The Conjuring Universe

I've admittedly fallen out of the habit of writing reviews, not because I don't enjoy the work, but because it IS work, and work that I've never been paid for (despite my feeble, failed attempt at generating affiliate revenue). I do still enjoy horror as much as ever, but I don't spend as much time watching it (outside of the Halloween season), nor do I keep track of new releases like I used to.

Still, I'm proud to say that the kids in my family have pretty much all learned to appreciate the entertainment value of a good horror flick - even without any conscious prompt from me! It's actually kind of funny to hear them raving about horror movies, having little idea of how obsessed I've been with them for much of my life. Like when they discovered The Conjuring on Netflix, a movie I saw in the theater back in 2013.

I had no idea back then that it would become the next big horror franchise following Saw (currently featuring eight films in The Conjuring "universe" - no doubt borrowing a page from Marvel's playbook), but it does make a certain amount of sense in hindsight, given how crowded that theater was (which was a surprise to me, as someone who is used to sitting practically alone in the theater during horror screenings), and the fact that the story is framed as a single case from the colorful career of a pair of paranormal investigators (based on real people, not that that means much in horror).

Browsing my review from eight years ago, the point that stands out is how effectively the movie utilized the genre's clichés to generate a cross between The Amityville Horror (a story which itself has ties to the aforementioned paranormal investigators) and The Exorcist. Anyway, the kids keep talking up the sequels, and have lent me their DVD collection for them, so I'm going to watch them all and write down my thoughts as I go. I haven't done a marathon like this for a while, but it will be just like old times!

The Conjuring (2013)

I don't have a whole lot to add to my previous review of this movie; my impression this time was on par with how I felt the first time I watched it (minus the reactions of a largely unblooded theater audience). Despite utilizing many of the tropes of the genre, it does so very effectively and piles them on thick. I did notice that Annabelle features more heavily in this movie than I remembered.

In fact, the first shot of the movie is a closeup of her face, and a brief recounting of her origin is used to introduce paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren, who in this movie investigate what is promised to be their most extreme case, of a demonic possession tormenting a family of five(!) daughters, that results in (spoiler) the Warrens performing a homebrew exorcism.

I did recognize a few familiar faces, including Joey King (who would grow up to star in the runaway hit Kissing Booth movies) and Mackenzie Foy (who was memorable in Interstellar), but most surprisingly John Brotherton (who plays D.J.'s other romantic interest, Matt Harmon, in the Fuller House reboot) as a town cop whose presence provides more comedic relief than actual protection (after all, it's ghosts - not criminals - they're up against).

In hindsight, I'm less surprised that this movie was successful; for a horror movie, it's as effective as it is accessible, with a framing narrative that leaves room for expansion, and the added kick (however cynical I've become of this claim in the realm of horror, it works rather better with the more naive, general audiences) that it's based on a true story. Now let's see about those sequels.

Annabelle (2014)

So, this movie actually starts with the same scene as The Conjuring, but the main story takes place before that encounter, with Annabelle's previous owners. I was actually kind of disappointed that the Warrens didn't feature in this movie, but I guess they can make more movies if they don't need the principal actors for the side stories.

If The Conjuring was a cross between The Amityville Horror and The Exorcist, then this movie is Chucky meets Rosemary's Baby. A young, married couple expecting their first baby is the target of a Manson-style home invasion conducted by members of a Satanic cult, which results in what would seem to be the origin of Annabelle's supernatural powers.

"To non-believers, it's all crazy."

Honestly, the movie felt a little slow, and the doll scares weren't as effective for me as the ghost scares in The Conjuring. Haunted dolls just aren't my thing. I mean, yeah, dolls can be creepy, in an uncanny valley sort of way, but if supernatural forces are going to take physical shape, they can be a lot more creative than relying on manmade wooden effigies.

Even if the effigy in question is so grotesque that I have a hard time swallowing anyone buying it (at least unironically) as a gift. That said, there is a point in this movie where an actual demon makes an appearance, giving us the money shot that The Conjuring lacked, and it's worth seeing. But if this movie wanted to impress me more, it would have had more demon, and less doll.

The Conjuring 2 (2016)

A question one might have for The Conjuring 2 is, if The Conjuring already depicted paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren's most extreme case, how do you make the next one stand out? And the answer is, go for name recognition. The movie starts with the Warrens investigating the house from The Amityville Horror (albeit in the wake of the events that went on there), and then proceeds to tie it in to the notorious case of the Enfield poltergeist in England.

Maybe this is just the inevitable result of watching too many haunted house movies, but there comes a point when the scares start to feel too contrived (even including the use of feints to trick the audience), especially with the guidance of a dramatic soundtrack. This is something I liked about the low-key approach of Paranormal Activity - I prefer a situation that's organically scary to the movie broadcasting the parts at which I'm supposed to be scared.

Which isn't to say that the poltergeist activity in this movie isn't creepy, or that it's not creative, but it's distracting when you can feel the invisible presence of the director's hand manipulating the scene, conjuring up ways to shock the audience. Is there meaning in the ghost flicking light switches, spontaneously playing radios, switching TV channels, or is it just generally trying to be a nuisance?

"Honestly, I don't know what's worse - the demons,
or the people preying on our willingness to believe in them."

"The demons. They're worse."

So, there's two stories going on here, one about a nice English family apparently being haunted by a renegade band of Cornish Pixies, and another where Lorraine seems to be hounded by a ghost she encountered in the Amityville house, which looks like a cross between Marilyn Manson and Jigsaw, dressed in a nun's habit (is this "The Nun"? Why are we seeing her now? Or is this another case, like Annabelle, of the writers creating spin-off potential?).

The movie actually gets a whole lot more interesting (and surprisingly humorous) when the Warrens finally get involved in the Enfield case. After all, these characters are what sets these movies apart - it's fun to see their confidence in action, and the experience they have doing this unusual work. In fact, the conclusion is quite thrilling (even if it's not exactly original at this point to conduct the climax in front of an open second story window), complete with a few dizzying twists. I think this movie requires a little more investment than the first one (especially given its fairly long runtime), but I'd consider it an effective sequel.

Annabelle: Creation (2017)

What this movie lacks in originality, it more than makes up for in execution. The first Annabelle movie gave us an origin story for the evil within the doll (which was already redundant, given that a different explanation was profferred in her first appearance in The Conjuring); yet, instead of tapping in to the potential for stories about other people coming into contact with the doll following its corruption (and before it ends up in the safe keeping of the Warrens' treasury of occult objects - unless it were to somehow manage to escape, hint hint), this movie takes us back even further, to tell a tale about the dollmaker who handcrafted Annabelle, and to seemingly spin a new origin story for the evil within it (because what would an Annabelle movie be with a doll that's not haunted?).

Many questions arose as I was watching this movie. Is Annabelle just so cursed that she can host multiple demons within her slight wooden frame? Or are there multiple Annabelles? In this movie, we witness Annabelle's construction; it's indicated that this is the first in a limited series of what was supposed to be a hundred dolls, but I think there's a reasonable indication that no more were ever completed after the first one - even though that could have explained the presence of different dolls with different possession stories. Yet, this reading would require that something about the design of the doll must be a unique conduit for evil (like LeMarchand's puzzle box). However, other than its aforementioned grotesque appearance, no explanation for this is given. (Spoiler: the end of the movie ties all of these loose ends into a neat bow).

To summarize the plot of this movie, years after his daughter is killed in a freak accident, the dollmaker opens his house up to a girls' orphanage (beating The Conjuring's previous record with six girls this time), and the typical poltergeist-related shenanigans commence, with Annabelle at their center. I don't know what it is, but the scares in this movie were significantly more chilling than the others so far. And I'm glad to see that the creators took my advice from the first Annabelle movie (which I've just given, years after both movies were already made >.>), and favorably tweaked the demon-to-doll ratio. The venerable Miranda Otto (who has been having a blast in The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina lately) hovers around the edge of this story, but the real revelation is young Talitha Bateman as polio-stricken Janice. There's a career to watch.

"Forgive me, Father, for I am about to sin."

Oh, and one other thing. I had a thought while watching this movie, although it's probably more true of The Conjuring movies than the Annabelle movies, but have you ever noticed how these movies are like a fireworks display of poltergeist activity? They start out small, trying out a few displays, then slowly ramp up the action, and you can always tell when the finale hits because they'll throw everything in their arsenal at you all at once!

The Nun (2018)

Like Annabelle before it, The Nun is a spin-off prequel telling of the origin of one of the series' major antagonists, introduced in The Conjuring 2. Except, it's not so much an origin story as a "this happened, too" story - and there's a critical flaw in setting up a prequel as a typical standoff between good and evil, when you know that evil is ultimately going to prevail (and not even in a "the bad guy wins" sort of way, which can be good). The best five minutes of this movie are a rushed summary of where the evil came from (something to do with a deranged crusader performing Satanic rituals) - and if you ask me, that story is what this whole movie should have been.

But to get to what this movie actually is, we start at the beginning, which feels very contrived. Inexplicably, a random abbey in Romania has a demon locked in its basement (oh yeah, happens all the time), and even more inexplicably, the abbess decides that it's a good idea to unlock the door and let it out (did you know that doors can totally hold demons back?). And if that weren't enough, once the abbess is presumably possessed, and the demon is chasing what appears to be the last surviving nun, she goes off and commits suicide, because that's totally something somebody ordained in the faith would choose to do. The fact that these events are eventually provided a plausible explanation doesn't forgive the movie for asking the viewer to stretch their suspension of disbelief so far in the first place. The only redeeming element is the irony of one of these movies starting, rather than ending, in front of an open second story window for a change.

But the movie's implausibility doesn't end there. In the wake of this disastrous encounter, the Vatican sends a "miracle hunter" priest to investigate with the help of a sister-of-the-faith-in-training. When the latter is introduced explaining dinosaurs to the younger students at her convent, it feels like the writers are telling us, "she's religious, but don't worry, she's totally cool". Because you know the church would aggressively stamp out that kind of open-minded progressivism in anyone on track to taking their vows. On the other hand, the character is played by Taissa Farmiga, who I remember from the first season (in particular) of American Horror Story, and who I keep thinking about every time I look at her sister (although they are 21 years apart in age) Vera's face, who plays Lorraine Warren in these movies. So that's cool.

I don't want to drag on too long talking about this movie that largely failed to hold my interest, so let me just address a few points. I like the setting - a gothic castle feels more appropriate for a ghost story than a modern dwelling. I just wish it was used in a movie with better writing. Example: the priest dismisses the guide so he won't have to "be caught on the road at nightfall". The guide agrees, and promptly leaves; in the next scene, he's on the road and it's dark. Like, okay. Later, the priest gets buried alive (and proceeds to use up as much oxygen as possible shouting repeatedly and flicking his lighter), and the nun-to-be has to use her psychic visions (I know) to dispel the ghost's distractions in order to find which grave he's buried in, except that the ghost already put the priest's name on the tombstone...

I guess I don't find the concept of a nun wandering around, even in the shadows, to be particularly scary. I mean, yeah, nuns are scary, but for all the human reasons, not any supernatural ones. And while the nun does have a creepy face, I feel like they're overplaying that factor (and I feel bad for the actress that plays her - how would you feel being told that you have a great face for horror?). I also don't think she quite lives up to the epithet "the defiler". Mocking religious symbols is one thing, but you have to have an artistry to it, a certain depravity. And it's not as much fun if you don't throw in some perversion. Maybe, like Annabelle (which played largely on the fears of new motherhood), I'm just not the ideal audience for this movie, given that I'm neither religious nor superstitious (redundant, I know).

The Curse of La Llorona (2019)

As the first "spin-off" in The Conjuring franchise that's really more of an independent tale, not preemptively teased or featuring a previously introduced entity in any of the other films, there's not much tying this movie to the Conjuring universe, aside from the brief appearance of Father Perez (who played a supporting role in the first Annabelle movie). Well, that, and the fact that this movie very much possesses the spirit of a Conjuring movie, with a creepy antagonist (just in a bridal gown instead of a nun's habit) who terrorizes people with poltergeist activity in pursuit of human souls.

The movie starts out well enough, feeling like more of a supernatural drama compared to the fantasy horror of The Nun. The story is inspired by a Mexican folk tale about a woman who drowned her own sons. She's called La Llorona (and forgive me, but I had the tune to My Sharona playing on repeat in the back of my head all throughout this movie), or the Weeping Woman. As the legend goes, when she found out that her husband had cheated on her, instead of punishing the husband, she murdered the kids she'd had with him. Upon realizing that she was the worst mother in the world, she killed herself only to end up spending her afterlife taking other people's kids. Until she runs into a feisty social worker (Linda Cardellini) and widowed wife of a cop raising two perky kids in Los Angeles, that is.

There's also another woman, whose behavior throughout the movie is quite frustrating. Like, she locks up her kids and acts crazy, and then blames the social worker (and actually attacks her) for rescuing the kids and thereby leaving them vulnerable to the entity that's hunting them. Like the social worker bears any responsibility when the woman failed, when given the opportunity, to explain the situation. I get that it's a supernatural folk tale, but if she was afraid of sounding crazy, the ship had already left that port. It just annoys me when drama is manufactured from a situation that could be resolved if people would simply explain themselves. I get that this happens in real life, too, but that doesn't change my feelings about it. And then later in the movie, she totally flip flops with no real motivation between being on the good side and the bad side.

And then we come to the final act of the movie, in which an ex-priest faith healer (Raymond Cruz) with "miracle hunter" vibes steps in to help the afflicted family, through a series of rituals and preparations that seems totally arbitrary and as if they were being made up on the spot. At this point, I think I'm getting bored with the convoluted schemes ghosts use to steal people's souls (read: lives). I mean, I can get playing tricks to make people go crazy, especially to the point of desperation and giving in just to make it stop, but it's almost demeaning that these supposedly intimidating supernatural forces have to resort to such petty psycho-physical manipulations. I keep thinking about how effective The Exorcist was, and it saddens me to see these ghosts and demons preoccupied with gliding down dark hallways, slamming doors, and toying with the remote. Give me sodomy with a crucifix any day of the week.

Annabelle Comes Home (2019)

Now that we're past the low point of the series, with those movies that don't even have "Conjuring" or "Annabelle" in the title, we're back to the power hitters, and I'm pretty excited. I may not have been real stoked to watch the first Annabelle movie (because haunted dolls, ya know?), but I liked the second one a lot, and I saw a trailer for this one when I popped in the disc for The Curse of La Llorona, and I'll be damned if I didn't think it looked good.

So, for the third time in the series, we get a movie starting with that scene with the Warrens interviewing the last owners of Annabelle before they acquired it, but for the first time, we get to see what happens immediately after that, on Annabelle's trip "home" - to the Warrens' Artifact Room. And it's nice to see the Warrens appearing in a movie that doesn't have "Conjuring" in the title. That's a testament to how big the Annabelle spin-off has become.

"Nice doll."
"That's what you think."

And this time, we get a proper sequel instead of another prequel - even though the events of this movie still occur before the events of The Conjuring - with Annabelle escaping her glass cage in the Warrens' treasury of occult objects. We also get to see more of the Warrens' daughter Judy, who is central to the action for a change, although she's been recast (no doubt because the previous Judy grew up) as Mckenna Grace, who was in The Haunting of Hill House (among other things - including a small role in Fuller House, since another actor from that show already turned up in one of these movies previously).

Along with Judy (who sees dead people, but she gets that from her mother), this movie is carried by two teen girls, a babysitter and her friend. Babysitters, school hallways - this feels like a vintage horror movie. I like a movie that gives you a nice slice of life with interesting characters before hacking them to bits (well, if this were a slasher). The real horror isn't what the monster does to its victims, it's what it takes away from them - peace of mind, happiness, and a chance at a normal life.

I'll even forgive the babysitter's plucky friend for being stupid enough to break into a room filled with cursed objects (and the Warrens for not hiding the key better), because it's just a plot device, resulting in a level of mayhem that's akin to a containment breach in the Ghostbusters headquarters. If we weren't so late in the series already, I'd say it's all fertile ground for further spin-off material.

The scares are pretty fun this time, without too much reliance on cheap gimmicks. The effect of the coins in the Ferryman's eyes, in particular, was clever, contributing to the effect of a creepy atmosphere over the hollow payoff of a jump scare. And the prognosti-tube (no idea what it's really called) was ingeniously unsettling. Although I could do without the "puking blood into somebody else's mouth as a vehicle for possession" trope. I know horror isn't designed to make you feel comfortable, but seriously, ew.

As a final thought, seeing so much of the Warrens' Artifact Room just makes me realize that this series hasn't remotely tapped the true sequel potential of its premise, especially spending three movies now revisiting the same doll (even if it does have the reputation for being the most dangerous object in the room - I like the touch of putting the tarot card for The Devil on her case, by the way). I think The Conjuring would be great as a TV series, with each episode detailing the origin/acquisition of one artifact from the room.

The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It (2021)

The Conjuring 3 opens at what seems to be the climax of one of the Warrens' cases, in which they are asked to oversee the exorcism of an 8 year old boy (for the first time, it's a boy - and one with ridiculous Gibson Praise glasses). And it looks like a doozy. Lorraine is sporting a new hairstyle - an updo reminiscent of pictures I've seen of the real Lorraine Warren, who looks rather older than she does in these movies. Between that and the (brief) return of the original actress who played Judy (who continues, as we all must, to advance in age), my suspicions are confirmed that this is one of the Warrens' later cases. Which is appropriate, eight years after the first movie came out, and as many films into the series. I wonder, though, if there'll be any more after this one?

The exorcism ends unusually in an apparent transference of possession (whose host gives off such strong Harvey from The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina vibes that I'm legitimately surprised it's not the same actor), and with Ed in the hospital, unable to warn the others what happened before the new host wreaks havoc (his struggle with health problems really gives Lorraine a chance to step up to the plate in this one). But what's really interesting about this movie is the extent to which it covers new ground, instead of retreading territory the series has already been over (other critics might cite this as a weakness, but I think it's one of this movie's strengths). The Warrens are faced with a new kind of demonic possession - less poltergeist activity and more Satanic curse - and must solve the mystery of what's going on while a young man's life is on trial.

"The demon's gone, what can you do now?"
"Who's your lawyer?"

This movie is based on the true life story of the first case in US law to claim demonic possession as a defense, which the Warrens consulted on. But that's not to say that this movie is a court procedural. The Warrens' investigations lead them to a(nother) ex-priest (played by John Noble, who was very memorable on Fringe) - one who studied the Disciples of the Ram (the Satanic cult responsible for much of the mayhem in the first Annabelle movie), to the point of collecting a treasury of ritual objects of his own (more along the lines of objects created for evil purposes, as opposed to mundane objects repurposed for evil), enough to make even the Warrens hesitant to enter. I'll refrain from giving away the rest of the movie, but suffice to say, I enjoyed it.

Conclusion:

It's been a fun ride! I enjoyed the main entries better than the spin-offs, although the Annabelle movies grew on me more than I expected them to. Ed and Lorraine Warren are definitely interesting characters, and provide fertile ground for stories to tell in the paranormal subgenre of horror. I think casting Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga was a good choice, as they both have good screen presence, and a natural chemistry. However, ironically, the more I've learned about the real life Warrens, the more I'm convinced they were frauds. Not that I ever seriously considered their claims, skeptical atheist that I am, but I will admit that I was a little taken in initially by the claim that they spent a lot of time finding perfectly natural explanations for the phenomena their clients experienced. But I guess if you want to convince people that your snake oil works, you're gonna pick the best case studies you can get your hands on (then again, one could argue that picking such highly publicized - and thus scrutinized - cases isn't the most effective strategy unless it's only publicity you're courting). Then again, it's entirely possible that they believed their own hype, reserving supernatural explanations for anything they couldn't otherwise explain. Religion and self-delusion frequently do go hand in hand. But that's reality, and this is fiction, and I'm capable of keeping the two separate.

Terminator Marathon

In anticipation of going to see the new Terminator movie in theaters (since I'd heard good things about it from a close friend), I decided to go back and rewatch the first two Terminator movies, as well as the third and the fourth that I had never seen before. Here are my thoughts on each of the movies:

The Terminator (1984)

It's easy to write The Terminator off as a brainless Hollywood blockbuster (mainly due to the success and reputation of its sequel, which often - and unfairly in my opinion - eclipses its predecessor), but I view it as one of the pinnacle examples of a brilliant sci-fi premise executed flawlessly. A cyborg assassin (Arnold Schwarzenegger, perfectly cast in a role that facilitated his transformation from an award-winning bodybuilder to a movie star) is sent from a future ravaged by nuclear war, where (much like in the Matrix), machines have enslaved and all but exterminated mankind. The Terminator's single-minded goal is to assassinate the leader of the human resistance - before he is ever born, by targeting his mother, Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton).

And so, without any concern for propriety or maintaining a low profile, the Terminator begins its rampage through Los Angeles, like an indestructible bulldozer, recklessly killing anyone and destroying anything that gets between him and his target. Sarah Connor's only protection is a human resistance fighter sent back from the future like the Terminator - a man named Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn, who, along with Lance Henriksen who plays a small role in this movie, also appears in director James Cameron's sequel to Alien), whose journey to the past initiates one of the great mindfucks of a time paradox in cinematic history - predating Back To The Future by a year! The Terminator's relentless pursuit of his target is thrilling to watch, and builds to a terrifying climax when the killing machine's true form is revealed. I unhesitatingly rate it one of the masterpieces of the science fiction genre.

Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)

The Terminator was a pretty neatly-wrapped narrative (as time loops tend to be), but whenever the unavoidably inconsistent logic of time travel is involved, there is always room for retconning. So Terminator 2 starts by introducing a second Terminator sent back in time, this time to target John Connor himself (Edward Furlong) before the war (dubbed "Judgment Day"), while he was still a child. Linda Hamilton returns as the boy's mother, Sarah Connor, and Arnold Schwarzenegger reprises his role as the Terminator - with a significant twist: this time, he's been programmed to protect John Connor, against an even more powerful killing machine: Robert Patrick's T-1000.

This movie is a lot more self-conscious than The Terminator was (for better or worse, depending on your perspective). Arnold's entrance is no less badass, but this time it conspicuously strives to be "cool", whereas the first one was just terrifying. And while it's a clever way to put a twist on the story, I just don't like turning the unstoppable killer from the first movie into one of the good guys. Here, you have the Terminator learning to smile and crack jokes (and minimize human casualties); and while I'm sure having one as your personal bodyguard fulfills every 13 year old boy's fantasy, the Terminator is just not as awesome when it's reduced to fulfilling the role of a pet, or a toy.

On the other side of the ring, you have this new villain who I think works out better in theory than in practice. Robert Patrick is sinister-looking enough, but he doesn't make as intimidating a villain as Mr. Olympia (Arnold) did. The idea of liquid metal is undoubtedly cool, but the effects just don't impress me as much as a cyborg with a creepy-looking robotic endoskeleton. In summary, The Terminator was a desperate struggle to survive in the face of overwhelming odds, whereas Terminator 2 is a face-off between two juggernauts - and the movie feels different as a result. Personally, I prefer the tension and the despair of the former to the action and spectacle of the latter.

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (2003)

With James Cameron no longer at the helm, and over a decade since the last entry, Terminator 3 is bound to feel like a departure from the previous titles in the series. Nevertheless, it picks up right where Terminator 2 left off, and utilizes a similar formula (arguably rendering it obsolete - especially considering that it's not as good - except for the fact that it retcons T2's resolution, making another sequel about the war-torn future possible). Although, like the original, T2's ending was pretty conclusive - Sarah and John Connor trashed Cyberdyne Systems' headquarters (the company that produced the AI that precipitated Judgment Day), thereby changing the future and averting the apocalypse - in T3, a young adult John Connor (Nick Stahl) is living in constant fear that fate will, sooner or later, find another way to manifest itself. And sure enough, it does.

Enter the new T-X (Kristanna Loken) - a female Terminatrix. She's a highly advanced model, taking on the best of the first two Terminators - a robotic endoskeleton underneath a layer of liquid metal - with added firepower and the ability to control other machines. This all sounds awesome, but I think it's gotten to the level of being a little ridiculous. (On that note, explosions are cool because fire, but I don't really need to see an entire city block demolished for no good reason - that's not entertainment for me). I don't want to be sexist - because women can be legitimately terrifying - but Kristanna Loken just isn't as intimidating as an award-winning bodybuilder can be. I feel like both she and Robert Patrick in T2 were trying too hard to imitate Arnold's emotionless, deadpan expressions that were so genuine in the original. It's a shame that they insisted on turning Arnold's Terminator into a sympathetic good guy - they should have just kept him as the villain.

Speaking of Arnold Schwarzenegger, he returns in this movie in a role very similar to the last. His entrance is even more humorous this time, when he enters a ladies' bar and steals the clothes off of a male stripper (I am not joking). No explanation is given as to how the Terminators make it to the past, two movies after we were told that the time travel device had been busted after Kyle Reese and the first Terminator went through. Plot consistency is tricky to begin with where time travel is involved, but the more they tack on to the story, the messier it gets. If repeated time travel is an option (via a repaired or second machine, for example), then questions arise, such as, why send the T-X (or even the T-1000) to kill an informed John Connor rather than an inexperienced Sarah Connor, as was the target the first time? And why not send a bunch of Terminators instead of just one? You can tell the series has gone from "I have a great story to tell!" to "what kind of story can we tell to keep this franchise going?"

Terminator Salvation (2009)

You could be forgiven for thinking that, twenty-five years after the first film, there wouldn't be any new ground left to tread in a Terminator movie, but you would be wrong. Apart from a few glimpses into the memories of Kyle Reese (played in this movie by Anton Yelchin), the story of the future resistance hadn't really been told. And I'm not sure that it could have been told until we'd seen the experiences (that span the second and third movies) that make up John Connor (Christian Bale, this time around)'s youth, and inform his prescient knowledge of the key to winning the war. That, and we also had to develop the special effects necessary to tell the story first.

An interesting thing about the Terminator movies, if you examine them, is that, despite it being a story involving time travel, that spans the years 1984 to 2029, each one takes place predominantly in chronological order. From before John Connor's birth, to his childhood, to the moments preceding Judgment Day, and now finally we move forward into the future to explore man's resistance against the machines. Terminator Salvation ditches the stale formula the series had latched onto, which is probably for the best. It is, therefore, an unpredictable movie, that doesn't feel like a classic Terminator - although it has lots of respect for the movies that preceded it - and it is a good movie nonetheless.

It is, however, a bleak and visually desaturated movie. But I like that it tries to do its own thing, instead of struggling to capture lightning in a bottle all over again. Arnold Schwarzenegger's absence isn't even that painful, since the Terminators have little need to disguise themselves as humans in the future - and they look as terrifying as ever here! Also, this movie provides an intriguing and far more effective example of a sympathetic rogue Terminator (portrayed by Sam Worthington) than we've ever seen before. It builds to a shockingly clever and exciting climax, that respectfully pays homage to its predecessors, with all new, updated special effects. As a total package, it's not as brilliant or flawless as the original Terminator, but I think I liked it better than the fan-favored Terminator 2.

Hellraiser Marathon

Spoiler Warning: As each title in this series tends to build and expand upon the events and revelations contained in the previous title(s), each of the following reviews may contain spoilers from previous titles in the series.

"We'll tear your soul apart."

Hellraiser (1987)

Based on a story ("The Hellbound Heart") by the deliciously demented horror author Clive Barker (who also directed this feature), Hellraiser is a tale about an ancient puzzle box - sort of like an occult Rubik's Cube - that, when solved, summons a group of pain-worshipping demons known as the Cenobites. But, the twist is that, in true sadomasochistic fashion, this summoning is treated like a prize, rather than a punishment. Indeed, one can imagine that the experience is sought after by edge-players as a sort of esoteric holy grail of ultimate pleasure - arrived at by way of ultimate pain.

In the story, a drifter by the name of Frank gets his hands on the puzzle box, but when the Cenobites are summoned, he gets more than he bargained for. Later, when his brother's family moves into the house he was squatting in, he finds a way to revive his body through blood sacrifice, but the Cenobites don't appreciate him escaping their clutches, and soon his niece Kirsty finds herself caught between her uncle's threats and the very horrors of hell.

Some of the digital fx in Hellraiser are admittedly a little hokey, but I would rate the practical fx as impressive (nearing the level of John Carpenter's The Thing), and the whole piece works remarkably well based on the strength of its concept, and the truly badass creature designs. The actors are all terrific, and really bring life to their characters, giving this story a strong human backbone, so that it's not forced to rely on the superficial appeal of its fantastic premise.

Hellraiser is a dark and imaginative work, refeshingly free of the formulaic cliches that plagued the relentless slasher sequels that were popular in the late '80s. I'd expect no less from Clive Barker. What's surprising (given that mass audiences are so poor at recognizing true quality) is that this movie was popular or profitable enough to establish an entire franchise. But for better and worse, I'm going to delve into that franchise, to see how the series has evolved over myriad sequels.


Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988)

Hellraiser established the basic rules of the puzzle box - that solving it summons the Cenobites from some dimension of hell, and that it is protected by some kind of powerful (though deceptively so, going by his appearance) guardian. Hellbound expands upon the mythos, revealing that there are multiple puzzle boxes in existence, demonstrating that the Cenobites were once human (alluding to what purpose the "Engineer" we saw in the first movie may have), and by exploring further the dimension (appropriately named "Labyrinth") that the puzzle box opens up doors to.

Having narrowly been spared the torment of the Cenobites before, by helping them to capture renegade Frank, Kirsty finds herself in the custody of a psychiatric hospital. Unfortunately for her, her doctor is doing some occult research on the side, and has procured the mattress that Kirsty's stepmother Julia died on. Soon enough, he's reviving her like she did Frank in the first Hellraiser, but his aspirations are far more ambitious - and he's willing to employ the skills of a mute young girl who is exceptionally gifted at solving puzzles to unwittingly open the doors for him to a total transformation of the soul.

Hellbound continues Hellraiser's inconsistent combination of sketchy digital fx and effective practical ones. In addition to the Cenobites we are familiar with - Pinhead, Chatterer, Butterball, and the female - we are introduced to a new one, who substitutes the other Cenobites' dark and foreboding wit with a penchant for cheap puns, for better or worse. Hellbound's story is not as tight, and it is not as strong a movie as the first Hellraiser was, but it's still pretty good, and an effective sequel.


Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth (1992)

Hellbound had the curious plot development whereby our favorite Cenobites (Pinhead included), upon being reminded of their former humanity, turn against Leviathan, the lord of the Labyrinth, and are killed off by the new baddie Dr. Channard (who himself doesn't survive the movie). Hellraiser III smartly brings Pinhead back, even if doing so causes it to muck around with the internal logic of the series. But where Pinhead's cool was derived from his laconic (and eminently quotable) threats in the previous two films, he has a tendency to ramble and oversell his point here. I guess it's a mixed bag, because seeing Pinhead promoted to prominence as the central villain of the piece is exciting, but the story suffers from focusing on the battle for his soul, in lieu of Clive Barker's original concept of sadomasochistic demons summoned from a puzzle box.

The central conflict involves Pinhead's resurrection through a process very similar to Frank and Julia's in the previous films, with the important distinction that he's being revived into the world of the living, where he is not confined to the rules of the puzzle box (namely, whom he's allowed to torture). Meanwhile, a New York City reporter is contacted by the ghost of Pinhead's human soul, who hopes that she may have the strength to send Pinhead back to hell. Unfortunately, the new Cenobites in this movie are not nearly as intriguing as the old ones (Pinhead himself admits this), and the derelict, in his brief appearance, is a lot less creepy than he was in the first Hellraiser. Pinhead's blasphemies, on the other hand, are a real joy to watch, but it's a shame they're not couched within a better movie. The fact is, Hell on Earth has a very direct-to-video kind of vibe to it, and it's just not as good as the first two installments in the Hellraiser series.


Hellraiser: Bloodline (1996)

Hellraiser: Bloodline opens on a space station in the year 2127. Now, this can go one of two ways. It can be an awesome Dead Space/Event Horizon-like mix of hell in space. Or it can be another Jason X. Disappointingly, it opts for the latter, but buffers it with two other time periods in what amounts to a tedious chronicle of the L'Merchant (a.k.a. Lemarchand) family's bloodline, going back to the naive 18th century toymaker who crafted the first infernal puzzle box on a commission.

Unfortunately, the potential for a great story about the origin of the puzzle box is mostly wasted on an uncharismatic libertine in a very Interview With The Vampire kind of setting, yet it's the least eye-rolling part of the Merchant family history. Pinhead appears (with a creepy pet that straddles the line between cool and awkward) in the present day to apply not-so-subtle pressure to the architect descendant of the toymaker to finish the building he's working on based on the puzzle box's blueprints, which is secretly meant to be a full-on gateway to hell (with no explanation for the source of the Merchant family's supernatural powers of design) - instead of the secret "light room" that Merchant's post-21st century descendant is working to perfect in order to, hopefully, destroy the puzzle box and the demons it has summoned once and for all.

This is just further evidence of the dilution of Clive Barker's original concept, with the Cenobites (basically Pinhead with a few lame-o one-off gag characters each new movie) searching for ways to escape hell and invade Earth instead of tempting foolish humans with the tantalizing promise of transcendent pain. Honestly, it comes off very much like some fanfic writer inexplicably got hold of the reins to the series. I didn't think Hellraiser would go downhill this fast, but at least it got two good movies in before the decline.


Hellraiser: Inferno (2000)

I heard a rumor that the Hellraiser sequels from here on out actually began life as independent projects, with Pinhead written in after the fact (presumably to boost the films' audiences). It kinda makes sense, given that Bloodline put a finish to the Cenobites and the puzzle box, effectively ending the series, but doing so over a hundred years in the future of the timeline, leaving the door open for any number of Pinhead appearances in the ensuing years. Of course, it means that the following titles are probably not going to really feel like "Hellraiser" movies in a complete sense. However, even in the first Hellraiser, the puzzle box existed to support the story, and not exactly drive it, and the Cenobites were all the more terrifying for the briefness of their appearances.

Inferno tells the story of a vice-ridden police detective who finds that the only puzzle he can't seem to solve is the one that is his own life. When he gets his hands on The Lament Configuration after investigating what appears to be a brutal homicide, he enters a very Silent Hill-like nightmare where he is stalked by visions of the Cenobites, and is singled out for psychological torture by an especially cunning serial killer who is known only on the street as "The Engineer". It turns out to be a pretty dark and captivating mystery, even though you know Pinhead is going to show up at the end.

The Hellraiser mythos is slightly out of place here - as the Cenobites are repositioned as a sort of avatar of infernal justice, punishing sinners, rather than the selfish hedonists they're supposed to be, and their preferred avenue of torture is far more psychological than physical in this movie - but, honestly, it doesn't feel like that bad of a fit, and the story works so well, that I can't fault it for a few rough edges around the seams where I can imagine the script was modified to insert the Hellraiser mythology. As a stand-alone story about one man's interaction with the puzzle box, and a closer look at what goes on in the mind of someone being tortured by the minions of hell (again, more psychologically than physically), this is a pretty good Hellraiser sequel, and the best one since Hellbound.


Hellraiser: Hellseeker (2002)

Hellseeker (these titles are getting to be pretty arbitrary) follows very much in the footsteps of Inferno, in depicting another man's personal hell after coming into contact with the puzzle box. The difference is, this movie features the return of Ashley Laurence as Kirsty from the first two Hellraisers, giving it a "canonical" taste that the last movie didn't have. However, she's a good fifteen years older or so, and is almost unrecognizable. The derelict makes another appearance, as well, but his character hasn't been quite so memorable since the first Hellraiser.

The man at the center of the movie finds himself suffering from amnesia after a car crash resulting in the disappearance and presumed death of his wife. Bizarre hallucinations further complicate his struggle to make sense of his life and the tragedy that recently occurred. Like Inferno, the movie is peppered with short visions of the Cenobites, while Pinhead himself, playing a kind of puppet master role behind the scenes of the movie's torments, appears in limited but effective amounts.

Appropriate for the movie that features the return of Kirsty's character, the Cenobites are the closest they've looked (and felt) to the first movie in all of these sequels, yet with the grittier and less colorful fantasy style typical of these later titles. The movie itself - again much like Inferno - unfolds like a nightmarish mystery, recalling more shades of Silent Hill (and most certainly Jacob's Ladder). I think that I probably enjoyed it even more than Inferno. I'm pleased that after the ridiculous third and fourth installments of Hellraiser, the series has picked up its quality a bit, relying more on the dark psychological themes than the potential for tongue-in-cheek humor and action in its premise.


Hellraiser: Deader (2005)

By this point, the Hellraiser films have fallen into a comfortable formula. The bulk of the story constitutes a psychological thriller, with lots of mystery, and then, by the end of the film (with little hints here and there, including the puzzle box being doctored into the story at some point), Pinhead and the Cenobites show up for the grande finale. Unfortunately - and this is most likely exacerbated by the fact that these movies were reconstituted to be Hellraiser films and not originally intended to be such - the rules of the puzzle box are not entirely consistent from film to film, and many plot-convenient liberties are taken. Deader is probably the worst yet, with the Hellraiser mythos feeling most out of place.

The basic gist of the story this time around is that a gonzo journalist heads to Romania to investigate a suicide cult ("the Deaders") after the newspaper she works for receives a snuff film that appears to suggest that the cultleader has the ability to resurrect the dead. What she finds there is the puzzle box (of course), and a really convoluted plot that seems bent over backwards to involve Pinhead and his gang lording over the souls of the cultmembers, and the leader's unclear plan to escape the Cenobites' clutches, which inexplicably involves the journalist.

Yeah, it really doesn't make a lot of sense. However, there are some extremely creepy sequences in this movie, and even though Pinhead's role in the plot doesn't make a whole lot of sense, when he shows up at the end to dish out punishment, it just kicks ass. It's like a stupid Friday the 13th movie where you can't help but dig the sex, drugs, and nudity, and cheer when Jason does his thing. Except, of course, the Hellraiser series has always been darker and more adult. If you don't mind the movie not really coming together in the end, then I think it's worth watching, just for the nightmare fuel.


Hellraiser: Hellworld (2005)

While I like the de-emphasis on Pinhead and the Cenobites in the last several movies (not because they aren't awesome, but because they're more effective that way), all of these not-really-Hellraiser movies are getting tiring, and I find myself craving a movie that's really designed to be a Hellraiser movie from start to finish. As Pinhead said in Deader, be careful what you wish for - you might get it. Actually, I don't think that's the case here, but this is one of the better integrations of the Hellraiser mythology into an otherwise independent story we've seen for years.

Hellworld takes the unique approach in introducing a cast of characters (almost like the typical slasher cast of young adults) who actually know of Hellraiser in the popular culture, being long-time fans (and addictees) of a computer game based on the Hellraiser mythos (kind of like a sadomasochistic World of Warcraft) - called Hellworld. But when they're invited by the game to a special party for diehard Hellraiser fans in The Leviathan House - a house allegedly built by the designer of the original puzzle box, and said to be haunted - shit gets a little too real.

Excitingly, Lance Henriksen stars as the host of the party, and a Hellworld fanatic. It's kind of lowbrow, but I think it's actually a fun premise, that takes advantage of the opportunity to poke a little fun at itself, and it makes a neat little "what if?" - you get to see what Hellraiser would be like if it were a slasher movie. It does rely more on cliche than is usual for a Hellraiser film, and it runs a little long, but the climax is pretty chilling. To borrow a cliche myself, it may not be the best Hellraiser sequel, but I don't think it's the worst (like others might tell you), either.


Hellraiser: Revelations (2011)

Revelations starts - surprisingly - as a found footage film, although that doesn't last very long (which, intriguing though the idea is, is probably for the better, given this movie's poor grasp of how to make found footage work). Two of your typical American male horndogs are headed to Mexico to get wasted and/or laid, but instead (or, more likely, in addition) they find - you guessed it - the puzzle box. Back home, their families deal with the aftermath of their loss, and try to piece together just what happened, until hell finds them, too.

It's a really bad sign when they couldn't get Doug Bradley to play Pinhead in a Hellraiser movie. Like Robert Englund to Freddy Krueger, the character of Pinhead has been defined by Doug Bradley's portrayal, and this is the first time another actor has stuck the pins in his head, so to speak. As such, it comes off like a rip-off of the real Pinhead, in an over-acted knock-off of a real Hellraiser movie (which is saying something, given that at least half the Hellraiser sequels weren't even meant to be Hellraiser films at some point during their creation).

Revelations actually borrows quite a lot from the original Hellraiser - so much so, that it feels like it could have been meant as a remake. It's too bad it wasn't better written and better directed, because it has some good themes, and suitably gritty gore effects (if not as flashy as the original Hellraiser). Plus, there is at least one exciting scene that is disturbingly erotic - for a series based on the more exotic pleasures of the flesh, scenes that are genuinely erotic in a less-than-conventional way are not as abundant as I would have liked. (Granted, the Cenobites' idea of pleasure is a lot different than mine, but still). But, I'm afraid that alone can't save the film from b-level direct-to-video hell.


Conclusion: Birthed from the twistedly clever mind of Clive Barker, the original Hellraiser spun a perverse tale that melded the torments of hell with the pursuit for ultimate pleasure, combining a human story of temptation and betrayal with the supernatural forces of darkness. It inspired an entire franchise, and although its sequels failed to capture the magic of the original, it turned Pinhead, servant of the puzzle box, with his hooks and chains, into a cultural icon of both fear and desire. Here are my picks for the entries in the Hellraiser series that I think are most worth your time:

Hellraiser (1987)
Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988)

Note: The first two Hellraiser movies are, in my opinion, the only "real" Hellraiser movies that are worth seeing. But if you're not puritanical about your Hellraiser mythos, then I recommend the following as more or less stand-alone films, with cameos by Pinhead and the Cenobites:

Hellraiser: Inferno (2000)
Hellraiser: Hellseeker (2002)

And, if you've got some time to kill, and your expectations are not too high, you might check these out, too:

Hellraiser: Deader (2005)
Hellraiser: Hellworld (2005)

A Nightmare on Elm Street Marathon

Spoiler Warning: As each title in this series tends to build and expand upon the events and revelations contained in the previous title(s), each of the following reviews may contain spoilers from previous titles in the series.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

A Nightmare on Elm Street arrives late to the game, the last of the big slasher franchises to debut, starting up only after Halloween and Friday the 13th have both had a couple of sequels. But, rather than being derivative, Nightmare manages actually to be very clever. I think it is the most imaginative of the slashers, and I would easily rate it above Friday the 13th and probably also Halloween (and maybe even The Texas Chain Saw Massacre). (Fun fact: where Friday the 13th featured Kevin Bacon in a bit part, A Nightmare on Elm Street has Johnny Depp, in his very first film role). Nightmare's got not only the most charismatic of the slasher killers, Freddy Krueger - whose intimidation factor is surprisingly not dulled by his morbid sense of style and humor, that often finds him quipping one-liners, yet whose favorite haunt is a very creepy boiler room - but also features what I would rate as the strongest and most independent of the final girls, in Heather Langenkamp's portrayal of Nancy, a proactive girl who spends most of the movie trying to figure out how to stop Freddy, and not simply being his most elusive prey. One more thing that distinguishes A Nightmare on Elm Street above its progenitors is its fantastic usage of gore fx in some of the most imaginative kills in any slasher, ever. This is at least partly inspired by the fact that the killer attacks people in their dreams, where he isn't bound by the usual laws of physics - and the movie expertly blurs the lines between reality and the dream world. If there is one point where the film falters, it's in the conclusion, which suffers from an inability to decide whether to resolve the story or keep it open for sequels. You can guess which direction won out in the end.


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

Unfortunately, Freddy's Revenge isn't half as good as A Nightmare on Elm Street. It's horribly dated by far too heavy an '80s flavor, and the leads have a tendency to overact some of their emotional scenes (and, curiously, underact others). Plus, the story's just not that interesting, and Freddy's characterization suffers from the new motivation the writers have given him. In the first movie, Freddy's quest for revenge was intriguing enough that you didn't need to ask questions like how does he have these dream powers anyway? But here, in the sequel, you're left wondering, why exactly does he need to possess somebody else's body? Because if his greatest joy in life is torturing kids and killing them, then being a nightmare phantom would seem to suit him just fine. But answers aren't forthcoming. We do get a look at Freddy's real world boiler room in this movie, though, and there are some disturbing nightmare creatures towards the end. But aside from one or two, the dream sequences in this movie aren't as captivating, or as seamlessly integrated, and the story just kind of plods along, lacking the intrigue and pacing of the previous movie.


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

Heather Langenkamp returns as Nancy in the third installment of the Nightmare series. Having survived Freddy's nightmares once before, she's earned a degree in the field of sleep disorders, and is hired as an aide at the psychiatric hospital where this movie largely takes place (inevitably drawing parallels to Friday the 13th Part V - but fortunately, this is a much better movie than that was). Ignoring the misstep that was Freddy's Revenge, Freddy is back and tormenting the dreams of the remaining children of the parents who killed him, all of which are being driven to drastic measures to ward off sleep. Nancy's approach involving drug-induced dreamless sleep is only a temporary solution, but one of the girls has the unique power to pull other people into her dreams, so they band together to put up a united front against Freddy's nightmares. Meanwhile, we're finally given a [suitably macabre] origin story for Freddy Krueger, which suggests a possible source for his supernatural abilities, as well as a possible way to stop him for good. Dream Warriors has good characters, more imaginative and frightening dream sequences, and expands on the mythos of the series. It's everything you could want in a sequel to A Nightmare on Elm Street.


A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988)

In Part 4 of the Nightmare saga, the surviving Dream Warriors find themselves once again haunted by Freddy's nightmares - despite having located his remains and buried them in consecrated ground in the last installment, which should have laid the "bastard son of a hundred maniacs" to rest (at least according to the ghost of his mother). But Kristen's ability to pull other people into her dreams can't protect them from being killed, and Freddy learns to take advantage of that ability to reach out into the dreams of other kids, whose parents weren't involved in his murder, to find new victims. The Dream Master revives the suburban/schoolyard feel of the first Nightmare, with several kids banding together to figure out Freddy and fight off his nightmares. The dream sequences are lush and complex, and the characters are likable. The kills are not as memorably grotesque as in the first Nightmare (although some of them are pretty elaborate), but they are imaginative, with Freddy using the kids' own biggest fears against them. Part 4 is a good Nightmare sequel, well worth watching, and even the strong late '80s feel doesn't diminish its eerie atmosphere.


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

In Part 4, The Dream Master defeated Freddy on his own turf - in the dream world - and released the souls of all the children he'd killed. But because the lure of profit is stronger than logical consistency, Freddy has found some esoteric way to be reborn anew, while also inexplicably blurring the lines between dreams and reality - not just in perception, but apparently in actuality. It's one thing if a movie doesn't dovetail logically with the others, but it's problematic when its own internal logic doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The Dream Child has some interesting ideas - among them, further exploration of Freddy's birth, and the character of his mother - but unfortunately it just doesn't come together well. It's hard to even enjoy the special effects, which are unforgivably hokey. The film's strongest beat is the hint of eroticism in the opening scenes - an element with endless potential in this series, but one that has never been properly addressed (probably for fear of its mixture with the dark themes prevalent in these stories) - but it doesn't last long. This is one of those movies where I feel like they were going in the right direction, but they took the wrong route to get there, and I just feel creatively frustrated as a result of watching it.


Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991)

Freddy's Dead starts right out the gate with an ambitious premise - ten years into the future, all of the children (and teenagers) have been killed off in Freddy's hometown of Springwood (presumably by Freddy, with no explanation for his return after his defeat in the last movie), except one. And Freddy's using him to secure a link to the outside world (and its children). The movie opens with a dream that rips off The Wizard of Oz, to rather silly (not so much scary) effect, set to the tune of Night on Bald Mountain. A lot of people complain about how the character of Freddy Krueger devolved into a rather un-scary comedian in the Nightmare sequels. I've never had a problem with Freddy quipping one-liners as he offs teenagers - the fact that he takes such glee in killing, and can treat such a serious issue with light-hearted humor just reinforces his sadistic nature. But here, it finally crosses the line for me. Also, the special effects, which have been getting increasingly tacky, take the dreams from eerie sequences to just plain embarrassing to watch (even Freddy's face doesn't look right in this movie). Roseanne actually makes an appearance. Roseanne. It's too bad this isn't a better movie (with better effects), because it finally addresses the source of Freddy's dream powers, gives the audience a peek into certain parts of his life that had never been seen before, and, of course, kills him off once and for all (until Freddy vs. Jason, I guess...).


Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994)

Wes Craven (who wrote/directed the original A Nightmare on Elm Street)'s New Nightmare is unique among the slasher sequels, and is without a doubt the most original take on any one of these slasher franchises (while also being a clever criticism of those sequels' degrading quality). New Nightmare goes meta, taking us behind the scenes on the production of a new Nightmare movie, developed from Wes' script about an ancient demon that can only be captured by storytellers, when Freddy seems to start haunting the dreams of the cast members in real life. Heather Langenkamp is illuminating as always, and it's fascinating to see Robert Englund as an actor, a person, a regular human being - the man behind the grease paint, as Wes says.

The difference in quality and realism between this movie and the rest of the slasher sequels is like night and day. All of those other movies feel like movies (and many of them, not very good movies), but this movie feels eerily real. Which makes it all that much creepier when Freddy moves not from the dream world to the waking world, but from the dreams of fictional characters to the dreams of real people. It also works as an excellent exploration of the real world effects that horror movies like A Nightmare on Elm Street have on people, giving them nightmares and whatnot - while at the same time suggesting that scary stories like this one serve an integral purpose in keeping even realer horrors at bay. It's an extremely intelligent movie, almost like it has no business being a slasher sequel - except that I think all slashers (and even their sequels) should aspire to this level, and not content themselves with being cheap entertainment.

Conclusion: A Nightmare on Elm Street distinguishes itself from the average slasher by introducing one of the most imaginative premises: a killer that haunts you in your dreams. And while Freddy Krueger - with his ultra-creative glove with finger knives and his scarred flesh - is among the darkest of slasher villains, he possesses a macabre sense of humor and a distinct style and personality. Here are my picks for the entries in the Nightmare series that I think are most worth your time:

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987)
A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988)
Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994)

Friday the 13th Marathon

Spoiler Warning: As each title in this series tends to build and expand upon the events and revelations contained in the previous title(s), each of the following reviews may contain spoilers from previous titles in the series.

Friday the 13th (1980)

Friday the 13th follows on the heels of Halloween, further defining what was fast becoming the formula for slasher pics, refining it to the familiar "rowdy teens get offed in the woods one by one" format we all know by heart. Unfortunately, it's also the most over-exposed and easily-parodied of the slasher franchises, and doesn't manage to be as effective as either The Texas Chain Saw Massacre or Halloween, despite creating an eerie atmosphere around the iconic setting of Camp Crystal Lake. One thing Friday the 13th does (arguably) have going for it is an actually plausible explanation for the trope that would be brainlessly imitated (and later subverted) ad nauseam by countless slashers to come - namely, that teens who engage in illicit behaviors (drinking, drugs, and especially premarital sex) will be the first to go. That being a crucial part of the premise, it's no surprise that Friday the 13th - more than any other slasher to come before it - built a reputation for itself as an audience-pleasing title that would promise scenes of teenage mischief (including lots of nudity - or at least partial nudity) in addition to more and more imaginative (and eventually ridiculous) kills, for the purpose of dazzling viewers, as much as scaring them, for years to come.


Friday the 13th Part 2 (1981)

The fact that the killer in the first Friday the 13th wasn't Jason, but his mother - an older woman - almost seems subversive in hindsight, but there's a reason Pamela Voorhees isn't the figurehead of the franchise. And Jason's shocking appearance at the end of the first movie not only sets up his rise to prominence in the sequel, but serves as one of the most memorable "final scares" (another trope that's since been done to death) in all of horror. If anything, Friday the 13th Part 2 is even better than the first part, with more interesting characters, a better-developed summer camp atmosphere, and the writer's good judgment to frame Jason as the focus of a campfire legend. Here, Jason is less the supernatural force of nature that he would become, and more a simple-minded freak (haunted by memories of his mother) with a penchant for killing, distinguished by the almost comical sack he wears over his head, to protect his vanity. If you only wanted to watch one Friday the 13th movie, this one would not be a bad choice.


Friday the 13th Part III (1982)

What Friday the 13th lacks in quality, it makes up for in quantity, with more and faster sequels than its leading competitors. Which may have been for the best, considering that it's not until the third movie that Jason finally picks up the hockey mask that will come to define his image. And compared to other slasher franchises that seem determined to cash in on former glory with every new sequel, Friday the 13th (or maybe just Jason as a character) is a story that almost seems designed to be developed over multiple titles. That having been said, the series sees a dip in quality with Part III, which at times feels like a self-parody. The expendables are pretty much interchangeable, and their absorption into drugs, sex (take your pick), and/or biker gangs (no kidding) is over-exaggerated. And by this point, Jason's constant skulking around is beginning to get tiresome. Still, it's a thrill to see him finally donning that hockey mask.


Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter (1984)

Friday the 13th is fond of lengthy recap scenes, to bring the audience up to date with each new installment, and The Final Chapter begins with one of the more effective openings, recycling the campfire story from Part 2. Having endured being hanged and an axe chop to the forehead in the previous installment, Jason's lifeless body is finally taken into custody. But apparently two lechers making out on a stretcher in the morgue is enough to bring his interminable sense of old testament justice back to life. Thankfully, The Final Chapter is a good deal better than Part III, even nearing the level of Part 2 - and with the advantage that Jason's got his iconic mask. In fact, the killer is at his behind-the-scenes best here, only stepping out of the shadows when he's ready to strike. The Final Chapter also stars a chubby-cheeked, preteen Corey Feldman, along with the usual cast of teenagers, who I might add, provide this movie with enough nudity to make it one of the best slashers in terms of the balance between sex and violence. This is easily one of the best Friday the 13th sequels, so enjoy it before the series takes a dive.


Friday the 13th: A New Beginning (1985)

In the conclusion to The Final Chapter, little Tommy Jarvis survived by diving a little too far into Jason's headspace. In A New Beginning, he's grown a few years, and that experience has unhinged him. And when he transfers to an out-of-the-way "youth development center", the killings begin again. Has Jason returned from the grave? Like Part III, this film has more of a farm than a lake atmosphere - and, also like Part III, it's not one of the better Friday the 13th sequels. You've got your usual gang of teenagers, except this time they are all "troubled" youth - and the caricatures of mental illness on display aren't all that sensitive. Too many of the actors (oddly, sometimes the non-crazies more than the crazies) oversell their characters, acting as if they're trying to be funny. Even if they succeeded, it wouldn't be the right tone for a Friday the 13th movie, but they don't, and that just hurts the film all the more.

Perhaps the only thing this movie does well is set up the slasher as a mystery. There's enough ambiguity about Jason's death (was Tommy's vision of Jason rising from his grave a memory or just a nightmare? Was Jason really cremated, or is that just a rumor? What exactly was the extent of Jason's off-screen damages at the end of the last movie, and what kind of healing powers does he have anyway?) and plenty of characters built up as red herrings to genuinely leave you guessing (that is, if you're naive enough to think that they'd make a Friday the 13th movie where the killer is NOT Jason). Unfortunately, the movie's just not good enough to make the mystery worth solving. It relies far too heavily on cliches, which comes off as extremely lazy writing. For a movie subtitled "A New Beginning", it doesn't inspire much hope for the future of the franchise.


Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives (1986)

The internal logic that "connects" the Friday the 13th movies was never very strong (in fact, even Jason being a killer in the first place was something of a retcon of the first movie). Here, it's worse than ever, probably on account of the filmmakers disagreeing about where to take the series. Rumor has it that A New Beginning was supposed to usher in the era of a copycat killer posing as Jason, and the real Jason was really supposed to be done in at the end of The Final Chapter. But, as the subtitle to Part VI suggests, Jason's popularity was too great for him to stay dead for very long. And, considering the would-be fatal treatment he endured in Part IV, he's made a remarkable recovery, though he's looking more ghoulish and zombified than ever before. Of course, his indifference to the natural process of death makes him all the more intimidating - woe be to any rebellious teenagers that cross his path. Excitingly, the series is back to the summer camp environment in Part VI - with kids (and not just counselors) for the first time! Plus, Tommy is running around in the background, serving as Jason's primary adversary. Part VI, like Parts 2 and IV before it, understands much of what makes Friday the 13th tick, and knows how to position Jason as the iconic, fan-favored figure he is, although it suffers a little from a conspicuous lack of nudity. It's not the best Friday sequel, but it isn't the worst, either.


Friday the 13th Part VII: The New Blood (1988)

Thinking that Jason could be stopped for good by returning him to the lake he originally drowned in was a creative idea, but not a particularly smart one. After all, he was resting pretty soundly in his grave, until Tommy had to come along and dig him up, allowing for a fortuitous lightning strike to reanimate his body. Of course, that begs the question of why somebody doesn't just destroy the body altogether - like, by cremation, as was rumored in Part V, and as Tommy failed at doing in Part VI. But at this point in the series (which was never intelligent cinema to begin with), all that matters is ending each movie with Jason's climactic death, and then bringing him back anyway, in the very next installment.

The New Blood ditches the Tommy character altogether (which is just as well), and ramps up the supernatural element with a new character who possesses latent psychic abilities (comparisons with Carrie are not out of place). But her trauma from seeing her father drown as a child (and likely being the cause of his death), and the conflict with her self-serving therapist comes off very soap-opera-y at times. And the flock of teenagers in the cabin next door aren't very interesting. The New Blood isn't terrible, but it's an extremely mediocre entry in the series. The most it has going for it is a few imaginative kills (Jason really starts getting creative with his killing implements here), and the final showdown between Jason and the psychic girl, which is admittedly as exciting as it is cheesy. But it's not enough to save this movie from mediocrity.


Friday the 13th Part VIII: Jason Takes Manhattan (1989)

Jason Takes Manhattan is a strange animal. It's actually not a bad movie - the writing and characters are better than average for a slasher movie (although the harbinger's presence in this case is completely inexplicable). And I don't want to be the kind of person who says, "you can't be innovative and take Jason new places," especially after - what, 7 iterations of more or less the same thing? But Jason Takes Manhattan (which could just as well be called Jason Takes A Cruise) doesn't really have the feeling of a Friday the 13th movie. And I guess you could take that as a plus or a minus. Personally, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, but I don't see why the killer has to be Jason at all. It could have been any serial killer or movie monster. I almost want to say that this movie exists right on that cusp between the classic slashers (of which Friday the 13th was obviously one of the front-runners), and the newer era that the '90s would usher in, which eventually led to the Screams and the I Know What You Did Last Summers and their ilk. In any case, Jason Takes Manhattan gets pretty ridiculous towards the end, but if you don't take it too seriously, it's actually a lot of fun.


Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday (1993)

So Part VIII of Friday the 13th had what was probably the most imaginative and convincingly final death of Jason yet - with him dissolving in a torrent of toxic waste in the sewers underneath Manhattan. And yet, he still comes back for Part IX (although ostensibly The Final Friday, we all remember how The Final Chapter worked out - five movies ago). Jason Goes to Hell opens with an extremely clever ruse, that borders on self-aware parody (of the good, smart kind). And it would have made a fine denouement for the series (and final conclusion for the character of Jason Voorhees), except that it lasts less than ten minutes, and this movie has another hour and twenty minutes to tell a ridiculous story about how the "curse" of Jason spreads from one body to another.

I said it the last time I watched this movie - this late in the series, with Jason's iconic look so well-established, it just loses its impact when the killer is some random guy (especially when it's several random guys throughout the course of the movie). If Jason Takes Manhattan didn't have the atmosphere of a Friday the 13th movie, at least the killer was still Jason. Here, it's some slimy worm that transfers orally from body to body. I mean, the freaking Necronomicon makes an appearance! Don't get me wrong, I love to see the Necronomicon show up in movies, but since when does it have anything to do with Jason Voorhees?

What this is, is a fairly run-of-the-mill supernatural slasher-of-the-'90s, superficially dressed up as a Friday the 13th movie. Although it is fun to watch Steven Williams (who played the informant X on The X-Files) in the role of a mysterious bounty hunter, his presence and very existence is inexplicable, except as a convenient avatar for the writer to explain to the audience the otherwise baseless rules of Jason's "curse". I guess, all told, this movie is not quite as bad as I remembered it, but given the deterioration of the series (also apparent in A Nightmare on Elm Street's parallel entry, The Final Nightmare), maybe it's a good thing that they were wrapping it up. It would have been nice if they'd ended on a stronger note, although it's not exactly like it actually stopped them from making more movies later on. I mean, even this one, as final as it's supposed to be, ends with an explicit teaser for the Freddy vs. Jason match-up that was still ten years in coming.


Jason X (2001)

With seemingly no explanation as to the continuity between this movie and its predecessors (Jason seems to have become more of an archetype than simply a recurring character by this point), Jason X jumps ahead into the future (giving this installment of the franchise a very unusual and alien feeling), with a research facility rightfully treating Jason as a scientific anomaly, whose remarkable regenerative properties promise the hope of groundbreaking technological breakthroughs. That is, if Jason can be contained long enough for anyone to figure out his secrets.

Jason X follows Jason Takes Manhattan and Jason Goes To Hell in further diluting the original concept of a summer camp killer (remember that?) and taking Jason to another setting far removed from Crystal Lake. But when he gets cryogenically frozen and eventually discovered 455 years later by a recon team that subsequently takes him up into space, Jason X shows its colors as a ridiculous 21st century "b" quality SyFy channel movie-of-the-week cheesefest, that relies too heavily on CG fx. I suppose that if you don't take it seriously, and if you have the right sense of humor (some of the self-referential jabs were funny, in a very unscary way), you might be able to enjoy it, but frankly, it's pretty dumb - even for a Friday the 13th movie - and too silly for my tastes.

Conclusion: The fun of the Friday the 13th movies relies on its adherence to what has become the typical slasher formula that mixes sex, drugs, and other expressions of youthful rebellion with the violence that the guilt complex in our collective unconscious fears is the primitive repercussion for those acts. Though only standing in for this retributive force, Jason Voorhees, eventually with his hockey mask and machete (among other implements of doom), manages to stand out as an icon of fear that stalks the woods beside the archetypal lake where you go to summer camp. Here are my picks for the entries in the Friday the 13th series that I think are most worth your time:

Friday the 13th (1980)
Friday the 13th Part 2 (1981)
Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter (1984)
Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives (1986)