I’m Going To Rant About A Nightmare on Elm Street Remake Because I Can

Is there any actual purpose on doing a long criticism for a decade old film that no one cares about? Yes, and that purpose being I just saw this film recently for the first time and I need to vent about it so buckle up. A Nightmare On Elm Street is in my opinion the best of the classic horror franchises. It’s a film series that was consistently entertaining and had unique themes for each instalment. I’m not here to pretend it’s high-art and the series likewise never pretended that either. They are films that wanted you to have a rip-roaring good time and show off some neat effects and be spellbound by the theatrics of Robert Englund's performance as Freddy Krueger. The altering themes may not have done much to establish substance, but they did evolve a subtext for each film that gave them their identities. Tackling issues such as sexuality, mental health, and drug abuse, not very well, but I can look at each one and go “Oh, that’s the one where everyone’s accidentally a drug addict” which frankly is more effort than its contemporaries put in *Cough* Jason Sucks *Cough*.

I also find myself in conflict with other fans of the franchise with my rankings of the individual films, often I’ve said the second one is my personal favourite which if you’re unfamiliar with the series, is a very unpopular opinion. Though this history is what made me go into the remake with optimism, as I was aware of the heavy criticism it faced and was hoping it might be another case of me finding more joy out of a Nightmare film than others did…Nope! (For anyone curious my ranking of the Nightmare films goes 2, 3, 1, 5, 7, 6, 4)

*Spoilers for the franchise*

From a conceptual standpoint I can understand and even agree with the premise of this being a reboot, as it has been 7 years since Freddy’s last appearance on the big screen and 16 years since the last canonical film in the franchise. Starting from scratch gives new audiences an entry point into the Nightmare without being bogged down by 7 films worth of continuity. So why on Earth was it decided that this should be a complete retread of the original film? The exact same structure and characters of the first film, identically replicating multiple scenes and plot points that I question how anyone got a writing credit when they simply copied Wes Craven’s original script.

If you are going in with a clean slate then commit to it, use this as an opportunity to do something original with a new cast of characters being haunted by Freddy, don’t retread ground of the original film because we’ve already seen it been done, calling reference to it by recreating it isn’t an homage, it’s blatant copying. The use of CGI is very prominent for this film as it was for many films of the time but it is particularly horrendous in horror films. Regardless of actual quality of the effects the audience is always consciously aware that what they’re seeing isn’t real and occupying the same space as the characters. Especially when you’re using CG to redo effects from the original that were done practically so we know they can be better than this. In horror films CGI is best used for the unnatural, things that can not be physically comprehended to the mind. Faces sticking out of walls can be comprehended because I saw them do that in the first fucking movie.

What few story points that are changed are done incredibly poorly. Freddy is a molester/child-killer who originally escaped incarceration on a technicality, the justice system failed the parents of the victims, so they took law into their own hands and murdered Freddy themselves. In this version not only do they 1: entertain the possibility that Freddy might have been innocent which is beyond idiotic because Freddy is the bad guy who murders children, he should not have any justification in his origin story. 2: Freddy was never even convicted, the parents never approached the police, they took matters into their own hands as Plan A, which all it does is make them look like a psychotic mob. The Elm Street Parents becoming a mob of vigilantes to seek justice is a mark that permanently damaged them. They were good people pushed to the absolute extremes to seek some semblance of justice or at least revenge. Whether or not their actions were right, it left a brand on them as people and it’s why they nor their children were ever truly able to escape Freddy, even if they pushed him from their conscious mind, he was always their haunting their minds. AKA the entire fucking subtext of the original has been trashed and instead let’s just make them blood-thirsty psychopaths!

There’s a visual language established in this film for the dreamworld that they break constantly for the sake of jump scares. Whenever the characters enter a dream like state the world shifts tone. The use of incandescent lighting and an ominous score establishes this otherworldly and uncomfortable atmosphere, and they stick with this for roughly 80% of the dream sequences, yet there are times when the world is perfectly normal, indicating to the audience that we are in the real world, then all of a sudden Freddy will show up to shout boo and then the characters will wake up making that scene utterly pointless and inconsistent with the rules established in the diegesis of the film.

It’s completely nonsensical for this version of Freddy to try and scare these characters because that’s not the Freddy presented to us. The filmmakers said they thought Freddy had become too much of a comedic character over the years and had lost the fearful side, which they’re not necessarily wrong with, but if you’re taking away that element then you have to restructure how he’s used as a character. The original Freddy was a showman, he would taunt and terrorise his prey with theatrics and would often kill them in some symbolic way that reflected their own flaws as people in some sick sense of karmic retribution. He took so much pleasure out of psychologically torturing his victims that’s what made him scary. This Freddy does none of that, he’s a wet blanket who doesn’t care to be theatrical, he’s also not funny except for the times where they still try and have him tell a joke except it’s not funny because he doesn’t say it with any charisma. 

Why would you even want a Freddy that doesn’t see the entertainment value in all of this? In one of the prior films a character has a dream he’s riding a motorcycle as he slowly fuses with it to become a monstrous creature who then gets hit by a truck, it’s an incredibly inventive and visually impressive scene. This film has Freddy kill everyone by simply stabbing them to death. Why bother having the dream world anyway!? Why give him a world where he controls everything, where he can manipulate himself and the environment around him to kill teenagers in wildly inventive ways, if literally every character is just stabbed then what on Earth was the point of adapting this property in the first place if you’re not going to do anything interesting with the toolbox given and just turn him into any other boring serial killer!?

I genuinely didn’t expect to have such a vitriolic reaction to this film as I did, but then again if I go into a film expecting to dislike it then it’s often a soft blow. This was a film I was rooting for, I gave it a chance to prove others wrong and it let me down hard. I found myself mumbling “Oh fuck you” multiple times during this film and with each passing minute it was becoming more and more unlikely that it was going to change my mind. So I’d like to end this by giving a big congratulations to A Nightmare on Elm Street IV: The Dream Master for no longer being the worst Nightmare film.

-Danny

Enola Holmes - Cheap Thoughts

Never let it be said that there isn’t a place for the perfectly fine movies. Perfectly fine movies are one of the most underappreciated gems of cinema. The movies that you can put on, sit down and enjoy 2 hours of your life going by, and then move on with your life never putting that much thought into that film again. Netflix in particular have perfected the perfectly fine to a tee, they are fully aware of the context of which their films are being consumed, by individuals and couples who have had long days at work and just want something simple and edible to enjoy at the end of their day. Raise a glass to the perfectly fine movies! Unfortunately these also come with the unexpected drawback of being very difficult movies to talk about because the whole appeal of them is that you don’t have think too hard about them so you might end up trying to fill a roughly 500 word review with nearly 200 words of pure filler rambling on about the welcome collection of the perfectly fine, of which Enola Holmes fits in as comfortably as the film is to watch.

Enola Holmes follows the story of the teenage sister of Sherlock Holmes (Henry Cavill) and Mycroft Holmes (Sam Caflin) as she investigates the disappearance of their mother (Helena Bonham Carter) as well as evade capture from her unreceptive brothers and earn her independence. There’s much to value within this film. Millie Bobbie Brown is a very likeable and charismatic lead in the film, she’s a very easy character to root for as an underdog in every regard, being a young woman in late 19^th century and having to deal with possibly the most egotistical brothers one could ever dread. Brown plays it with such glee and wit she will capture any audiences support. Director Harry Bradbeer of Fleabag brings alone his use of forth wall breaking and implants it here, quite sparingly as well, it’s a technique that can easily be indulgent but Bradbeer savours it in small doses and often as the punchline to a joke.

Though not part of the official Sherlock Holmes canon there is a place fitting for Enola to join as both a character and a franchise. Like the two brothers there are plenty of similarities that connect her to them, their intelligence, their independence and addiction to solving mysteries but likewise there is enough separation that develops the contrast between them that makes them engaging to watch. Truly the highlights of the film is whenever the Holmes siblings are together in any combination and seeing these larger than life attitudes play off each other is highly entertaining. In Enola’s case it would be her youthful, playful and green perspective on the world as she builds a life for herself and the film very quickly establishes a formula for itself for potential sequels to work with.

There is certainly an audience in mind for this film as reflected by the main character but that shouldn’t stop others from giving it a go. Truly it’s a film that should appeal to all ages and be decently amused by it at minimum, while others will likely find it to be a highly entertaining and would most likely be salivating for a sequel, or for nothing else, salivating for Henry Cavill.

-Danny

God of War III - Morality is Relative(ly unimportant)

Here we are six months later from my initial discussion on the complete depravity that is Kratos as a protagonist, I took some time off from the franchise to play some other games with less morally bankrupt characters and preferably fewer oceans of blood. I am now back and ready to complete this trilogy and explore if redemption for Kratos is possible, or will this game fall further into the endless vacuum of carnage.

(Side Note: the game I played just before this was Life is Strange and it’s a really fucking weird coincidence that they have the exact same ending, having the main character trapped in a black void plagued with visions of all the disasters that befell them across previous instalments.)

I should properly begin by saying I don’t just play these games because I’m some kind of masochist who engages in media he despises for the sake of complaining, frankly I don’t have the time or energy for something like that. Truth be told and never let it be said I deny it, I play through these games because they’re fun. God of War is a franchise built on entertaining and adrenaline boosting gameplay, particularly with the third game boasting the grandest scale the series has ever seen that’s a true treat for the audience to be able to climb a mountain sized enemy and them rip them to pieces. Mechanically speaking God of War III much like its predecessors is a rip-roarin good time. But I’m not here to discuss gameplay, it’s not my area of expertise and my analysis can barely go deeper than “It’s fun” - Though I will draw attention to it every so often when it’s relevant - I’m here to discuss story and themes because that’s what I do around here and this series will always fascinate me on how they got away with some of their choices, so let’s talk about it.

*Spoilers for God of War III ahead*

It appears this game was determined to be even more graphic and vicious than prior instalments as if it had a point to prove. The opening boss fight sees Kratos take on Poseidon with the final kill being done in 1st person perspective on the side of Poseidon, so you as the player can feel the same fear and panic he does as Kratos rips his skull open. This is a technique the game would use later on but this time from the perspective of Kratos as you get to beat Zeus to death by hand until your screen is drenched in blood (Parellels?). Though the upgraded hardware allowed for the game to go grander in scale, it also allowed them the ability to show even more blood and body parts being torn apart as your enemies thrash in pain as you murder them. There are also multiple examples of Kratos needlessly killing civilians as well as even allies such as Peirithous, whom the game decides in order to gain his weapon (That he willingly offers to you!) you must burn him alive, because simply earning it through an objective isn’t enough, innocent people must suffer for your benefit.

That being said there is one example of Kratos nearly showing mercy, that being with the character of Hercules. After being introduced and trying to goad Kratos into a fight, our “hero” actually offers him the chance to walk away, claiming his fight is not with him. Hercules of course doesn’t listen, overwhelmed with jealousy for his half-brother, he starts a fight and you of course horrifically kill him by turning his skull into mashed potatoes. Yet I couldn’t help but take note of this moment, Kratos offering someone the chance to walk away? Someone who is actively trying to agitate him? My mind raced with what reasoning could lead to this? Could it be that Kratos empathised with Hercules? The two of them being sons of Zeus who have been manipulated and suffered at his hands? As Kratos knows killing Zeus would not only free himself but also others like him? He sees so much of himself in Hercules, or even worse what he could have become that he is capable of showing pity? Naturally none of this is expressed in the game, this is all my interpretation, but still, considering Kratos has murdered people for daring to be in the same post code as him, nearly showing mercy to someone trying to fight him is something we have never seen before and it would have been fascinating to explore it.

None of these are new problems of course, they are issues I discussed in my earlier post about the series, but they are certainly more extreme in this case. It almost feels as though Santa Monica Studios received plenty of criticism for these elements and decided to double down for the conclusion of the trilogy as a final screw you to their critics. Nowhere is this more obvious than with Aphrodite…oh boy. I’ve discussed before a large portion of the appeal of these games and gaming in general is the idea of wish-fulfilment, to give the player an escapist fantasy where they’re the best at everything. I’ve also been heavily critical of the way God of War presents this, both for its obsession with violence and also its unhealthy portrayal of sex, one because of the out of character nature that Kratos would be interested in having sex with random strangers when he has a one track mind that only involves killing anything with a pulse. A fact by the way made even worse that in the middle of an apocalypse, where the world around them is crumbling and Kratos will stop at nothing to kill the gods…you’re given the option to stop and have a shag with Aphrodite, the god of love. A scene that treats her purely as a literal sex object from the perspective of two envious onlookers who want more than anything to have sex with Kratos now, I.E. you the player. At best this moment could be considered indulgent and immature, at worst it is not only illogical to occur in the story, but offensively malignant and enforces this trend in the series of treating all of its female characters as objects to either fuck, kill, or abuse in any shape or form.

Speaking of, let’s discuss the other female characters in the story and the role they play. Starting with Gaia, whom you may recall at the end of the last game teamed up with Kratos and the other Titans to start a revolution against the gods of Olympus, and in near the very beginning of this game they toss each other aside, admitting that they had no interest in each other’s goals, they only used them as a pawn for their own objective…even though they have the exact same objective: to kill Zeus. Yet the game decided they must now be rivals for contrite reasons. However, an even bigger character shift is that of Athena, who comes back as a ghost…somehow, none of the other gods seem capable of this and we kind of destroy the underworld in this game (Wasn’t enough to destroy one plane of existence) and now she has become your ally. Despite spending the last game trying to sway you from your ceaseless destruction and even sacrificed herself to save Zeus, she is now all gung-ho about killing Zeus for the greater good. Her reasoning and actions are so confused that by the end of the game while overlooking the literal apocalypse you have caused; she speaks the line “You have done well Kratos” HOW. How is any of this him doing well!? His bloodlust has brought upon Armageddon!

This is honestly where the bigger issues of God of War III lie as a narrative. While I can criticise the game’s use of violence and women, an issue more substantially isolated to this game over the previous ones is simply the illogicality of its storytelling.  God of War II ending on a climax left this game in a precarious position, where its opening is actually an ending, so the game throws you into Hades and robs you of all your upgrades forcing you to start from step one, making the events of the last game useless and to just stall you for 6 hours so it doesn’t feel like a retread of God Of War II. This repetition even infects the gameplay mechanics, 3 out of 4 weapons you unlock are basically reskins of each other, knives attached to chains that function the exact same way making their gathering arbitrary and useless.

The game introduces a new character called Pandora, who you may remember Kratos opening her box in the first game to gain god killing powers. Apparently, that action lead to unleashing a plethora of evil plaguing the world, including the gods themselves who are now paranoid with fear. These side effects and Pandora’s backstory are of course explained to us through exposition dumps despite the fact this is still a visual medium and breaks the cardinal rule of show don’t tell, made even worse considering this retconning is an attempt to make the Greek Gods seem somewhat bad when the franchise has made no attempt to vilify the antagonists but Santa Monica have become at least somewhat self-aware that the hero shows more evil traits than those we’re meant to kill.

Pandora is meant to draw parallels between Kratos and his original daughter, as if saving her would in someway work as a redemption for his past sins. Though she is mentioned early on, her actual introduction is not until 2/3rds through the game and no attempt is made to actually establish a connection between the two. Kratos should have no reason to care for her when his clear disregard for life is blatant, and Pandora should have no reason to believe there is any good in Kratos when all she’s bore witness too is his incessant killing. There an incredibly hilarious irony that during a scene where Pandora claims that Kratos is a good person despite him currently holding the decapitated head of a god he murdered earlier that day. Pandora is a burden, someone who cowers and screams, only needing to be rescued and provides no benefits mechanically. Also, the fact that Kratos murdered her dad is never brought up, probably because that would be incredibly awkward and shatter the already fragile relationship that they try and present. 

She goes on to introduce the main theme of the game, that being the idea of Fear Vs Hope. Zeus is corrupted due to him succumbing to his fears, which supposedly has made him paranoid and aggressive, and the only true way to combat him and indeed this overwhelming sense of fear, is to believe in hope, as Pandora puts it, hope is the last thing we have to fight with when everything else is lost. Again, this claim of Zeus surrendering to fear is all expository as we the audience have no frame of reference for what Zeus or any of the gods were like before the opening of Pandora’s Box. More so is using Kratos as a carrier of this theme, as if there was this constant inner struggle within him between the two settings, fear and hope. This is despite the fact at no point has Kratos shown signs of being fearful or hopeful, just anger. Unfiltered, unthinking, remorseless anger. To kill, destroy and fight his way through until his goal is achieved. By the end of the game Kratos supposedly embracing the idea of hope, again which is unearned as he’s never once wavered from his goal, but he requires that last minute power up and saying the true power was inside of him all along is easier than giving him any tangible power, like say, perhaps the weapon that Hephaestus gave him that claimed would be his most powerful weapon that could kill Zeus…maybe that should have played a role! Plus Pandora died anyway in an empty sacrifice. So to summarise Kratos never receives redemption or comeuppance for the death of his family, he fails to portray either mindsets presented through the theme, he receives a deus ex machina upgrade last minute and let the avatar of his humanity die in a pointless death because he was so desperate to continue punching Zeus in the face that it was worth her demise.

I have heavily criticized God of War 1 & 2 for their portrayals of violence, morality and decency, but for nothing else I can at least say they were competent narratives that made sense. God of War III is a dumpster fire. It carries over the grotesque nature, yet its attempts at telling an emotional story with actual themes fails miserably. Furthermore its complete reset of both plot progression and gameplay abilities basically tells me there was no point in this game existing as it repeats most of what came before but worse, as most of the upgrades are useless and it always feels like it’s stalling for time. The first two games mainly baffled me with their lack of ethics, this game simply angers me. It is a failure mechanically, emotionally and narratively, the best it has to boast is that it is bigger and prettier than the rest and that should show just how hollow this trilogy has been, but this game has the gall to actually be proud of that.

In case you’re curious, I’m not going to play the spin-off games or prequels, I’ve given this story enough of my attention and I refuse to entertain it anymore. I will someday return to replay the 2018 God of War game because fucking hell has my respect for that game shot through the roof now that I know what pits of despair it was birthed from and I’m curious to see how it plays given this new context. Sadly that won’t be for a while from now as I’d rather not have to think about Kratos anytime soon. I’m off to play something else, but before that I need a drink and a shower.

-Danny

Bill & Ted Face The Music - Cheap Thoughts

Talk about the perfect time for this film’s release, or possibly the worst time depending where on the optimist to pessimist spectrum you lean, as what we have here is a film that dares to say in the middle of a crisis, in the middle of disaster, in the middle of failure; to have hope, to connect with your fellow man, and of course, to be excellent to each other and party on dudes. Bill & Ted (Alex Winter & Keanu Reeves) are simple characters, and like so this is a simple franchise, no one is living under the delusion that simply a positive attitude and everyone singing kumbaya is in our reality going to solve the world’s problems. What the film is trying to say, is that high spirits never hurt, having faith and trust can be a helpful factor, they just choose to portray it in an outlandish and extreme fashion while also simplifying the situation. The ideas are simple, the execution is radical.

For some, this overly upbeat perspective could be seen as overbearing, in fact going so far into it’s own philosophy that all it does is remind you of how you don’t live in a world that can be solved with such easy answers. On the other hand if you’re not a complete stick in the mud and will just appreciate the whimsical, funny and light-hearted adventure of the film that tried to give you a joyous 94 minutes with a heartfelt message by the end then you will most likely find yourself having a good time. Any other year this wouldn’t have been that big of a challenge, but let’s not kid ourselves, we live in 2020, a cesspool of a year where it seems there is less and less reason to have hope with each passing day, and somehow Bill & Ted Face the Music came out and dared to give us a glimmer of sanguinity.

The lack of cynicism certainly holds the film together, but it doesn’t prevent the basic and even underdeveloped elements from their prominence. Most notably a subplot revolving around Bill & Ted being unaccommodating husbands to their wives (Erinn Hayes & Jayma Mays) failing to understand their shortcomings until the script decides they have learnt their lessons and an unearned resolution is born. Then again the film's attention slowly moves away from the story of the titular characters to instead the addition of their children Billie & Thea (Brigette Lundy-Paine & Samara Weaving), as the ones who end up constructing the new edition of the Wyld Stallions and perform most of the leg work. Though to be honest while some again might take issue with this passing of the torch presentation, to move attention away from the protagonists of the franchise to the younger generation, if this is how the franchise plans to survive for another generation this is the smartest way to go. The two characters are presented with a modern, hyper-active and colourful energy, with a charming reflection of the best elements of their fathers. Weaving already being hailed as a rising star after her breakout role in last years Ready or Not, and Lundy-Paine a newer face to the scene also carries such an endearing and comedic charisma that it’s not unlikely of them becoming one of the faces of comedy for the next decade ahead. Should a spin-off movie for these two characters be announced, it wouldn’t be that surprising.

The newcomers all around steal the show, Kirsten Schaal has proven herself time and time again she’s one of the best comedians working today, and the true unexpected scene stealer is Dennis Caleb McCoy (Anthony Carrigan) a terminator like robot plagued with anxiety. Any fans of the television series Barry will best know Carrigan is outstanding at playing the socially awkward and out of place weirdo that steals any scene he’s in, and the same rule applies here.

Much like Bill & Ted themselves while trying to write a song that would unite the world, don’t think too hard about it and don’t let the details bog you down. Remember what matters more than anything is the feeling, music can fill you with joy and change your life, especially when you do it together. Bill & Ted might not change your life, but they can promise you a good time, do that on a grand enough scale, and it might be able to change something.

-Danny

The New Mutants - Cheap Thoughts

This film making it to cinemas is an achievement in itself. It’s certainly not the conditions they probably would have liked to see it released in, but after countless delays, reshoots or not, The New Mutants - regardless of quality - deserved a chance at a big screen release, as unlikely as it is for a superhero movie based on a popular franchise with the backing of a big studio to be seen as an underdog film, it is. Even if the end result is somewhat empty.

The New Mutants finds Dani Moonstar (Blu Hunt) sectioned to a hospital that specialises in young mutants recently discovering their powers and are considered dangerous until said powers can be controlled. Alongside fellow mutants Rahne (Maisie Williams), Sam (Charlie Heaton), Roberto (Henry Zaga) and Illyana (Anya Taylor-Joy) all of which are overseen by Dr Reyes (Alice Braga) as she trains them in their powers and helps them with their variety of tragic backstories. However, it’s not long before the group begin to suspect that the hospital itself has a seedy underbelly and ulterior motive.

The film bridges the characters through their shared trauma brought on through their powers awakening. Whilst exploring this is when the film is at it’s most interesting as it looks at the variety of ways this emotional turmoil can manifest itself within each of the characters. Rahne wears their damage on their sleeve and are honest with it. Roberto may go into denial, try and push it down so it no longer becomes a problem. Then there is Illyana who wears the destruction she caused as a symbol of pride, choosing to view it as a moment that makes her powerful rather than dangerous. Unfortunately, the end results is that the film comes to the conclusion that these catastrophise that define these characters and altered their lives can simply be overcome in an instant as if trauma comes with an on/off switch.

The film opens with the protagonist Dani reciting a proverb that everyone has two bears within them, one representing all the good within them, and another representing all the bad, and it is up to us as individuals to choose which one we feed; which the film presents as simply being a literal choice, you choose whether to be in distress or not, it’s that simple. It is very much not that simple, for a film where the main antagonist Dr Reyes, a Nurse Ratched type who manipulates and controls the teens at seemingly impossible standards, as she single-handedly runs the entire facility and has intimate knowledge of the young mutants locations and actions at all times. The time she spends with the ensemble is exclusively uncooperative therapy sessions and no time towards actually controlling their abilities.

There are times where the film reaches for more, most notably the character of Rahne who receives the majority screen time and is allowed to explore the multi-facets of her character and how they clash or fuse together to create this 3-Dimensional person. Her connections to her religion, relationships, sexual orientation, and of course mutant powers. She’s easily the most interesting of the group and feels like the only one who was given that attention likely due to her being played by the most famous actor of the cast.

That lack of commitment is not only found in the story but even with the genre itself, as this film seems to have an identity crisis of what it’s going for. Director Josh Boone is seemingly attempting to make a horror film at times, replicating the semiotics and conventions, but only in mere fleeting moments, unlike it’s counterparts Deadpool or Logan which commit to their respective genres. It’s as if the film wants to appeal to the horror fans, without alienating the average superhero fan.

New Mutants is far from the worst X-Men film as come critics have referred to it as. It’s still a film with a talented cast & director carrying a mediocre script, at a brisk 94 minutes the film doesn’t want to risk overstaying it’s welcome even if extra scenes of character exploration would be welcome, but for what they’ve given us, you’re sure to walk out giving the film a pleasant shrug and move on with your day.

-Danny