A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET (1984)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Horror

Director: Wes Craven

Cast: Heather Langenkamp / Robert Englund / Johnny Depp

Plot

Murdered child killer Freddy Krueger returns from the dead to attack the teenagers of Elm Street in their dreams.

What I Liked

*spoiler alert*

The horror film genre has perhaps more sub-genres and styles than any other.  Supernatural horror, comedy horror, slasher horror, monster horror, splatter horror, the list goes on.  Fans of horror tend to prefer one or two of these styles over the others.  One of the great things about “A Nightmare on Elm Street” is that it meshes together elements from every one of the subgenres I mentioned; and it does that so well that it really stands as a landmark representative for all of them.  Name another horror film that could do that.  Go on….  Even if you’re more of a horror geek than me and you did think of one, it took you a while, didn’t it?

Let’s take each subgenre one by one.  The first one I brought up was supernatural horror.  Well, its villain, Freddy Krueger returns from the dead, inhabiting and manipulating dreams.  No question there.  Comedy Horror; of all the famous ‘80s horror film killers, Freddy is easily the funniest, an endless source of cartoonish violence, clownish facial expressions, and menacing one-liners.  Not to mention director/writer Wes Craven’s practically running amok in this film with self-referential parodies of horror clichés and sarcastic representations of suburban bliss.  Slasher horror; the man’s got knives on four of his fingers and spends all his time hunting down teenage girls.  If that isn’t a slasher, I don’t know what is.  Monster horror; he’s cursed and grotesquely deformed.  He’s the living dead.  In your dreams, he can appear as anything.  He’s really a classic movie monster in much the same way the Universal monsters were.  Splatter horror.  I can’t imagine that filmgoers of the 1980s had ever seen as much blood in a mainstream movie theater, except for maybe in Craven’s own earlier entries, “Last House on the Left” and “The Hills Have Eyes.”  This one really does have something for everyone.  Provided you’re a fan of some kind of horror, that is.

So, now that I’ve taken too long to prove that point, let’s get to the reason why I really like this movie.  It’s just one surreal ride.  Full of primary colors, hallucinatory dream sequences, copious blood, and logic-defying effects, the film stands as a testament to how truly entertaining horror can be on a shoe-string budget.  The best effect is easily when Johnny Depp is transformed into a gravity-defying fountain of blood.  Even nearly 30 years later, it’s hard to top “Nightmare” a combination of both shocks and laughs.

What I Didn’t Like

Hampered by a limited budget and technological capabilities, some of the effects in the movie just seem silly to watch now.  However, the effects that do work, work incredibly well, enough so that the goofiness of the rest are easily overlooked.

While we're on the topic of what really works, Freddy should have had more screen time.  Who cares about whiny Heather Langenkamp.  I was more of Freddy’s stalking through the shadows and cheezy wisecracks.

Most Memorable Scene

Needless to say, Freddy is what made this movie stand apart from the hordes of other teen-oriented horror flicks being shoveled onto the market in the 1980s.  For me, his tour de force moment is when a seemingly risen-from-the-grave Tina, clad in body bag and dried blood, lures Nancy into Freddy’s boiler room lair.  The use of the camera, shadows, timing, and perhaps the best horror score of the decade turn a high school into a truly chilling living nightmare.  It’s the most believable, tense, and ultimately frightening of the film's many scary moments.

My Rating: 4 out 5

KING OF NEW YORK (1990)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Crime

Director: Abel Ferrera

Cast: Christopher Walken / Victor Argo / Laurence Fishburne

Plot

Released after years in prison, drug kingpin Frank White looks to turn over a new leaf, but his quest for redemption leads him directly into a bloody new war for control of the streets.

What I Liked

I used to own "King of New York" on DVD but I don't anymore.  I must have sold it for quick money at some point.  Anyway, it's on Netflix now; so no worries.

The cast of “King of New York” is its true appeal.  First and foremost is of course Christopher Walken, who is at his devilishly charming best as Frank White, the mob boss who is as charismatic as he is chilling.  He plays White with a freaky confidence that makes one feel as though Walken might relate to this coldblooded killer a little too much.  Personally, that just made me like it more.  He’s backed by a supporting cast of future stars: Laurence Fishburne, Wesley Snipes, David Caruso, Steve Buscemi, and B-movie stalwart Victor Argo.  All are perfectly cast in their roles, and watching them all work together is half the fun of the movie.

Despite its over-the-top violence, modern setting, and focus on today’s drugs instead of prohibited alcohol, “King of New York” has as much in common with the classic gangster films of the 1930s as it does other gangster flicks of the 1990s.  Whereas other modern crime epics like “Casino” or “Donnie Brasco” focus on what it’s truly like to live as middle management inside of a criminal organization, “King of New York” focuses on a charismatic and frightening individual whose ambition and bloodthirstiness allows him to dominate his peers.  That kind of plot harkens back to “Little Caesar” or “Public Enemy.”  While films like “Goodfellas” focus on the gritty realities of murder, the way that “King of New York” treats murder as an enjoyable game recalls the carefree killing of the original “Scarface.”  To be honest, I actually prefer the modern day classics to their older influences, but the makers of this one did a nice job of straddling both eras.

What I Disliked

The movie’s strength can also be its weakness.  The same wildness that reminds me of the classic gangster films of yesteryear also brands the movie as too silly to take seriously.  Cult film director Abel Ferrera is not known for his subtlety.  He reinforced that reputation with “King of New York.”  There’s so much over-the-top, stylized violence in this movie that it sometimes verges into slapstick territory.  The bullet-riddled gang war scenes amount to massacres on a preposterous scale.

Without its terrific cast, this one might have gone straight-to-video.  As it is, it's an unusual gangster film, but not an essential one.

Most Memorable Scene

Ferrera’s talent for stylish violence is best on display after a team of cops ambush Frank and his sidekick Jimmy (Fishburne).  When Frank and Jimmy try to make their escape in a limo, a manic and gruesome car chase ensues, immediately followed by a beautifully shot outdoor scene where Wesley Snipes hunts down Lawrence Fisburne.  Ferrera makes wonderful use of the location, the rain, and the shadows to bring a nightmarish, post-apocalyptic feel to the New York night.  I’m certain that anytime “King of New York” is mentioned to someone who has seen this movie, its visuals from this scene that flash through their mind.

My Rating: 3 out of 5

DUMBO (1941)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Animated / Comedy / Fantasy / Musical

Director: Ben Sharpsteen

Cast: Edward Brophy / Herman Bing / Verna Felton

Plot

Humiliated by the other animals and performers because of his freakishly huge ears, baby circus elephant Dumbo finds friendship and self-confidence with the help of Timothy Q. Mouse.

What I Liked

If one had the task of showing some unfortunate soul who had never heard of Disney one picture to sum up what the first spate of Disney films were like, “Dumbo” wouldn’t be a bad choice for the most definitive of them all.  True, there are none of the company’s famous princesses.  But everything else is here: the anthropomorphic animals; an immaculately innocent protagonist; an encouraging sidekick; a quest for self-confidence; and of course the bright, colorful animation and award-winning music.

Also like many of the best Disney flicks, “Dumbo” moves along at a brisk pace.  It’s the shortest of the early animated features and, during its brief run, packs in plenty of visual spectacle and shameless sentimentality to keep a viewer of any age entertained.

Glowing with an innocence long since considered passé in motion pictures, even in children’s films, this movie may be a relic by today’s standards; but it’s a heart-warming, charming relic.

What I Didn’t Like

*spoiler alert*

[Do I even need to include a spoiler alert for a classic kid’s movie, the story to which everyone knows?]

I have to say it; I was completely let down by the ending of the film.  Dumbo finally gets to flying and I’m thinking that I’m really going to be in for some fun viewing now.  Then the movie ends.  Bam!  One full on aerial animation scene and we’re done.  What a gyp! (With apologies to any gypsy filmgoers who may read my blog.

While we’re talking about letdowns, the songs to this film may have won the Academy Award for that year, but the field must have been pretty weak because there’s not a true classic in the entire soundtrack.  “When I See An Elephant Fly” is the best of the bunch by a long shot.  It’s 1940s Disney attempt at being jazzy, so it is of course sung by some stereotypical blackbirds, one named (ahem) Jim Crow.  It is admittedly catchy in a foot-tapping sort of way.  But there’s nothing here approaching the kind of music one gets in “Snow White,” “Pinocchio,” “The Jungle Book,” or even “The Lion King.”

Most Memorable Scene

Sorry, I have to pick two scenes here.

In terms of animation, the most impressive is the hallucinatory dream/nightmare filled with pink elephants which Dumbo and Timothy share after accidentally getting drunk.  Surely nothing like it had existed in animated film before.  In fact, it strikes me more as something from the mind of Rob Zombie than those of the people at Walt Disney Studios in the 1940s.

For tugging at the heart strings, nothing beats watching cute little Dumbo cuddle up for a swing on his imprisoned mother’s trunk.  Like I said earlier, shamelessly sentimental; but they are oh so good at it.

My Rating: 3.5 out 5

THE MUSIC ROOM (1958)

A.K.A.: Jalsaghar

Country: India

Genre(s): Drama

Director: Satyajit Ray

Cast: Chhabi Biswas / Tulsi Lahiri / Gangapada Basu

Plot

Having spent the family wealth on a lifetime of extravagance, a nobleman becomes a brooding recluse in his palace home.

What I Liked

The striking visual power of this film is so perfect it borders on magical.  Where most dramas are usually dialogue-heavy, the filmmakers behind “The Music Room” used dialogue sparingly, replacing words with framing and camera work to convey both story and emotion. Nearly the entire film is shot inside a vast, ornate palace, decorated from ceiling to floor with the finest art and furnishings.  Yet, despite the décor, the house is unimaginably hollow, made a metaphor for loss by the masterful cinematography, which expresses the loneliness of the film’s main character.  There are a lot of films out there with impressive cinematography; few film made after the silent era, if any, boast cinematography so integral to the plot as does “The Music Room.”

Never extravagant or melodramatic, the subtle performances Chhabi Biswas as the main character and Tulsi Lahiri as his manservant are also what helps keep this slow-paced film interesting.  Biswas in particular was handed a character that is hard to feel sorry for, yet that character is the all-important protagonist.  That he makes this spoiled man of privilege who treats everyone around him like dirt at least a little relatable and sympathetic is a major accomplishment on his part.

What I Didn’t Like

This movie is dreadfully slow.  It takes forever for anything to happen and most of the things that do end up happening honestly left me indifferent.  It is the visual beauty of the film that I most admire, not so much the plot or drama.

And call me insensitive or politically incorrect, but the atonal traditional music of India is just dreadful on my Western ears.  This movie did not need trance-inducing music to make its American viewers even sleepier; the story can do that all on its own.  Though I must admit there is a pretty impressive dance number by a woman in the film’s climax, set to an all-too-irritating soundtrack.

Most Memorable Scene

There are several dramatic moments from the film that do manage to remain in my mind a day after I have finished watching it.  But really, the most impactful scenes are those without words and often without people in them; those are the ones that I’m sure will define the movie in my memory.  These are the wonderfully framed portraits of the empty rooms and halls of the palace that I mentioned earlier.  These visuals are beautiful and disturbing all at once.

My Rating: 2.5 out 5