Posts
1 day ago
2.19.2009
2.18.2009
2.17.2009
2.16.2009
2.15.2009
2.13.2009
2.07.2009
2.05.2009
2.02.2009
1.31.2009
1.29.2009
1.28.2009
1.24.2009
1.22.2009
1.21.2009
1.15.2009
1.13.2009
1.12.2009
1.10.2009
1.09.2009
1.07.2009
1.03.2009
TEN SEQUELS BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL : PART TEN
The original is just that - ORIGINAL. Nothing can touch it. Dream Warriors & New Nightmare came close, but the absolute worst of the series is the misguided, laughable, and homophobic Freddy's Revenge.
MY ARGUMENT
The arguments I've heard against this film are about as one-dimensional as a Wes Craven movie. & I think the things people hate about it are, for the most part, the things I like.
Firstly, the overall lack of connection to the first movie (the famous Charles Bernstein theme included).
Not only is it dissimilar from the first, but from every horror movie I've ever seen.
It's a super rarity to see a male lead in a slasher movie, but even more so, a wimpy male lead. A complete antihero who - let's be honest - reacts to the situation in a completely believable way. & since when are movies of this genre supposed to accurately carry over from the previous installment. Even more than that: to be truthful, I find this to be the most rational & even mystical continuation in the series.
The Nightmare logic is more or less abandoned in this - it's less about dreams, & more about possession. And that's just as cool - if not cooler! Imagine if Regan was possessed by a spry, ruthless serial killer in The Exorcist.
& that's another thing; most people will say 'wisecracking Freddy' showed up for the first time in Dream Warriors. I say he showed up in part 1, & was present in every movie EXCEPT Revenge. In contemporary terms, Freddy was generally Cesar Romero. In Revenge, he was Heath Ledger. Make sense?
But the one shining flaw of the film is: Freddy himself is a metaphor for homosexuality. Now, if you look for it, you'll find it. Because it is there - I won't deny it. But I'm willing to ignore it, due to its irrelevance to the fact that it's one of the greatest horror movies ever made.
ALWAYS BE CLOSING
In several installments, Freddy is brought into 'the real world' with a great big hug. In Revenge, he claws his way out from the inside of a screaming Jesse's (Mark Patton's) chest.
MY ARGUMENT
The arguments I've heard against this film are about as one-dimensional as a Wes Craven movie. & I think the things people hate about it are, for the most part, the things I like.
Firstly, the overall lack of connection to the first movie (the famous Charles Bernstein theme included).
Not only is it dissimilar from the first, but from every horror movie I've ever seen.
It's a super rarity to see a male lead in a slasher movie, but even more so, a wimpy male lead. A complete antihero who - let's be honest - reacts to the situation in a completely believable way. & since when are movies of this genre supposed to accurately carry over from the previous installment. Even more than that: to be truthful, I find this to be the most rational & even mystical continuation in the series.
The Nightmare logic is more or less abandoned in this - it's less about dreams, & more about possession. And that's just as cool - if not cooler! Imagine if Regan was possessed by a spry, ruthless serial killer in The Exorcist.
& that's another thing; most people will say 'wisecracking Freddy' showed up for the first time in Dream Warriors. I say he showed up in part 1, & was present in every movie EXCEPT Revenge. In contemporary terms, Freddy was generally Cesar Romero. In Revenge, he was Heath Ledger. Make sense?
But the one shining flaw of the film is: Freddy himself is a metaphor for homosexuality. Now, if you look for it, you'll find it. Because it is there - I won't deny it. But I'm willing to ignore it, due to its irrelevance to the fact that it's one of the greatest horror movies ever made.
ALWAYS BE CLOSING
In several installments, Freddy is brought into 'the real world' with a great big hug. In Revenge, he claws his way out from the inside of a screaming Jesse's (Mark Patton's) chest.
1.02.2009
TEN SEQUELS BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL : PART NINE
...
MY ARGUMENT
I've never heard an argument for House of 1000 Corpses over Devil's - not even from Rob - & I can't imagine what it would be.
House is a Texas Chainsaw rip-off thru & thru (with a kinda science fiction edge). It was a horror movie that was mildly adequate - from the time of it's release, to 2005 - when Rob Zombie decided to revisit Spaulding & the Firefly family, & proved not only that there was a better story in there, but that he was more than a musician trying to be a filmmaker. He is a filmmaker.
ALWAYS BE CLOSING
Phil Parmet's cinematography may be the biggest difference between the two movies, but the best move was to turn the villains into the heroes; thus showcasing the boatload of acting talent that was more or less squandered in House.
MY ARGUMENT
I've never heard an argument for House of 1000 Corpses over Devil's - not even from Rob - & I can't imagine what it would be.
House is a Texas Chainsaw rip-off thru & thru (with a kinda science fiction edge). It was a horror movie that was mildly adequate - from the time of it's release, to 2005 - when Rob Zombie decided to revisit Spaulding & the Firefly family, & proved not only that there was a better story in there, but that he was more than a musician trying to be a filmmaker. He is a filmmaker.
ALWAYS BE CLOSING
Phil Parmet's cinematography may be the biggest difference between the two movies, but the best move was to turn the villains into the heroes; thus showcasing the boatload of acting talent that was more or less squandered in House.
1.01.2009
12.31.2008
TEN SEQUELS BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL : PART EIGHT
Another Dark Knight situation - obviously better, but wouldn't work as a standalone movie.
Also, it's another Kill Bill situation - all six movies really add up to one.
MY ARGUMENT
If all six are, in fact, one movie, then this would be the most exciting part. It's everything Revenge of the Sith should've been (& almost was).
ALWAYS BE CLOSING
Initially, this was the movie that introduced Yoda, Boba Fett, & The Emperor.
In many ways, it still is.
Also, it's another Kill Bill situation - all six movies really add up to one.
MY ARGUMENT
If all six are, in fact, one movie, then this would be the most exciting part. It's everything Revenge of the Sith should've been (& almost was).
ALWAYS BE CLOSING
Initially, this was the movie that introduced Yoda, Boba Fett, & The Emperor.
In many ways, it still is.
12.30.2008
TEN SEQUELS BETTER THAN THE ORIGINAL : PART SEVEN
Hardly a sequel, speaking technically. Even so, while a decent movie with those couple memorable moments, Dawn of the Dead remains THE zombie movie (AND the better sequel in its own right).
MY ARGUMENT
Fulci's Zombi 2 (or simply Zombie here in the States) is structurally & thematically as much a sequel as Dawn is (being that, they both have no real correlation to their respective predecessors). So its cred as a sequel is not in question.
Dawn of the Dead is a lotta fun - it's fun to watch. Scary? Not in any way. & while 'scary/not scary' has never truly been a solid criteria for a great horror movie, it could have been terrifying. Or at least suspenseful. But it's not. It's a wonderful metaphor & has great makeup fx (though the zombies themselves are quite laughable).
& that's just the thing - the general campiness & intentional satire feels tired (even if Romero invented it) & results in a decent comedy. This may also be the movie that started the "intentional camp" horror genre - something that's squashing it to this day.
Sometimes I don't want a comedy - I want a zombie movie.
Zombi 2 is not only the first movie that brought the goods - for me anyway - it's one of the last. While Zombie 3, 4, & 5, as well as Zombie Holocaust (aka Doctor Butcher) come close to getting it right, the only other true zombie experience out there is ...Michael's Jackson's Thriller.
ALWAYS BE CLOSING
Forget Zombie vs. Shark or the wooden stake through the eye. This is one of the few movies where a corpse rises full-body out of the dirt of its own grave and immediately goes teeth-first into a terrified woman - still standing over the loose soil. If it doesn't have that (or Michael Peters' dance choreography), it's not a zombie movie.
MY ARGUMENT
Fulci's Zombi 2 (or simply Zombie here in the States) is structurally & thematically as much a sequel as Dawn is (being that, they both have no real correlation to their respective predecessors). So its cred as a sequel is not in question.
Dawn of the Dead is a lotta fun - it's fun to watch. Scary? Not in any way. & while 'scary/not scary' has never truly been a solid criteria for a great horror movie, it could have been terrifying. Or at least suspenseful. But it's not. It's a wonderful metaphor & has great makeup fx (though the zombies themselves are quite laughable).
& that's just the thing - the general campiness & intentional satire feels tired (even if Romero invented it) & results in a decent comedy. This may also be the movie that started the "intentional camp" horror genre - something that's squashing it to this day.
Sometimes I don't want a comedy - I want a zombie movie.
Zombi 2 is not only the first movie that brought the goods - for me anyway - it's one of the last. While Zombie 3, 4, & 5, as well as Zombie Holocaust (aka Doctor Butcher) come close to getting it right, the only other true zombie experience out there is ...Michael's Jackson's Thriller.
ALWAYS BE CLOSING
Forget Zombie vs. Shark or the wooden stake through the eye. This is one of the few movies where a corpse rises full-body out of the dirt of its own grave and immediately goes teeth-first into a terrified woman - still standing over the loose soil. If it doesn't have that (or Michael Peters' dance choreography), it's not a zombie movie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
