There is a reason I didn't run home and watch this movie the day it came out on DVD the way I ran out and bought it. There is something I know about myself, about documentaries and about Gogol Bordello.
I knew it would make me feel left out.
Gogol Bordello is one of those bands that I want to be. Their music is amazing, they're the most energetic people I've ever seen in my life and this movie filled me with all kinds of energy and inspiration to run out and accomplish everything I've ever wanted to.
What it didn't fill me with was knowhow, bravery or focus. My mind is all over the place right now. I'm filled with a want and a need to go out and do something but I have no idea what that something might be and if I figured it out, the likelihood I'd actually go out and do it is slim because I am a scaredychicken.
I want to learn to play the tuba. I want to drive and drive and plant myself in a city I've never been before, just for a little while, just for the fuck of it. I want to get another tattoo. I want to finish writing my book and then make a movie out of it. I want, I want, I want.
But I never do.
What was awesome about the movie was that the overall feeling was very positive and happy, as opposed to The Pied Piper Of Hutzovina, which I liked but left me feeling very sad (I cried through the whole thing). I'm still not sure why, and I haven't had the nerve to watch it again to figure it out.
Gogol Bordello Nonstop, though, I could watch again and again. It's one of the most inspiring and, by influence, frustrating movies I've ever seen. But man was it worth it. It's fascinating, it's fun, and Sergey Ryabtsev is fast becoming one of my favorite people ever. He seems to be always smiling. I love people like that.
Not to put down anyone else in the band. The entire band is one of my favorite people. There just happens to be several of them.
And I want to be one of them.
End of line.
-Sally (was a fifteen year old girl from Nebraska)
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
Black Swarm
SciFi Channel movies have a reputation for being kind of terrible. I'd never sat through an entire one before but I'd seen clips of them on The Soup and they all look like movies about one "name" actor (in this case Robert Englund. ... Surprise!) and a bunch of unknowns battling mutant CGI versions of common animals.
And that's exactly what this one was, but it wasn't as bad as I was expecting it to be. Either I'm very patient or I picked a good one.
I just wish they'd named the movie ZomBees! (with the exclamation point as part of the title). Black Swarm sounds too much like it's trying to be ominous.
You see, a swarm of mutant wasps is going around stinging people and taking over their bodies, making them wasp-filled zombies. Meanwhile, a sheriff moves back to her hometown so she can have soap opera dramas with her ex-boyfriend/ex-brother in law. The sheriff's daughter makes friends with the weird scientist who lives next door to her babysitter. Gee, I wonder if he knows anything about the killer wasps?
Also, the government is involved. 'Cause we didn't have enough plots.
Other than the soap opera drama between the main character and her ex-everything, I liked Black Swarm. It was fun. A little too much talk and a little too little action, but still fun.
And some of the situations follow a logic that only exists in made for TV movies, but that just pushed the movie into the realm of Unintentionally Hilarious. For example:
Daughter and Babysitter have gone missing. So Sheriff does the only logical thing and sneaks into Scientist's lab, where she threatens to blow his head off because she assumes he knows where Daughter is.
Wait, what?
First of all, she doesn't have a warrant, so she can't just go barging in uninvited wherever she pleases. Second of all, why does she suspect him? Nobody knows that Daughter had been talking to Scientist at all, so basically Sheriff suspects him of being guilty by reason of living next door.
And about two minutes later Daughter shows up (also just running into the lab uninvited) and two minutes after that Sheiff trusts Scientist to take her daughter to safety while she and her Ex-Everything to try to stop the wasps. So at least there were no hard feelings. It's like those unfounded those threats against his life never happened.
It doesn't make any sense and it cracked me right up.
If all SciFi Channel movies are like this, I should watch them more often.
P.S. The little girl in this movie got paid to do almost nothing but talk to, hug and run around holding hands with Robert Englund. How do I get a job like that?!
End of line.
-Sally
And that's exactly what this one was, but it wasn't as bad as I was expecting it to be. Either I'm very patient or I picked a good one.
I just wish they'd named the movie ZomBees! (with the exclamation point as part of the title). Black Swarm sounds too much like it's trying to be ominous.
You see, a swarm of mutant wasps is going around stinging people and taking over their bodies, making them wasp-filled zombies. Meanwhile, a sheriff moves back to her hometown so she can have soap opera dramas with her ex-boyfriend/ex-brother in law. The sheriff's daughter makes friends with the weird scientist who lives next door to her babysitter. Gee, I wonder if he knows anything about the killer wasps?
Also, the government is involved. 'Cause we didn't have enough plots.
Other than the soap opera drama between the main character and her ex-everything, I liked Black Swarm. It was fun. A little too much talk and a little too little action, but still fun.
And some of the situations follow a logic that only exists in made for TV movies, but that just pushed the movie into the realm of Unintentionally Hilarious. For example:
Daughter and Babysitter have gone missing. So Sheriff does the only logical thing and sneaks into Scientist's lab, where she threatens to blow his head off because she assumes he knows where Daughter is.
Wait, what?
First of all, she doesn't have a warrant, so she can't just go barging in uninvited wherever she pleases. Second of all, why does she suspect him? Nobody knows that Daughter had been talking to Scientist at all, so basically Sheriff suspects him of being guilty by reason of living next door.
And about two minutes later Daughter shows up (also just running into the lab uninvited) and two minutes after that Sheiff trusts Scientist to take her daughter to safety while she and her Ex-Everything to try to stop the wasps. So at least there were no hard feelings. It's like those unfounded those threats against his life never happened.
It doesn't make any sense and it cracked me right up.
If all SciFi Channel movies are like this, I should watch them more often.
P.S. The little girl in this movie got paid to do almost nothing but talk to, hug and run around holding hands with Robert Englund. How do I get a job like that?!
End of line.
-Sally
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Meet The Deedles
Remember back in the '90s when there were a bunch of comedies about two dopey guys? Bio-Dome, Wayne's World, Encino Man, probably some other Pauly Shore movies, that sort of thing? This is one of those.
In this case, the two dopey guys are Phil and Stew Deedle, whose father is very ashamed of them for being so dopey. So he sends them off to Camp Broken Spirits, but that doesn't exist anymore. So they sort of accidentally steal the identities of two nature freak ladies to become rangers at Yellowstone National Park, where they have to stop an infestation of prarie dogs.
The prarie dogs are part of Dennis Hopper's plot to get revenge on Old Faithful. (pause) I'm not kidding.
There's the obligatory "dopey guy romances smart hot girl" subplot, the bad guy's two obligatory dopey sidekicks and a Big Lipped Alligator Subplot about escaped circus animals.
Meet The Deedles is a stupid movie. I didn't dislike it, but it was stupid. If I had been younger when it came out, I probably would have gone to see it in theaters, loved it, and would own a copy for non-Robert Englund reasons. (As it stands, he's not in it enough to make it worth keeping on its own merits.)
Basically, it's obvious this movie wanted what all the Two Dopey Guys movies wanted: it wanted to be the 1990s Bill And Ted. The problem is, they didn't bother to really look at what made the Bill And Ted movies good. They just saw that the central characters were a couple of dopey guys and figured that must be the correct formula. So on that level, it fails.
On another level, the "well, that was stupid but at least I didn't have to think for the past two hours" level, it was just fine. I kinda liked it. It wasn't great but it had some lines that made me laugh and that's good enough for me. I was expecting Meet The Deedles to be awful but it was more formulaic than anything else, and I'm okay with that.
And I would love to see a Nostalgia Critic review of it.
End of line.
-Sally
In this case, the two dopey guys are Phil and Stew Deedle, whose father is very ashamed of them for being so dopey. So he sends them off to Camp Broken Spirits, but that doesn't exist anymore. So they sort of accidentally steal the identities of two nature freak ladies to become rangers at Yellowstone National Park, where they have to stop an infestation of prarie dogs.
The prarie dogs are part of Dennis Hopper's plot to get revenge on Old Faithful. (pause) I'm not kidding.
There's the obligatory "dopey guy romances smart hot girl" subplot, the bad guy's two obligatory dopey sidekicks and a Big Lipped Alligator Subplot about escaped circus animals.
Meet The Deedles is a stupid movie. I didn't dislike it, but it was stupid. If I had been younger when it came out, I probably would have gone to see it in theaters, loved it, and would own a copy for non-Robert Englund reasons. (As it stands, he's not in it enough to make it worth keeping on its own merits.)
Basically, it's obvious this movie wanted what all the Two Dopey Guys movies wanted: it wanted to be the 1990s Bill And Ted. The problem is, they didn't bother to really look at what made the Bill And Ted movies good. They just saw that the central characters were a couple of dopey guys and figured that must be the correct formula. So on that level, it fails.
On another level, the "well, that was stupid but at least I didn't have to think for the past two hours" level, it was just fine. I kinda liked it. It wasn't great but it had some lines that made me laugh and that's good enough for me. I was expecting Meet The Deedles to be awful but it was more formulaic than anything else, and I'm okay with that.
And I would love to see a Nostalgia Critic review of it.
End of line.
-Sally
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Dead And Buried
Apparently the folks who live in Potter's Bluff don't like out-of-towners. I base this assumption on the fact that, in the first scene of the movie, they burn a tourist alive.
Dead And Buried is a slow moving and weird movie, the kind of movie that's boring if you're distracted but really creepy if you're into it.
And that's all I can think of to say about it. I'm glad I paid attention because I thought it was really good, but on a bad night I would have thought it was the dullest piece of boring in the history of snore.
End of line.
-Sally
Dead And Buried is a slow moving and weird movie, the kind of movie that's boring if you're distracted but really creepy if you're into it.
And that's all I can think of to say about it. I'm glad I paid attention because I thought it was really good, but on a bad night I would have thought it was the dullest piece of boring in the history of snore.
End of line.
-Sally
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Dance Macabre
The biggest problem with Dance Macabre is that the back of the box promised me a "shocking twist ending," which I figured out the first moment a person showed up on the screen. I then spent the rest of the movie hoping that that particular twist was a red herring and that the killer would be someone far more interesting. It wasn't.
Oh, yeah, the plot. Jessica's father buys her way into a Russian dance school, run by Svetlana, who was crippled in a motorcycle accident decades before. Jessica looks exactly like Svetlana did back in the day, which is just fine with Anthony, one of the instructors at the school who used to be Svetlana's boyfriend and was the cause of the accident.
While there's not really anything wrong with the movie overall, it is pretty much completely forgettable, but in a weirdly loveable way. It reminds me of the heyday of video stores: finding some movie you've never heard of and renting it based on the artwork and the summary on the back. Like the idealized 1950s (you know, the one that's all housedresses and casseroles and there's no such thing as segregation), it's something I'm nostalgic for even though I've never really experienced it. So for that reason, I loved watching this movie.
That being said, I'm thinking about getting into moviemaking by pitching a remake of Dance Macabre that ends with one of the twist endings I made up while waiting for the big reveal of the actual "twist" ending.
Oh, okay, fine; I was determined to write one review where I didn't develop my opinion based on a fangirl crush I've had since I was nine, but I just have to complain about one more thing:
I'm obviously in the middle of a big Robert Englund kick right now, he's the only reason I've even heard of this movie and, in a way, he's the second biggest problem with it. His character is obviously obsessed with Jessica, but she's always galavanting off with some weird faced magazine photographer who keeps sneaking into the school.
It's the same problem I have with The Phantom Of The Opera: Robert Englund is throwing himself at this girl, and she's rejecting him? In what universe does that make any sense?
End of line.
-Sally
Oh, yeah, the plot. Jessica's father buys her way into a Russian dance school, run by Svetlana, who was crippled in a motorcycle accident decades before. Jessica looks exactly like Svetlana did back in the day, which is just fine with Anthony, one of the instructors at the school who used to be Svetlana's boyfriend and was the cause of the accident.
While there's not really anything wrong with the movie overall, it is pretty much completely forgettable, but in a weirdly loveable way. It reminds me of the heyday of video stores: finding some movie you've never heard of and renting it based on the artwork and the summary on the back. Like the idealized 1950s (you know, the one that's all housedresses and casseroles and there's no such thing as segregation), it's something I'm nostalgic for even though I've never really experienced it. So for that reason, I loved watching this movie.
That being said, I'm thinking about getting into moviemaking by pitching a remake of Dance Macabre that ends with one of the twist endings I made up while waiting for the big reveal of the actual "twist" ending.
Oh, okay, fine; I was determined to write one review where I didn't develop my opinion based on a fangirl crush I've had since I was nine, but I just have to complain about one more thing:
I'm obviously in the middle of a big Robert Englund kick right now, he's the only reason I've even heard of this movie and, in a way, he's the second biggest problem with it. His character is obviously obsessed with Jessica, but she's always galavanting off with some weird faced magazine photographer who keeps sneaking into the school.
It's the same problem I have with The Phantom Of The Opera: Robert Englund is throwing himself at this girl, and she's rejecting him? In what universe does that make any sense?
End of line.
-Sally
Sunday, April 11, 2010
The Brothers Grimm
Here is the plot of The Brothers Grimm: it's The Three Amigos but with fairy tales.
I loved it!
It had flaws, certainly, but I have no idea why it did so poorly when it came out. Admittedly, I'm a sucker for fairy tale movies, but come on! This is really awesome! The story is interesting, the performances are good and visually it's like a movie Tim Burton would make if he actually had any range.
This is the third movie I've seen Heath Ledger in, and I'm starting to realize why everyone made such a big deal about him while he was alive. I wasn't impressed by him in Brokeback Mountain (but, to be fair, I wasn't impressed by anything in Brokeback Mountain) and I thought he was the only good thing in The Dark Knight (but it's likely I would have thought that of the Joker regardless of who played him). Now that I have three roles to compare, I can see that he was really talented. I like the guy.
I guess it helps that he plays the more likeable of the Grimm brothers. Matt Damon's character, on the other hand, has two personality traits: he's Boring and A Jerk Who I Hate. I don't have a problem with Matt Damon, he's generally a good actor but I don't think he really brought it this time around. He could have done more with the character.
I've seen worse performances, though so it's really a minor complaint.
A major complaint, however, is this subplot about the French army. Every time the story really started to get rolling and I really started getting involved with what was going on, in popped the French army subplot to grind everything to a screeching halt. I never thought I'd say this but: Go away Jonathan Pryce. This movie would have been better off without you.
Could someone explain to me why this movie bombed? I thought it was awesome! Is the world just conspiring against Terry Gilliam to never give him a fair chance?
This movie is so cool! It's pretty to look at, it has some genuinely creepy parts (the face stealing mud and the thing with the horse and the spiders both gave me the heebie jeebies) and there's action and pretty girls and pretty guys and scared villagers and monsters and fire and an amused looking Henchfop.
What is not to love?
End of line.
-Sally
I loved it!
It had flaws, certainly, but I have no idea why it did so poorly when it came out. Admittedly, I'm a sucker for fairy tale movies, but come on! This is really awesome! The story is interesting, the performances are good and visually it's like a movie Tim Burton would make if he actually had any range.
This is the third movie I've seen Heath Ledger in, and I'm starting to realize why everyone made such a big deal about him while he was alive. I wasn't impressed by him in Brokeback Mountain (but, to be fair, I wasn't impressed by anything in Brokeback Mountain) and I thought he was the only good thing in The Dark Knight (but it's likely I would have thought that of the Joker regardless of who played him). Now that I have three roles to compare, I can see that he was really talented. I like the guy.
I guess it helps that he plays the more likeable of the Grimm brothers. Matt Damon's character, on the other hand, has two personality traits: he's Boring and A Jerk Who I Hate. I don't have a problem with Matt Damon, he's generally a good actor but I don't think he really brought it this time around. He could have done more with the character.
I've seen worse performances, though so it's really a minor complaint.
A major complaint, however, is this subplot about the French army. Every time the story really started to get rolling and I really started getting involved with what was going on, in popped the French army subplot to grind everything to a screeching halt. I never thought I'd say this but: Go away Jonathan Pryce. This movie would have been better off without you.
Could someone explain to me why this movie bombed? I thought it was awesome! Is the world just conspiring against Terry Gilliam to never give him a fair chance?
This movie is so cool! It's pretty to look at, it has some genuinely creepy parts (the face stealing mud and the thing with the horse and the spiders both gave me the heebie jeebies) and there's action and pretty girls and pretty guys and scared villagers and monsters and fire and an amused looking Henchfop.
What is not to love?
End of line.
-Sally
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Reaction to Nightmare On Elm Street article in Fangoria # 292, April 2010
I have tried to keep an open mind about the Nightmare On Elm Street remake. I've been such a champion for Rob Zombie's Halloween films that I feel like I have no right to bitch when someone remakes a movie I actually like. I want to go into Remake On Elm Street as unbiased as humanly possible.
I am, however, an emotional creature who is easily offended (actually, I'm not easily offended so much as I'm extremely offended by specific things).
So maybe I shouldn't have tried to read the Fangoria article about Remake On Elm Street. I didn't finish it. I got stuck on some quotes, one from the director and several from one of the actors. I'm going to give my two cents on them now.
I'm hoping if I get this off my chest I'll feel better and will be able to go into the movie theater in a couple weeks with that open mind I've been trying to have.
Quote # 1, from director Samuel Bayer: "I told all my cast and crew that we must do with Freddy what Christopher Nolan did with Batman. I'm trying to make a dark and serious film and I hope I'm achieving that. One of the most extraordinary aspects of Dark Knight is the way it integrates Batman into a believable world and I want to do just the same with Freddy."
Oh, you mean like how Wes Craven did with New Nightmare? And, my mom's complaint with that quote is why is he giving Christopher Nolan credit for Frank Miller's work? I explained to her that it's because Christopher Nolan made the movie version of Frank Miller's The Dark Knight and she kind of harumphed. So there that is.
Quote # 2, from actor Thomas Dekker (the rest of the quotes are from him): "I hate Hostel. ... The violence is pointless and grotesque, and the movie invites you to enjoy it. ... On the other hand, films like Martyrs ... use the violence in emotional and intelligent ways. ... But you aren't enjoying in any way the cruelty suffered by the characters. You feel devastated about it."
Okay. I haven't seen Hostel or Martyrs, so I can't argue his examples. What I can argue, though, is: I don't want to go to a horror movie to see realistic, devastating violence! I don't want to feel people's suffering! I don't want to leave a movie theater feeling depressed! I don't go see war movies because war is a real thing that happens every day. I go see slasher movies because I don't know anybody who was attacked in their dream by a dead guy with a razor glove. Yes, violence in real life is horrible, and I don't enjoy it one bit. I do enjoy it in the movies because it's catharsis and it isn't real, just like explosions in real life can be awful things but in action movies they're nothing but awesome. These people are actors and they're not actually being hurt. So I'm allowed to enjoy the movie. I can't take myself out of a realistic movie enough to enjoy it. I hate that everyone seems to be leaning more toward "darker and edgier" in their movies lately. I don't like "darker and edgier." I also feel the need to point out that, according to what I've read, Wes Craven still thinks the original Nightmare should have had the happy ending, and he's not pleased with the nonsensical twist ending New Line foisted upon him. I don't know why I thought that fact seemed relevant, but it did.
Quote # 3: "Generally, I don't like remakes. I consider myself a true horror fan, and those are often missed opportunities to do something new - or worse, sacreligious ripoffs of cult favorites. But A Nightmare On Elm Street is different."
Said the guy who's getting a big, fat paycheck from it. He goes on to say he's not just promoting a movie because he's in it. But you know what, dude? Everyone reading this magazine considers themselves true horror fans. And I, for one, don't like your attitude. I don't like being talked down to. Fans will be the judge of whether or not a remake is good. And be prepared to fight your battle, man. Because I was fighting on the Pro-Halloween Remake side pretty much alone, and I lost. I still like the movie, but the majority of the fans didn't. It makes me very sad, but that's the way it is.
Quote # 4: "I signed on for this movie because the original, while it's still a classic, failed, in my opinion, to take full advantage of its own subject. We're talking about an ex-child molester who can penetrate your dreams. And what Samuel Bayer is aiming for is to go very deep into the character's psychology without using one-liners. And we've done just that."
Okay, you know the original had almost no budget, right? It's hard to reach whatever potential you, some douchecanoe in the future, thought the movie should have when there's no money to get there (nor did they have the money for psychics to read the future to add whatever stuff you thought the movie needed). Second of all, Freddy Krueger is not a child molester. Maybe in the new one he is, but in the original series he was never, not once, referred to as a child molester. He was a child murderer. Both crimes are reprehensible, but he was only guilty of one of them. Do your fucking research. (Editor's Note: I should point out that, in the original script, Freddy was a child molestor, but they took that plot point out before filming. I'm of the opinion that, because it wasn't in the movies, it isn't canon.) I just watched all seven movies a couple weeks ago. No molesting. Sorry. Last, the one liners didn't show up until later in the series. Wes Craven hated the silly direction Freddy went in. Have you even watched the original or are you basing your arguments on the sequels and reputation?
Quote # 5: "What Jackie [Earl Haley] has brought to the character is marvelous. ... He prepared for the role with a very serious approach. ... He was human once, but not a regular Joe ... so Jackie knew that understanding the character was the key to not being one-dimensional."
And Robert Englund didn't? Bite me, kid.
Okay. Thank you for letting me rant.
I'm hoping my distaste for these quotes (and for Thomas Dekker in general; I think I want to throw tomatoes at that kid) won't make me decide going in to hate Remake On Elm Street. I want to judge it on its own merits, which is going to be hard enough to do, since I love the original so much. I guess now I know how all those Halloween fans felt.
I will do my best to not throw a hissy fit and to, instead, just remind myself that it's not like Samuel Bayer's going to go around and destroy all the copies of the original movie.
End of line.
-Sally
I am, however, an emotional creature who is easily offended (actually, I'm not easily offended so much as I'm extremely offended by specific things).
So maybe I shouldn't have tried to read the Fangoria article about Remake On Elm Street. I didn't finish it. I got stuck on some quotes, one from the director and several from one of the actors. I'm going to give my two cents on them now.
I'm hoping if I get this off my chest I'll feel better and will be able to go into the movie theater in a couple weeks with that open mind I've been trying to have.
Quote # 1, from director Samuel Bayer: "I told all my cast and crew that we must do with Freddy what Christopher Nolan did with Batman. I'm trying to make a dark and serious film and I hope I'm achieving that. One of the most extraordinary aspects of Dark Knight is the way it integrates Batman into a believable world and I want to do just the same with Freddy."
Oh, you mean like how Wes Craven did with New Nightmare? And, my mom's complaint with that quote is why is he giving Christopher Nolan credit for Frank Miller's work? I explained to her that it's because Christopher Nolan made the movie version of Frank Miller's The Dark Knight and she kind of harumphed. So there that is.
Quote # 2, from actor Thomas Dekker (the rest of the quotes are from him): "I hate Hostel. ... The violence is pointless and grotesque, and the movie invites you to enjoy it. ... On the other hand, films like Martyrs ... use the violence in emotional and intelligent ways. ... But you aren't enjoying in any way the cruelty suffered by the characters. You feel devastated about it."
Okay. I haven't seen Hostel or Martyrs, so I can't argue his examples. What I can argue, though, is: I don't want to go to a horror movie to see realistic, devastating violence! I don't want to feel people's suffering! I don't want to leave a movie theater feeling depressed! I don't go see war movies because war is a real thing that happens every day. I go see slasher movies because I don't know anybody who was attacked in their dream by a dead guy with a razor glove. Yes, violence in real life is horrible, and I don't enjoy it one bit. I do enjoy it in the movies because it's catharsis and it isn't real, just like explosions in real life can be awful things but in action movies they're nothing but awesome. These people are actors and they're not actually being hurt. So I'm allowed to enjoy the movie. I can't take myself out of a realistic movie enough to enjoy it. I hate that everyone seems to be leaning more toward "darker and edgier" in their movies lately. I don't like "darker and edgier." I also feel the need to point out that, according to what I've read, Wes Craven still thinks the original Nightmare should have had the happy ending, and he's not pleased with the nonsensical twist ending New Line foisted upon him. I don't know why I thought that fact seemed relevant, but it did.
Quote # 3: "Generally, I don't like remakes. I consider myself a true horror fan, and those are often missed opportunities to do something new - or worse, sacreligious ripoffs of cult favorites. But A Nightmare On Elm Street is different."
Said the guy who's getting a big, fat paycheck from it. He goes on to say he's not just promoting a movie because he's in it. But you know what, dude? Everyone reading this magazine considers themselves true horror fans. And I, for one, don't like your attitude. I don't like being talked down to. Fans will be the judge of whether or not a remake is good. And be prepared to fight your battle, man. Because I was fighting on the Pro-Halloween Remake side pretty much alone, and I lost. I still like the movie, but the majority of the fans didn't. It makes me very sad, but that's the way it is.
Quote # 4: "I signed on for this movie because the original, while it's still a classic, failed, in my opinion, to take full advantage of its own subject. We're talking about an ex-child molester who can penetrate your dreams. And what Samuel Bayer is aiming for is to go very deep into the character's psychology without using one-liners. And we've done just that."
Okay, you know the original had almost no budget, right? It's hard to reach whatever potential you, some douchecanoe in the future, thought the movie should have when there's no money to get there (nor did they have the money for psychics to read the future to add whatever stuff you thought the movie needed). Second of all, Freddy Krueger is not a child molester. Maybe in the new one he is, but in the original series he was never, not once, referred to as a child molester. He was a child murderer. Both crimes are reprehensible, but he was only guilty of one of them. Do your fucking research. (Editor's Note: I should point out that, in the original script, Freddy was a child molestor, but they took that plot point out before filming. I'm of the opinion that, because it wasn't in the movies, it isn't canon.) I just watched all seven movies a couple weeks ago. No molesting. Sorry. Last, the one liners didn't show up until later in the series. Wes Craven hated the silly direction Freddy went in. Have you even watched the original or are you basing your arguments on the sequels and reputation?
Quote # 5: "What Jackie [Earl Haley] has brought to the character is marvelous. ... He prepared for the role with a very serious approach. ... He was human once, but not a regular Joe ... so Jackie knew that understanding the character was the key to not being one-dimensional."
And Robert Englund didn't? Bite me, kid.
Okay. Thank you for letting me rant.
I'm hoping my distaste for these quotes (and for Thomas Dekker in general; I think I want to throw tomatoes at that kid) won't make me decide going in to hate Remake On Elm Street. I want to judge it on its own merits, which is going to be hard enough to do, since I love the original so much. I guess now I know how all those Halloween fans felt.
I will do my best to not throw a hissy fit and to, instead, just remind myself that it's not like Samuel Bayer's going to go around and destroy all the copies of the original movie.
End of line.
-Sally
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
