Fable Anniversary Review- Saving The World, One Chicken Punt At A Time

You want to pass through me and gorge yourself on my treasures? Get fat first. That is the message delivered to you by one of Fable Anniversary's so called 'Demon Doors,' magical doors created long before the time during which the game takes place, made to conceal the existence of various treasures. Approach the door in Barrow Fields and this is the message with which you are met:

"Oh no, not again. Another bony adventurer seeking to plunder my riches. I'm not interested in your meager frame. Get some meat on you! I want beefy! Blubbery! Plump! Porcine! Stop being a slave to public perception, and treat yourself. Pies, meat, beer, anything; but lots of it! Eat yourself large, and you'll be welcome here!"

If You Liked The Original, Don't Overlook Fable Anniversary

Update: REVIEW now available

Fable Anniversary, an HD remake of Lionhead's now ten year old Xbox original adventure/rpg hybrid Fable will be available for purchase both at retail and online this Tuesday (at least in North America) for $39.99. The question you may be asking yourself is, is it worth the asking price? Considering the fact that this is a remake of an already existing game, that question seems entirely warranted and valid. Let's consider the facts and perhaps together we will answer this question for you.

The first thing anyone who has played the original will notice upon first seeing Fable Anniversary in action is of course the updated visual fidelity. Lionhead, tasked with bringing Fable to the modern era, utilized the Unreal 3 engine and employed 100 artists with the aim of totally redoing the textures, lighting and special effects. Widescreen support was added, a very important upgrade since the original Fable only supported a 4:3 aspect ratio. This might not sound like much in 2014 but pop in the original Fable and you'll be met with black bars on both sides of the image, which are now thankfully removed as the native aspect ratio has been updated to the industry standard, widescreen enabled 16:9.

In addition to the aforementioned textures and lighting, draw distances were improved, as were the particle effects, shadows and water effects. All of this has resulted in a much prettier version of the original game. It still retains the visual style and flair of the original while updating the visual offerings to a level more suitable for consumption in the modern era.

One of the strengths of the original game was the sound, especially the musical score. At the time, this high point was held back by audio compression as well as being limited to two channel (stereo) audio. Fast forward ten years and the original score that was so beloved by the fans is not only still intact but allowed to shine, freed from the chains of compressed, two channel audio. For the first time, fans of the Fable will be able to play the game they love with no limits placed on the aural experience. Multi channel surround sound and uncompressed audio are now a part of the Fable experience.

New Strider Game Announced!!!

Capcom has announced that they are publishing a new Strider game for both current and next gen Microsoft/Sony consoles, as well as the PC. The game, which is being developed by Double Helix (the development studio currently working on the new Killer Instinct game for the Xbox One) will be released in "early 2014." Click HERE to read all about it, as well as to look at additional screenshots/video not posted below.

Here is a quick comparison between the old and new (click the link above to see several more screenshots of the game in action):

Strider For the Sega Genesis

Strider in 2014

Gameplay footage:

I cannot wait to jump back into the boots of the ninja Hiryu....2014 cannot come soon enough!

Halo: Combat Evolved Remake In The Works

An article (http://www.joystiq.com/2011/02/04/halo-combat-evolved-hd/) over at Joystiq is saying that an HD Remake of Halo 1 is in the works for this year.

A Nightmare On Elm Street 2010 Remake Review

Note: This review is going to structured a bit differently (okay, a lot differently) than one would expect a movie review to be structured. I am going to compare my pre-viewing assessment of this film with my post-viewing assessment to see how they compare, and then I will offer a list of pros/cons and good sized summation, both pertaining directly to this film.

Anyone reading this, please, if you wish, let me know how this novel (to me, at least) format works for you compared to a more traditional reivew, and of course, feel free to agree or disagree with my assessment of this film.

Initial Thoughts on the ANOES Remake: How Accurate was I?

Well, I have now seen the A Nightmare on Elm Street remake. I did not spend any money on it, but I got the chance to see it free and so I jumped at it. I had struggled with my resolve not to give in and pay to see this (I didn't want to support it, or the general remake trend) and I am sad to say my resolve was faltering, but, serendipitously, I got the chance to see it for free, and so, as I already stated, I jumped at that chance, and have now, for better or for worse (we'll soon find that out muahahaha....lame, I know.....muaahahah- okay, I'll stop) seen the movie.

So, what I am going to do here is post the impressions I'd had of the remake going in, based upon the large number of reviews and tons of viewer feedback that I had read online (and also good old fashioned inference based upon previous works of the people involved and the current state of American horror), and then after each point, add my present standing on that point, since I have now seen the movie.

And so, what we will find out is how accurate I was in my initial (negative) assessments of the merits (or lack thereof) of this new 2010 version of a 1984 genre classic.

Note: I will put the original statements in black, and my accuracy assessments in red.

1) Freddy's look. I know that's more realistic, but he lost the demonic look that I loved. However, I am willing to admit a part of this is likely nostalgia.

Ugh.......

I still hated it at first, but by the end I merely disliked it.....strongly. Okay, perhaps mildly. If they do make 2 more sequels, and I do see them, I suppose by the end of it I'll have gotten to the point where his new face is at least no longer distracting.

2) HIS VOICE!!Freddy sounded demonic. Now he sounds like a breathless Rocky Balboa. Not scary in the least and this alone is a huge dealbreaker for me.

Absolutely fucking horrible. A slow talking, mouth breathing, Dark Knight sound alike. No, just....no. I refuse to budge on this point even a millimetre. Oh, wait, save for one redeeming quality. The laugh. Haley approximated Enlgund's exquisite balance between sinister and maniacal and he did so without trying too hard to sound like Englund. In doing so, I'd say he did a great job with the laugh. It immediately called to mid Englund's, as it was similar, but not in a way that made you nostalgic nor angry for him trying to copy it. Well done on that one!

3) Based upon several reviews and viewer feedback it seems as though the ''scares'' were pretty much the loud BAM sound followed by a sudden appearance of Freddy. I HATE the overuse of jump scares. It's cheap, cheesy, manipulative and indicative of the fact that these guys are creatively bankrupt and don't understand shit about horror or what Craven did with the original ANOES.

This wasn't quite as bad as I expected, but still bad and indicative of the things I said it would be. It wasn't AS bad, but definitely, definitely over relied upon.

4) I read that the nightmare scenes are always telegraphed via musical and aesthetic changes. Part of what I loved with the original series is you often weren't immediately aware that you were in 'dream world' if you will. There were some surprises. Some.....unknown. Some...suspense.

Every single one of them, save for maybe one (can't recall for sure) was telegraphed via aesthetic changes, as I said. The dream sequences themselves were also unimaginative and unoriginal.

5) The footage I have seen features a very wooden Nancy. Langenkamp might not win any awards but at least she had expression and depth.

She actually wasn't that bad. Not great, but certainly not horrible, and the way her character was handled sort of approached (but did not match) what Craven did with his Nancy. One of the better elements of the film, I thought.

6) The people involved do it solely for money, and they are hacks. They didn't even care to try and involve any of the original people. No Craven, no Saxon, no Lagenkamp and no Englund.

Now, this is a 'reboot' so this makes some sense. Well, Englund could have played Krueger but the rest make sense. Except for one: Craven. They didn't bother to get input from the one man who truly understood Krueger, and the one man who had vision. Idiots.

Not much to add here, although I guess I can say that, while I would never pick Bayer to direct another one, his direction wasn't the main issue here.

7) I don't want to support this remake bullshit. They fucked up FF13, they destroyed Halloween, the are fucking up Krueger (although I can't fully say this until I see it, which of course I'll end up doing at some point, let's be real, but hopefully for free after my brother buys the DVD) and they have completely destroyed so many others. Black Christmas, Prom Night, Psycho (not that I'm a huge fan of the original), Dawn of the Dead, etc etc etc

Saw it free, so I can still feel that I did not betray my sensibilities on this one.

8) WHERE THE FUCK IS THE ORIGINAL SCORE?? It's the best damn horror score EVER.

True, and a damn shame. The only element that was present from it was the little piano melody, but it only made it into the film for a brief moment or two.

9) CGI. The clip of Freddy coming out the wall looks so fucking fake now, whereas the budget shot with no CGI from 1984 still looks better today.

Absolutely true. In fact, the few scenes that they did copy from the original both felt out of place (they were just haphazardly thrown in) and sucked in this one. I won't describe them all for the sake of brevity, but the scene in the original with Tina in the bodybag and the ensuing boiler room scene were fucking destroyed in the new one with a limp, shitty, weak ass approximation of only half of the original scene, and even then, it sucked.

The one good one was the bedroom scene involving Kris (Tina) and whatever his name was (Rod) which I thought actually matched the original. They did i a bit differently, and I'd say they did really well with it. The few omissions where made up for by the new way in which Kris/Tina is physically manipulated by Freddy in that small space. Evocative of a classic Poltergeist scene, without feeling like a ripoff of either that or the NOES scene from which it drew inspir- well, copied. Kudos to them on this one.

10) They all know what's going on way too early, and they come to know it way too easily. The original had a slow, suspenseful buildup where Nancy and co. tried to piece together what was happening.

Yes and no. They don't get the whole story right away. But the whole ''let's piece together this mystery'' thing starts like 5 minutes in to the movie, which does destroy a lot of the tension and pacing.

Maybe I'll end up liking it, but I doubt it. The guys behind the project just don't see horror the way I do, and I don't think I'll enjoy what they did to ANOES. Still, I admit I may be wrong. There's .000003% chance of it :)

Well, I don't love it, but, surprisingly, I don't hate it. It's....okay. Ho hum. Here are just a few (again, for the sake of brevity) of the hits and misses that I have not mentioned thus far:

Misses:

1) Haley's Freddy not only looked and sounded worse, he moved in a more boring manner, and he did not do anything creative. He stalked his victims in a slow and linear fashion, typical of more mundane slasher villains. His mannerisms and actions were just bland, and Haley brought nothing new, save for one small tick, a swishing sort of thing he did with the blades, conveying Freddy's anxiousness and desire to slice and dice (this was a decent little tic, I thought). Other than that, nothing, and he lost so much.

2) He lost that 1950's spaghetti western swagger, the running (he never ran once, for fuck's sake he's not Jason or Michael!), the toying with his victims in ways other than the slow approach/oh I'm gone/boo mechanic so often utilized in this one (remember the amazing alley scene, or the jail scene with Rod? Ya, none of that) and of course the voice. Another thing that sucked where his lines, but that was the damn writers' fault. Man, for the most part, they wrote some shitty dialogue for everyone, not just Haley, but his especially....ugh. And they stole lines straight from Nightmare 4 and FvsJ, but they were shitty and out of place lines.

3) The kills were terribly uncreative. The best one was one lifted directly from the original. That right there should tell you something.

4) They did not develop the character of Nancy's mother at all, nor did they really develop her relationship with her daughter. Thus, they lost one of the strongest and central elements of the original film: the mother daughter relationship, and how the dynamic shifted as the film progressed, so that by the climax and subsequent denouement, Nancy had become the parent in the relationship, and consequently, had learned to take care of herself.

This not only set up the final confrontation with Krueger, but it was also a statement regarding the changes to the so called ''nuclear'' family that had been rapidly progressing during that decade. Nancy's father was nowhere to be seen (not a statement, I assure you).

5) The pacing. Much too quick, and far too many dream sequences/too much Freddy.

Hits:

1) The supporting cast wasn't that bad. Some rough moments here and there, but really, not that bad.

2) The last 15 minutes or so, up until the HORRIBLE last 2 minutes, were quite good, and in those 12-15 minutes, I saw some actual damn passion, or at least, some glimpses of it, a bit of creativity, and hell, even a genuinely creepy couple of moments. This, Kris' (Tina's) bedroom scene (although the preceding outdoor sequence SUCKED SO HARD compared to the amazing alley sequence in the original) and a few other moments were pretty good.

3) They did NOT make Freddy innocent, as I had heard they had considered doing (and had in fact even done, in early script drafts). This is crucial. You make pre-dead Freddy an innocent victim, you make Freddy Krueger a sympathetic character. You make him sympathetic, suddenly you feel sad for him rather than afraid of him.

4) Freddy had a few genuinely good lines amidst his mediocre and downright bad ones. Of course, one of his very best was stolen from Nightmare 1 (and the still managed to miss a word) but a few of the new ones were good, and creepy).

5) Very good one here: Freddy was menacing, dark, and serious. No clowning around here, and that's how I like him. He toys with his victims, but in a deliberately malicious, evil way. No flying around on a broomstick in a witch costume shouting out ''I'll get you my pretty, and your little dog, too!'' like in Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare. While that was an admittedly funny and fun, campy moment from a cheesy, campy, fun (but not scary) 5th sequel, I'm very glad they avoided going in that direction for this film. This was the ANOES 1, 2 and 7 Krueger, and that's good..

6) Along the same lines as the last point, the entire movie maintained a serious tone, or at least tried to (some of the shitty lines nearly killed it). It was dark and dreary, and almost 100% sans jokes, which was great. The teens weren't partying it up and telling stupid jokes, and they weren't even heavily stereotyped. Both of these things were refreshing, and demonstrated that the producers and Sam Bayer had at least enough knowledge of the series to realize that this is not your typical ''kill the sluts and drug users and have your virgin be your ''final girl'' slasher movie.

Summation:Old comment: So, a note to Platinum Dunes: I want my fucking childhood back, you assholes. I don't recall putting it on the market, so I have no idea how you fuckers bought and sold it, but I want it back. Now, give it back, or I'll......I'll......kil- no, no, that's not it......I'll, I'll, beat- no, no, that's not it either.....I'll I'll.....su-no, no that's not it.....Ah, Hell. I'll keep blogging about you!!! And you don't want that, trust me. I have a HUGE audience and immeasurable influence. I can get people to boycott your ass, and let me tell you, you'd lose at least $23.00. You want to test me? You want to test me motherfuckers? Go ahead, if you think it's worth $23.00, go right the fuck ahead, you childhood stompin fart brains!!!!

New Comment: Well, Platinum Dunes did not completely destroy this movie, but they truly and honestly made a movie that need not exist. It did not contribute to the series in any meaningful way, it will never be heralded as a genre classic, it was almost entirely unable to upstage the 26 year old original, and in fact, even (mostly) failed when it tried to directly copy it.

However, they did treat Freddy with the right idea, keeping him serious and sinister, and at least the scenes all didn't take place in the light of day. I also thought that the introduction of micronaps made for a great, and logical plot device, which served to increase the tension (what little of it there was) although they predictably fucked up the science of it somewhat, and of course, they also mostly used it for jump scares.....*sigh*.

The Nightmare on Elm Street Remake is like a glossed up version of the original classic with most of the originality and nuance removed, and in is place was too quick of a pace and too much standard genre fare. It was also rushed, as I already alluded to several times, and crucial elements like Nancy's absent (in different ways) parental influences were completely absent, which took away from the significance of her eventual resilience and finding the courage to fight back (which actually sucked in this one compared to the original). Also, the kills were mediocre and not particularly interesting , horrifying, or visually arresting, save for one ( of course a copy from ANOES 1) and Freddy was a heavy breathing, slow talking, almost lisping weirdo who exuded no real personality. Not like Englund's Freddy did.

Still, the bones of a Nightmare film will, or at leatst, shold, always make for a good horror story, and I guess I can say that, technically, this one was probably better than The Dream Child and Freddy's Dead, although those ones at least had campiness to them that lends itself to repeat viewing over the years. This one, on the other hand, lacks both that factor AND the impact and resonance of the perfect mixture of deeper thematic undertones and excellent, nuanced horror, leading to an average at best Nightmare flick, and a pretty good horror flick in general.

I can say this: I enjoyed this more than any other horror movie I have seen in the last few months, although even my love for all things Freddy could not elevate this higher than the last few greats I have seen in the last year or so, both coming out of France: Haute Tension (High Tension) and A L' Interiur (Inside).

Both of those are absolutely excellent horror films that I recommend anyone reading this who loves horror to try and get their hands on and eyes in front of, although they are VERY brutal films that will require a strong disposition and a strong, healthy heart to be able to handle literally an hour and a half of solid tension and suspense. Those two movies are frightening and disturbing, and I absolutely loved them. They were the two best horror films I have seen since the seminal horror film coming out of the UK in 2006, the absolutely effective The Descent.

I will be looking towards France for the next while to get my horror fix, as this movie, while perhaps better than most of the other American ones I have seen as of late (thanks mostly to the characters created by Wes Craven and not much of anything these guys did themselves, save for a select few cool scenes) just will not cut it for me.

I guess they can be commended for making a good horror film at a time where good American horror films are few and far between, and this movie is probably their best remake, which isn't saying much, since, save for the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake (which might actually be better than this one, but I haven't seen it since 2003, so I need to rewatch it before making a verdict on that one) the rest of them, from what I have seen ad heard, have fucking sucked ass.

Ah well, I have only spent actual money on two of them (TCM and F13th) and one of those was actually good. The Friday the 13th remake blew chunks, and I will say that I am soooo glad that they didn't give this movie that treatment...yuck. At least this one is somewhat competent, on some levels.

FINAL VERDICT:

I will score the A Nightmare on Elm Street 2010 an underwhelming but competent 6.5/10 when assessing it as a standard horror film (decent acting, cool villain, medicore scares, not particularly inspired, pacing issues).

When compared to the film it so unnecessarily 'remade.' I feel that I must rate this film a disappointing 4/10.

QUESTIONS/FINAL WORD:

Perhaps it's just me, but shouldn't a movie be remade if it's warranted, and if the remake surpasses/improves upon the source material? If it doesn't, I have to ask, as I find myself doing since seeing this movie......

WHAT'S THE FUCKIN POINT?

My Thoughts: A Nightmare on Elm Street Remake and The ANOES Series

NOTE: I don't get many comments on this blog, but I am going to come right out and request that anyone reading who has anything to add, either positive or negative, please, feel free to leave me a comment. You can choose anonymous if you so desire, I do not block anonymous comments on this blog. I put quite a lot of time and effort into this one, so any and all feedback would be greatly appreciated. Help me feel as though I can't hear the echo of my own voice in here for once :)

Alright, so, on to the Nightmare on Elm Street Series!


So, A Nightmare on Elm Street has been remade. Like many of the fans of the original series, I'm not entirely thrilled. I wasn't particularly thrilled when I heard about it, and then when I saw who was involved (and who was not) well.....let's get to that later. First, I want to talk about the series as a whole, and then I will get into the remake and my thoughts on it. Be prepared, this is a lengthy blog, but I think.....well....hope, that it will prove to be a pleasant read to anyone interested in the subject matter.

I LOVE the Nightmare on Elm Street Series. I love them all, from the suspense filled, serious in tone, scary original, to the silly and humour driven, campy (but somewhat stupid, granted) later iterations. And that's one of the great things about the series. It wasn't your typical slasher. The original, A Nightmare on Elm Street (ANOES for short) was great because it had a fantastic antagonist in Freddy Krueger, suspense, intrigue, an amazing musical score, some really great effects for the day (which were pulled off with a slim budget), a very unique concept, and, perhaps most importantly (maybe not most, but quite), the characters had depth and were very likeable, ensuring that you cared about the protagonists, which is very important if you want the murders in a slasher movie to be horrifying as opposed to entertaining.

When the teens died in the first Nightmare, I wasn't cheering (and still do not). In the typical slasher film, I, and almost everyone else watching, does just that. We can't wait for the bodies to start dropping, and we cheer it when it happens. We revel in it. The "villain" is the frigging good guy! But not in ANOES, oh no. When the teens die you're horrified. You don't want anything unfortunate to befall them. None of what was happening was their fault, and they weren't acting in ways that made you desire for them to be killed.

Now, the later sequels (especially 5 and 6) were really silly, and quite campy, but even then, they were not your typical slasher films. And why was that, you ask? Well, they still had the unique concept. The villain, while he started to become the hero after part 4 ( a typical slasher feature), was very unique in that he talked, and made jokes. His few, evil one liners early on turned into full on zany comedy later on (riding a skateboard, anyone?) which, while it changed the tone of the series, and made it very campy, still differentiated it from may other slasher movies/series in that the killers in those weren't cracking jokes. Also, again, the concept was really very unique. A demonic entity possessed human, killing teenagers in their dreams from beyond the grave? Does that sound like a typical slasher to you?

Didn't think so ;)

The series started out incredibly strong. And then Bob Shaye, the executive producer and genius (sarcasm) responsible for the stupid rule breaking ending of the original ANOES (Wes Craven fought him tooth and nail on that but ultimately lost.....the money prevailed I guess, since Shaye was the one who was coughing up and taking the chance on Craven and co.) got his mitts on the sequel (which by all accounts, Craven did NOT want to happen, and was ultimately not involved in) and delivered to us his ideas in the form of A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge.

This was a shitty (comparatively) sequel. It's probably my least favourite of the series (although A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child is also up there) because, while Freddy was an evil, sadistic, demonic, scary fuck in this one (even darker than in the original) there were some signs of things to come contained within, and there was also the problem of a shitty and annoying protagonist, and cast of characters, some really insipid scenes, and of course, the biggest problem of all: Mr. Bob Shaye, rule breaker, continued to break the rules! Big time. Now, all of a sudden, Freddy could operate outside of the dream world?

Huh? What the....? What the fuck?

What a damn travesty! He SHIT all over Craven's work. Now, despite all this, I still do like the film. For one, it's a Nightmare movie, and I love Nightmare movies. Freddy is beyond awesome, and that alone is enough to at least get me in front of the screen. And by the way, before I continue on, as an aside, I just want to say that

ROBERT ENGLUND IS FREDDY DAMN IT!!

Okay, I got that off my chest and now I feel a bit better.

Anyways, as I was saying, besides Freddy being in it, it did feature some great moments, some awesome lines from Freddy, and a really, dark, sinister iteration of Krueger is something we fans can all appreciate. One particularly memorable scene is when Freddy is standing outside after fucking up the pool party (during, I might add, absolutely no one's dream, Mr. Shaye, you moron) and he waves his arms over his head, in front of a light source, casting this brilliant shadow in the light, razor glove and all, as he says the chilling line

you are all my children now

(emphasis on all)

So awesome. Such a great visual, and I loved when they replicated this many years later in Wes Craven's New Nightmare.

So, what are my favourite entries in the Nightmare on Elm Street series?

A Nightmare on Elm Street , A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: The Dream Warriors, A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master, and Wes Craven's New Nightmare.

Things were getting a bit silly by the time the A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: Dream Master rolled around, but it retained some aspects of the better ones, and I still enjoy it greatly. Some pretty ridiculous, but awesome scenes contained within this one. I won't spoil anything, but bench pressing, anyone?

As I said, I love them all, even Freddy's Dead: The Final (lol) Nightmare and A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child, despite the fact that they sort of....suck. Seriously, that staircase scene near the end of A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child.......what the fuck. And again, like in Freddy's Revenge, they really fucked with the canon in that one. I mean, as the series went on, the rules were bent and changed seemingly at will, arbitrarily and for no reason, but 5 took it to a whole new level. Sure, they were in uncharted waters with the whole pregnancy thing, but it still didn't fit. They might objectively suck but I still love them. It's hard work, though :)

Actually, come to think of it, part six, Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare, doesn't suc- ah, ya, I guess it does, but I'm actually very partial to that one, compared to 2 and 5 (the other 2 iterations of the nightmare saga which are in my ya, they basically suck but I still like them camp). Freddy's Dead s really, really fun, and it's got some absolutely hilarious moments. One in particular that sticks out is Freddy toying with the deaf kid, removing his hearing aid, creeping around behind him making faces at him....lol. And then, he takes the hearing aid and....modifies it, turning improved hearing into improved hearing, which he then has some fun with, in typical late series Freddy fashion. Let's just say he puts a whole new spin on the phrase "like nails on a chalkboard."

To those of you reading this you have not done so, A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: The Dream Warriors is one you have to see. I suggest, if you have not seen it, watching the original A Nightmare on Elm Street before you do. Heather Langenkamp, who played Nancy in part one, returns, and the moment when Freddy and Nancy encounter eachother for the first time since the events in A Nightmare on Elm Street is AWESOME, and Freddy's in an.....interesting form. I won't say what, but he does some very interesting things to himself in that one. I highly suggest watching it. Not only for those reasons of course.

Again, like the original A Nightmare on Elm Street, this movie had a great cast of teenagers. The movie took place in a mental health facility, full of teenagers with sleeping and psychiatric (supposedly) disorders. Of course, we know what's really going on, and we watch it wondering if the kids will die before any incompetent adult figures out that they aren't delusional and they aren't making up this burned man with a razor filled glove on his hand stalking them in their sleep.

*whew* Try saying that five times fast!

Anyways.......

Of course, many of the teenagers aren't very fortunate, and they meet an early demise at the hand of this burned dream demon.

This sequel introduces a few new concepts while sticking to the rules established in the first, the return of (an older) Nancy is very much appreciated, and you once again sympathize with the kids trying to reach the adults around them as they endure being stalked by some dream stalking psychopath who's slowly killing their peers in horribly gruesome ways. Now, this sequel did have Freddy getting a bit more liberal with the jokes, and the silliness started to show, but the balance was still reasonable between the serious tone/horror
and the humour, and the humour was steeped in that horror as opposed to at the expense of it, as it was in later sequels.

Oh, to quickly speak to one of the things I mentioned earlier, A Nightmare on Elm Street 3 introduced some new concepts, one of them being Freddy's ability to take on entirely new forms. They had played with the notion of him altering his form in the previous movies, but not like this. He does some pretty awesome and interesting this in this one, really showcasing the power afforded him by the fact that he exists only in dreams.

My second favourite entry into the A Nightmare on Elm Street series is Wes Craven's New Nightmare....what a movie. If there was one way to perfectly describe the reaction/reception this movie received, at least as I see it, it would be Loved by a few, hated by a few, misunderstood by most.

I personally LOVE it. Wes Craven's New Nightmare and the original A Nightmare on Elm Street are the two best in the series in my opinion. Speaking of Wes Craven, Wes Craven's New Nightmare was a risky move for Craven. I don't want to say much about this one, as it needs to be seen, and I feel the less one knows going in the better. I will say that the originality I spoke of boils down to the fact that it's a movie within a movie. This meta-movie idea (a meta-movie, or a metafilm), is a film which is a metaphor for the production of said film. Essentially, the events of the film are the events of the film within the film actually happening).

This was off putting to many but I personally thought it to be brilliant and very fitting. Basically, to surmise it really quickly, in the movie, Freddy Krueger is a movie icon, and fans are clamouring for more. Wes Craven is secretly writing a new Nightmare script, spurred on by some nightmares that he has been having. As he writes, ominous things start happening in real life, mostly centred on Heather Langenkamp, the actress who portrayed Nancy Thompson in the first and third Nightmare on Elm Street films.

In his script, he writes that evil, if it is captured in art, can be defeated, but if it is not captured in art, is is free to accumulate power in the real world. Freddy was kept out of the real world by being written about in films, but now, with no fiction binding the evil behind Krueger to that world, is roaming free and trying desperately to gain entrance into the real world. As time passes, and the writing continues, this malevolent force grows stronger, and tries to get in by gaining access through the gatekeeper, who it believes to be Heather, since he believes she gave Nancy her power, the power she used to defeat Freddy. And so, there is a struggle between Heather Langenkamp and the evil force behind the fictional villain Freddy Krueger, as he battles to enter her realm, and she must decide if she has the courage to enter his, and defeat him, once and for all.

The blending of the worlds is just fantastic. It starts to happen so seamlessly that Heather finds herself, unbeknownst to herself, becoming Nancy Thompson, and the people around her, who played in the Nightmare films, are becoming the characters they portrayed. And in this film, Freddy is the ultimate depiction of what Craven envisioned. Dark, menacing, evil. Freddy is pure fucking evil in this one. He's probably the scariest he's ever been, and he's certainly the meanest. His look has changed. His glove is now organic, indicative of the transition and blending taking place. He wears a black trenchcoat, his face has changed somewhat, and his voice, while basically the same, has taken on even more menace. And this time, he's not limited to teenage victims....

The movie is very suspenseful, very well crafted, and very entertaining. There are a myriad of great scenes within. It's somewhat plagued by problems of consistency though, as the concept, I'm sure my readers can surmise, does lend itself to some vagueries and opportunities for inconsistency, and you do get some of that. There are a few things within that will make you wonder aren't they breaking their own rules? even though the rules aren't necessarily crystal clear to anyone, including those in the film. Come to think of it, perhaps that's the point. Or maybe I'm just being too forgiving now. Either way, it's amazing, and it's a fantastic end to the series. Brings it right back to the quality for the first, and justifies its existence both in that fact, and in the fact that it's definitely not a rehash.

Of course, however, as we all know, Wes Craven's New Nightmare, the fantastic and fitting end to a great series, did not end up being the end at all. As is the case with horror movies, especially slasher films, they just keep going and going and going......Just like a certain drum beating bunny.....

It keeps going and going and going......

Years later, we got Freddy vs Jason. And now, we have the dreaded REMAKE. Duhn duhn duhn...

And now, My Thoughts on the A Nightmare on Elm Street Remake.

I grew up with ANOES. When I heard about this remake I did what all nostalgia fuelled fans do: I decried it.

Then when I realized who was involved, I felt completely justified in my feelings. These guys churn out drivel, and drivel is what this remake is based upon the large number of reviews and tons of viewer feedback that I have read online (and also inference based upon previous works of theirs and the current state of American horror).

Here are my issues with this remake (although, keep in mind, I have not yet seen it):

1) Freddy's look. I know that's more realistic, but he lost the demonic look that I loved. However, I am willing to admit a part of this is likely nostalgia.

Ugh.......

2) HIS VOICE!! Freddy sounded demonic. Now he sounds like a breathless Rocky Balboa. Not scary in the least and this alone is a huge dealbreaker for me.

3) Based upon several reviews and viewer feedback it seems as though the ''scares'' were pretty much the loud BAM sound followed by a sudden appearance of Freddy. I HATE  the overuse of jump scares. It's cheap, cheesy, manipulative and indicative of the fact that these guys are creatively bankrupt and don't understand shit about horror or what Craven did with ANOES.

4) I read that the nightmare scenes are always telegraphed via musical and aesthetic changes. Part of what I loved with the original series is you often weren't immediately aware that you were in 'dream world' if you will. There were some surprises. Some.....unknown. Some...suspense.

5) The footage I have seen features a very wooden Nancy. Langenkamp might not win any awards but at least she had expression and depth.

6) The people involved do it solely for money, and they are hacks. They didn't even care to try and involve any of the original people. No Craven, no Saxon, no Lagenkamp and no Englund.

Now, this is a 'reboot' so this makes some sense. Well, Englund could have played Krueger but the rest make sense. Except for one: Craven. They didn't bother to get input from the one man who truly understood Krueger, and the one man who had vision. Idiots.

7) I don't want to support this remake bullshit. They fucked up FF13, they destroyed Halloween, the are fucking up Krueger (although I can't fully say this until I see it, which of course I'll end up doing at some point, let's be real, but hopefully for free after my brother buys the DVD) and they have completely destroyed so many others. Black Christmas, Prom Night, Psycho (not that I'm a huge fan of the original), Dawn of the Dead, etc etc etc

8) WHERE THE FUCK IS THE ORIGINAL SCORE?? It's the best damn horror score EVER.

9) CGI. Jesus. The clip of Freddy coming out the wall looks so fucking fake now, whereas the budget shot with no CGI still looks better today.

10) They all know what's going on way too early, and they come to know it way too easily. The original had a slow, suspenseful buildup where Nancy and co. tried to piece together what was happening.

Maybe I'll end up liking it, but I doubt it. The guys behind the project just don't see horror the way I do, and I don't think I'll enjoy what they did to ANOES.

Still, I admit I may be wrong. There's .000003% chance of it :)

And of course, some nostalgia is involved. I freely admit that.

So, as it stands, I don't expect to like this one. I don't anticipate feeling any real emotion while watching it. Like most modern horror, I figure it will be like going through a fast food drive thru. I'll get something that resembles the thing I am looking for, it will go down easy, and it will be forgotten almost instantly......well, it will be forgottent, but it will leave me a nice goign away present, namely, heartburn and digestive issues.

So, ya, as of now, the Platium Dunes assholes can take their overprocessed, unemotive, wooden mass produced, money grab, b.s. 'film' and shove it up their asses. Assuming of course it will fit in there, since we all know there's a lot of shit up their ass to begin with. Namely, the hopes, dreams, and childhoods of 1980's horror fans. Poeple like me, good, honest, hard working, god feari-well, okay, good, honest, hard working people, just trying to get by in life, and hoping to be entertained here and there on the way through this roller coaster of a life. They farted out my childhood when they made this movie, and now it stinks. It stinks to high heav- well, it stinks to high something. It stinks of hollywood, coporatized, assembly line horsehsit that passes for horror these days. They seem to average $1, 400 000 per shitty jump scare, and I am sure they made about $35, 000, 000 thus far off of this travesty. This affront to 1980's, plaid wearing, big haired, MC Hammer liking sensibilities.

Note to Platinum Dunes: I want my fucking childhood back, you assholes. I don't recall putting it on the market, so I have no idea how you fuckers bought and sold it, but I want it back. Now, give it back, or I'll......I'll......kil- no, no, that's not it......I'll, I'll, beat- no, no, that's not it either.....I'll I'll.....su-no, no that's not it.....Ah, Hell. I'll keep blogging about you!!! And you don't want that, trust me. I have a HUGE audience and immeasurable influence. I can get people to boycott your ass, and let me tell you, you'd lose at least $23.00. You want to test me? You want to test me motherfuckers? Go ahead, oif you think it's worth $23.00, go right the fuck ahead, you childhood stompin fart brains.

OH GREAT!! I have just been informed, as I write this, that Paltinum Dune already have 2 MORE NOES movies in the works. Jesus H Christ on a stick, talk about milking.

They took a series that has already been milked to the point of well.....no more milk...ness? I don't know. Point of being barren. Milk dry? Milkless? YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN!!!!!!!!

RAWR!!!

Anyways, the took this already milked series, and decided, "Hey!! Let's redo it all! Let's milk it some more! And we'll do it with less talent, worse leads, and a shitty sounding Freddy! Awesome, we're going to make sooooooo much money! High fives all around!!!"

*sounds of childhoods being shat out, crapped on, farted on, and farted out*

/Cut to scene of magx01 crying in a corner, rhythmically chanting "It's not real, it's not real."

Ha, interesting little aside here. Those last few words called to mind (with no effort on my part) a line from Stephen King's IT (the miniseries, based on the tremendously awesome novel). The line is:

"You're not real!!! You're not real!!!"  

It's delivered by the actress playing Beverly Marsh, and it's delivered in a very convincing voice, fraught with several emotions at once; a woman on the edge, desperately trying to keep it together while she tries to grasp the enormity of the situation in which she finds herself after thrusting herself blindly back into her past, at the whim of a childhood friend whom she hadn't heard from in 28 years.

I heard that line in my head as I typed that line, and I heard it exactly as it's delivered in the movie. And upon recalling the line, I felt a small, but real chill. A momentary shudder, as I recalled the situation this woman found herself in, and the terror I felt as a ten year old boy watching this unfold on my tv (thanks mom, and ABC, primetime tv. As Freddy would say, "Welcome to prime time, bitch!"

Why mention this? Well, simple. This demomstrates the power of film. Sure, horror movies aren't high art, but they do have the fantastic capability to really resonate with you. To burrow into the psyche and lay dormant for years, only to spring forth at opportune moments and elicit the same fear they did when you first experienced them. People say the boogeyman isn't real, but I say he is, in the form of the latent emotion, leftover in my subconscious a result of watching a shitload of horror movies as I grew up. And that, friends, is the power of horror.

And do you know what scenes result in this occurrence? The psychologically weighty ones. Not the stupid LOUD NOISES BOO!!!! nonsense. Too bad Platinum Douche doesnt understand that.

Thanks for fucking up my childhood, assholes.

Last little note: To those who will read this and find themselves wondering how one can be so certain about a movie which one has not even seen, well friends, I fully acknowledge that I may be blogging a nice apology to Platinum Dunes and you, the reader, sometime soon. However, in the interest in full disclosure, I can honestly say, with as little hubris as possible, that, in all my experience, I'm more often right when it comes to preconceived notions on films. That does not mean I am right this time, and I am not saying I am ever wrong, I'm not. I've been wrong many times, some of them for really notable films. I went into the Dark Knight thinking it would suck. WRONG. I went into Iron Man expecting to hate it, and ended up liking it. NOT loving it, but liking it. I went into Spiderman thinking it would suck. Liked it. I went into X-Men thinking it would be shit. Loved it. (Hated origins though. Ugh). I thought I would hate The Matrix. Wow, wrong.

That all being said, I honestly am more often right. I'm usually pretty good with making predictions about my feelings on a movie after just viewing trailers. However, in this case, I have done a LOT more than that, and I have been a horror fan for more than 20 years. I know what I like, I know my dislikes, and I know what I hate in horror. And based on the things I have seen, heard and read, the chances of me hating this movie are high. Almost as high as I'd have to be to love it :)

Thanks for reading!!! I hope you enjoyed it, I enjoyed writing it. And as I said in the beginning, please feel free to comment. This blog took quite a while, and so any feedback would help me feel like I am not totally wasting my time here :)

Perfect Dark XBLA Remake Imminent (Footage!)

Due out in March, for a (rumoured) measly 10 dollars (800 MS points)! All I can say is, Perfect.

....Pardon the poor pun. But I'm really quite excited. Perfect Dark was a seminal console shooter, and they seem to have kept everything intact while improving on it in several key ways. I'm stoked.