Scream 2 (1997)

 "How do you know that my dim-witted inexperience isn't merely a subtle form of manipulation, used to lower people's expectations, thereby enhancing my ability to effectively manoeuvre within any given situation?"

SPOILERS, in case it needs saying when discussing a slasher that is also a sort of whodunit.

I suppose this film isn't quite as good as its predecessor. But when a sequel is this good, who cares? And, naturally, the film is sufficiently self-aware as to tackle this very subject in the film class discussion scene. Sequels to slashers abound: indeed, one might say that they infest. So it's a joy to see all the knowing references to the specific tropes of slasher sequels.

The plot may be less original than the, er, original, but the narrative is dripping with witty commentary on how the plot is going to unfold. We have a much-maligned red herring in Derek, and a reveal that is a nod to Mrs Vorhees in Friday the 13th.

Yet we also have a cast that shines, and genuine chemistry between Gail and Dewey. The set pieces- the one with Sarah Michelle Gellar as Cici especially- are magnificently done, as one might expect from Wes Craven.

Most of all, though, we have a witty and highly literate script that, at one point, riffs heavily on Aeschylus' Agamemnon. We also get a reminder of how deeply unsettling and weird those American sorority and fraternity things are. Can't they just, like, lower their drinking age to something less insanely puritanical and have their students just drink in bars on campus as happens in every other country?

As sequels go, this may not be an Aliens, or a Godfather: Part II. But it's bloody good, and makes Scream a proper franchise.

Scream (1996)

 "There's a formula to it. A very simple formula.

Best horror film of all time? That's a hard question. But this is a work of genius. It does a lot of violence, but as much of it is directed at the fourth wall as to the killings of Ghostface.

The metatextuality is as exquisite now as it was then. I mean, watching this in 2023 one winces at the passing of time, that we no longer living in a world of landlines, video shop and the great state of California being guilty of judicial killing. Yet we have Randy outlining the rules of how not to get killed in a horror movie. We have a character declare that A Nightmare on Elm Street was great but the sequels were not, in a film directed by Wes Craven. Hmm. We have so many references. After this point, is a straight, non-metatextual slasher truly even possible?

This is a wonderful thing, a B movie genre turned into very clever, if very fun, riffing on all sorts of postmodern stuff. It's very clever indeed. Yet it's accessible.This is a Hollywood horror hit. And it's not lowbrow. There is hope for humanity, and this is the highlight of Craven's career.

The cast is superb, although the ensemble outshines Neve Campbell. The opening set piece is the perfect set up, with Drew Barrymore selling it to perfection. Yet, despite the very meta humour, the whole thing is structured as a perfect slasher, with the big reveal handled very well indeed. This is, simultaneously, a superb horror film and a superb deconstruction. One of the best of its decade.

The Hills Have Eyes (1977)

 "Do you always try to stop trespassers by hanging yourself?"

Wow. This is the first of Wes Craven's films not involving Freddy Krueger that I've ever seen, and it's extraordinary. It's one of the seminal slasher films of the '70s, the decade that truly explored the genre creatively before the following decade dissolved into cliche, but it's more than that. It's the progenitor (as far as I can tell) of the trope of the inbred, cannibalistic family in the wild, very flyover parts of the USA. Although, rather diplomatically, the state in question is not named. There is, perhaps, a debt to Tobe Hooper's Texas Chain Saw Massacre, but this is easily the superior film.

And there's a lot going on here; the father of this twisted family is himself the son of a kindly old man to whom we are introduced at the start. This film articulates a profoundly conservative anxiety, and one particular to those of the World War Two generation towards their baby boomer progeny, with their long hair and drugs and free sex and loud music.

There is hope, though. Ruby may be savage, but she's not completely evil. We younger generations, though depraved, may not be entirely beyond redemption, however smelly we may be.

I'll not be surprised if none of this subtext, which may be entirely from my rather pretentious imagination, was in Wes Craven's mind as he wrote and directed this film, doomed to be underappreciated by the mere fact of its genre.

This is a very human, very real, very likeable and very conservative American family, in love with the twin vices of guns and religion. The characterisation is strong, which really matters in the slasher genre. The direction is superlative. If it wasn't for Nightmare on Elm Street, I'd call this a masterpiece.

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...

Swamp Thing (1982)

"Some of the men say it was one of those abdominal snowmen or something."

I came to this film, in spite of Wes Craven helming it, expecting a so-bad-it's-good B movie. Instead I find a film that's genuinely brilliant- pacy, stylishly shot and very well acted.  I really wasn't expecting that.

The South Carolina location looks amazing; it may not be Louisiana, but the swampy landscape certainly looks like it and fills the production with a great deal of atmosphere throughout. At the start it feels like an early '80s horror film, but it isn't; it's very much its own beast. We're introduced to Alice, the genius Alec Holland and the rest of the crew who will shortly die. We quickly get to know the witty, driven, flirty Holland and his invention, a plant/animal hybrid formula. And then, suddenly, they are all shockingly killed, aside from the captured Alice, by the thugs of the sinister Arcane. Already the characterisation, dialogue and direction are far above B movie standard.

There are little oddities- why is the bloke in charge of Alec and his mates a Yorkshireman? And yes, the Swamp Thing costume indeed looks very obviously latex, as such costumes always do and as is always priced in. I'm also inevitably reminded of The Creature from the Black Lagoon. None of this is a problem.Nor is Arcane's delightful moustache-twirling evil. Sometimes it's fun for a baddie just to be bad for the sake of it, and Louis Jourdan is brilliant; fun but stopping short of being hammy.

I think the moment I fell in love with this film was the slow-motion boat attack, which felt completely A-Team. It's a genuine classic that rises far above B movie status.

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.