Total Geek Stuff

A Nightmare On Elm Street: A Retrospective

2010-06-12T09:49:00.000-07:00

Here you will find our thoughts and opinions on the various media that make up the Nightmare On Elm Street franchise.

With this year unleashing the Platinum Dunes remake upon the world, we figured this was the perfect time to look back on the classic franchise, whilst weighing in on the recent remake.

Here you will find reviews of each of the movies, a look at the TV series inspired by the flicks - and various other media who have taken on the character of Fred Krueger - including novels and comic books. We will also be posting an 'essay' concerning our own experiences with the franchise, and that Finger-Bladed maniac we all love so much.

The Movies
You can read our reviews of each movie in the series.

Freddy's Nightmares: A Nightmare On Elm Street The Series

Take a look at what we think of the Freddy's Nightmares TV series.

The Novels

Read our reviews of the Movie Novelizations and the Black Flame Novels. Maybe check out our interviews with the authors (coming soon - we hope)

The Comic Books
Check out our opinions on some of the Freddy Krueger Comics released in recent years.

A Nightmare On Elm Street: The Comics

2010-06-01T04:23:00.001-07:00

Nightmare On Elm Street Special (Avatar Press)

Nightmare On Elm Street: Paranoid - Issues 1-3 (Avatar Press)

Nightmare On Elm Street Fearbook (Avatar Press)

Nightmare On Elm Street: Freddy's War - Issues 1-4 (WildStorm Comics)

No one knows why New Line took the licence from Avatar and gave it to WildStorm - and we'll probably never know. However, that is what happened and they launched the comic with this four issue story.

It is the story of Jade, an Army Brat who moves to Springwood with her Dad and Brother. As such she has no clue as to the existence of Freddy Krueger. Like most of the other post-Freddy Vs. Jason tales, this story takes place in a Springwood which is well aware of Freddy and what he can do.

As far as I can remember, they never state explicitly that the house Jade moves into is is 1428 Elm, I assume it is. That's the way these stories go, outsider moves in to 1428 and that opens up a shitstorm. The first question I have to ask is - why don't they just knock the fucker down. Whenever anyone moves there, all this shit blows up and... well, wouldn't it be easier just to get rid of it?

So anyway, Jades brothers snuffs it pretty quickly. Freddy torches him, and Jade and the father attend his funeral and then go for pancakes. As you do. Anyway, Jade goes to school and faces Freddy herself. Then she makes a friend, an outsider Goth chick who recounts Freddy's origin. The problem is, it's all a bit rushed and predictable. The first Friday The 13th comic story from the same company went on a lot longer, which gave the characters some real time to develop. Here... it's just very rushed.

For Freddy's Origin... well, they pretty much get the whole thing wrong. Freddy worked in the boiler room of some factory or another - not in the school basement. Also, there is only one (difficult to spot) reference to him being a paedophile in the original series - in all other instances he was refered to as a child killer, nothing more. So they didn't do their homework - funnily enough the origin matches really well with the Nightmare remake, which would be released a couple of years earlier. This kinda dissapointed me, it showed that the people who were working on this didn't really have a clue about Freddy Krueger.

So they decide to fight Freddy together, only the goth girl gets all cut up and dies. So Jade tells her dad, who believes her straight away (huh?) and goes into her dream with her - armed to the fucking teeth, cause he's an army guy. Then there's a big fight scene... anyway Jade ends up dead and her organs save some little kid. Like I said before, the whole thing just feels rushed - and they missed something by having Jade's father believe what she said straight away... really, it's entertaining enough... but there's not a whole lot of story there.

Nightmare On Elm Street: The Demon Of Sleep - Issues 5-7 (WildStorm Comics)

Nightmare On Elm Street: Double Shift - Issue 8 (WildStorm Comics)

New Line Cinemas Tales Of Horror - Issue 1 (WilsStorm Comics)

Dreamspawn: A Nightmare On Elm Street Novel

2010-05-31T04:08:00.000-07:00

Dreamspawn: A Nightmare On Elm Street Novel by Christa Faust

I wasn't expecting much when I first read this book, way back in 2005. Suffer The Children had left me feeling cold, and I expected this to be more of the same. I re-read this book at least once a year - it is excellent.

I feel I have to clarify that statement - it's not great literature, no novel based on this movie franchise could ever become a classic. However it has engaging characters and a good story. I don't need anything else from a book like this - it's entertaining, pure and simple.

It's not a fan favourite, largely because Freddy is very much a background character - aside from a short appearance in the prologue, we don't see him again until well after the halfway mark. Maybe it's just me, but that is one of the things I really like about this book.

It gives the characters time to establish themselves, and even grow, before introducing Freddy into their lives. It helps you relate to them more - we already know Freddy. We don't need him to show up early on, his character doesn't need to be established. I'm not familliar with Christa Fausts work - but her characters certainly shine in this book.

Speaking of Freddy - Faust has a much better handle on him. He's still not quite the Freddy of the movies and I can't quite hear Robert Englund delivering the dialogue (except in a few instances, where it is spot on) - but you have to accept that this is a different medium. Prose, not film. So some differences will always present themselves - regardless this is much closer to the Freddy I know and love than the character in Suffer The Children (in which Freddy seems like a parody of himself). Since we're counting, he said 'Bitch' twice in this novel.

My biggest problem with 'Suffer' was the dialogue - it was forced and unnatural, in virtually all instances. It completely took you out of the story, and made it difficult to relate to the characters on any real level.

Here it's not so bad - most of the dialogue feels real, and there are only a few instances where something doesn't quite ring true. But that's always going to be a problem when you have to have exposition in a book. During some exposition a character will use a word of phrase that you would never hear in the real world - but these are few and far between. In general the dialogue is excellent and feels real.

The characters are once again a small group of social misfits and rejects. Except since we spend so much time with the characters prior to Freddy showing up, that they have genuine depth. Particuarly Jane, the main character. Her lack of self-confidence and the doubt that plagues her feels real, and not just like a cheap trick to con the readers into empathising with her. We get to know her history, which makes her feel like a real person rather than 'just' a character in a book. Faust seems to have resisted the temptation to go with Freddy-Fodder characters, and craft actual people.

I only have a couple of major problems with the book. A sequence in which a popular girl (minor character), being terrorized by Freddy is more concerned with her clothes than the fact that her friends are dying around her - and that Freddy is now after her. This feels like the authors attack on that kind of air-headed bimbo, the self-obsessed shallow kind we all know. But it doesn't work - because I don't care how self-obsessed anyone is, they wouldn't be thinking "I hope these boots aren't out of style" whilst being chased by a murderer. It's meant to be funny, I'm sure... but it feels like a slightly odd intrusion into a story which is otherwise tight and focused.

Also the ending - both this and Suffer end with the main character institutionalized. Okay, fair enough... but both novels having a similar ending doesn't work for me. Part of the problem with every novel being written by a different author is that certain ideas repeat themselves very quickly - this is not their fault however. Black Flame should have been on the ball. I think the ending works better in this book though, it's an odd ending (told from the point of view of a television) - but Faust has incredible talent and makes it work.

I love this book, though.

Suffer The Children: A Nightmare On Elm Street Novel

2010-05-26T02:58:00.000-07:00

Suffer The Children: A Nightmare On Elm Street Novel by David Bishop

Books based on film franchises always struggle to capture the feel of the movies they are based on - very few that I have ever read have managed it successfully. This one is no exception...

When I started reading it I thought it was gonna be okay, the characters seemed decent enough - likable even. Maybe the fact that this was a book would give the writer more time to flesh out the characters. However, pretty much all the development takes place in each characters introductory paragraph. After that... it's just more of the same.

We are introduced to all our characters in the first couple of pages - and they're all pretty cliche. A punky girl with an attitude, but a heart of gold who has a history of self abuse. A Goth girl, covered in tattoos and rebelling against her God-Fearing Parents. A Black kid who plays basketball and... no wait, that's all he does. A Blonde Prom Queen Wannabe, a stoner ripped right from a Kevin Smith movie and a geek kid who gets beat up if he forgets to do some bully's homework. Nothing original here - but somehow Bishop manages to make these characters likable.

The biggest problem with the franchise now is that we root for Freddy - we want to see him win. Bishop solves this problem by writing Freddy as a totally parody of himself, which to be honest gets pretty boring pretty fast. I would say that 90% of Freddys dialogue in this book includes the word "Bitch". Really, it's the most generic Freddy I've ever seen in any format - I'm not sure if Bishop has actually seen the films or just assumes this is how Freddy talks. Truth is, Freddy utters the word bitch a maximum of once a film (except in FvJ, where he says it like four times).

Freddy's motivation in this book is not his motivation in the films - I understand there's a long running debate amongst fans as to whether Freddy is or is not a child molester. Fact is, most of the films (except Part 4 or 5 - in which one newspapers article mentions it) very explicitly state he is a child killer. Not molester - Wes Craven, in the past, has said "No, he's just a child killer" but at other points he's confirmed the molester thing - so I doubt we'll ever know for sure.

This book has a passge dedicated to Freddy's crispy boner whilst attacking some chick - everything seems very sexual to him. Sure he's used sex as a weapon in the past - but he seems more concerned with getting his toasty leg over. Basically, at no point does the Freddy of the book feel like the Freddy of the films. Never.

Freddy doesn't work - and if Freddy doesn't work, the book doesn't work.

Bishop doesn't seem to know how to structure this thing. It's very 'by the numbers' - introduce characters, bring characters together - they all discover things at the same time, all have Nightmares at exactly the same time - and most of them don't push the plot along. They seem to be there to make up the page count.

You know when you are reading a book and someone says something that totally takes you out of the book, something that no one would ever say in real life? This book is full of that. Packed full - bursting with it. No one in the real world talks about Domains... certainly not teenagers.

Freddy Vs. Jason (2003)

2010-05-13T12:27:00.001-07:00

Freddy Vs. Jason (2003)

Written by Damian Shannon & Mark Swift
Directed by Ronny Yu

Freddy Vs. Jason is a pretty difficult film for me to review, for a few reasons. First is that it was the first film I ever saw in theatres starring either of the slasher icons, secondly it's a fairly unique horror film which pits two horror icons again each other (there's this and AVP) - I love both these guys so the fact that they are on screen together does stand in its favour.

Thirdly, it was the last entry in both series - after this they got the remake treatment... so there's a tendancy to look at it through rose tinted glasses.

The plot is simple and disposable - the kids of Springwood have forgotten about Freddy Charles Krueger, so he can't get to them anymore. (Either Springwood has been repopulated since Freddy's Dead or that version of Springwood was some freaky dream) and so he brings Jason Fucking Voorhees back from hell - to go to Springwood and do some slashing on the sly, and hopefully getting the kids talking about Freddy again.

The film has a lot of problems, but the meshing of the two universes is not one of them. If we had only ever seen more realistic Friday flicks like the first few, we may have trouble putting Jason in with the Dream Demon - but since part 4 we've seen Zombies, Hellspawn, magic daggers and all kinds of other shit - I think the two fit together quite well.

The biggest problem with this flick is Freddy. It seems that most of his scenes entail him explaining the plot (time and time again) - it's a fucking slasher movie. The plot is virtually non-existant... why does it need explained to often? It's not a problem with the performance - but making Freddy the king of exposition does the film no favours.

As ever, we're introduced to some teenagers (from Springwood, not Crystal Lake) who are pretty but unimportant in the long run. We suffer through the ususal ciches, the shy retiring Virgin Girl, the nerd who can't get the girl, the sassy black chick and a stoner right out of Clerks. Nothing new here, moving on...

Yeah so Jason does lots of slicing and dicing, all the while moving at a snails pace (seriously - the slowest Jason has ever been. Must have cramp or some shit) and all the kids start talking and Freddy gets into their dreams - but he's still too shit to kill anyone.

Jason slaughters left, right and centre in this flick whilst Freddy himself gets one poxy kill. Seriously, one... the guy has been off our screens for 12 years (I'm not counting WCNN because it's not a 'real' Nightmare movie) and they give him one sodding kill? What the hell is that about? Useless. Jasons kills are very boring... machete, slash, machete, slash... yawn...

Freddy seems to have reverted back to a slightly darker version of himself (being stuck in hell will do that I guess) and he's more in line with the Nightmare 3 Freddy. Yeah, there's jokes aplenty - but they're a bit sicker than the punch-lines of 4, 5 & 6.

The flick does have some stand-out scenes - there are a few nice little references to previous installments of both franchises, and it's really nice to see the boiler room back. One of my favourite moments is when the Gibb character (played by Ginger Snaps Catherine Isabelle) is sleeping and get's stuck in the boiler room with Freddy. Not only do we get a recreation of 'Freddy coming out of the wall' from Nightmare 1, but Freddy get's his score stolen from him by the J man, which results in Freddy throwing a hissy fit. Genius.

The real problem with the film is that they try and build a real story around these uninvolving teenagers, but it's very half-assed. No one cares and the kids are all pretty bad actors - I don't buy them as real people for a second... and who the fuck cast Kelly Rowland in this?

Anyway, after an hour plus of all this bullshit the two bad asses finally come face to face in the dream world - fuck yeah. Jason get's his ass handed to him (cause it's the fuckin' dream world) and then Freddy get's pulled out by the main girl (they've gone to Crystal Lake or some shit - who cares FREDDY KRUEGER AND JASON VOORHEES ARE FUCKING FIGHTING!!) and he and Jason carry on there - Jason still takes a beating though... Freddy gets pretty fucked up too. But I've seen these films - in part six Freddy gets his ass handed to him by a chick with a stick... Jason should demolish the scrawny fuck!

So yeah anyway... Freddy fucks Jason over and then goes to kill the chick and her boyfriend dude... then Jason reappears and stabs Freddy with his own severed arm (claw attatched) - that was fucking awesome. Then the chick cuts Freddy's head off and Jason sinks into the lake. The end...

Except Jason comes out the water and Freddy's decapitated head winks... SEQUEL!

Except not, and that's the worst thing about this film. It promises something that was never delivered. It's far from a great film, hell it's not even a good film... but seeing the two icons duking it out makes it worth watching - just fast forward the rest of the shit.

Wes Craven's New Nightmare

2010-05-13T10:36:00.000-07:00

Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994)

Written and Directed by Wes Craven

Freddy was dead, to begin with. There is no doubt whatever about that. The register of his burial was signed by New Line Cinema, Rachel Talalay, Mike Deluca, and the the outraged fanbase. We signed it.

But Freddy always comes back, doesn't he? Well, yes and no... he did come back twelve years after his cinematic demise, but not in the film. Except he kind of did... but not really. But still, kinda...

Wes Craven originally wanted to do this film as Nightmare On Elm Street 3 - and it follows various real life people involved in the production of the original Nightmare On Elm Street. Heather Langenkamp (Nancy in the original and Part 3) returns, this time playing herself. So does Robert Englund - again as himself. And they're all having Nightmares... about a man with a burned face and claws for fingers... which in the end is revealed to be a Demon who has taken the form of Freddy Krueger. That demon invades the world via our dreams, making him very similar to the original Krueger (albiet with different motivations) and it is said that the Nightmare films, by featuring Freddy managed to contain the demon. Why? I dunno.

It's a pretty neat idea, blurring the lines of reality and film the same way the original blurred the lines between dreams and reality. But would it have worked as Nightmare 3? No way, the whole things relies on Freddy being a pop-culture icon. They needed those six movies before this one for the movie to truly work - otherwise Freddy would just have been "that ugly guy from those couple of films."

So Heather plays Heather, an actress struggling to put her past as a horror movie star behind her and move on to better things. But people just won't let that happen and continue to focus on A Nightmare On Elm Street - during an interview she is reintroduced to Robert Englund (in full Freddy costume) and we eventually learn that the two are having some similar problems.

People around Heather keep dying and her son acts like a nutter - this demon in the form of Freddy is using the kid as a passage into the real world. It's all done rather well and is quite creepy.

There's a definite sense that Craven introduced this confusing (well, when you watch the movie it's very simple - but trying to explain it is a bitch) new entry into the franchise to take Freddy back to his roots as an evil, terrible monster and not Bob Hope with burns. And this Freddy is sick - he has no time for jokes and is intent on making Heathers life as miserable as possible whilst slaughtering just about everyone she loves. Craven suceeds it making Krueger (even though it isn't really him) a sick puppy again.

The highlight of the film is towards the end where film and reality come even closer together - with Heather playing Nancy again - but in the real world. The idea that the NOES films kept a demon (in the form of Freddy) at bay is novel and works as a one off - but any further exploration of this concept would have been silly. Ultimately, the film is unique in the series and is certainly enjoyable as an experiment. The performances (even from the non-actors) seem pretty solid all round it's an enjoyable flick, more in line with the early films than the later sequels. Brilliant.

Choose Your Nightmare...

2010-05-13T07:02:00.000-07:00

Here they are - the Total Geek Stuff reviews for each movie in the Nightmare On Elm Street franchise. Well... they're not really reviews, more rants... but you'll know how we feel by the end of them. That's all that counts.

Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991)

2010-05-12T09:28:00.000-07:00

Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991)

Written by Rachel Talalay & Michael DeLuca
Directed by Rachel Talalay

Freddy's Dead is generally reviled by fans of the series, and it's not difficult to see why. First off all the film really is the silliest the series has ever produced - Freddy is introduced riding on a broomstick, quoting the Wicked Witch Of The Westt, a far cry from the scary mother-fucker of the the original movie. That scene pretty much sets up the tone of the movie. And the tone is: Pretty fucking stupid. Once again Englund is the only good thing about this film, and you can tell by this point that the series would be completely fucked without him.

The film ditches the continuing plot (from Nightmares 3,4 & 5) in favour of a movie which forgoes any real plot and is content just to try and be a total mind-fuck. Really, this flick is fucking weird - it's got Springwood as the worlds freakiest town, in which every single child is dead and the parents have all gone bat-shit insane as a result. Then when they see a teenager they look like they could fight to the death just for a chance to mother the poor kids.

Another reason the film is so rubbish is that, despite claiming to be the Final Chapter, it offers no real resolution to the ongoing story of Freddy Krueger. It reveals the rest of his backstory though.

So we now know everything - how he was concieved, how he was raised, his family life, how he died (originally) and what colour of underpants he prefers. Really, the character is gone by this point, and Freddy is a slightly manic comedian. The fact that he kills people almost feels incidental.

Honestly, if people didn't have a tendancy to die around him he would be a fun guy to hang around with (for a while - he outstays his welcome here and becomes annoying). I'm not putting the blame on Englund - he clearly loves the character and the pay check that comes with playing him, at the end of the day he's an actor hired to do a job and he does it admirably. It's just the job he was hired to do is... shit.

The film reveals that Freddy had a daughter (like most franchises it gives us this brand new piece of info far too late in the game to make any real difference to the story - introduced no doubt to extend the shelf-life just that tiny bit more) and we get treated to a headache inducing 3D sequence in which Freddy is finally dispatched (forever - or so they say) by his daughter.

That said I don't get why this is his 'final' death... it's no different from the other 50 million or so he's had... but New Line say this is the end... so it must be.

There are only two characters of any real importance here, Freddy and his daughter, so I won't even mention the others are they are little more(as before) than Fodder for Freddy and an excuse for increasinly elaborate death sequences. But, for us the ride is over - Freddy has now finished transforming into the parody of the character we feared in the early films and yes, Freddy truly is dead... if being blown up at the end of this flick didn't kill him, surely this film would. I have nothing more to say. This film is garbage... thank god it's all over...

Wes Craven's New what?
Who Vs. Jason?

Shit.

A Nightmare On Elm Street 5: The Dream Child (1989)

2010-05-12T09:15:00.000-07:00

A Nightmare On Elm Street 5: The Dream Child

Written by John Skipp, Craig Spector & Leslie Bohem
Directed by Stephen Hopkins

When you watch Nightmare 5 you get the sense that 'they' are trying to reintroduce the dark atmosphere of the original - by making a movie that's full of old, broken down castle-esque asylums, churches and labyrnths. It's quite a departure from anything we've seen before, and one that would be welcome if the movie wasn't quite so rubbish.

The film has some pretty clever ideas - such as Freddy returning by entering into an unborn childs dreams (and turning said child against his mother-to-be) and Alice, our returning protaganist from the previous film has to do battle with him again, all the while learning even more of Freddy's backstory.

That's the thing about this film - so much of it is concerned with revealing how Freddy came to be (I mean literally, being the son of a nun who was raped by 100 lunatics) demistifies the character a little. Before he was this guy we knew very little about - Child murderer who was burned to death by a group of lynch-mob parents. Turning him into this monster from birth certainly removes from the character.

So anyway, since the last film Alice has made some new friends. Like before they have no real depth and are just one-note characters. In pretty much each case that 'one note' will play into how they die (the comic book nerd does battle against a musclular 'Super-Freddy' and is then turned into paper and diced up. Yeah... they musta made him a comic nerd just to do that gag). The characters don't feel organic anymore, they're just there to be Freddy-Fodder, and that just makes you root for Fred even more. Krueger is still the star of the show, cracking-wise and being pretty much the only entertaining thing about this movie. Englund does a great job at being the showman - you can't fault his performance. I just wish everyone involved had let Freddy be a mysterious, background monster like before. But we're passed the point of no return on that one.

I don't really have much to say about this one - it will always be remembered for being very typical, and as such it's difficult to think of anything about it that stands out. This film just is, and it's pretty dull apart from Englund. So...

Onto Freddys Dead: The Final Nightmare (you liars!)

A Nightmare On Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988)

2010-05-11T10:50:00.000-07:00

A Nightmare On Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988)

Written by William Kotzwinkle, Brian Helgeland & Scott Pierc Directed by Renny Harlin

The fourth movie in the franchise is the first to feature Freddy Krueger as a pop-culture icon. Whilst the previous film was clearly attempting to create one, this new film capitalizes on the success of its predecessor.

Just to get this out of the way - I'm not a fan of this film. It's not the worst in the franchise, but it's far from good. It's dull and downright stupid in places.

The surviving characters from the previous film return and are promptly dispatched - a recast Kristen Parker (played by Particia Arquette in the previous film - now played by singer Tuesday Knight, probably to capitalise on her popularity at the time) is much less likable this time around. In 3 she's a likable, sweet, niave and innocent girl. Here she comes across as a bit of a bitch - but not a bitch, bitch - the fun bitch that every group has. This is completely to do with the performance - but it works if you think about it. Kristen would no doubt be changed by the events of the previous film.

The film has Freddy cracking wise left, right and centre ("I love Soul Food!" he declares as he munches on a human meatball, claiming their soul) and we move from one over the top kill to the next. The film features another Dream Warrior - this time she's like a Super Dream Warrior - new main character Alice takes on the abilities of every victim Freddy claims throughout the course of this film... which is kinda dumb. I get it - the idea is to give Freddy a nemesis that can kick his ass... but it's never explained properly. It just happens...

The worst thing about this movie is the new cast, for the first time the Elm Street kids feel like they're just Freddy-Fodder. Gone is any actual character development, and we get even more tired cliche characters. The geek, the chick who is obsessed with working out - one note characters. If less time had been spent on the over the top kills (which once again detract from the horror of what is actually happening. See Nightmare 1 for how to do it) and more time developing these characters, we might have actually cared about what happens.

The film is a bit of a mess - it tries to hard to follow the formula established in Nightmare 3, but lacks the punch and drive of that film. It's not really going anywhere and it knows it, and sacrifices character and development in favour of over the top special effects.

That said, it's very watchable as a 'good-bad- movie. Englund is on top form and he makes Freddy a joy to watch. For a slasher movie, it's excellent - but it just doesn't live up to the standard set by the earlier films in the series.

Freddy is now the star of the show, and even more of his backstory begins to unvelop. Nightmare 4 truly is the Freddy Krueger show - and New Line would use his new-found popularity to launch a Nightmare On Elm Street themed television show. Once I get those on DVD I'll be doing similar reviews for each episode (all 44 of them) but until then we move on.

A Nightmare On Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987)

2010-05-10T14:03:00.001-07:00

A Nightmare On Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987)

Written by Wes Craven, Bruce Wagner, Frank Darabont & Chuck Russell
Directed by Chuck Russell

Wes Craven returned to pen this third installment in the franchise, although the final thing is radically different from his original script. That's a good thing, by the way - the original script sucked. This is the first truly EPIC Nightmare movie - it picks up where the original (the events of Part 2 are ignored) and really begins to play with the concept of the Dream Scape and just what is possible there.

I think this film is where Nightmare On Elm Street changed into a more po-pculture friendly series. It entered the main stream here. This is most apparent in the opening credits - gone is the atmospheric opening of the original - we don't even get a surreal dream sequence opening. We get a rock song blaring at full volume whilst some chick makes a paper mache house. The song itself it from that particular brand of disturbingly catchy 80's rock (and without looking I can tell you every guy in that band had massive, unruly hair.)

This is also the first movie where we begin to see Freddy the joker. Whilst he has not yet reached the Comedian Freddy level of later flicks he does throw out a few more sarcastic and cheesy lines and cross-dresses for the first time (I think). This movie contains one of the most famous Freddy-lines of all time: "Welcome To Prime Time, Bitch!" roared as he shoves a troubled teens head through a TV. Much of Freddy's dialogue feels like it was written solely so that kids can quote it immediately upon leaving the cinema - but here it works. The thing is that later installments would take this on board and push it to new levels - even though the film makers responsible did not necessarily have the talent to pull it off.

Nancy from the original returns to help a group of troubled young sleepers in a mental facility (Westin Hills) - and we once again meet a group of quite likable characters. They're more varied character-wise this time, as the idea is that these are people thrown together by their nightmares rather than actual friends (as in the original). They're not necessarily the kind of people who would be friends otherwise - but they range from the stereotypical (but not unlikable) angry-black man to the white, pale and pasty dungeons and dragons geek. If the original had 'all American' kids this group are American Misfits.

The plot is much more convoluted than either of the previous installments - involving dream supressant pills, mental hospitals, reanimated skeletons, nuns, rape and awesome dream powers. Yet the script manages to keep it all together and produces something that stands up to the first two movies. Presumably the sheer number of writers and a bigger budget helped keep this thing on track. The Nightmares take a turn here too, they are now on a much grander scale - Freddy using a kids veins as puppet strings has always stood out to me.

Whilst the kills in ANOES were always inventive the film makers used their success to push the effects here... and it works for the wow factor. However I feel it's detrimental to the actual horror of the kill - in the original when I see Tina die, it's awful. I hate it, it's ugly... which is what it should be. Here, Freddy's kills become a cheer moment. That doesn't work as much for me.

Freddy is still creepy at this point though, there's still that freaky element to him. He's not yet the hero of these films and this installment is probably the last great Nightmare film for some time.

A Nightmare On Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985)

2010-05-10T11:08:00.001-07:00

A Nightmare On Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985)

Written by David Chaskin
Directed by Jack Sholder

Also known as 'the gay one'. Because of all the gayness. I don't mean that in a negative way - you know how all the kids say "that's so gay" to describe something rubbish? Yeah, I'm not using it that way. This movie is... gay.

A lot of people don't like this one, but in recent years it's picked up a small crew of dedicated fans and I'm one of them. It's still not particularly fashionable to say you like this film - and it does have some major problems. I just think the good outweighs the bad.

First off, the film does something new with Freddy - and this film sees him playing Iago. He's like the little Devil He picks his new toy - Jesse the closeted teen - and we go into a bit of a body horror thing.

Freddy is kind of possessing Jesse in this one - forcing him to kill those he choses. It's this major shift from the plot of the original that causes the devide more than the homo-eroticism present with it.

It's a really interesting, different take on the character who at this point has only one film under his belt. Freddy has yet to degenerate into slapstick and still comes across as an evil shit in this one.

Originally, Englund was not asked to return to play Freddy. Whilst various people blame each other for this, it seems the truth is that director Sholder did not consider Freddy to be a very important character - so he was played by a stuntman. When Bob Shaye saw the results/found out about it, he went Ape Shit and demanded the Freddy scenes be reshot with Englund.

Watching the film, you can still feel the aftermath of the "Freddy is not important" attitude. He isn't given a whole lot to do and he feels more like a generic evil that he did in the previous film. Englund does his best with what he's given though, and as I said earlier managed to turn Freddy into a sick little bastard. He's one of the main things that makes the film work - and it's shocking how close we came to an Englund-less Freddy. You can learn more about this in the documentary Never Sleep Again.

I've pretty much summed up the whole plot so far - except for the fact that Jesse has a would-be-girlfriend he ends up banging - but I thought he was gay? According to this film, all a gay guy needs to become straight is a nice shag from an chick with a big chin. Is that the message they were trying to send with this film - seems like an exercise in gay bashing to me.

The standout scene is when Freddy re-enters the real world by taking full control of Jesse and literally bursting out of his skin (whilst Jesse screams "He's inside me! He's inside me!" - seriously... no one noticed the gay stuff??) and pretty much slaughters every attendee at a birthday party. Brilliant - so it's not got the character development of the first one - but it's still a creepy, entertaining film with some truly stand out sequences. There's some excellent performances and Ken Walsh (Jesse's dad) will forever go down in history as the man who blames Cheap Bird Seed for his budgie catching on fire. Nice.

In the end, the second Nightmare film is a bit of an oddity. In future installments Freddy would resume his dream slashing and from Part 3 onwards we would see a story that continued on from Part 1 and didn't end until the sixth movie. This movie interrupts an otherwise continuing story and deals with wildly different themes from the other films. Still I think it stands as a solid entry, and is certainly better than some of the films that followed.

A Nightmare On Elm Street (2010)

2010-05-07T14:02:00.000-07:00

A Nightmare On Elm Street (2009)
Written by Wesley Strick and Eric Heisserer
Directed by Samuel Bayer

Platinum Dunes are really only known as a 'horror remake' company. Yeah, they've done one or two 'original' movies, but mostly they stick to remaking classic horror movies, badly.

So far (since 2003) they've done Texas Chainsaw Massacre (and made a prequel), The Amityville Horror, The Hitcher and Friday The 13th.

In remaking ANOES, one of their biggest obstacles was their own reputation. Aside from their Texas Chainsaw remake (and its prequel - the thing about these is that I was never a huge fan of the original movie) I kinda hated everything else they did. Souless horror by numbers movies, in my opinion. Crammed the bursting with jump scares and bad CGI gore.

My favourite horror franchise has always been Friday The 13th, and as a friend of mine says that remake felt "more like a porno" then anything else. In my opinion the guys at Platinum Dunes don't really 'get' horror and are only interesting in making a quick buck.

This latest attempt to screw the public out of their hard earned cash (with promises of a good movie and cookies) was always going to be the most difficult. Freddy Krueger is not Jason Voorhees, who was played by multiple actors and stunt men during his reign as King-Of The Slashers. There is no one Jason.

Freddy, on the other hand was always associated with the one man who played the character over EIGHT movies and two seasons of a TV show - the horror legend Robert Englund. And this remake seriously lacks any Englund.

Automatically the company are at a disadvantage because they expect us to accept a new actor playing the Freddy role - and to be honest I'm just not interested in seeing someone else play the part.

Yeah, okay they got Jackie Earle Haley - an underrated actor who was one of the few good things about the Watchmen adaptation a couple of years back... but it's still not Freddy is it? Every time Freddy appeared on the screen in this... I dunno, he just felt bland.

Not that that is necessarily JEH's fault. I think his performance of the material he had was fine. It's just that the material was garbage. Boring Freddy? What the hell... Perhaps if the character was more 'Freddy-like'?

Even the original Freddy (even prior to becoming a walking punch-line factory) had a sick and twisted sense of humour about him. Robert Englund seems to display that same sense of humour in real life. Freddy is Robert Englund and Robert Englund is Freddy - no one else can play that role and still be Fred Krueger.

New-Freddy is just bland... he doesn't really do anything. Just shows up and kills, not normally saying a whole lot. Yeah he blabs A BIT... but there's not much here to differentiate him from Jason or Michael. The kills are uninventive to say the least - whilst I thought the original series went over the top with outlandish kills (to the detriment of pretty much everything else) the first three had some pretty awesome moments, without getting silly. This thing doesn't even try.

So I had followed this flicks development with cautious interest - with so much riding against it I didn't have high hopes. To be honest I expected a car wreck.

And that's just as well, given that this film is one of the worst of the bunch. To put it another way, I watched a great fictional character get raped for an hour and a half.

It is completely devoid of any character or individuality as a film. You know how every horror remake recently has had that look? Kind of glossy like an expensive Hollywood production that someone has put into photoshop and added grain and messed with the lighting and contrast? That's what this looks like - every other horror movie being made today. The original flick looked and felt different. it stood out from the crowd in my opinion. This doesn't.

All the performances are phoned in and Jackie Earle Haley proves that no one should play Freddy apart from Rob Englund. He's a good actor, nay, a great one - but he just delivers a one note character. Not the lunatic, scary as shit funny-man that we're used to.

One of the biggest problems with the film is the alteration to Freddy's backstory. In the original series Freddy was a child killer - this remake turns him into a kiddie fiddler. Now... I don't want to get into some insane moralistic debate here - but is it worse just to kill the kid, or to fiddle with them? Difficult... but Freddy is not a paedo Platinum Dunes! Fuck you.

But this is what Platinum Dunes does - they take movies with outlandish premises and try to make them 'high-brow'. They attempt to take the original story of 'Child Killer gets revenge on parents who torched him' into 'Perhaps innocent man, accused of being a paedophile seeks revenge on the kids who perhaps wrongly accused him - let's consider the morals of this story'.

Fucking bullshit, it's about a guy with a scabby face who kills people in their dreams. Stop trying to turn your slasher movies into psychological thrillers - these stories are not Silence Of The Fucking Lambs - and none of you are good enough to make a movie like that anyway. Give it up and just let the movies be fun for fuck sake.

The original Nightmare films delved pretty quickly into being cheesy and laughable - but at least they were fun. This film is neither scary nor fun, it's quite boring. And a film about an all powerful killer who haunts you in your dreams should not be boring. I didn't care about any of the characters, especially the weird looking Chick playing Nancy. Maybe it was because they totally ignored Nancy (the FUCKING MAIN CHARACTER) for the first half of the film, but when it focused on her all I could think was "So fucking what?"

Oh yeah, you could tell she was deep because she draws shitty pictures that look like scribbles with eyeballs in black chalk. One does kinda resemble a penis. Oh and at one point she says "she doesn't exactly fit in". That's the extent of her character... brilliant writing there, you fucking hacks. The chick was actually a decent actress (I think) - but the material she was given to work with... not so much.

Some of the worst sequences in the film recreate scenes from the original. Remember that really creepy bit early on in the original where Freddy stretches out of the wall - you can barely make him out - theres just this shape of his face and two hands hovering over Nancy as she sleeps. Creepy as fuck. In the new one it looks like a giant wallpaper slug with claws wants to attack her - and it looks like crap... bad CGI all the way. How can an effect in a 26 year old film look SO MUCH BETTER than one done in 2010. Cause Platinum Dunes have no imagination - that's why.

The movie is obsessed with Nightmares. The good thing about the original film is you could never be sure if someone was dreaming or not - then something small would give it away. Most of this film plays out in the Nightmare World and they might as well have a big flashing sign on screen that says:

"THIS BIT IS A FUCKING NIGHTMARE, FOR ALL YOUR AUDIENCE MEMBERS TO STUPID TO FIGURE IT OUT. WE'RE SMART AND YOU ARE DUMB, HA HA HA!"

The Nightmares in this film also lack that surreal quality that you'll find in the original. Yeah, someone drops through the floor in a pool of blood that then sooks back up through the hole - but it's done so badly all you'll be thinking when you see it is "that's some pretty shit CGI!" In the original, goats show up for no reason. Then you think "What the fuck, a goat? What's the deal with that?"

I don't know about anyone else - but my dreams are random as fuck. Weird shit shows up that has nothing to do with the rest of the dream (I remember one being accosted by a man with a wheelbarrow full of potato peelings and fish...) and random goats fit that description better than anything that goes on here.

They also introduce the idea of micro-naps. The brain, being exhausted by the person staying awake starts shutting itself down for a few seconds after the 70 hour mark. People dream without being asleep - and it allows Freddy to pop up anywhere he wants. A brilliant idea - when Freddy was after you, you were safe if you were awake. Not anymore!

Except it's just used for more jump scares. Nothing of note happens during one of these micro-naps.. and they would have just as well been left out of the flick.

Another negative - this film keeps cribbing lines from earlier flicks in the series. Take this for example:

Nightmare 4: Joey falls asleep on his waterbed, and dreams about a hot chick swimming naked in it. Phwoar! Then... FREDDY BURSTS OUT OF THE FUCKING WATERBED! "How's this for a wet dream?!"

Not-Nightmare: Not-Nancy runs away from Not-Freddy and the floor turns into blood... "How's this for a wet dream?"

Exact same line, only in this one is gets a shitty set up and a shitty delivery. I like Haley, but you can tell he knew this script was crap. He doesn't care. Freddy is also dispatched in the same way (and with the same line) as he was in Freddy Vs. Jason - the last Nightmare film. Yawn.

But if you really want to waste some money - go see it. It's crap, and if you have any sense you won't enjoy it in the slightest... but yeah... go see it if you want to waste nearly two hours of your life wanting to tear your own eyes out.

The assclowns at PD have no fucking idea how to make a horror movie.

A Nightmare On Elm Street (1984)

2010-04-22T12:49:00.000-07:00

A Nightmare On Elm Street (1984)

Written and Directed by Wes Craven

There's not much new to say about this film, anything really worth saying has already been said... but I'm gonna try and rant on anyway.

At 26 years old it already stands as one of the 'classics', and has done for years. When we look back at the horror boom in the 1980's we generally regard this as one of the best.

There's few people who haven't seen it - and those that haven't still know what it is, although in many eyes its reputation may be tarnished by some less than stellar sequels.

It arrived in 1984, when the horror genre had settled into a fairly stagnant "stalk & slash" cycle. Hundreds of movies were being released, each one seeming very much the same - very few standing out from the crowd. We don't remember too many of them today (with the exeptions of the Friday the 13th and Halloween flicks.)

A Nightmare On Elm Street gave us a new kind of horror movie, and a new kind of Movie Monster in the person of Fred(dy) Krueger.

Forget the silent stalkers, Michael and Jason, who kill because it is hardwired into them - Freddy is sick, twisted and terrifying. And he just loves to kill.

Freddy probably stands alongside Pinhead as the most interesting modern-movie monster - simply because he is so different from the Michael Myers and Jason Voorhees model. He talks, he torments - it's not just about the kill, he revels in the chase.

Unlike subsequent entries in the series (and the remake in particular) this film has Fred(dy) Krueger firmly in the background. The result of this is that he's actually scary. Nor is he the walking punch-line factory of the later installments - here he comes across as a sick, twisted, sadistic bastard - a guy who'll cut off his own fingers just to freak someone out. Robert Englund gives one of his best performances in the role, unhampered by corny one-liners and given a chance to play with a truly great story. Despite the more restrained Freddy, we can already see the origins of what would become a full blown pop culture icon.

But the thing that really makes this movie stand out from the crowd is that it gives you characters than you genuinely feel for. Some of them you like, some you hate - but they feel like real people... most of the time. It's hard to relate to these kids today, the movie portrays them all as being pretty innocent, shielded from the harsh realities of the world - kids who'll go to school the day after their best friend is cut up. You can't really relate to them - but their choices seem believable after their characters are established. They're just those kind of kids.

Let's talk about the story - it's a simple one. Group of teenagers are stalked and killed in their dreams by a Fedora-wearing loon with a burned face and a sharp glove. Simple, stripped-down and awesome. Having such a simple story makes the film enjoyable - you don't have to worry too much about insane plot developments and can just enjoy the ride. The real reasons this film works so well are the characters and Wes Cravens excellent, inspired screenplay. Two basic ingedients that many horror films sorely lack.

The film focuses on one particular girl, Nancy, and her small group of friends. Most of them are pretty likable - largely due to the fact that real time is spent developing the characters. Compare the body-count of this film to the remake and it seems miniscule. That's because this movie is concerned with creating suspense and building character. Most important of these is Nancy, who we totally believe as a very sweet, niave girl who is being confronted with things no one can imagine. I feel that, even as a male, I can connect with Nancy. She's one of the best characters in slasher-film history in my opinion.

It's not a film concerned with filling the screen with gore (although it does at several points) but instead wants to tell an actual story. There's quite a lot in here, including neglectful parents, alcoholism, moral issues, nightmares, relationships - but everything is juggled well, nothing feels under developed.

The dream sequences are amazing. Part of the reason they work so well in this film is that they are kept dairly simple - they take place in real locations and feature just enough of the surreal to make them feel like dreams. Personally, as the films went on and the dreams got trippier I lost interest a bit. I felt this film best captured the slightly unreal, disjointed feel that (my) dreams have. Thus I relate to them better. The ending is amazing, really playing with the boundaries between dream and reality - to the point where you have no clue what is going on.

The thing is, when a film is great there's not much to say about it - so let's more on to Part 2 and see what happens there...

Television Reviews:

2010-04-19T05:11:00.000-07:00

A

B

C

D
Doctor Who Series 5 (31) Episodes 1-3

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

W

X

Y

Reviews:

2010-04-19T05:09:00.000-07:00

Book Reviews

Movie Reviews

Television Reviews

THE RIKER SCALE EXPLAINED

Our final rating is given in the Riker Scale, which is as follows:

SHAVED RIKER
The Worst of the Worst. There is nothing worse than Shaved Riker. Avoid at all costs.

FACEPALM RIKER

Not as bad as Shaved Riker. Still pretty fucking bad though.

UNIMPRESSED RIKER

Not bad, not good. Riker feels nothing for this movie.

HAPPY RIKER

Riker likes this movie

VERY HAPPY RIKER

Riker digs this movie. He plans on seducing it, the lucky thing.

Survival Of The Dead (2010)

2010-03-22T01:24:00.000-07:00

Survival Of The Dead (2010)
Written and Directed by George A. Romero

I think I should establish a couple of things before I 'review' this film. First, I'm a big fan of the whole series. I even enjoy the much-maligned Land and Diary. It's really a great franchise. However, I am odd...

I actually don't rank Dawn as highly as most fans do. It just doesn't appeal to me as much as most of the others. In fact, my feelings on the films are pretty odd - you won't find many horror fans agreeing with me on this one. For the purposes of this review, here's how I stand on the George A. Romero 'DEAD SAGA'.

1. Day Of The Dead
2. Night Of The Living Dead
3. Land Of The Dead
4. Dawn Of The Dead
5. Diary Of The Dead

Please remember when reading this list that it's is not based upon how well the films are made. Dawn is undeniably, technically superb. It has an excellent story and the performances are great... but I don't really enjoy it. Now here's the thing. This series hit bottom with Diary Of The Dead. A cheap (too cheap) pointless retread of the Zombie outbreak, with a Blair-Witch style presentation. There was nothing new, just tired old cliche's being dusted off and reused.

So I was really eagre to get on with Survival. I hoped (and prayed) it would be a return to form and I managed to keep away from most spoilers. I was excited to see the flick - and I was dissapointed when it didn't even get a small theatrical release here in the UK. This should have been an early warning sign, but I ignored it. It was made outwith the studio system, so DTV was to be expected. Besides... not every DTV movie is bad.

Except even Diary impressed someone enough to get a theatrical release. Didn't think of that... should have. The first thing I notice about the flick is how cheap it looks. Which is fair enough, it was cheap. Diary cost $2 million and managed to (sort of) hide it's low budget by its very nature. The acting is also of standard DTV quality.

The plot is bizarre. Two warring Irish families, wandering army dudes... some kid. An island... I dunno... it's not confusing or anything, just pretty stupid. The best thing about the original trilogy was the drama that built up around the characters who were caught up in the zombie outbreak. The gore was just an added (awesome) bonus. Here it's just guys with guns and irish guys with guns shooting zombies. I don't have that much to say about this, because the film doesn't offer very much to talk about. Terrible flick... the sad thing is if Romero makes another one I'll still grab it on release. I should learn my lesson from this...

James Bond 007: Licence To Kill (1989)

2010-03-11T03:10:00.000-08:00

Licence To Kill (1989)
Written by Richard Maibaum & Michael G. Wilson
Based upon the characters created by Ian Fleming
Directed by John Glen

Licence To Kill, more than twenty-years on, still stirs up quite a bit of controversy. The Living Daylights, whilst miles away from the camp tone of the Moore adventures still retained a very 'traditional Bond' feel. Licence To Kill is stripped down, it's an 80's revenge movie with James Bond in it.

That said, I consider it to be one of the best films in the series. It adapts several previously neglected elements to be found in Ian Fleming novels. The whole premise of the film comes from an event in the second Bond novel 'Live and Let Die' in which Felix Leiter is mauled by a shark. It departs from standard formula by having Bond go rogue - and for once he isn't working for 'Queen and Country' but portrays a man desperate for personal revenge.

The film is oft-criticised for not having a big, OTT villain. A drug dealer? Very dull for a Bond movie. But these detractors miss the point of Robert Davi's desestable Sanchez. He's not 'deliciously evil' - there's no joy to be had from him. He's a vile, drug dealing woman beating monster. This is Bond going up against a real bad-guy - he's not playing at World Domination or anything like that - he's real evil. Ruining lives just to line his own pocket... Davi plays the role brilliantly and I still say Sanchez is one of the best bad guys this franchise has given us.

Dalton continues to impress me as 007. He's a damaged man, deadly and ruthless when he has to be. He still reminds me of Flemings Bond (being ruthless and cold, but 'easily tipped into sentiment'). It's unfortunate that there was a six year break between this film and Goldeneye as I would have loved to have seen Dalton play the role at least once more. He is an incredible Bond, having in spades that element of danger that several of the actors to tackle the role have lacked. Damnit, fate. You robbed us.

Pam Bouvier is one of the things I dislike about the film. Well, not her so much, but her relationship with Bond. They've just met... they're on a boat arguing... then they're making out. Huh? I could accept it some of the Connery films, certainly from Moore or Brosnan... but Dalton? Nah, it doesn't fit with the approach the rest of the film takes. It's out of nowhere and feels unrealistic and was no doubt forced into the script as a 'Bond moment'. They don't seem willing to just let Daltons Bond be it's own thing... not completely anyway.

The character herelf is fine - but she'l never be on the 'Best Bond-Girl' list. Despite apparently being a strong-willed, competant woman she still goes to jelly around Bond.

It just seems to undo all the good work done in Daylights in actually building a believable romance in a Bond film (well... more believable than previously. At least they give it a few days.)

This review is short, but there isn't too much to say. I love Licence To Kill. I think it gives us a realistic, hard-edged Bond. There's little comfort to be given by familliar faces and for the first time in years the team behind the films did something different. People didn't buy into it - but I think the film speaks for itself. This is real Bond.

Alice In Wonderland (2010)

2010-03-10T03:11:00.000-08:00

Alice In Wonderland (2010)
Written by Linda Woolverton
Directed by Tim Burton

As most people know by now, this film is not an adaptation of Carroll's 'Alice's Adventures In Wonderland' or its' sequel 'Through The Looking Glass and What Alice Found There'. Instead it is an original story featuring the same characters that acts as a sequel to those stories.

I would say that the film is probably best viewed as a sequel to the animated Disney version of the story. And even then, it doesn't quite work.

The story has more in common with modern fantasy adventure films than it has with the classic novels. It's all about prophecy and champions and all that hullaballo that we see an awful lot of these days. Whilst an element of the insanity and nonsense of the original books is retained it is certainly much less prolific. Indeed one of the few elements of the book to survive in this film are the characters.

It picks up some thirteen years after Alice originally visited Wonderland - that little adventure now remembered as a dream - the only dream she ever has. Alice is an 'outsider' when it comes to regular society - she's different and people scoff at her. So she's pretty much your average semi-autobiographical Tim Burton character. Apart from that there's not too much to her character.

So some guy she doesn't like very much asks her to marry him, and she runs off - following a white rabbit. She falls into a rabbit hole and we get an almost complete replay of Disneys earlier version of the scene - in which Alice shrinks and grows in order to escape a room via a very small door. Anyway, it turns out she's been lured back to Wonderland (except she can't remember the last time she was there) in order to free the people of Underland (it's actual name) from the tyranny of the evil, big-headed Red Queen. She meets the doormouse and the Tweedles (Actually quite liked this interpretation of the Tweedles - kind of played by Matt Lucas of Little Britain fame - but mostly played by CGI. Lost of humerous talking and playful punching)

She also meets the Cheshire Cat, voiced by Stephen Fry. Brilliant, by the way. One of the few things about the film that I liked - give the man a medal. He's very different from the Cheshire Cat I'm used to, but it works on every level. We then move on to The Hatter and The March hare (both of whom have been given odd names). I enjoyed the March Hare - a very stereotypical (but very funny) OTT insane CGI character and vocal performance. Loved it, it was brilliant - he also provides the films only laughs.

Depp as Hatter leaves me cold. His Hatter is not the OTT Mad character that we're used to. Burton seems to be trying to add some depth and humanity to the character - but in doing so he loses what was so brilliant about the character in the first place. Sure he's a bit bonkers, and he changes accents as his personality switches... but he's not The Mad Hatter.

As I said the story is very hum-drum. We've seen dozens of these films about Destiny and Champions and Prophecy's as of late... and they've been better than this. Alice in Wonderland did not need to be this - it's meant to be fun and insane and lighthearted. I liked the Red-Queen, suitably insane... but overall that sense of insanity was missing from the film. Alice in Wonderland is meant to be bonkers...

The thing is Burton was born to make Wonderland. His filmography cries out for him to do it - but what he has ended up directing is a LOTR style fantasty film (without the epic) disguised as Alice in Wonderland. It's a shame... I didn't hate the film, I just did care.

On the Riker scale:

UNIMPRESSED RIKER

James Bond 007 Reviews

2010-03-03T04:21:00.000-08:00

The Books

Coming Soon

The Movies
Casino Royale (1954)
Dr. No - coming soon
From Russia With Love - coming soon
Goldfinger - coming soon
Thunderball - coming soon You
Only Live Twice - coming soon
Casino Royale (1967) - coming soon
On Her Majestys Secret Service - coming soon
Diamonds Are Forever - coming soon
Live and Let Die - coming soon
The Man with the Golden Gun - coming soon
The Spy Who Loved Me - coming soon
Moonraker - coming soon
For Your Eyes Only - coming soon
Octopussy - coming soon
Never Say Never Again - coming soon
A View to a Kill - coming soon
The Living Daylights
Licence To Kill
Goldeneye - coming soon
Tomorrow Never Dies - coming soon
The World Is Not Enough - coming soon
Die Another Day - coming soon
Casino Royale (2006)
Quantum Of Solace

Welcome!

2010-03-03T03:39:00.001-08:00

Welcome to Total Geek Stuff. This a place for me to record my thoughts and opinions on various pop culture stuff and to record my life as I live it.

Basically this little collection of Blogs is a place for me to put my thoughts out into the world, something I had better get used to doing as I'm about to become a Journalism Student.

For most of my 22 years I've been mad into movies. I love all kinds of movies, I'm a bit obsessed. So one function of this Blog is to give me an outlet to review films, both old and new. Whilst there are only a few up so far, I hope to get many more 'back-catalogue' reviews up in the near future, alongside reviews of more recent films.

I'm also a big reader and I particularly enjoy spy and science-fiction novels. Whilst the section of the site does not exist yet, I will also be posting reviews of these. There will also be a 'news' page reporting on the not-quite-up-to-date goings on within these subjects.

Finally we have the blog, which will more or less be me talking about Life, The Universe and Everything as well as recording any adventures I might get into.

So read on and enjoy...

LATEST MOVIE REVIEWS

A Nightmare On Elm Street (2010)
A Nightmare On Elm Street Franchise (1984-2003) - Parts 1 to 4 so far only.

MOVIE REVIEWS COMING SOON (or eventually)

The Ipcress File
Shutter Island
Kick Ass

James Bond 007: The Living Daylights (1987)

2010-03-02T11:24:00.000-08:00

The Living Daylights (1987)
Written by Richard Maibaum & Michael G. Wilson

Based upon the short story & characters by Ian Fleming
Directed by John Glen

For me, The Living Daylights injected life back into a franchise well past its prime. I found most of the Moore era to drag, whilst the lead became increasingly unconvincing in the title role. In my own opinion Moore never fit the role of 007 - but that's because in my head Bond isn't about light-hearted jokes and eye-brow raising. I understand that some people like that, and that's fine - but it's not my cup of tea. And by the time of A View To A Kill I found the nearly 60 year old Moore even more unconvincing.

A huge part in the reinvigoration of the franchise comes from Timothy Dalton, who was around 40 when he took the role. The producers had been after Dalton since the late 1960's, but Dalton felt he was too young at the time. I can see what they saw in him - Dalton, more than any other Bond up to that point was a real actor. The others either became, or were already established personalities. So I can instantly buy Dalton as James Bond because he doesn't come with much (if any) baggage.

t's also reported that Dalton read Fleming on set, in order to try and get a real handle on the Bond character. He wanted to bring Flemings Bond to life and as a huge fan of the original novels I really admire that, and appreciate it as a fan.

Aside from the usual pre-titles action sequence the film begins with a sequence straight out of Fleming. The film takes its title from a short story published some time after the author had passed away. This scene is what really sets this movie apart from the films produced from 1971 onwards. We have a darker, grittier Bond. He will kill, but doesn't like killing. Nor does he particularly like his job. Whilst Moore claimed to understand this about the character, his movies ultimately seem like happy-go-lucky adventuring.

The Living Daylights is a real cold war thriller. It's all about double-crosses and assassinations and two sides clashing over ideas and ideologies - it has the usual rousing action but with twists and turns we haven't seen in a while. I'm a big fan of the story, which manages to be very recognisably a Bond movie, but feel very different from the preceeding films. It's refreshing to see a serious thriller instead of a pure action-romp, which many of the earlier films became. Yes the villians may be low key (compared to others) and it may not have the epic scale of those other films - but it is more grounded in reality than those films. It's a shame that really Dalton was ahead of his time. The public in general did not seem ready for this more serious breed of Bond, which they have embraced in recent years. But TLD feels closer to Fleming than anything I've seen since OHMSS, and I love that. I really do.

The film isn't really a 'Dalton' film in the way we talk about them today. There are elements that hold over from the Moore era - largely due to the fact that the writers wrote it without a specific actor in mind. These contrast sharply with Daltons more serious portrayal, and so stick out like a sore thumb. However in some respects Daltons acting ability actually makse it easier to swallow these sillier aspects of the film - he manages to make everything seem real by refusing to play any of it for belly laughs.

The Bond of TLD seems both dangerous and human. It's a combination that we hadn't really seen up to that point - Connery was the suave, ruthless agent. But we didn't really see behind that mask. Lazenby demonstrated it a little in OHMSS, but due to his short tenure didn't take full advantage of the oppurtunity to flesh Bond out. Moore's Bond was always more of a personality than 'character' and Brosnan (in my opinion) whilst appearing very falliable at times, never captured the sense of danger. In my opinion Dalton (and now Craig) captures the 'real' James Bond excellently.

Ultimately I think TLD is an excellent film and Bond film. I would have liked to have seen it writter purely for Dalton, whilst the script was tailored for him after he was cast it was a bit of a rush job and things stayed that should not have. But it returns the Bond franchise to its early glory - it has a real story, real characters and a damn fine James Bond. One of the best.

Star Trek (2009)

2010-02-26T12:18:00.000-08:00

Star Trek (2009)
Written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman
Directed by J.J. Abrams

The thing is, I wasn't a huge Star Trek fan before this movie came out. I mean, yeah, when I was a kid I watched The Next Generation almost religiously when I was a kid. It was on after the Simpsons on BBC2. I caught some Original Series now and then, I was aware of who the characters were, and all that. But I wasn't that into it.

I wasn't excited at all about this flick, I had no intention of seeing it. However in all the hype I happened to catch a few original series episodes and I loved them. I got really into them - given that I couldn't afford the series sets at the time I got hold of the original cast movies and holy crap I loved every one of them. To different degrees. I know the common fan opinion is that certain ones suck and suck hard... but I dug each and every one of them. So when this came out, I went as soon as I could.

In my very rushed initiation into Star Trek fandom I had become a bit weary of this new movie. Re-casting... not a huge fan. And this flick is basically one giant re-cast. How can you have Kirk without The Shat and Spock without Nimoy? It didn't seem like it would work.

Here's the thing, it totally does because in each case Abrams seems to have gone the extra mile to cast people who are right for the roles. Everyone work, Quinto, Pine and Saldana all work brilliantly. Karl Urban is the only one who really does an impression of the character he is portraying - but it's such a good impression that he quickly became my favourite character in the flick.

Even Simon Pegg as Scotty is pretty good. A lot of people seem to be very convinced by his Scottish Accent... me... not so much. Maybe it's because I'm Scottish myself, but I hear the fakeness of the accent.

The film takes that which is essentially Star Trek and makes it modern. It's brilliantly done - when I watch it I feel like I'm watching something that is part of the franchise. But updated to suit modern tastes. It's been criticised for being an 'action movie' but there is a lot of character stuff in there. The whole movie is about the development of Kirk and Spock into the men we know and love. Bit like Casino Royale in that respect.

I can't talk about this flick without discussing the CGI. Basically, it's some of the best I've seen in a film ever. I always think CGI looks very fake, you can tell things have been altered. Here it's incorporated excellently. It feels real, good job there.

Bringing Nimoy in is an excellent touch. It seems to close up the past nicely and allow us to move on to the future. But it's not too heavy handed. It allows the past to be tied up, but doesn't intrude too much on both us and the characters moving forward.

I don't know what else to say about it. It's a brilliant film, and it's exactly what Star Trek needed to bring itself back from the brink. It's perfectly cast, perfectly executed. If for some reason you haven't seen it, do so now.

James Bond 007: Casino Royale (1954)

2010-02-26T04:20:00.001-08:00

Casino Royale (1954)
Written by Charlies Bennet and Anthony Ellis
Directed by William H. Brown Jr.

In 1954 James Bond made his screen debut in an American television production. Bond was almost a decade away from hitting the big-time and so this short TV-Movie doesn't contain many of the Bond-trappings we are familliar with today.

Bond himself is turned into an American. Fair enough - the programme was made for American audiences, and the Americanisation of the character would no doubt make him more relatable for viewers. I've got to say, as a bit of a Flemingist I don't like the change, but I can accept it for this hour-long mini-movie.

American actor Barry Nelson plays James 'Jimmy' Bond, American CIA Agent. Alongside British Secret Service ally Clarence Leiter (a Britified Felix Leiter) he attempts to beat the villianous Le Chiffre (a superb Peter Lorre) at Baccarat.

On the face of it it sounds pretty close to the original novel, but because of the short run-time certain changes are made. Vesper Lynd and Rene Mathis are combined into one character - Valerie Mathis. Also her apparent deception seems to be very up front - as opposed to the original novel and 2006 film version where it acts as a 'twist'. Bond is also very much aware that she seems to be working for the 'other side'. Ultimatly, though, she is a good guy working for the French Secret Service (as per Mathis is the original novel)

Vespers betrayal of Bond is one of the best things in the original novel - in fact Le Chiffre meets his end a fair bit before the end of the novel, with a good few chapters dedicated to the Bond/Vesper storyline. I have to say I miss it here - but there's no way they could have told that story on 1950's television.

I kinda like Nelson as the American Bond. It's not too far a cry from the cold, ruthless Bond of the novel. Sure he's American, and naturally something is lost in this alteration - he doesn't feel like any Bond prior (the novels) or since (the movies) but he works in this instance - if the show had spawned a series, as it was hoped to, then it probably wouldn't have worked. It's really a one-time deal - any more than that and it would have been too jarring.

I'm a big fan of Australian Michael Pate in the British-Leiter role. There's times where he actually reminds me of Bond, just little things like the way he delivers a line or the way he moves. Again - this is not the Leiter of the books, so it is probably best to try and get that out of your head. As adaptations of the literary characters, both Bond and Leiter are terrible - as characters in a one-off American TV thriller... they work. We'll let it slide.

Peter Lorre is awesome as Le Chiffre. He's a closer physical match than any of the actors to take on the role subsequently. He oozes a slimy, horrible quality, you love to hate him. Why was this guy never cast in an EON production? He was born to play a Bond-Baddie.

The film also dramatises my favourite little sequence from the novel, with a gun disguised as a cane jammed into his back Bond has to feint-faint in order to escape death. Love it, and it's done pretty well here. The climax sees the biggest departure from the novel - you couldn't have Bond having his goolies smashed on live-television, so he's tortured by other unpleasant means. In the end he puts an end to Le Chiffre's life himself and comforts the girl (totally different to the novel).

I like the film. It's decent, and to enjoy it you have to remember that at this point there was only one Bond novel and no other films. There wasn't really a Bond character yet, and so it's not Bond as we know it. Forget that and it's a fun hour. It does contain one very Bondanian exchange. You can imagine Connery delivering something similar...

Leiter: Aren't you the fellow who was shot?
Bond: No, I'm the fellow who was missed.

That is classic Bond right there. They need to slip that in to a new film somewhere.

I like it. That's all there is to say.

James Bond 007: Quantum Of Solace (2008)

2010-02-26T04:01:00.000-08:00

Quantum Of Solace (2006)

Written by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Paul Haggis
Directed by Marc Forster

So the team had knocked it outta the park with Casino Royale, and they decided they wanted to continue in the style of that film. Campbell declined an invitation to return so director Marc Forster, director of Monsters Ball (which won Halle Berrys' boobs an oscar.)

The film is also marketed as the first 'direct sequel' in the Bond franchise. (Okay - it's the first film to pick up moments after the previous, but From Russia With Love always felt very much like a sequel to Dr. No...)

So the film picks up where Casino Royale left off (kinda) with the pre-titles sequence. It's a car chase, and not a very exciting one. Maybe it's the lack of real music, maybe it's the fact that not very much happens or maybe it's the fact that in certain parts of the scene you can hardly tell what's going on. Anyway, Bond wins. Not the best pre-titles sequence the series has ever had - far from it. Not a fan. Anyway Bond parks up somewhere and hikes Mr. White out of his boot. Which is fine.

We then move on to a pretty bad ass main-titles sequence, with the WORST Bond theme I've ever heard... apart from Die Another Day. It's much better than DAD, but DAD was not only the worst Bond song but one of the worst songs in the history of ever. Madonna? Fuck that.

Dame Shirley Bassey has since released the original song that David Arnold (Bond composer since Tomorrow Never Dies) wrote for the flick. It was rejected - probably because it's a bit... traditional. It is 100% a Bond song, maybe Forster was worried it would make the movie seem old-fashioned. It's a fucking Bond movie - whilst some of the more tired traditions need to be ditched, or re-invented having a decent title song is not one of them.

The titles themselves are excellent. A lot of people don't like them, but they've got real energy and they sure look pretty.

I like Quantum Of Solace, but I don't think it's a perfect movie. Casino Royale worked because it allowed some real character development. Quantum seems more concerned with getting from scene to scene as quickly as possible. It's admirable that the team wanted to craft a tight thriller, but they forgot much of the character that made Casino Royale stand out. It's still there, but to a much lesser degree. Bons still has an arc, largely driven by the return of Mathis and the introduction of Camille, a woman who is consumed by her own quest for personal revenge.

The plot really begins with the following scene. M is nearly assassinated by a member of the organisation that Le Chiffre worked for - and it gives Bond a lead to begin tracking them down. It does seem that the film has hardly begun and we're right into it. We're hardly in and Bond has stacked up an impressive body-count. So we meet the bad guy, we meet the Bond girl and Bond does some country hopping.

It's gone back to formula pretty quickly, but Craig is impressive enough to elevate the proceedings to another level. He's still not playing 'typical' Bond. He's playing a very emotional, yet emotionally-stunted killing machine. The dark-humour that was present in Casino Royale is even more sparse here, as you would expect. But it's still there. Anyone who criticises Craigs' Bond for being humourless obviously hasn't watched his movies.

I often think that Craig is playing the Bond that Dalton wished he could have played. I think Dalton-Bond would have been even darker had the producers allowed him to escape the typical 'Bond trappings' as they have allowed Craigs. I like it. Even the Bond of the early novels is described as a machine by more than one individual.

The theme of personal revenge that we've seen before in Licence To Kill and Die Another Day comes back into play... except not really.

In Quantum Bond is not after personal revenge - he's just doing his job. He even states this repeatedly throughout the flick, but he's ignored by everyone who insist that he wants revenge for the events of Casino Royale. He does want revenge, but it is secondary to doing his job. Camille is interesting as she provides an interesting parallel to Bond - she is what Bond would become if he chose to follow that path.

Ultimately it's this that allows his character to move on.

It was good to see Mathis back, but I would prefer it had he survived. Brilliant character in the Casino Royale novel - would have liked to see him become a recurring character. His first scene is also one of the few scenes in the movie where things get to stop and breathe. Some of his lines are taken directly from the Casino Royale novel - love it.

Mathieu Amalric is a pretty interesting bad guy. He's certainly creepy looking, and he does will with what he's given. He's just not given that much - still you get the feeling that Greene is a thoroughly unpleasant dude. Not to be messed with. Le Chiffre's organisation, now called 'Quantum' is built up to almost SPECTRE like levels. Hopefully we're not done with them.

One of my biggest problems with the movie is the Agent Fields character. She's pretty pointless - she doesn't really add anything to the film, and is killed off before her character has even really been established. It seems she was shoe-horned into the script to give Bond a lay and be the stereotypical sacrificial lamb. There's little point in the character - the film would have been better without her.

This review seems pretty negative, but I actually greatly enjoy it. It's just easy to focus on the negatives in Quantum, largely because it follows one of my favourite Bond films ever. There's too little character and a bit too much action, the story hardly takes any time to breathe.

It's a good film. In my opinion it's better than most people give it credit for... but it's not an excellent film, which is what it really needed to be to live up to Casino Royale.

James Bond 007: Casino Royale (2006)

2010-02-25T08:50:00.000-08:00

Casino Royale (2006)

Written by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Paul Haggis
Directed by Martin Campbell

In retrospect it's easy to say that Casino Royale was the right direction for the franchise to take, but prior to its release (has it really been nearly four years) there seemed to be an awful lot of risks being taken.

Not least of these the casting of Daniel Craig, an excellent actor - anyone who's seen Road To Perdition or cult Brit-Gangster movie Layer Cake can attest to that - but one who, on paper, doesn't fit the role of Bond. When people think of Bond they think of the tall, dark handsome stranger - Craig is neither tall nor dark, and his handsomeness is very, very subjective.

But for all the risk that lay in casting Craig, the producers were actually taking a much bigger risk - they unceremoniously ditched the Forty-Plus years of continuity in favour of starting all over again.

Rebooting is a pretty popular trend in Hollywood today, and it was probably all kick-started by the critical success of Batman Begins, in fact Reboot seems to have become the new 'it-word' around Hollywood - So you want to make a film? A reboot you say? Greenlight that bitch!

There wasn't much hope for fans to cling to, except the fact that this movie would be based on Ian Fleming's first novel Casino Royale... and Martin Campbell, director of fan-fave Goldeneye would be returning to helm the flick.

The producers and Director were touting a 'back to basics' approach, which had some people scared. Many assumed we were going to see Bond totally stripped down into a character that barely resembled the one we were used to - a Bond without gadgets and one-liners? Surely that's not Bond?

In some respects they were right, Bond had become a bit of a joke. His place in cinema history would have ultimately been cemented by Die Another Day - a terrible, overblown sci-fi action film that continued to force the series into a specific little hole that the Pierce Brosnan era had dug for itself. Not that those films are terrible, and they were probably right for the time. Each of them seems like it's trying to 'Scream Bond' at the viewer, and ultimately it became too far removed from what Bond was.

Craig himself is perfectly cast. I'll admit when he was announced I didn't like it. I was too used to the popular concept of Bond. I got over it. I maintain that if Craig hadn't put the physical work in (and got a hair cut) he would be physically wrong for the role - but the dude did some serious work. He didn't just show up and pretend to be James Bond, he physically became the character.

And he is right. No, he perhaps does not fit the classic description of James Bond in the Fleming novels, nor the typical image of 'movie-Bond'. But he embodies the character, and that's a point that should be raised. There are hundreds of actors out there who 'look' like they could be Bond. Tall, dark and handsome (ie. Pierce Brosnan) but that doesn't mean they are right for the role. Personally, whilst he fit the role in terms of looks I never got any sense of 'my' Bond from Brosnan. Sure he had charm, he was good looking. Dude had some serious style, but for me he lacked any real threat. Just like Roger Moore, he didn't feel dangerous. Appearance isn't everything. But the fact is, the female reaction to Daniel Craig shows he is a good looking guy, just unconventionally so.

Craig's strenth is in his performance, he comes across as charming but ruthless. Cold but easily tipped into sentiment (as Bond is described in the Casino Royale novel) and above all willing to get the job done, no matter what the cost. He has presence and is incredibly physical - I believe this is a man who could kick my ass in a fight. That's important. Craig feels natural in the role instantly, and when it comes time for some actual drama he's able to put away his biceps and stretch his acting muscles. Dude is actually a brilliant actor. He makes you believe it.

Phew, now moving on from Craig. The movie itself, as we all know, adapts Ian Flemings first Bond novel (review coming soon) which had previously been adapted twice. The first time as an episode of American teleivision show 'Climax' in 1954 (review here) and again as a spoof of the Bond franchise in 1967 (review coming soon). The producers of the 'official series' gained the rights sometime in the late 1990's and after Die Another Day failed to impress Bond fans (although they certainly emptied their wallets for it) they decided the time was right to go back to the beginning.

According to director Campbell, they briefly considered doing the film as a period piece. Just my opinion, but that would have been awesome. Bond belongs in the cold war, but they chose not to. Okay, they made is modern. Many things had to be altered to accomodate this - but here's the thing. We live in a time of terror. We live in fear that someone is going to drop a bomb on us - just like in the cold war. It's the perfect time for the spy to return.

So instead of fighting Commie's, Bond battles terrorists. Fair enough. The first half of the film is pretty much an original story, but it's all building towards the second half which is a fairly faithful adaptation of Flemings' novel, save a few changes (Poker, not Baccarat). The story moves along at quite a pace, but finds plenty of time for character development and story alongisde the action. For the first time in a Bond film we really see the character develop.

The movie opens with a pretty sweet black and white scene (no gunbarrel) which dramatises Bonds first two kills, those which get him his Double-0 Licence. It's short and brutal, and in a way that immediately differentiates it from the few films preceeding it. During the nineties it became the norm to cram as much as possible into the pre-titles sequence, granted this habit goes back to much earlier days but it seemed to become excessive during the Brosnan era. The World Is Not Enough is particualarly guilty. They truly became mini-movies. Here it takes on the role of 'teaser', as it was in the early days.

We then move on to a badass free-running sequence. Whilst being almost all action it does somehow add to the character of Bond, we see that this Bond lacks finesse and rushes head-first into situations. It's the beginning of a character arc that will culminate in the closing moments of the movie.

The casino scenes themselves are enjoyable - they could have so easily become boring and repetative. They manage to build a genuine suspense around them. They also take frequent 'breaks', normally to include a small action scene or to push the plot along. The story has been drawn rather celverly to ensure the poker scenes do not outstay their welcome.

The torture scene is perfect, almost taken straight from the original novel. It works well on film. Mads Mikkelsen really makes you believe it. Thankfully the script sticks to the novel and doesn't have Le Chiffre relish in torture. It's strictly business, both actors do an excellent job here.

I'm not a huge fan of the climax. The sinking house in Venice doesn't really do it for me, and it feels like some of the over the top action that plagues You Only Live Twice, Diamonds Are Forever and much of the Moore and Brosnan eras. It doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the movie, and adds too many minutes to a pretty long film. Sticking closer to the novels ending would have been better (although it perhaps would have lacked the 'action' necessary in modern Hollywood), that said the coda to the flick is one of the best moments in any Bond film ever. Hell, in the history of cinema. It makes you want to stand up and cheer, no matter how many times you see it.

The other performances in the flick are solid, there isn't really a weak link. Dench portrays an 'M' very different from the character in the Brosnan era. She's tougher, hard as nails really. Closer to the Miles Messervy version of the character than the bean counter of Goldeneye. It works, since really this is a different M. Mads works wonders as Le Chiffre, although again he is totally different, physically, from the literary character. He creates a character who is utterly unlikable, is totally arrogant... and yet somehow you pity him for getting out of his depth. But you still want Bond to finish him... some acting job. French actress Eva Green does a good job, and is probably the most appealing and realistic Bond girl we've had in decades. The producers decided to buch their trend of casting big name Hollywood stars and it's worked for the better. She's very likable and believable - and the Bond/Vesper romance works completely, despite the rush.

Casino Royale is the best Bond film in a long time. Personally I hold it up amongst the incredible 'From Russia With Love' and 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service'. Awesome.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

2010-02-25T05:02:00.001-08:00

X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE (2009)
Written by Davif Benioff & Skip Woods
Directed by Gavin Hood

One thing I have to say about this flick before I get started on the review proper, is that much of the hype surrounding it is based on the fact that this is Wolverine's first solo flick. But... the X-Men trilogy was all about him anyway, which makes this outing much less special. So this is the film that answers all those questions about Wolverine that we were left asking post-X-trilogy. What led to him getting the adamantium skeleton, how old is he (raised in X-Men way back in 2000) - just who the hell is this guy? Let's start by looking at some of the key performances in the flick, really I'll be looking at Wolvie himself, Sabretooth and Stryker - as these are the three most important characters.

Wolverine: By this point, I think Jackman can pretty much turn Wolvie on and off at the drop of a hat. He's come to embody the character in the same way that Chris Reeve embodied Superman. He simply becomes the character. Jackman does a whole lot more brooding in this flick, as Wolvie is really having a pretty crap time. Basically, if you've seen X-Men or X-Men 3, you know what to expect. Unfortunately, we get nothing similar to Wolverine going berserk in the X-Mansion (X-Men 2) here. There's not much else to say, he gives the expected solid performance.

Sabretooth: I'm just gonna say it. Liev Schrieber is the best damn thing about this movie. Really. I hate to admit it, but I was totally opposed to his casting when I heard - because I wanted Tyler Mane. Let me set something straight, I hated Mane in the first X-Men. I hated Sabretooth in that movie. He went from being a fairly interesting character (comics) to being a virtually mute 'muscle-man' in the movie. His whole back story with Wolvie was glossed over, and the sequels never picked it back up.

But as much as I hated 'X-Men' Sabretooth... I hate re-casting. Just do not like it. However, I have to say in this case it was absolutely 100% the right thing to do. Schrieber owns the role, bringing to life a sadistic monster, alien to the mindless brute we saw in Singer's X-Men. He plays the role with such relish that you love the character almost as much as you despise him - thank god Hood decided to ignore continuity and give us an intelligent yet feral Sabretooth over the brick head of the original. The only problem is, due to the nature of the storyline it will be difficult to have Sabretooth return in any future sequels. The hell with continuity - I DON'T CARE. Just get Schrieber back.

Stryker: Here's where it goes wrong. Most X-Fans will remember Brian Cox's turn as Stryker in X-Men 2, which is generally regarded as pretty much the best film in the franchise. In my personal opinion, Cox is one of the best actors working today, and get's nowhere near the recognition he deserves. The man is brilliant.

Here, because the character is 20 years younger he's played by Danny Huston. And it just doesn't work. Huston is a fine actor, but this doesn't feel like the same character. And whilst that work well for Sabretooth, Stryker was one of the best things about X2. Cox gave an amazing performance, and his presence is missed here. I can understand casting a younger actor, but so much effort seems to have been spent making Huston appear older that you really question the point of this recast. Just put a little black through Cox's hair and there you have it. Having said that, Huston does a fine job with what he's given - and since Brian Cox was never going to be in this (despite his own wishes) he's a decent replacement (the character seems radically different here anyway

The Film: A mixed bag. I don't know where I would place it in the franchise... it certainly continues the tradition of a focus on Wolverine whilst the characters around him suffer. Here, many many characters feel wasted, such as: The Blob, Deadpool*, Gambit, Cyclops, Emma Frost, to name but a few. The thing is, with characters people love, such as these, the effort should really be made. They should be given their time to shine properly, or not at all. The story is a simple one of revenge, and to be honest it isn't that exciting. If you've seen X2, you don't really come out of this knowing that much more about Wolverine. The film really fails to deliver on it's promise of an Origin story, instead it feels like 'another Wolverine adventure'. Which is a shame. This coulda been something special. The only real high-point of the story is the struggle between Wolvie and Sabretooth - which only works because of Jackman's and Schrieber's performances. They keep you engaged. It's a real case of performances elevating the film to a greater level than it should be.

*Deadpool get's the worst treatment in this flick. I'm not even gonna talk about what happens to him. It's utter crap.

Turtles Forever

2010-02-24T04:57:00.001-08:00

TURTLES FOREVER (2009)
Written by Rob David, Matthew Drdek & Lloyd Goldfine
Directed by Roy Burdine and Lloyd Goldfine

Turtles Forever has been on one crazy journey. It had it's premier at SDCC and got pretty rave reviews - but since then it had kinda been stuck in limbo. The production company couldn't find a distributor for the DVD and plans for a limited theatrical release fell through AFTER a multitude of fans had bought their tickets.

Then IT happened. The sell of the TMNT to Nickelodeon. This already killed a live-action movie in development (presumably at WB - they released the 2007 CGI flick). And we got the news that uber kid-friendly Nick would be producing a new CG animated series and a new live action movie. However given that these are the people behind such televisual dross as The Penguins of Madagascar I haven't high hopes.

The sale basically meant that now only viacom could release Turtles Forever on DVD - if they could be bothered. So eventually they announced that this would see the light of day on TV - in an edited form. Better than nothing - and the word is that decent ratings may convince Nick to put it out on DVD, so fingers crossed.

So on to the movie itself. Everyone knows the basic story - the 1987 toon Turtles meet the 2K3 Toon Turtles. Along the way we see the two shows versions of Shredder, April and a host of other characters from both continuities. For someone of my age, the whole thing is a massive nostalgia blast. It's a hell of a lot of fun seeing the versions of the characters I grew up with back on the screen. While the 2K3 version is undoubtedly the superior show, in terms of plot, character and animation, there's a charm the '87 guys have that 2K3 just doesn't capture.

A lot of people were worried that bringing the two groups of Ninja Turtles together would feel contrived - but the plot device was right there from the beginning of the earlier cartoon - the Technodrome and it's transdimensional portal. So the story doesn't get bogged down with a lot of boring exposition. Transdimensional Portal - job done. There's not really much too the plot - it's more about how awesome it is to see the two versions of the characters sharing the screen, and their reactions to each other and the worlds they inhabit. There's a lot of very funny stuff in these observations - the story did not dissapoint.

One point, the Original Toon Turtles are just a bit too over the top. Yeah, compared to the 2K3 version the '87 toon was high camp, full of jokes etc. but watch those early episodes again. The Turtles are nowhere near as silly as they appear here, at least not in the first couple of seasons. I suppose the production company are trying to appeal more to what people THINK they remember about the old cartoon rather than giving an accurate representation. But that's a slight misstep. Because when I was kid I didn't think the cartoon was silly, I thought it was awesome, I thought the Turtles were awesome. But it's a minor point, because they keep it just on the right side of respectful - so they remain funny without tarnishing the original characters.

One of the main sources of debate amongst the fanbase was the casting of the '87 Turtles voices. Since all the old actors were union, the production company couldn't use them - so they turned to professional non-union voice actors who could impresonate the originals with a high degree of authenticity.

In most cases it works. Mike and Donny sound right most of the time, there are moments when the voices are... off... but they are minimal. While you can tell it's not the original guys, they're good enough that it's not an annoyance.

Raph is just about perfect, sounding exactly like the Raph I remember. I can't think of any moments where he was off - although perhaps I'm just misremembering. Shredder... well... at times he sounds kinda like '87 Shredder. At others he doesn't. Krang's seems to get worse as he goes along - starting out moderately like the Krang I remember and ending up sounding like a bad impression of the character.

But the worst is Leo. A lot has been made of this, and rightfully so. The new voice actor just doesn't sound a lick like the OT version of the character. He's the worst casting choice here - and if he was the best voice actor they could get for Leo, I shudder to think what the audition process was like.

The best bit of the flick for me though was seeing the original comic book Turtles come to life. Bad-ass Turtles who can and will kill. Their reactions to the other Turtles are incredible, the voices are perfect - just what I imagine in my head when erading the books. Don't know what else to say about them.

This film comes at the best time. 25 years of Turtles, with them off to pastures new. Nick - I don't think I'll follow them there - I think to be honest that for me, The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles begin with Issue 1 of the comic and end with this movie. And I'll miss them. But who knows, maybe Nick will do something worthwhile with the TMNT - maybe I'll be inticed back into their world. But for now,

Sayonara Dudes.

MOVIE REVIEWS

2010-02-24T04:49:00.000-08:00

#
007 (James Bond) reviews

A
Alice In Wonderland (2010)

B

C

D

E

F

G

H
Halloween (2007)
Halloween II (2009)

I

J

K

L

M

N
A Nightmare On Elm Street: The Whole Saga (1984-2010)

O

P

Q

R

S
Star Trek (2009)
Survival Of The Dead (2010)

T
Turtles Forever

U

V

W

X
X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Y

Z