Scream (1996)

Plot: A killer in a Ghostface costume is stalking and killing a group of high school teenagers...just like something out of a horror movie ;)

Review:
Classic!
That is the best word I can use to describe this film. The directing is perfect. Wes Craven really knows how to build suspense and hold tension. The characters are all well developed and REALLY likable. I was REALLY rooting for these characters as opposed to the killer. They gave us a GREAT heroine in Sidney who kicked ass. She isn’t your typical good-girl virgin heroine. She has a past and doesn’t blend into the many other horror film final girls.
The soundtrack was amazing; that score was perfection! I have it blasting out of my headphones right now and the acting was great all around. The movie was also really clever and witty and had great lines. This film has one hell of a script, thanks to Kevin Williamson. He crafted a film with a group of characters that know the horror clichés.
The kills are brutal and bloody and while not gory, I found myself cringing in terror. Do I even need to talk about that opening? I will anyway. The opening is perfection at its finest. The score, the build-up, the acting, the tension…all down to the pay off – not one flaw. It’s terrifying and brutal and amazing.
Even though the film has a perfect rating from me I do have a few flaws. The supermarket scene – why would the killer be there in full costume? It annoys me. Either get rid of the scene, cut off the ending, or have one of the characters there watching them.
Another thing that bothers me is that WAY TOO many people survive in the end for my liking. I think they could've killed off another couple of the characters. Just sayin'…but this really isn’t anything major.
But in the end it's still an amazing movie and the ending is MIND BLOWING! When the killer is revealed, my mind is still blown each and every time. Go and see this film.
CLASSIC!

VERDICT: 10/10

Scream 2 (1997)

Plot: Ghostface is back, and now he is after Sidney and her new group of friends on a college campus. Can she, Gale, Dewey, and Randy figure out the killer is in time? Or will they lose their lives like their friends in the first film?

Review:
I re-watched this film, and it has grown on me QUITE a bit! I actually have grown to really like this film. Everyone knows that I never hid the fact I used to hate this film. Sidney is still a great heroine and Gale is an AWESOME character and Dewey, while starting to get old, is still a fun character. The suspense is there and this film has one of the best chase scenes ever (Gale’s!). There is one sequence that involves two characters trying to crawl out of a car…now THAT is how you do suspense!
Like the first film I couldn't guess who the killer was and the directing is fantastic and even though it's a sequel, it still felt a bit fresh. The script poked a lot of fun at sequels and the African American's place in the horror genre. The acting is great and the score is once again brilliant. And it wouldn't be a Scream movie without the obligatory opening death sequence. It's grand, theatrical, big, and it works, although it doesn't live up to the first film's opening…but I don’t think anything could. What really works for this opening and what makes it brutal and macabre is how it takes place in a crowd. If you’re not safe in a crowd of people…when are you safe? I have heard many complaints about Jada Pinkett Smith’s acting…and honestly, it didn’t bother me. She did okay. Her big display worked for me. The whole film seems to have a theme of theatre to it and it worked. Sidney is now an aspiring actress. The finale takes place on a theatre stage and everything is done much bigger like any sequel. Everything had a grandiose effect to it. The deaths were more elaborate and bloody (that pole through the eye…nice!).
But sadly, this is NOT the classic the first film is. The returning four characters are all great and I like where they bring Sidney. She is a survivor, but now she doesn't know who to trust. Gale is still that bitchy reporter trying to go for the gold, but we see much more of that good side of her in this film. I found her to be a more well-rounded character in this film. But...the new characters are all…how do I put this? Lame.
Hallie pales in comparison to Tatum and was boring. Tatum was feisty, likable, and damn strong. She put up a fight. Hallie didn’t feel feisty; every feisty line she spoke felt like a girl pretending to be…She was just there for me. Derek, the new boyfriend, is VERY bland and boring (plus that song sequence - WTF?! That was out of place), and Mickey is the best of the new friends but even he felt like a Randy imitation. At least he was fun. Then they completely wasted a great Sarah Michelle Gellar; I feel she could have been a great character with an awesome scene. Don't get me started on her stalk/death scene! It's fuckin' retarded. She is supposed to be a film buff…and her stalk sequence is supposed to be über suspenseful but every time she could go for safety she doesn’t. I’m sorry Kevin Williamson, but this scene was full of bad writing.
Then we have the ending...I like the setting. It brings the grandiose and theatrical effect full circle. The suspense was there and Sidney is still very badass. But the…reveal of the killers were lackluster. Well…that’s disappointing. I don’t want to give them away, but honestly one of them came out of nowhere (he/she was a VERY minor character) and his/her motive was just shit (and that certain actor/actress didn’t know how to act for this entire film), while their partner’s motive was interesting but he/she had a bad case of acting crazy after being sane for pretty much the entire film. But even with the mediocre choice of killers, the ending was still okay; even though it could have been much better.
One other pet peeve I had is how Tatum is never mentioned. She was Sidney's best friend and Dewey's little sister...you would think her death would have come up at LEAST once throughout the film.
But in the end I like this sequel. I used to despise it, but it has grown on me over the years. Now I would say it is a pretty worthy sequel.

VERDICT: 7/10

Scream 3 (2000)

Plot: Young stars and starlets are being stalked and killed by Ghostface in Hollywood as Stab 3 is being shot.

Review:
What an odd "conclusion" to a trilogy. I like it and I don't think it is the shite everyone makes it out to be. I actually enjoy it, but I still prefer the first two. I like the new ideas brought up and the Hollywood setting was VERY clever. The sets were put to good use and to see the Woodsboro set was plain fun times. Jennifer Jolie is a fun new character and Gale and Sidney was great too see. BUT...the suspense is pretty much lacking and this film's first priority was comedy before the scares. BAD IDEA! While the first two films were witty, it always went for the scares first. I’m a fan of less comedy in my horror films. For me the comedy worked in Scream and Scream 2 because it was more wittiness than actual comedy…although Parker Posey was hilarious as Jennifer. Most of the other characters sadly had victim on their forehead and Sidney was mostly absent – another strike! She is the heart in my opinion of this series. Even Dewey is starting to get old by this film. I found him annoying in Scream 3. They should have left him dead in Scream 2…I personally think.
On another bad note the deaths were bloodless and boring as well. While the first two films weren’t overly gory, the death scenes were still well done and brutal as fuck. In this film there were no truly interesting deaths, although one character is killed by a house explosion. That was a cool scene.
But in good news, Wes still has a good eye and the inclusion of Sidney's mom brought the films full circle. Even with the lack of suspense and tension, Wes still was able to craft a good-looking film. Some of the chase scenes were awesome and while the characters were pretty mediocre, the acting was pretty strong from all. We even get a young Emily Mortimer! I love that actress! I wish they did more with her character (which I heard they were going too but they ended up having to cut it out).
The conclusion is better than the second film’s. It almost felt like a boxing match and Sid's fight against the killer was rather brutal. My only complaint with the ending is that the reveal of the killer (while MUCH better than Scream 2) is a bit convoluted. It almost felt like a soap opera type ordeal.
Overall, I still enjoy this series. It definitely isn’t as good as Scream or Scream 2 in my opinion, but I still enjoy this supposed-conclusion to the series. The film is at it’s strongest when Sidney, Gale, and Dewey are together, even if I do find Dewey annoying in this film. The score still works, and even the cops on the investigation case was pretty cool in my opinion. I like the implied romance between Sidney and one of the detectives. It was like a small light in Sidney’s sad life. Gale and Dewey still have good chemistry and there are some nice in-jokes that are very clever in this film. My favorite would have to do with the one-and-only Carrie Fisher. Overall, I enjoy this film. I don’t think it is the disaster many people believe it is…but it still could have been much better than just okay.

Verdict: 6/10

The Anniversary at Shallow Creek (2011)

PLOT:
A group of six (boring) college students go off for a vacation in the middle of nowhere (of course)...where a sniper waits to kill them all off one-by-one.

REVIEW:
I hate to rip on a movie, where the cast and crew obviously put a lot of heart into it...but "The Anniversary at Shallow Creek" just wasn't very good. It wasn't the worst movie ever...but it had MANY issues. Good: I like the premise and the main girl was the best actress and was cute too boot. She was actually a likable-enough character. Two of the guys were cute. The last 20 or so minutes actually rocked, brought up some strong themes, and had some potent suspense. The film's look wasn't bad and really came to life in the end. Also when the killer begins to talk, he/she has a pretty creepy voice that REALLY worked for the role.

I have a lot to say...and now onto the bad. I really do feel bad because the film had some good things going on and the cast/crew REALLY put there all into this film...so where did they go wrong? On a technical level, the lighting was terrible! When it was dark, I couldn't see a damn thing going on. I even played around with the lighting on my computer...but no dice. Also that musical score didn't leave much of an impression. It was generic. Not bad, but not good - just like the film, so I guess it suited it. The acting, was...on and off. The main actress was pretty good, and the killer has a creepy voice. But other than the main actress every other actor was pretty amateur.

My biggest gripe would be the script. The characters were mostly annoying...and suspense was REALLY lacking from most of the flick. It didn't kick in until the final twenty or so minutes when a choice had to be made. That is all I will say. But the characters were just...damn, I didn't give a damn about most of these people. The main two characters were likable. I'm not asking for tons of character development but at least give me some likable characters.

Should I mention the dialogue? Well I started to. The dialogue was pretty putrid in places. They just didn't feel like real people. Example, when a character is introduced: TWO people make comments about how he isn't studying for a change within two minutes. Ummm...that is quite some dialogue there? How about showing us rather than telling us. This doesn't count as character development. Plus to add one final injury, that opening scene was TACKY as hell with bad acting, dialogue, and everything was just done so badly. The terrible editing didn't help this film.

Overall, I really REALLY wanted to like this film, but sadly it just wasn't very good.

VERDICT: 4/10.

Original Vs. Remake: Episode 2

A Nightmare on Elm Street 1984 vs. 2010

Here I am again, with my second installment of Original Vs. Remake. I was going to turn this into a series, but then forgot (you can blame that on school), but here I am with a second installment…finally! What movies will we be dissecting this time?
1, 2: Freddy’s coming for you…
Oh hello Freddy! Welcome to my series of Original Vs. Remake. For this installment we’re going to take a look at A Nightmare On Elm Street, the 1984 classic and the 2010 masterpiece (of shit). I guess I gave away the winner already; didn’t I? Well I don’t hide my disdain for the 2010 remake that should not exist. Let’s start cutting away to find out why it pales in comparison to the original.

CHARACTERS/ACTORS:
Let’s start with a look at the characters first and foremost. In the original film, the characters were likable, well developed and came off as real people. Even though the actors didn’t look like teens (aside from Langenkamp who has a very girlish face), they came off as real teens that I could care for and I wanted them to live. Even the adult characters came off as real people. They weren’t horror film fodder just there to die. When they died, I felt it. Nancy had real parents with real issues. Her father was never there and her mother was an alcoholic. Not only were the characters likable and well developed they each had a solid actor backing them up! Each actor brought something to the role adding extra depth. Then we have Heather Langenkamp as our heroine Nancy who was very likable and aside from one emotional scene early on, gave a great performance!
How does the remake fare in actors in characters? We get a mixed bunch here. I respect it tried to go a different way so it could distinguish itself from the original, but this is completely botched when they would re-create scenes of the original but they would fuck it up by either rushing through it or using SHITTY CGI…but more on that later. The adult characters were interesting enough, but not as great as Marge or Lt. Donald Thompson. The actors playing them were really good though! The teen actors…didn’t fare so well. While in the original they were all well acted and they each had a fun interesting character, we see NONE of that in this film. Each character is rather bland and I didn’t care for any of them. None of them had any personality. I don’t know if it is the actor’s fault or the script’s but either way…these kids are about as bland as the kids in My Soul to Take! There were some shines of light in Katie Cassidy and Kyle Gallner who were able to bring something to their roles and I actually SORT OF cared about them. Put these two in better films! Gallner especially had the best character and was probably the only character to stand out in my eyes. Kellan Lutz was boring…why was he here again? Oh right he was in Twishit…sorry, I mean Twilight! Thomas Dekker (who is USUALLY a good actor) was wasted here and gave one of his worst performances. I guess that was bound to happen since they gave him NO role to work with. Shame, he’s a great young actor. Which brings us to the new Nancy (played by Rooney Mara)...what can I say about her? Read on.

HEROINE:
The heart of the films fall to our heroine, named Nancy in both the original and the remake. Heather Langenkamp played the original Nancy with strength, vulnerability, and was able to come off as a real teen while being badass at the same time. Heather’s Nancy was an everyday girl that we all know or could relate too. She is a bit awkward and kind of gawky and nerdy. She isn’t sexy, popular, and she isn’t even the clichéd outcast. She is just your typical girl-next-door. What sets her apart from many other heroines is the fact that she not only uses her strength to survive, but her wits as well. Throughout the film she only had herself. Not ONE person believed her – not her parents or her boyfriend. She had to rely on herself and no one else. No one comes and saves her in the end. When it all comes down to the finale she rigs her house with traps (in an AWESOME 80’s montage) and lures Freddy out of her dream. How many fifteen-year-old girls do you know would do that?
How does Rooney’s Nancy rank up against Heather’s? Not well; not well at all! They went for a different and more morose take on Nancy. That is all fine and well – I love a good depressed character with issues. I used to have problems as a kid so I can relate to those characters. But why did they have to perceive her in such a stereotypical way? She is an ugly outcast who happens to be an artist. First of all she is model hot and second of all, why does EVERY tortured outcast have to be an artist? Just once I’d like them to have aspirations to be a supermodel or something. To add further insult, her Nancy has NO PERSONALITY! The original Nancy is full of personality, spunk, and adorableness. This one…pouts? That’s about the extent of her character. A piece of wood that has been cut down has more personality than this broad. Geez! While the original Nancy is independent and smart and did EVERYTHING on her own with no man to save her in sight, this Nancy is completely dependent and has to be saved by her boyfriend in the end. Is this Rooney Mara’s fault? I’m not sure. I do know she didn’t help! I want to go out on a limb and blame the script because she really did have NOTHING to work with; maybe she is talented…or maybe she really is a boring woman with no talent. Only time will tell. But when it comes to Nancy, this is an insult since the original Nancy is a one of a kind and they made the new Nancy a bland and boring character that is more generic than white bread.

FREDDY:
Ah…the villain of the films! In the original film, they kept Freddy in the shadows and there was never a clear view of his face. It was Nancy’s film through and through. Freddy was a dirty child molester/killer that was terrifying. He had little dialogue and they hid him very well. Then we have Robert Englund who played the despicable character with ease and terror, giving me nightmares for years.
They casted a brilliant actor for Freddy 2010 – Jackie Earle Haley! He did a fine job as Englund’s replacement. He made his performance creepy enough and tried to make it his own. He even added that one creepy mannerism I really liked where he scratched his finger knives together. So my fault does not lie with the actor. He deserves a beer for coming out of this quite well! But the way the roll is written is terrible! I respect they were trying to go scary…but then why would you plaster his face on EVERY poster and put it throughout every damn trailer and commercial. Part of what made him scary in the original is the mystery and how he stayed in the shadows. In this one he had too much dialogue and they showed him way too early. It was like the film came too early before the other person was ready to climax. You never want to blow your load to early – and that is exactly what this film did. Then there is the fact Freddy was just annoying in this. He came off as a whiny little child; not a vicious child molester (they got rid of the child killer aspect). Seriously…what the fuck?! On one other note, the make up job sucked and wasn’t scary. In the original he looked and felt demonic almost. In this one they took away the demon aspect of his look and just made him cheesy looking (the CGI didn’t help).

DEATHS:
The deaths in the remake suck. Can I just leave it at that? Oh well, let me elaborate! The death scenes in the original were inventive, scary as fuck, and creepy! The original film created one of the best death scenes ever – scratch that! Tina’s death IS the best death scene ever put in any film – PERIOD. It is terrifying and creative. That one scene alone is better than the entire remake. They re-do this scene in the remake and they fucked it up so badly. It was rushed, silly, and TAME! How the hell do you make a girl being dragged across the walls and ceiling and being cut up tame? I don’t know, but the remake managed it! They made a terrifying scene seem silly. The rest of the deaths were boring and generic – something a Nightmare on Elm Street death scene should NOT be. Even the most generic death in the original (the hanging scene) still comes off creepy and gets the heart to pump.

FINALES:
This is the ONE thing the remake did okay – not great, but okay. It didn’t fuck up too bad with the ending and is the reason why this film doesn’t have a lower rating. The last half hour is actually rather cool when Nancy goes after Freddy. There are some cool chase scenes and the ending fight is rather nifty. It is quite generic and I knew how it was going to end, but it was still a fun scene…and the scene in the pharmacy is one of the best scenes in the film. The movie needed MORE scenes like that!
The original’s ending was fun, inventive, and showed off just how smart and strong Nancy is. Not only does she booby trap her house, but she also manages to fight off Freddy and she back talks him. She doesn’t let him go down easy. She will not go out without a fight. The remake’s ending while fun is very generic and is like most horror film endings, while the original is creative and shows just how resourceful our young heroine is.

DIRECTING:
Seriously…do we need to elaborate? Wes Craven is one of my favorite directors (even with his mishaps – Less said about My Soul to Take, the better!). Obviously he beats some lame music video director any day. He kept Freddy in the shadows, used cool angles, and gave the film a feeling of dread. There were some great suspenseful scenes that really will get the heart beating and he uses only one jump scare and it is quite effective.
The new director (I forgot his name) gave the film a cool look…but that is about it. There was no suspense, no terror; it was just BORING. He replaces suspense and fear with jump scares and these are fun when they’re used SPARINGLY – not when they’re replacements for true scares. The whole microcap idea is a cool one that could have been interesting…but sadly wasn’t used well. It was ONLY a factor to add more jump scares – LAME.

EFFECTS:
I use these films as one of my reasons for why practical effects trump CGI every time. Let’s compare Freddy coming out of the wall. In the original they used a rubber wall and in the new one they used CGI. The original was subtle, creepy, and effective. In the new one they over do it and the CGI just looks silly. More isn’t always better! This is a case of worse.
Freddy’s make up in the original also is better. It was scary, demonic, and gives me the creeps. The new one is silly looking, and the CGI does not help whatsoever.

Fuck-Ups:
Oh how the remake fuck up MANY TIMES!!! Where do I begin? First of all, let me state that when you remake a film, it is NOT part of the same franchise. It is like you’re starting a new franchise so you can’t just take aspects of the original and expect the audience to go along with it. That is NOT how it works.
Let’s start with the boiler room! In the original, when Freddy was alive he took them to an abandoned boiler room which is also where he was killed. In the new one, he is a gardener so he took them out to his garden shed. It’s different, but it’s okay. It’s going its own way…BUT when Nancy and the other teens fall asleep in the remake, WHY ARE THEY IN A BOILER ROOM?!?!?! Did the film just FORGET that they changed that detail? Because that is a pretty BIG detail to forget. Talk about being lazy screenwriters. Again – new franchise. Don’t just use it because the original did. You either make it work, or not at all.
Another aspect the remake fucks up is the use of his glove. It’s a fuckin’ scary and original weapon. When you think Freddy, you think of his finger knives. They are what make Freddy and provide for some rather sweet death scenes. So of course they HAVE to give those to him. The original opens up with him making them and he killed his kids with those…which is why he uses them after he is dead and haunting teens in their dreams. BUT in the remake, he was a child molester so he never had that glove in real life. Why does he use that glove in the remake then? Oh right! He used it in the original…but I thought this was a new franchise…oh it is! Nice going there writers! You can’t just add all these details ONLY because they were in the original. You have to make it work! Because what did he do? Did he RANDOMLY decide to make this weapon after he was dead? Was he bored or something and there was no room to play croquet in hell?

VERDICT:
You already know where I stand. The remake blows; the original is perfect. Even the sometimes bad effects add to the charm of the original. The new one is just a cash-grab for an extra buck. It defaces the original and makes money. This remake is EVERYTHING I hate about today’s state of horror films. At least it isn’t PG-13…then we’d have a problem!

A Nightmare On Elm Street (1984): 10/10
A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010): 3/10

ORIGINAL WINS…duh