Pockets of Sanity

"There is no Jesse! I'm Jesse now!"

After watching the original Nightmare on Elm Street last week, I felt compelled to keep going with the series, which logically led me to A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy's Revenge.

But wait, hold on a second here... Freddy's revenge?  REVENGE?!  Uh, Freddy was victorious at the end of the first film.  What revenge is he exacting here?

Freddy's Revenge was obviously an attempt by New Line Cinema to cash in on the surprising success of the first film made with no consideration for the plot structure or rules established in that initial effort.  Hell, the series theme isn't even a part of Christopher Young's score for the film (which, despite the odd use of whale sounds at various times, is much better than this film deserves).

This one features the only male protagonist of the series, Jesse Walsh (Mark Patton).  It's five years after the first film (although only one year later in reality... I know it's confusing) and Jesse's family has moved into Nancy Thompson's old house on Elm Street.  Soon after, strange things start to occur in the house.

One major problem is that Freddy's Revenge plays more like a haunted house movie than a Nightmare flick.  I thought Freddy's purpose was to exact revenge on the families of those who murdered him?  That's not even mentioned.  Here he wants to possess Jesse's body and kill ANYONE he can.  In doing so, Freddy seems to haunt Jesse's house, causing the most bizarre things to happen. 

In one ridiculous instance, Freddy somehow causes one of the family parakeets to kill the other one and then it terrorizes the family for a moment before EXPLODING.  Jesse's clueless father (Clu Gulager) first suspects that the gas stove caused this to happen, and then accuses Jesse of doing something with a cherry bomb.  Huh?  Another moment has Jesse making toast and then the toaster bursts into flames.  Ooooo, scary.

Also, sometimes Jesse will wake up screaming from a nightmare and his parents will rush to his room.  Other times when he wakes up screaming his parents will pause whatever they are doing for a moment and then return to it as if nothing has happened. 

Another moment I enjoyed is when Nancy's old diary is found lying on a shelf in Jesse's closet.  No one cleaned this house before selling it?

The biggest laugh though comes when Jesse wakes up from a nightmare and wanders down to the local gay bar (don't ask why).  Inside his gym teacher (Marshall Bell) spots him and takes him back to the school to make him run laps!  This all leads, of course, to Freddy possessing Jesse and killing the gym teacher (who of course, has nothing to do with anything).  First though, ghostly hands strip the gym teacher naked and whip him with wet towels.  What makes no sense about all of this is that Jesse is AWAKE.  None of these bizarre occurrences are happening in a dream, they're all supposed to actually be happening in reality.

Have I mentioned how bad this movie is?

The bonus disc with the Nightmare on Elm Street boxed set features the film's original theatrical trailer and a good amount of interviews relating to the second film of the series.  Everyone in these segments is very frank about the poor end result of the film (even though it was a box office success). 

A disturbing topic brought up in the interviews is that basically Freddy's Revenge is a huge homoerotic horror film, filled with all sorts of homosexual issues and themes.  Unlike many times when people read too much into certain movies, I definitely can see it in this one... and you will too, trust me.  There's no subtlety about it whatsoever. 

Curiously, of everyone interviewed, the one person who could shed the most light on the subject (first time screenwriter David Chaskin) is nowhere to be found.

Although Freddy's Revenge does give some minimal further backstory for Freddy Krueger's character, you'd be better off skipping this film and moving straight on to the series' third installment, which wisely pretends this one doesn't even exist.  You're not really missing anything except loads of unintentional hilarity.

Rating: 0.5 out of 5.0

An Open Letter to Female Strangers, Friends and Co-Workers

To whom it may concern:

This past weekend I attended a Halloween party and became aware, first hand, of a trend that people have joked about for years.  That trend being the shift away from Halloween being a scary holiday and instead towards Halloween being the day where you can release your inner slut.

This letter is to inform you that if you insist on dressing like a hooker this Halloween with your Grand Tetons hanging out... I will be staring at them.  Forget chivalry or good manners or people paying any attention to those pearls of wisdom that are coming out of your mouth.  All that matters, if you're dressed like a whore, is how big your boobs are and if you jump up and down a few times will they fall out of that sock you're calling a costume.

Now I can understand wearing something that's emulating something slutty, like say a Fergie, Madonna or Courtney Love get up.  But it seems like costume makers now will produce anything that lets ladies show off the goods no matter if it's appropriate or not.  Look, I'm a ladybug... with bewbs!  Check it, I'm a bumblebee... with bewbs!  Make way, here comes Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor... with bewbs!

Don't take my rant the wrong way ladies.  If you're over 18 and insist on dressing like a tramp that's your decision and I support it wholeheartedly.  That's why America is the greatest country on the planet.  My point though is that if your knockers are on display, don't get offended when that's all people pay attention to.

And don't think it's just me.   Every dude out there is thinking the same thing I am.  No dude out there is going to say "Gee, that's a cute bug costume you have there Sally."  They're going to be thinking how they can manage to find a way to trip and fall face first into your cleavage.

I'm just nice enough to write you this letter ahead of time.

Sincerely,

dvdguy
Executive Creative Director - The-Watercooler.com

I Ignored the 80s

Okay, so I didn't ignore the 80s.  But as a youngster growing up in those oh so troubled times, there were certainly movies, ones I know the rest of you have seen, that somehow never ended up as part of my movie absorption.  Here's a quick list, from memory, of some of the more notable 80s movies that I've never seen. 

Oh, and when I say "80s movies" I mean movies that clearly belong to the era.  For example I've never seen The Color Purple, but I'd never classify it as an "80s movie".  I'm talking movies that were big time, 80s pop culture phenomena.

About Last Night
Big Top Pee Wee
Blade Runner
Bright Lights, Big City
Cujo
Flashdance
Labyrinth
Legend
Light of Day
The Outsiders
Purple Rain
Quicksilver
Repo Man
St. Elmo's Fire
That Was Then, This is Now
Time Bandits
To Live and Die in LA
Valley Girl
Vision Quest
Volunteers
Willow
Wisdom
Youngblood

Another Movie Quiz: Questions 4-6

4) Matt Damon or George Clooney?
While I like them both, I give the edge to George Clooney for being able to take both glamourous roles (Ocean's Eleven) and goofy ones (Intolerable Cruelty).

5) What is the movie you’ve encouraged more people to see than any other?
Either Pulp Fiction or The Shawshank Redemption.

6) Favorite film of 1934?
The Barretts of Wimpole Street.

Everyone is Accountable

Unbelievably there was an 1980s James Spader movie that had escaped my attention, as I thought I'd seen them all.  And as the proud owner of both cheesefests Tuff Turf and The New Kids, it seemed odd that I hadn't seen one of his bigger 80s movies, Less Than Zero.

Now I'll openly admit that I have no real frame of reference for the events in a movie like Less Than Zero.  For the most part I have no experience with addictions, nor have I had friendships or relationships with people with addictions. 

This may explain why I've never seen it, or movies with similar themes from the same time period like Clean & Sober and Drugstore Cowboy.  My admittedly narrow-minded view of addiction has always been "Don't start.  Oh you started?  Well then it's no surprise that this is happening to you now.  I tried to tell you."

In Less Than Zero Andrew McCarthy plays Clay, who is probably a better man than most people would be, especially given the events that are about to unfold.  He goes away to college leaving behind his girlfriend Blair (Jami Gertz) and best friend Julian (Robert Downey Jr.), who then start up "something" together.  The film is a little vague as to the extent of their relationship, but it's enough to land them in bed together, which Clay discovers when he returns home for Thanksgiving.

Then over Christmas break, Blair asks Clay to come back home because Julian is in trouble.  The problem?  Drugs... which she's also starting a battle with.  And while she might have her new favorite leisure activity under control, Julian is clearly in too deep.

Oh and Spader?  He plays the slimy drug dealer who has his hooks into Julian.  Boy, he's an expert at playing slimy.

Understandably Less Than Zero not exactly an easy film to watch, becoming more difficult as it progresses.  And I don't know if I would ever watch it again.  And while some of the 80s-ness of the film gets in the way if you're seeing it now for the first time, at its core there's a solid story with a well written main character and strong performances by the four leads.  Sadly you'd think Robert Downey Jr. would have learned something from his role here.

Rating: 3.0 out of 5.0.

"Oh, God. I look 20 years old!"

Over the weekend I got to revisit the first Nightmare on Elm Street film, which has been remastered and re-released on DVD.  My first exposure to the Nightmare series was not this one, but instead the third installment (it was the first to gain a national theatrical release).  I didn't see the first film until many years later.  Looking back, the original didn't hold a lot of great memories for me, as I didn't think too much of it when I initially saw it.  Watching it again confirmed that it's an overrated horror film that ultimately makes no sense whatsoever.

You all know the story by now: child murderer Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) returns from the grave by haunting the dreams of the children of those who burned him alive years before.  This first installment does an adequate job with its low budget, but there's some absurd dialogue and conceptual problems with the story.  Plus the movie's ending (understandably the result of the studio wanting to end the film with a "hook" for a sequel) renders the rest of the film pointless. 

And does anyone understand what happens to Nancy's mother at the end of this film?

There are some interesting and unique visuals along the way, but then something stupid happens and it renders the cool stuff pointless.  Also, Ronee Blakley (as the mother) really overdoes every line of dialogue she has.  And I almost fell over at the dramatic way she lit a cigarette.

Don't get me wrong though... it's not as if a new generation of horror films have spurned me away from the classics.  Most horror movies released today are just as inane as this film is.  Horror is a difficult genre to pull off credibly, and the original Nightmare on Elm Street just doesn't cut it.

Among the numerous DVD extras on the disc, there's a full-length audio commentary track with writer/director Wes Craven, stars John Saxon and Heather Langenkamp, and the film's director of photography.  The track is entertaining and informative but nothing spectacular. 

The first thing of note is that it's the same commentary track that was on the previous disc (which was also the same track that was on the laserdisc).  Everyone seems enthusiastic about being there, with the possible exception of John Saxon, who just doesn't say much at all.  Most of the time you'll forget he's even there.  Everyone talks really quietly though for some reason, as if because they're commenting on a scary movie that they need to stay as quiet as possible.

I'll get to the other extra features later. 

Oh, and what do I recommend you do with this series after this initial installment?  Skip part two, enjoy the hell out of part three, then just read the storyline for part seven and think about how cool that film could have been.  That's all you need to do.  You're welcome.  Film rating: 2.0 out of 5.0

Another Movie Quiz: Questions 1-3

Another movie quiz from the movie quiz guy. I've broken this one up into smaller chunks to hopefully generate more discussion.  Some of the questions in this batch I'd probably leave blank, because I'm too stupid to know how to answer them.  Perhaps you are smarter than I am.

1) Does film best tell the truth (Godard) or tell lies (De Palma) at 24 frames per second?
See?  This one would be left blank had I not just told you this would be left blank...

2) Ideal pairing of actors/actresses to play on-screen siblings?
Skeet Ulrich and Johnny Depp.

3) Favorite special effects moment?
The initial flyby of the new USS Enterprise in Star Trek: The Motion Picture.  Or the microwaved gremlin in Gremlins.  Or Pat Morita drop kicking himself through a car windshield as the car tries to run him over in Collision Course.

Saturday Night Live Tonight!

Don't forget about The Watercooler's sister site, SaveSNL.com.  Tonight there'll be live blogging of this weekend's new episode of Saturday Night Live which should include a cameo by Will Ferrell.  Come visit!

Dane Cook is Not Funny

I'm not entirely clear on this, maybe I'm wrong... but it sure seems to me that Rolling Stone's Rob Sheffield does not like Myspace darling Dane Cook.

I can't say I disagree.  Aside from his YouTube bit on SNL a couple weeks back he's barely registered on my comedy radar.  I know the internets love him.  Hell, some of my friends think he's the funniest human to ever walk the surface of the Earth.  I just see a guy who works out and wears t-shirts and therefore chicks think he's hot and will then laugh at anything he says.

Anyway, this article in Rolling Stone really takes Cook to task for, well... not telling jokes.  Ever.

Continue reading "Pop Life: The Joke's On Us"...

First YouTube Book Announced

A press release went out yesterday touting the first how-to book for making videos that'll be a success on YouTube, conveniently called The YouTube Moviemaking Handbook.

The book will be available in 2007, however you can sign up for digital downloads now and receive updates up until the book is published.

Quite frankly I can't imagine the book being longer than a page, or saying anything more than:

Step 1: Drink something disgusting.

Step 2: Either have a friend kick you in the balls or rub Icy Hot on your balls.  Both at the same time is preferred.

Step 3: Remember to film it sideways and with as little light and sound as possible.

Step 4: Upload.

Continue reading "First YouTube Book Announced, Released as Ebook"...