REdreaming of Elm Street

BRAVO! This is how a remake is done. Seriously. Excellent work.
Bravo to writer Wesley Strick [as well as the other screenwriter Eric Heisserer] and director Samuel Bayer and the entire cast, crew and F/X crew. Thank you for a great time at the theater.

As you probably know by now, most of the time I'm rolling my eyes at remakes. But I've also said that sometimes it's warranted, and I said A Nightmare on Elm Street remake would be one of the few good choices. This new version is a true "reboot."

I went with my friend Buttercup. I've a scosh more years on her, so when she saw the original she'd been in grade school, whereas I saw the movie as a young teen. She'd been scared out of her mind, I found it loads of fun rather than frightening. At first Buttercup had not welcomed a re-do of Elm Street. But after seeing the trailer and realizing the potential for an update, we then had plans months in advance to go opening night.

We decided to watch Wes Craven's 1984 original again. So we did that earlier in the week. I found I'd forgotten, oh, say, 70% of the movie. Hey, cut me a break, I saw it (in full) about 25 years ago. Nice to refresh my memory and still spooky fun. Buttercup, however, had a different experience entirely. Once terrified of it (as so many were) she now saw it as the silly scare that it is. In other words, she can't believe it scared her, calling it "B-movie style." We were now both ready for the new. We discussed how interesting it would be to see how to make THAT scary again. How to use the modern world in that story. What elements of the Elm Street lore (from the first and rest of the films) would they incorporate? Would it still be cheesy good?

When the big night came, we already had a perfect scenario. We went to a theater we can walk to from Buttercup's place, so there we were walking in the greyish night, starting to drizzle. (And on the walk to her place, the journey seemed to take forever, road extending before me, as if I'd already landed in a dream.) Anyway, the theater we went to brought back memories, too. I used to work in a movie theater - and this one is a throwback, an "old school" theater lovingly intact. It really brought a time-travel/dreamy quality to the night. Rather than seeing a new version in a new and "modern" theater, there I found myself in a "retro" scene, bringing back fond memories of seeing the other Elm Street movies of the first series.

And the movie followed suit. A perfect blend of then and now. It takes quite a while for the title of the film to appear on screen and shows up at the best possible place. Let me tell you, right up through the title screen, I already knew this movie would be worthwile. And creepy as hell again. Take a note of the two title fonts/presentations. 1984's (on the right) is cartoonish. 2010 (above) is a more menacing in its matter-of-factness. In a way, it matches the tone of each film.

I'm very glad I'd watched the original again. The new movie has many references or even scenes from it. Yes, there are some of the very same moments. However, unlike the 2010 Clash of the Titans, when they occurred they're fresh. They're rewritten just enough to not be a rehash. I wouldn't have appreciated these great nods had I not seen Craven's again.

Storywise they also did some great rewriting. There's a definite spin on this version. However it didn't seem like a twist to be different for its own sake. Rather it seemed like straightening out a picture on the wall.

They keep Freddy's "one-liners." Something I dreaded. But you know what? They work. Even in this freaky, darker version, they work. Because they're truly delivered in the manner of a child-molestor. (As per the character of Freddy Krueger.) Utterly unnerving. Bravo to Jackie Earle Haley! A particular one-liner from the original is in this film - but whoa! They acutally manage to make it disturbing and pair it with a marvelous concept to watch unfold on the screen. One of them is quite an eye-roller, but easily forgivable since they upped the stakes (and F/X) of an homage-scene when saying it.

Freddy's new (but old) look is quite striking as well. They had re-studied burn victims to design his new visage. It's wonderful. (Which is a weird thing to say!) What they did keep from the first set of films had been great choices, retouched and recut seamlessly into a brand new (but eeriely familiar) story. Like someone discovered the puzzle pieces fit another way, too, and snapped in a little snugger.

There are one or two places where CGI is obvious, but it also doesn't matter, since it took on a dreamlike aspect that way.

Buttercup and I couldn't stop talking about it on the way home. All positive. The drizzle picked up and Buttercup decided to stop off at her place for an umbrella. She wanted to still hang out, but at my place, since she didn't want to disturb her roomate (and our friend) Josiecat. Hence, the umbrella. Meanwhile, I texted Bart and told him we'd be coming. On the way, the rain came down harder. And more so. Suddenly we trekked through a monsoon. Sidewalks were rivers. Droplets the size of thumbs. When we arrived, despite Buttercup's large umbrella, we were soaked. More so than you're thinking. Had to change clothes. (I just looked... my T-shirt hanging in the shower is STILL wet.) But we enjoyed it - like some kind of ethereal end to a wonderful Nightmare.

Just the THING you want to hear!

Eric Heisserer is the man who is writing the new The Thing movie. Just listen to what he has to say regarding this assignment:

Matthijs and I are hard at work with the very smart team at Strike on the prequel. We are all so much in love with Carpenter’s film, so protective of it, we’re doing all we can to avoid stepping on its toes. I jumped at this job because I hold the Carpenter adaptation to very high standards, and I knew it would be a challenge to create a comparable companion piece. Sort of a “Nobody better screw this up, especially me” mentality. Lucky for me, the people at Strike and the director have the same standards.
- quoted from his blog.

Bravo, sir! I salute and share your dedication to the craft. Can't wait to see the new pieces!

He's also the guy who penned the new go around for A Nightmare on Elm Street. Sweet.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood...

I’ve already made it known that Forbidden Planet is one of the few film do-overs that I am excited about. Well, last night I learned that the script for the remake had leaked to the internet. What is it about human nature that we have to ruin and spoil? (I, too, am guilty to a degree. But generally I have limitations on how much I am willing to uncover about a work. I certainly don’t understand leaking a whole script!) And so, the entire screenplay is being scrapped and started up from scratch.

J. Michael Straczynski had this to say:
Meanwhile, on a wholly different note…not of triumph but of annoyance….because so much of the Forbidden Planet screenplay was leaked out, Warners and I have decided to chuck the screenplay in its entirety and start over. This is the direct result of the leaks that showed up on the nets, including detailed script reviews of a project that was barely a week old, and which would effectively destroy any anticipation of the movie because by the time it finally reached the screen in 2010 or thereabouts, the story would be old news. So we're starting fresh, and we're going to keep a tight lid on the script this
time.

So to the sites that say, "Where's the harm, it's not like they're gonna toss out the script because we blew the contents of same all over the nets," well, yes, that's exactly what it's like, and it's precisely your responsibility that a year's worth of work was destroyed.

So we start anew, with the determined hope that the next draft will be even better, and far more secure, than the last one.

Let’s hope it’s for the better, eh? Come on now, InterWeb Info Stalkers, don’t cause another delay. I really want to see this movie!

Another remake with merit is A Nightmare on Elm Street. I spoke about this one briefly in this post. It’s rapidly becoming more than a dream project. The director (Samuel Bayer), script (Wesley Strick) and location (right here in Chicago!) are set. I read a little about the changes to this one. Just enough to whet my appetite, unlike those who have to devour the whole feast like FP. Elm Street is being “updated.” That can be a dirty word sometimes. Or at least hackneyed. But in this case it seems they are using their heads. For instance, in this day and age of instant access to info, it stands to reason that the likes of an event such as your parents as teenagers taking down a child molester/killer would not be a hushed up secret to the Elm Street kids. In other words, they might as well just look it up instead of dragging the riddles of the past out of their parents. One of the kids will now have a podcast. Sounds about right. Bring it on. [Currently April 16, 2010]

And the other horror remake which I guess I am on the fence about, but holding slight hopes for is Hellraiser. Recently, Gary Tunnicliffe took a stab at a redesign of Pinhead, the head honcho Cenobite. I didn’t think he did too bad a job. No, I didn’t love it, but I could “see” it. Apparently, I had been dead wrong. Hellraiser creator Clive Barker spoke out about it, citing his reasons why the new version entirely missed the point of the character. And having heard him explain, it became clear what part of it didn’t sit right. I’m not going to outline it here (nor is there a picture) for this character, his visage and details are certainly not for the faint of heart. Quite horrific. If you’re interested, it’s out there in the ‘net. I just rather enjoyed an author saying, ‘Nope. That’s not my character.’ Let’s hope they find a suitable re-design. (Or maybe Pinhead should remain the same? [It should be noted that Tunnicliffe had stated that Pinhead did not need reinvented but tried it for the sheer challenge.])

Lastly, Heroes will be back for another season after Fugitives.

Well, amen.

Stop the Inanity!

A pet peeve of mine is when people refer to P.J. Hogan’s version of Peter Pan as a remake. I recall hearing it and reading it in the months before its release. “Why are they remaking Peter Pan? Don’t we have enough?” As I stated in my post regarding my thoughts on his movie, Hogan did not do a remake. (Unless the silent film counts.) Disney’s animation and Spielberg’s Hook certainly don’t. Disney does not because this is in reference to a live-action feature. Hook because, well, it’s not the original story and it’s a strange “What If?” game that probably shouldn’t have even been played.

But forget about Pan being remade. I just got wind of three new remakes on the horizon. And it’s starting to make my stomach turn.

Yes, I realize that remakes have always been a part of Hollywood - new adaptations of books and plays and previous movies. But where is the sense (other than money) of revamping classic films? Or even “bad” movies?

I’m sure every one of you can name a remake that has made your skin crawl. And more often than not (if not always) the remake doesn’t come close to re-capturing the magic of the original or is just plain bad.

Okay, the three movies that sent me into this tirade are: Child’s Play, Poltergeist and The Rocky Horror Picture Show. I’m not suggesting that Child’s Play is a classic movie. No offense to those who like it, but let’s be honest. It’s a silly fright flick. Why does it need remade? Poltergeist on the other hand, is a terrific (both senses of the word) movie. It’s great as is. Does it need a remake? Okay, perhaps the effects could be a bit better…but in this case they don’t have to be. The movie is well made and holds up…don’t fix what isn’t broken. The Rocky Horror Picture Show? Come on now, what are they going to do? Make it “good” instead? The whole charm of the movie is how delightfully awful it truly is - you don’t base a whole subculture on something that isn’t a cult classic! Make it a parody and you defame the original as well. The movie didn’t try to be lousy, it just is - hence why it’s “good.” Strive for that and it won’t succeed. Aim to make a “legitimate feature” out of it and well…does anyone want to see that? [It's going ahead without O'Brien's blessing, by the way.]

Another recent mention slated for a redo is Rosemary’s Baby. I’m sorry, but this is the epitome of unnecessary. Nothing can be done to surpass the original. What will they do? Give it more special effects? Finally show us the baby? The whole reason the movie worked in the first place is the suspense of the unknown and the deep psychological tortures of the characters. No “jump out at you” effect is going to bring more merit. And even if the greatest actors in the world are cast, how can they possibly outdo the original performances?

Then again, I am not totally against re-doing movies. For instance, a reboot of A Nightmare on Elm Street is also in the works. This one makes a little sense. Unlike Rosemary’s Baby, the story and the visual effects certainly can benefit from today’s headlines and F/X technologies. So, yes, okay, I understand. And the word is they're going for scary - a la no one-liners for Freddy. Nothing silly. As scary as they can muster. It will be interesting to see such a movie assuming it's done with any sort of skill or justice.

If other actors want a chance to portray these characters, what about trying them on the stage?
Imagine a live Rosemary’s Baby. Or Richard O’Brien’s crazy Transylvanians re-imagined doing the Time Warp on something other than a movie set. (Yes, I am aware it began on stage and is often done and has been recently as a major production.)

I just hope they utilize the newly found full copy of Fritz Lang’s Metropolis when they produce the remake of it. (And yes, it’s coming.)

Seriously. Is there any way to stop this inanity? *sigh* I suppose not.
It’s a fact of Hollywood life… but it doesn’t mean we have to like it.

Don't Give Writers THAT Much Power!

So I finally watched Wes Craven's New Nightmare. Why do I say it like that? Well, I've always been a little leery of it. Seems every review I'd get would contradict the last one. Some like it, some hate it. As for my thoughts regarding the A Nightmare on Elm Street series, I like the first one, the third one and the concept of the fourth, though not the movie itself. After that, it became tiresome. Didn't stop me from seeing more, I admit. But by the time New Nightmare rolled around, I had expired my desire for it. Although the premise intrigued me. Just never enough to venture back into its messed up world.

What intrigued me is the Pirandellian aspect. I've explained Pirandellian here.

From what I knew of it, Wes Craven is in the movie script itself, trying to muster up the original stars Robert Englund (Freddy Krueger) and Heather Langenkamp (Nancy Thompson) to do another Nightmare movie. However, it turns out Freddy is real. He's not happy about his portrayal and starts attacking them.

Okay, it turns out that what I had pieced together as the plot is not entirely right. It's not far off base, though. It's a little more complicated than I thought. But not complicated in the sense of logistically intricate. It's a silly flick, one of those "meh" movies. But the Pirandellian premise did add some fun.

Halfway through movie, Robert Englund is talking with Heather Langenkamp on the phone. She inquires if Wes Craven has told him anything about the script, how far along? He replies that he hasn't seen any of it, but Wes said he'd just written the part where....Robert then describes what had just happened to Heather in real life. Later, toward the climax, Heather (playing Nancy in a dream to save her son from Freddy) finds a script! She reads it. She reads just what she'd been doing. Before she can read what she will do, she's prompted to save the kid. Cut to the end, when they're safe from Freddy...she also finds the script which came "out of" the dream. It has a handwritten note from Wes Craven, thanking her for playing Nancy one last time. She skips to the end, reads what she just did and then reads her reading a handwritten note from Wes, the note typed into the script. The boy makes her read it from the beginning...she does and it describes how the movie began. Now that's a wild ride. Too bad the rest of the movie didn't quite make it worth it.

However, the title of this post refers to the phenomenon described by Wes Craven in the movie. Apparently sometimes writers will tap into a prime source. In this case, a source of Evil...an Evil that can take many forms. Sometimes a writer catches a glimpse, is sparked by it and therefore creates it into words/film. Once the Evil is "pinned down" to that form, it remains. Like a genie in a bottle, Heather suggests. The Evil can only escape when the public loses interest in the material. Or the material becomes so watered down by the media that the hold weakens. Thus, it happened with Freddy Krueger. By the way, it seems the Evil has grown fond of "being" Freddy Krueger, so thus, it attacked as such. Ridiculous, I agree.

But just think of that for a moment, will you? Just imagine if that were true! I'll be the first to acknowledge that writers tap into something in order to be able to write. But the notion that we are somehow "jailers" and "gatekeepers" to ancient Evil? Good Grief! I don't want that much power...sheesh! Well, like they said at the end of Wes Craven's New Nightmare - "It's just a story, right?"