Does New Nightmare count as a sequel?

[Leatherface]

Cravens films were good back in the day.

But ya know what's kinda funny? He never ever wanted A Nightmare On Elm Street to be a series or a franchise. The only reason why he did Dream Warriors was becuase he wanted to kill Freddy and tie up any loose ends ( By killing Nancy) and New Nightmare was just to give a new spin to his creation.

Yet when he did Scream he wanted it to be a series and look how awful and silly it got. Just something I noticed is all

[GL]

I just never got the big deal with Craven. A couple good films and suddenly he's being hailed this and that when I found the majority of his work just mediocre or slightly below. The most overrated of the 'Masters of Horror,' and that bit about not seeing a franchise possibility in this story is prime proof of that. It's easy to see where a franchise can come from with the storyline in here, it was just executed in the wrong way.

[HNT]

Wait a minute...

You don't se the big deal with Craven? Go back and take a look at Last House on the Left and The Hills Have Eyes. Those films are far more intense and genuinely frightening than anything produced by the other mainstream horror masters (with the possible exception of Romero if you count him).

In fact, while I agree that Craven has made some bad films in his day, I think his overall batting average is higher than almost anyone else in the genre. He has two undisputed mainstream series to his name, and some genuinely worthwhile underground films for the more hardcore horror enthusiast. Who else has a track record even close to that? Not even Carpenter can touch it.

[abraxas]

I agree HN , but then again he did make "Scream" (sorry there is no puke icon )

[Jen]

Apr 19, 2010 9:58:54 GMT -5 HNT said:

Wait a minute...

You don't se the big deal with Craven? Go back and take a look at Last House on the Left and The Hills Have Eyes. Those films are far more intense and genuinely frightening than anything produced by the other mainstream horror masters (with the possible exception of Romero if you count him).

In fact, while I agree that Craven has made some bad films in his day, I think his overall batting average is higher than almost anyone else in the genre. He has two undisputed mainstream series to his name, and some genuinely worthwhile underground films for the more hardcore horror enthusiast. Who else has a track record even close to that? Not even Carpenter can touch it.

A blessing for you sir.....I completely agree.

[CT]

Well said HNT!

And Abraxas, what's do bad about the first Scream?

[GL]

I'll give you Hills, but really, I found LHotL far, far less convincing than anything produced in the decade in terms of grittiness. I felt it was way to comedic and humorous to lend itself over to the serious tone (just take a look at those cops and tell me they belong in a serious horror film) and they completely underscore the whole film through their presence. The remake handles them so much better (and in fact, is such an improvement over the original in just about every category it's not even funny) it almost makes the original completely obsolete in terms of comparison between them.

The only good films Craven has done are Hills and The Serpent and the Rainbow. ANOES is good, but it belongs to the Halloween/Black Christmas group of not holding up to repeat viewings at all, and I did enjoy the last two Scream efforts, but after those, the other only film remotely close to being good is Shocker for it's pure 80s cheese, but on a technical standpoint, it doesn't come close. The rest of his work isn't worthwhile at all. He made his reputation but hasn't done anything since to deserve or even defend it. Carpenter is far more valuable than he is, and I'd even put Romero over Craven any day of the week, and you know how I feel about his work.

[HNT]

I guess I just have to disagree, man. LHOTL is one of the all time disturbing and gritty viewing experiences. I agree that the bumbling cops were out of place, but that simply does not change the facts that the sequences in the woods with Mary and Phyllis were as bleak as anything I've ever seen. I have never seen a film that so effectively but not exploitatively presented such a horriffic set of events. The fear, sadness, and ultimate surrender of the victims was palpable. The moment afterward where even the killers themselves realize how heinous what they have done is. Hell, the scene where Mari walks out into the water resigned to die, having completely given up hope actually made me cry the first time I saw it. It has none of the cheap jump takes, quick cutting, or other genre cliches that make these things less immediate and easier to deal with. That half hour or 45 minutes is simply just about the grittiest and most emotionally resonant thing I've ever seen in a genre film. I don't know that I've ever seen a film quite that immediate and gritty (well, maybe The Girl Next Door) and I damn sure know that if there is something out there grittier, I don't really think I want to see it.

I think that NOES, Scream, and Serpent and the RAinbow are all masterpieces. I think it is fair to compare NOES with Halloween (I prefer both to Black Christmas), but considering that Halloween is a crowning achievement in horror, the fact that you would compare them says only that NOES is one of the finest mainstream horror films ever made. You mention Shocker favorably, which I find amusing, because that film along with Deadly Friend and The Hills Have Eyes 2 are the three films that I think are Craven's weakest efforts. All of his other films are either excellent (those mentioned above) or at leat interesting and ambitious (The People Under the Stairs).

As for Romero, he is probably my favorite of the bunch so you won't get me to say anything bad about him. His best work stands out as the absolute pinnacle of horror filmmaking. He has more stinkers than Craven in his overall body of work, though. I don't think that Craven has ever made anything as unwatchable as Season of the Witch or There's Always Vanilla, for example.

[Jen]

I do think that the inclusion of the bumbling cops in LHOTL was a huge misstep in a film that is otherwise incredibly disturbing and realistic. I have mixed feelings about the film for that reason, I do think adding in the comic relief was such a mistake that it actually took away some of the impact of the film and was disrespectful to the subject matter. But there are individual moments that are as effective as any I have ever seen. And The Hills Have Eyes is still one of the most effective low budget horror films I have seen.

I find most of Craven's work at least watchable, I agree with HNT that NOES and The Serpent and the Rainbow are excellent. I also think New Nightmare is a very strong film, and its among my favorite sequels to any horror series. I love The People Under the Stairs, flaws and all. And I do really like Scream. Its hard to deny his influence, even if you aren't crazy about his films. Like Carpenter and Romero, he helped shape horror for many years.

[GL]

Truly, HNT, can't compete with your first paragraph any better. Nothing more needs to be said on the subject other than that.

However, what Jen brings up is that their presence undermines whatever grittyness those scenes develop. You're not supposed to be able to laugh in a film like this, it's supposed to be so straight-forward and in-your-face so as to punctuate the hideousness of what they've done, to make them more reprehensible and the triumph over them all the more enjoyable, but to be able to have moments of brevity and laughter amongst all that carnage lets the air of the balloon far too early for the remaining efforts to have any impact at all. There's times when being comedic works, but then there's times where it's not needed, and this was one of them.

ANOES is indeed mainstream, but that simply doesn't mean it's good. It's a great tool to get someone interested in the genre, but other than that, it's not all that great. I've become numb to it and it doesn't affect me anymore the way it used to back when I was first exposed to it (like Halloween and Black Christmas) so putting them together is like bundling the best slashers with which to introduce people to horror films. Shocker, I mentioned, is other worthwhile for it's cheesy qualities, which to me are quite enjoyable, nothing more. I never saw Deadly Friend, nor People Under the Stairs uncensored (I have, just off regular cable) so I can't comment on those, but I did find HHE2 somewhat decent, if only for it's body count which is the primary factor in slasher-watching to begin with so I guess I can't say it was a bad film.

[abraxas]

Well if you don't know whats so horrible about Scream I wont tell ya Seriously though its just plain "modern trendy horror crap" I saw it when it came out and have regretted it ever since, was expecting Tales from the Darkside and got Beverly Hills 90210.

HN, Last House is untouchable, the only movie that disturbed me more was "I Spit on your Grave"

The two police guys weren't intended for comic relief, as with all of Wes Craven's films they are comments on society at the time, the two characters of the cops were added to represent the ineffectually of law enforcement agencies, it had nothing to do with giving you a break as it were, which would have made everything else that occurred, and how the film was made; moot.

"Deadly Friend and The Hills Have Eyes 2"

Your right absolute garbage, I mean a dog dream sequence
The only thing worse then that was TCM2.

[Jen]

Apr 21, 2010 11:35:57 GMT -5 @abraxas said:

The two police guys weren't intended for comic relief, as with all of Wes Craven's films they are comments on society at the time, the two characters of the cops were added to represent the ineffectually of law enforcement agencies, it had nothing to do with giving you a break as it were, which would have made everything else that occurred, and how the film was made; moot.
.

Then it was one of the clumsiest attempts at a comment on society I have ever seen. There are other ways to show the incompetence of the police that would have fit more with the overall tone of the film. Unlike the violence, it wasn't a believable look at law enforcement, even in a small town.

[Leatherface]

The first Scream was good until the killer was revealed. That's my main issue with it but what I like about Craven is that he does stuff we haven't seen before like NOES for example. There really wasn't a killer like Freddy Krueger and there never will be same with Ghostface from Scream. What I mean by Ghostface is that Ghostface was a tribute to several movie killers that came before him like Michael Myers and Jason Voorhees. Granted I wouldn't put GF up there with Michael Myers but hewas a creative idea nonetheless. I can't say much about Last house on the Left or Hills Have Eyes since it's been many years since I've seen either film but I hope you all get what i mean about why Craven doesn't dserve the flak he gets sometimes. he comes up with great creative stories and killers that we haven't seen before. Back on the subject of New Nightmare, I recently watched it again and theres something about it I love. Maybe it's Freddys appearance or the story I dunno but it's a good and worthy installment to the franchise.

[abraxas]

"wasn't a believable look at law enforcement, even in a small town."

Well OJ went free after killing his wife

[HNT]

What does that have to do with anything? He was also charged, and brought to trial where he won a not guilty verdict. What to police have to do with any of that, unless it is your position that he was actually framed and that he didn't kill his wife? If you believe that he did, then the police have little to do with it all