Fowler's Frights 2015: Wes Craven's New Nightmare

Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994)
Starring: Robert Englund, Heather Langenkamp, Wes Craven
Directed by: Wes Craven


When Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare didn't give the fans the proper sendoff they wanted for Freddy Krueger, studios were talking about the possibility of bringing him back. But how do you go about doing it? Two words: Wes Craven. The director of the groundbreaking first film returned to the series, severing ties with all the humorous sequels and bringing the series back to its horror roots. However, to keep it different, the film goes behind the scenes and looks at the heavily meta concept of how the world viewed Freddy Krueger and A Nightmare on Elm Street at the time, then brought an eviler and more powerful version of Freddy into the real world. The final result is the best sequel I've seen to this series since Dream Warriors. Calling a lot to the original film, while injecting enough mockumentary style footage and giving Freddy an updated look, New Nightmare shows the world that Freddy Krueger is best on the big screen when envisioned by the Master of Horror, Wes Craven.

Like I was saying, New Nightmare takes the Nightmare films and presents how the modern world views them. That opens the door to a lot of meta humor. For example, we aren't seeing Nancy and Freddy Krueger, but rather Heather Langenkamp and Robert Englund playing themselves after the success of the films. We are able to see how being the leading lady in a groundbreaking horror film isn't always the greatest thing in the world, as Heather lives with a natural fear of stalkers due to her fame. And we see that Robert Englund isn't the guy who haunted our nightmares for all those years, but is just an actor who loves his fans. This and a number of other elements, from touring New Line Cinema to actually watching the first film on television, really help add a realistic tone to the film before the man with the knife fingers show up to rip people apart.

Speaking of which, Freddy's given a fresh new look, complete with a more anatomically correct representation of his disfigured skin and sharper, sleeker knives attached to his fingers. Definite props go to Robert Englund (Why not? He's the man...) for playing the new Freddy, the campy and goofy Freddy that we are used to saying when he makes television appearances, and for playing himself as the man behind the makeup. It's an actor's performance that you aren't expecting for the seventh installment in a horror franchise, but of course Robert Englund is up to the challenge and absolutely flourishes with it. With recent talks that he may return as Freddy one more time, I'm excited to see him back as long as he can bring something new to Freddy, while maintaining what he does best in the role.

Earlier this year, Wes Craven tragically passed away, leaving behind one of the greatest horror movie legacies that any filmmaker has ever seen. This film marks a great turning point in his career, as it showed the world that the man can still scare people, while also knowing when to have enough fun with the horror genre. It's a film like New Nightmare that opened the door for him to make my favorite horror film Scream. If you really wanna look at it that way, I owe a lot to this movie. Wes also has a role New Nightmare as himself, playing it very melodramatic, but with enough warmth and charm that showed through in interviews and through the words of his colleagues. The horror world lost a big game changer this year, but thankfully we have films like New Nightmare to remind us why Wes Craven was one of the best horror directors of all time.


Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars.

Sometimes dragging on a little too long, Wes Craven's New Nightmare was a much better way to bring the original Nightmare series to a close. It's a very unique approach to a horror film, keeping the tone very meta, but also the most serious and scary we've seen the concept of Freddy Krueger since the original Nightmare on Elm Street. Definitely worth checking out if you're looking for the best films in the franchise.

Comment below to share your thoughts on the movie or to discuss a topic that I left out of my review

Wes Craven's New Nightmare and movie images are copyrighted by New Line Cinema

Fowler's Frights 2015: Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare

Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991)
Starring: Robert Englund, Lisa Zane, Shon Greenblatt
Directed by: Rachel Talalay


After 5 movies with our beloved Freddy Krueger, New Line Cinema decided that the sixth film would be the final one. At the time of its release, Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare was given a grandiose treatment, even going as far to having an actual funeral for Freddy Krueger. By now, we know better that this was NOT the last film to feature Freddy Krueger. Even more embarrassing is the tagline that they saved the best film for last and if you poll most Nightmare fans, they'll agree that Freddy's Dead is arguably the WORST film in the franchise. I won't go that far, but the film's still pretty bad. With a cheesy 3D gimmick attached to the film and enough jokes to consider this the point where Freddy finally "sold out" to the mainstream, this film feels like an absolute parody and the furthest Freddy has ever been removed from the tone of the original Nightmare on Elm Street film. Let's not wait any longer and dig right into the campy schlock that is Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare.

Robert Englund completely ditches any elements of horror for Freddy Krueger and play him as pure comedy. When we first see him, he's impersonating the Wicked Witch of the West. We also hear an amazing amount of bad puns, mannerisms that belong in a Road Runner cartoon, and possibly the greatest product placement for Nintendo I've ever seen on film. Sure, he's not the same Freddy we saw in the first film, or probably even the third film, but Englund still knows how to make him fun to watch.

The characters in the film are as transparent as you can imagine. We follow the adults a little more here than we have in previous installments, and the teenagers are pretty easy to understand. Relatable characters are fine as a concept, but you need to be able as an actor to bring more to the table in order to break out of your character's archetype. We don't get a lot of that here. Instead, they shove nothing but new characters down our throats and throw in a couple of interesting celebrity cameos from Roseanne, Tom Arnold, Alice Cooper, and Johnny Depp. That more than makes up for uninteresting main characters right?

The film's climax delves into Freddy's psyche and shows us his origin, while also cashing in on a cheap gimmick to put the final act of the film in 3D. I'm not sure what the effect looked like in theaters at the time, since I saw this on a standard Blu-ray disc at home, but I'm sure it wasn't the 3D spectacle that today's moviegoers are used to seeing. The origin is fine, but then we get possibly the weakest death that Freddy ever had, and it's the death that's supposed to keep him dead forever. Naturally, he doesn't stay dead, but I can imagine how pissed the diehard fans (or Fred Heads) were imagining that THAT was the way their iconic villain was finally killed off. But, as poor critical response proves, you can't keep a good character like Freddy dead for long, rendering Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare utterly pointless.


Rating: 1.5 out of 5 stars.

Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare definitely loses some points for not being the final Nightmare film, and also gets docked points for not being scary. Some death scenes are fun, and diving deeper into Freddy's origin is slightly compelling, but they belong in a better film. Only watch this film if you're curious of how they planned to kill off Freddy.

Comment below to share your thoughts on the movie or to discuss a topic that I left out of my review

Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare and movie images are copyrighted by New Line Cinema

Fowler's Frights 2015: A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child

A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child (1989)
Starring: Robert Englund, Lisa Wilcox, Danny Hassel
Directed by: Stephen Hopkins


Now here's a Nightmare film that actually might be a bit hard to follow. A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child continues where The Dream Master left off. We have a new crop of supporting side characters, a couple of innovative death scenes, and Freddy doing what he does best. So what's hard to follow? The story. One of our characters is pregnant and Freddy uses the baby's dreams to collect souls and puts the souls he collects into the baby so the baby can be more like Freddy. Then our characters are seeing living versions of Freddy's mother and a grown up version of the baby, and a baby version of Freddy. WHAT THE CRAP IS GOING ON!?!?!? That's this movie in a nutshell. You have such a difficult time reminding yourself about the plot that it's hard to keep up. Of course anytime you get to a part 5 in a horror franchise, you're there for the body count and what you know best anyway, so maybe it's of no concern to you. For me, I like a good plot with my horror sequels, and this one's a bit too ambitious for me.

Lisa Wilcox and Danny Hassel return as Alice and Dan. They're just about as good as they were in the last one, so not much to write about. My favorite new character was Mark, played by Joe Seely. He's a huge fan of comic books and superheroes. Need I say more? He's also featured into one of the film's only highlights when he is pulled into a comic-like dream world. He becomes a superhero he's been drawing to combat Freddy and gets the upper hand, until Freddy becomes an over the top super villain (Super Freddy). Just having a character like this shows the potential of creativity these movies have for the unique dream sequences.

Freddy Krueger, played by Robert Englund, does what he does best. There's no point in highlighting how great he is in every film. He was born to play the role. Even the dumbest Krueger movies featuring Robert Englund are entertaining because of his performance. I will say something looked off about the makeup for Freddy in this film. Not in every scene, but the first half of the film had his face looking like it was made of pure rubber. It's a tad off putting, but once you get passed that, you can enjoy Freddy for what he is.

Based on that plot description I mentioned in the intro, are you surprised the film doesn't have the strongest following? Unless you're pregnant yourself when watching it, A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child shouldn't be that scary to watch. The humor is hit and miss in many places, and even a lot of the blood and gore was cut down by the censors. The film has way too much going on for its own good, particularly in the climax. It comes, it leaves, and you're left sitting there going "What just happened?" The answer is simple, you've just witnessed one of the weaker films in the Nightmare series.


Rating: 2 out of 5 stars.

A little too convoluted for my taste, A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child has a lot going on for it, but not in the best way. One or two dream sequences may be good to watch, but it's one of the Nightmare films you can easily avoid.

Comment below to share your thoughts on the movie or to discuss a topic that I left out of my review

A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child and movie images are copyrighted by New Line Cinema

Fowler's Frights 2015: A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master

A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master (1988)
Starring: Robert Englund, Lisa Wilcox, Danny Hassel
Directed by: Renny Harlin


I initially said that I would review 3 of my favorite horror series this month, but after hitting a creative wall, I'm bringing it back down to 2. 3 just was adding a lot of spare time that I don't have and with the 2 franchises I've been doing, there's a greater amount of continuity in my choices. With that in mind, let's talk about the success of Nightmare 3. Bringing in tons of revenue and solidifying Freddy Krueger into a pop culture icon, New Line Cinema went into full force on the Krueger brand and production began for A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master. Tying to the events in Dream Warriors, the fourth film in the series continued with some of the core cast members from the previous film, while introducing a fresh batch of characters, all tied together with the dream-like atmosphere that Freddy flourishes in. It's in this film that Freddy crosses over to the anti-hero role, becoming a recognizable mascot of the franchise as opposed to a truly horrifying villain.

Director Renny Harlin wanted Robert Englund to play Freddy Krueger as if he was the James Bond of the horror genre, and you can really see that in Englund's performance. He's much more laid back and humorous in his delivery, while still being menacing. He's the thing we're here for at this point, and the rest of the characters become a body count for him. Freddy shows up, kills his victims, says a punchline, and his fans erupt in applause. It's a great formula to use when it comes to making these movies.

The characters that Freddy stalks are generic, but still likable. Each has their own unique character feature that makes them stand out, like one having asthma, one linking martial arts, one hating bugs, and so on. We see Kristen return, but she's played by Tuesday Knight this time. She's nowhere near as good as Patricia Arquette was, and she's thankfully not the main focus. The main heroine status has been passed on to Alice, played by Lisa Wilcox. She's pleasant enough of a character, but could stand for some acting lessons on how to properly emote. Then again, she's not why we're there. We care about Freddy Krueger and the dream world.

The dream stuff is pretty unique in this movie. They are very elaborate (except for Rick's, but that was due to budget constraints) and can range anywhere from comedic to complete gross out. There's a scene involving turning a character into a cockroach. If you hate bugs, you'll absolutely cringe. A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master also approaches the concept of Alice inheriting the major traits of her friends after they've been killed in their dreams. She takes them with her as she battles Freddy in the finale. It's a concept like this that makes you question the title. Who is The Dream Master? Is it Freddy Krueger? Or is it Alice? Watch for yourself and decide.


Rating: 3 out of 5 stars.

If you like the elaborate dream sequences and Freddy Krueger's comedy, then this one is a fun watch. A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master is the start of Freddy's descent to pure comedy, but the highlights (the cockroach scene specifically) outweigh the gripes.

Comment below to share your thoughts on the movie or to discuss a topic that I left out of my review

A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master and movie images are copyrighted by New Line Cinema

Fowler's Frights 2015: A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors

A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987)
Starring: Robert Englund, Heather Langenkamp, Patricia Arquette
Directed by: Chuck Russell


After the homoerotic debacle that was Nightmare 2 proved to be a success financially, the franchise needed to have a restoration in tone. While it would be hard to go back to the true, gritty horror roots, it was important to find enough of a balance in order to maintain genuine terror, while providing enough comedy to capitalize on the pop culture phenomenon of Freddy Krueger. Thus, we got A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors. Wes Craven returned to develop the story, Heather Langenkamp returned to the role of Nancy Thompson, and the film features young up and coming performances from Patricia Arquette and Laurence Fishburne. This is, in my opinion, the definitive film in the Nightmare series that sets the tone for how the films should be. The film was a box office sensation, grossing more than the first two films combined. It had a huge promotion on MTV, a rockin' soundtrack courtesy of Dokken (anyone remember them?), and was one of the biggest icons of late '80s pop culture.

Like I said, Heather Langenkamp returns as Nancy Thompson. It's great to see heroines return in horror franchises as long as their roles are done correctly, and Nancy is one of the all-time greats. She no longer acts like the victim, and is going head on to fight Freddy Krueger. We also have a great amount of supporting characters, all adding their own traits and personalities to a large body count. These are the Dream Warriors, each able to have their own personas and powers in the dream world and have all proven to have methods and tactics for fighting Krueger in the past. This makes our heroes look very competent against the villain, and the villain will have to bring his A game to get the better of the Dream Warriors.

Robert Englund is back as Freddy Krueger and he doesn't disappoint. It's hard to say much about a great character like Freddy over and over again when he continues to shine as the highlight of the films. As the films go on, Robert looks more tired and worn out with Freddy, but here he's having a blast. Not much else to say. If you love Robert Englund as Freddy Krueger, you'll enjoy his performance in Dream Warriors.

A lot of the death scenes are bloody and gruesome, but Freddy's also able to finish them off with comedic one-liners. This is Freddy's bread and butter and is the element fans love most about him. Freddy Krueger can be horrific and hilarious and a lot of Freddy's best lines and iconic scenes are in Dream Warriors. The dream world in this film is also my favorite of the series. It blends into the real world, but is also fantastical enough to reflect the styles of each of the kid. None of the scenes look the same with Freddy's victims and I think that's how it should be. I mean think about it, you can dream about the same people or ideas, but each dream world should reflect the individual. They create the world in their mind, then Freddy makes it his playground. Nothing against the boiler room, but the dreams in A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors are my favorite.


Rating: 4 out of 5 stars.

Proving to be my favorite of the sequels, A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors is the perfect blend of comedy and horror that the series needed. It's a great staple of '80s nostalgia, and if you love all things that decade, definitely seek out this sequel if you want some laughs and scares.

Comment below to share your thoughts on the movie or to discuss a topic that I left out of my review

A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors and movie images are copyrighted by New Line Cinema

Fowler's Frights 2015: A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge

A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge (1985)
Starring: Robert Englund, Mark Patton, Kim Myers
Directed by: Jack Sholder


For me, you can't have the month of October without including Freddy Krueger. A Nightmare on Elm Street has always been one of my favorite horror franchises, but I can't hold it up to the well-made standard that something like a Scream franchise can boast. The first film was a groundbreaking piece of film history, but the studio demands for sequels to be churned out nearly every year meant that each film deteriorated in quality film after film. This, mixed with the Halloween and Friday the 13th sequels spelled the impending doom for horror in the early '90s, which was eventually revitalized by the first Scream movie. Some sequels have some originality to them, but a lot of them are laughable to the point of parody. No film in the Nightmare films better symbolizes that than A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge. Swapping out the usual horror movie heroine for a male lead wound up becoming one of the most unintentionally homoerotic films of all-time. And again, they weren't trying. As if those problems weren't enough, the story concept took an interesting approach with Freddy that also resulted them sacrificing the one thing about Freddy that made him unique. Let's see how this colossal mess of a film has garnered such a cult following over the years.

The main characters are nothing special. Jesse, played by Mark Patton, is a unique approach for a main protagonist that doesn't really work well. The man screams like a little girl, has scenes where he's sleeping in his tighty whities, and scenes where he dances like an idiot. It doesn't mix well for something that could be taken seriously, or at least in a scary movie something that's actually scary. It's like they were going for a comedy instead of horror with a character like Jesse. His girlfriend Lisa, played by Kim Myers, is pretty generic, but at least Myers looks like Meryl Streep. Seriously, once you see it, you'll be convinced you're watching the low point of Streep's career. Don't worry, it's not her. Ron Grady, played by Ron Rusler, is your typical '80s wise guy. He's funny and whatnot, but doesn't have enough screen time or development to truly stand out. There is something else, however, that really stands out in Freddy's Revenge.

So, what about that homoerotic thing I was talking about? Well, just look at the movie to see for yourself. The film has towels snapping across a bare butt in the shower, males pantsing other males, a leather S & M bar, a main character who seems distant from both his girlfriend and his family, seems very drawn to his best friend, and the main conflict involving a grown man taking control of a young man's body (thus, him questioning and being confused about what's going on with him). Not to mention the fact that Mark Patton is gay in real life. And can you believe the cast and crew didn't notice the undertones until well after the film had been completed and released? I can't make this stuff up if I tried. How do you get all of this from a Freddy Krueger movie? That reminds me...

For a Freddy Krueger movie, the film is really lacking from a great Krueger performance from Robert Englund. Thanks to the film's concept, a lot of Freddy is seen in Jesse's dreams, but when other characters are being killed by Krueger, it's because Krueger has possessed Jesse's body. So Freddy isn't really doing the killing, Jesse is. An interesting concept, but that's not what the fans came to see. When Freddy finally does appear, it's out of the dream world and he terrorizes a pool party. Here, Freddy has been removed from the dream world (where we like him best) and assumes the role of a generic teen slasher. No one wants that. We like Freddy Krueger for his originality and how unique the dreams can look on film. We don't get any of that in the dreams, shy of a few pretty good practical effects. Every dream feels TOO grounded in reality. You always should enjoy some form of fantasy in the dream like state, at least with the Nightmare films.


Rating: 1 out of 5 stars.

Where you stand on A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge really depends on how you want to look at the film. For horror, it falls very short of living up to the original and it's a sequel you can definitely skip. If you're looking for comedy, it's one of the most unintentionally hilarious horror films you can watch from the '80s and is worth checking out at least once if you're in the proper mindset for some campy laughs.

Comment below to share your thoughts on the movie or to discuss a topic that I left out of my review

A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge and movie images are copyrighted by New Line Cinema

Fowler's Frights 2015: Scream 4

Scream 4 (2011)
Starring: David Arquette, Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox
Directed by: Wes Craven


You gotta imagine my joy when I, a Scream fan, was preparing for an all new Scream film to hit theaters in 2011. My best friend and I were sitting in a packed theater on opening day to watch Scream 4, and we were at least hoping for something that would have redeemed the franchise after the lackluster finale provided by Scream 3. What we got was something that completely exceeded our expectations. It perfectly played up to the state of modern horror, with gorier deaths and a funny commentary on the amount of remakes that have plagued the genre during the new millennium. By the end of the film, we were debating whether we liked this more than the first or second film. For me, I liked it almost as much as the first one, but my thoughts on it have cooled a little bit as time has gone on. Yet, I still think it's a good horror movie that deserves a look, so that's exactly what I'm going to do.

The usual returning characters are a lot of fun, which has come to be expected. The big thing about this film is that for the first time in a while, it seemed like these characters might actually be on the chopping block. With the idea of rebooting the series, it was possible that Sidney, played by Neve Campbell, could've been killed off somewhere in the middle or near the finale. Heck, a lot of the trailers made it look like Gale, played by Courtney Cox, would be murdered. Going into the movie, you were actually afraid that the characters we've known for 15 years could be bumped off the cast list to make way for our new characters.

There's actually a lot of really good new characters in Scream 4. My favorite was Kirby, played by Hayden Panettiere. Kirby is the residential movie geek, yet she's got all the looks of a leading lady in horror. Decades ago, that character would've never existed in horror films, but nowadays it's commonplace to find a token hot geek character. We've also got Charlie and Robbie, played by Rory Culkin and Erik Knudsen, who serve as the Randy characters for the movie. Jill, played by Emma Roberts, is Sidney's cousin and serves as the potential future leading lady for the rebooted cast. The only one I really didn't like was her ex-boyfriend Trevor, played by Nico Tortorella. Something about his performance really didn't work for me. He was just obnoxious, and not even in the fun way. You just wanted him to go away and not be seen in the film again.

At the end of the day, Scream 4 has an objective when it comes to horror remakes. The rules are simple here: unexpected is the new cliche, the killer should be using modern technology to be ahead of the curve (like videotaping the murders and putting them online), virgins can die now, the only major way to survive is by being gay (although that one's more of a joke thrown in by Robbie and Charlie), and the death scenes need to obviously be more extreme. Then, Sidney throws in her own rule near the end of the film when it comes to remakes: don't f*** with the original. That line got a standing ovation in my theater, showing just how much Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson know today's horror audience. The metaphor fits strongly, and is the main reason enjoyed the film. It went out of its way to try and remake the first film, while giving enough of a twist and commentary to say why that shouldn't happen, thus turning it into a reboot and a sequel.


Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

Knowing to touch base on the current state of horror films, from torture porn to remakes, Scream 4 actually tells a fun story while remaining true to the original standard set in the first film. Depending on where you stand on modern horror, this film will be something you can identify with and I recommend all horror enthusiasts check it out at least once.

Scream 4 and movie images are copyrighted by Dimension Films

Fowler's Frights 2015: Scream 3

Scream 3 (2000)
Starring: David Arquette, Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox
Directed by: Wes Craven


Every groundbreaking film series needs a proper conclusion. Scream 3 is not that kind of movie. Three years after the last film, the studios were insistent on getting a conclusion to the trilogy released before the film series lost its momentum at the box office. So, when Kevin Williamson was asking the studio to be patient while he tried to balance his rigorous schedule, they went the route of removing Williamson from the project and replacing him with a different screenwriter. Because of that, what felt like the heart and soul of the franchise (the compelling screenplay) had been removed from the final product. As if that wasn't bad enough, Neve Campbell also had a busy schedule that got her limited time to film her scenes for Scream 3. Because of that, the main character Sidney Prescott isn't utilized heavily with the rest of the cast. Most of her scenes are done by herself (and with Ghostface, obviously), and that also separates a strong dynamic these previous films had with its cast.

So with Sidney not at the forefront of the film, who's left leading the cast? You really want to know? It's Dewey and Gale, played by David Arquette and Courtney Cox. In the last two films, their chemistry and relationship banter was charming and comical when it was pushed to the side of the overall film. When it's the main source of character and plot development, it's actually really annoying to sit through. If anyone tuned in to watch the Scream movies more for Gale and Dewey than Sidney, please let me know because I just can't see it. It's like when you give a good side character a spinoff show or movie, it just never really works out, especially when their shtick gets old and tiresome. Is there anything else that can make this movie worse? Oh, yes there is.

Plain and simple, the new characters suck. The thing about Williamson's writing that really worked in the other films was that even with obnoxious and jerky characters, you were still given enough about them to care if and when they die. Here, we are introduced to maybe 2 characters that are fun to be around but that's it. Jennifer, played by Parker Posey, is a lot of fun (even if her acting is over the top) since she's the actress playing Gale in the fictional Stab movies and is basically a carbon copy of Gale, which really annoys the real Gale. I also think Detective Kincaid, played by Patrick Dempsey, is an ok character, but it's mainly because of how intentionally creepy he was written in order to be a suspect for the killer's identity. Other than that, they are just generic stock characters being lined up for a body count in a slasher movie. And with Scream, you expect the characters to be a little more than that.

Thanks to a cameo from Randy, played once again by Jamie Kennedy, the rules of a movie trilogy are established, basically explaining how third acts can jump the shark. Randy basically dictates that the killer will be indestructible, there will be some kind of convoluted backstory to tie things together with the past, and anyone can die. Scream 3 falls into the category of a great film series jumping the shark and that's largely due to Kevin Williamson not returning to write this film and Neve Campbell's limited screen time. No one wanted to see a Dewey and Gail centered film and the new characters left a LOT to be desired, so this brought the series to a slightly disappointing ending. That is, of course, if this was the ACTUAL finale to the series...


Rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars

Scream 3 is the installment of the franchise I'll watch the least with good reason. Thanks to the film we're gonna talk about next time, the finality of this film is completely scrapped in hindsight. It's sorely missing a script from Kevin Williamson and fans don't really care if the characters live or die in this one. Tie it in with a killer reveal that left me scratching my head trying to remember who they were, and you've got me saying that only the truest of die-hard Wes Craven fans need to check this out. Everyone else can skip this and go on to the next film.

Scream 3 and movie images are copyrighted by Dimension Films

Fowler's Frights 2015: Scream 2

Scream 2 (1997)
Starring: David Arquette, Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox
Directed by: Wes Craven


Alright guys, it's time to change things up a bit. I've been doing the same routine with my layout and it's frankly getting a bit old. I'm gonna try something new here this month, no plot summaries, shorter paragraphs, and keeping my ratings justified, yet brief. It feels appropriate for me to introduce the change in October, since it was the month where I implemented the first of my themed months. I love horror films, and reviewed a handful of the best within my first year of the blog, most notably my favorite horror film of all-time, Scream. This month, I'm looking at some of the sequels and remakes of my favorite slasher franchises, kicking it off with Scream 2. As far as sequels go, it's probably one of my favorites in the horror genre. The stakes are elevated, but it's very much contained in a way that says the original is still the better film. It's a very tongue and cheek approach to movie sequels in general, delivering in the type of meta humor that Scream popularized in the late '90s. So let's take a look at Scream 2.

Our favorite characters from the first movie return, this time with much more development from horror stereotypes to actual people. We see Sidney, played by Neve Campbell, continue to mature and grow as an adult. Her development's probably the weakest in the most extreme of terms, since she doesn't really need to change at all. The biggest growth is in Gail, played by Courtney Cox, as she grows to actually care for her friends rather than try and get a good story out of all of it. She also grows n her relationship with Dewey, played by David Arquette, as they inch their way closer and closer to being a couple. Their stuff is often a brilliant blend of sweet romance and awkward humor. Randy, played by Jamie Kennedy, also gets some subtle development in his resentment for being the stereotypical sidekick. He wants the girl (Sidney), he wants to save the day, and he wants to be taken seriously. That's some pretty compelling and often humorous stuff that often wouldn't be looked at in an average horror film. But then again, the Scream franchise aren't your average horror films. At least, to me they aren't.

We have some great new characters joining the cast, including Sidney's new boyfriend Derek, played by Jerry O'Connell, and classmate Cici, played by Sarah Michelle Gellar. Here's a great indication of how popular Scream was at the time. Gellar was one of the top young stars on the planet, and Cici isn't even that big of a role. She's in two scenes, but she's remembered due to her casting. As for Derek, he's nice and always does the right thing, but his boyfriend status makes him an obvious red herring for the killer's identity. But my favorite addition to the cast is the expanded role of Cotton Weary, played by Liev Schrieber. You can tell he's having a great time and his quips are to die for. I really love Cotton Weary, just ask my wife. It was my catchphrase while watching the film.

Scream 2 establishes the concept of movie sequels in two really memorable scenes. The first is an ongoing debate Randy has with his film class about how sequels always suck. Franchises from Alien to Terminator to Godfather to Star Wars are debated heavily, with no one really coming to an overall conclusion on whether or not a movie sequel can be better than the original. The other is a great scene between Randy and Dewey where they go over the rules. It's established that the body count is always bigger, the death scenes are more elaborate, and if you want to make sure your franchise is a success...we actually don't know that rule since Dewey interrupts Randy before he can finish. Nicely done guys. Kevin Williamson's writing and Wes Craven's directing really shine through here, and the film knows how to elevate the stakes, create more gore, and still have some fun with it. Meta humor has always been a favorite of mine, and this film has plenty of it.


Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

Higher stakes, good new characters, and very self-aware, Scream 2 tries very hard to be one of the best movie sequels in film history. While I can't say it's on the level of The Empire Strikes Back or The Dark Knight, it's still a great sequel as far are horror movies are concerned and if you like Scream, you'll have just as much fun watching the sequel.

Scream 2 and movie images are copyrighted by Dimension Films