A Nightare On Elm Street (1984)

I have a confession to make.  I haven't been spreading my love equally across the great horror franchises.  When I started this blog, I quickly reviewed a few of the original Nightmare movies, but I got distracted by shiny objects and never really got back on track.  In the meantime, I have reviewed every single Friday the 13th and most of the Halloweens.  Out of a sense of fairness, it is high time I returned to the A Nightmare On Elm Street franchise, and where else should I start, but with the original?

A Nightmare On Elm Street begins with a mysterious figure crafting an all-purpose murder glove in a boiler room somewhere.  Coincidentally, Tina (Amanda Wyss) has a nightmare where she is chased by a mysterious figure wearing a murder glove!  It's always nice when you don't have to wait for plot points to pay off.  Tina runs from this creepy, fedora-and-ugly-sweater-wearing, razor-gloved meanie, but he catches up with her.

Maybe he just wants a hug

Right when he is about to kill her, Tina wakes up screaming in bed.  It was just a dream!  Except...her nightgown has slash marks in it, right where her nightmare man cut her!  Dum-dah-DUMMMMMM!!!  On a side note, teenagers wear nightgowns?  Anyway, Tina's not the only teen having dreams like this.  Her boyfriend, Rod (Jsu Garcia), her friend, Nancy (Heather Langenkamp), and Nancy's boyfriend, Glen (Johnny Depp, in his film debut), have all been having nightmares; despite Tina being openly creeped out by her dream, none of her friends comes forward and admits to having similar nightmares because teenagers don't have empathy.

Or props that make sense in their scenes.  What is with the birds by the boombox?

Since Tina makes such a big deal about her dream, Nancy and Glen agree to keep her company while her parents are out of town.  Rod shows up, too, just in time for some sex scenes that sound remarkably like people trying very hard to sound like they're having all the sex in the world.  After Rod finishes pleasing his woman, this happens:

He becomes the Magneto of flesh?

An invisible attacker slices the hell out of Tina and then, just for giggles, reverses her personal gravity; this was done presumably to force her family to clean her bloody footprints off the ceiling, which looks suspiciously like a deck.  That's when things go a little crazy.  The police, led by Nancy's estranged police lieutenant father (John Saxon), assume that Rod killed Tina (...on the ceiling...?) because he was the only one in the room.  Rod eventually gets caught and winds up in prison, but not before admitting to Nancy that he has had nightmares about a man with a razor bladed murder glove.  This blows Nancy's mind.  To be fair, it should.  That night, as she is dreaming, Nancy watches Mr. Razorfingers entering Rod's cell, preparing to kill.  When she wakes, Nancy knows that Rod is in danger, but no one believes that an invisible dream monster is going to attack him.  They should have, because Nancy was right.  After this point, Nancy is a teen on a mission: stop this mysterious dream monster!  Or at least find out who he is!

...before he falls through that latex wall and lands on her damn head!

The acting in A Nightmare On Elm Street is not very good.  In the lead role, Heather Langenkamp is pretty awful and sadly doesn't die (or does she...?).  She didn't annoy me, but she's not very likable and has trouble with any part of her character that can't be described as a "wet blanket."  Amanda Wyss was a little better as Tina, although she was also pretty basic.  Jsu Garcia was one-dimensional, but his one dimension was that of an insensitive rebel-type, and he did that fairly well.  Johnny Depp wasn't much better, with some of his line readings (especially "WoooOOOOoooo") being painful to watch.  On the bright side, his character didn't demand much acting, and Depp at least managed to get the most memorable death scene in the film.

If you're not going to be good in a movie, at least try to die well

Robert Englund spends most of this movie in the shadows as the evil Fred (not Freddy) Krueger.  Freddy doesn't display his trademark humor or cackle much in this first entry, but I think some of the visuals with Freddy are at their most iconic here.

That's a great introduction shot

Still, Englund isn't at his best here, if only because the script is not sure what direction they want the character to go; Freddy is a presence in this movie more than he is an actual character.  John Saxon actually headlined this movie, which is hilarious in retrospect.  In turn, he was about as good as John Saxon normally is --- he's a perfectly acceptable B-movie actor.  Rounding out the main cast, Ronee Blakley was absolutely horrible in every conceivable way as Nancy's alcoholic mother.  In all fairness, her character is terrible.  Still, Blakely should be able to act circles around Heather Lagenkamp (she is an Oscar nominee, after all), and that just doesn't happen here.

A Nightmare On Elm Street was written and directed by Wes Craven, after he read about (I shit you not) Asian Death Syndrome.  The basic idea here is a chilling one: what if the danger in your dreams was real?  As such, Craven goes out of his way to make a menacing villain, and he does so with some great visual scenes.

That's not Freddy.  That's a subtle warning to not date Nancy.

As far as his direction of the actors goes, Craven did a pretty awful job.  I honestly couldn't tell you if this cast had their lines memorized or were using cue cards.  The pacing in the film is okay, but it's a little slow for a slasher movie.  And that's what this is, oddly enough.  There are elements in the plot that could have made this far more suspenseful and frightening, but Craven opted for a simpler (and dumber) take.  I like the basic idea, but it's not very scary, exciting, or unpredictable, despite having the whole dream monster angle.

The special effects in A Nightmare On Elm Street had some definitely good moments, but it's pretty inconsistent overall.  Glen and Tina's death scenes are pretty great, no doubt about it.  I don't know what it is that makes them so memorable --- is it just the fact that they wind up on the ceiling? --- but they definitely stand out in the genre.  I also really like the moments where the audience is aware of Freddy's presence, but Nancy is not, like when he pushes his face in the wall above her bed, or when she is sitting in the bathtub.  Unfortunately, there are also moments like this:

Unless those are expanding dildos coming out from his shoulder, I'm not impressed

Why is it supposed to be frightening that Freddy can walk slowly with cut-rate Stretch Armstrong arms?  There are other moments that are okay, but have definitely aged a bit over the years.

Is that supposed to be silly putty?

On the whole, though, I think the look and feel of the special effects scenes work pretty well, even twenty-nine years later.

What about the horror, though?  For being a slasher movie, the Nightmare movies have always had a fairly low body count, and A Nightmare On Elm Street definitely sets that precedent.  Four people officially die in this movie.  Granted, two of those kills are pretty awesome, but...just four?!?  LAME. Worse than the low blood and gore count is the fact that this film completely ignores the easiest and most fun possibility for horror: the dreams.  Aside from a few bits with Nancy dreaming about Tina's talking corpse, the only dreamscape we see is Freddy's Land of Boiler Room Fun.  Dreams offer so many possibilities and even one good, weird one would have made a huge difference to the tone of this movie.  It might have even added *gasp* suspense to this slasher pic!

Don't get me wrong, A Nightmare On Elm Street is definitely better than most movies starring Freddy Krueger (noteworthy exception: Freddy Vs. Jason).  I just had a memory of it being actually good instead of just promising.  Really, how many horror franchises have a villain that has at least a kernel of justification in his back story?  Yes, he was evil, but the dude got lynched --- that may not be the best reason to kill teenagers, but at least he has a small excuse.  Unfortunately, most of the promising ideas aren't fully formed.  What makes Freddy Krueger stand out from his slasher movie brethren is his personality, and that is sorely missing from this movie.  Well, that and any logic whatsoever when it comes to when Freddy can kill you --- I'm pretty sure that only one person was actually asleep when they died, which makes no sense.  Even considering its many shortcomings, A Nightmare On Elm Street does have a unique feel to it, which goes a long way for the discerning fan of 80s horror movies.  Is it a classic?  I wouldn't say that, but it has its moments.

From Dusk Till Dawn

After a month of horror movies, I have come to the realization that there are not a lot of great vampire movies out there.  The premise is sound, but many vamp flicks just fall short of the mark, whether from budgetary reasons, stylistic choices, or simply bad writing.  I have seen From Dusk Till Dawn before, but it has been a few years since I watched it last.  This movie obviously had a budget, since legendary special effects master Tom Savini wouldn't be seen acting in a film without cool effects.  The writing is handled by Quentin Tarantino, back when his dialogue was ridiculous and overly entertaining.  As for the style, it is directed by Robert Rodriguez, features monstrous vampires, over-the-top action, and has a good part of the story take place at a strip club.  Right off the bat, you know that this isn't going to have the subtle moodiness of Interview With the Vampire.

Not the first, but certainly not the last clue

From Dusk Till Dawn opens with the notorious Gecko brothers, Seth (George Clooney) and Richie (Quentin Tarantino), on the run from Texas Marshals on their way to the border.  Richard broke Seth out of police custody, and the pair had left a trail of corpses in their wake ever since.  This is partly because they are a couple of no-nonsense villains, but also because Richie is a bit of a psychopath and manufactures reasons to kill. 

They look like brothers, right?

Thanks to Richie's habit of murdering people, it has become harder and harder for the pair to maintain a low profile.  They need to sneak across the border, but how can they do it without being caught?  As luck would have it, a disillusioned preacher, Jacob (Harvey Keitel), is taking his kids on a road trip in the aftermath of their mother's death.  Their motor home catches the attention of Seth as it pulls into his motel parking lot, and suddenly, the Geckos are forcing Jacob to drive them into Mexico.

So...where are all the vampires?  Hold on, they're coming.  Once in Mexico, the crew arrives at the place where Seth is supposed to meet his contact; by morning, Seth and Richie will be on their way to their safety zone and Jacob will be free to take his two kids back home.  The meeting place happens to be a strip club named the Titty Twister, which caters to bikers and truckers.  The place is open from dusk until dawn, so it's the perfect spot for a fugitive to spend a few hours unwinding.  Except everyone in the Titty Twister happens to be a vampire.  Oops.  The best laid plans...

This scene makes me laugh every time

For being a ridiculous vampire movie, the acting is surprisingly solid in From Dusk Till Dawn.  This was George Clooney's first starring film role since he became famous in ER, so it's kind of interesting seeing this as his first step toward super-stardom.  And he is very good here; he delivers Tarantino's dialogue naturally and fits the sleaziness of his character quite well.  His role isn't perfect --- he's on the run and wears a leather vest, of all things, to blend in? --- but he is able to be a bad guy and a fairly charismatic character at the same time.

Even if he has douchebag tattoos

Quentin Tarantino isn't anywhere near as likable, but his character isn't supposed to be.  While I dislike QT as an actor, I will admit that his style fits the abrasive nature of his character perfectly.

Side note: I hate Tarantino's face

Harvey Keitel is pretty good as Jacob, but I think he is awfully stiff given the shitty day he is having; at first, I thought the awkwardness was pretty natural for a hostage, but he never unclenches.  Juliette Lewis plays his teenage daughter, and I guess she was fine.  She's a little awkward, and her screams are kind of annoying, but it was a tough role to be likable in.  Ernest Liu plays her brother and manages to be less charismatic than Lewis.  Seriously, what a dull character.  There are a lot of noteworthy actors in the rest of the cast, but most of them have far less screen time as supporting actors.  Cheech Marin played three different characters for no real reason; he was kind of funny as a vampire and later, as a crook, but his first appearance as a border patrol cop was surprisingly bland.  Salma Hayek writhed around as a stripper --- named Satanico Pandemonium --- who doesn't take her top off, dances with a snake, and lets Richie suck on her toes as she pours booze down her leg.  There isn't any substance to her character, and the toe and snake things kind of gross me out, but it's hard to criticize Hayek's portrayal of a lusty babe.

Nope.  No problems here.

Frequent Rodriguez collaborator Danny Trejo makes a brief appearance as a tough guy vampire, which adds a whole new layer of depth to his acting oeuvre.  Fred Williamson also gets to play a bad-ass, which is about the only thing he has ever done in his life.  Tom Savini didn't get much dialogue, which speaks to how little Tarantino trusted him to act, but he kicked a lot of vampire ass, which is plenty good enough for me.  There are also some noteworthy bit parts in the film; Kelly Preston is a news reporter, John Saxon is an interviewed FBI agent, Michael Parks introduces his Texas Marshal character for the first time (he pops up again in Kill Bill and the Grindhouse double feature), and John Hawkes delivers the most vintage Tarantino dialogue in the whole film as a liquor store clerk.  And to think, I was impressed by the cast of Interview With the Vampire!

Since this is a vampire movie, it is important to take a quick look at the creatures.  This time around, they are normal-looking people who transform into hideous monsters.

Danny Trejo, before transforming

Post-transformation, the creatures sometimes resemble their human selves, but not always.  The are super-strong, but their bodies are mushy, so blunt force attacks are effective against them.  They are vulnerable to sunlight, crosses, holy water, and wooden stakes, although you can just opt to punch holes in them, too.  Pretty standard stuff, but you never know what the rules are going to be in a vampire movie.

I really enjoyed the special effects in From Dusk Till Dawn.  They don't really come up much in the first half of the film, but once people start vamping out, there is a ton of very cool makeup and practical effects in every scene.

That also means that there is a good amount of gore in this movie.  Hearts get pulled out, heads get melted, and there is an absolute ton of blood.  Honestly, there isn't much more you can ask for in an action/horror vampire story.

Unfortunately, this isn't just an action/horror vampire story.  In fact, the first half has very little action or horror at all.  It's a crime yarn that makes a left turn and winds up in the unfamiliar territory of the supernatural action/horror sub-genre.  I'm not complaining, mind you; both halves are very entertaining.  However, the shift in tone, pacing, and style makes this feel like two separate films.  I knew that going into this viewing, but the effect was still jarring.  The first half feels like it could have been taken from leftover Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction scraps (I mean that in a good way), except for the fact that the most likable character (Seth) is obviously a complete bastard, instead of the usual cool-guy-that-does-bad-things type Tarantino usually creates.  The second half doesn't play to Tarantino's strengths, as there is very little dialogue, and even less of it is clever.  The action scenes are staged well, though, and Robert Rodriguez is able to keep the film entertaining, even as is shifts its focus.

He kicks ass for the lord

I'm not saying that From Dusk Till Dawn is a bad movie, but it is far from the best work of either Rodriguez or Tarantino.   Objectively, this movie lacks solid pacing and focus.  The writing is uneven, and the acting takes a back seat to the effects in the second half.  It's fun, but a little empty.  Of course, this film was never meant to be a critical darling.  It feels less like a cool story that the filmmakers really wanted to tell and more like a couple of friends having a blast, making the type of movie that would have blown their minds as teenagers.  In that, they are successful.  This is silly, cheeky, gory, and absolutely ridiculous, which makes it very entertaining, warts and all.

Black Christmas (1974)

I'm going to say this upfront: Black Christmas is one of the best horror movies ever made.  If you want to catch a disturbing horror movie, stop reading and check this out --- make sure it's the 1974 version and not the 2006 remake, though.  Black Christmas is generally regarded as the first slasher film; as such, many of the film's plot elements are echoed throughout the dozens of subsequent additions to the genre.  This is the original, though, coming out four years before Halloween, and it has stood the test of time quite well.  What makes this film most remarkable, perhaps, is the lack of violence, gore and nudity; the film still earned an "R" rating for being too disturbing.  Do you know what that means?  It means that this is a horror movie that you probably haven't seen that isn't gross, but is still somewhat scary --- how rare is that?

As Christmas break begins for a small college, the Iota Kappa Sigma (I only mention the specific house because I like IKE) sorority house is having a (pretty tame) party.  It's more of a get-together than a shin-dig, if that gives you an idea of the debauchery involved.  As the party proceeds inside, the camera cuts to a hand-held, Point of View (POV) shot as a mysterious individual unsteadily approaches the house.  After looking in a few windows, the stranger notices an ivy trellis on the side of the building and climbs up it, into the attic.  Soon after, the sorority girls get an obscene phone call --- one of many, it seems, from someone they have dubbed "the moaner."  Being the resident drunken smart-ass, Barb (Margot Kidder), takes the phone from Jess (Olivia Hussey) and eggs the caller on.  After a string of bizarre noises and vulgar suggestions (more on that later), the call ends with "I'm going to kill you."  One of the girls, Clare, then decides to pack for her trip out of town in the morning; the killer is waiting, again unseen, in her closet and he suffocates her with a plastic dry cleaning sheet.  Her absence is discovered the next morning and, by evening, the police believe it to be a sinister disappearance.  Local do-gooders and police begin a search for a suspicious person or a body.  Little do they realize that Clare didn't go far at all; her body is in a rocking chair in the sorority house attic, looking out the window with the plastic sheet still wrapped tight around her head.  I think I can leave the plot at that, for the most part.  You get the idea, right?  The killer is in the house and he continues to make obscene calls and murder the Kappa Sigma gals until the climax.  I don't mean to shortchange the filmmakers, but it's been over thirty-five years and we can draw our own picture.  The great thing about this movie is the little curve balls it throws at you; in many ways, the plot is a typical slasher plot, but it still manages to surprise, and I would hate to spoil that.

Let's get back to those prank phone calls.  You're probably a little skeptic about them, because how scary can phone calls scripted in the mid-70s be to your jaded 2010 tastes?  Don't freak out --- I'm not a mind reader.  I know what you're thinking because I was once in your position.  And then I heard these calls.  Wow.  Even if you ignore the porn movie-friendly vocabulary in these scenes (which is surprisingly shocking to hear in a "real" movie) and pretend that nothing offensive was said, these calls are disturbing on a very base level.  The caller's voice changes frequently, from a sinister growl, to a girlish moan, to a snarling that resembles what I assume it sounds like for an animal to choke on its own blood.  And the call where he squeaks "please stop me" in the middle of the howling...?  Fuggedaboutit.  This movie could have been titled "Holy Crap, Listen to These Phone Calls," and I still would have been taken aback by their ferocity.  Maybe I'm oversensitive to phone harassment (I'm not, but please don't test me), but these calls genuinely creeped me out.

The film was directed by Bob Clark, who is better known as the director of perennial Midwestern holiday favorite, A Christmas Story.  I loved his direction here.  It is so common for slasher movies to misuse the POV camera shot, but Black Christmas handled it perfectly.  It was shaky, unstable (like the character), and it actually moved like it was the eyes of the killer.  I liked the choice to make the film more of an atmospheric horror film than a gory one; I like me some gore, but genuine chills should be appreciated wherever they are found.  The score helped the mood with its low, slow, and unrecognizable discordant notes adding to the dread seen on camera.  Clark's direction is also largely responsible for those obscene calls, so he gets an extra kudos from me.  Another thing that makes this horror film uniquely awesome is the ambiguous ending.  I don't want to spoil anything, and it's not a weird twist, but it is still effective.  Clark even managed to get some pretty solid performances out of the actors.  Margot Kidder is the most recognizable member of the cast, and she plays the drunken loudmouth so well that she reminded me of an old friend.  Olivia Hussey wasn't quite as good, but she does well as a sympathetic Final Girl in the Slasher Movie.  John Saxon shows up as the local sheriff who is smarter than the rest of his crew, but that doesn't mean he's on top of the situation.

This movie can be appreciated for its historic qualities, but I think it stands up to the best of what has come since.  This is probably the first movie to feature a killer inside the victim's house.  It is one of the first films to throw around vulgar euphemisms like they were candy.  It is also credited for the holiday theme for horror movies (Valentine's Day, April Fool's, Halloween, etc.).  There are more, but the important thing to take away from this movie is not what it did first, but what it did well.  And it kind of freaked me out.  Is this another Oscar-baiting horror film, like Silence of the Lambs?  No, but it is definitely one of the best at what it does.

Wes Craven's New Nightmare

Metafilms are, almost by definition, kind of obnoxious.  Any time a movie is about the making of a movie, you know that the filmmakers are trying to be overly clever.  Usually, this requires a great script and director (see Adaptation).  Wes Craven, the writer and director of New Nightmare, is neither.  Don't get me wrong, I like the guy; I don't think anyone can make a convincing argument that his entries in the A Nightmare On Elm Street series are not the best of the bunch.  This movie, though, tries something new and doesn't quite pull it off.

Ostensibly, this move takes place in the "real world."  The actors (at least, all the Nightmare veterans) all play themselves.  Freddy Kreuger is not a creature of dream, but a character created by Craven and played on the screen by Robert Englund.  Heather Langenkamp is the primary character, but John Saxon, Tuesday Knight, and many other actors and producers from the series have small roles.  Essentially, Freddy Kreuger is trying to leave the realm of fiction and enter reality.  Something is different with Freddy, though; this is not the clownish "Vegas Freddy" of the past few movie installments.  This Freddy is meaner, with claws that appear to be a part of his body.  Wes Craven (the character) theorizes that this new Freddy is actually an evil dream entity that the masses have equated with Freddy Kreuger.  Since that is how the world sees this entity, it has assumed the guise of the Freddy character.  Craven believes that the only way to keep the entity at bay is to use art (in this case, a movie) to express the violence and evil that it wants to perform.  This will temporarily sate the entity's lust for carnage, until another movie can be made to keep the entity trapped in fiction.

No, really.  That's the plot.  If there's one thing I can safely say about this movie, it is that it does not insult the audience's intelligence...just their suspension of disbelief.

One of the downsides to making a Nightmare movie featuring the actors from past Nightmares is that those actors were never very good.  It doesn't matter that Heather Langenkamp is playing herself, she is still an awkward actress.  That's far more enjoyable to watch than Wes Craven's struggle to convey an emotion beyond "vaguely tired."  I've seen him in interviews, so I know a little about him...let me tell you, I have never seen somebody struggle so much to convincingly play themselves in a movie.  While this may sound strange to those unfamiliar with the Nightmare series, Robert Englund is clearly the best actor in the film.  He is the only actor that seems comfortable playing himself and he delivers as both the buffoonish Freddy and the new, improved "Super Shredder"-esque Freddy.

This is the seventh installment in the A Nightmare On Elm Street series.  By this point, Freddy had already done pretty much everything he could do.  He succeeded in killing all the children of those who lynched him, he became a dream demon, he he expanded his audience from the Elm Street kids to all kids, and he had been (allegedly) definitively killed.  I get it.  The series needed new life.  This, though, feels more like a homage than a horror movie.  Most of the kills (while done pretty well) are direct references to the more famous Nightmare scenes.  The plot tries to be grounded in reality but must come up with overly complicated justifications for key plot points at the same time.  I admire Craven's attempt, but it just doesn't quite work here; the effort paid off better when Craven fine-tuned this concept in Scream.  The big problem with this movie isn't the metafilm plot, though; the problem is that the previous movies were not good enough to support a clever (if flawed) metafictional homage to them.