Für echte Cineasten gilt die goldene Regel, dass selbst der misslungenste Film noch etwas Gutes zu bieten hat, und sei es auch nur die Tatsache, dass sich am negativen Beispiel einiges lernen lässt. Ein derartiges Credo führt in Einzelfällen gar dazu, dass sich mancher gänzlich den Ausschussprodukten der Industrie unterwirft (Beispiel Quentin Tarantino) und dort bisweilen mehr wahrhaftige Kinokultur zu finden vermeint als anderswo. So weit muss man es zwar nicht treiben, will man Wim Wenders aktuellen Versuch, seinen einstmals guten Ruf als Filmemacher nachhaltig zu demontieren, angemessen würdigen, ist jedoch gut beraten, für den Fall der Fälle die Trash-Brille bereitzuhalten – sie könnte hilfreich sein. Bedeutungsschwangere Dialoge, Charaktere vom Reißbrett, ein völlig überforderter Hauptdarsteller, plakativste Symbolsprache und Dennis Hopper als personifizierter Tod mit weißgepuderter Gesichtsmaske – ideale Komponenten also für schnell abgespultes Schundkino, das sich selber bestenfalls nicht allzu ernst nimmt. Zurecht entspricht dieser Haltung dann auch eine gleichlautende Lebensweisheit, die Udo Samel als Schafe hütender Bankier (Anzug und Regencape inklusive) der Hauptfigur mit auf den Weg gibt. Das Problem ist nur, dass der Film selber diesen Vorschlag mit ziemlicher Nichtachtung straft und stattdessen lieber bis zur vollständigen Ermüdung die großen Wenders-Themen von Sinnsuche, Liebe und Tod umkreist, ohne dabei jedoch über gefällige Platitüdenreiterei hinaus zu gelangen. Damit könnte eigentlich schon alles gesagt sein über „Palermo Shooting“, einen Film, der in jeder Einstellung, jedem Wort und jeder Geste darum ringt, Großes zu wollen, und gerade daran umso gründlicher scheitert. Wäre es nicht ausgerechnet Wenders, der einmal echte Heldentaten für das deutsche Kino vollbracht hat, es bliebe nichts mehr hinzuzufügen. So jedoch ist die Perspektive eine andere, und immerhin sieht Milla Jovovich in ihren wenigen Auftritten gänzlich anbetungswürdig aus. Es ist also noch nicht alles verloren.

Dass sich in der eigenen, oberflächlich prächtig verlaufenden Biographie dringend etwas ändern muss, wenn einem entgegen aller Wahrscheinlichkeit urplötzlich und visionsartig ein prominenter Musiker erscheint, ist seit Eli Stones schicksalhafter Begegnung mit George Michael keine Neuigkeit mehr. Im Gegensatz zu dem moralisch geläuterten Anwalt aus San Francisco jedoch hat es der gefeierte Starfotograf Finn vermutlich weniger mit einem Hirn-Aneurysma zu tun als mit dem zunehmenden Märchencharakter der an symbollastigen Traumsequenzen reichen Geschichte, deren somnambule Hauptfigur er ist. Plötzlich steht da also Lou Reed vor ihm als halbtransparente Geistergestalt und fragt ihn, ob der Tod denn dasjenige sei, was er am meisten fürchtet. „Let us do what you fear most“ heißt es nämlich in „Some kinda love“ von The Velvet Underground, und diesen Song hat Finn gerade erst in die Jukebox geladen. Überhaupt kommuniziert er mit sich selbst vor allem über die Musik, mit der er sich bei jeder Gelegenheit von aller äußeren Realität abschottet. So wie er der visuellen Welt nämlich seinen Stempel aufdrückt, wenn er ihre Abbilder manipuliert (in Zeiten der digitalen Fotografie gehört das zu seinem Tagesgeschäft), so überlagert er sie auch mit seinem eigenen Soundtrack. Überhaupt ist sein Bezug zur Außenwelt von so vielen Filtern gebrochen, dass er nur noch Oberflächen wahrnimmt, hinter denen sich nichts verbirgt. Finn, auf dem Zenit seiner Karriere angekommen, überall gern gesehen und finanziell unabhängig, ist selber nur noch Schablone. Äußerst knapp entkommt er einem massiven Auffahrunfall, aber von Glück und Erleichterung über seine Unversehrtheit, von seinem Überleben ganz zu schweigen, spürt er nichts. Was also soll er der halluzinierten Version von Lou Reed da schon antworten?

Erst ein Fotoshooting mit der hochschwangeren Milla Jovovich setzt ihn seltsam in Gang. Persönlichere Aufnahmen wolle sie von ihrem Babybauch, intimere, denn eigentlich hätte sie sich erhofft, dass er mehr sei als bloße Form. Werdendes Leben zu fotografieren als Substanz unter der Oberfläche, das ist neu für Finn, und so beordert er sein Team kurzerhand nach Palermo, den „großen Hafen“ (in dem alles zusammenläuft) oder „die Blume“, wie die Phönizier die Stadt der fruchtbaren Landschaft wegen einst getauft hatten. Ganz in diesem Sinne legen die Bilder, die er von der Schwangeren macht, Zeugnis ab für die Fruchtbarkeit des Lebens, an dessen Anfang die Geburt steht und an dessen Ende der Tod. Auch von diesem, und zwar dem leibhaftigen, wird Finn Fotos schießen (während er selber beschossen wird) und am Ende begreifen, dass beides nur Stationen sind, die ohne einander nicht existieren können.

Sein persönlichster Film seit langem sei „Palermo Shooting“. Umso mehr muss man sich fragen, was das heißen soll, will man Wenders beim Wort nehmen. Natürlich, nach 15 Jahren ist dies der erste Langfilm, den er wieder in Deutschland dreht („Ode to Cologne / Viel passiert“ also nicht mitgerechnet), und sogar der erste, der in seiner Heimatstadt spielt. Doch damit kann es nicht getan sein, zumal die Sprache des Films über weite Strecken Englisch ist (mit einer katastrophal schlechten, ständig sichtbaren Synchronisation), und der größte Teil dann doch in Italien stattfindet. Mag sich der Filmemacher im gut situierten Kunstfotografen auf Sinnsuche wiederfinden, so wirkt er dessen Ausgangsproblem, der Reduktion auf leere Oberfläche, mit einer dichten Collage aus Symbolismen und ziellos umherstreunendem Philosophieren über dies und das zumindest quantitativ entgegen. Das ist zu Beginn durchaus reizvoll, zumal Wenders und sein Kameramann Franz Lustig in ihrer dritten Zusammenarbeit erlesene, kontemplative, manchmal gar hypnotisch schöne Bilder finden, die sogar die ausdruckslosen Off-Monologe für eine Weile neutralisieren können. Doch bekanntlich nimmt Wenders selber die Goutierung seiner visuellen Stärken mit eher gemischten Gefühlen entgegen, befürchtet er dabei doch immer den versteckten Vorwurf des Kunstgewerblichen. Da mag er sich fühlen wie seine Hauptfigur Finn, dessen Bilder auf einhellige Begeisterung treffen, ohne dass sie Tiefe besitzen.

Eine solche aber zu forcieren, und damit den Film letztlich zu überladen, ist auch keine Lösung. Von der stillen Annäherung an seine Figuren, die in seinen besten Arbeiten einen sehr spezifischen Stil prägen, ist hier wenig zu spüren. Ganz im Gegenteil muss alles Gezeigte auch noch einmal gesagt werden, jedes Symbol noch eine Variante seiner selbst beigestellt bekommen, ganz so, als habe der Zuschauer dringend eine Anleitung zum Verständnis nötig. Wenn sich Finn etwa auf dem PC-Bildschirm ein Foto ansieht, das jenen weißgesichtigen Fremden zeigt, von dem man lange vor der Hauptfigur weiß, dass es sich um den personifizierten Tod handelt, muss links davon auch noch ein echter Totenkopf auf einem Regal stehen und rechts ein Plattencover mit dem Titel „Spiritual“. Das ist im Grunde gymnasiale Oberstufe und ein Zeichen, dass der Autor seiner eigenen Sprache nicht sonderlich vertraut. Der Film ist voll mit Beispielen dafür, und ihr zugrundeliegendes Prinzip wird jedes Mal aufs Äußerste ausgereizt und durchdekliniert.

Finn, der Fotograf mit dem seltsamen Namen, lässt das Publikum seiner Monologe frühzeitig wissen, dass er nie gelernt hat zu schwimmen. Seine Mutter habe schon Angst vor dem Wasser gehabt, und so sei das Gefühl einfach auf ihn übergegangen. Natürlich wird er später in Palermo ins Hafenbecken stürzen, seinen Tod vor Augen sehen, in Wahrheit aber gerettet und auf seine Weise wiedergeboren werden. - Wasser als Element des Lebens, hier aber auch Zeichen des Wagnisses, die eigene Angst zu überwinden und vergangene Versäumnisse abzustreifen, dagegen die verstorbene Mutter, die Finn als Last mit sich herumträgt (in einem seiner Träume auch ganz wörtlich), und schließlich das Fotoshooting mit der schwangeren Milla Jovovich, Trägerin neuen Lebens und kurz vor der Entbindung, mit Modeaufnahmen, die wiederum in einem anderen Hafenbecken stattfinden, auf dem Wasser gar –  Wenders Motivkarussell dreht sich unaufhörlich. Die Frage ist allerdings, ob Gedanken damit verdichtet werden oder sich schlicht verflüssigen.

Mit dem Fest- und Anhalten der Zeit etwa hat Finn ein sehr spezifisches Problem an der Hand, das seine deutlichste Manifestation in der Fotografie selber findet. Das Fixieren, dann aber auch Manipulieren von Momenten im Bild ist nicht nur sein Beruf, sondern auch sein größter Stolperstein, denn von Vergangenem, von Spuren festgehaltener Zeit, wird er fest umklammert, ohne dass er entkommen könnte. So wie er sich einmal in einem seiner Träume an einer Uhr festhält (und umgekehrt seine tote Mutter an ihm) so umklammert er in der Realität einen alten Baum, den er schon seit seinem fünften Lebensjahr kennt. Aber als würde das nicht schon ausreichen, schleppt er auch noch eine alte Kamera mit sich herum, und der Wagen, mit dem er fährt, hat selbstverständlich eine H-Nummer. Finn ist nie erwachsen geworden, den Zwängen seiner Herkunft nie entkommen (daher seine Angst vor dem Wasser). So engen ihn Räume entweder ein, wenn er schläft (und alpträumt), oder er fühlt sich in ihnen verloren. Dazu zeigen die selber digital manipulierten Bilder des Films mal einen viel zu großen Finn in einem viel zu kleinen Bett, mal das genaue Gegenteil. Also schläft er lieber draußen unter freiem Himmel (und zwar erst dem über Düsseldorf, und dann dem über Palermo), und Cabrio fährt er sowieso.

Dann begegnet ihm der Tod, zunächst in Gestalt eines halluzinierten Autounfalls, dem er in letzter Sekunde entkommen kann. Den entgegenkommenden Wagen fährt die geisterhafte weiße Gestalt, deren zweifelhafte Realität aus seinen Träumen nach und nach auf sein Leben übergreifen wird. In Palermo sieht er sie erneut, und sie zielt mit Pfeil und Bogen auf ihn. Später wird ihn der Pfeil gar treffen, ihm die Kamera aus der Hand schießen und dort ein Einschussloch hinterlassen (und das gibt es sonst bekanntlich ja nur in der Elm Street). Und selbstverständlich ist es auch wiederum der personifizierte Tod, der ihn ins Hafenbecken stürzen lässt und so neu erweckt. Gleichzeitig tritt die Liebe in sein Leben in Gestalt der Italienerin Flavia (Giovanna Mezzogiorno), und wie der ermahnende Pfeil des Todes trifft ihn zugleich auch derjenige Amors. Es dauert allerdings eine ganze Weile, bis dieses Bild dann auch verbalisiert wird (und dann ist es selbstverständlich nicht mehr nötig, denn nur der Zuschauer, der mittlerweile eingeschlafen ist, kann die arg offensichtliche Motivspiegelung verpasst haben).

Flavia sieht Finn zum ersten Mal, wenn er aus einem seiner Träume aufwacht, draußen schlafend und kopfüber (ja genau, die Welt steht Kopf). Sie malt ihn, und schon lässt sich der Gedanke dahinter erahnen: Nur wer selber gesehen wird, existiert auch wirklich. Finn, der gewohnt ist, andere mit der Kamera festzuhalten, wechselt plötzlich unbemerkt die Seiten. Doch Flavia ist eigentlich Restauratorin, selber also jemand, der Dinge vor den Folgen der Zeit bewahrt, und damit eine Seelenverwandte des Fotografen, jedoch ohne seine manipulative Tendenz. Ganz im Gegenteil verändert sie die Dinge nicht, sondern erhält sie genauso wie sie sind, um die Erinnerung nicht verlöschen zu lassen (ganz ähnlich einer alten Frau, ebenfalls Fotografin, die an anderer Stelle davon erzählt, dass sie die Toten abbildet, um ihre Erinnerung zu wahren). Wer also sonst sollte Finns Leben retten können? „Il Trionfo della Morte / Der Triumph des Todes“ heißt dann auch das Fresko, an dem sie arbeitet, und es zeigt den Tod, wie er die Menschen mit Pfeil und Bogen erschießt, und wie sich die Überlebenden nach Erlösung vom Elend ihres Daseins sehnen. Das Schicksal geht eben seltsame Wege.

„Es gibt keinen Ausgang aus dem Ausgang“, wird der Tod Finn hinterher rufen, als dieser ihm schließlich Auge in Auge begegnet, freilich nicht, ohne vorher darauf hingewiesen zu haben, dass er selber, der Tod, der Ausgang aller Ausgänge sei. Wer sich angesichts derartiger küchenphilosophischer Banalweisheiten, von denen der Film randvoll ist, bereits auf dem Höhepunkt von Wenders grüblerischer Lebens- und Todesfantasterei glaubt, sollte erst einmal den folgenden finalen Dialog abwarten, an dessen Ende man sich zumindest kurz einmal fragen sollte, ob das wirklich alles ernst gemeint sein kann. Und vermutlich wird man die Frage bejahen müssen.

Etwa eine Viertelstunde kürzer ist die Fassung, die es letztlich ins Kino geschafft hat. Nach der Uraufführung in Cannes sei Wenders zum dem Schluss gekommen, „Palermo Shooting“ sei trotz minutenlanger Applausschübe einfach noch nicht fertig (damalige Unmutsbekundung lässt er in seinem Statement einmal außen vor). Man kann froh sein über seine Entscheidung, denn auch die jetzige Fassung hat ausgesprochene Längen. Schlimmstes Manko allerdings ist der Hauptdarsteller, und es lässt sich auch beim besten Willen nicht nachvollziehen, wo Wenders hier echtes schauspielerisches Talent gesehen haben mag. Für einen Videoclip ist Campinos unbestreitbar ausdrucksstarkes Gesicht durchaus charismatisch, die Länge eines Spielfilms trägt es allerdings nicht. Das ist weniger die Schuld des Musikers, der als Schauspieler völlig überfordert ist und vor allem in direkter Konfrontation mit einem gutgelaunten Dennis Hopper fürchterlich alt aussieht. Es ist vielmehr die Schuld Wenders, ihm einen ganzen Film auf die Schultern zu laden, in dem er allerhöchstens als Nebenfigur funktioniert hätte. Ein anderer Schauspieler hätte vielleicht über einiges hinwegtäuschen können, Campinos bemühtes, aber letztlich zwischen Chargieren und Nichtstun pendelndes Auftreten dagegen verstärkt manche Schwierigkeiten des Films nur noch.

Vielleicht findet einer der Off-Monologe die treffendste Charakterisierung von „Palermo Shooting“. Als Finn nämlich wieder einmal aufwacht und auf seinem Handy die Meldung von 23 Anrufen in Abwesenheit liest, sinniert er einen Moment über die Bedeutung von Abwesenheit und fragt sich dann selbstkritisch: „Wann war ich das letzte Mal eigentlich anwesend?“ - Wenders selber war es in diesem Film jedenfalls wahrscheinlich nur bedingt.

Artikel © 2008 Thomas Lenz. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.
Filmplakat: Senator Entertainment AG

I first heard of the movie THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER (1941) when I was a kid of 12 or 13, when Stephen Vincent Benet's O. Henry Award winning source story (first published in 1937) was included in the 1971 omnibus The Ghouls.  Getting my hands on this anthology was a pivotal moment in the life of a horror writer to-be.  Editor Peter Haining included Benet's tale alongside the likes of Bram Stoker's "Dracula's Guest," Nikolai Gogol's "Vij," Ray Bradbury's "The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms," Robert Lewis Stevenson's "The Body Snatchers" and other short works that inspired (directly or indirectly) classic horror movies.  The Ghouls may be the first book I ever read, cover to cover, without adult supervision or prodding. 

I didn't see William Dieterle's film version of THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER until this year, courtesy of the DVD from the estimable Criterion Collection.  It was well worth the wait of over 30 years, as the film remains a wonderfully creepy (but just as often amusing) New England fable based on the myth of Faust by way of Washington Irving's "The Devil and Tom Walker," which was collected in Irving's Tales of a Traveller (1824).  Benet changed the story to make the protagonist a farmer (called Jabez Stone) rather than a miser and his deal with the Devil (nicknamed Old Scratch) a matter of agricultural prosperity rather than meer profit.  Made at RKO during the 1940s, the film uses its once upon a time setting (1841, to be exact) to explore problems in American life between world wars while also telling a timeless tale of desperation, temptation and redemption. 

I really don't want to review the movie, as such, but point out some of the intriguing ways that THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER was ahead of its time.  As you may or may not know, the production was somewhat troubled.  Thomas Mitchell had been cast originally in the role of Daniel Webster but was injured during filming and replaced by Edward Arnold.  Even the finished film was not without its own plagues.  Previewed under the incongruous title HERE IS A MAN, the film was tinkered with by the studio, re-edited and reissued as ALL THAT MONEY CAN BUY and then cut again and re-released as THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER and DANIEL AND THE DEVIL.  None of these variants produced much in the way of boxoffice for RKO and the various versions of the film lingered in the vaults for decades.  A laser disc release in the 1990s was the shorter ALL THAT MONEY CAN BUY with the cut scenes offered as extras; only now is the original THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER available to be seen as audiences (however small and under-appreciative) first saw it in 1941.

Used in the preview cut of the film, HERE IS A MAN, were several almost subliminal cutaways from the protagonist's Job-like misfortunes to flashes of Walter Huston as Old Scratch (above), printed in negative to give his sudden manifestation an otherworldly flourish.  Seeing these in 2008, I was instantly reminded of the almost subliminal cutaways William Friedkin used of the demon Pazuzu in THE EXORCIST (1973)...

Scratch is an amusing old boogey whose constant popping up into the business of Jabez Stone (James Craig) might qualify him to be cinema's first meta monster, commenting on the proceedings as if he were a color/commentary talking head or even a horror show host like Zacherle or Ghoulardi.  With his funny little hat and horsey grin, he reminded me of both Bugs Bunny (who premiered around the same time - Old Scratch even steals a carrot at one point) and Freddy Kruger, the undead villain of A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET (1984) and its sequels and countless imitators...

To obtain Jabez Stone's immortal soul with a minimum of effort, Scratch employs a comely spectral helpmeet in THE CAT PEOPLE's Simone Simon, who entices Jabez away from his earnest and sweetly pretty wife (played by no-that's-not-Olivia-DeHavilland-it's-Ann Shirley) through a barn dance that goes from being folksy to freaky as Scratch saws away at his fiddle...

... commanding "Faster... faster..." (a la Dave O'Brien in REEFER MADNESS) ...

... as the coquettish Belle (yeah, from Hell!) swings with every man but Jabez...

... arousing considerably more than his desire.  The wages of dancing with the Devil are illustrated in a later scene, in which town miser John Qualen is literally danced to death in Belle's arms.

Horror movie fans seeing this for the first time may well flash on a similar scene...

... in Herk Harvey's CARNIVAL OF SOULS (1962), although another instance of weird dancing (photographed in a similarly chiraroscuric fashion) was seen a couple of years earlier...

... in John Llewellyn Moxey's CITY OF THE DEAD (US: HORROR HOTEL, 1960). 

Stephen Vincent Benet's original story climaxes with a court battle between Scratch and the eponymous Daniel Webster, patterned after the actual legislator but mostly a fictional construct.  Although the Devil agrees to a jury trial, he gets to pick the members... from the bowels of Perdition.  The use of a damned jury ("Dastards, liars, traitors, knaves...") would recur in television and film throughout the years, in movies such as 1969's THE WITCHMAKER (where the undead are used to lard out a Satanic cult) and on such TV shows as STAR TREK (the third season episode "The Savage Curtain" doesn't feature a jury, per se, so much as competing teams of historical figures) and THE SIMPSONS' 1993 Halloween episode, in which Homer sells his soul to the Devil for a donut; a jury is called up from Hell, including John Dillinger, Richard Nixon and the starting line-up for the Philadelphia 76ers, but the court is forced to rule in the plaintiff's favor when Marge produces a wedding photo inscribed by Homer, who has pledged his eternal soul to her, nullifying his contract with Satan.

THE DEVIL AND DANIEL WEBSTER is great fun and good pre-Halloween viewing, safe for the whole family.  Edward Arnold and Walter Huston are wonderful adversaries, the photography of John August (THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME), the expressionist art direction of Van Nest Polglase (KING KONG, CITIZEN KANE) and the classic score by Bernard Hermann (PSYCHO) work in spooky concert to deliver an unforgettable 100 minutes of entertainment for which you don't have to sell your soul.

There were some funny parts in this movie, but there were also parts that dragged on and weren't as funny as it could have been. The backstory is interesting enough: two guys in their forties acting like a duo of eight-year-olds as they drive their newlywed parents crazy. Even though it's a bit creepy at times because of their actions that should make one question their psychology, there's some solid material that pops up once in a while that are laugh-out-loud funny. But more than half of the time, instead of showing us an organic comedy, it all feels too forced. Therefore, it made me wonder if the filmmakers had enough confidence with the material. If they doubt, I don't buy; and if I don't buy, why should I be invested in these characters? I like Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly but this film didn't do them justice. I want to see them in another comedy that's edgy, one of which the story doesn't feel forced, but with enough sentimentality that would make me want to care. This one isn't it. Unfortunately, I have to say skip this one unless one is a die-hard fan of the two lead actors.

Going to Pieces: The Rise and Fall of the Slasher Film
[ 3 stars out of 4 ]

This is a really good documentary about the history of slasher films because it was able to cover so much territory in a span of about ninety-minutes. That said, it failed to reach its full potential for several reasons. First of all, it focused too much on movies from the 1980's, only quickly glossed over the 1990's, and barely mentioned the 2000's. Since this was released in 2006, I expected it to spend equal time discussing each decade because each one is as important as the other. Instead of talking about the special effects of smaller slasher films from the 1980's, it could've analyzed the best slasher pictures such as "Halloween," "A Nightmare on Elm Street," and "Scream." For instance, putting the violence and sexual connotations aside (because it's been talked about a million times before), they could've analyzed about how "Halloween" is more artistic than most horror pictures back then and even today, not just image-wise but also the use of music and suspense, especially with an extremely low budget. They could've delved into how "A Nightmare on Elm Street" is very different from typical slasher flicks because it's able to relate to psychology and Eastern cultures--the role of dreams and internalized emotions in all kinds of society--and how it was able to make the violence aspect secondary. They also could've picked apart "Scream"--its post-modern attitude, how it juggled comedy and horror so well, and why it is one of the best horror movies ever made. I was also looking forward to the interviewees talking about the infamous "Hostel" and "Saw" pictures, but they rushed through them in under ten seconds. The movie became so alive when they showed newspaper articles and film critics, such as Siskel and Ebert, disapprove of slasher movies because they often show women being tortured to the point where it's almost pornographic. In opposition, the documentary showed why the interviewees supported slasher pictures and their claims of such movies serving to empower women. I have my own opinions but it's nice to see opinions clash because both sides bring up very interesting points--that there's is no one "correct" side. This could've been a two and a half hour documentary and it could have been excellent. Instead, what I saw was a Slasher Movie 101 discussion so, unfortunately, I barely learned anything new.

Leatherheads
[ 3 stars out of 4 ]

I expected to like this movie and I wasn't disappointed. George Clooney, Renée Zellweger and John Krasinski are all likeable and brought something special to the picture. I don't know much about football or its history but I was entertained by this picture because it didn't take itself too seriously. In fact, the sport and its setting are always the background and the characters are always the focus. Although the three leads may not like each other all the time, there's no definite good or bad guy. Each of them are flawed but we learn to like them because of their quirkiness. I love the scenes between Clooney and Zellweger because they can talk each other off. Both of them exercise their subtle acting which reminds the audience why the two of them are considered great actors. Although Krasinski still reminds me of his role in "The Office," he more than carried his own here, especially the dramatic scenes which most often involves his character. I think with a bit more experience in other films, he can be an actor that can deliver the charm but still be engulfed in his character. I'm surprised with the number of negative (and lukewarm) reviews of this movie because I found it consistent and funny more than half of the time. Maybe their expectations were too high because of Clooney and Zellweger. I say this film isn't too shabby at all, but it could've been on another level if it had been a little more edgy when it comes to its undertones.

Men jeg kom på det til slutt så tenkte å dele resultatet her. På messa så var det bl.a John Rhys-Davies, han som spilte Gimli i Ringenes Herre, Dave Prowse som var inni Darth Vader drakta i de tre eldste Star Wars filmene. Videre var også Richard Brooker som spilte Jason i Fredag den 13. del 3 der og Tommy Lee Wallace som er Michael Meyers i Halloween. Disse kunne man få signatur av på både egne ting og de hadde med seg ting du kunne kjøpe av dem for å signere på. Ellers var det masse som sagt å se på, alle stands hadde mye å vise frem, mest kult var alle replicaene og de faktiske props fra diverse filminnspillinger der. Darth Vader med en håndfull Imperial Stormtroopers m.m var også å gikk rundt (Ikke Dave Prowse i kostyme, han satt å signerte for fulle mugger). Selvfølgelig glemte jeg å ta bilde av det... Menmen. Håper Mats har klart å ta bilder av det.

På stands kunne man kjøpe diverse ting og det var i alle kategorier, alt fra Transformers til Terminator, filmer, spill, gamle NES/SNES/N64 spill osv. I tillegg var det enormt med action figurer, nye og vintage!

Vel nok om det, la oss komme i gang med bildene som jeg klarte å ta!

Over: Trenger vel ingen nærmere presentasjon for de som følger med?

Over: Ja, som tittelen sier, dette er faktiske effekter fra T2!

Over: T-1000 hånd replica fra denne scenen.

Over: T-800 Endoskeleton hode

Over: En replica byste

Over: Gizmo dukka fra Gremlins 2!

Over: Replica fra A Nightmare on Elm Street

Over: Replica maske fra The Silence of the Lambs

Over: Replica maske fra Friday the 13th Part III

Over: Hvis du trenger forklaring på denne så trenger du også psykiatrisk hjelp! Replica

Over: Original prop fra de eldste Star Wars filmene

[caption id="attachment_188" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Blaster!"][/caption]

Over: Imperial Stormtrooper Blaster

Over: Replica av masken i The Mask

Over: Detonatorene som brukes i Die Hard

Over: fra venstre: fartøyene fra Aliens, Alien hode, skilt fra Blade Runner

Over: Fant ut at jeg hadde bilde av originalen til Freddy Krueger også

Over: Maska som brukes i The Cannonball Run

Over: Iron Man!

Over: Olle og en Nazgûl replica fra The Lord of the Rings

Over: Han likte ikke helt at jeg kalte han for bare Darth...

Over: Legg merke til at Mr. Darth trengte hjelp til å holde meg!

Over: Replicakniv fra Rambo: First Blood Part II! Nr. 3227 av 5000 i hele verden! Håndlaget av skikkelig materiale og skarp som fy! Med enkel Survival Kit i grepet til kniven!

Over:Hele pakka! Slire, kompass, overlevelseskittet og selve kniven. Legg merke til at kompasset er utskrubar fra enden av kniven. Her inne ligger også kittet.

Over: Før du spørr, Dave Prowse, hvis du har glemt det allerede, er han som er i Darth Vader drakta i de tre eldste Star Wars filmene.

Let me get to the heart of this review: Cillian Murphy.  This guy is why I enjoyed Red Eye so much.  He's just downright creepy.  His performance is very subtle, very reserved, and that makes him all the more villainous.  I honestly think this fella has a tremendous career ahead of him.  And, to be fair, the film's other star, Rachel McAdams, held her own with Murphy and I believe she too is well on her way to having an esteemed career. 

I hate to say this, it's so insulting to the director, but for a Wes Craven film, this thing was top-notch.  Craven is kind of hit or miss for me.  On the one hand, he scared the crap out of me as a kid with A Nightmare on Elm Street.  But, on the other, he also brought us A Vampire in Brooklyn.  All that being said, thanks to Cillian Murphy and Rachel McAdams, Red Eye is quite an enjoyable, edge-of-the-seat thriller.  I'd definitely recommend renting it.

A Nightmare on Elm Street opens appropriately enough with a nightmare.

Tina dreams she is stuck in some wonky, steam-filled boiler room while Freddy Krueger is stalking her.  Of course, Tina has no idea who Krueger is, or what he's doing, just that he's terrifying and got sharp nasty razors on his fingers.   Fun dream!

She screams herself awake and her mother busts through the door, checking dutifully on Tina before admonishing her to cut her nails because she could seriously hurt herself.  Tina looks down to four slash marks cut through her nightgown in horror.

Unsettled, Tina puts on her best pink bandanna and heads to school.   If you're going to be terrified of the boogeyman, you'd better do it in style, yo.

Tina meets up with Glen and Nancy, her two friends, and briefly discusses the creepy nightmare and that burned-up dude in the sweater and fedora.   They both kind of laugh it off and go into school.   Losers.

Later that night, Tina has a little slumber party over at her house where she invites Glen and Nancy and we are introduced to her jerk and a half boyfriend, Rod.   You can tell just by his name what a complete tool he is, and he shows up in true jerkface style, scaring the hell out of everyone by scraping a yard implement across a metal shed, reminding Tina of that nightmare.

Rod immediately steals Tina away to go have sex, so there's your first clue Tina's doomed.   Cliché, but true.  Glen puts the moves on Nancy and is totally, harshly denied.   Ouch.  Poor young, normal looking, pre-Tim-Burton Johnny Depp.  Rod and Tina eventually quiet down and go to sleep, but not before Tina has one last spooky nightmare.

Freddy catches Tina and it's all downhill from there, as Tina gets the business end of Freddy's Ginsu knife glove, while outside of the dream Rod the Tool looks on in, er, horror as Tina gets carved up in real life.

Here's where Nightmare sold me when I was a kid - a bloody, slashed up Tina goes sliding up the wall and writhes on the ceiling before being dropped like a rag doll on the bed and falling on to the floor.   Even years later it's still a really nifty special effect that looks just as good as it did eighteen million years ago, unlike some of the special effects in the movie.

Rod freaks out; goody-two-shoes Nancy freaks the hell out when she and Glen burst in the door after Tina screams enough to bring people from China running.  The cops show up and Rod the Tool runs away, surprisingly showing evidence of more than three brain cells by putting two and two together that the cops will suspect him of trying to cut Tina into julienne slices.

The focus of the movie shifts to Nancy, who's got a cop for a father and a raging drunk for a mom.   Her parents are seemingly picture-perfect, and Nancy's dad is not thrilled that she was at a sleepover with boys there (OH MY GOD) and then his concern focuses to "Oh hi, someone got killed here, are you okay, honey?"  A little dysfunctional, methinks.

And now, Nancy's having nightmares...

Nancy makes a little side trip to the jail to discuss the creepy dreams with Rod the Tool, who then tells her how exactly Tina died.   This conversation doesn't make Nancy feel any better, since she keeps having really terrifying dreams - at school, in the bathtub - and barely eludes Freddy each time.   Even more upsetting is the fact that she keeps seeing Tina in a bloody bodybag, making strange requests.

After another freaky dream in which Nancy can see Freddy entering Rod's jail cell, she hauls ass down to the jail and begs her dad to at least check on Rod.   He and a deputy do...but shockingly, they're too late.

Thus, Rod suffers what is arguably the lamest death in the Nightmare franchise and undoubtedly is altogether fitting for his character.   Freddy hangs Rod the Tool to death with his own bedsheets.

Rod takes approximately fifteen seconds to die.   I'm not sure if Freddy's just that effective, but I'm more inclined to believe the weight of Rod's own jerkiness forces him to shuffle off the mortal coil that quickly.   Nancy being All That Is Good tries to save him, but fails.

Frustrated and understandably exhausted, Nancy doesn't understand what's going on.   She tries to tell her parents that the scary burned man is responsible for Tina and Rod's death, but her mother's so busy steeping her liver in vodka that it seems like she barely understands basic English, and Nancy's dad always looks vaguely disconcerted, like that dreaded sleepover with the boys was some sort of horrible gateway for Nancy to visit her friends in jail and go completely whacko.

Nancy's mother is finally desperate for some help and takes her to a dream clinic.   The dream clinic does really nothing substantial to help Nancy, but hey - Nancy gets some free drugs and she pulls something nifty out of her dream.

Her mom clearly recognizes the hat, but turns to Mr. Smirnoff and Mr. Stolichnaya for assistance in her times of trouble.   Nancy examines the hat and discovers that the label inside denotes the hat's owner as one Mr. Fred Krueger.   Confronting her mom with the fact that she at least suspects that her mother knows something about Krueger, her mother has that ages-old, treasured talk with her daughter.

This is known as the talk about how your parents barbecued a freed child killer and hid all evidence that he existed.   Time to grow up, Nancy!

Basically, Nancy's mom tells her that yes, Fred Krueger was a real person and he terrorized Elm Street like crazy, abducting and killing children.   When he was arrested and then freed on a technicality, the Elm Street parents got their barbecue tongs and their lighter fluid and went lynch mob on Krueger, hunting him down to the boiler room where he liked to take his child abductees and basically had a Fourth of July style celebration, except less patriotic and more vengeance-filled. Either way, there were probably sparklers involved.

Nancy's mom assures her that Freddy is no threat to her anymore because "Mommy killed him".   Cheery!   Nancy clearly can see that her mother's practically sweating booze at this point and her dad's no longer home, so clearly it's time to take matters into her own hands.

But before she can do anything, idiotic Glen, who has not listened to a word anyone says or has not even noticed the stench of denial and vodka tonics coming from Nancy's household, falls asleep.

And gets sucked into his own bed.

I like to think of the vomiting blood as just a little extra bonus, you know?

So Nancy booby traps her house and plans to fall asleep, yank out Krueger, and let him meet his second death via sledgehammer, exploding lightbulb or any of the 1,001 ways she's figured out to booby trap the house.  She tucks her mom into bed with an enormous bottle of liquor and sets off to go find Freddy.

And find him she does!   And she successfully pulls him into the real world, where she sets him on fire (again) and runs to beg her dad to come save her and her mom.   Nice.

However, Freddy has other plans.

He attacks Nancy's mom by falling on her, essentially using himself as the human torch and then disappears, leaving behind a charred skeleton thing that descends into the Great Blue Space that lives in your bed, apparently.

But Freddy's not done yet, oh no!    For the umpteenth time, he comes back - but Nancy tells him, "You suck, Krueger and I'm not afraid of you anymore".  Okay, so I'm paraphrasing but you get the point. He then dissolves into some blue sparkly glitter or something and disappears.

So guess what?   What you just watched was totally what happened, right?   No!   Fake!  Psych!   IT WAS ALL JUST A DREAM.

Gotcha!   Nancy's friends are still alive, and so is her mom, although her mom vows to give up the drinking.

But lest you think Freddy Krueger is a figment of anyone's imagination...he locks Nancy in her friend's car and then sucks her mom through a window.

A Nightmare on Elm Street scared the hell out of a lot of people.   It planted a small seed of doubt that the monster in the closet that your parents always told you wasn't real actually was real, and moreover, that monster was out to get you and everyone you know.   It certainly didn't help that a lot of little thing combined made Fred Krueger an iconic image.   The red and green sweater, the hat, the burned skin, and the glove made Fred Krueger memorable, but not as memorable if Robert Englund hadn't played him.   Krueger's given here a smidgen of a sick sense of humor, which is expounded upon (sometimes to death, if you'll pardon that) later on in the series.   Krueger is at once accessible but terrifying.

One of the other things that I always found fascinating about Krueger is that he's actually very firmly rooted in reality; before his death, he's a twisted child killer who masquerades in public as a normal everyday citizen but turns out to be purely psychotic.   Not just that, but the Elm Street parents, who seem saccharine and typically suburban, turn out to be a bunch of vigilantes who had no problems setting a man (albeit a very sadistic murderer) on fire, hiding his remains, moving one of the local cops and his family into Krueger's old house and then covering up the fact that he ever existed.    That's pretty messed up, man.   It's not the first time Craven actually pointed out the flip sides of this - Last House on the Left does something similar with some parents, if I recall correctly.

It's actually a very simple movie that comes down to good versus evil, but gives you an unsettling feeling long after you leave it.   Krueger became so popular through the franchise that it spawned merchandise out the wazoo - toys, games, hotline numbers, TV shows and TV specials.   I remember a time when the Freddy Krueger costume was all the rage to have for Halloween, which schools promptly banned.

The lasting power of all this is basically that Freddy Krueger is part of the larger appeal of horror movies - fear is a very powerful thing, and scary movies let you burn off some of that visceral, deep-seated emotions contained with everyday horrors.   Krueger, in a lot of ways, is a personification of greater fears that I think appeals to people because it takes scary concepts and makes them a little more palatable and a little fun.  It creates a method in an odd way of visualizing a scary concept and then in an odd way, dealing with it through focusing on that visual.

It's something that I think is one part of what has made Krueger so infinitely terrifying to people, even after he should have long passed his expiration date.   Freddy vs. Jason, which I'm not including in the Nightmare series, is proof of this, I think - people are still willing to spend cold, hard cash to watch Freddy terrorize other people on screen.

Batman is my favourite superhero but I must admit that I did not like this film the first time I saw it. The Joker, played by Jack Nicholson, is supposed to be 75% crazy mixed with complete menace and 25% funny in a twisted manner. Instead, Nicholson played The Joker as more even between the two extremes. I guess my main problem is the first half; the second half picked up the pace because that's when all the action happened. As the film went along, The Joker became scarier due to his methods of killing and his darkly amusing one-liners. As for Batman, played by Michael Keaton, I thought he was a bit weak and I wanted to get to know him better. Although we got a taste of his past, he spent too much of his time brooding in his Batcave. Most people claim that this is the best "Batman" film to date. I cannot disagree more because this is highly uneven. Yes, it's extremely stylish (excellent use of shadows!) but it's hard to care for the characters. If I were to pick the best "Batman" films, it would be among "Batman Begins," "Batman Returns," and "The Dark Knight." In "Batman Begins," Batman is the center of the story and no villain took the spotlight from him. It's the most realized Batman film overall. In "Batman Returns," we get to sympathize with the villains (Penguin and Catwoman), which is rare in superhero adaptations. This first "Batman" film is a good start but non-hardcore fans might be a bit put off. Still, I'm recommending it for sheer style.

Nightmare on Elm Street, A
[ 3 stars out of 4 ]

This is definitely one of the more interesting horror flicks that came out of the 1980's because of its intriguing idea of a maniac killing people in their dreams. Although it did have funny moments because of the ridiculous, somewhat upbeat soundtrack and some of the decisions that the characters make, there are a plethora of truly horrifying scenes. Some stand-outs include Fred Krueger's first kill, the school haunting, and the bedroom blood flood. For a cast of mostly unknown actors (like Johnny Depp), the acting is credible despite the occassional slip-ups. The special and visual effects are not first-rate but all of it works because the real terror lies in the concept. For me, the factor that makes this film superior than typical slasher movie like the "Friday the 13th" series is that it blurs the line between dream and reality in such a way that it keeps the audiences guessing. Not only that, it has something to say about the parents' sins from the past and how they can affect future generations. This is a truly classic horror film that deserved several (although less satisfying) sequels.

Saving Face
[ 2 stars out of 4 ]

It's refreshing to see a film that is written and directed by an Asian woman, with a cast that consists of predominantly Asians, in America that is not necessarily about assimilation of race. Instead, it's more about an observation of Asian society (specifically Chinese): how they deal with what's going on about other people, social hierarchy in a modern world, finding love, and revealing one's sexuality to her loved ones, despite approval and cultural expectations. I also liked that the main character is a woman surgeon who doesn't necessarily completely girly or completely manly. She lies somewhere in between, which is a good thing, because it is more common than the extremes. Although it's a heartfelt movie and there are a few things to admire about it, sometimes I found myself wondering what the core of the movie is truly about. There are so many things that are going on, to the point where it's distracting and digressing. The movie felt longer than it is due to unnecessary scenes that the plot could have done without. Also, some of my friends who are not Asian didn't get some of the jokes. Although they are not the core audience, for a movie to be able to cross boundaries, everyone should be able to relate most of the time. I don't think this picture was successful at it. Still, this is not a bad first directoral and writing debut from Alice Wu. With a sharper and leaner material, I think she will get stronger as a writer and director over time.

 "Un buget mare poate insemna ca filmul va arata mult mai bine decat unele din productiile mai vechi", a precizat Englund.
Horror-ul clasic A Nightmare On Elm Street a fost ales cel mai infricosator film al tuturor timpurilor in urma sondajului realizat de "Yahoo! Entertainment". Personajul principal al acestei serii, Freddy Krueger, a impresionat si infricosat generatii intregi cu celebrele sale degete lungi, terminate cu lame taioase, de la mana dreapta. Filmul teoretic are premiera in 2010.

Surse:

www.cinemagia.ro

www.imdb.com

It's Friday night so bring on the horror! I have a new logo designed by my boyfriend and me. LOVE IT! :)

I was browsing the web for some cool action figures and came across this great, yet creepy, Barbie doll:

This was the only Hitchcock Barbie I could find.. I hope they do a series because this one is excellent!

So this week I watched Hatchet which I've been wanting to see ever since I saw the brilliant poster:

I didn't watch the trailers for this film because I wanted to be surprised and I was happy to find that it was a really fun and campy movie much like Evil Dead 2 or Cabin Fever. Horror fans will particularly enjoy this meta-film because of the cameos of many horror stars such as Kane Hodder (Jason), Robert Englund (Freddy Krueger), and Tony Todd (Candyman). If you're a fan of lots of gore and hilarious dialogue that doesn't take itself too seriously in a Road Trip meets Scream type way, then this film is right up your alley. Overall, Hatchet is a great throwback to 80s horror, but if you're looking for a good scare then you may be disappointed. And by the way.. is it just me or is Robert Englund in every movie ever lately?

If you're a fan of this movie or just a fan of great Robert Englund appearances, I also recommend one of my new favorites: Behind The Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon.

Nancy is having nightmares about a frightening badly-scarred figure who wears a glove with razor-sharp "finger knives". She soon discovers that her friends are having similar dreams. When the kids begin to die Nancy realizes that she must stay awake to survive. Uncovering the secret identity of the dream killer and his connection with the children of Elm Street the girl plots to draw him out into the real world.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (Infinifilm Edition) is available at Amazon for $14.99. To Order click here
Amazon Product Pages contain a lot of other details on this product as Customer Reviews, Sales Ranking, Special Offers, Alternate products that customers are going for and much more.Want to read these details? click here

Want to get some other Format / Binding / Version? You can search for them from here

Other Products of Interest

• Halloween
• Friday the 13th
• The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2-Disc Ultimate Edition)
• A Nightmare on Elm Street 2 - Freddy's Revenge
• A Nightmare on Elm Street 3 - Dream Warriors

His next film was a remake of the Craven borefest The Hills Have Eyes, which was overtly graphic for the sake of being graphic while being just as boring as the original. This says nothing of its originality, of which there is almost none, falling into an inescapable vortex of cheap horror cliches. The final twenty minutes are ridiculously predictable, and I left the theater wondering what the fuck I just watched.

His next film as a writer was P2, which I never saw. This is a good thing, as it doesn't seem to be anything more than your run-of-the-mill Hollywood suspense-thriller. After that comes this year's South Korean remake, Mirrors, doomed to fail because it's a remake of an Asian horror film. Just because The Ring was successful does not give every fucking big-name horror director carte blanche to adapt every Asian horror film into a shitty one-off American adaptation. The Grudge sucked, Dark Water sucked,and Pulse definitely sucked, so what makes you think this won't suck? 'Cause Jack Bauer is in it?

Alexandre Aja is lucky in that he made one successful horror film (albeit a shitty successful horror film). Instead, however, of making more successful horror films that are actually good, he's selling out by making cheap remakes of classics that also suck, remakes of Asian horror films that are rarely good, and really, really, really, really, really, really shitty retarded suspense-thrillers. His next movie is Piranha 3-D. Here's hoping it's a comedy.

Mr. Aja, please stop making shitty horror films. The French are dominating the genre, and you're sticking out like a black man at a Klan rally. Have some God damned dignity and make something truly inspiring to horror fans everywhere. You've exhibited a slow and steady decline, so...well, so I guess you're like most horror directors. Heh. No one can ever top their first.

Fun note: Aja holds membership in the Splat Pack, "a collection of filmmakers who, since 2002, have brought about a renaissance of horror film." Of those on the list, the only who is worth a damn is Neil Marshall, 'cause, well, Dog Soldiers and The Descent fucking ruled.

New Line has taken a step forward in bringing Freddy back to the big screen. The Warner Bros. division has hired veteran scribe Wesley Strick to pen the relaunch of the A Nightmare on Elm Street series, the franchise that helped establish New Line into a movie player in the mid-1980s.

The original Nightmare was written and directed by Wes Craven and released in 1984. It created one of the most popular villains in screen history, Freddy Krueger, played by Robert Englund, and its runaway success spawned a slew of sequels. The films' premise centered on Krueger, a serial child killer murdered who returns with a burned face and razor glove to terrorize teens in their dreams.

The new project will keep the high school setting and delve deeper in the psychology of nightmares and Krueger himself. The plan is to have a dark tone. The company hopes to have the movie ready for the 25th anniversary of the original. Strick most famously penned Arachnophobia and Cape Fear and worked on Mission: Impossible II, among other films. Quite frankly I think it's a film ripe for a remake and has the potential to be very creepy. Alot will hinge upon the casting of the new Freddy but my vote is for Ben Foster of 30 Day's Of Night and 3: 10 To Yuma to play him...anyone else got any ideas?

there's also the less awesome Friday the 13th, Jason Voorhees shoes:

I hope these shoes actually do get released and are popular enough to inspire some Michael Myers shoes.

For more about these shoes check out: http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/12215

La Platinum Dunes nella persona di Micheal Bay ha colpito ancora.
Che la casa di produzione statunitense guidata dall'eccentrico regista di "Transformers" fosse divenuta un simonimo della parola remake era diventato un dato di fatto, ma per nulla ci si aspettava che a cadere tra le grinfie fossero uno dopo l'altro i maggiori capolavori che il cinema d'orrore ha da offrire. Nightmare poi, era una di quelle saghe che si riteneva chiusa con tanto di saldatura a rafforzarne la resistenza all'apertura, tanto che lo stesso Wes Craven, colui che partorì il fantastico Fred Krueger, si vide costretto al ritorno dietro la macchina da presa per il settimo episodio ("Nightmare nuovo incubo"), per interrompere la serie di ciofeche realizzate al seguito del suo film, a cui va riconosciuto di aver abbassato la media qualitativa dell'intera serie.
Il film è in attesa per il 2010, e non è ancora stato chiarito in che modo la persona di Freddy verrà trattata, se come per "Venerdì 13", sarà una sorta di reinvenzione/remake, o invece se ciò a cui si assisterà sarà un mero remake. A ben vedere è possibile che alla Platinum Dunes decidano di evolvere il film in un prodotto apprezzabile dai fan moderni, dagli amanti degli effetti speciali e del sangue a nastro, di quei palati che esigono tanto da un film horror ma che non detestano il contorno.
Wes Craven non ha confermato il suo involgimento all'interno di questa nuova operazione commerciale, così come Robert Englund (interprete nei panni di Fred Krueger in tutti i suoi film, compreso "Freddy vs Jason"), [wp_caption id="attachment_30" align="alignleft" width="226" caption="Tara Reid"][/wp_caption]che è alle prese con una carriera da attore in "carne e ossa", ha infatto recentemente partecipato ad un massacro quale "2001 maniacs", inedito in Italia e per ora ad uso e consumo dei soli stati uniti.
Tuttavia a far infervorare i milioni di fan della serie, non è stata tanto l'idea di un possibile remake -che essendo previsto per il 2010 ha ancora tanto tempo per diventare un'ossessione cui gli appassionati potrebbero indisporsi- quanto le voci di corridoio che vogliono Tara Reid assumere il ruolo principale del film. La cosa è andata letteralmente di traverso ai fan che hanno deciso di creare una petizione on line, ecco cosa vi compare:
"Noi ci sentiamo di dire che la giovane attrice hollywoodiana Tara Reid non merita di essere coinvolta nel remake targato Platinum Dunes di "Nightmare". Dopo la sua interpretazione in "Alone in the dark", sentiamo che la sua carriera è finita, la sua presenza non solo colpirà la qualità ma l'intero successo del film - che si ripercuoterà poi sul genere horror nel lungo raggio. Controllate quante persone sono d'accordo con me che lei non compaia nel film, e non faccia nemmeno un cameo..."
La protesta si sta espandendo a macchia d'olio e ormai si sono creati due fronti, i pro-Tara e i contro-Tara, viene da chiedersi sporadicamente chi sarà il vincitore e soprattutto quale effetto avrà poi sul reale casting di Nightmare.
L'unica nota da chiarire riguarda l'interpretazione della giovane attrice in "Alone in the dark", dove non ha di certo brillato e nonostante affiancata da un ormai veterano Christian Slater, non è imputibale a lei il fallimento di tale pellicola, bensì alla mediocrità con cui è stato prodotto e filmato da Uwe Boll ("House of the dead", "Bloodraine") un uomo a cui andrebbe letteralmente tolta la cinepresa di dosso.

Firma la petizione contro Tara: www.petitiononline.com/kemp4040/petition.html

We feel young hollywood actress Tara Reid deserves a role in the upcoming Platinum Dunes remake of A Nightmare On Elm Street. She is a very talented and intelligent actor, we feel a a major role, in a major film will help revive her acting career. We feel she would be a truly great addition to the cast. Please truly consider her for a part, and check out how many people would love to see her in you're film.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

Ah! Hahahahahahaha!

Whew!

Man, I needed a laugh. Tara Reid? Really, The Undersigned? Talented? Intelligent? Actor? Methinks not. But someone, somewhere is a fan of Tara Reid, so much that they've started a petition to get Miss Reid in Platinum Dunes' upcoming remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street.

I know what you're thinking: "Tara Reid has a fan?" No! As of this writing, she has 814 fans who've signed the petition! This is wrong on so many levels. First of all, at 31, she's a bit old to play the high school-aged characters in the film (or maybe she can be cast as their science teacher!). Also, she looks like this these days.

Fuuuuuucck. On second thought, maybe these fans want her to take up Freddy Kruger's mantle. Yes, that makes much more sense.

Luckily, Mr. Disgusting over at B-D has started his own petition to stop Reid from getting cast. Of course, there's little chance of her actually getting cast* since she's Tara fucking Reid, but one can never be too safe.

*Keep in mind that Platinum Dunes is run by Michael Bay, the guy whose last movie treated us with all sorts of Megan Fox goodness. I think it's safe to say that his penis knows what it's doing.

One, two, Freddy's coming for you. / Three, four, better lock your door. / Five, six, grab your crucifix. / Seven, eight, better stay awake. / Nine, ten, never sleep again, é engraçado como uma música só pode ajudar a criar uma ambiência mais perturbadora num filme de terror. Algo semelhante foi tentado em “See No Evil” (5.5/10), embora sem os mesmos resultados que neste “A Nightmare On Elm Street”. Esta canção, saída das vozes de crianças, é tocada convenientemente ao longo do filme. E, claro, é importante pois tem uma relação muito forte com o passado de Freddy, como vemos mais à frente.

A história não é nada a que não estejamos habituados. Temos um grupo de adolescentes – entre os quais encontramos o então estreante Johnny Depp e Heather Langenkamp, ambos com interpretações muito ao nível dos slashers, ou seja, muito más – que começam ter sonhos cada vez mais frequentes com uma criatura com garras de metal. Depois de um deles ser morto, começam a levar a coisa mais a sério e apercebem-se de que estão a ser perseguidos por Freddy Krueger, um homem que morrera num incêndio às mãos da população enraivecida, anos antes e que, caso não façam algo, acabarão por morrer.

Algo que me chateou – bastante – foi mesmo a má péssima interpretação de Heather Langenkamp, que, tendo de carregar o filme às costas vivendo uma adolescente filha de pais divorciados que vive com a mãe alcoólica, não consegue em ocasião alguma estar à altura do dramatismo das cenas que protagoniza. Quanto aos restantes, pouco melhores são que ela, mas têm a vantagem de aparecerem muito menos.

Como filme de terror, “A Nightmare On Elm Street” desilude. A banda sonora – excepto aquela canção de que falei no início – não ajuda a criar um ambiente suficientemente assustador e não nos fica nenhuma cena na memória, excepto aquela em que Nancy está na banheira, que, confesso, me fez ficar nervoso enquanto a assistia. De resto, as personagens são – como habitual – burras: reparem, nessa cena, como Nancy se volta a trancar, depois de estar fora de perigo, sujeita a, caso fosse atacada de novo, dificultar a tarefa da mãe em ajudá-la, por exemplo. O confronto final é desperdiçado, na medida em que não consegue gerar uma tensão digna do acontecimento. É tudo muito habitual, portanto.

Contando com um final que nos deixa minimamente intrigados, o filme tem o mérito de nos apresentar uma das personagens mais carismáticas dos filmes de terror – contudo, devo dizer que Freddy me assustou mais no “Freddy Vs Jason” (6/10) do que neste –, de provar que Wes Craven, que o realizou e escreveu, já teve, em tempos, talento para isso, e de nos mostrar a evolução de Johnny Depp como actor ao longo da sua carreira – ganhou de mim um renovado respeito, até. Temos que ter em conta que, na altura do seu lançamento, há 24 anos, o filme terá sido uma pedra no charco, como foi também “Halloween”. Agora, vê-se, simplesmente.

Nota: 6/10

It was not until the next time I was at the theater that I remembered about Sweeney Todd. As soon as I walked through the theater doors it was like a light bulb went off in my head. I hauled butt over to the cutout. I was shocked to see it was Johnny Depp.

Side note: I LOVE Johnny Depp's work and I have followed his career since 1986 when I first saw him in A Nightmare on Elm Street (which happened to be my favorite movie for years).

I also noticed that the movie was not merely titled Sweeney Todd but Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street. Here I see Mr. Depp sitting in a barber's chair holding up a straight razor and blood is splattered  on the floor and over the movie's title. Immediately my heart starts racing and flashes of From Hell and Sleepy Hollow filled my mind. I was SO excited! When I got home I rushed to the computer to look up the details of the movie. There was not much listed except some teaser items (at that time I had no idea it was a play or that it had been made into several movies before). The only thing I found was that it was being directed by Tim Burton (who would have guessed lol).

Another side note: Mr. Burton is a wonderful director. Tim has this way of directing that just engulfs me with his vision. I just knew that the two of them (Johnny and Tim) pairing up yet again for a movie had to be an awesome one indeed, yet I have been wrong before (read: Ed Wood). 

.... a few months went by and I FINALLY found out the movie was a musical.......... I was stunned. I was confused. I was mislead! A musical... I know Tim Burton did a great job on his animated ones (The Nightmare Before Christmas and The Corpse Bride-which Johnny worked on with him) but a live action one and one that stars Johnny... I did not even know if Johnny Depp could really sing. Had he had previous voice training? I did not know. I was torn and I was a bit sad.

I went around talking to everyone I knew about the movie until one person said "You know that is a play and it has been made into a few movies before, right?" I was like "Oh, really?!?" I was drawn in yet again. I went home and searched for the previous movies and looked up the play info. Even though musical movies are not my favorite (not by a long shot) I do not dislike them. I love Fiddler on the Roof and I like Mary Poppins (there are a few others). My mind was made, I would definately see it. It couldn't hurt, right? Well, nothing more than my bank account!

I went and saw the movie opening weekend (like I usually do for movies I am super excited to see). During the opening scene Johnny Depp's character starts singing. I was so relieved, he did not not suck! He actually did it very well. He did great just like 90% of the other movies I have seen him in.

yet another side note: I found out he did not have previous voice training.. he decided he would just wing it!

Tim Burton's vision shines through the darkness creating a beautiful masterpiece. One that is full of blood, romance, gore and love and dark humor. The scoring for the movie was fantastic and the storyline was very awesome too (I hear that it kept very close to the play)... Maybe I will see that someday too!?!

The movie is now out on DVD. I was so excited for the release UNTIL I found out it is not being released on Blu-Ray... yet, if at all. I will NOT buy it on DVD (the same goes for Transformers and Stardust). I will just have to wait for the Blu-Ray release. Some might ask why don't I just buy it on standard DVD. Well the answer to that question is there is no way to turn back from Blu-Ray once you've see the differences it has from standard DVDs... the picture quality and the sound quality are enough to make a real movie lover cry!

Below I have added the movie info (provided by imdb.com):

Plot: After hard years in exile for a crime he didn't commit, Benjamin Barker now Sweeney Todd, returns to London to find his wife dead and his daughter in the hands of the evil Judge Turpin. In his anger, Sweeney goes on a murderous rampage on all London, with the help of Mrs. Lovett, he opens a barber shop in which he lures his victims in with a charming smile before casually ending their life with a flick of his razor across their neck. But not one man killed, nor ten thousands men can satisfy Sweeney's lust for revenge on those who've caused his years of pain. Written by: O.G.

Genre: Musical, Thriller, Drama, Crime, Suspense, Horror

MPAA Rating: R for graphic bloody violence

Starring: Johnny Depp (as if you didn't know), Helena Bonham Carter (was engage to but perhaps now married to Tim Burton - "Bellatrix Lestrange"  from Harry Potter ), Alan Rickman (also part of the HP cast "Severus Snape"), Timothy Spall ("Peter Pettigrew"/"wormtail" also from HP), and Sacha Baron Cohen ("Borat").
 

*Note:  I think this movie should be watched by everyone (minus anyone under 17) I say watch it even if a person does not like one of the genres, the director, the actors, or they have any other reason. What do they (or you) have to lose?

Creo que vi todas las películas que se hicieron de Freddy, incluyendo la de la hija de freddy y una versión en la que los actores que habían participado en las primeras películas hacian de ellos mismos y Freddy se volvía realidad... jajajajaja, que estupidez. Hace apenas unos meses me enteré que una de las actrices que aparece en la tercera parte es nada más ni nada menos que Patricia Arquette, protagonista de Stigmata(Estigma) y la serie Medium... de joven si me late un buen.

After playing Lex Luthor for seven years now on The CW's "Smallville", you'd think actor Michael Rosenbaum would be sick of playing a household name villain.

Not so according to Cinema Blend who've picked up the interesting rumor that Rosenbaum was seen out and about lunching with Michael Bay in Hollywood this past weekend, and that they were talking business.

What business? Why the planned reboot of the classic horror movie "A Nightmare on Elm Street" that Bay's Platinum Dunes is producing is the best guess. Could this mean Rosenbaum is slipping on the sharp claws that Robert Englund made famous? (trivia: Englund and Rosenbaum starred together in 1998's "Urban Legend").

Even the site admits the casting "is all wild conjecture" but "Bay and Rosenbaum are definitely up to something". A voice for "Transformers 2" is another guess.

Source: Dark Horizons

now that the writers striker is well and truly over (more on that soon), hollywood can finally get back to what it does best; creating unique and interesting movies.

just announced is Wes Craven's newest film, 25/8. the world famous horror writer/director (A Nightmare On Elm Street) released the following synopsis:

"25/8 is set up at Rogue Pictures and will feature a child murdering villain who shows up 15 years after he supposedly died to kill seven children born the night he was to have died."

fantastic stuff. where do they get their ideas from, thats what we'd like to know?! but i guess thats why their over there in Hollywood, all rich and famous, and we're over here, the opposite of that. woe.

Plans are for the trio to create a new franchise based on Wes Craven's 1984 film A Nightmare on Elm Street.

The deal comes just as the trio are preparing for an early May start for Friday the 13th, another New Line relaunch of a horror franchise.  That film will be directed by Marcus Nispel from a script penned by Damian Shannon and Mark Swift (Freddy vs. Jason).

A writer won't be named by the studio until the writers strike is resolved.

Source: Variety