Tremors (1990)

“That’s how they get you. They’re under the goddamn ground!” - Val McKee

Repairmen Val McKee (Kevin Bacon) and Earl Bassett (Fred Ward) are tired of their dull lives in the small desert town of Perfection, Nev. But just as the two try to skip town, they happen upon a series of mysterious deaths and a concerned seismologist (Finn Carter) studying unnatural readings below the ground. With the help of an eccentric couple (Reba McEntire, Michael Gross), the group fights for survival against giant, worm-like monsters hungry for human flesh. (Source: Wiki)

This is probably one of my favorite 90s horror movies. It has all the chills and thrills. Also there's Kevin Bacon. 

Tremors gives me total 1960s B-movie vibes. It about a small town in the middle of the Nevada dessert called Perfection. The naming of the town is pretty funny. I mean what's perfect about living in the middle of the dessert? 

Anyway, this movie was TERRIFYING when I saw it as a kid. I was probably a pre-teen when I actually watched it and it really scared me. 

I mean the creature effects were amazing for 1991 standards. They were made from a type of foam, that was molded together. Yeah foam, they weren't CG which makes them even more terrifying. 

I know if the movie was remade today, the worms would have probably been CG or something. This is why I love older movies, because they used puppets. I mean after the 2nd one, the sequels look really bad as far as effects go (also the storyline is a little weird). 

These worm like creatures, which are referred to as Grabiods. The name alone was so fitting for this movie, because they have these long worm like tentacles that grab you and pull you under ground. The best way to describe this movie is that it's the Jaws of the dessert. 

Take a look at the movie poster, it literally mocks Jaws. It really sets the tone for the whole movie. Tremors is also a great nod to the giant monster movies of the 1960s. I think the succeeded in creating a great low budget (for 1990 standards) movie. It was scary, as well as had some cheesy moments. This movie had what love, Chills and Thrills. I mean Kevin Bacon as a cowboy is in it, so that's enough of a reason to see it.

The setting is really interesting as well. It takes elements of isolation from John Carpenter's The Thing, but instead of the cold arctic, it's the Nevada dessert. Perfection is a very small community in the middle of this dessert and there is only a population of 14 people. So it is very far from anything and to top it all off, there's nothing but sand all over the place making it near impossible to hide from the Grabiods. 

This movie also shares elements with A Quiet Place (2018). Both are set in different time periods and different places, the themes are the same. They have to remain quiet and make zero moments or they will be found out. The only difference is, there isn't a physical monster. It is something that sneaks under the ground and surprises you. Anyway, I'm not here to compare it to other movies. 

There have also been many sequels made as well as a TV show. The only sequel I watched was Tremors II: Aftershocks (which I will do a separate review for because there is so much to talk about in that one). 

Regardless, I didn't seen any of the other sequels. In fact, I didn't know there were so many sequels until Netflix put them all on their platform. 

There were two TV shows actually. The first one aired from March 28th - August 8th in 2003. The second one STARRED Kevin Bacon and let us know where he's been. It was supposed to air sometime in 2018. The pilot aired and I want to say the next day Bacon posted on his instagram that SyFy canceled it. 

I'm still trying to figure out why. I mean this was the company that made 100 shitty shark movies including 5 SHARKNADOs!! I remember seeing the pilot episode for this show and it was good. I don't know, it just boggles my mind. I wish they had kept this series going, because I would have watched it. According to some of the articles I read, the reason is flopped was due to the lack of viewership the night it premiered. However, I believe the budget for the show was a little too high.

It was nice for brief moment to see Kevin Bacon reprise his roll as Val in the Tremors movies. I was disappointed that he did return for the Tremors 2: Aftershocks..BUT

While researching this blog, I found out that in 2023 they will be releasing a Tremors 7!! Umm yeah. It is supposed to have all of the stars from the first one, including Kevin Bacon and Fred Ward. 

I am actually pretty excited to see this one. Mainly because Ward and Bacon are reprising their roles as Val and Earl. Now I hope I don't have to go back and watch all the sequels. I saw the trailers from Tremors 3-6 and they were bad, in my opinion. They just look really cheesy and don't really make sense. The last one was in the Arctic. What? 

I give it up to Michael Gross (portrays Bert) for being in every sequel, so at least a small connect to the other films; but I think they moved so far away from the point of it. It was a simple concept: Giant worms threat a small town in the middle of the Nevada desert. This didn't need to be a franchise, however I did like the second one; which was a pretty good sequel. It followed in tune with the original. 

Anyway, I'm glad that this movie has gotten a little more popular over the years. This is just a great movie and I can't believe it came out 30 years ago!! Man, I'm old. If have only see the sequels (mainly because like 2 of them are on Netflix), I highly recommend checking out the original. It's simply amazing and Kevin Bacon is phenomenal as always. 

IMDB: 7.1% || Rotten Tomatoes: 81%

Sleep Tight, 

A Nightmare on Movie Night

Leprechaun (1993)

"Try as they will, and try as they might, who steals me gold won't live through the night." - Leprechaun 

Leprechaun (1993) centers on a malevolent and murderous leprechaun referred to as Lubdan, who, when his gold is taken from him, resorts to any means necessary to reclaim it. (Source: Wiki)

I mean this movie is pretty straight forward, it's about a leprechaun who wants his gold back. 

The movie opens with this creature in a cave counting his gold. Then it flashes to an older man, Daniel O'Grady [Shay Duffin], who returns from a trip to Ireland. He finds a Leprechaun's gold, brings it back and guess who follows him to America? Yup the Leprechaun. His wife is killed, and he has a heart attack while the Leprechaun is locked up in a crate with a four leaf clover sitting on the crate. You know that part always sort of annoyed me. Wouldn't the clover have withered away and just died/or crumbled? Would the magic of the clover be gone after like 6 months? 

Anyway, there is a flash forward to 10 years, meaning the Leprechaun was in this crate for a decade. Weird? Wouldn't he have died eventually or is in immortal. IF he is, then a four-leaf clover shouldn't killed him. But I digress. Now after all these years, a father, J.D Reding [John Sanderford], and his daughter Tory Reding (Jennifer Aniston) move into the Grady house. I mean they leave the city and move to the country. Why? It's never really explained. However, the meet up with the house painters, Nathan Murphy [Ken Olandt], Ozzie [Mark Holton] and Alex [Robert Hy Gorman]. Now Ozzie is not the brightest bulb in the box, and he ends up letting the Leprechaun out of the crate. It also doesn't help that this dude ate one of the coins. I still don't get why and what the point of it was. Regardless, they now have to get a four leaf clover and kill him. 

I have a few problems with this movie. 

One, do you have ANY idea how hard it is to find a four-leaf clover? Why couldn't it have been a little easier to find? Like an axe or acid? Also like I've mentioned, this dude is immortal and the thing that takes him out is a four leaf clover? Talk about a clique. 

Second, who sells a house without informing anyone that there is a murderous evil Leprechaun in the basement? I mean they have to tell you if there was a murder in the house. I mean technically, there was and an attempted murder. I'm just saying. Who buys a house site unseen in the middle of nowhere anyways? 

Third, like I already mentioned, Ozzie randomly swallows one of the gold coins? Why? It doesn't make any sense. It doesn't help that this leprechaun is so anal that he needs all 100 of his coins. What a greedy bastard. I just don't get why he put it anywhere near his mouth. I mean it's got to be like 600 years old, which is gross; if you think about it. 

I do have to say one thing about this movie, the make up effects of the Leprechaun are absolutely amazing. Also I think Warwick Davis does a fantastic job portraying the character. He gives the right about the trills and chills. As far as the rest of the effects, there aren't many things to talk about. The way the leprechaun dies after he gets the four leaf clover in the mouth is pretty cool. He is all melted and dissolved. It's so gross. It grossed me out so much as a kid and it still kind of does. 

Here is the video clip of his death; which has the best/worst on liner ever: 

I mean he was terrifying as the Leprechaun, however, I felt they tried to make him too comedic. 

This leads me right into the sequels. I mean I know Freddy got pretty funny towards the end of the franchise, but the Leprechaun started off as a joke. I know it's a challenge to balance the comedy and horror, which I think the original did that just fine; but the sequels, just flat out went for comedy. There were some jumpy moments in the first one, however once you started getting to the sequels, it got worse. 

I made it all the way to Leprechaun 3 before I had enough. It's pretty much the same old gags and the same old jokes. I'd say the only sequel worth watching was Leprechaun Origins; which I've done a short review on already. Personally, I wouldn't call it a sequel, more like a remake. Also it was pretty terrifying as well as has a pretty interesting storyline. The cast of characters is pretty convincing in their perspective roles and the area itself is a pretty interesting character. This one brings them back to Ireland; which I think is a nice change of pace as well as it has a town with a deep dark secret. It does feel like the typical, "don't trust the locals" type movie, but it is done in a really good way. Also it does have the typical horror movie stereotypes, like the dumb blond, the jock boyfriend, the idiot and the final girl. All in all, good movie and good entry into the series. I like that they tried to reinvent the leprechaun rather than make another sequel. 

BUT....

They decided to create another random sequel called Leprechaun Returns which was released on December 11th, 2018 on SyFy. It was awful. It was meant to be a sequel to the original. This is similar to the 2018 requel of Halloween, which is supposed to be a sequel to the original; but at the same time you're supposed to ignore all the other sequels. Literally I feel that SyFy had seen/heard what Blumhouse was planning with the new Halloween film and decided to do the exact same thing. It can't be a coincidence both movies came out within a few months of each other. Halloween was released in October 2018, where this one was released in December. 

If you're expecting Warwick Davis, you'll be disappointed. The Leprechaun was recast and he portrayed by Linden Porco. I feel they tried to hard to recreate the feel of the leprechaun, because it failed. Like Robert Englund is to Freddy, the same goes for the Leprechaun. No one can play him like Davis. Plain and simple. 

In short, a group of sorority sisters unwittingly awaken a depraved leprechaun who decides to teach them a lesson in murder. (Source: Wiki) 

Um yeah. We have Mark Holton reprising his role as Ozzie (wearing the same exact overalls from the first one, weird). One of the Sorority girls, Lila (Taylor Spreitler) is supposed to be the daughter of Aniston's character (Tori Reding). This very vaguely links the two movies, however it does not feel like another sequel. It feels like a messed up remake with very loose connections to the first one. I mean they have could have created something better rather than just creating a requel. Another thing that bothers me about this sequel is that Ozzie still has the gold coin in his stomach from the first movie. Um wouldn't he have digested that or had to have it removed eventually? How did he survive with that in his stomach for over 20 years? I mean eventually it would have passed through his freaking system. 

Anyway, that's pretty much Leprechaun and it's sequels. I liked the OG movie, it is a good one. I would stick to the original and Leprechaun Origins in my opinion, because the sequels were too much (for me), especially the 2018 one for SyFy. I mean there are some people out there who do like the sequels; but for me they were just way too ridiculous. Then again this was seen to be a little ridiculous. It had a budget of $900k and it went on to make $8.6 million upon its release on January 8th, 1993, so not a really financial success. It wasn't a success with the critics or fans either. Most people have called it a joke, or even boring at times. While all that maybe true, it's still a fun movie to watch and one they STILL air on St. Patrick's Day as well as Halloween. 

IMDB: 4.8/10 || Rotten Tomatoes: 21%

Sleep Tight, 

A Nightmare on Movie Night

Leprechaun Origins (2014)

**This is a repost review that I first published in 2015 on another blog, that I decided to post on here.** 

Personally, I am a huge fan of the original Leprechaun movie staring Warwick Davis. I have to say, he was a good choice for the role, because he brought a lot to the character. To me, he was a horror icon like Freddy Krueger. 

Davis did a great job. It gives you a sense that the movie is not supposed to be taken seriously. I mean it's a Leprechaun, who just wants his gold back. Honestly, I felt Leprechaun was trying to be the Freddy Krueger of the 90s; but it didn't work too well. I get why though, it just became too ridiculous. Some people did not enjoy the fact it leaned more on the humor side than horror. Well, honestly I liked the movie for that premise. However, the same old gags were being recycled; which made the movies really boring to watch. 

Since then, no one has attempted to make a really terrifying Leprechaun movie...until 2014. About 11 years after the first Leprechaun movie was released, a new one began to emerge. I just happen to stumble across an article about it, while trying to piece together the order of the original movies. The movie was going to be called Leprechaun Origins. So not a remake and not a sequel. It was a completely different movie. That's good, because if they had done a remake and NOT included Warwick Davis, I would have been pissed. 

Anyway, the movie was done by WWE Studios. Well, I have to admit, that right there shocked me. The Leprechaun in this movie is played by Dylan 'Hornswoggle' Postl. Yeah the wrestler. Again another shocker, but at least you don't have to look for a stuntman. In my opinion, best Leprechaun so far!! He was very convincing and scary as shit!! It's important to note that Davis was prosthetics in the original Leprechaun. However, in this movie, the Leprechaun was pretty much all CG; but it was still awesome looking, though. 

After first, I was a little intrigued. The original Leprechaun movies were more like slapstick comedy than horror and I feel that’s why they never touched upon the subject again until now. This new movie is a whole new ball game. I was a little nervous watching this movie, but I decided to go ahead and watch it. I wanted to see for myself how good or bad it was. 

Now there are few things I’ve noticed different. The setting has been changed. Instead of taking place in a rural house, it takes place in the Irish countryside. Also the characters are different. Instead of being a group of random strangers, there are two young couples backpacking around Ireland. They visit this remote town in the middle of nowhere and gradually, being to discover the town’s chilling secret. It sort of reminded me of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or even Cabin in the Woods. So yeah especially, if you enjoyed seeing either of those movies, you’ll enjoy this one.

Okay for a movie with the word "Origins" in the title, I didn't feel like they gave away too much of the origin of the Leprechaun. I was expecting flashbacks; similar to Rob Zombie’s remake of Halloween. I mean yes they do give you a little bit of a backstory; but I would have liked them to go further in and given us the entire backstory. However, I think they were just trying to leave it up to your imagination, and for that I give them credit. There aren’t many movies today that leave up to the audience to figure out for themselves.

That's really my only complaint with this movie. The acting is really good. It was a bit predictable and sort of cheesy, but hey it's a horror movie. No one knows how one's going to act in that type of situation. I mean I felt Brendan Fletcher did an amazing job; but there might be someone out there who disagrees with me. Go right ahead!! I think he’s a fantastic actor!!

Okay that’s it. Yeah I don’t want to give too much away of this movie, as I know a lot of people probably have never see or heard of it yet.

Let's just say, it's worth a watch. If you're looking for a decent thriller, I'd go with Leprechaun Origins. I liked it. It was a good movie. Since watching videos on Cinemassacre, I've learned to look at movies in a whole new way, and that's the approach I took with this movie. I viewed as an independent film someone made to entertain people. I'm glad someone had the balls to make another Leprechaun movie. Also make it serious and scary. Let's just hope they don't get ridiculous and end up putting the poor guy in space.

Sleep Tight, 

A Nightmare on Movie Night

Psycho (1960)

"A boy's best friend is his mother." Norman Bates 

Psycho (1960) is about a Phoenix secretary Marion Crane (Janet Leigh), on the lam after stealing $40,000 from her employer in order to run away with her boyfriend, Sam Loomis (John Gavin), is overcome by exhaustion during a heavy rainstorm. Traveling on the back roads to avoid the police, she stops for the night at the ramshackle Bates Motel and meets the polite but highly strung proprietor Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins), a young man with an interest in taxidermy and a difficult relationship with his mother. (Source: Wiki)

This is probably one of the favorite Hitchcock films. It has the right amount of pacing and scenery. This movie truly keeps you on the edge of your seat. 

I'm going to start talking about the setting. The Bates Motel is a deserted motel in the middle of this highway stripe and its the only hotel. It has the creep old house in the back. The way Marion (Leigh) drives up to the motel, it almost just appears out of no where. It's like a ghost hotel. Hitchcock really had a way of creating a scene with just the minimal amount. 

Next we're going to talk about our leading lady, Marion, which is played really well by Janet Leigh (mother of Jamie Lee Curtis). She does a great job, until of course she dies. She is sort of like a red herring, making you think that she is going to be the survivor. 

This is the infamous shower scene, which has been parodied numerous times in countless moves and tv shows, so this really isn't a spoiler. HOWEVER, this is a total SHOCK. It is completely unexpected and comes out of no where. She is innocently taking a shower and then gets stabbed to death by some unknown figure. I read in various facts, that Hitchcock wouldn't allow late entries into the theater, because they would be spending the entire movie wondering where Janet Leigh was. I also enjoy the fact that the blood was actually chocolate syrup, which is pretty clever, mainly because of the way it flows down the drain. 

Lastly, I want to talk about Norman Bates who was played amazingly by Anthony Perkins. Like his performance is over the top and insane. I don't want to spoil the ending, but I feel like it's already been spoiled by so many movies and tv shows. Anyway, at the end you find Norman's mother dead in a chair and he was the killer all along. He was taking orders from his mother to murder. I honestly believe he murdered her himself. Norman Bates was based on serial killer Ed Gain (which is similar to LeatherFace in Texas Chainsaw Massacre). 

Psycho was released on September 8th 1960 to wide critical acclaim and amazing box office numbers. It had a budget of $806, 947 and went on to make $50 million. They did go on to create three sequels to this movie, and I've heard Psycho II is regarded as one of the best sequels ever made. Also there was a remake in 1998, to which I heard did not do so well. Either that or it's just me. I am not a huge fan of remakes, especially when they recreate every scene. Another adaptation was Bates Motel (which is available on Netflix) and it was met with raving critic reviews as well as ratings. It's really nice to see Alfred Hitchcock

Anyway, I highly recommend checking out this amazing classic horror film. 

IMDB: 8.5/10 || Rotten Tomatoes: 96%

Sleep Tight,

A Nightmare on Movie Night

Ernest Scared Stupid (1991)

"How about a bumper sandwich, Boogerlips!" - Ernest

Ernest Scared Stupid (1991) is about Ernest P. Worrell (Jim Varney) who works as a garbage collector in a small Missouri town. Despite the warnings of superstitious local Old Lady Hackmore (Eartha Kitt), he accidentally unleashes devious troll Trantor (Jonas Moscartolo), a slimy creature confined under a tree for 200 years. Trantor changes some kids into wooden dolls and turns Ernest's dog, Rimshot, into a log. Ernest then teams up with Old Lady Hackmore to get rid of the beast and bring the victims back to life. (Source: WIKI) 

I absolutely love this movie. It is for sure cult halloween classic. Jim Varney was a fantastic character actor and this movie was a true test of that. He had multiple personalities, which made him even crazier. 

One thing that sort of put me off is that the kids did not find it weird at all when Ernest would switch to his multiple personalities. For me, I'd stay away from this guy with a split personality, but thats me. 

Anyway, Ernest attempts to help the kids find a tree to have the most epic treehouse in the woods, because let's face it, it's the 90s and that's just normal. They stumble across a really old tree that happens to house a 200 year old Troll. Now thinking about it, the ending is a little iffy, but we will get there. 

Now one of the other main actress in this is the legendary Eartha Kitt, who plays the crazy junkyard lady. She might be remembered mostly as playing Catwoman in the Batman TV series. 

She is very convincing in her perspective roll. She finds out that the kids built a tree house in the same tree that houses this troll. She gets very upset and leaves. Then when Ernest goes to talk to her about it.  she tells him the spell to bring the Troll back to life. Like why? I have a theory. This goes along with the ending. So, at the end of the movie, the troll is defeated and all the kids that were turned to stone are revived. Magic am I right? Anyway, a few kids from the 1800s (so 200 years previous) are revived and a few of them call Lady Hackmore sister? Does that mean she is 200 years old? Is she immortal? I'm lost now. 

Now to my theory, what if she told him the spell and how to say it, so it would wake up the troll so she could get the kids (including her family) from their frozen state, because she is see putting them back by the tree. Also she knew how to kill the troll. My whole thing, is if she knew that before, she could have saved everyone. 

So, that is what Ernest was the entire time, her scapegoat, because it was his great grandfather who actually buried the troll with the tree. I mean this movie isn't perfect in any sense. There are some plot wholes and cheesy moments. One scene in particular, is when there is a mother and daughter fighting in a parking lot. They argue and then like 3 seconds later they love each other. It it just out of place and really random. I mean it makes Lady Hackmore realize that it's "Milk" that kills the trolls, but I mean that's written in her book; so personally it wasn't needed in the movie. 

Meanwhile, Ernest thinks it's Miak, which is also something that I didn't know was a thing. Although, I did look it up and no it's not a real thing. This is actually one of the greatest bits in the movie, because first it's not even a real thing, yet he still manages to find some. Anyway, I'm surprised the troll didn't burst out laughing when he showed up with this little ancient bottle of miak. 

Speaking of the troll, the special effects make-up is absolutely amazing. He always looks like he's always dripping with snot and it's so gross. I think this was the first "killer" troll movie and it was terrifying as a kid. I think I know why. 

The troll masks were recycled from 1988s Killer Klowns from Outer Space. That is freaking clever!! This isn't the only connection that the two movies have in common. Another connection is how they die. For the clowns they got shot in the nose, they spin in a sparkling light show and then blow up. For the trolls, when they are hit with milk, they exhibit the same death sequence. It was something that I didn't even consider until I read another review on this movie. 

So, with that being said, it is pretty cool that these two movies mirror each other and they are also sort of parodies for other movies. Honestly, I'd like the believe this movie is a parody for all the Troll movies that came out in the 80s. 

One last thing I wanted to talk about is the beginning credits. I like how they spliced in old horror movies from the 40s and 50s as Ernest looks around scared. This started my love for horror movies and I was so ready to see some of those movies. Since then I have seen a few of them and I absolutely fell in love with horror movies.

Now this movie did not well in the theaters during its initial release, but has become a cult movie. It drives me crazy that it does not get played during Halloween nor is it available on any of the streaming services. Come on, it's not that bad of a movie. It's actually really good. Like I've mentioned, this movie is not perfect in by any means, but it is still a good and it's a great comedy from the 90s. It had a budget of $9.6 million and made $14.1 million in the box office. Yeah it failed completely with both critics and box office numbers. I still think this movie is a great movie and a great addition to the horror comedy genre. 

I highly recommend this movie to any horror/Jim Varney fan. It is widely available for rental on all the streaming services like iTunes, Amazon, YouTube and GooglePlay. 

IMDB: 5.8/10 || Rotten Tomatoes: 17%

Sleep Tight, 

A Nightmare on Movie Night

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

"Just don't fall asleep. If you die in your dreams, you die for real." - Jesse 

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) centers around the dream entity that is Freddy Krueger. He was a child molester at a preschool called Badham Preschool. A groups of parents burned him alive in the boiler room. They try to forget and move on from it. Freddy stays away until the kids are in high school. It centers around a group of kids; Nancy Holbrook (Rooney Mara), Kris Fowler (Katie Cassidy), Jesse Braun (Thomas Dekker), Dean Russell (Kullen Lutz), and Quentin Smith (Kyle Gallenr), whose parents are responsible for murdering this guy. The first to go is Dean and that starts a chain reaction where one by one each of the elm street children start dying. Typical Nightmare movie. 

Honestly, this NOT my favorite movie. I've just re-watched it recently and I still don't get it. So I think I'm going to just talk about the logistics of the film rather than break down the plot line, because it's EXACTLY the same as the original. 

Let's start with the lead, Freddy Krueger played okay by Jackie Earle Haley. I honestly think they should have gotten someone better. I mean he was okay, but I just fell that he was trying way too hard to be Robert Englund.

I honestly think that if he took on a completely new persona making Freddy scary again, it would have been a more interesting movie. Instead, it appeared he tried to mimic Robert Englund's performance. Seriously? They had the perfect opportunity to reinvent Freddy, but they failed, miserably. 

The make-up effects were also bad. He looked more like melted plastic rather than a burnt face. I believe the majority was CG. Like why? I'm sure you could have done a cast of his face and come up with an actual mask instead of using something computer generated. I mean OG Freddy didn't have that. Englund sat for 6+ hours during those long make-up sessions as they applied the mask piece by piece. I think that's mainly the problem with effects, it's so much cheaper to use CG rather than something that's practical. 

When you creating a remake, it should not look anything like the original. This one recreated almost every key scene from the original. Let's list them: 

1. Tina's Death vs. Kris's Death

Tina was murdered in her sleep with 4 claw marks down her torso. She was also dragged along the ceiling and fell on to the bed splatting blood all over the place. 

Kris's was a little stranger. She was sliced in the torso with 4 claws, tossed about the room and fell on the bed. There's wasn't as much blood in the scene. Sound familiar? 

Tina's death was much more impactful, because she is the false lead. You think she's going to be the one to survive and she is our final girl. This one just felt like a cop-out. 

2. Nancy's Bath: 84' vs 10' 

In 1984, Nancy decides to take a calming bath. She ends up dozing off in the bath tub; because she is so tired. The first thing you see is Freddy's glove coming up from the water, but she is jerked awake by her mother's knocking. Eventually mom goes away, Nancy drifts off to sleep, and then she gets sucked into a whole in the bathtub. She struggles a bit and then she finally gets out of the bathtub. Now that I think about it, Nancy's death in the original is kind of foreshadowing how Glen dies in the movie...interesting...

In 2010, Nancy takes a bath to relax herself before bed. Guess what happens? Yeah a glove comes up from the bathtub. I think an "alarm" wakes her up, she gets out, dresses; and returns to her room. Now she is transformed into a "dream like" state where she is standing outside a preschool (ummm). She comes in contact with Freddy and before she "dies" her phone rings waking her up in the bathtub. 

3. Tina's Bodybag vs Kris' Bodybag 

In 1984, Nancy is in her English class. She falls asleep and when she wakes, she sees her best friend calling to her in a clear bodybag. Nancy goes and follows her. She sees her laying on the ground in the hallway, her legs get picked up by some invisible figure and dragged down the hallway. 

In 2010, I'm not even going to say it. It's exactly the same!! Nancy looks down the hallway to see Kris being dragged in a clear bodybag (which they don't even use anymore, by the way) down the hallway. 

4. Rod's Death vs. Jesse's Death 

While both of their deaths were different, they were both killed in a jail cell. Rod was hanged by his own sheets, which kind of witnessed by one of the officers. 

Jesse's was a little bit more bizarre, because not only did he have a cellmate, but there was also video footage of what happened. How you explain that, I don't know. 

5. Freddy's One Liners

Robert Englund was famous for creating such memorable lines from the Nightmare series. One in particular was "Welcome to Primetime, Bitch;" which is probably one his most famous. He had a way of delivering them, which made you feel uneasy at times. 

 

Jackie Earl Haley doesn't have that many memorable lines from what I recall. Aside from in the scene to the right, where he says on line that sounded oddly familiar (like everything else in this movie). As Nancy is running the hallway, she starts sinking in a lot of blood (what is it with Warner Bros and blood? They just love it. I mean there was a TON of it in It Chapter 1 and 2). This is almost similar to Nancy getting stuck on the stairs as she attempted to run from Freddy after Rod died. Anyway, as she is slowly sinking in this floor, Freddy says, "How's this for a wet dream?" Yeah that line was already used for ANOES Part 4: word for word too. 

One final thing I'll say and I really wish this wasn't the main plot point of the movie is the child sexual assaults. I honestly think they should have made that as more of a subtext rather than it being in your face. For me, it seemed like that was their main selling point for the movie. The original had it placed sort of in the background, mainly because what was going on in the media at that time; but it also made the movie scarier. 

I'm not the only one who felt this was a complete betrayal on Warner Bros part for making a subpar Nightmare movie. Most of the producers and execs thought that it could have made better. They felt the storyline was ruined by this film. Oh interesting fact, in the credits, it lists Robert Shaye as Producer (since he produced the original and sequels), however he had nothing to do with this movie. He is just there in name only. This just pisses me off. When New Line and Warner Bros merged, they literally forced Robert Shaye out of his office after 4 decades. He literally built New Line and it makes his name being tied to this project the biggest F-U I've ever seen. 

Anyway, I recommend checking out the documentary Never Sleep Again: The Nightmare Legacy. It pretty much covers the entire Nightmare series including the 2010 remake. 

This movie was released on April 30th, 2010. Whoa I just realized that this movie is now 10 years old and it did not age well. Upon its release, it made 115.6million dollars in the box office on a 35 million dollar budget. It was the highest grossing film in the franchise, however, it was met with some really bad reviews. 

So, yeah this concludes the Nightmare on Elm Street series. I mean the remake wasn't so bad. It just wasn't the greatest remake ever made. Honestly I think they should try again and see if they can make Freddy scary again like they did with Pennywise. 

             IMDB: 5.2/10 || Rotten Tomatoes: 15%

Well regardless it was an interesting little experiment and if they ever attempt it again, they should make it better. Just saying. 

I recommend checking it out for curiosity sake. 

Sleep Tight, 

A Nightmare on Movie Night

Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994)

"Are you ready to become Nancy once again?" - Wes Craven

Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994) is about the semi-real life of Heather Langencamp. It takes elements from her real life like she's married to a special effects artist, and they have a son. Everything is quiet for while until a nightmare about a new Freddy movie starts to change her world upside down. Her son, Dylan (Miko Hughes), started to hallucinate about Freddy, shortly after her husband, Chase (David Newsom), is killed in a car crash after falling asleep at the wheel. According to Wes Craven, Freddy is an entity that is trying to force it's way out of dreams and in reality. So they have to make another movie and Heather has to make a choice to play Nancy one final time. She eventually enters the dream world and defeats Freddy once and for all.

This movie is an interesting concept as it puts an emphasis on the horror genre and the role that it plays on society.  For instance, throughout the movie, much like real life, Heather was being stalked by a mysterious super fan who constantly called her. He was obsessed and mad at the fact that the movies had ended. This is a real life horror story that happen to Heather, which caused her to move to England for about 5 months just to get away from it all.

New Nightmare is sort of different, especially of 1994 standards. It was interesting to see a change from reality into fiction. It defiantly blurs that line between reality and fiction. It makes you feel like you're watching a Twilight Zone episode. This makes you wonder, is it all in her head or is it really happening? Once she has the sit down with Wes, you really see reality and fiction slowly merging together. For instance, when Wes is talking about the script, he had written that Heather's husband would die in a horrible car crash. So it's almost like he's writing the reality. Weird.

Speaking of, I think the most tragic part of this movie is that it centers around Heather's son, who is being haunted by Freddy. He is slowly being taken over in a possessed sort of way. I'd have to say that Miko Hughes did a fantastic job portraying Dylan. He has a very expressive face and he had to do a lot of acting with his face. Another sad element is that Dylan loses his father and everything begins to fall apart. There is a feel throughout the film of a sudo-reality, and it makes you wonder if this is really happening or a dream. I honestly believe this is where they got the idea for inception, just saying, because it has that sort of feel to it.

I felt there was a great balance between the non fiction to the fiction aspects throughout the film. I mean there is literal scene where Wes and Heather are having a conversation, then it pans to the computer where the exact words they spoken were displayed before it faded to black.

Also Wes used a lot of elements happening in LA at the time. For instance, after the beginning sequence with the earthquake, the following day there was the 7.0 NorthRidge Quake that destroyed most of the buildings in downtown LA. Craven had a second crew go around and film all the destruction, just so he could add it into the movie; which I thought was a fantastic touch.

There are a lot of child-like elements in this movie, such as Rex, Dylan's Dinosaur. This animal is supposed to protect him from Freddy, who keeps coming up from another dimension, aka "Hell." Also there is the creepy retelling for the Grim Fairytale, Hansel and Gretel. It appears to be Dylan's favorite story; which is weird because of the scary elements. They use the idea of breadcrumbs for Heather to join him in the Dream World, and even the element of burning Freddy in an oven-type fire.

I love Freddy's make-up in this film. It looks more defined than the previous films. The skin is torn away in some sorts showing the muscle underneath. Also I love the fact that the glove is apart of his hand rather than a piece he made himself. This made him look really devilish. Robert Englund did a fantastic job portraying the legend. He also played himself in the film, so for him to split between the two personalities so flawless was absolutely perfect.

The special effects in general were really good in this movie. There were the cracks that began in the wall of Heather's bedroom, sort of depicting her ascent into madness. The glove coming up out of the seat as Chase drove home, which clawed him in the stomach. They recycled the rotating room for Julie's, Dylan's babysitter, death. I would have to say that my favorite set/scene is the ending. It is so detailed. One thing I found interesting was the 7 deadly sins that were carved on the wall. It made you feel like you were really in Freddy's Hell.

Another thing I liked about this film is that Freddy is treated like an Urban Legend like Bloody Mary, or even Candyman. So, he is darker, scarier and, I don't know if it was possible, but he's more evil. He is hellbent on becoming a real entity and escape this fictional world; where he lived for ten years. As the movie depicts, it is more fitting to create a brand new narrative for Freddy in order to keep him in the fictional "Dream World." Basically it is like putting the gene back in the bottle and doing a reset. However, it was something that stay dormant until 2010 when they had to do a remake; but we will take about that another time.

Anyway, this movie was interesting in the sense that we never see this type of sudo-reality in movies like Friday the 13th, or Halloween. (Oh man imagine, Jason crossing over from fiction to reality.) This is what makes the Nightmare on Elm Street Series different from the rest. Wes Craven took a huge risk with this movie and I feel it paid off. It made 19.7 million in the box office on a 8 million dollar budget. The movie appeared to be the poorest of the franchise, but you have to understand, this movie was released the same day as Pulp Fiction; which was a financial success.

I felt this movie was a fitting end to the franchise. It started with Nancy and it ended with Nancy; which I thought was perfect symmetry. Many people may have felt that the franchise was tired at this point when it was first released, however it has been made certified fresh on Rotten Tomatoes; so there's that. This movie I feel is hard to review, because I don't want to talk about every key scene in the movie. It's been out for over 10 years, so I feel many people have already seen it. I just wanted to talk a little bit about my thoughts on the movie and the reasons I love it so much. So if you haven't checked it out, I would recommend it.

IMDB: 6.4/10 || Rotten Tomatoes: 80%

Coming soon: A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) 

Sleep Tight,

A Nightmare on Movie Night