[31 Days of Horror Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan] Day 4 – New Nightmare (1994)

Director: Wes Craven
Cast: Robert Englund, Heather Langenkamp, Miko Hughes, David Newsom, John Saxon
Screenplay: Wes Craven
112 mins. Rated R for explicit horror violence and gore, and for language.

By 1994, the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise was so beaten into the ground that it doesn’t surprise me that Wes Craven (Scream, My Soul to Take) was able to step in and do whatever he wanted with the property. New Nightmare is a movie that shouldn’t work, one that confronts the projector booth or the television screen to remind you that all of this is fake but it can still kill you. How did it happen, how does it work, and does the movie still have a place? Let’s find out.

It’s been years since Heather Langenkamp (Hellraiser: Judgment, TV’s Just the Ten of Us) played Nancy Thompson, and yet, the memory of her time on A Nightmare on Elm Street has defined her career, and it has stayed with her since. Her husband, Chase Porter (David Newsom, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, CODA) has been working on a secret project with Wes Craven, she’s dealing with a stalker, and her son Dylan (Miko Hughes, Kindergarten Cop, The Untold Story) has been struggling under the stress of it all. The worst thing is she’s starting to have nightmares about Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund, Nightworld: Door of Hell, The Funhouse Massacre), but this Freddy is different. He’s darker, angrier, more primordial, and he wants Dylan.

The plot of New Nightmare is tied to the real world. Wes Craven has confronted the unreality of the franchise to this point and Freddy Krueger as a character. Brand recognition has made Krueger something that even children can recognize, a horror Ronald McDonald, and with that, he seems to have lost some of the luster, that edge that he started out with. That’s true. Even as a defender of most of the sequels, the horror/comedy line that Krueger tows lessens the horror and increases the comedy with each installment. It never got as bad as Seed of Chucky, but Freddy’s Dead: The Final Nightmare is truly an abysmal send-off for the beloved horror icon. You can critique Craven all day about maybe just being biased against the sequels but he was still right about that. His decision to approach the material in a very different way is not only admirable, but it shockingly works, and it works really well. Craven mined the real world for influences, even going as far as to introduce a stalker subplot to Heather’s story (something that the real Heather Langenkamp dealt with), and it’s commendable that even though he had disdain for the sequels, he never once feels the need to completely disown them from the canon, an overall good idea that probably would’ve happened in today’s retcon-heavy horror landscape. Craven’s script feels focused and restrained, but he’s playing in the sandbox that he created again, and he’s ambitious in telling his story. In fact, there are elements of his original screenplay that would only have expanded upon his ambition (like the Michael Berryman-driven van that “Wes Craven” the character would have ridden around in, his eyelids removed so as not to fall asleep), and it may have been for the best that some of these crazier ideas were excised, but they also showcase the confidence that Craven has in his universe.

Through Craven’s writing and directing and Robert Englund’s reinvention of the character, we get a very different Freddy Krueger this time around, so much so that I would almost want to refrain from calling him Freddy. This uber-Freddy is something larger, nightmarish, coming from a much more fantastical realm, and taking on the visage of Krueger to play off the audience’s, and Heather’s, fears. This idea feels like a natural progression, and it takes the mythology of A Nightmare on Elm Street and expands it exponentially to achieve this. Whereas the original Freddy invaded the perforation between dreams and reality, this one invades the perforation between the film world and the real world, but it’s so much more than that. This new Freddy is supposedly much closer to Craven’s intention, and it is indeed closer to his original film than it is to any of the sequels. I should also circle back to the performance by Robert Englund. He does something unique with this portrayal of Krueger (since it is a different entity, perhaps, or maybe even an evolution of the dream demons from Freddy’s Dead, if we’re getting canonical here) which makes it stand on its own even if you haven’t seen any of the other films. In fact, I can’t say for certain, but I think New Nightmare was the second Nightmare on Elm Street film I’d seen after The Dream Child, and it freaked me the hell out as a kid. Perhaps it’s because Englund is also playing himself here, but he adds little verbal tics and physical movements to this new iteration so that it seems like a completely new character.

Much like Englund, Heather Langenkamp has to play herself, a fictionalized version or course, and also somewhat reprise Nancy Thompson. Along with her, John Saxon (Enter the Dragon, Black Christmas) returns to do double duty for a bit as well. Both Langenkamp and Saxon able to do a lot of heavy lifting here. Langenkamp has to convince us that this is really, and oftentimes it is believed that playing oneself is easy, but it isn’t. There tends to be an accidentally satirical or over-the-top lilt to everything because we see ourselves differently than other people see us, but Langenkamp still has that girl next door innocence that Nancy has, but aged up ten years and aware of where she’s come from. While Langenkamp takes on the narrative flow, Saxon adds a punch to it. Much like all his appearances in this series and many other movies, he is able to do a lot with a little bit of screen time, and that’s no different here.

Even the non-actors are able to carry their own weight here. I know that Wes Craven is not an actor. I know that Robert Shaye isn’t. In that way, it’s a good thing that they don’t take the film with their performances, and while they would never win awards, they are capable enough not to derail the narrative or pull down the curtain of illusion that we are in the “real” world as we watch.

The film carries faults in a few areas that, again, do not derail the illusion, but they are there. I found the constant screaming for “Dylan” to be a little grating. The finished product has 300 utterances of Dylan’s name, and the more you watch it, the more it gets at you. I didn’t like Dr. Heffner as a secondary antagonist because, as I’ve grown older, I’m less convinced of her realism by the way she is written. I just didn’t buy it. I also kind of wish that Craven had tilted a bit more into the mythology that he’s going with. As I mentioned above, so much of the mythology works within the confines of presenting us with the “real” world, but to be honest, I wish he had pushed that envelope a little bit further. The areas where he leans into the fantastical are some of my favorite sequences on repeat viewings, especially where the film ends up. The finale is great, but I wish there was more of it.

New Nightmare laid a lot of ground work for the later Craven slasher Scream. I’m convinced that we would not have Scream without New Nightmare, and we might not have the excitement for Freddy Krueger among the horror fanbase without this unique installment. Remember, we last hooked up with Freddy for Freddy’s Dead: The Final Nightmare, one of the worst installments of any franchise and certainly the worst Freddy Krueger film. We may not have gotten Freddy vs. Jason or the remake or the interest in continuing the franchise without it. Here, Wes Craven crafted the precursor to the meta-slasher, and he did it while convincing us that everything was real. Most filmmakers only have to convince us what’s on the screen is real. Craven admits that everything is fake up to this point, and that Freddy Krueger is just a guy in a costume with prop knives, and then he re-convinces us all over again, leading to one of the most entertaining and interesting franchise continuations ever put to the horror landscape, culminating in a fantastic finale that ends the franchise in a great place and re-cements Krueger as one of the horror greats.

4/5
-Kyle A. Goethe

For my review of Sean S. Cunningham’s Friday the 13th, click here.
For my review of Wes Craven’s A Nightmare on Elm Street, click here.
For my review of Steve Miner’s Friday the 13th Part II, click here.
For my review of Steve Miner’s Friday the 13th Part 3, click here.
For my review of Joseph Zito’s Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter, click here.
For my review of Jack Sholder’s A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge, click here.
For my review of Danny Steinmann’s Friday the 13th Part V: A New Beginning, click here.
For my review of Chuck Russell’s A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors, click here.
For my review of Tom McLoughlin’s Jason Lives: Friday the 13th Part VI, click here.
For my review of Renny Harlin’s A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master, click here.
For my review of John Carl Buechler’s Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood, click here.
For my review of Stephen Hopkins’s A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child, click here.
For my review of Rob Hedden’s Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan, click here.
For my review of Rachel Talalay’s Freddy’s Dead: The Final Nightmare, click here.
For my review of Adam Marcus’s Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday, click here.

For my review of Wes Craven’s Shocker, click here.
For my review of Wes Craven’s Vampire in Brooklyn, click here.
For my review of Wes Craven’s Scream, click here.

October 4, 2021 1

[31 Days of Horror Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan] Day 3 – Wolf (1994)

Director: Mike Nichols
Cast: Jack Nicholson, Michelle Pfeiffer, James Spader, Kate Nelligan, Richard Jenkins, Christopher Plummer
Screenplay: Jim Harrison, Wesley Strick
125 mins. Rated R for language and werewolf attacks.

It’s weird that Jack Nicholson (Chinatown, How Do You Know) was so passionate about making a werewolf movie. He and his friend and screenwriter Jim Harrison tried to get this project off the ground for 12 years before finally making it happen. What’s even weirder than Jack’s drive to make Wolf is the idea that the movie has seemingly disappeared from pop culture. No one talks about Wolf. No one really discusses its place in the wider horror canon, especially among the realm of Werewolf Cinema, perhaps the toughest horror sub-genre to crack in cinema history. So why did this film get forgotten. Let’s look at that today as we break down my first viewing of Wolf.

From director Mike Nichols (The Graduate, Closer), Wolf is the story of Will Randall (Nicholson), skilled editor-in-chief from a major publishing house, who is bitten by a black wolf on his way home from Vermont. In the following days, Will’s life is upended by changes in his career and personal life, seemingly none for the better. What’s more curious are the changes to Will’s body and mind. His ability to smell and hear grow exponentially to a superhuman level. He’s waking up in new and interesting places with no memory of the night before except unusual dreams. As the odd occurrences continue, Will finds himself ulterior perspectives, including a doctor who believes that Will is slowly turning into a wolf following his bite. Now, Will is forced to consider his limited options as his time runs out.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I dug the hell out of this movie. It’s not perfect, but for what it’s trying to do, I really found myself taken with it. Jack Nicholson’s take on Will and his transformations into a beast are fantastic, which should be a no-brainer, but his commitment to the role is really great. He also has great chemistry with just about everyone in the movie, from his romantic entanglement with Laura Alden (Michelle Pfeiffer, What Lies Beneath, French Exit), his new boss’s daughter, to even secondary characters like David Hyde Pierce’s Roy, a colleague and assistant to Will. It helps that Harrison’s screenplay with Wesley Strick treats Will like a human being with a solid characterization and a gripping realistic take on the idea of lycanthropy.

On the other side of things, James Spader (Avengers: Age of Ultron, TV’s The Blacklist) just chews the scenery as Will’s protege, Stewart Swinton. There’s a smarmy quality to Spader’s best characters, and Stewart has that and a healthy dose of pity. It’s almost like Stewart is fully aware that his lies are unconvincing, and he doesn’t care. His sociopathy is higher than most characters, and through Spader’s performance, I believed every second of it.

Wolf has a similar visual flair to other horror films of the early 90s, like The Silence of the Lambs or perhaps The Good Son. What struck me was the visual likeness to Kubrick’s The Shining. It may have been the inclusion of Nicholson as a fractured character, but I got the same sense of tone from what was on display in Nichols’s movie as well. The cinematography from Giuseppe Rotunno seems to take cues from classic Universal Monsters and updates it to the early 90s (that pre-Frighteners look of the 90s).

Perhaps the film was mostly forgotten because it chooses to steer away from the campier albeit more memorable facets of the Werewolf film. Much like how zombies are never called zombies in Romero’s Living Dead films, we never hear mention of werewolves as an entity, and the idea of Randall’s slowly turning into an actual wolf may have lent it to disappointment for horror hounds looking for carnage, but I think that’s part of the charm. Rick Baker was brought on to develop the makeup and transformation effects, which may have led some to believe that the film would be more in line with his famous work on An American Werewolf in London (for which he won the inaugural Best Makeup Oscar), but his restraint here gives a more nuanced werewolf movie for the adults in the room. Baker had to work around Nicholson’s allergy to spirit gum, and he also had to craft realistic pieces of transformation and wolf effects. My wife laughed at the look of the wolf from the opening of the movie, but I loved the practical effect at play.

That’s not to say that Wolf is without fault. There are some choices, like shooting day-for-night in the dream sequences looking completely out of place. The film also runs on about 20 minutes too long, and it leaves you with unanswered questions and a bit more open of an ending than I would have liked. I also found the building of the romantic angle between Will and Laura to be a bit simplistic (remember, I called out their great chemistry here as a saving grace, but it could’ve been written better all the same). I also would’ve preferred a bit more bite in the climax, which works well but left me wanting more.

All of that aside, it’s amazing that we had a 90s werewolf movie with Jack Nicholson, Michelle Pfeiffer, James Spader, and Christopher Plummer (Beginners, The Insider) and directed by the guy that did The Birdcage. It’s also amazing that we don’t really talk about it. My copy of the movie was a Mill Creek barebones DVD, so the film doesn’t seem to have the fanfare surrounding the more classic of the Werewolf movies, and it didn’t exactly blow away the box office, but I would very much recommend checking it out (or revisiting it if it’s been a while), as I thoroughly enjoyed Wolf.

4/5
-Kyle A. Goethe

October 3, 2021 1

[St. Patrick’s Day] Leprechaun 2 (1994)

Director: Rodman Flender

Cast: Warwick Davis, Charlie Heath, Shevonne Durkin, Adam Biesk, Arturo Gil, Linda Hopkins, James Lancaster, Sandy Baron

Screenplay: Turi Meyer, Al Septien

85 mins. Rated R for violence, and for nudity.

You’re damn right I picked Leprechaun 2 to watch today, and I hope I don’t regret it terribly. Spoiler Alert: I will.

Leprechaun 2 follows the same Leprechaun (Warwick Davis, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2, Star Wars: Episode VII – The Force Awakens) as the first film (at least I think so, the last time he kicked the bucket in a fairly gruesome way and this time, he’s born out of a tree) as he searches for true love. A thousand years ago, he had fallen for a beautiful young woman, and according to some bullshit about turning 1000, he can claim her as his bride, provided that she sneeze three times and nobody say “God Bless You” (seriously, I can’t even make this up). The problem is that the young woman is the daughter of his slave, William O’Day (James Lancaster, The Prestige, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End), who mucks it up to save her. One thousand years later, in present day 1994, the Leprechaun is back to attempt to claim her back when he discovers Bridget (Shevonne Durkin, Ghost in the Machine, Spermicide), a young woman who resembles the girl he fell for so long ago. Bridget’s boyfriend, Cody (Charlie Heath, The Beverly Hillbillies, Friends Til the End), and his boss/friend/guy Morty (Sandy Baron, Sid & Nancy, Vamp) must unite to trick the evil little Leprechaun and destroy him before he gets her to sneeze. Wow, I had trouble explaining all that.

Leprechaun 2 is pure shit. As I said before, I’m still not sure if this is supposed to be the same Leprechaun as before or if we are to think that they all look alike (that might put me in hot water). Warwick Davis is clearly the only one having fun here, playing off the uninterested cast as best he can. Director Rodman Flender (Idle Hands, Conan O’Brien Can’t Stop) cannot handle the poorly written screenplay from Turi Meyer and Al Septien (Chairman of the Board, Wrong Turn 2: Dead End).

Oh my God, I couldn’t defend this film if I tried. It’s a wonder even this one made it to theaters.

So, let’s just cover what is good. Warwick Davis can’t be faulted. Sandy Baron is probably the most skilled performer here and, again, does his best. There is a great scene involving a lawnmower. The Leprechaun drives what amounts to a miniature Formula 1 death machine at one point. The credits were nice at the end.

If you have already imbibed the green beer on this St. Patrick’s Day, then maybe you can stomach Leprechaun 2. If not, then I’m glad I gave you fair warning.

1.5/5

-Kyle A. Goethe

For my review of Mark Jones’ Leprechaun, click here.

March 17, 2016 2

[12 Days of Christmas] On the Fourth Day… The Santa Clause (1994)

Director: John Pasquin

Cast: Tim Allen, Judge Reinhold, Eric Lloyd, Wendy Crewson, David Krumholtz, Peter Boyle

Screenplay: Leo Benvenuti, Steve Rudnick

97 mins. Rated PG for a few crude moments.

Killing Santa is kind of morbid. Very few can get through an event like that and still be likable. Scott Calvin (Tim Allen, TV’s Home Improvement, Toy Story 3) tries his best to overcome that nasty hurdle. That is, until he discovers The Santa Clause, a decree that if Santa is killed, one must take up the red coat and beard and continue the job. While this news excites Scott’s son Charlie (Eric Lloyd, Batman & Robin, Chromeskull: Laid to Rest 2), it certainly frightens Scott as well as his ex-wife Laura (Wendy Crewson, Air Force One, Antiviral) and her new husband Neil (Judge Reinhold, Beverly Hills Cop, Dr. Dolittle: Million Dollar Mutts), who both believe that Scott is losing his grip on reality in order to make his son believe in Santa. As Scott continues his transformation into St. Nick in time for the next Christmas Eve, he must come to grips with this new reality and try to salvage his life as Scott Calvin with his life as Kris Kringle.

The Santa Clause is very much a nice piece of cheese. I end up watching it every year around this time because it’s just a lot of fun. Tim Allen has a lot of fun with this role, keeping it all light-hearted even though the film itself could come off rather morbid. The supporting characters in Crewson and Reinhold ride the line of asshole vs. caring human nicely. Eric Lloyd doesn’t provide much, but his career proves that enough.

The screenplay is rather fun, though the film has definitely aged. It looks aged, but it still is a treat to watch. This Disney film is quite imaginative while also being slightly more grounded than it needed to be. Most of all, The Santa Clause is a movie about responsibility. It’s about taking up your baggage and understanding that the person you need to be may not be the person you wanted to be.

Worth a couple laughs indeed.

3.5/5

-Kyle A. Goethe

December 17, 2014 1

[Happy 20th Birthday!] Trapped in Paradise (1994)

Director: George Gallo

Cast: Nicolas Cage, Jon Lovitz, Dana Carvey

Screenplay: George Gallo

111 mins. Rated PG-13 for some rude language.

Christmas is just around the corner, so I thought it fitting to jump into the Christmas spirit by talking about a classic (at least on Comedy Central) that came to screens twenty years ago today. I’m talking about a little black comedy called Trapped in Paradise. It stars Nicolas Cage (Leaving Las Vegas, Left Behind) as Bill Firpo, the rightest of the three Firpo brothers, and the only one who can mostly ignore his temptations to commit crimes. His brothers Dave (Jon Lovitz, Happiness, Grown Ups 2) and Alvin (Dana Carvey, Wayne’s World, Jack and Jill) cannot ignore theirs, and are being released from prison due to overcrowding. Bill is begged by his paroled brethren to head to Paradise, Pennsylvania to visit the daughter of an incarcerated friend and ask her to visit her dying father. Bill eventually goes along, and for reason, he is most easily convinced to commit a bank robbery. The bank robbery goes somewhat awry, and the boys are now stuck in the town to a sweltering blizzard hitting town. They must survive being trapped in Paradise. See what I did there?

Nicolas Cage is just terrible here. He yells and screams and Cages everything in sight. His is one of the most unlikable performances in his career. He thankfully gets outshined by Lovitz and Carvey who provide a few laughs and have good chemistry, but altogether become more of a chorus than active members of the family. They provide a hokey commentary on the events going on without really bearing much weight on the story.

And what’s the deal with this bank robbery? Cage’s character Bill spends most of the film trying to keep his brothers from committing petty theft before being easily swayed into robbing a bank? C’MON! Totally unbelievable and uninspired. Prove it to me, unheard of director George Gallo! Prove it!

I enjoyed some of the tertiary characters in this film. They play as caricatures of picturesque small-town people. If the film were set a bit more to the west, I could call it Minnesota Nice to the extreme.

Director Gallo (Middle Men, Double Take) sleeps through this film. I didn’t find myself swept up in any of the events of the film. His screenplay offers far too few laughs and far too much fluff (and this isn’t good fluff, it is crap covered fluff). Even the cast in the film looks like it isn’t having any fun in this “funny Christmas” film. They referred to it as “Trapped in Bullshit” for the entirety of the strained shoot, and it shows here.

Part of me is drawn to Trapped in Paradise once every couple years, and when I finish it, I’m still not sure why. The film is dark and unfunny, it isn’t beautifully shot or acted, and it isn’t a plot that I can connect to in the slightest. This film exists somewhere above the Hallmark film releases but dreadfully below most anything else.

1.5/5

-Kyle A. Goethe

December 2, 2014 0

Dumb and Dumber (1994)

Director: Peter Farrelly

Cast: Jim Carrey, Jeff Daniels, Lauren Holly, Karen Duffy, Mike Starr, Charles Rocket, Victoria Rowell, Teri Garr

Screenplay: Peter Farrelly, Bennett Yellin, Bobby Farrelly

107 mins. Rated PG-13 for off-color humor.

1994 was a very good year for films. I may have already discussed this, but I feel like I need to reiterate. 1994 was one of the best years for films in history. From a critical standpoint, we had such classics as Pulp Fiction, The Shawshank Redemption, and Forrest Gump. From a comedy standpoint, audiences received a hilarious turkey (or triple play) from Jim Carrey (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Kick-Ass 2) with Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, The Mask, and Dumb & Dumber. It was a great year.

Dumb & Dumber is a bit of a comedy enigma. The film is far too stupid and outlandish to be good, and yet it is one of the most incredibly perfect comedies ever constructed.

Lloyd Christmas (Carrey) is an idiot. He has just fallen in love at first sight with a woman he doesn’t even know named Mary (Lauren Holly, TV’s NCIS, Spirited Away) and when he finds a briefcase she has lost in an airport terminal, he vows to return it to her. He enlists dog groomer and best friend Harry Dunne (Jeff Daniels, TV’s The Newsroom, Good Night and Good Luck) who, like Lloyd, is an idiot, to help him in his quest and make a new name for themselves in the land of opportunity, Aspen. The trouble is, Mary didn’t lose her briefcase, and Lloyd and Harry have entangled themselves in a plot more menacing than either could have anticipated.

The film is made by its performances. Everybody in this movie plays it straight to the book except Carrey and Daniels, and it is made all the more goofy than it should be. We have some incredible supporting work from Mike Starr (TV’s The Young and the Restless, GoodFellas) as a hitman trying to take our lovable morons out of the picture. There is also the terrific late actor Charles Rocket (Dances with Wolves, Hocus Pocus) who is a family friend of Mary’s.

There are some truly laugh-out-loud moments and one-liners that keep this film at the forefront of fans’ minds long after viewing for the zillionth time. I still cringe at the encounter that the dumb-dumbs have with local law enforcement after getting discovered with an open bottle. I still giggle everytime the guy in the diner yells “Kick his ass, Seabass!” and I still find a happy place every time Seabass tries to get revenge on Lloyd in the bathroom stall of a gas station.

To make a long story short, or for that matter, a smart story dumb, Dumb and Dumber is a perfect comedy that belongs in a hall of fame alongside other greats like Tommy Boy and Animal House. It stands the test of time even after twenty years and I can see it living on another few decades.

5/5

-Kyle A. Goethe

November 26, 2014 4

[Happy 20th Birthday!] Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles (1994)

Director: Neil Jordan

Cast: Tom Cruise, Brad Pitt, Antonio Banderas, Stephen Rea, Christian Slater, Kirsten Dunst

Screenplay: Anne Rice

123 mins. Rated R for vampire violence and gore, and for sexuality.

Academy Award Nominee: Best Art Direction – Set Decoration
Academy Award Nominee: Best Music, Original Score

I always find it intriguing when a non-genre director of merit gets involved in a horror film or something with supernatural elements, as if Martin Scorsese got up one day and decided to direct the next Star Wars. When Neil Jordan (The Crying Game, Byzantium) decided to direct the adaptation of Anne Rice’s Interview with the Vampire, I’m sure it shocked some people. After all, this doesn’t happen often, but I think he proved that when it does happen, it can be a magical thing.

Interview with the Vampire follows Louis (Brad Pitt, Inglourious Basterds, Fury) a man of means and a wonderful family back in the 1700s. When Louis is bitten and turned by a vampire named Lestat (Tom Cruise, Top Gun, Edge of Tomorrow), he learns the details of his life from his new sire and, through his recollection of the past to patient listener Daniel Malloy (Christian Slater, True Romance, Nymphomaniac Vol. 1) in present day 1994, he recounts the tragic details of his 200 years of death.

Damn, such a great movie, and twenty years haven’t hurt it. It still looks stunning, in part due to its tremendous set design, for which it was nominated for an Oscar. Tom Cruise is at his top form here as the infamous Lestat. This is the kind of role that Cruise should go for more often. I find that much of his work harkens back to Mission: Impossible style action-thrillers (which work sometimes) but I feel like taking chances offers up some pretty amazing work. Brad Pitt as Louie is another performance where you actually forget who is playing the role, but I think the big winner here is Kirsten Dunst (Spider-Man, Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues) as Louis’ new sire Claudia, forced to live forever in the body of child. She just steals those scenes where her mind has developed but not her body. She is forced to watch as her partners Lestat and Louis practically salivate at the sight of a nude woman in all her sensual glory.

That’s the reason someone like Neil Jordan would take on a project like this. It has depth. Its characters are not presented as one-dimensional flat cardboard cutouts. These are really people, or undead beings, portrayed by those who have learned the craft, and Jordan takes these talents and puts them to good work, showcasing a veritable Forrest Gump of the undead. This is a film with wit, charm, blood, and sex. It has a lot of things going for it, including a great script from the novel’s author Anne Rice, who “adapts” her novel instead of just putting the same story on the screen. Rice understood where changes need to be made, and she did.

Watch this movie if you love horror movies. Watch this movie if you don’t. In case I need to be clearer, watch this movie. Please.

5/5

-Kyle A. Goethe

November 11, 2014 4

[Happy 20th Birthday!] Frankenstein (1994)

Director: Kenneth Branagh

Cast: Robert De Niro, Kenneth Branagh, Tom Hulce, Helena Bonham Carter, Ian Holm, John Cleese, Aidan Quinn

Screenplay: Steph Lady, Frank Darabont

123 mins. Rated R for horrific images.

Academy Award Nominee: Best Makeup

After the commercial and critical success that was Francis Ford Coppola’s Dracula, the decision was made to revisit another gothic horror classic novel, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Coppola made the decision to pass directorial duties to the talented Shakespearian director/performer Kenneth Branagh (Henry V, Cinderella), something he would later in life admittedly regret, but we will get to that later.

Frankenstein 1994 is closer to Shelley’s original novel than its 1931 counterpart, showing the story of Victor Frankenstein (played by Branagh) and his making of the iconic Creature (Robert De Niro, GoodFellas, Grudge Match), much to the tragedy of friend Henry Clerval (Tom Hulce, Amadeus, Jumper) and love Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter, Fight Club, Burton and Taylor).

Frankenstein suffers from a crisis of identity. On one hand, it is trying to be a gothic horror filled with a mixture of dark realism and fantastical surrealism; on the other hand, it is too much Shakespeare. Branagh seems to have difficulty playing to anything other than Shakespeare, with a series of over-the-top performances and exaggerated jubilation during the happy moments. I just couldn’t believe the events of this film as actually realistically happening.

De Niro dominates this film with his portrayal of The Creature. He studied stroke victims and other medical cases where speech patterns can be fractured in his line delivery. He becomes a tragic figure in cinema, a man who is ultimately an angry boy with a conflict of adult attraction and childhood longing for understanding. I could watch this movie just for Robert De Niro.

The rest of the cast really struggles here with giving viewers something to attach themselves to. Nobody can decide the tone and mood of a picture like this. I’m not saying the film is a complete failure, but it certainly has more detachers than strengths.

The screenplay is pretty strong here, delivered by Steph Lady (Doctor Dolittle) and Frank Darabont (TV’s The Walking Dead, The Shawshank Redemption). I enjoy the addition of unique steps in the creation of Frankenstein’s monster; this film has electric eels rather than the toted lighting. That being said, Frankenstein’s obsession with lighting in the beginning now makes less sense and has less impact on the actual movie.

I would say that Frankenstein isn’t a worthless movie, but it has unnecessary conflict behind the scenes that reduces the tension in front of the camera. Coppola agreed that the film was scary and that Branagh completely mishandles the picture, and I can’t say my opinion differs.

2/5

-Kyle A. Goethe

For my review of Kenneth Branagh’s Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit, click here.

November 4, 2014 6