Skip to main content

Yeah, well I think of it as a sort of Nightmare in progress.

Wes Craven’s New Nightmare
(1994)

(SPOILERS) I’m all for the idea of Wes Craven’s New Nightmare. Post-modern, self-reflexive, fourth-wall-breaking movies are catnip to me (why, I even liked The Matrix Resurrections!) It’s just that New Nightmare isn’t a very good one. It’s quite watchable for the first hour, but Craven made a multitude of bad choices here. And it’s telling that, prior to my excursion into all things Elm Street, I’d only seen the first instalment and this; as it turns out New Nightmare’s lore was equally discriminating (okay, I might give you Dream Warriors, but try parsing how it makes any difference). Craven’s like a bear with sore head that the other Freddy sequels got a bit too wacky, had a bit too much fun. So he makes damn sure New Nightmare isn’t any.

That’s a little harsh, maybe. There are flashes here of what it might have been. Some have cited New Nightmare as a warm up for Scream, but they’re very different beasts. Scream is simply dissecting the horror movie within a horror movie; it isn’t dissecting itself as a horror movie. Rather, it’s taking the Joss Whedon pop-culture approach to genre – even in the third instalment, where there’s a movie series cash-in about the murders called Stab 3.

What it’s closer to – or should be – is Last Action Hero. Both throw fictional characters into the real world, and both revolve – to the detriment of the proceedings – around an irksome infant. Miko Hughes had something of a run as a pint-sized player during the ’90s, with the likes of Apollo 13, Spawn and Mercury Rising. Which is curious, because he stinks here.

The degree to which this is his fault or Craven’s is debatable, as the sub-Omen plot of possessing a child (complete with haunting choir) is like a lead weight. In addition to which, focussing on a kid is entirely atypical for the series (unless you include The Dream Child). Certainly, though, Hughes is repeatedly called upon to act outside of his performative comfort zone. None of the evil Dylan moments are remotely convincing, and in the case of his attempted swan dive in a kids’ playground, unintentionally mirthful – “God wouldn’t take me”.

He’s only part of the plot problem. Another is Heather Langenkamp, playing herself. Who, when she protests, “I’m hardly a star”, couldn’t have been more accurate. Whatever Craven was hoping to achieve by returning to the Nancy character – I suspect something to do with her being his character, rather than a product of the sequels he so disapproved of – he fails miserably. He goes to the trouble of reflecting the actress’ actual life (FX-man hubby) and for some reason she acquiesces to her director’s bad taste decisions (hubby then gets killed off by Freddy).

The only consequence of this is an unswerving dedication to the exact same structure we’ve previously seen. Only now in the “real” world, and with a little would-be Damien. Frankly, it quickly grows rather tedious, particularly since Craven feels the need, for some unknown reason, to pad out the proceedings – it’s approaching the two-hour mark – and throw in “homages” to the original (the revolving room, the licking tongue, the greying streak of hair) that seem less affectionate than downright lazy (there was already one to many of that room effect in the original).

There’s also an attempted commentary on cinema violence and its effects that is at best banal, and at worst, downright irritating. Dr Heffner (Fran Bennet) is obsessed with the idea that Dylan has been watching mum’s scary movies (“You have let your child see your films, haven’t you?”) Craven throws it in there, but he has nothing interesting to say or do with it. Instead, yet again for the series, its mainstream medicine where any punch lies: dumb doctors, idiotic peddlers of allopathic answers and pseudo-science (“Have you been suffering from any delusions, Miss Langenkamp?”)

In which vein, it’s noticeable that Tracy Middendorf’s performance is way more engaging than Langenkamp’s, even with traces of ditched subplots potentially impeding her (a red herring regarding Heather’s stalker and a Freddy avatar). She gets one great scene as a kickass babysitter when nurses attempt to stick Dylan with a needle (if only we were all so decisive). Unfortunately, Craven then resorts to gory greatest-hits tedium with the redux ceiling assault.

Robert Englund was insanely generous to call New Nightmare his favourite in the series, since it serves him particularly poorly. He even (as Englund) disappears from the movie two thirds of the way through. The best bits here are all Englund playing Englund. Notably, Craven’s harder-edged Freddy, coming on in a trench coat that makes him look more like a muscle-man Frank Miller, is largely a damp squib, neither disturbing nor charismatic.

Had the movie focussed on Englund (the way Last Action Hero focusses on Arnie), something altogether richer might have been cooked up. In the vein of The Hand or Body Parts (New Nightmare even has Englund as a painter). Give him a chance to go the full Bruce Campbell (the opening robot-hand dream is clearly The Terminator by way of Evil Dead 2). Obviously, with Craven clinging to the female protagonist idea – best forget Freddy’s Revenge – that was never going to fly.

Alas, we have to make do with a few Englund scraps, all of which leap off the screen because he’s the only player treating the material with the effective degree of knowing playfulness it deserves. Englund as Freddy appearing on a talk show – “We’ll do lunch”; “Give it up for your Uncle Freddy!”; “Just when you thought it was safe to get back into bed” – and his response to Heather’s suggestion of a romantic comedy: “Just because it’s a love story, doesn’t mean you can’t have a decapitation or two”.

We also get Craven as Craven and studio boss Bob Shaye as Shaye, complete with cleavage-revealing PAs (and John Saxon, entirely superfluous in presence, except that, again, he appeared in the original). Neither is a very good actor, meaning that any humour deriving from a riff on their personas is in short supply (Joel Silver, on the other hand: see Who Framed Roger Rabbit). Craven is planning a new movie, and his script is fuelling/reflecting the events unfolding in Heather’s life.

None of this is as clever as it might have been, despite cool moments that are de rigueur for such riffs; “He’s so weird… Putting your kid in the script” observes Englund. Heather finding the script detailing the scene she’s just enacted (Postmodernism 101, admittedly). Indeed, New Line released a movie a couple of months later that serviced this concept in far superior fashion (In the Mouth of Madness). A horror movie that was, you know, actually disturbing.

Heather: You’re saying Freddy is this ancient thing.

Craven, in reclaiming his property, has now redefined Freddy, in the manner of the more-informed – via TM – David Lynch and Bob: “This entity. It’s old. It’s very old”. It has existed in different forms at different times and “The only thing that stays the same is what it lives for”; ending the Elm Street series set the evil free, Craven theorises. Out of films and into our reality: the Genie’s out of the bottle, and “I think the only way to stop him is to make another move”. Curiously, Freddy’s Dead had a much better play on this idea, as botched as its execution was: that Freddy was performing a required function for unnamed higher forces.

Kim Newman had down the problem with Craven’s new take, that it “kind of put Freddy back in the box”. That this is what he represents, and “just this”. Which is essentially the same thing Andrew Cartmel attempted to do with his version of Doctor Who, and then Chibbers more recently with his; by redefining it, you create more restrictions, rather than actually opening out the concept.

I was certainly much more receptive to New Nightmare when I first saw it, even though I recognised that it failed to sustain itself. This time, though… Nothing is unsettling, except maybe Freddy in the coffin; Craven manages a couple of dream transitions reasonably well, but none give way to anything unnerving. Indeed, the filmmaking is as basic as Craven at his least engaged was wont to be, and the effects here are uniformly pretty bad. Mark Irwin’s cinematography may intentionally avoid the classic horror look, but the result is a pervasive lack of atmosphere.

Craven’s working title was A Nightmare on Elm Street 7: The Ascension, and it seems he was reworking his rejected idea for Elm Street 3, of “… Krueger haunting the cast and crew of the movie in the real world”. So why did Shaye now think it was a good move? Maybe it was commissioned between Last Action Hero being announced and released, and seemed like it might be the next big thing in genre deconstruction. But then: Gremlins 2: The New Batch was evidence enough of what happens when a director is indulged and the public appetite for such an approach (and The Matrix Resurrections has just provided reconfirmation). Unfortunately, Wes Craven’s New Nightmare is a massive missed opportunity.


Popular posts from this blog

I’m smarter than a beaver.

Prey (2022) (SPOILERS) If nothing else, I have to respect Dan Trachtenberg’s cynical pragmatism. How do I not only get a project off the ground, but fast-tracked as well? I know, a woke Predator movie! Woke Disney won’t be able to resist! And so, it comes to pass. Luckily for Prey , it gets to bypass cinemas and so the same sorry fate of Lightyear . Less fortunately, it’s a patience-testing snook cocking at historicity (or at least, assumed historicity), in which a young, pint-sized Comanche girl who wishes to hunt and fish – and doubtless shoot to boot – with the big boys gets to take on a Predator and make mincemeat of him. Well, of course , she does. She’s a girl, innit?

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994) (SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction ’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump . And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993) (SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

Death to Bill and Ted!

Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey (1991) (SPOILERS) The game of how few sequels are actually better than the original is so well worn, it was old when Scream 2 made a major meta thing out of it (and it wasn’t). Bill & Ted Go to Hell , as Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey was originally called, is one such, not that Excellent Adventure is anything to be sneezed at, but this one’s more confident, even more playful, more assured and more smartly stupid. And in Peter Hewitt it has a director with a much more overt and fittingly cartoonish style than the amiably pedestrian Stephen Herrick. Evil Bill : First, we totally kill Bill and Ted. Evil Ted : Then we take over their lives. My recollection of the picture’s general consensus was that it surpassed the sleeper hit original, but Rotten Tomatoes’ review aggregator suggests a less universal response. And, while it didn’t rock any oceans at the box office, Bogus Journey and Point Break did quite nicely for Keanu Reev

Everyone creates the thing they dread.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) (SPOILERS) Avengers: Age of Ultron ’s problem isn’t one of lack. It benefits from a solid central plot. It features a host of standout scenes and set pieces. It hands (most of) its characters strong defining moments. It doesn’t even suffer now the “wow” factor of seeing the team together for the first time has subsided. Its problem is that it’s too encumbered. Maybe its asking to much of a director to effectively martial the many different elements required by an ensemble superhero movie such as this, yet Joss Whedon’s predecessor feels positively lean in comparison. Part of this is simply down to the demands of the vaster Marvel franchise machine. Seeds are laid for Captain America: Civil War , Infinity Wars I & II , Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok . It feels like several spinning plates too many. Such activity occasionally became over-intrusive on previous occasions ( Iron Man II ), but there are points in Age of Ultron whe

This entire edifice you see around you, built on jute.

Jeeves and Wooster 3.3: Cyril and the Broadway Musical  (aka Introduction on Broadway) Well, that’s a relief. After a couple of middling episodes, the third season bounces right back, and that's despite Bertie continuing his transatlantic trip. Clive Exton once again plunders  Carry On, Jeeves  but this time blends it with a tale from  The Inimitable Jeeves  for the brightest spots, as Cyril Basington-Basington (a sublimely drippy Nicholas Hewetson) pursues his stage career against Aunt Agatha's wishes.

Poetry in translation is like taking a shower with a raincoat on.

Paterson (2016) (SPOILERS) Spoiling a movie where nothing much happens is difficult, but I tend to put the tag on in a cautionary sense much of the time. Paterson is Jim Jarmusch at his most inert and ambient but also his most rewardingly meditative. Paterson (Adam Driver), a bus driver and modest poet living in Paterson, New Jersey, is a stoic in a fundamental sense, and if he has a character arc of any description, which he doesn’t really, it’s the realisation that is what he is. Jarmusch’s picture is absent major conflict or drama; the most significant episodes feature Paterson’s bus breaking down, the English bull terrier Marvin – whom Paterson doesn’t care for but girlfriend Laura (Golshifteh Farahani) dotes on – destroying his book of poetry, and an altercation at the local bar involving a gun that turns out to be a water pistol. And Paterson takes it all in his stride, genial to the last, even the ruination of his most earnest, devoted work (the only disappoint

I think it’s pretty clear whose side the Lord’s on, Barrington.

Monte Carlo or Bust aka  Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies (1969) (SPOILERS) Ken Annakin’s semi-sequel to Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines tends to be rather maligned, usually compared negatively to its more famous predecessor. Which makes me rather wonder if those expressing said opinion have ever taken the time to scrutinise them side by side. Or watch them back to back (which would be more sensible). Because Monte Carlo or Bust is by far the superior movie. Indeed, for all its imperfections and foibles (not least a performance from Tony Curtis requiring a taste for comic ham), I adore it. It’s probably the best wacky race movie there is, simply because each set of competitors, shamelessly exemplifying a different national stereotype (albeit there are two pairs of Brits, and a damsel in distress), are vibrant and cartoonish in the best sense. Albeit, it has to be admitted that, as far as said stereotypes go, Annakin’s home side win

If you ride like lightning, you're going to crash like thunder.

The Place Beyond the Pines (2012) (SPOILERS) There’s something daringly perverse about the attempt to weave a serious-minded, generation-spanning saga from the hare-brained premise of The Place Beyond the Pines . When he learns he is a daddy, a fairground stunt biker turns bank robber in order to provide for his family. It’s the kind of “only-in-Hollywood” fantasy premise you might expect from a system that unleashed Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man and Point Break on the world. But this is an indie-minded movie from the director of the acclaimed Blue Valentine ; it demands respect and earnest appraisal. Unfortunately it never recovers from the abject silliness of the set-up. The picture is littered with piecemeal characters and scenarios. There’s a hope that maybe the big themes will even out the rocky terrain but in the end it’s because of this overreaching ambition that the film ends up so undernourished. The inspiration for the movie

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.