yeah. I'm sure people will take someone who didn't like NOES's views on horror movies more seriously.
2 is a good movie and all. It's certainly an interesting sequel. And has some good scenes for sure, though the pool party definitely bothers me as it ignores the whole point of Freddy's character altogether. I'm not really sure how the writer or director overlooked that part.
The NOES series is ridiculous in the first place, and as I understand it the constant dreaming/reality conundrum for the viewer is almost always the excuse for frequently lazy writing found in each entry - so I don't see how NOES2 is any different. I think there are enough possible "clues" to interpret everything in the film as a dream from after the time the lead falls asleep in his friend's bedroom (including the pool scene).
I think you're just seeing the movie how you want to see it. That's fine. But there's no other entry in the series where Freddy is able to kill outside of dreams. It's a pretty big screw-up in this one film. Maybe chalk that up to being the first sequel and having a writer/director who was not the creator of the franchise. I can admit the concept of Freddy using dreams to manipulate Jesse to kill people in real life is interesting... but if Freddy could just appear in real life and kill them like at the pool party then why didn't he just do that to begin with?
To do: Maniac (original) - high cheese, very fun Maniac (1981) - well acted, appropriately creepy, strong effects, but too many overly-ridiculous parts Sisters - interesting early De Palma film. Has some great scenes but a bit uneven overall. Vampyr - fascinating early vampire movie with compelling camera and effects work
Videodrome
Hasu
Cronos
Corridors of Blood Roesmary's Baby - marvelously acted but quite plodding; an excellent payoff scene, though Curse of the Demon - well acted and shot film that is marred only by some poorly aged special effects
Posession Dagon - a atmospheric and suprisingly gory H.P. Lovecraft adaptation
Bram Stoker's Dracula Nightmare on Elm Street 2 - a more compelling story than the original with better gags
Nightmare on Elm Street 3
Omen (2006)
Cabin in the Woods
Silent Hill 2 Obama's America 2016 - ridiculous fearmongering grounded in a moronic understanding of post-colonial scholarship and a near infinite number of logical fallacies
Also watched: Dementia 13 - I have seen it before, but I recently watched it with a friend who quite enjoyed it. Dawn of the Dead - a true classic that has aged very well
--
I have 10 left on my list still to see with a week to do it. How's everyone else doing with theirs?
Since you guys are bickering a bit about NOES, I wonder if either/both of you have watched Never Sleep Again? It is a nice documentary that gives some good insight into all the films and explains some of the differences and the reasons for them.
jp1 wrote:Since you guys are bickering a bit about NOES, I wonder if either/both of you have watched Never Sleep Again? It is a nice documentary that gives some good insight into all the films and explains some of the differences and the reasons for them.
It's an amazing documentary. Four hours. Goes deep into each entry of the series.
The claymation intro is almost worth the price of admission alone. If you have any interest in the series at all it is a must watch.
dsheinem, one could argue that the premise for 90% of horror films is ridiculous. It is certainly a matter of taste and opinion about which are more ridiculous than the last. I think the Nightmare on Elm Street series represents a lot of imagination and humor for entertainment value. Although the quality varies from film to film at least it isn't man with axe kills 20 people with said axe. That is lazy writing in my opinion. At the time of release NOES and the sequels exhibited some of the most imaginative kills you could find anywhere. How well that translates into genuine scares depends on the person but for sheer entertainment it is hard to argue with. The series doesn't even hit my top ten so I can't say it is infallible but it's certainly a classic.
On the other hand the Evil Dead series is "classic" as well and I can't sit through those with the exception of the first movie. Even with that one it is only impressive because of the budget they had to work with and not because it is genuinely impressive. So, opinions like always are a**holes and elbows. (Sorry to anyone born without an a**hole or elbow if my statement offends.)
I'll look into the docu when I am done with the series, then.
jp1, here's discussion of NOES from a year or two ago when I first saw it wherein I explain why I didn't care for it, despite considering myself a big fan and somewhat of an aficionado of the genre.
I think my biggest issue with 1 is that it takes itself too seriously and I failed to find any humor in it - just pre-existing cliches, bad acting, and nice effects work. By contrast, I probably liked 2 better because it featured the stuff I liked from the first while reveling in its own ludicrousness. I mean FFS it had a killer parrot explode mid air, sports balls attacking a coach, a ton of homoerotic undertones, and a random man-faced dog. It KNOWS that it is ridiculous in a way which the first one skirts around.
