Tag Archives: review

Marvel “Ant-Man and The Wasp” movie review

Posted on by
3

fANTastic! Although this installment may lack the grandeur of many of the Marvel Studios films, including the recent Avengers: Infinity War, director Peyton Reed delivers a fun, heartfelt, action-packed movie in the Ant-Man series that is sure to be a crowd pleaser. As someone who doesn’t typically fawn over superhero movies, with some exceptions like Batman Returns, I went into this movie with moderate expectations at best. Needless-to-day, my expectations were exceeded and I had a great time. Perhaps the story is rather shallow and even paint-by-the-numbers, but the straight-forward story is made fun and exciting by the incredible cast. This installment in the MCU is also marked by the significance of the captivating Michelle Pfeiffer’s return to the superhero genre. It’s been more than 26yrs since she wowed audiences with her roll as the definitive Cat Woman, and she still packs a punch during her short time on screen in Ant-Man and The Wasp. Is this a movie that requires a close reading or in-depth analysis? Certainly not. But, there is a running theme of change/size that is both literal and metaphoric. This may not be the at the top of your MCU favorites, but I can honestly state that you will not feel as if your time is wasted if you choose to take the quantum leap into this micro superhero movie.

After the events in Germany, Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) is under house arrest. Dealing with the consequences of being both a superhero and a father, Lang is challenged to still be a loving father to Cassie while figuring out how to continue his role as Ant-Man. Compounding the demands of being a father and superhero, Lang is also working diligently from home to build his security company in order to be the provider he wants for his daughter. Just when he has his routine down, and is getting close to being released from house arrest, he is kidnapped by Hope van Dyne (Evangeline Lilly) and Dr. Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) to help with a mission to rescue Janet van Dyne (Michelle Pfeiffer) from the quantum realm, a result of disarming a nuclear bomb many years prior. The search and rescue operation is thwarted by a ruthless southern businessman and a mysterious new ghost-like adversary. Under the ever-oppressing constraint of time and place, Ant-Man and The Wasp must cooperate in order to protect the quantum technology from falling into the wrong hands that could prohibit Dr. Pym from rescuing his wife.

While the movie, by in large, is pretty basic (solid, but basic), there is a great example of Hitchcock’s MacGuffin! If you’re unaware, a MacGuffin is the object that drives the plot forward, begins the domino effect, but ultimately does little more than trigger the plot. The definitive example of this is the money Marion Crane steals from the real estate office that sends her on the journey that lands her at the Bates Motel in Psycho. Not nearly as macabre, the MacGuffin in Ant-Man and The Wasp is the size-shifting office building of Dr. Hank Pym. Sometimes it was as large as a city block, and other times it was the size of a roller suitcase. In fact, if it isn’t already, I imagine that we will soon see this AS luggage that can be purchased at a Disney Park near you. The theme of size is demonstrated through small objects that become large and large objects that become small. Furthermore, this idea of playing around with size can also be witnessed figuratively through egos. Some egos are inflated–large–and need to shrink down to size or others are barely there and need to grow in order to not be overrun or overlooked. This theme is also displayed in how small people or objects can rise to the occasion, become a metaphoric giant in order to stop those who pose as obstacles to the goal. It is well-known that ants can carry several times their body weight, and we see characters in this film shouldering more than their fair share, but still manage to overcome any resistance or hurdles to accomplishing the mission.

Be sure to state for the mid-credits scene because it will answer the question that has been on your mind, “where was Ant-Man during Infinity War”? There is also a post-credit scene that is cute but won’t provide any further insight into the next Ant-Man or Avengers movie. With the return of Michelle Pfeiffer to the superhero genre, I am excited to see how the MCU will integrate her into the narrative because she possesses a powerful screen presence that should not be under-utilized. Unfortunately, this could mean that we may not get to see her reprise her role as Cat Woman in a future DCEU film, but her beauty and charisma will certainly add a touch of class and strength to the MCU.

While most MCU movies are suitable for all audiences, there is some content in the dialogue that may not be appropriate for those under 13. So parents and siblings, just be aware of this before taking children to this film. It’s not nearly as adult as Deadpool but it leans more toward a teen and adult film more than kids.

“Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom” movie review

Posted on by
1

“Your (executives) were so pre-occupied with whether or not could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.” Ironic, isn’t it. A haunting but accurate assessment by Dr. Ian Malcolm. Let me say first, Jurassic Park is my favorite movie of all time, followed closely by Sunset Boulevard and Psycho, so it’s difficult to separate fanboy me from critic me. However, I shall do my best to keep my personal bias in check. As a longtime fan of the franchise that captured my imagination as a kid and with the original filled with depth, irony, tragedy, and more, I was excited as I sat down in the theatre last night to watch Jurassic World Fallen Kingdom (JWFK). And suffice it to say, my friends and I enjoyed our time and felt entertained; however, it’s simply not a great movie. And it pains me to write those words. At the end of the day, the movie suffers from a poorly written screenplay. Some may even describe the screenplay as a generic, vapid paint-by-the-numbers summer popcorn crunching blockbuster movie. The movie is not without its thrills, but I wish more attention was paid to the plot. Director J.A. Bayona takes suspension of disbelief to far reaching levels. The life of this franchise is in the balance; how I hope it finds a way to overcome the weak sequels since the strong original in 1993 that still holds up (and I’m not talking about the technology). Reasons for why it holds up could be entire articles in and of themselves (a lot has to do with the screenplay), but we are here to talk about JWFK.

Three years after the destruction of the Jurassic World theme park, Owen Grady and Claire Dearing return to the island of Isla Nublar to save the remaining dinosaurs from a volcano that’s about to erupt. When the search and transport operation meets with capitalistic opposition, the mission takes them to an underground arms market, they must stop the demented auction from placing humanity it mortal danger. During their covert operation, they encounter terrifying new breeds of gigantic dinosaurs, while uncovering a conspiracy that threatens the entire planet.

Unlike the soft opening of Jurassic World, the sequel begins with an opening scene similar to the tone of the opening of Jurassic Park. Encouraging, right? It’s dark, filled with tension, and ends with a kill. All this, and it doesn’t feel overstuffed with dinosaurs. Like a screenplay should, it hooks the audience without lots of gimmicks. The focus is on the drama, and not simply “look what we can do with dinos.” After this scene, I was looking forward to the rest of the movie. And even in the senate hearing with Dr. Ian Malcolm, this could’ve been used as a great setup for a dynamic ethics debate but it was not followed through. Like other ideas of Colin Trevorrow’s, many turning points, characters, and events are introduced but not developed. These elements often play off as mere plot devices to hurriedly cause something to be able to happen without having to truly develop it. Every character is flat. No dimension to anyone or anything, really. I cannot help but take note of the many opportunities that Trevorrow had to truly craft a cinematic story, and ostensibly ignored it. In an effort to help the vapid screenplay, J.A. Bayona attempted to add dimension to the flat plot but only so much can be done to fix a flawed story.

Examples of characters as mere plot devises are systems analyst Franklin and paleo-veterinarian Zia. Both were setup to be developed further beyond their main skill, but were abandoned. They exist only so two important actions can happen, but that is the extent of their respective development. Such wonderful opportunities to include strong characters, buy they are left as flat as the plot, lacking in any subplot or goals of their own. There is also a fantastic opportunity to provide some exposition on the days before John Hammond’s innovative theme park resort destination. We meet his former partner Benjamin Lockwood, and he explains how the first DNA was extracted in a state of the art lab in the basement of his mansion. There is also a nostalgic shot of a model of the original park’s Visitors Center, complete with Jungle Explorers and the famous gate. Although we have lost Sir Richard Attenborough, there is certainly ways of crafting a flashback to the first time DNA was extracted or even just a few moments of exposition through dialogue to learn about the early days and ultimately why Hammond and Lockwood split. We are given a reason that likely led to the split, but I imagine there was more to it, including the direction to go with the dinosaurs. Again, this is another example of exposition and dimension lost. Could’ve been used as character building and development time.

On the topic of nostalgia, there is plenty of fan service in the movie. Lockwood delivers a line taken directly from Hammond at the end of Lost World and we get to revisit the site of the Jungle Explorer that T-Rex pushed over the retaining wall in the original. There are other moments as well that remind me of the raptor kitchen and more. Furthermore, there are moments in the movie that act as a mirror to the original. Instead of seeking to lock the dinosaurs up, the goal is to free them. But I won’t get into details.

Whatever Universal and Amblin are doing presently, they need to stop and throw out the playbook from Jurassic Park III, Jurassic World, and now JWFK. I liked Jurassic World well enough but I thought the next installment was going to be more gripping, thrilling, exciting, but it went out with a whimper. I was cautiously optimistic when I heard it was going to be darker, closer to the horror that was the original 1993 blockbuster, but it wasn’t terrifying at all. And what parts were creepy, were already shown in the trailer (but that’s the marketing company’s fault, not the director or writer). Crichton is likely rolling over in his grave right about now, rest his soul. The next writer in the Jurassic franchise needs to be someone who understands what it takes to create a great story that CAN sell tickets and reach blockbuster status while holding up years down the road. Take the iconic Tim Burton Batman and Batman Returns, for examples. The reason why these, especially Returns, hold up so well is because Returns is a classic Tim Burton film that happens to have Batman characters, whereas the original is a Batman movie directed by Burton. So, the third installment in the Jurassic franchise needs to attach a writer and/or director who can write/direct a science-fiction horror movie that happens to have dinosaurs and legacy Jurassic Park characters.

While many critics are calling for this franchise to go extinct, this film scholar believes strongly that it can be saved. Much like Claire and Owen are determined to save the cloned dinos from a second extinction, Universal and Amblin need to go back to the beginning and study WHY the first one worked well. The short answer is the screenplay, followed by casting, and lastly the directing. An approach could be to write the screenplay without dinosaurs; write a solid, compelling narrative. Make sure there is a clearly defined goal with clearly defined opposition to the goal, simple plot, and complex characters. Then find places to add in the dinosaurs as anti-heroes. It’s far more effective to retroactively add dinos in and modify the screenplay than write it with a focus on seeing dinosaurs and write a story around them. The former is narrative-heavy with supporting, terrifying action sequences whereas the latter is spectacle heavy with a one-dimensional narrative. Subtext, subplot, and theme need to be infused back into the Jurassic franchise.

At the end of the day, I enjoyed myself. I did not feel as if my time was wasted. You know what, I had fun. And for that, I appreciate the movie. It may not have truly memorable characters or scenes, but it was a fun watch. If more fans speak up, perhaps the next film will go back to its DNA and deliver a sequel that would make the original proud.

For my review of Jurassic World click here.

Ryan is a screenwriting professor at the University of Tampa. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog!

Follow him!

Twitter: RLTerry1

Instagram: RL_Terry

Thrillz (theme parks): Thrillz.co

“Won’t You Be My Neighbor?” Documentary Film Review

Posted on by
2

Timely. We need Mister Rogers now more than ever, for we live in dark times. In our world of division, hate, intolerance, and self-centeredness, Won’t You Be My Neighbor?, by Academy Award for Best Feature Documentary winner Morgan Neville, is a brilliant, intelligent documentary. This film takes us beyond the zip-up cardigans of public television hero Fred Rogers and reminds us that we should shift focus from what divides us to loving others just the way they are and loving ourselves because we need and deserve love, compassion, and acceptance. He truly was the neighbor on and off screen that you and I wish we had next door to us. More than a mere television show for children, Mister Rogers Neighborhood ran deep–deeper than you realized growing up. Mr. Rogers tackled incredibly tough topics in simple, creative ways in order to educate children (and their parents) to exhibit love, kindness, acceptance, understanding, and safety awareness in the world. To make the world a better place, to be a positive influence, and more. Whether in front of the camera or behind the scenes, Fred Rogers’ life mission was to utilize the power of television to teach us how to be the best neighbor we possibly could be to the world. Discussing and depicting complex subjects for a children’s program like prejudice, racism, ethics, and learning to love and accept someone just the way he or she is, this thought-provoking public television program cuts through the pretense of this world and aims directly for your heart. “One of the greatest gifts you can give anybody is your honest self” (Fred Rogers).

From February 1968 to August 2001 and nearly 1000 episodes, we were invited into the living room of children’s television icon Fred Rogers. He took us on adventures into the world to learn how things are made, taught us about kindness, love, cooperation, and punctuated each episode with a trip to the Neighborhood of Make-Believe to creatively drive home the message of theme of the day. Even if we haven’t seen an episode since we were kids, I imagine that most of us can still hum the theme song and maybe even sing some of the lyrics. His simple daily routine of putting on his zip-up cardigan and switching out his shoes made such an impression on the words that his cardigan hands in the Smithsonian Institute. Few television personalities have left such a great impression as Fred Rogers. His positive influence on and off camera affected the lives of so many people from the very young to the more established in life. The documentary Won’t You Be My Neighbor? chronicles the life and times of Fred Rogers during his timeless show. While you may think he was out of touch with realist–especially the reality we live in today–this documentary proves that he was well-aware of what was going on in the world and knew he had to educate, protect, and inspire children to overcome struggle and grief. Often he’d end the show with statements such as “you make the world a special place by just you being you.” The authentic decency demonstrated by Fed Rogers is so incredibly rare these days, and it’s that rare glimpse of hope that moves those who watch this documentary.

One of the most subversive moments of the documentary is when we watch part of an episode from the first season depicting King Friday the XIII building a wall to keep undesirables out. Now where have we heard that before??? Resisting the malevolent actions of the monarch, the neighborhood of Make-Believe inundates the king with messages of peace, tolerance, acceptance, and kindness. These messages inspire the king to tear down his wall to include everyone in the neighborhood. Certain so-called leaders in our states, country, and world should probably brush up on their Mister Rogers and follow King Friday’s example. Mister Rogers sentiments were not shared by many Americans during this time of civil rights unrest, but the beauty of his show was demonstrating positive progressive ideas that confronted prejudice and hate. Moments like these served as beacon of hope that the children would grow up to be loving, caring adults who desired to cooperate to build a better world. Moreover, Fred Rogers features a similar analogy later on in the series when he invites Officer Clemmons to share a foot pool with him in order to cool off in the hot weather. Perhaps this doesn’t sound radical now, but this was at a time that white Americans bucked against sharing public pools with individuals of color. Even Clemmons’ role as an officer of the law was subversive. He was hesitant at first to play the role because cops were the scariest people in his neighborhood, but he realized the importance of “children of color having a positive role model who looked like them” in the role of one who upholds the law.

The documentary also puts to rest those myths of Mister Rogers involvement in the US Military. Although we wore his zip-up cardigan regularly, it was not to cover up tattoos he got while service in the Department of Defense–he never served in the US military–but he DID serve his country for 31 years through his public television show. You spend quite a bit of time learning about the strong faith of Fred Rogers, and how it was truly the foundation upon which his show was developed. An ordained Presbyterian minister, Rogers was all set to enter seminary before he had the idea to produce his famous show. Many of the individuals interviewed during the documentary stated that even though Rogers never identified himself as a Christian, his faith and theology can be felt in his show through the lessons, games, examples, and stories. The guests from Yo Yo Ma to the show’s prop master testify to Mister Rogers’ progressive, inclusive view of Christianity that was overflowing with love and tolerance. He was proud of his faith, and often credited his Christian faith as the inspiration for the scripts he wrote for the show and the songs he composed. His beliefs were found in everything he did on and off screen. Another reverend friend of Rogers stated proudly that Rogers’ ministry through the show touched more lives and made more difference than a traditional evangelist could ever hope to do. Just goes to show it’s not how you identify yourself, but how you live your life and effect others that makes the biggest difference in the world.

Love is at the root of everything. He was doing something profound, deep, doing something that worked on multiple levels at the same time. Racism and prejudice weren’t the only weighty issues Rogers so creatively helped children work through and understand, but he also commented on other tough subjects difficult to discuss in a children’s program in a way that drives points home through kindness. Assassination, death, war, divorce, and diversity were subject matters on the show. The groundbreaking character of Officer Clemmons represented a positive role model in the law enforcement community. He was also the first recurring African-American role on a children’s program. Clemmons often commented on how incredibly encouraging Rogers was. Especially when Clemmons came out as a gay male. At first, Rogers was not sure what to do because of sponsors and even personal convictions and it took a while to talk to Clemmons about this aspect of his personal life and how it effected the show; but Clemmons stated that Rogers was extremely supportive and loved him just the way he was. Although not explicitly stated on the show, Mister Rogers–indirectly anyway–talked about accepting those who love differently than you–love is love as the popular hashtag goes. He often made it a point on the show to be proud of who you are and just the way you are. This was his way of discussing a subject that is still divisive today. But Mister Rogers was demonstrating how friends, family, and neighbors should treat one another before it became more commonplace to discuss.

When PBS was facing the loss of the $20mil funding from the US Government, Rogers testified before Senator Pastore the importance of public television. More than merely testify, he stated the lyrics to a song he wrote for the show. You can watch the testimony by clicking here. Words cannot truly capture the power of his testimony so give it a watch when you have some time. When Pastore demanded that no one else testifying read their statements, Rogers kindly put his “philosophical statement that would take 10mins to read” aside and simply spoke to the senator. He testified to his passion for educating children and contributing to healthy development and that the money spent on educational programming should be thought of as more important than violent “animated bombardment.” Understanding the inner needs of children should be at the forefront of television programming. Fred described his show to the senator as “an expression of care every day to every child to help [them] realize they [they] are unique…you’ve made this day a special day by just you being you.” The testimony is a powerful one that earned the funding for educational programming that was nearly lost.

Do yourself a favor and watch this documentary. Hopefully, it is playing at a theatre near you. Whether you grew up with the show or not, whether you can recall the last time you saw an episode or thought of Fred Rogers, this is a powerful film that is sure to inspire you. You will be changed as a result of this intelligent portrait of a man who left a timeless impression on the lives of millions by just being himself and providing an expression of care to all those who watched.

Blumhouse’s “Upgrade” movie review

Posted on by
Reply

Black Mirror on crack. That is precisely what Blumhouse’s Upgrade can be likened to. Outstanding commentary on the convergence of humanity and technology that provides many thought-provoking moments. Best known for its horror, this action thriller from Blumhouse will have you on the edge of your seat the entire time. Rooted in classic science-fiction, this thriller will also deliver a healthy dose of dark comedy, heart-pounding action, and acutely shockingly violent scenes. Writer-director Leigh Whannel crafts a brilliant motion picture that is one part vigilante Robocop and another part Dr. Frankenstein’s Monster. On the surface, Whannel’s thriller comes across as a B-movie done well, but it contains prolific content that will likely inspire conversations about the relationship between humanity and technology. Perhaps it was not the intention of Whannel (co-creator of Insidious and Saw) to write a motion picture steeped with commentary on the human condition and a harbinger against allowing technology to fuse with our minds and bodies, but there is certainly material here to discuss those deeper topics. Bumhouse’s Upgrade is certainly a big screen experience, so catch it while it is there!

Set in the not-so-distant future, cars drive themselves, pizzas can be printed at home, and Alexa is built into your house. After dropping off a completely rebuilt 1980s Firebird Trans-Am at a client’s hosue, Grey Trace (Logan Marshall-Green) is left a quadriplegic following a brutal car accident and mugging that also leaves his wife dead. While recovering in the hospital, Grey is approached by a major tech company owner about an experimental surgery that is theorized to enable Grey to regain his motor skills. It worked! Only now, Grey’s realized that he has cat-like agility and reflexes as well as increased strength. With his newfound abilities, Grey seeks to assassinate those he blames for his wife’s death.

Better have an iron stomach in order to watch this thriller, because Whannel prefers shocking moments in abundance. Whereas this film is certainly not a horror–as the intent of the film is NOT to horrify audiences–it certainly contains elements borrowed from horror films in order in increase the level of threat. A director friend of mine from Germany characterized the film has having tones of a John Carpenter movie combined with Drive by Nicholas Winding Refn. Though set in a possible near-future, the cinematography, score, and lighting are quintessential 1980s. No surprise as 80s is en vogue in our movies and TV shows. Grey’s “everyman” character archetype enables audiences to identify with him quickly, thus root for him as he takes the law into his own hands to avenge the brutal death of his beloved wife. It’s the simple revenge plot that enables Whannel to build a complex character delivering dark humor and visceral violence.

Definitely an entertaining science-fiction thriller! If you enjoy TV shows like Netflix’ Black Mirror and movies like Drive, Halloween, Frankenstein, and Robocop, then you’ll certainly like Blumhouse’s Upgrade.

Sinister Summer: “A Nightmare on Elm Street” (1984) Retrospective Review

Posted on by
4

Summertime often means sleep away camps, beach trips, road trips, and more. So many horror films take place during the summer and others serve as material for ghost stories around a campfire. This summer, I thought I would have a shortrun series on some of my favorite horror films that I’ve titled Sinister Summer. With the Friday the 13th next month falling on the precise day that the original Friday the 13th movie takes place and it being Jason Voorhees’ birthday, I first thought I would take a look at the original movie. But then I figured, why not do a retrospective on other horror films during June, July, and August? First up on the Sinister Summer series is my favorite slasher series A Nightmare on Elm Street featuring my favorite horror icon Freddy Krueger. Unlike with other slasher icons who hide behind masks and never speak, I consider Freddy to be the most terrifying because he can talk to his victims and attack you in your sleep–a time in which you are most vulnerable. Moreover, dreams are a private time and he invades that sacred scape. Furthermore, we don’t pay much attention to the actor behind other icons such as Jason, Leatherface, and Michael but actor Robert Englund is synonymous with Freddy because we get to appreciate the actor’s performance, charisma, and enthusiasm. Let’s get started.

1, 2 Freddy’s coming for you; 3, 4 better lock your door, 5, 6 grab your crucifix, 7, 8 gonna stay up late, 9, 10 never sleep again. If that jingle still sends chills down your spine, you’re not alone. Writer-director Wes Craven’s nightmare on screen has been terrifying audiences for more than 30yrs and has even had a crossover with Jason Voorhees. Beyond the silver screen, the Nightmare on Elm Street (NoES) franchise has been featured at Universal Studios Halloween Horror Nights, interactive media (video games), and Robert Englund reprised his most famous role in the Halloween episode of The Goldbergs [in October 2018]. Inspired by a series of articles in the LA Times; three small articles about men from Southeast Asia, who were from immigrant families, who died in the middle of nightmares—and the paper never correlated them, never said, ‘Hey, we’ve had another story like this.” From that short series of articles came the franchise that we know and love today. But there is so much more to NoES than the fact it was inspired by truly unexplained deaths during nightmares. I’ve written before that the horror genre is the best genre for creatively exploring the human condition, questioning standards and observations, providing different perspectives on sociologically, exploring psychology, heteronormativity, and more, often in terrifying ways to get you to think, and NoES certainly gives us lots of material to talk about. At its core, NoES provides ample opportunity to discuss the distinction between dreams and real life, manifesting in the actions of the teens in the film; furthermore, the events of the film transgress the boundary between imagination and reality that provocatively toy with the audience’s perceptions of the real and imagined. It’s like an episode of The Twilight Zone on crack.

On the surface, it appears that the only motivation of Freddy’s kills and trauma-inducing actions is revenge–plain and simple. After all, he was burned alive by the parents of the Elm Street teens. And so he takes his revenge out on the teens and occasionally their parents. Albeit revenge is a classic motivator, it lacks substance; however, there is much more to Freddy and the NoES series than revenge. What truly separates classic Freddy from new (remake) Freddy and from Michael and Jason is his sick commitment to showmanship. It’s just about the kills, it’s about putting on a show for his own amusement. Almost exclusively attacking teenagers, Freddy’s attacks on the mind and body can be interpreted as being symbolic of the various and often traumatic experiences encountered by young people. Our central character Nancy is the straight-laced strong-willed teenager that experiences social and sexual anxiety around her peers and parents. Clearly she is someone who has had a strong relationship with her parents–especially her father–but that relationship has become strained due to her parents becoming increasingly disconnected from her through abuse of alcohol, pills, or simply not being present. One could go so far as to assess that the parents serve as opposition to the goal of defeating Freddy and survival.

Way before the proliferation of YA movies today and unlike typical slasher films, Craven makes it a point to place the power of survival into the hands of the teenagers. He then transfers the importance of physiological control to psychological control over the unconscious mind and that which induces fear. The ability to defeat Freddy lies within the mind of Nancy. And of course, Dream Warriors places that power into multiple minds. Originally Wes Craven wanted Nancy’s entire experience to be one big nightmare but New Line Cinema wanted a darker, more macabre ending in order to pave the way for sequels because that is there the money is. Just like John Carpenter desired for Halloween to be ONE film, Craven originally desired for NoES to be one and done. Fortunately for us, both have become hugely successful franchises. However, many agree that the originals (or even extended to the first 2-3 films) are the timeless ones.

Freudian imagery and analogies are in no short supply in NoES. Even more so than in other horror films where sexual content is common, the manner in which it is used in NoES is symbolic of Freudian themes that are manifested in the manner by which Freddy stalks, toys with, and kills his prey. For the most part, the Freudian imagery is shown through a sexual context in threatening and mysterious ways that play with the teens’ perceptions of their reality versus a nightmarish imagination. Each sexual image or action is representative of some type of trauma to the body that is connected to the mind and thus becomes part of the subconscious that impacts thoughts and actions.

The various scenes that take place within the dreams of the teenagers quite possibly represent Craven’s own nightmares or perhaps even your own. Just like you might talk to a therapist about a recurring dream or nightmare in order to interpret the imagery and meaning, Craven may be working through his own dreams on the screen. The dreams and Freudian symbolism are what separate NoES from the likes of Halloween. Strip away the dreams, and you have a slasher who kills teenagers. These dreams give NoES depth, and this dimension is what beckons us to face the uncanny and pleasurable unpleasures of this film. Importantly, cinephiles and horror enthusiasts should note that the dreams never end. Evidence of this occurs at the end of the film. In terms of Freudian terminology, there is sufficient evidence in the film to suggest that Freddy represents the id (the part of the mind in which innate instinctive impulses and primary processes are manifest). He acts impulsively, killing those who are connected to the ones who burned him alive in that boiler room after discovering he was a child killer (although the original script refers to him as a child molester). He feeds off fear and comes to life in dreams, full of revenge. Clearly audiences are witnessing a battle between the id, ego, and superego throughout the events of the movie. Unfortunately, there is no real winner in this battle of the mind and body. But there is a winner in the actor Robert Englund. Arguably, he is the biggest single horror genre star since Vincent Price.

Let’s not forget the comedic components of NoES. Beyond the dreams and thematic depth that sets this film apart from Halloween and Friday the 13th, is the dark comedy. Part of Freddy’s dark comedic charm is the fact that he can talk and toy with his victims in ways that Jason, Leatherface, and Michael cannot. For one simple reason, Freddy is not hidden behind a mask. Freddy has a sense of humor. Strange as it may seem for a slasher, he often integrates humor into his dialogue and actions. This is what makes him fun to watch. The original NoES could be read as the parents being the villains and Freddy being an anti-hero. For all the reasons to be terrified of Freddy, he comes off as a little goofy. As if he just grabbed the first hat, shirt, and pants he saw walking though a rummage sale. His taunting of Tina in the opening scene of the film comes off as taunting, not horrifying. It’s like he’s a cat, toying with his victims because it is way more fun than going in for an immediate kill. Another favorite comedic moment in the movie is when the long, disgusting tongue comes out of the phone when Nancy is talking on it, and Freddy says “I’m your boyfriend now.”

Variety ran a great article on this very subject. Here is what columnist Jason Zinoman stated, “[Freddy] has a weakness for catchphrases (“better not dream and drive”), dopey word play (“feeling tongue tied?,” he asks a victim tied to a bed by tongues) and a predilection for a certain word that makes him sound like a catty teenage girl (“Bon appetit, bitch”; “Welcome to prime time, bitch,” etc). But there’s no denying the star of so many nightmares knows how to deliver a line. He sells his stale material with an admirable professionalism—he’s the Jay Leno of serial killers.”

Looking back at A Nightmare on Elm Street and the legacy it inspired, it is clear that this film and franchise has so much to offer those of us who have been watching for years and those who are beginning to explore the fascinating genre of horror. NoES has it all. Comedy, visceral horror, commentary on the human condition, explorations of the subconscious, and more. It’s this delicate balance of all these elements that bolsters the plot and characters, gives us a horror film of substance. A film that is more than cheap thrills and chills.

Ryan teaches screenwriting at the University of Tampa. If you like this article, please subscribe! Follow Ryan on Twitter @RLTerry1 and Instagram @RL_Terry for more on movies, theme parks, and entertainment news.