In a franchise full of strange movies, Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge is definitely the black sheep. Somewhere in between the serious and suspenseful Elm Street 1 and the insanity of the movies from 3 on, the second film in this iconic series is certainly an oddball.
The same can be said for Friday the 13th Part II, but barely anyone remembers that one. So what makes this one interesting? Well, this is one of the most overtly gay horror movies ever created, which is something that I find interesting. The slasher movie genre has always had a somewhat confused relationship with sexuality. Those who get it on are rewarded with a swift kill from Jason or Michael Myers. Those who don't are usually the survivors. And while none of the characters in this film are overtly gay, there's definitely LOTS of subtext. And it isn't subtle. The fact that it has such obvious homoerotic subtext AND was released in the 80s and was a sequel to a huge movie is a pretty big deal. There's a lot of shots of dudes waking up sweaty and shirtless, a scene where a character dances to some disco music in a stereotypical flamboyant way, and most obviously, the gym teacher character goes to a gay bar and is whipped in the bare butt with a sheet. So is this movie homophobic? Well, refreshingly, it isn't. This film could have so easily fallen into a problematic hole of insulting stereotypes, but instead it actually has a message hidden beneath the horror. While none of the characters are overtly gay, the main character seems to hide and repress his sexuality, which leads to Freddy possessing him. Of course, you could read it the opposite way, but whatever. The message is, to me at least, somewhat empowering, and no doubt it caused young horror fans to think about who they were. And that's pretty cool. None of the other films in the series embraced this unique viewpoint, and that's kind of a shame. A horror film embracing its gay subtext is such a unique and fascinating idea, and I wish more films embraced this idea. But beyond this stuff, is his movie worth your time beyond the subtext? Well, I think that the hidden meaning really is the most interesting thing about this movie. Some scare scenes work, and some moments are enjoyably campy, but by the 3rd act, it just kind of falls apart. The final destruction of Freddy is quite disappointing, and the rules of the series aren't really carried over into this one, making it needlessly confusing. Freddy kills people in real life, and even possess the lead character. This possession plot is probably my least favorite thing about the film. It doesn't really make any sense and is kind of confusing in comparison to the rules set up in the first one. The ending is also wrapped up really quickly and makes so little sense I thought I had accidentally skipped over a scene. So is A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge worth your time? Well, it's really only watchable for a couple good scares and its interesting subtext. If it's interesting background and oddball status interests you, give it a watch. 4.8
0 Comments
Horror movies, especially modern ones, seem to have a preoccupation with being realistic. Found footage films freakishly fetishizes reality, making sure everything is 100% realistic in a way that is frequently boring and has become quite monotonous. So what happened to stylized, weird, and unrealistic horror movies? Well for those who miss those bygone days, I suggest 1979's PHANTASM.
I was attracted to this film from director Don Coscarelli's book True Indie, which is a great read even for someone unfamiliar with the guy's movies. Phantasm (1979) is a strange, low budget movie, and is almost better when you read Don's book. You come to respect the movie's ambition, as it was made cheaply in a time before CG. While this is usually a bad thing, here it is rather charming and gives the movie a wild and ambitious feeling. You can tell a lot of imagination and creativity was used to put the dream-like scenarios on film with such little money. I won't describe the plot in detail here, as it is nonsensical and isn't the main point of this review. After all, I am here to review the film, not summarize it. Phantasm is best known for 2 things, one being its iconic silver ball weapon, and its antagonist, The Tall Man. The ball is pretty cool, but it only appears twice, which is strange if you think about it. The sequels (all 4 of them) emphasized the sphere in their marketing and plots, which is odd to me because it didn't really make a huge impression on me. The severed finger was more memorable to me, but thats besides the point. The Tall Man is a bit like a lesser Freddy Krueger of Jason Vorhees. He is in the 2nd tier of horror villains, right next to Pinhead and Candyman. He is pretty simple, just a tall old dude who says "BOYYY" a lot. He is intimidating and Angus Scrimm gives an iconic performance. I would say that the film works best when it's being weird and creative. A severed hand spilling mustard and then turning into a demonic fly? That's something you wouldn't see in any of those Conjuring movies, or really any movie for that matter. But while it seems like outright weirdness, it's grounded by the characters and their odd quirks. Jody seems the most like the archetypal horror protagonist of the 3 leads, but ironically he is used the least. Mike, a 12 year old kid, and Reggie, a middle aged ice cream truck driver, take center stage here, and they keep the story from seeming like a drug trip of ideas. The film falters when it succumbs to the formula, mostly seen in the cyclical narrative. Mike spies, He is attacked, He runs away, Jody scolds him, Tall Man, wash, rinse, repeat. These scenes are always scored with the same repetitive tune, and all involve Mike running slowly. They are monotonous and all blend into my mind eventually. If these scenes had been excised or put together, the film would definitely feel a lot brisker. The pace is already sluggish, and to heighten that by putting in these homogeneous scenes just does a disservice to the creativity of the movie. That is a pretty big complaint, I guess, but other than that the movie worked well for me. It isn't as good as similarly crazy horror flicks like Creepshow or In the Mouth of Madness, but it's worth a watch nonetheless. 7/10 |
AuthorI'm Spoon Goon. I like movies and video games and occasionally a good TV show. Archives
April 2020
|