A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET.

Believe it or not, I typically don't go to see the horror remakes of classic horror films in theater. The last one I think I saw in theater was Texas Chainsaw Massacre, which I think was one of the first. I actually only recently saw Rob Zombie's Halloween and the new Friday the 13th (the latter just a couple weeks ago). And they're all pretty much crap. But Freddy is different. Freddy isn't the silent, faceless killer like Michael Myers, Jason Vorhees, or Leatherface. No, he has a face... a burnt face, but a face... and quite a mouth. And while I'm not an uber-fan of the original series (I think I've maybe seen two of them all the way through, not counting Freddy vs. Jason), I do like the character of Freddy Krueger, as well as his portrayal by Robert Englund. So to hear that not only were they doing a remake, but that Englund wasn't going to return, I was worried. But then I heard that he was being replaced by Jackie Earle Haley, and I felt better. But were my new-found feelings justified?

The movie is essentially about a bunch of kids who start getting killed off in their dreams by a burnt man with knives on his fingers named Freddy Krueger (Jackie Earle Haley). The main bunch includes Nancy (Rooney Mara), Quentin (Kyle Gallner), Kris (Katie Cassidy), Jesse (Thomas Dekker), and Dean (Kellan Lutz). So why is Freddy after them? Well, let's just say it's a revenge story--he was once a gardener at a preschool accused of being a pedophile, and the parents took justice into their own hands by burning him alive.

That's pretty much the story. The whole movie is just Freddy going after the "kids" as they try to stay awake and figure out what the hell is going on. Story-wise, there's really not much there. If you know the original film(s), there should be no surprises as to Freddy's backstory, which is basically the whole mystery of the movie. So in other words, you're just there to see the kills and scares.

The scares are all jump scares. The music will get quiet, everything will pause for a moment, and then BAM, Freddy appears from nowhere accompanied by a jolt of music. Did they scare me? Sure... but they're still forced scares. It's not a "oh my God this is so creepy" kind of scare. It's not the kind of scary where I won't be able to sleep at night. As for the kills, there is surprisingly little blood in this movie. And whenever there's large amounts, it's typically super-CGI.

Which brings me to one of my first big complaints. The movie relied pretty strongly on CGI. What's pretty cool about the original is that everything is practical. When Freddy pushes his face through the wall in the original? Practical. In the remake? Purely CGI. When blood gushes onto a ceiling in the original? It looks real. In the remake? Super fake (not to mention much, much shorter in time and in less amount). I think this is one of the first times where a modern remake doesn't try to out-gore the original. And for a movie like this, that's kinda lame.

I'm not going to bother getting into the acting, except for one. Jackie Earle Haley was superb as Freddy. I mean, he's no Robert Englund, but if they aren't going to have Robert back, Jackie was the next best thing. He has the voice down, and he's absolutely vicious. He even, toward the end, had some of Freddy's jokes and puns, which he pulled off nicely. The only issue I had with Freddy was his look. I know they wanted to make him look like a more realistic burn victim, but it just came off as fake. Parts of his face was too smooth, too plastic looking, especially in comparison to the original, which had deep pits and ugly scars. And I'm pretty sure they even did CGI on part of his face (trying to pull off a semi-Two-Face kinda thing), but I can't be certain there. But if they did, that's totally lame.

The cinematography was actually really good, keeping the movie dream-like and stylized. It was hard to tell sometimes what was a dream and what was real. Though I particularly liked the pharmacy scene, where it flashed back and forth between the real and dream worlds. Also, there are some nice moments recreated from the original movie (like the bathtub scene, though it doesn't go on like it does in the original).

So it was pretty decent, especially for a classic horror remake. Freddy was perfectly cast since they couldn't get Robert Englund. The second half of the movie, I felt, was better than the first half. The first half focused strongly on little plot, dream sequences, and the Kris and Jesse characters. The second half was more on figuring out the mystery while focusing on Nancy and Quentin (and the dream sequences were cleverer, and some were straight from the original). Overall, the movie had some issues, from the minor and up, but it was still decent entertainment, mostly thanks to Jackie Earle Haley, who boosted it up a point or two in my ratings from what it could have been.


I Am McLovin!

SHUTTER ISLAND.

I've been pretty hyped for this movie for a while, mostly from a mystery/thriller standpoint more than a Scorsese standpoint (I'm by no means a Scorsese aficionado or anything). Now I'm just wondering if I went in with my expectations a bit too high. Shutter Island tells the story of U.S. Marshall Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his newly appointed partner, Chuck (Mark Ruffalo). They are sent to Shutter Island because it houses an asylum for the criminally insane, and one of its patience has just escaped. But everything isn't what it seems. The doctors, nurses, and orderlies, and security--including Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley), Dr. Naehring (Max Von Sydow), and Deputy Warden McPherson (John Carroll Lynch)--seem to be in on some kind of conspiracy, and it's up to Teddy to figure out what it is, to "blow the lid off this thing." The movie also stars the likes of Michelle Williams, Emily Mortimer, Patricia Clarkson, Jackie Earle Haley, Ted Levine, and Elias Koteas.

Even after I was already interested in the movie, I was told it had this epic twist to end all twists--one of the best twists in modern literature (since it's based on a book). Well, I wonder if the book is any different, because I was able to figure out the basic twist within the first 3 minutes of the movie. But just the basic part of it. All the other details, I was never able to figure out until they were revealed at the end. Interestingly enough, whenever there were clues to the ending, it felt like a giant flashing sign saying "look at me, I'm a clue!" But while I was easily able to discern the clues that would inevitably add up to the twist, I wasn't able to put them together and make sense of it before it was revealed. Of course, it all made sense afterward, but still. Oh, and they never explain the "rule of 4" thing, unless I just missed it. Because they find this letter that mentions the 'rule of 4' and 'who is 67'? They explain the latter, but never the former...

The acting, for the most part, was good. But there were times when I was like "OK, Leo, right now I'm just seeing Leo trying to play a cop." They weren't frequent, but they were there. And I worried about the movie at the beginning, wondering what I was getting myself into for 2+ hours, as it really wasn't very gripping, and it seemed to be exposition central.

But the movie does pick up after a while. What helps the movie the most are its visuals. Scorsese does good things to set the mood--the rain, the smoke, the shadows--and he runs with it. There's good cinematography here to really help with the atmosphere, not to mention some really great shots in general.

I also noticed, primarily towards the end, how much symbolism there was in the movie. There were a lot of fire and water motifs, as well as smoke. And the storm/rain acted as a great symbol to the chaos of the situation, as well as to the self-destruction of mankind.

I really don't know what else to say. It was really good, but not "OMG I need new pants" great. Maybe I had hyped myself up too much for it or something. I might not buy it when it comes out on DVD/Blu-Ray, but I'd definitely watch it again if I saw it on TV. Because, while it was good and the mystery engaging, I can't see myself sitting down wanting to watch it over and over again. Definitely see it in the theater, though. Just hope you don't get an audience like mine where a woman laughed at all the parts that were supposed to be disturbing and/or unsettling (or, with... like... the one jump-scare in the movie, calls out to the entire theater 'Oh, that scared me!'). So... yeah.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. Though I have to admit, the last line in the movie is excellent.)

WATCHMEN.

I’m sure a lot of you who have been here for a while know that I’m a pretty big Harry Potter fan. But I’m sure you’re asking “What does Harry Potter have to do with Watchmen?” I’m getting there. Let me try to say this in as succinct of a way as possible: I outta punch all you complaining Watchmen fanboys in your whiny, selfish, silly little faces.

Ahem.

Anyway. So Watchmen is about a bunch of things. During a time of an impending World War III, a man is murdered. His name is Edward Blake (Jeffrey Dean Morgan), also known as The Comedian. He’s a costumed hero. A powerless superhero, in other words. In fact, there are quite a few costumed heroes out there—or at least there were, before the Keene Act was put in place and made them illegal. Most are retired now, including Dan Dreiberg AKA Nite Owl II (Patrick Wilson), Laurie Jupiter AKA Silk Spectre II (Malin Akerman), and successful businessman Adrien Veidt AKA Ozymandias (Matthew Goode). But then there are two others on opposite ends of the spectrum. There’s deranged sociopath Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley), an anti-hero out to figure out who killed The Comedian and why, as well as Jon Osterman AKA Dr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup), a God-like being who works with the United States to stay a superpower. But Rorschach thinks somebody is hunting down costumed heroes, and more evidence continues to pile up to help his case.

The story is actually much more complicated than that, too. There are love triangles. There are incredible themes of love, loss, death, and nihilism. The story is so thick and heavy, you can’t pick up everything on the first go-around. I read the graphic novel myself, and I have to say they did a damn good job adapting it.

This brings me back to my opening point. How dare some fanboys complain about this adaptation. This movie is damn near panel-for-panel of the graphic novel. There are some obvious things that were cut or removed for time purposes, but none of it was anything major. The biggest thing actually cut was the newsstand/Black Freighter stuff, but even that’s being released separately on DVD and being integrated back into the film for a Director’s Cut. But none of that is crucial to plot—only themes. As for the changed ending—it’s like I’ve said before, it’s so much better than the comic’s. The comic came out of nowhere with its ending, while it had been building up a perfectly logical ending that the movie actually went for instead. And I think the story was better for it. It makes perfect sense. It works. It changes absolutely nothing about the outcome. Why complain? Not to mention (and this made me the happiest) that the last frame of the graphic novel is in the movie! It had its perfect ending.

Not to mention there are so many other miniscule details from the comic in the film that you only have to keep an eye out for, even if they’re never mentioned specifically (Laurie’s snow globe, for instance?). There was an amazing attention to detail. The panels came straight to the screen. Hell, they even integrated the doomsday clock, which isn't even in the actual story itself in the comic.

The music has been another complaint (by fans and non-fans alike), but I didn’t find fault here, either. I thought the music used fit almost every scene. I think Hallelujah during the sex scene was witty, but I might have gone for maybe a smoother cover version of the song instead. That’s the only real music complaint I had.

As for the acting, I thought it was good all around, with maybe one exception. Malin Ackerman as Laurie got a bit cheesy and poorly acted at times, especially near the beginning. She got a little more bearable later on. But then again, the character was similar in the comic. The biggest shout out, though, goes to Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach, who was freakin’ brilliant. They couldn’t have picked a better person for the role. He embodied the character fully and even brought emotion in his facial expressions (once you see his face) that layered the character even more than in the comic. He was perfect.

For visuals, I want to talk about CGI and action. To get the CGI out of the way first, Dr. Manhattan (blue penis and all) was done fantastically. In fact, the majority of the visual effects were done great. My only CGI problem was Veidt’s pet mutant cat, which, honestly, didn’t even need to be in the movie. That was just a wink for the fandom. As for the action, it was exciting. You really feel like you’re there with these people, pumping adrenaline, and beating the baddies. And it was stylish, though that’s to be expected from the guy who made 300. Overall, the entire movie was visually stunning on all fronts (except for maybe Richard Nixon and any of the aging prosthetics).

There really isn’t much more I want to say about the film. It was funny, sad, depressing, heart-breaking, action-packed, and faithful. It captured everything that the comic was, and it really is as close to a perfect adaptation of this previously declared unfilmable source material as anybody is ever going to get. And personally, I can’t wait to see the version that includes the Tales of the Black Freighter material put back in. And though I give it the following score, I’m not saying the film is perfect (it did have its faults). I’m just saying it’s pretty freakin’ close.

Royale With Cheese