Stranger Things: Season 4, Chapter 4- Dear Billy

 "I am still very much in Hell..."

No Eleven this episode, although her absence is very much felt. But we get a fittingly creepy cameo from an eyeless Robert Englund, and lots of arc stuff happening- as well as excellent character development- in what is the longest episode yet.

In California, Mike and Will reaffirm their friendship a little, but they and Jonathan are forced to flee due to the slightly alarming occurrence of feds with guns trying to kill them. Lucas has had enough, and abandons the cool but conspiracy theory-obsessed kids for his true friends. And, in the centrepiece of the whole episode, Robin and Nancy hear Victor Creel's story from his own lips, in a magnificently gripping performance from Freddy Krueger himself.

Oh, and we get a dramatic and nail-biting escape attempt from the tough-as-nails Hopper, only for him to be recaprtured through betrayal.. with Joyce and Murray also fated for the gulag.

But it's all about Max, Sadie Sink's aazing acting, and a focus on Max's demons, literal and metaphorical in an amazing bit of character development as she works through her complex feelings about Billy, and why she pushes people away. She seems doomed, although Vecna rather fortunately seems to be taking his time killing her, until her ever-reliable friends, and Kate Bush, come running up that hill to the rescue. It's phenomenal, and anything that makes young 'uns discover '80s Kate Bush has to be a very good thing indeed.

This is amazing. If only the episodes weren't so bloody long and hard to slot into your day.

Wes Craven’s New Nightmare (1994)

“The first was the best."

 Phew. The franchise doesn't end with a whimper after all, but with a typically clever and well-directed instalment from the esteemed Mr Craven himself. This last film redeems the whole thing somewhat. Still, it's far from perfect in that it's somewhat slow and there's not enough Freddy screen time.

It’s clever, though; the franchise so far has just been a series of movies and Wes Craven, various actors and even producers appear as themselves. There’s lot of wry commentary on the tiresome idea of horror movies having a bad effect on society (yawn) and a lot of fourth wall-breaking fun- the ending, with Heather reading the script of the very film she’s in to her son, is perfect and, what’s more, believable. The concept is a good one- an Evil From The Dawn Of Time draws strength from monsters in scary stories and this time it’s taken on the form of Freddie from it’s new favourite horrror franchise. It’s a superb idea and very well realised, although the threat never quite feels like Freddy. In fact, much of the film evokes cinematic horror more widely- especially, in the excellent scenes with little Dylan, The Exorcist. And it’s clever to contrast the new “Freddy” make-up with Robert Englund wearing his old costume for the fans.

It’s very well done. It’s very witty. Stylistically, at times it feels very much like the precursor to Scream that it clearly is. But I can’t help feeling that it takes too long for things to start happening, Freddy doesn’t get enough screen time and, well, Freddy isn’t really Freddy, great though the effects are in the final showdown scene. This is an interesting case of a great concept, very well made, which perhaps suffers from not satisfying our expectations of the sort of film it’s supppsed to be.

And that, folks, is the end of Nightmare on Elm Street for a while. I have another franchise to devour before I get to Freddy vs. Jason, and I’ll be watching other stuff in-between. So many other horror franchises, too...

Freddy’s Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991)

“We’re in Twin Peaks here...”

Well, it had to happen at some point in a long-running franchise like this. This is bloody awful. Yes, it's a nice poster. But beyond that I'm struggling to think of anything positive.

What went wrong? After all, the film is directed (and scripted) by a young Rachel Talalay, a respected and successful Doctor Who director in recent years, and at this time a veteran of the franchise who was finally getting to helm an instalment. Yet, it must be said, she doesn’t do a good job and it’s hard to square this with her excellent later work.

Partly, I suppose, it’s the times. It’s 1991 and early CGI is beginning to rear its head, something which dates a film far more than the physical effects of earlier instalments. Perhaps it’s that the plot isn’t very coherent or clearly told. Perhaps it’s the amazement over the fact that an actor like Yaphet Kotto is lowering himself to such drivel. But, if this was truly intended as the final film in the franchise, it’s a shocking way to end. There are no scares. There’s no suspense. Freddy Krueger is reduced to a silly Daffy Duck-style figure with no remaining menace. What were they thinking? And the characterisation? Well, there’s Carlos, whose sole personality trait is “wears hearing aids”, and the others are even more generic. The whole thing is incoherent, and even the set pieces are just silly- the first one is a pastiche of The Wizard of Oz and they don’t get much better, although the hearing aid scene had a certain ghoulish fascination for me. It’s also quite nostalgic to be reminded of what they were like back then.

Meh. It doesn’t get more disappointing than this. It’s a crying shame after a surprisingly quality franchise up to now, but we are now leaping headlong over the proverbial predatory fish.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child (1989)

“Nine, ten, he’s back again...”

This is the fifth film in the series and, you know, it’s not at all bad. Oh, there are diminishing returns and there’s an awful lot more time spent on drama than on big set pieces, but the film is pretty good and even, in terms of the direction, design and effects, the best so far. Well, if you ignore one very obvious and very prominent matte painting.

This is the third consecutive film with continuing elements, with Alice as the hero, this time pregnant with a baby whose dreams allow Freddy to return- a nice thematic link to Freddy’s own birth and his mother Amanda. To an extent it’s a similar format to the previous film, with various teenagers (including boyfriend Dan) being girlie killed one by one, except this isn’t quite as dramatic as previous films with the focus on the pregnancy and Yvonne’s scepticism, and the set pieces not being quite as good. Still, I enjoyed Mark’s comic book death, and not only because I recognised a couple of those 1989 vintage Marvel comics littering his floor. The death may be lacking in blood but is gloriously creative and well done, even if I do suspect the influence of the video to A-Ha’s “Tale on Me”. On the other hand, the foetus scene may be an influence on the video to Massive Attack’s “Teardrop”...

Mrs Llamastrangler loves this and I found it visually brilliant- the M.C. Escher stuff at the climax was superb- but perhaps the script was a little more pedestrian than the realisation. Still, the franchise is still looking pretty healthy as the decade ends.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987)

"The bastard son of a hundred maniacs."

Well then. You can tell from the staggering number of years since I blogged the second film in this series that, as I said at the time, I was less than enthused by. I'm now far less likely to wait so long until the next one. This was bloody good.

We get lots of splendid visual horror from the start, well directed and making you jump, and this continues all the way through. But what really makes the film work is a solid plot based around a mental institution and fear of sleep and, in a film where Freddy Krueger is ever-present but appears surprisingly little- a successful formula- but the only disappointment here is that nasty Dr Simms doesn't die. And likeable characters do.

So what are my highlights? A very young Patricia Arquette? An early appearance by a young Laurence Fishburne? A rare Hollywood example of D&D being played? The delightfully '80s metal soundtrack by Dokken? The skeleton of Freddy Krueger resisting burial by means of stop motion? Probably the latter, but there are many. And the plot is actually quite gripping, and as twisty-turny as it is suspenseful.

Fellow Doctor Who fans: I believe that this is the earliest Hollywood film credit of one Rachel Talalay...?

Galaxy of Terror (1981)

"There's no horror here we don't create ourselves."

Every so often I have to watch a trashy-looking genre film with quirky casting and this Roger Corman-produced piece of '80s sci-fi schlock, featuring the splendid Sid Haig and a pre-Nightmare on Elm Street Robert Englund, seems to fit the bill. The experience has been... interesting.

There's an obvious Alien influence in the bickering, working class crew of an alien spaceship but none of the visual grittiness and the plot, once you get past the awful cliched dialogue, is really rather different. There's a fair bit of world building with humanity enthralled by a mysterious "Master" who eventually even becomes relevant to the plot and it eventually becomes clear, after a series of increasingly gory deaths by '80s special effects including a suspiciously rapey-looking incident including a giant worm, that the planet's monsters are simply the crews' fears made manifest. So far, then predictable.

Then we get the ending, where the film really tries hard to be something more than a B movie by attempting to be all metaphysical and philosophical. It's a good try, it really is, but there's no escaping the fact that this is, well, a B movie, and strictly one for those of us who like that sort of thing.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge (1985)

“You’re all my children now!”

As you know instantly by the very fact that I’m reviewing this, I’m going to be going through all of these films in order, although I’ll only be watching one every now and again, so if you’re not a fan, fear not: there will be plenty of other films reviewed, along with the usual telly stuff.

Glad that’s sorted. Anyway, this film is a bit rubbish, isn’t it? It has all of the low budget, dodgy dialogue and ropey acting of its predecessor, but with none of the genuine scares and, yes, genius of its predecessor. This is largely, I suspect, because of the conspicuous absence of Wes Craven.

The main problem is that what Freddy’s doing just isn’t as scary. He doesn’t want to horribly kill our main protagonist, Jesse, but to use him to exact his “revenge” in an unspecified manner. There’s a big gory bloodbath towards the end, but no scary set pieces. Here’s no suspense. There are no real shocks. Also, the 80s soundtrack is impossible to take seriously in what is supposed to be a scary film. We get lots of dull melodrama (the cartoon authoritarian father is just silly), lots of obvious ketchup and lots of ‘80s suburban décor, but not the scares we were hoping for.

I mentioned this film in the pub about a week after watching it, and I’m told the later films are better than this. I hope so.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

"Whatever you do, don't fall asleep!"

I'd never seen this film before. Yes, I know. It's bloody good, though. It isn't exactly the most expensive film ever made, the dialogue is a little ropey, and the obscure cast (including a very young Johnny Depp!) are not that good. But the direction is inspired, the set pieces are amazing, and it's so very, very, scary, even for someone like me who is far too conscious that what I'm watching is a piece of artifice to be easily scared. Plus, the whole style evokes an '80s video  by The Cult or Bauhaus or some such band, which is delightfully cool. The music, too, is wonderfully of its time.

The children's rhyme which pervades the film is hugely effective in building up Freddie. Robert Englund is superb. The whole concept of a monster that gets you in your dreams if you fall asleep is inspired. There are so many good things to say here. I don't know all that much about slashers of this vintage, but I wonder how innovative it might possibly have been to mix the slasher with the supernatural as this film does. The use of dreams just makes everything so, so much scarier. And the bath scene... brrr!

Of course, we start out with some hoary old tropes: four teens are in a house, ready to be picked off one by one. But the film is cleverer than that, and has a lot of fun with them. I couldn't help reflecting, though, that the plot sort of revolves all around the only means of communication being a house phone, which can be left off the hook by a stray parent. I remember 1984, but this sort of thing makes it feel so very long ago.