Forgotten Classics: A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

Samuel Bayer and Fede Alvarez have one thing in common: they were both no-names who got the chance to direct big budget horror. Alvarez used his opportunity to bring new, gory life to Evil Dead, while Samuel… Samuel, Samuel, Samuel. Our buddy Samuel directed the A Nightmare on Elm Street remake. Let the record show: I think the original is just all right. Granted, it has been a few years since I last saw Wes Craven‘s most famous horror movie but I still feel like I can remember all the good parts (and the bad parts – namely Heather Langenkamp’s acting). But let’s not talk about Wes Craven, not right now anyway. Let’s talk about Samuel Bayer and the lovely little film he made a few years ago.

I just watched the new A Nightmare on Elm Street yesterday and boy, I knew I had a winner within the first ten minutes. It’s not ever script that opens a movie with dialogue like:

Girl: “Dreams aren’t real.”

Guy: “No, you don’t understand. This dream is real.”

Girl: “No, dreams aren’t real.”

That’s from the opening couple. You can tell, from witty dialogue like that (thank you for your script, Wesley Strick and Eric Heisserer… two people wrote this????) that these two must have a dynamite relationship. Rest assured, it isn’t just the script that’s top notch. Bayer is obviously one stellar director and has gathered a terrific cast. Look at how frightened actor Kellen Lutz appears in this scene:

He perfectly captures the look of someone who just realized he left the water running at home.
He perfectly captures the look of someone who just realized he left the water running at home.

Yes, that is how terrified people look in their nightmares… or when they realize there’s still eighty minutes left to go. Better get used to a lot of young teen (all played by people in their twenties) stares in this film. Really though, they have such classic material to work with. The original film has several memorable moments, with none more than the rise of Krueger’s glove from the bath tub. Rest assured – that scene is in the movie.

A-Nightmare-on-elm-street-2010-trailer-a-nightmare-on-elm-street-10674845-1366-768Rest assured, it has nothing to do with anything else. In the original, this sequence helped escalate the tension that Freddy was actively stalking the protagonist, Nancy. Tension and protagonists are so 1984.

In fact, this film does not feel the need to really introduce the audience to the main character until the 45 minute mark in the movie. That’s right: for the first three-quarters of an hour you are watching characters whose actions have no real consequence on the plot. Doesn’t that just sound engaging? Bayer must have mimicked the Rob Zombie approach when it came to protagonists: not needed because the killer is just SO interesting.

Let’s talk about Freddy Krueger then (played by Jackie Earle Haley…).

First off: what is the point of remakes? It’s a big question but I’m sure that most would agree that one such function is to update a film to the modern era. Sure, Freddy Krueger was scary but that was way back in 1984! Let’s have a look:

Hmmm, actually that doesn't hold up too badly.
Hmmm, actually that doesn’t hold up too badly.

Well, if that’s what they could do in 1984 then 2010 must be –

nightmareelmstreet12126…………………… it looks like the Cowardly Lion had a really bad shave.

Yes, 2010 also knows that make-up is a thing of the past and nothing looks more believable than computer graphics on a man’s face. Jackie Earle Haley is kind of a creepy guy, anyone who has seen Shutter Island can attest to that. Obviously the best thing to do with a talented actor is to cover him in CGI until nothing can be seen of his face or performance. Well, if his visual performance is anything to go on, how is his acting?

Before you ask, at least 90% of his dialogue is delivered in that same monotone, gravely voice. Acting is also for the 1980’s.

Another function of remakes can be to put a new spin on a character. In this case, the movie sets up Freddy Krueger as an innocent victim. A man wrongfully burned by over-zealous parents. This arguably makes for a better origin than this original roots. If Krueger were innocent than the movie could show how people always make the worst monsters, as well as expressing the dangers of mob justice. That is – until the final twenty minutes when the movie reveals that yes, Freddy still did it. Mob justice is the best justice, who needs the police? Great morals for today’s society.

If any out there remained unconvinced that this movie is worth checking out, allow me to share a favorite scene. Nancy is badly injured by Freddy and romantic hopeful, Quentin, rushes her to the hospital for care. There Nancy meets her mother and says she doesn’t want any sedation. The doctors prepare to sedate her anyway so Quentin rescues her from the hospital…. that’s the sequence. What bearing does it have on the story (other than extending it for five more minutes): Quentin steals some shots of adrenaline. Yes, because there are no other sources of energy out there – everyone knows you have to go to the hospital to receive a pick-me-up.

In the age of talented-but-unknown horror directors (like Adam Green and Ti West), it is great Samuel Bayer got the chance to leave his mark on such a famous horror franchise. He did to A Nightmare on Elm Street what Freddy Krueger did to his victims. Karma.

Double Dipping: Why No Backwards Compatibility is Bad for Console Gamers

I never thought I would say this but: Sony and Microsoft could learn a lot from Nintendo… at least when it comes to backwards compatibility. True, the Big N is totally lost when anything internet-oriented enters the table (why is Mario Kart 8 the only first-party game to possess online multiplayer?) but they understand the importance of allowing players to retain the past generation of gaming. The Xbox One and PlayStation 4 are out and, at the moment, the lack of backwards compatibility does not appear to be hindering hardware sales (stopped me from buying either). Yes, this is an issue that the public appears to have deemed as not very important. That said, it does matter: no backwards compatibility is a bad for the consumers and, in the long run, it is bad for the console industry as a whole.

Nintendo is the industry leader in terms of backwards compatibility. Sony comes in second, with Microsoft trailing as an indifferent third.
Nintendo is the industry leader in terms of backwards compatibility. Sony comes in second, with Microsoft trailing as an indifferent third.

When new consoles come out, it generates excitement (hype) in the consumer market. Companies need this excitement – it is what compels otherwise level-headed individuals to fork over hundreds of dollars for buggy just-released systems with no real game library to speak of. Excitement is generated by the NEW: NEW graphics, NEW gameplay, NEW experiences, NEW games. Part of that also used to mean a trade up: time to get rid of the old console and replace it with a new one. This encouraged brand loyalty as a person with a PlayStation 2, for example, could (initially) replace it by simply buying a PlayStation 3. All the old games still worked and less room was taken up on the shelf. Out with the old, in with the new.

Microsoft marketed the Xbox One as the "one" device you would need in your living room. Yet it isn't even the "one" device to play all of your Microsoft games.
Microsoft marketed the Xbox One as the “one” device you would need in your living room. Yet it isn’t even the “one” device to play all of your Microsoft games.

Without backwards compatibility, brand loyalty goes out the window (in theory, fanboys are oh so devoted.. for some reason). On the face of it – this sounds like an advantage for the consumer: everyone is now free to buy the new system that best suits their needs. Really, however, this is a tiny plus compared with all the drawbacks. The advantage shrinks even further when the two systems’ specifications are compared (they are remarkably similar in every way).

So you have to buy a new system… and if you still want to play older games… you’ll have to keep your old one. Sucks for space but that’s not a huge deal. There’s still great NEW games coming out. New games like this one:

LAST1And this one:

91jwO5PCReL._SL1500_And this one…

To be fair to the Master Chief Collection: four graphically remastered games is a pretty good deal.
To be fair to the Master Chief Collection: four graphically remastered games is a pretty good deal.

You see my point – there are a lot of re-releases coming out. Hey, that’s okay though as both the Xbox One and the PlayStation 4 possess killer exclusives that can’t be played anywhere else. Exclusives like Titanfall – wait, no, exclusives like Watch Dogs – nope, not that one either, exclusives like Wolfenstein… not that one. What is an exclusive for the new systems?

We have the critically panned Knack for the PS4.
We have the critically panned Knack for the PS4. Also Infamous: Second Son – to be fair.
And Killer Instinct for the Xbox One... a game that will ever be part of gaming's infamous misogyny.
And Killer Instinct for the Xbox One… a game that will ever be part of gaming’s infamous misogyny.

But obviously systems get more games the longer they’ve been out. This is not an article to bash the lack of exclusives. The problem with the re-releases is that they encourage double-dipping. Companies have found a way to charge $120 per game ($60 on the past-gen, $60 on the next-gen). Obviously, not every re-release is like this. To go back to Halo: the Master Chief Collection, some of those games are very old and packaging them all together is convenient for Halo fans. Let’s talk about Grand Theft Auto V though. That was one of the last great titles released for the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3. Now, it comes out for the next-gen with improved graphics:

Upgraded for all your Deer Hunter needs.
Upgraded for all your Deer Hunter needs.

This game is a recent release and, while a graphical update is nice… is it really another $60 nice? I’m sure many people will answer yes, of course it is (it’s NEW after all). For everyone else – what’s the big deal, right? So idiots spend another 60 bucks, who cares? You can still play it on the old consoles… until you can’t. Remember when Microsoft shut down Xbox Live on the original Xbox? Is there any reason to think that that won’t happen again – no. It has already happened this generation with Nintendo shutting down the online services for the Wii and DS. Microsoft and Sony will eventually pull the plug on online support for their old machines. It probably won’t happen within the first year or two – but it will happen.

That is very bad for the consumer… but why is it bad for Sony and Microsoft? Well, consoles have competition from another source. You think that graphics update to Grand Theft Auto V looks nice? Well, check this out:

GTA-V-Vs-GTA-IV-PC-Version-Visual-Comparison

Consoles cannot win against PCs, at least as far as graphics are concerned. It is simply much easier to upgrade the graphics card in a computer. You know another advantage of PCs: you can play games you bought eight years ago on a new PC. In the backwards compatibility arena, computers are killing it. They have the power, the games, the gameplay.

But they’re more complicated!

Yes for now but consider this:

This doesn't look much more simple...
This doesn’t look much more simple…
... than this.
… than this.

Consoles are losing the advantages of being consoles, without gaining the advantages of PCs. The industry will have to adapt or die, and no backwards compatibility is a move in the wrong direction.

PC gaming giant, Valve, is poised to enter the console race. This could be the largest newcomer since Sony unveiled the PlayStation.
PC gaming giant, Valve, is poised to enter the console race. This could be the largest newcomer since Sony unveiled the original PlayStation.

The F*ck am I Watching? We're Back! A Dinosaur's Story

Everyone has that movie – you know the one I’m talking about. You watched it over and over again as a kid, loving every minute of it… and then you grew up. Said movie disappeared, either sold at a yard sale or recorded over (talking some VHS nonsense here) or just plain lost. Years passed and you forgot that this piece of your childhood ever existed, until one day it’s mentioned at a party or you see a clip on Youtube or flipping channels. Then it’s a joyful act of rediscovery! Right?

… Not always.

Stay dead, Street Sharks! You're the poor man's Ninja Turtles... and that is saying something right now.
Stay dead, Street Sharks! You’re the poor man’s Ninja Turtles… and that is saying something right now.

We’re Back! A Dinosaur’s Story was that type of movie for me. I loved it to pieces as a kid. This is the movie that came out in 1993 alongside Jurassic Park… but was more for the kiddies (not that we all didn’t watch Jurassic Park anyway – cause f*ck the police). As a young boy, I couldn’t get enough of this movie. There was a talking T-Rex, hot dog-eating dinosaurs, a wish radio… an evil screw-eyed professor (with an actual screw for an eye)… dancing dinosaurs on the streets of New York…

The movie also features this. I believe it speaks for itself.
The movie also features this. I believe it speaks for itself.

What the f*ck am I watching?

Yes, We’re Back! is incredibly creative, which is probably one of the things that made it so appealing to children – that and dinosaurs. Watching the film today, however, is a different experience all together. Is it still creative? Sure – but let’s get to the plot.

Okay so the movie opens with young birds in a nest. One of the birds is getting picked on by his siblings and wants to leave the nest (he’s going to run away and join the circus – a logical career move for a bird). Out he goes onto a branch and, regrettably, it’s not long before he topples off. But that’s okay because he’s saved by Rex (voiced by none other than John Goodman), a dinosaur who’s playing golf.

What?

He's one white dinosaur.
He’s one white dinosaur.

No no, we’re nowhere near strange yet. Anyway, so John Goodrex has some advice for the would-be run away. He tells him the story of another little boy who ran away to join the circus. But of course, he can’t start the story without explaining a couple of big questions – how did he get to present day New York and why is he so smart?

Are you ready for this?

Okay, so Rex was your average dumb T-Rex. He ran, ate other dinosaurs – all that good jazz. Then his alien named Vorb (voiced by Jay Leno) comes down and snatches him up into this flying ship thing. Vorb gives him “Brain Grain,” a breakfast cereal designed to make him smarter! It also makes him look more cuddly and gives him the ability to talk! Shortly thereafter, Rex is introduced to the other dinosaurs who have been genetically modified. There’s a triceratops, a pterodactyl, and a… an… a duck-billed thing (probably an edmontosaurus). They’ve also been given Brain Grain and now spend their days eating hot dogs… cause why not?

Anyway, that’s the basic introduction. One thing I will mention now (that I never noticed as a kid) is how much the pterodactyl hits on Rex. She seriously has several bizarre lines and seems to get off on him checking out her “wingspan.” Now, I wasn’t there in the days of the dinosaur but… pretty sure the Bible says something against inter-dinosaur romance – check Leviticus.

No means no, regardless of species involved.
No means no, regardless of species involved.

The Dinosaurs are introduced to Captain Neweyes (voiced by Walter Cronkite – not kidding), the man who invented the Brain Grain and the time-traveling flying spaceship that they’re all on. Captain Neweyes has also invented a “wish radio” that he uses to see what people want. What people want in the 90s is apparently dinosaurs (a way to solve world hunger would have been great too – Captain Neweyes is kind of a jerk when you think about it).

This man could stop Hitler if he wanted to.
This man could stop Hitler if he wanted to.

So, the Captain’s plan: bring dinosaurs to modern day New York and then air-drop them into the city. Tell them nothing about the world besides that they have to go to the Museum of Natural History and to avoid his evil brother, Professor Screweyes (a time traveler who uses his amazing technology to run a circus). Sounds like a great plan, what could go wrong?

Oh, right… dinosaurs in New York. Of course, the dinos meet up with two kids who want to go to the circus and get sidetracked with Professor Screweyes. The Professor possesses his own “Brain Drain” that can de-evolve people… why is he just running a circus again?

I won’t spoil the ending… let’s just say it involves a feast for crows.

See what I did there?
See what I did there?

What a weird movie. Seriously, I can understand an animated movie about dinosaurs. Who doesn’t love The Land Before Time? But… really? Why… everything else?

Turns out this movie is based off a book (so it wasn’t entirely the crazed director’s ideas), but the movie adds in characters like Captain Neweyes and Professor Screweyes.

To be fair, it’s not just the plot that’s strange. The cast is a bizarre collection too. At the time, John Goodman had never done animation before, and Walter Cronkite was never known for voice acting. Oh, Julia Child is in this too as the museum curator. Again: why not?

Fun fact: during the parade scene, there is numerous advertising for Jurassic Park. Parents objected to the material and were promptly ignored.
Fun fact: during the parade scene, there is numerous advertising for Jurassic Park. Parents objected to the material and were promptly ignored.

Is the movie good? It’s… hard to say. You’ll be entertained, I can guarantee that. It sure is creative. If one can ignore all the problems (and there are many) that come with time travel, there is fun to be had. It is an odd movie… a really odd movie, but one with a heart, even if that heart is lusting for inter-dinosaur romance.

What the f*ck am I watching: We’re Back! A Dinosaur’s Story.

OH – BEST PART: the whole thing is on Youtube. Enjoy!