noiseredux October horror film spooktacular 2012

[noiseredux]

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.

wait, your biggest issue with a horror movie that was not meant to be at all comical was that it took itself too seriously and you couldn't find any humor in it???

[dsheinem]

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.

wait, your biggest issue with a horror movie that was not meant to be at all comical was that it took itself too seriously and you couldn't find any humor in it???

I don't think I know if it was "meant" to be comical or not. Lots of people (including that reviewer Ack cited) have suggested to me that it was meant as partial comedy, but I initially viewed it as a straightforward horror film that, in my view, brought little other than effects work to the table. Six years after Halloween, 4 years after Friday the 13th, I just didn't see anything really all that new about it. It certainly isn't the first horror film to revolve around dreams/nightmares.

My "issue" is that I must be missing something about why people think it is so great, and the only thing I can figure is that I don't get the humor. If you are saying that the humor isn't there either, I am doubly befuddled.

[noiseredux]

The first film was definitely not meant as anything comedic. Wes Craven has never mentioned anything about intending it to be comedic. Any sort of Freddy jokiness came from the sequels that Craven had nothing to do with creatively.

That said, I can't really explain to you why you should think it's good. You either like it or don't. All I can say is when I saw it (mid-90's originally), I thought it was creepy and great. I still listen to the soundtrack on a regular basis. Still watch the original more often than the sequels.

I guess I don't fully understand your complaints. Are you putting it context of its release? I mean, yes you mention it compared to other slashers -- Halloween, F13 -- that are very conventional slashers. (Conventional meaning guy with knife stalks teens kind of thing). This is of course pretty different in that it takes place with completely diff "rules" (IE: the dream world -- whereas you can avoid Camp Crystal Lake, you can't avoid falling asleep).

But to you, why is it worse than any of the horror movies coming out in 1984 though? I mean, you said you consider yourself a genre afficianado yet you knock it for having genre cliches and bad acting. I'm not sure I can name too many 1980's slashers that avoided those cliches and had brilliant acting.

[Michi]

Six years after Halloween, 4 years after Friday the 13th, I just didn't see anything really all that new about it. It certainly isn't the first horror film to revolve around dreams/nightmares.

Psycho - 1960
The Town That Dreaded Sundown - 1976
Halloween - 1978
Friday the 13 - 1980
Nightmare on Elm Street - 1984

One could argue that each film borrowed certain elements from their predecessors. Hell, Friday the 13th pretty much ripped off the antagonists damn outfit.

I mean, you said you consider yourself a genre afficianado yet you knock it for having genre cliches and bad acting. I'm not sure I can name too many 1980's slashers that avoided those cliches and had brilliant acting.

I'm not sure you can name too many slashers, period, who can avoid those.

I'd like to add that as far as acting goes (using dsh's given examples), I love Jamie Lee Curtis to death, but I wouldn't exactly call her acting in Halloween top-notch. She got a lot better later, but it's a bit muted in Halloween. And the only acting I really like in the original Friday the 13th is Betsy Palmer's, and she's the damn antagonist. Compared to the leading ladies in those, I always thought Heather Langenkamp did a pretty good job. The sometimes-not-so-great acting is just something that comes with the sub-genre.

[BurningDoom]

NOES 1 was a horror masterpiece. Creepy, scary, gory, and it had a good plot. It was much more than you're average maniac slasher movie which was all the rage at the time.

The 2nd NOES, I can't really defend. That one was cheesy as hell. I think what happened is New Line didn't think the first film would be as big as it was. So as soon as they realized this, they churned out a quick sequel to make some cash while it was still hot. Wes Craven had ZERO to do with NOES 2.

[Michi]

I have 10 left on my list still to see with a week to do it. How's everyone else doing with theirs?

I think I still have about 20 left so, not so good My two week vacation really cut into my horror movie watching time. I think I can get at least 6 of them watched, either before or after Halloween, but I'm definitely not going to get to all of them. I think I'll stick to the one's I haven't watched in a long time or haven't seen yet at all. That should make it a little easier.




I Know What You Did Last Summer


Well I'll be diddly-damned, I didn't know this was based off of a book. Amazing what you rediscover when you search the internet for poster pictures. I also completely forgot Anne Hache was in this. It really had been quite a while since I watched it.

This movie right here is something that every parent should show their kids to teach them some very valuable lessons. One: Never take you're eyes off the road, even in deserted areas. You never know when some dumb-ass will go traipsing across the road in the middle of the night. Two: There are good reasons why it's illegal to have an open container of alcohol in the car with you. So the next time you drive your drunk friend home, make sure they finish their drink before getting into the car. It's to protect your ass, not theirs. Remember that the next time you feel the need to stick it to "the man." And three: Learn early how to properly check for a pulse, because if you screw up on the above two items you want to make sure the body you dump doesn't literally come back to haunt your ass.

Despite being written by the same guy who wrote Scream, this honestly isn't as good. It's got some good humor in it, but when comparing the two the jokes feel like the kinds of things that were left on Scream's cutting room floor. It's script is slightly snarky and sprinkled with bits of wit, but when you look at the two together this one comes off more like Scream's younger, less experienced sibling, rather than a true rival.

And it must be said that I have really never liked Freddie Prinze Jr.. His acting is just to damned.....airy for my tastes. It distracts me from the other three leads who do a much better job of standing on their own. Oh, and I was reminded that Jennifer Love Hewitt's got a hellova pair of lungs.

It's a fun little slasher with some good chase scenes (who knew there were that many places you could hide on such a small looking boat) and decent actors, but it lacks in the gore department and falls a bit short on the creativity angle when you consider what went into it's predecessor. Excellent use of a meat hood, though

[Nintendork666]

One of my favorite things about the original NOES (and the franchise in general) is how the film uses it's dream settings as an excuse to go balls-out with practical effects and set design. The work on this film in that department is masterful.



With Tina's death, a giant rotating room was built, allowing her to thrash about as she did. Every object in the room had to be perfectly secured to prevent any indication that the room itself was upside down, moving, and Tina wasn't truly thrashed up the wall, dragged across the ceiling, bleeding to death.

Or what about this classic scene with Freddy creeping out through the wall? This image includes both the original (top) and 2010 remake version (bottom).



Notice how much eerier the first image is? All it took was a hole in the wall, a light, and some nylon - but the results are astounding! It's not just these two scenes either, the entire film is littered with equally impressive moments and gags.


"I'm your boyfriend now, Nancy!"

[prfsnl_gmr]

Personally...I think that "Wes Craven's New Nightmare" is the only NOES movie with any value...(OK...OK...the post above reminded me that the original NOES is fun at times...)

That said, my wife and I watched the Vincent Price classic:

The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971) - This movie is campy, colorful, not the least bit scary, but still a good bit of fun. It also contains classic Vincent Ptice cheesiness throughout it scant running time. I would recommend it if you are a Vincent Price fan. Despite my repeated attempts to find a great Vincent Price film, however, I only enjoy three of his films without reservations (Edward Scissorhands, The Last Man on Earth, and Laura), and he has only bit parts in two of those. While his movies are generally enjoyable, I think that Vincent Price is an actor that I enjoy more in concept than in reality. I have heard, however, that he is good in "Witchfinder General" and "House of Wax"; so, I think that I will try those next.

[noiseredux]

I like New Nightmare. I kind of feel like it was testing the waters for the kind of self-aware material that Craven would fully expand on in Scream a few years later.

[prfsnl_gmr]

I like New Nightmare. I kind of feel like it was testing the waters for the kind of self-aware material that Craven would fully expand on in Scream a few years later.

Definitely. It goes off the rails a bit at the end - and the earthquake footage was distracting - but I thought that it was genuinely enjoyable, intelligent horror film. (That, and - in my opinion - it has the best version of Freddy.)