the main girl in a scalding bath still makes me wince to think of. There are some of his films that I tend to forget he had anything to do with for some reason. JLP mentioned Shocker above (daft but fun). But what about The Serpent and the Rainbow? Okay, it never lived up to its cover, but it was one of the few decent films about voodoo I've seen (admittedly, not many). | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.122.209.76 |
Good point John - I'd forgotten The Serpent & the Rainbow and it's not bad at all! In fact this thread is making me keen to watch some of these other Craven pictures over again, too. But not Chiller, The Club,Invitation to Hell, Swamp Thing, or that one with Linda Blair in it that was on a double bill with Curtis Harrington's Ruby | ||
| John Forth (John) Username: John Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 82.24.1.217 |
It's certainly made me want to go back to the original Nightmare, John. But, oh god, Swamp Thing... I think I made it about 30 minutes in. Did anyone ever give Red Eye a go? Worth picking up? | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.253.77 |
Red Eye wasn't at all bad. An entertaining mainstream thriller. Transsiberian is a million times better, though. | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.122.209.76 |
I liked Red Eye but it felt like one of those 70s TV movies on the big screen (and was about as long - I think it was less than 80 minutes! | ||
| John Forth (John) Username: John Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 82.24.1.217 |
I haven't seen Transsiberian, Zed. I'll be sure to keep an eye out for it. | ||
| Kate (Kathleen) Username: Kathleen Registered: 09-2009 Posted From: 213.122.209.76 |
Just finished a double bill tonight! (Sorry Tony - our viewing is often dictated by impulse, so planning for these things isn't very do-able. I promise to let you know when Jason goes to hell though, OK?) Nightmare 6: Freddy's Dead Oh God, what was I thinking? My memory has proven so unreliable in this case that I was wishing I were invisible through most of this one. I remembered really enjoying it and finding the flashbacks and the fair creepy as hell. And the 3D blew me away too, as I recall. Wow. I couldn't believe this was the same film.  Nightmare 7: Wes Craven's New Nightmare Fantastic! Hooray, go out with a bang! Very clever, entertaining and a proper sendoff to a well-loved series. Er, then there's Freddy vs. Jason...  | ||
| Kate (Kathleen) Username: Kathleen Registered: 09-2009 Posted From: 213.122.209.76 |
There's one thing I wish the Nightmare films had made use of. Freddy can invade your dreams and if he kills you in the dream, you die, right? But you'd probably also be having perfectly straightforward nightmares ABOUT Freddy as well. Which could drive you even madder and only make you look crazier to those who don't believe in Freddy. Could have been some great scenes where dreamers didn't know if it was truly "only a dream" of Freddy or the REAL Freddy. Also - I can't believe it took them till Part 4 to exploit the "naked in a dream" aspect. (Alice is attacked by Freddy in the shower and then wanders naked down a cold, dank corridor.) Given that nudity = vulnerability is such a common theme in anxiety dreams, the filmmakers could have got away with so much legitimate nudity! Ah, missed opportunities... | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.166.117.210 |
I like the way your mind works, Kate.  | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.23.108.128 |
As long as Johnny 'ugly bastard' Depp keeps his kit on, I'm happy. I mean, imagine having to behold that horror. | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.253.174.81 |
I like the way your mind works, Kate. I'm presuming you mean her interesting idea about the 'rubber reality' of Freddy, rather than that second paragraph? I, too, was disappointed by Elm St 6, which I had only seen before in the cinema & I didn't think much of it then. Sad then that apparently that made more money than Wes Craven's New Nightmare, which actually feels like a proper film rather than a badly (and randomly) cobbled together TV show. | ||
| Giancarlo (Giancarlo) Username: Giancarlo Registered: 11-2008 Posted From: 85.116.228.5 |
I'm sorry I am in the minority here. I don't like Freddy Kreuger as a monster, I don't like Robert Englund as an actor (he was inanely exploited as a new Vincent Price wannabe in later movies.) To my taste, the best Wes Craven is to be found in "Last House on the Left", "The Hills Have Eyes" (not the sequel), "Scream" ( and none of the sequels), "Deadly Blessing" and, above all, "The Serpent and the Rainbow." Period...as far as I am concerned. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
'There's one thing I wish the Nightmare films had made use of. Freddy can invade your dreams and if he kills you in the dream, you die, right? But you'd probably also be having perfectly straightforward nightmares ABOUT Freddy as well. Which could drive you even madder and only make you look crazier to those who don't believe in Freddy. Could have been some great scenes where dreamers didn't know if it was truly "only a dream" of Freddy or the REAL Freddy.' Isn't that the forthcoming Christopher Nolan Elm Street film? Seriously, Kate, I wish you'd written that script and sold it to Craven! | ||
| Stevie Walsh (Stephenw) Username: Stephenw Registered: 03-2009 Posted From: 194.32.31.1 |
The films of Wes Craven imo: 'The Last House On The Left' (1972) - perhaps the most notorious debut in horror cinema history and still packs a gut-churning punch. The very essence of extreme ordeal horror, and definitely not for the easily disturbed, it's also a pretty good suspense thriller in its own right and marked a new talent to be watched. 5th best imo. 'The Hills Have Eyes' (1977) - equally infamous and hardly any less disturbing ordeal horror but showing an increased confidence and professionalism behind the camera and in the handling of cast and suspense sequences. 4th best imo. 'Summer Of Fear' (1978) - haven't seen it. 'Deadly Blessing' (1981) - this move into subtler supernatural horror doesn't quite come off, and highlights many of Craven's directorial limitations, but is still a superior horror flick of its era. 7th best imo. 'Swamp Thing' (1982) - a dreadful load of complete bollocks and one of the worst comicbook adaptations ever made, so bad it's not even unintentionally funny. 'A Nightmare On Elm Street' (1984) - his first and so far only masterpiece this has to be the most original and entertaining ultra-black comedy horror film of the 1980s with one of the most memorable (sadly, all too memorable) movie monsters of all time. A madcap and genuinely scary joy from start to finish! 'Invitation To Hell' (1984) - haven't seen it. 'The Hills Have Eyes Part II' (1984) - what is he playing at, this is an incoherent mess that almost manages to outdo 'Swamp Thing' for indefensible dross! 'Chiller' (1985) - weak and plodding sci-fi/horror teledrama that does his reputation no good at all, talk about going through the motions. 'Deadly Friend' (1986) - dreadfully misguided sci-fi/horror farrago with a painful premise that never should have made it past the draft script stage. 'The Serpent And The Rainbow' (1987) - this is more like it, a seriously good and frightening voodoo horror film that gains immensely from being shot on location in Haiti. Second only to ANOES imo & Bill Pullman has never been better. Various episodes of 'Freddie's Nightmares' (1988-90) - none of which I've seen. 'Shocker' (1989) - oh dear, a decent idea and some effective scenes but this attempt to create another Freddie type villain ends up in the incoherent mess category. Has this man no understanding of quality control at all?! 'Night Visions' (1990) - haven't seen it. 'The People Under The Stairs' (1991) - another success, against all the odds, this is his third best horror film for me that works, again, as pure black comedy and fizzes with energy and imagination throughout. The inspired casting of Everett McGill and Wendy Robie (of 'Twin Peaks' fame), as the barking mad killers, is what makes the movie for me. 'Wes Craven's New Nightmare' (1994) - I may be alone in considering this supposed "return to form" his most overrated movie, to me it's nothing more than an overly self-reverential, cheap cash-in on his biggest moneyspinner and not nearly as clever, or as funny, as it thinks it is. 'Vampire In Brooklyn' (1995) - another misguided, tired and dismal failure that never should have been green-lighted imo. This proves that Craven is better at directing horror that happens to be blackly funny rather than straight comedy. 'Scream' (1996) - now this WAS a return to form and again works as an entertaining, tongue-in-cheek, and scary thrill-ride with almost perfect casting. His sixth best but a film that has become hard to love given what it was responsible for... 'Scream II' (1997) - sniffing blood, Craven goes for the easy option and turns in a competently watchable but perfunctory sequel that is only for the easily pleased. 'Music Of The Heart' (1999) - haven't seen it. 'Scream III' (2000) - ho hum, here we go again. Just about watchable and utterly forgettable film-making by numbers, it may not be incoherent dross but it sure isn't art. 'Cursed' (2005) - total CGI-overkill bollocks and hands down the worst werewolf movie I have ever seen, a patch-work load of old crap devoid of any sign of talent. 'Red Eye' (2005) - surprisingly effective airborne suspense thriller that just falls short of being one of his best due to losing the plot and momentum in the final stages. Better but frustrating. 'Paris, Je T'Aime' (2006) - directed one segment, haven't seen it, and can’t understand for the life of me why he was asked to do it – he’s really not that talented compared to the rest of them! 'My Soul To Take’ (2010) – you pays your money, you takes your chances. I'd describe Craven as a sometimes inspired (his one masterpiece was most likely due to the coming together of a talented team, rather than to him alone) jobbing film director, all too often distracted by the lure of filthy lucre and with a history of disastrous errors of judgement in his career, but also with an uncanny knack for bouncing back, just when you least expected it. I just hope it isn't with 'Scream IV', scheduled for release next year... |