I am not sure what year it was that I saw it, but David Fincher‘s adaptation of Fight Club was released in the year I turned twenty-one. That year brought on a lot of embarrassments, dramas, and things I just dearly wish I could have taken back. But it was also the year I began to take my faltering first steps into home cinema. Somehow, I also managed to bluff my way into a gig reviewing test samples of the DVD-Video medium. It was strictly an amateur job or hobby, with the only real compensation being free discs. But it opened my eyes to a lot about not only how home video and its delivery media worked, but also how that side of the film industry worked. Continue Reading
Until its recent demise and incorporation into the folds of its parent company (Warner Brothers), New Line Cinema could be considered the most successful of the upstarts that got into the motion picture business during the deregulation frenzy of the 1980s. Granted, it started a bit earlier than that, but it was not until one particular success that New Line moved beyond its origins of buying independent productions and exhibiting them on circuits consisting of things like university campuses. Continue Reading
Well, after writing about A Nightmare On Elm Street Part 2 and trying to build a credible case for its uniqueness making it a lot less awful than is made out, I thought perhaps I should write another little article. Just like with societies, it is hard to know what is good or even average without having something bad to compare it to. This is where the sixth film in the series, Freddy’s Dead: The Final Nightmare, comes in handy. I think in order to understand what a piece of shit it really is, one needs to understand the full meaning of the description given in the Wikipedia. In the presently-available Wikipedia entry, Freddy’s Dead is described as “a 1991 American slasher comedy horror film”. Although it is up for debate whether this is really two or three distinct genres that the film is unsuccessfully trying to blend, a big part of the problem is that the people responsible for making the film do not understand how to do any of these genres well, leave alone all three at once.
If you have seen An American Werewolf In London, then you have already seen an example of a combination of comedy and horror done well. And the reason the combination worked there is because (get this) the horror element was taken perfectly seriously. The four actors that can be considered principals are quite clearly taking an absurd situation as seriously as they can, even when they are acting out scenes intended to induce laughter. Griffin Dunne, the gentleman playing the character of Jack, performs the thankless task of explaining the plot and the conflict the central character, David, is facing. But the manner in which lycanthropy is treated seriously by the story, and the conflict between survival instinct and doing the right thing is treated seriously by the characters, means that jokes such as David’s conference with the departed spirits of those he has dined on whilst in wolf form are all the more hilarious in an inobvious way. Put simply, An American Werewolf In London is a good film because it respects the intelligence of the audience.
A couple of days ago, one of the writers whose work I take the time to follow posted this review of A Nightmare On Elm Street 2: Freddy’s Revenge. Now, regardless of what you might think of the review or the film, I made one comment about the review itself that got me thinking. You see, in criminal trials, the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution. The prosecution has to prove their case to a degree that is sufficient to convict the defendant. All that the defense counsel really has to prove to the jury is that the prosecution has not sufficiently proven their case. There are a number of different ways in which a defense lawyer can go about this. Obfuscation, confusion, and misdirection are all perfectly valid techniques as long as the defense lawyer knows how to stay within the bounds of accepted procedure in the courtroom. Indeed, the case against O.J. Simpson in the murders of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman was so strong that the techniques used by Simpson‘s lawyer(s) to cast doubt on their case have been satirised repeatedly by numerous sources (South Park being one that touches upon the ridiculousness of the whole affair very well).
So, in the interests of representing the case both for and against Freddy’s Revenge, I am going to share the following detailed analysis of the case.