A Nightmare on Elm Street: Ex Post Facto

A Nightmare on Elm Street

In 1984, a film was released that changed the boundaries of horror cinema. By releasing this new icon of fright to the masses, new rules were brought forth to the horror movie world and it basically was this: the new rules are.there are no rules. The antagonist in the film was—and still is—terrifying enough to induce nightmares in us all. In the first film of the series—in which there are seven films (or eight if you count the remake)—this new personification of terror was conducted by an established master of horror, Wes Craven, giving us a new name to strike fear in us all. We had Michael Myers, then Jason Voorhees, but in 1984, Craven gave us Freddy Krueger in A Nightmare on Elm Street.   

We all know the name of Freddy, as he's been a household name for years, and nowadays it doesn't frighten us as much to speak about the character. Although Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers still seem like frightening characters even though the sequels of their respective movies flopped and went to the wayside as much as the A Nightmare on Elm Street films, it was the evolution of the character that made it go from a terrifying figure to the clown we all know it as today. Even the re-imagining of Freddy in the new remake didn't help much as I feel everyone is just tired of remake after remake in the movie-making industry. But let's go back to 1984, when the name of Freddy Krueger was barely known, yet petrified anyone who knew this name of the newest movie boogeyman.

In 1984, Wes Craven was known for a few horror movie hits like The Last House on the Left and The Hills Have Eyes, with a few so-so flicks, such as Deadly Blessing and Swamp Thing. But it wasn't until after the world witnessed A Nightmare on Elm Street that the horror movie-going public had gotten to know the name of Craven and referred to him as a master of horror. I, myself, didn't know about him until I saw this film, which I waited until it was released on VHS the following year. But rest assured, that was one film and director who had stayed in the forefront of my mind for years to come, giving me nightmare after nightmare until my psyche was scarred for life.

Looking back, it seems as if Craven had followed the same recipe as John Carpenter had when making Halloween. Basically, Craven had cast a bunch of unknowns for the parts of the teen-aged characters—and even for the part of Freddy himself (Robert Englund)—and rounded off the actors with an established one...a Mr. John Saxon. Yes, we all know Johnny Depp was in this movie, but this was his film debut, not even having any television experience beforehand. But the cast worked and meshed together perfectly, showing a great chemistry between everyone to give us an awesome movie.

In case you've been living under a rock during the 1980s and 1990s, A Nightmare on Elm Street is about a group of friends in high school who start experiencing nightmares and, upon discussing them with each other, learn that they are dreaming of the same man who's trying to kill them in their dreams. One by one, they're killed in their dreams—and die in real life—until one of the teenagers, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp), decides to fight back.

I can't gush enough about this film and what a fresh idea it was back then. By 1984, the recipe for a horror movie was the same ol' mystery slasher, featuring a serial killer in a mask, killing everybody off with a knife, machete, axe or chainsaw. A few years into the decade, it was already getting old and tired.

A couple of key scenes in the film are great and are due some credit here.

The beginning credit scenes, showing us Freddy's hands as he manufactures his signature killing tool—his finger-knife glove—is awesome as we see, step by step, how he makes a digit of the finished product. It actually makes me want to go into my tool shed and see if I can construct one myself. A similar scene, right before the climatic end of the film, shows our heroine, Nancy, creating traps and setups in order to defeat Freddy. Again, I want to try some of these devices—especially the gunpowder in the light bulb trick. Of course, all the nightmare scenes are eerily filmed, making us never want to dream of anything so terrifying.  A Nightmare on Elm Street is definitely the best of the lot—even better than the remake—and you'd do yourself a disservice if you don't watch this film.

A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge

The following year, in 1985, New Line was able to fast track a sequel to Craven's hit film so quickly, it's a wonder it was as good as it was. I know a lot of people kind of bash this film as the redheaded stepchild of the ANOES series, but I really dig it. I'm also aware of the so-called homosexual undertones and subliminal messages it supposedly contains in the film, but I don't really see it. There's a bit of weirdness to it and some rules broken, according to the first film, but I like it just the same.

Just like any horror film, when you establish a character—especially a villainous one—to the popularity Freddy proved to be (not to mention the money it raked in), the studio is going to want to bring that character back on the screen in a sequel. Michael Myers did it before him.  So did Jason.  So why not Freddy?  Well, Freddy returned, so let me break down A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge.

The story takes place a number of years later, with a new family moving into the house of our heroine from the first film, Nancy, lived in. The family start noticing different oddities of the house, like the heat and electrical problems, and Jesse (Mark Patton), the teenager of the household, starts experiencing Freddy right away. With the first film, Freddy killed teenagers in their dreams; in this film, he uses Jesse to do his deathly deeds.

Yes, the film is plagued with a few inadequacies when comparing it to the first film. In the first film, it was recognized that Freddy could only do harm in people's dreams, not being able to go out into the real world unless someone pulled him out of their dreams. It's obvious he's back in the dream world at the beginning of this flick, yet he's able to come in and out as he pleases. I used to theorize that he's either using Jesse as a door to come in and out or that it's just Jesse sleepwalking. The second theory doesn't pan out during the night time barbeque party because the kids definitely recognize Freddy as a threat and not see Jesse, making my first theory a possibility. But I do agree that some of the things that happen in the house seems like the filmmakers wanted to make a haunted house story but decided to use the elements in this one (i.e., the unplugged toaster that burns the toast to fire, the exploding bird, etc.). I don't know and I don't care about all the shortfalls. All I know is that the film is entertaining and pretty damned scary to watch.

Again, as with the first film, there are a few scenes that solidify this flick as a classic. The beginning scene with Jesse in the school bus as it races off into the desert and reintroduces us to Freddy for the first time in this one is remarkable. I can see now that it's a lot of miniature work, but it's still nightmarish in scope. The kill scenes are done better and the studio definitely put more money into the special effects (I love the transformation scene in Grady's room!).

All in all, it's another fun watch with plenty of entertainment and a good chapter in the Nightmare series of films.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors

In 1987, two years later, New Line put a bigger budget together for a bigger sequel, bringing back our heroine from the first film, and giving Freddy some worthy adversaries.  The film went back to the original rules and stuck with the dream world for the plot to take place.  To add to all this, we even get a very interesting origin story of how Freddy Krueger came to be.

The film opens with Kristen (Patricia Arquette), having trouble staying awake as she swallows spoonfuls of ground coffee and chasing it down with Coca Cola, building a model of a house we all know is Nancy's house on Elm Street, and looking worse for wear.  In a nightmare, which is a pretty cool practical effects shot in her bathroom, one faucet handle grabs Kristen's hand, while the other sprouts blades and slashes at her wrist.  As she awakens to her mother running into the bathroom, we now see that Kristen has a razor blade in hand while she bleeds out from her wrist, appearing that she attempted suicide.  Her mother commits her to an institution and that's where Kristen meets all the other troubled teens who happen to all dream about the same burnt man in a red and green sweater.  Nancy shows up as the new staff member whose expertise is dreams and bonds with Kristen right away.  Later, we find out that all the teens have special powers in their dreams and, with the help of Kristen's gift to bring other people into her dreams, they decide to fight back against Freddy.

The story is very well written and translates to the screen impeccably, especially since the filmmakers had the money to use on pretty impressive special effects for its time.  Bringing back Langenkamp to recur her role as Nancy, as well as John Saxon coming back as her father, really gave credence to this film.  Without them, this film wouldn't be as interesting as it is, but still would've worked as an earnest sequel nonetheless.

ANOES-3 could've been the final chapter of Freddy's lurid escapades into children's dreams.  The story ends perfectly and makes this film the perfect bookend to a great horror movie series.  Usually, when I delve into these films (I bought the box set years ago on DVD), I stop at this film and really can't find myself wanting to watch the rest of the series.  Sometimes I skip ahead to New Nightmare, but I don't think I've watched parts 4 through 6 since they came out in theaters years ago.  But for all personal intents and purposes, I stop after this one.  However, for the sake of this editorial I've written here, I pushed on and watched the rest of the series in multiple sittings, of course.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master

Once again, New Line fast tracked another sequel and, boy, does it show in this one.  Yes, a year later, in 1988, A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master showed up in theaters and I don’t think I saw this one when it was released, but on VHS when it hit the rental store shelves.

Don't get me wrong…this film is still enjoyable, but the filmmaking is not as polished as the first three films. But for all its faults, it's not a bad story. Kristen is now played by a different actress, Tuesday Knight, so it's a little off-putting to see her in the role so recognizable as being played by Patricia Arquette. However, all that's redeemed by returning the same actors, Rodney Eastman and Ken Sagoes, to play Joey and Kincaid respectively, so there's some saving grace by having some familiarity in the cast.

To give a short synopsis of the film, Kristen, Joey and Kincaid were released from the asylum and are now living normal lives while going to high school. But Kristen is still having dreams about the Elm Street house. One night, Kincaid has a dream where he's at the junkyard where Freddy's remains are buried. His dog digs at the area and urinates on it, causing Freddy to be resurrected. The film then follows the same recipe of dream kills—albeit more elaborate and original—until the climax of the film.

I don't want to give too much away, because despite ANOES-4 being an inferior sequel, it still has an interesting storyline.  The only thing I can't get past is that Freddy was resurrected by dog piss?  They couldn't come up with anything smarter than that?  The other thing is the ridiculousness of Kristen's boyfriend, Rick (Andras Jones), and his Japanese martial arts.  It's just so laughable and the fact that he looks like Corey Haim just adds to how inadvertently funny he is.  And speaking of funny, Robert Englund really turns it up a notch as Freddy spouting out the one-liners.  It was acceptable and spread out in part 3, but here he just turns out to be a clown and you really can't take him seriously.

But what's interesting is how the secondary heroine, Alice (Lisa Wilcox), starts to gain powers and confidence from the friends of hers who have died at the blades of Freddy and uses it against him.  Also, the one standout death is the roach hotel scene with Debbie (Brooke Theiss)…very cool.

All in all, if you're a Nightmare fan, you'll enjoy this flick.  It had an interesting climax, but I think the filmmakers could've done better.  So, on to the next one.

A Nightmare on Elm Street: The Dream Child

Here we are at number five and the filmmakers decided that with the fifth film, they're going to drop the numbering system of the sequels.  It's probably because, at this point in 1989, movies with a high sequel number tend to be ignored and don't make us much money.  So, in a way, it's an approach to try to fool the movie-going public to think that this is an original film.  Then again, some movie posters (like the one pictured) show the number 5, so...never mind…it doesn’t matter.

Although this film isn't well acted and Robert Englund goes waaaaaaay over-the-top in his Freddy Krueger acting, making him look less menacing and more like a clown than ever before, it still has an interesting story.

The film opens with Alice (Lisa Wilcox reprising her role) dreaming she's Amanda Krueger locked in the asylum with a hundred maniacs and going through the living nightmare Freddy's mother would've went through.  It's a recurring dream and eventually, in her dream, she gives birth and the little monstrosity turns out to be Freddy, resurrected.  Once again, Freddy is back to terrorize teenagers in their dreams.

Although this is a forgettable outing of the Nightmare series, there is a couple of things that make it interesting. One concept I liked was how Alice finds out her baby was pulling her into its dreams while it was still in her womb.  Another was the addition of the creepy boy, Jacob.  But other than those superfluities, this is the same ol' Freddy-fare with him acting less intimidating and more comedic.

I've got to say, the weirdest thing about this movie is the music chosen to play during the end credits.  We are treated to Kool Moe Dee's rap song, "Let's Go," really unfitting and waaaaay out of left field.  If you listen to the lyrics, the song is about putting down LL Cool J.  Why they chose this song to accompany the end credits of a so-called horror movie, I'll never know.

Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare

"Do you know the terror of he who falls asleep? To the very toes he is terrified, because the ground gives way under him, and the dream begins..."~Friedrich Nietzsche

Well, this was it…the final chapter in a long series of horror films…part 6 to be exact. The announcement of this film actually made the news and was touted as being the last time we'll see Freddy Krueger on the big screen.

Yeah, right.

Being a staple of the slasher sub-genre of horror in the 1980s, this is the first of the series to be released in the 1990s—1991 to be exact.  Not that it matters, but I thought I’d tell you anyway.

The film starts off interesting, showing us the statistics of mass suicides by teens and adults experiencing psychosis. But the crux of the story revolves around troubled teens at a shelter and how one shows up with amnesia. They're all eventually lured to Springwood-which is now a dream world that you'll slip into once arriving-so Freddy can start killing them.

A few key parts of note is the opening part of the film that pays homage to Wizard of Oz and key cameos from Roseanne Barr and (then husband) Tom Arnold. Also Johnny Depp shows up, obviously paying back the studio that made him a star.

I've got to say, less than ten minutes into it, the film just gets boring and unintelligible...this was the one film I had trouble watching—it took me four or five sittings to see this one.  I don't know if it was the movie or the fact that I watched all these movies in a row in one week.  But then I thought of all the times I've seen all the Friday the 13Th films (which have the Nightmare films beat by 4 or 5 sequels) and I have to deduce that it was the movie.

By the time the movie's end credits were streaming down the screen, I had a terrible headache.  I guess it was the awful 3D effects (that we only get for 10 minutes or so) or it was the movie as a whole.  I'll  let you decide if you make the terrible choice to watch this.

Wes Craven's New Nightmare

When, in 1994, Wes Craven’s name came up in the poster for his new movie, I really didn’t think it was going to be another Freddy Krueger movie.  Even though the movie poster had the title New Nightmare emblazoned on it, I really didn’t it had anything to do with the rest of the series and just thought it was a whole new horror movie that was cleverly titled to get the ANOES fan base in to see it.

See, the original movie poster that I had seen in movie theater lobbies looked like the one I have pictured above, with the sinister-looking eyes surrounded by the blackness of the poster.  I really didn’t recognize it as belonging to Freddy Krueger.

Well, in all actuality, the movie does feature Freddy Krueger, albeit a manifestation of the character and not the way we’ve been seeing him in the last few sequels of the Nightmare series.

The film’s storyline takes place in a fictionalized real world of the cast and director of the original movie.  Turns out, Wes Craven has been writing a script about a demon that comes into the real world through the pages he writes and chooses the form of Freddy Krueger.  He explains this to Heather Langenkamp after she’s been experiencing weird goings-on regarding herself and her son, Dylan (Miko Hughes).  The demon Freddy uses her son to try and destroy her until Heather finally has a showdown with it.

I’m hot and cold about this movie.  I do like the fresh idea that it is, making this a real world movie with the stars of the original playing themselves.  All in all, the film is just another Nightmare movie just three years after it was touted that we’d never see another film featuring Freddy.  It’s nice that they brought him back to pure evil and canned the one-liners.  But the bottom line is, this is just another ANOES film.

The makeup effects on Robert Englund’s face looks a lot more scary and creepy.  The glove is awesome this time around…I love how they designed it, looking sleeker and with the bone pattern.  The idea to bring back Heather Langenkamp and John Saxon, as well as some of the other cast members of the original and some of the sequels, was a good plan, but it made for a boring story at times.  Bringing in some of the behind-the-scenes people—producer, Robert Shaye, of the series for one—wasn’t too smart, as they aren’t very good actors.

But…the film is enjoyable and interesting.  It just doesn’t grab you like the first couple of films in the series.  Compared to the sequels following part 3, however, make this film look like a masterpiece.

 

Freddy vs Jason

What a great idea!  What a great concept!  Bringing back the ideas of yesteryear with having an iconic monster go up against another was brilliant!  It’s just too bad that this next entry into the world of Freddy Krueger didn’t pan out so well.

Don’t get me wrong, this film is a favorite of mine, giving us fresh reestablishments of a couple of symbolic horror film characters that, frankly, turned into a couple of clowns as their respective movie franchises churned out one tiring sequel after another.

2003’s Freddy vs Jason should’ve been an awesome start to a new amalgamated horror franchise bringing back and adding horror incarnations as the sequels spewed out year after year…and that was the plan, until this film didn’t make the money New Line was expecting.  It’s been said they were looking to have Ash from the Evil Dead series of movies be featured in a sequel.  Even Michael Myers was mentioned…how cool would that have been?

Alas, I’m here to talk about what we were given, not what could have been.

So, in the beginning of the film, we’re given a descriptive narration from Freddy Krueger, showing us clips from the previous ANOES films and explaining how he killed and terrorized children in their nightmares.  But, he says, they soon had forgotten about him and, in turn, he had lost his power.  He then explains he needs someone to put the scare back into the Elm Street teens, to give him power again.  We’re treated to a glimpse of Jason, shallowly buried in the ground as his heart begins beating again and seeing his eyes open through his trademark hockey mask.  So…our film begins.

I guess I can say that this movie is basically two stories in one.  On one half, we have the two monsters, one controlling the other to do his bidding.  But, the other half of the plot is sort of a love story between a girl dealing with how her boyfriend left town without saying goodbye and how he’s actually stuck in a mental institution, not allowed to communicate with the outside world.

The two aspects do tie in to each other, so I really can’t be too disappointed with that.  I guess my biggest complaint is the cast and their acting.

Now, Robert Englund as Freddy Krueger is back to his evil self, almost as frightening as his take in the first Nightmare film.  In for Jason Voorhees this time around is Ken Kirzinger—which caused a bit of controversy and anger throughout the Jason fanbase (more on that later)—and I really liked his take on the slasher icon.  Although I thought most of the teens were one-dimensional, we had solid performances from Jason Ritter, Mark Davis, and Chris Marquetter.  And the stoner, Freeburg (Kyle Labine) was pretty cool and funny at times.

Where it falls apart for me is the casting of the main characters of the teenagers.  First up, we’ve got Monica Keena as Lori Campbell, the lead female character of the story.  Now, she’s supposed to be a teenager in high school, yet she clearly has breast implants and has had lip injections to plump her limps.  I don’t know about you, but girls didn’t look like that in my high school days.  Then we have Kelly Rowland as Lori’s friend, Kia Waterson.  She just didn’t click with everyone else and her acting was terrible.  I know that horror movies are known for terrible acting, but this is ridiculous.  There was the boyfriend, Trey (Jesse Hutch), of the lushy Gibb (Katharine Isabelle), who treats her like shit and likes to use the phrase, “Don’t make me ask you twice.”  There’s so much more that I can pick out from this film that adds to why the casting of the teenagers didn’t work, but it’d be a waste of time.  But I really think that was the downfall of the film, financial-wise.

What works in this film is whenever Freddy or Jason or both show up on screen, whether they’re killing teens or fighting each other, that’s when this movie kicks ass.  There are also a lot of scary scenes, especially the dream sequences that seem really eerie, which almost stands up to the original first three films of the ANOES series.  I really loved the scene in the police station when Lori walks past the missing children posters and they all turn their heads to follow her with their stares.

Now, the controversy of casting Ken Kirzinger as Jason was understandable.  I guess a lot of people enjoyed Kane Hodder in the role when he was cast as Jason in four of the Friday the 13TH series of films.  Reason given for going with someone else was that they wanted someone taller and lumbering.  Yes, Hodder is just as tall, but I was getting a little tired of Hodder in the role.  I think the constant changing of Jason in the past helped with the mystery of who’s underneath the mask.  Hodder just became too familiar and connected to the character.  It almost seemed that Jason was disappearing and Hodder was who you recognized.  But that’s just my opinion…

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

So, it happened.  With the paltry success of remakes such as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre in 2003 and Friday the 13TH in 2009, it was inevitable that we’d get a remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street.

The questions you might have—if you haven’t seen this film—are what a lot of people asked aloud or to themselves.  And, I’ll answer them for you.  Was this film needed?  No.  Did it bring anything new to the table?  A little bit.  Is it better than the original?  Hell no.

You might ask, “Should I even watch this movie?”  And to that, I say, sure…why not?

We all know the legend of Freddy Krueger, the boogeyman of the teenagers living on Elm Street.  He wears a weathered fedora, a dirty red and green sweater, and fashioned a glove festooned with razor-sharp knives on each digit (minus the thumb).  And that’s how we get into this film, right away, with Freddy killing his first victim in the local diner.  It’s a cool setup, with an eerie dream sequence that has a few jump scares before the dispatched death.  With that, we meet the new Elm Street children, all grown up and all having the same terrifying dreams of the burnt man in red and green.

Now, Jackie Earle Haley was a good choice to take over the glove from Robert Englund as the new Freddy Krueger.  But besides Kyle Gallner as Quentin Smith, all the other actors and actresses were pretty dull.  Maybe it was the writing or material they had to work with, but the cast was so dull and one dimensional, they really had no impact on the film whatsoever.

The beginning of the film was a little confusing, because the story seemed to stick to the character of Kris Fowles (Katie Cassidy), but the narrative suddenly changes to track Nancy (played by Rooney Mara).  As the audience, you invest in the Kris character and notice how she’s uncovering some evidence to get to the truth, but suddenly she’s unimportant.  Although her character wasn’t the most interesting individual of the plot, switching the story to follow Nancy was a little disconcerting. 

As small as the change was, I did like how they changed Krueger’s background from an accused child murderer to an accused child molester.  Also, instead of just adding some gross make-up to make Freddy look menacing, the filmmakers actually did their research to make the character look like a real burn victim.

So, what went wrong with this film?  For one thing, just the fact that they remade such a classic was an off-putting failure.  The original film was such a classic that was nearly perfect.  Sure, the 1984 film had its faults, especially with some of the special effects, but it’s a film that just cannot be duplicated or improved upon.  Another problem with this film is what I touched on already, the performances of the actors and actresses.  It literally seemed as if the filmmakers gave the cast the script minutes before shooting began.  Most of them seemed to be telephoning their lines in and not putting any feel into it…especially Rooney Mara.  She is capable of doing better than the performance she gave in this film—she was boring and didn’t do much to add to this movie.  The characters just weren’t fleshed out enough, causing the audience to not really care about them or their impending doom.

Now, what went right with this film?  Well, being that it was made in the 21ST century, the special effects were awesome.  Especially the makeup effects used on Jackie Earle Haley to make him look melted and scarred, using a little CGI to make his face appear to have holes burned through his cheek areas.  The dream sequences were good, especially the scene where the exhausted Nancy is going in and out of the dream world as she’s trying to get away from Freddy.  Without giving it away, I like the tie all the teens have with each—this was a fresh idea to include into the story.

If there’s one thing that irritated me about Haley’s portrayal of Freddy was the fact they had to re-record his lines to be dubbed in during post production.  I guess the prosthetics he wore on his face and mouth proved to be a detriment on his speech, so the filmmakers weren’t satisfied with his voice when reviewing what they’d filmed.

With all that said, it’s still a fine movie and I think most horror fans will enjoy the remade A Nightmare on Elm Street.

Well, my final "bit" on the A Nightmare on Elm Street series is that it's a great series to go through, understanding that you'll get a lot of late 80s cheese in the later sequels, but you'll enjoy yourself nonetheless.  As long as the film making industry realizes that they should keep their claws off classics like the first film and not make anymore insulting remakes like they did in 2010, we can preserve these films for the treasures that they are.


Thanks for reading!

You can reach me on Twitter: @CinemaBits

John Carpenter: My Top Ten Favorites

Right off the bat and without fear that I’ll sound like a nerdy fan boy, I’ve got to say that John Carpenter is a living legend, who has—since the late 70s—set the bar and created the template for all other filmmakers to follow. From the design of a horror movie, to the archetype of the bad-ass action hero, even including social commentary to a science fiction piece, Mr. Carpenter was the pioneer of those aspects.

Now, I admit, I haven’t seen every John Carpenter film that he’s directed, either due to not finding the film or not finding the time, so I can’t say that I’m an expert on his film compendium. But of the ones I have seen—and I have seen most of them—I’ve got to say that he’s a master of his craft.

So, without further ado, let me go over the films which I feel are his top ten.

Number 10: John Carpenter, after his success with arguably one of the best horror films in the 1970s, followed up that achievement with a made-for-television biopic, simply titled, Elvis, about one of the greatest entertainers of our time.

Prior to the DVD release a few years ago, the broadcast in 1979 was the only time I had seen this film. But Presley was, and still is, my very favorite music star from the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Sadly, this movie didn’t age well and is not as entertaining as I remembered it to be. It stars Kurt Russell as the music icon, rising from a teenager to the singing sensation he came to be. Some of the supporting cast members are Shelley Winters as Gladys Presley, Bing Russell (Kurt’s real-life dad) as Vernon Presley, Season Hubley (Kurt’s wife at the time) as Priscilla Presley, and Pat Hingle as Colonel Tom Parker.

The film is very interesting in the beginning as it shows how he made his first recording and becoming big, but the film starts to fall flat as it gets into his later life. The story stopped short of documenting his death and I think maybe that was the problem. It seems as if the movie maybe wanted to go to that part of his life, but decided to stop short of that chapter.

All in all, it’s still enjoyable to see Kurt Russell play a pretty good rendition of The King of Rock & Roll.

Number 9 on my list belongs to 1995’s Village of the Damned, a remake of the 1960 British film of the same name, starring Christopher Reeve as Dr. Alan Chaffee and Kirstie Alley as Dr. Susan Verner.

In this one, some alien-influenced incident happens in this small town that knocks everybody out momentarily, but strangely affects ten women of the town by leaving them pregnant. Nine months later, ten platinum-haired children are born and grow to be emotionless children with evil powers, using it against the adults of the town that get in their way.

The film is very entertaining, and if you can put aside that “Superman” is in the lead role, you can thoroughly enjoy it.

Number 8’s pick is 1996’s Escape From L.A. In this sequel to 1981’s Escape From New York (see number 4), Snake Plissken is once again called in—against his will—to go into a maximum security prison—Los Angeles—to retrieve something very important to the fate of the United States, as well as the world.

A lot more colorful and special effects-laden, this sequel is so entertaining and fun to watch, it almost feels like a parody of Carpenter’s 1981 film.

Kurt Russell is back and just as bad-ass as he was back in 1981 as he goes through this retread of the first film. You can almost see that Carpenter maybe wanted a chance to re-do the first film and this is what we got.

The film also stars Steve Buscemi as “Map to the Stars” Eddie, Stacy Keach as Commander Malloy, Peter Fonda as the burnt out surfer Pipeline, a nice cameo by Bruce Campbell as the Surgeon General of Beverly Hills, the late Cliff Robertson as the President of the United States, and the beautiful Pam Grier as Hershe. They’re definitely a star-studded cast that has a lot of fun in this one.

Number 7 on my list of favorite John Carpenter films is one I’ve seen maybe once or twice. 1993’s Body Bags is an anthology that (I think) went straight to video or only showed on one of the movie channels of its time. Anyway, it’s actually a difficult one to find on disc and believe me, I’ve been looking for a while. I remember catching it on Showtime and being intrigued with the concept of having some weird coroner introduce each story. It wasn’t until my second viewing that I realized it was Carpenter who played the cadaver-like guy in the morgue.

The film highlights three stories and I believe Carpenter only directed two of the stories, “The Gas Station” and “Hair” while Tobe Hooper directed the third story, “The Eye.” It’s funny, although I love all three tales, my favorite is the one that Hooper directs. “The Gas Station” is a story of Anne (Alex Datcher) and her first night as a service station clerk. Before her coworker, Bill (Robert Carradine), leaves, he tells her an escaped psycho is on the loose and advises her to stay locked in the booth. As you can imagine, this story is pretty suspense-filled.

In “Hair,” Richard (Stacy keach), is upset about how bald he is and wishes there was something he could do about it. He visits a seemingly disreputable doctor who offers him a scalp treatment he guarantees will work. After going through the procedure and taking off the bandages, Richards hair grows stunningly…but things go very wrong and very weird.

But my favorite of the stories, Brent Matthews (Mark Hamill) is a baseball player who gets in a car accident that leaves him without an eye. However, an experimental surgery to have an eye from a donor replace his damaged eye is done and completed successfully. But the donor of the eye turned out to be a serial killer and things get twisted in Matthew’s life as he sees flashes of the serial killer’s life and begins to be taken over by it.

Very good anthology and it’s a shame that it’s taken so long to get a special edition on Blu-Ray, but Scream! Factory finally announced we’ll be getting one soon!

Number 6, is 1988’s They Live, starring Roddy Piper and Keith David, an excellent sci-fi flick that makes you think long afterward about the social commentary the film subliminally suggests. But I like to watch this film for the concept and the idea of alien takeover.

The film has sort of a slow start as we see Piper’s character, Nada, getting a job doing some hard labor at a construction site and moving in to some homeless camp, but soon picks up when he sees some weird goings-on at the church across the way. He soon discovers these magical Wayfarers that, when worn, shows what’s really going on in the world. He picks up magazines and the pages are simple white pages with large words like “CONSUME” or “SLEEP” and other subliminal commands. He notices the billboards have the same messages and sees that there are futuristic aircraft patrolling the skies. The one big thing he discovers is that some people are not what they seem.

I don’t want to give too much away, because it’ll take away some of the surprise and shock you may feel when watching this film. The third act of the film is mainly a lot of action as the story gets into the climax, but the film, overall, doesn’t disappoint.

I wish Roddy Piper would’ve done more films because he was one hell of a leading man in this flick.

Number 5 is a moody piece from 1980 and one I watch annually around the Halloween season. The Fog is yet another nostalgic film I love, making me remember all the TV spots I had seen as a child and wishing I were able to see the movies advertised.

Finally, after a few years, I was able to rent this film on VHS and enjoyed it immensely. As Carpenter’s theatrical follow-up to Halloween, and if you try to compare it, it’s a little disappointing. But as a stand-alone film, it’s a brilliant ghost story with an excellent cast, led by the awesomely tough—and mustache-less—leading man, Tom Atkins.

The town of Antonio Bay is about to celebrate its centennial and when the clocks strike midnight—the witching hour—everything in town goes berserk. All the cars in town start honking their horns, public payphones ring, televisions turn on, and other paranormal activities occur. At the same time, the priest at the local church notices a stone that falls from the wall. When he goes to look at the hole left from the missing stone, he discovers an old diary left there by his grandfather. As he reads some of the entries, he learns that Antonio Bay has held a deep, dark secret.

The opening scene with John Houseman reciting the ghost story to the children was a nice touch and was a good introduction to the film. The stand-out to the film is the special effects, as well as the make-up effects, highlighted throughout. We all love Tom Atkins, and even though he’s missing his trademark ‘stache, he’s still the bad-ass we all know and love. But let’s not forget Adrienne Barbeau as the local radio disc jockey, looking as great as ever.

When I watched one of the behind-the-scenes featurettes about the work involved in getting the fog effects to work, I was amazed. With no CGI effects back in 1980, you can imagine the trouble they had in getting the fog to move and stay in frame back then. Some of the tricks they came up with will surprise you.

The Fog is a must for John Carpenter fans, and even if you aren’t, this flick is still scary and spooky. Do yourself a favor and watch it.

Number 4’s pick is 1981’s Escape From New York.

The story begins with a voiceover on how the country, in 1988, has gone to shit and decided to make the island of Manhattan a maximum security prison for undesirables to live on their own and survive in a place where there is no law and no rules.

Nine years later, in 1997, Air Force One is overtaken by a group of terrorists who take over the plane and is about to crash it to kill the president (played by Donald Pleasence), but he evades certain death by using an escape pod (does Air Force One really have an escape pod?) to get away. As luck would have it, the plane was flying over the air space of the New York prison and that’s where the president went down.

Kurt Russell plays Snake Plissken, a Eastwood-esque man-with-no-name type, who’s brought in, after being arrested for a bank robbery, to rescue the president and he reluctantly agrees. To make matters worse for Plissken, and unbeknownst to him, his carotid arteries are injected with microscopic pellets that’ll explode in 24 hours. He’s told that if he brings back the president alive, the pellets will be neutralized and he’s free to go.

Yes, this film is awesome, showing us that Kurt Russell is no softy from the Disney movies he'd been featured in, but a bad-ass that kicks ass. Plissken’s appearance is pretty cool, with his weathered leather jacket, fatigue pants, and the eye patch, looking like someone you don’t want to mess with. The movie features a well-rounded supporting cast, giving us some memorable scenes. The film features Lee Van Cleef as Hauk, Adrienne Barbeau as Maggie (you won’t forget that dress!), Harry Dean Stanton as “Brain,” Ernest Borgnine as “Cabbie,” and Isaac Hayes as the “Duke of New York.” With quite a few other Carpenter regulars (Charles Cyphers and Tom Atkins) and some character actors that really make this film enjoyable. One little complaint? When I finally watched this film after seeing the movie poster, I was a little let down that the Statue of Liberty’s head wasn’t crumbled on one of New York’s streets. In fact, we see it intact and never damaged throughout the movie. False advertising!

Number 3 is a favorite of mine of 1983, due to the work the film is adapted from, which is the novel, Christine, by Stephen King. Though it differs a little from the book, the overall idea is there and is yet another nostalgic outing from John Carpenter. Although it’s not the first movie about a vehicle terrorizing people, it’s probably the one movie people remember when asked about the subject matter.

The film stars Keith Gordon as Arnie Cunningham, your average nerd who is picked on in high school by the school bully, Buddy Repperton (William Ostrander), and doesn’t excel in much except getting good grades. But when one day, Arnie and his friend, Dennis (John Stockwell), pass an old lot that has a busted up rust bucket—a 1958 Plymouth Fury—for sale within the weeds of the property, Arnie tells his friend to pull over. He buys the car—which he’s told by the old man who owns it, George LeBay (Roberts Blossom), that her name is Christine—and tries to take it home to his angered parents, but instead has to rent a stall at the local junk yard to work on it.

Soon after, the car begins to look better, but so does Arnie, as he stops wearing glasses, starts to dress better, and starts to act like a douche bag. Along with all this, some find out, if you cross Arnie, Christine will become infuriated.

Again, Carpenter had some amazing talent working with him to make some of the special effects work. I still don’t understand how they were able to get some of those scenes to pan out, especially the way they were able to make it look like the car was able to retain its shape after being dented and wrecked. All of the action scenes were very memorable, especially the car driving down the road as it’s engulfed in fire. This movie is a must for all to see.

Number 2 on my list, and I’ll probably receive a bombardment of resent for choosing this film as my second favorite Carpenter film rather than first, but I admit that he left his mark in the film world with this one, especially in the horror genre part of it, when he directed the now-classic, 1978’s Halloween, starring Jamie Lee Curtis as Laurie Strode and Donald Pleasence as Dr. Sam Loomis. When I mentioned before that Carpenter set the bar for horror films, this is the one that many have imitated or have used as a template.

The film is full of suspense and there’s not much I can say about this film that everyone hasn’t commented on already. But I love watching it every year, especially in October when All Hallow’s Eve is just around the corner. It’s nostalgic and fun to watch, never getting old and scaring me to this day. You can see why this film set John Carpenter up as the go-to-director of the 80s, because he really delivered in this one.

Just some advice: if you’re going to rent or purchase this DVD or Blu-Ray, make sure you get the 1978 version and not the Rob Zombie remake. Zombie’s version is okay, but pales in comparison to John Carpenter’s classic film.

Number 1, for all intents and purposes, is what I think John Carpenter’s real masterpiece should be, and that’s The Thing from 1982.

I’ve actually read an article here and there where Carpenter actually feels the same way about this film, that it's his best work to date.

It broke new ground in practical horror effects that were just so off-the-way crazy, but was perfect in this flick, as it brought to life an organism that can imitate anything, yet transforms in a visceral and organic way. This film proves, without a doubt, that practical effects are the way to go. The prequel that was released in 2011 definitely proves that CGI doesn’t cut it when it comes to this type of sci-fi/horror film…or any other film for that matter.

Unfortunately, this film was released the same year as E.T. and audiences bought into the friendly alien from another world, rather than watch an evil one which kills and causes destruction.

When this film was released, I was around 11 years old. My parents didn’t take me to see movies that often—and they definitely wouldn’t take me to see an R-rated film—but I was still aware of the movie due to the headlines it made. It was mainly because of the gross and gory special effects, but it made me want to watch this movie even more than I had already wanted. It wasn’t until years later that I was able to rent it on VHS and enjoyed every second of it.

The cast was a great ensemble and acted this yarn out believably. You can definitely feel the tension and fright in the men as they realize that the Alien organism is on the loose and could’ve taken the form of any one of them. The “who’s-really-who” plot adds to the scares that we get in this film and having it set in an isolated part of the world where no one is able to reach outside of their realm for help is terrific.

Kurt Russell certainly shows us why Carpenter includes him in quite a few of his films as the leading man, because he fills that position nicely as he takes charge when the shit hits the fan.

One fun thing I suggest you do is to listen to the commentary between John Carpenter and Kurt Russell. You can tell these guys are good friends and love what they do.

Another interesting thing you can do is watch the 2011 version right before watching Carpenter’s version and decide which is better. My money’s on Carpenter’s film. But The Thing is definitely a fun movie to watch, especially if you decide to watch it during a cold winter night.

So there you have it, my little love letter to the Master of Horror himself, Mr. John Carpenter. One thing he mentioned in an interview or commentary when discussing Escape From New York was that he was toying with the idea of making another sequel called Escape From Earth. I actually tweeted to his Twitter account, asking if that will ever come to fruition. I was overjoyed that he actually responded to me (although, it could’ve been someone who takes care of his account), but then saddened when he responded that the movie will never happen. But it does anger me that we had a movie come out last year called Lockout that very well could’ve been a sequel to the Escape movies. And I know damn well that Mr. Carpenter would’ve made a much better film than that piece of crap.

I really do hope we get more from John Carpenter in the future because he is a brilliant director who has a résumé of great films that span over three decades.

I’ll leave you with this: the man deserves a lifetime achievement award in the Academy and a star on the Walk of Fame (if he doesn’t have one there already). He is my all-time favorite director and hope to meet him one day, just to shake his hand and tell him how great he made my experience growing up watching his films. He’s a legend—a living legend—and although those are my top ten favorite films of his, I adore them all and always enjoy a John Carpenter marathon, every year.

Thanks for reading!

You can reach me on Twitter: @CinemaBits!

Man of Steel

The character of Superman, from the DC line of comic books and graphic novels, has had a bit of a rough history in the last few decades when it comes to translating him and his story to film. Superman Returns was a decent outing directed by Bryan Singer back in 2006, but it wasn’t quite satisfying to Superman fans and seemed more of a love letter to Richard Donner and his 1978 classic than a diving board for ongoing sequels to come. Movements were made here and there, from Kevin Smith’s treatment to the almost certain depravity Tim Burton was planning, which, thankfully, never came to fruition.

Ever since I had watched that final scene in The Matrix, where Neo takes off in flight, I knew the special effects were there and just waiting for a good Superman script to allow it life. But, alas, it seemed as if it was never meant to be.

Enter Christopher Nolan, giving Batman new life with his Dark Knight trilogy and cementing his roots into the filmmaking ground while making tons of money for Warner Bros. in the process. He could do no wrong in the eyes of the WB execs and was allowed free reign with any project of his choosing.  So when it was announced that he would “godfather” a new Superman film as a producer, I had some small hope starting to grow inside me. Little by little, over the last couple of years, we heard tidbits of info, a not-too-interesting teaser trailer that had risen doubt in my mind, and finally a full-fledged trailer that made me curious, until Man of Steel was released to us…

Yes, after over 30 years of a Superman drought, we get Zack Snyder and David Goyer’s vision—or shall I say reimagining—of the DC superhero that may be setting the upcoming Justice League movie on its way to us.

But that’s getting a little ahead of ourselves. First, let’s get into Man of Steel…

…without spoilers, I promise.

To synopsize, the film is a complete reboot, starting with the origin of Superman/Kal-El, as he’s born on the alien world of Krypton. As war begins on the planet, his parents, Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and Lara (Ayelet Zurer), knowing that their planet is doomed—because of the pending destruction that led to the war initiated by Genral Zod (Michael Shannon) and his soldiers—they send their son off into space to reach the planet of Earth for a chance to live out his life. As General Zod, along with his remaining soldiers, is arrested and tried for his crimes, he’s sentenced to the Phantom Zone. On Earth, the adult Kal-El (Henry Cavill), not knowing his origin and identifying himself as Clark Kent, raised by Jonathan (Kevin Costner) and Martha Kent (Diane Lane), is on a journey, taking odd jobs around the country, to find out who he really is. As his journey comes to an end and he finds out who he is, he then finds himself at odds with our country’s military and a returning threat that found its way from Krypton: General Zod.

I didn’t want to give away too much about this film, which is why I went with a quick plot summary and didn’t give away too much detail on the story. But going into this movie, I was completely mesmerized from start to finish.

The beginning scenes on Krypton was spectacular and I’m glad they went with changing it up, going away from the crystal/ice look of the 1978 film to this Star Wars-esque landscape that they feature here. Rather than wanting the film to move on and get to Kal-El’s life on our world, I wanted to stay on Krypton to see more of it. The clothing and armor worn throughout the scenes on Krypton had an old renaissance feel to it, seeming like the planet was in the dark ages. But the technology, looking primitive and insect-like, was surprisingly fresh and was its own, not seeming like a Star Wars rip-off.

I felt there was a good balance while the story played out and moving to Kal-El/Clark’s adult years as he travels the country, trying to find his way on earth. I mention balance, because there are equal parts of present-day story, as well as flashback scenes to Clark growing up in Smallville.

Once we see Cavill take the reins and become the character of Superman, the movie takes on a bewildering feel and takes us on a believable, yet effects-laden, rollercoaster ride that never lets up. Don’t get me wrong…it’s not that the movie is not exciting before that, but if you want action...wow…the last third of this film delivers.

Now I have to admit, at first, Henry Cavill, as Superman, was a concern for me going into this. When I found out the character—being such an American icon—was being played by a British actor, it sort of bothered me. But by the time we see him play out the first heroic act in the film, I was totally okay with him and his portrayal, looking forward to upcoming sequels and the planned Justice League movie.

The second concern was Michael Shannon playing General Zod. I mean, after seeing Terence Stamp make that role his own in 1980’s Superman II, I felt like nobody should ever attempt to fill his shoes. Surprisingly, Shannon nails it and even adds a little more heart and soul to the character, even making us see his side of his argument in the story.

Kevin Costner really turns in a great performance as Jonathan Kent and I actually wish we had more of his character interacting with the actors playing the 9-year-old and 13-year-old Clark Kent (Cooper Timberline and Dylan Sprayberry respectively). But the flashback scenes we get from him were stellar accomplishments and made us understand how he—as well as Diane Lane as Martha Kent—was a key character in Clark’s upbringing.

Finally, Amy Adams as Lois Lane was really interesting and the character arc was something we’ve never seen in any Superman incarnation on television or film. The chemistry between Adams and Cavill was

believable and enjoyable to watch. Thankfully, there was no “Can You Read My Mind” scenes between them and I never felt that she was unneeded in the story.

Rounding out the cast in Man of Steel: Laurence Fishburne as Perry White, Antje Traue as Zod’s right-hand woman Faora-Ul, Harry Lennix as General Swanwick, Richard Schiff as Dr. Emil Hamilton, and Christopher Meloni as Colonel Nathan Hardy.

So, what’s my final “bit” on Man of Steel?

While the film doesn’t have the epic feel of its 1978 counterpart, I think it was done on purpose, perhaps preparing for the DC universe to open up and making way for the forthcoming Justice League project. The plot had a different twist that we’re used to (if you know a bit about the Superman lore), yet stayed pretty true to its source. The film contains enough heroic feats and battle scenes for any action fan to enjoy, giving us the best Superman film to date, by special effects standards anyway. By the end of this film, Superman has believably solidified himself in this DC universe of films and leaving us to wonder what’s next. Man of Steel is definitely what Warner Bros. needed to jump start their superhero franchises back into film, opening a doorway for more…and I can’t wait. I’m planning to see this again, so that should tell you how good this flick is (I rarely see a movie more than once when it’s making its theatrical run).

Watch out, Marvel…DC is making a comeback!

Thanks for reading!
You can reach me on Twitter: @CinemaBits

V/H/S/2

Being a big fan of 2012’s V/H/S, when the sequel hit OnDemand circuits yesterday, I gladly paid the ten bucks to order it in for the night. The first one was such a fresh take on the “found-footage” type films, making it more believable how these scenes were caught on film, having novel ideas on reasons why cameras are present rather than just some schmuck lugging around a camcorder when he should be running for his life.


The same can be said for 2013’s V/H/S/2, where the film has some pretty cool concepts on why a camera is recording what we see.

Now, straightaway, I’ll say that this outing wasn’t as good as the first film. Without getting too much into it, I’d say the first film had better story concepts for each tale and we’d gotten better shocks from it as well. V/H/S/2 has some shocks, but they’re more of the gory and visceral type, making us want to turn away from the screen instead of enjoying a good, yet resigned, jump scare. In comparison, part one had me wanting more at the end of the film; part two…well…I was satisfied, but I accepted the ending.

In the wrap-around plot, “Tape 49,” a guy and girl are checking out a house, looking for clues on the disappearance of a college student. Just like the first film, they enter the house through a window and find a room with a bunch of televisions displaying static screens with white noise. Stacks of VHS tapes are piled

nearby and the guy tells the girl to look through them as he searches the rest of the house. Between each vignette, we see how the tape viewings are affecting the girl, causing her nose bleeds and moments of blanking out, until the fatal climax of this wrap-around story.

The actual first story, “Clinical Trials Phase 1,” a man is in a doctor’s office, being looked over and examined. It becomes clear that he has received an artificial eye that contains a camera and records everything the man sees. Upon leaving the clinic, he notices a young lady staring at him as he leaves out the door and she comes into play a little later in this

segment. As darkness falls at his place, the man notices some glitches to his new eye and he starts seeing things, like a bloodied man and a little girl, both pale and ghostlike. He becomes frightened and runs into his bathroom to spend the night in the tub, until the next day when the girl from the clinic rings his doorbell. She explains to him that she received an artificial transplant—a cochlear implant— and like his ocular implant, causes one to have paranormal senses. From then on, the shit hits the fan and we have some shocking moments that were pretty scary. The only problem I had with this one was the solution the girl had to make one of the spirits—who happened to be her uncle—go away; it seemed a little contrived and tacked in for some gratuitous boobage.

So, onto “A Ride in the Park.” I liked this one a lot as it was a fresh idea on how to make a film with a zombie’s point-of-view. With the popularity with these Go Pro cameras with hikers, bikers and all-around adventurers, these cameras can be mounted anywhere to give the viewer the feeling they were riding a bike or jumping off a cliff or zip-lining through a forest or whatever the escapade may be. In this little ditty, a biker is getting set to ride a trail through the woods, with his camera mounted on his helmet, when a lady comes bursting onto the trail before him, screaming about her boyfriend. The biker stops, all the while we see what he sees, and tries to help the lady as he sees she looks wounded and bleeding. He hears noise coming from

off the trail and sees people scrambling up to them, looking inhuman. Turning back to help the lady, he sees she is now puking up blood or some dark liquid and seems to die. But shortly thereafter, she jumps up and attacks the biker, biting and scratching at him. He gets away and appears to fall and lose consciousness, laying in a patch of grass until some other bikers come to his aid. Suddenly, the biker jumps up—obviously a zombie now—and attacks the couple that tried to help him. From then on, it’s a fun watch as we see the biker as a zombie attacking other people. It ends quizzically as we re-think what we know about zombies.

The next tale, “Safe Haven,” a group of three guys and one girl decide to film a news documentary of a known Indonesian cult. During this outing, the footage is shot with the news cameras, as well as a few spy cams. Hoping to get a look at what goes on within the compound, the crew goes to the leader of the cult to

ask his permission to film them inside their place. He tells them his views of his cult and alluding to what they do within the compound, but it becomes clear to the news crew that things aren’t right within, as the founder speaks of how he purifies the young children within the group, referring to sex. He keeps referring to him and his people going to the Paradise Gates soon, which makes the viewer think of the few cults that have come to pass (Jim Jones and the People’s Temple and Heaven’s Gate) and ended with suicides. As the crew enters the compound, the feeling between them—as well as the viewer—is unease. Everyone they meet seems euphoric and a little unsettling as the crew makes their way within the corridors of the compound. When the sound of a large bell starts tolling off chimes, the founder thumbs a microphone to announce it is time to start the descent to Paradise Gates and that’s when the craziness begins.

One of the more engaging stories in this anthology is “Slumber Party Alien Abduction.” The novel idea with the camera work, again, utilizes the Go Pro type of camera, this time strapping it to the family dog. At a family cabin near a lake, the parents of two boys and a teenaged girl leave for the night, leaving the girl to be in charge of the boys. As expected, the girl’s boyfriend shows up and the boys are forgotten. A couple of the boys’ friends come over and they start playing pranks on the girl and her boyfriend. One prank involves the

boys sneaking up under water—with water balloons and squirt guns—to the pier where the girl and her boyfriend are laying out, to pop up and unloading on them. This time around, one of the boys have the camera strapped to them and for a few seconds plops down under water where we see some kind of creature swimming towards the camera in the distance. Before we can make it out, the girl’s boyfriend dives in the water and we don’t see the creature any more. That night, after the boys pull another prank on the girl and her beau, the invasion begins to a very frightening climax.

As a whole, the wrap around story is pretty interesting, but it almost seems to duplicate what we saw in the first film. I thought they could’ve changed it up a bit instead of the same story of some people sent to an abandoned house to look for something. Yet, it still had a good creepy feel to it as we saw things in the background that the character didn’t see. Each story had its own style and really didn’t disappoint, but it seemed to go for gore rather than an interesting story. I guess it just seemed predictable and I never felt surprised like I had in the first film.

The artificial eye story could’ve added a little more to it, to make the gory ending seem like that was the only thing to do. Maybe if he experienced more mayhem for a few nights to show us he had no choice but to do what he did, it’d make it more believable. I’ve got to give the director props for trying to tackle this one, because an eye doesn’t move around like someone holding the camera. Yet, you’ve got to suspend disbelief, especially when they include the guy’s blinking—very nice touch.

I wish the ending of the zombie biker could’ve been foreshadowed somehow, but the ending was still a nice touch and a twist to the zombie lore.

The story of the cult being filmed for a documentary was pretty good, but I kind of wished it was featured in English so we didn’t have to read subtitles and miss some of the action on the screen because of it.

Finally , the alien abduction was pretty awesome, showing only enough of the aliens to creep you out. Was it me? Or did that blast of noise accompanying the bright lights of the aliens sound like the horn from the Creeper in Jeepers Creepers?

Overall, this is a worthy sequel and I’ll, more than likely, buy it on Blu-Ray when it’s released. It’s worth the OnDemand purchase and, if it’s released in your neck of the woods, worth the theater admission price as well.

My final “bit” on V/H/S/2?

I hope they continue this franchise and keep making quality sequels. No need to polish it up to give it a more Hollywood look, because it’ll go the way of the Paranormal Activity dodo. As long as they keep the look of watching something on VHS, it’ll keep a faithful audience. When—or if—V/H/S/3 comes out, I’ll definitely shell out another ten dollars to see it. Magnet Releasing has definitely given us horror hounds something to look forward to, helping the horror genre come back full force.

Thanks for reading!

You can reach me on Twitter: @CinemaBits or you can email me at Cinema Bits!

Scream Quadrilogy

Now, right off the bat, it has to be noted that, for now, the Scream franchise is going to be called a quadrilogy. Even though a while back, it was reported that a whole new trilogy was going to be added to make it a total of six movies, I, as well as a lot of people-including a few of the actors and actresses of the films in question-believe the franchise is dead. Scream 4—or Scre4m—hammered the final nail in the coffin. But, we'll get into that final chapter later, so sit back and enjoy my take on this well-written—at times—horror movie series.

Back in 1996, people were all abuzz about a new horror movie that was scaring the shit out of everybody.  During a time where a lot of 1980s horror movies were trying to seep into the new decade, but failing miserably, I took this bit of news with a grain of salt.  At the time, I had my fill of silly Friday the 13th sequels, tiring part whatevers of the Halloween series, and campy A Nightmare on Elm Street runs, so I found it hard to believe that there was a new horror film that would outdo them all.  Even my wife (girlfriend at the time) was eager to see it, and if you knew her (she's the complete opposite of a horror movie fan), you'd know that it takes a lot to get her to sit through a scary film.  So, I took the bait and we went to go see Scream.

At first, I was a little taken a back, seeing Drew Barrymore in the intro to this movie with that god-awful wig and playing a high schooler.  But as the scene went on, you really could feel the tension and suspense the character was going through, dreadfully imagining yourself being in that same predicament.  After watching this film countless times, as well as the subsequent three sequels, this one scene is the part that I, as well as anybody else who enjoys these films, remember the best.  It's an iconic performance by both Barrymore and the voice of Ghost Face, Roger Jackson, which will live in horror movie infamy.

For its time, Scream was well-written (scripted by Kevin Williamson), giving us a realistic examination of high school life in the 90s.  There weren't too many moments where you'd feel like yelling at the screen to ask a character what the hell they were doing because they all did what, I think, must of us would do in their place.

Neve Campbell as Sidney Prescott did well as the lead "survivor girl" must of us can relate to; with her good morals and trusting attitude, she played the part believably, giving us someone to root and care for from the start.  Her best friend, Tatum (Rose McGowan), turned in a very good performance as well, giving us someone else to care for, but knowing full well that she'd be a victim later on.  Skeet Ulrich as Sidney's boyfriend, Billy Loomis, did fine; being presented as the red herring at first and then the villain was very entertaining and believable.  Besides Courtney Cox and David Arquette, playing Gale Weathers and Deputy Dewey respectfully, the glue that holds this movie together is Randy Meeks (played by Jamie Kennedy); with his knowledge of famous horror films and applying their plot points as rules in life is very entertaining; the scene at the party where he explains the rules to a horror movie is hilarious.

Wes Craven was able to present his name back on the mantle of Horror Master by directed this flick.  After directing the great A Nightmare on Elm Street, he didn't have many worthy follow-ups on his repertoire.  It seemed after he directed the boring Vampire in Brooklyn that we'd never hear his name again.  But a mere 14 months after the start of Eddie Murphy's downfall, Craven gives us this refreshing take on horror movies.

Although we have many modern icons of horror like Jason, Freddy, Leatherface and Michael, they all had to make room on their pedestals for the new kid on the block, Ghost Face.  Really, the whole costume of the character was a no-brainer—something, to this day, that's very easy to obtain, and not because of the movie.  A black cloak with gloves and a hooded ghost mask.  That's it.  But still, that visage alone was enough to make audiences scream with fright when Ghost Face appeared from behind a door or popped up at a window.  The thought of not knowing who was behind that mask throughout the film added to that thrill and gave the whole movie an exhilarating feel.  Even after years of viewing and knowing who's behind the shroud of the white spooky mask, it's still intimidating to watch.

There's not much to nitpick here as this movie seemed to have been treated with the utmost care and no cheats were put into the story.  If there's anything to complain about is how it's a victim of the times.  And what I mean by that is how difficult the killer would have in this day and age as caller ID and GPS locating would give them away.  Seeing the cell phones back then, how large they were, is laughable, but we have to realize that this movie is over 15 years old.  Another thing you'll catch is how Sidney's boyfriend is taken in and questioned as to why he's carrying a cell phone.  Why he's carrying a cell phone???

As a whole, Scream is fun and scary.a great movie to sit back with a tub of popcorn and enjoy.

A year later (although the narrative of the story explains it as two years later), Scream 2 was released in 1997.

Yes, Dimension was able to crank out this sequel and it wasn't as bad as I thought it might've been.  Usually, a movie rushed into production to meet a date only a year after its predecessor doesn't make as much money as the first and is met with harsh criticisms, understandably so.  But it fared well and was a commendable sequel.

Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson return to give us a nice sequel, bringing most of the remaining cast back for another round of murders all revolving around Sidney again.  Sidney's now in college with a new boyfriend, Derek (Jerry O'Connell), trying to retain her life after the Woodsboro events.  However, after a couple of murders during the opening night of Stab—the movie-within-a-movie—which clues Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox) and the local police that there'll be more murders, Sidney's life is turned upside-down once again.

As with the original, the theme of movies is compared to real life, explaining how the rules in movies apply in real life.  This time around, however, it's the rules of horror movie sequels.

It's nice how they took the throw-away subplot of Cotton Weary from the first film and place it here as an added decoy to keep us guessing as to who is the killer or killers.

Returning again to hold the movie together and to give the movie a speaking account of the rules is Randy (Jamie Kennedy).  Along for the ride as well is Dewey (David Arquette), showing the signs of his injuries from the first film as he limps around from nerve damage in his back.  I actually like these two characters together—the scene in the college café is priceless as they strategize who may or may not be the killer or killers.

The film keeps the same feel as the first and was written intelligently with nary a cheat.  Well.maybe a few here and there.

O'Connell is thrown in there as a red herring, as is Timothy Olyphant as Mickey—a counterpart to Randy's knowledge of movies—as well as Debbie Salt, a local journalist who is always butting in to Gale Weathers and her leads.

The climax of the movie could've been a little better, in my opinion, but it did answer some questions to sort of wrap up what happened after the events of the first film.  It's an earnest follow-up and should be watched right after part one.

In 2000, as we all headed into the new millennium and had the big Y2K fear die down around the world, Scream 3 was released.

Now, this outing was criticized a bit, but I felt it had a very good story, something we all didn't see coming.  With everyone thinking one of the original cast members was the killer, or one of the Stab 3 troupe might be, or even the new character of Detective Kincaid (Patrick Dempsey), Wes Craven, along with Ehren Kruger taking Kevin Williamson's place as writer, presented us another intelligent horror film that delved deep into Sidney's life—actually, before she was born.

So, as I had mentioned, the story revolves around the filming of Stab 3.  Murders start to happen, prompting the movie to be shut down and the guessing begins.  The clues are vague, at first, as the killer leaves photos of Sidney's mother, Maureen Prescott, at each murder scene.  I love that aspect of the story, how it just confuses you at first, jarring your mind on what the clues can mean.  But when it finally comes to place, you're still confused because you still don't know who the killer might be.

Again, the film has many misleading clues and characters, making you think one person might be the one under the mask and black cloak, but then they end up dead.  Or are they...?

Now, for my nitpicking of one aspect...but it's a doozy.

If there's anything I can criticize about this film is the device the killer uses to change his/her voice to duplicate the voices of other people he or she chooses.  In the first two films, it was a push and you can dismiss it, seeing that there are devices in stores that do the same thing (granted, it doesn't make you sound like a whole different person, only alters your voice, but it's close enough).  But to have an unrealistic McGuffin that helps the film move along is a pretty big cheat.  I really don't think there's a device (in civilian hands anyway) that can make you sound like a person of your choosing and in such a loud and articulated manner like the gadget used in this flick.  If this movie was Mission: Impossible, I could let it slide, but it's not.  It's never explained where this thingamajig came from.  Was it bought on eBay?  Purchased at the local pharmacy?  Is the killer some kind of genius and able to build such a device?  Did a CIA operative give it to the killer?  Ooooh...that'd make a good sequel to this one...instead of the way part four went, they should've had the new killer be a CIA operative that brainwashed the past killers to do his or her deeds, giving them this high-tech doodad that changes your voice to whomever you sample...that would've been more entertaining—and believable—than what they did in part four.  But anyway, it's a big plot point in the film to trick us with showing us it's a certain character's voice just to show it wasn't the character and keep us guessing, so it ticks me off a little bit.  But I have to just dismiss it as this not being a Kevin Williamson joint, so let's just move along, shall we?

Scream 3 keeps you guessing until the end, what with the clues giving you no hint whatsoever, the end is a surprise and changes the history of the franchise and what we thought started it all.  Besides the voice-changer device—which I cannot, for the life of me, get around—this chapter refreshed the series and didn't just go the way of Friday the 13th or Halloween with tiresome sequels all doing the same thing over and over, albeit entertaining.  No, I, for one, like what they did here and turned the franchise on its side, not giving us some kids who just decided to put on the Ghost Face mask and have a crack at it (which is what they did in part four).

So watch these first three films and enjoy them.  Watch part four at your own discretion.  I can't take responsibility for your anger at what they did with the latest (and probably last) sequel.

My Scre4m review was published on 4/28/2011, so please check that out.  All I can add to it, because I recently watched the film, is how unbelievable it was to finally find out the identity of the killers.  To see Ghost Face run around, looking between 5'10" and 6' tall, and then to see the unveiled killers standing 5'5" or so, it's pretty ridiculous.  It's especially evident when you watch it a second or a third time, because you can't help but notice scenes where the people who turn out to be the killers are talking to Sidney and they have to look up at her.  When they're under the cloak, they suddenly gain half a foot.

Overall, my final "bit" on the Scream franchise is that it's an enjoyable quadrilogy, regardless of part four, and I actually hope they can continue on with the announced second trilogy.  But I don't think it will happen.  Aside from that, they're all good films and won't let you down in its entertainment value.  Check them out if you haven't already.

On Twitter: @CinemaBits