I've seen the first three of this neverending franchise. Back then, I was always partial to this one, mostly because of Laurie Metcalf who, let's face it, can elevate anything she graces her presence with, including, but not limited to, the
Roseanne reboot. But upon revisiting, not even her comedy gold could hold my interest. I didn't care about any of the characters, the movie was clearly shot by Courtney Cox's inexperienced cameraman sidekick, and the screenplay was written by a toddler. It was made strictly to make money, and art played no part in it. It lacks in grabbing its audience for repeat viewings and I'm shocked that it can be classified as a horror classic. In fact, I'm just embarrassed I ever liked it in the first place. Thanks, but no thanks, Wes.
D-
- Babes
I'll immediately go on the record and say they smoothly and believably sequelized the first movie in a satisfying way (to those whom it would satisfy). Having the same director, screenwriter, and cast certainly helped when it came to comfortable repetition with a passable excuse - not that logic and continuity were deep concerns of mine, I didn't really like the first one. Like any good sequel the pace has more energy and we get a buncha new locations. The performances feel a little more seasoned with Liev Schreiber and Laurie Metcalf adding a much needed third
dimension (no pun)... Is it totally transparent that I'm struggling to find all the positives here? The first one turned me off so badly I never came back so this one was new to me, and as it turns out I
still can't tolerate Kevin Williamson's dialogue - I know for a lotta people he's the best thing about these movies, he's just not my brand. But what I was struck with most and more than ever before is just how amateurish Wes Craven is as a visual "artist"; I'd always dismissed him as someone with no consistent or identifiable style, which for most of his career is probably true, but from what I've seen in these movies is that he'd tapped into some kinda
ABC Movie of the Week aesthetic with sloppy dissolves and manipulative jump scares that are too obnoxious to be ironically funny. And that's always been the excuse: when something's dumb or predictable in these movies they label it intentional and hide behind "satire." Well they can stop hiding, because I've found them.
C-
- Paul
No comments:
Post a Comment