Maleficent

Maleficent (2014) by Robert Stromberg

maleficent2

Let’s talk about Angelina Jolie for a moment. I have my problems with reviewing any of her movies, to be honest, even though I’ve watched most of them at the movies. It’s just incredibly difficult for me to look beyond her iconic status and see her work outside of it. I’ve been a fan since February 2001 when I first saw the Tomb Raider-trailer and that’s probably also around the time she became this iconic figure so I’ve rarely seen her without it. But we all know that she is a talented, incredibly able and dedicated actress. And I want to stress this point because Maleficent is probably her most iconic role to date – and it could have been a disaster if anyone but Jolie had played it.maleficent1

What happens:

An old tale with a new twist – Maleficent is a fairy living in a kingdom with other fairies and magical creatures just next to a kingdom where envious men dream of conquering that neigboring world they don’t understand. When a king (Kenneth Cranham) finally tries, he and his army are defeated and it is Maleficent as protector of her kingdom who is responsible for the defeat and the humiliation the king suffers. As he lies dying, he promises the kingdom to the man that kills Maleficent.

Stefan (Michael Higgins, Sharlto Copley)  who has been Maleficent’s childhood friend and first love reconnects with her but then betrays her. But since he is unable to kill her he cuts off her wings and takes them to the king – and becomes king in return. Maleficent swears revenge and makes herself queen of the beforehand leaderless fairy kingdom – a dark queen. She curses Stefan’s first (and only) child, Aurora (Elle Fanning), to fall into a deep sleep on her sixteenth birthday from which she shall not awake unless it’s by true love’s kiss (since Maleficent does not believe in true love anymore because it’s what Stefan had vowed to her it’s a mute point that Aurora will never wake).

maleficent4Aurora is send away by her father to live with three fairies (Juno Temple, Imelda Staunton, Lesley Manville) who show such negligent care of the child that Maleficent feels the need to intervene just so that Aurora will live to see her sixteenth birthday. She unwillingly befriends the girl who thinks that Maleficent is her fairy godmother and as she grows attached to the girl she tries to take back the curse. She fails and has to watch as Aurora falls victim to it. She brings Phillip (Brenton Thwaites) to the castle – a young man who has met Aurora once and was enchanted by her – but his kiss does not wake Aurora. Only when Maleficent kisses the unconscious girl – grief-stricken over the fact that she couldn’t save her – Aurora wakes.

There’s loads of battle and awesomeness and Maleficent finally gets her wings back. In the end, Maleficent and Aurora unite the kingdom in what can best be described as a gay marriage ceremony (that’s open for interpretation and discussion). The Happy Ending.

Now, there have been a number of fairy tales lately who tried and failed at maleficent-poster2giving the old tales a feminist spin – Maleficent is not one of those. It’s also not a lighthearted, musical color-explosion that’s been ejaculated onto the screen. It’s not flashy, it’s not distastefully pointing fingers at mythical creatures in a ‘look how different they are’-kind of metaphorical way. It is what it is:

A tale about people. People who are flawed, who are cruel, who are obsessed, who are kind, who are trying so hard at being better. There is a wide range of human frailties at work here and most of them are displayed in Maleficent – the ‘villain’ of the tale – but they’re all displayed on the remarkable body of Angelina Jolie’s talent. She’s a playful fairy, a scary avenger, a violated woman, an action-hero, and a tender lover.

I don’t even have words for how magnificent Angelina Jolie is in this role. It’s the kind of role meets actor that you would wish for all of your favorite movies, the kind of combination of talents that comes along far too rarely. This is an epic movie, a movie that sets standards, a movie you will want to watch again and again because its pieces fit perfectly into a well-told story, a powerful drama, an exciting action movie, a love story that is rarely told in such a way (and yes, I’m talking about the love between Maleficent and Aurora and I’m not going to put a label on it). This is the movie you should watch if you were only going to watch one movie this year – you won’t regret it.

maleficent-poster1

Advertisements

Back to tv: Supernatural

Supernatural (2005 – ) created by Eric Kripke

supernatural-cover

If you spend any amount of time on tumblr – or more specifically tumblr fan blogs – you will have to fight the temptation of starting to watch a new tv show pretty much every day. I’m not kidding. If you’re a fan and you’re following the blogs of other fans they will lure you to watch the shows they love and that you not yet share. And that’s why I bought the first season of Supernatural.

It is probably one of the most well-loved shows on tumblr (beside Dr. Who and Sherlock, perhaps) and so every now and then a half-naked Jensen Ackles will pop up even on my female-feminist-lesbian-centered blog. I’m not complaining (Ackles certainly can pull off the half-naked look), it’s part of being a fan on tumblr. And another part is to give into temptation and start watching shows, even though you already have a problem with keeping up with the shows you’re currently watching.

That’s the tumblr-issue.

supernatural1The Supernatural-issue is another.

The show is about two brothers, Dean (Ackles) and Sam Winchester (Jared Padalecki), who are searching for their father John (Jeffrey Dean Morgan) who had gone missing monster-hunting. And while they’re searching they do what the men in their family set out to do ever since the boys’ mother died: kill monsters. It’s a path of vengeance and righteousness until the family is finally reunited. But evil is never over.

One comparison is unavoidable – and even perpetuated by the show’s creators it seems: the one with Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Because Buffy set the standards of modern monster hunting, popcultural references and fast-paced dialogue. And as far as I’m concerned, Buffy is still leading in all those categories. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t like Supernatural. I find the closer look at folklore and urban legends very interesting. Buffy was not a one-trick pony but her focus was mainly on vampires – whether it was the search for enemies or boyfriend-material. Supernatural broadens the scope and fights all (evil) supernatural powers.

Having two brothers fighting evil is also something new. Usually the premise of supernatural4a show – that is not a family show – starts with bringing together a diverse pool of people. Sam and Dean are different, sure, but they’re also family and engage in their share of family drama. Their absentee father brings a third angle to the discussion – even when he’s not present.

And therein lies my issue with the show. While the monster-hunting and dark look of the show are great, the family drama gets a little boring at times. The search for their father is a necessary one but the discussion of family issues is repetitive. And, at the risk of repeating myself here, I just don’t find male drama all that interesting. The patriarchal narrative is alive and well in this story. Women fill the void of sometime-girlfriend and evil fiend (and sometimes there isn’t even that much of a difference between these stereotypes because, as we all know: evil is hot). While woman fulfills sinner and saint-roles, the man is engaged in a constant pissing contest with brother, father, male adversaries.

supernatural5

Am I too harsh? I am. I knew that I would have issues with a story that is centered so entirely around male characters but I still started to watch it because… fans are so really good at making you share their fascination. And the show is not bad and I might yet watch more of it. It’s just that I don’t feel that culture has anything new to tell me about the adventures of the male profession. And I don’t even think that it is me who is so focused on the issue of gender, here. It is perpetuated by the makers, it is shoved down my throat, that male adventure is just different from female adventure, that the male will always be more interesting, more engaged in the extraordinary. There are still people who think that this holds true despite the evidence to the contrary. But I’m not buying – sometimes I’m renting – into this franchise. In the end, your gender is irrelevant, the only important thing is the story you tell me.

supernatural3

 

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters (2013) by Tommy Wirkola

hanselandgretel-tic

I guess I’m still not done with my obsession with fairy tales and folklore. It so happens that this is part of my own folklore and I guess I never appreciated the Brothers Grimm as part of German culture as I do these days. Sure, I was always aware of them – as their fairy tales accompanied my whole childhood, more so than Hans Christian Anderson’s – but never quite as appreciative as I am now. Maybe it took for me to see that Hollywood knows and likes them, too, maybe I am just now starting to look through these tales and see how really disturbing and influential they are.

hansel&gretel3Hansel & Gretel surely is one of the best known fairy tales, at least, for me it is. The gingerbread house, the bond between sibling, the evil witch that is being tricked by two children. The movie shows this story but it focuses more on the aftermath of two children killing a witch.

Hansel (Jeremy Renner) and Gretel (Gemma Arterton) are abandoned by their father in the dark forest. After some time wandering they find a gingerbread house and start eating away at it. The witch living there lures them inside, incarcerates them and is ultimately killed before she can eat them. The siblings set out on a mission to free other children being held captive by witches and kill the evil hags. They build a reputation until – years later – they come to a town that has several children missing and no idea how to deal with this. Hansel and Gretel help out – for a price – but encounter their strongest opponent (Famke Janssen) yet, one that also links back to their past.

Sometimes you start watching a movie and you realize in the first few minutes hansel&gretel6that the plot is going to suck – big time. Such a movie is Hansel & Gretel. However, if you realize this early on you’re not building any expectations and that’s actually good because then you can enjoy it as a dense action flick with a lot of 3D-effects thrown in for good measure. Well, they’re not actually measured, they’re rather spread liberally.

If nothing else this movie is nice to look at. We have two good-looking main characters, we have the usual banter with people of lesser charm and ability, and then there’s Famke Janssen as the evil witch and she is sooo good at it. Make no mistake: the movie is bad. It’s shallow, it’s predictable, it’s superficial hansel&gretel4entertainment. But at least, it does not bore us with any deep contemplation, and it doesn’t annoy us with the assumption that Gretel is any less of a hero than her brother is. Gemma Arterton is not only a pretty sidekick to her ass-kicking brother, she kicks ass herself. And this is actually so rare it’s delightful. And on top of that, she looks good in leather. Jeremy Renner didn’t impress me half as much, though. I usually like him but he seems to play a lot of the same roles lately – Bourne, Hawkeye, Hansel: tough as nails action heroes that blow up shit but have nothing new to tell us.

Neither does this movie tell us anything new about old tales. But if you’re looking for an action flick where you can just see some disgusting, some ass-kicking, some sibling-bonding – you’re welcome to enjoy Hansel & Gretel.

hansel&gretel-poster

Back to tv: Once Upon a Time

(The purple stuff is not the Gay Menace it’s magic – okay, even I noticed the contradiction in that statement…)

A tv show about fairy tales, I thought, this is either a very bad or a very good idea. I am still not sure which it is but I am watching every week now. The premise goes as follows:

The Evil Queen (Lana Parrilla) hates Snow White (Ginnifer Goodwin) and wants to destroy her happiness with Prince Charming (Josh Dallas) – actually she wants to destroy everybody’s happy ending. So she curses her enemies to live in a land without magic where she reigns. But the Charmings are having a baby and by prophecy this baby is to rid everyone of the curse – in 28 years. They put her in a magic wardrobe and Emma – thus the Charming’s off-spring’s name – is transported to our world, somewhere in Maine. Not far from that small town that magically appeared shortly after by the name of Storybrooke where all the characters from our favorite fairy tales are now living.

28 years pass – only in Storybrooke they don’t really pass because time has stopped – and Henry (Jared Gilmore) appears at Emma Swan’s (Jennifer Morrison) door, telling her that he is her son and that she has to safe everyone in Storybrooke from the Evil Queen, his adoptive mother, Regina Mills. Emma comes to Storybrooke and as she decides to stay, the clocks in Storybrooke start ticking again.

The story is told in flashbacks that bring us back to Fairytale Land and the story that is taking place in Storybrooke. We get to know the characters and who they were in a magical world and who they have – unknowingly – become.

The concept is actually quite fascinating, especially from a feminist perspective: most of the main players are women because fairy tales are so often concerned with them. The love/hate relationship between Regina and Snow White/Mary Margaret is as much at the core of it as the antagonism between Regina and Emma – who, after all, lay claims to the same boy as son – and the love between Snow and Charmin’ who in Storybrooke are a school teacher and a man in a coma (don’t worry he wakes only to learn that he has married the wrong girl).

With a lot of characters there come a lot of stories to be told. The show does not exclusively tell classic fairy tales either but dips into Wonderland, Neverland and also brings Victor Frankenstein (David Anders) to the (operating) table.

While the story as conducted story is quite fascinating, the handling of characters is sometimes disappointing. It seems that the two villains are treated differently by the writer’s on the ground of gender, while Regina gets the cold shoulder treatment, Rumplestiltskin (Robert Carlyle) is forgiven his misdeeds because he is loved by someone. The writer’s also like to throw love-interests at Emma Swan, white male love interests while a lot of fans would rather see her with the Evil Queen, Regina, because these two have actual chemistry.

There are a lot of ships sailing under the Ouat (Once Upon a Time) banner, there are very few characters who are not in some way linked to each other and the fans love making up new ships (some of them not even romantic). One thing is sure: the fans are invested – and I count myself among them. Though my ship is the Red Beauty (that’s Ruby/Red Riding Hood and Belle/Beauty to you).

If you find the time, have a look. If for nothing else, the retelling and changing of fairy tales we’ve grown up with, is fascinating. And there’s room for plenty interpretation.

Resident Evil is back!

Yeah, I know, I haven’t posted in a while but then I haven’t been to the movies in a while. This one will surely bring me back to my big screen romance (I am currently courting the small screen):

Remember when I wrote that Resident Evil: Afterlife might be the last of the series? Well, I was wrong! Here’s the first promo – and no, it’s not a commercial:

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi4042498329

Yes, I know, it looks AWESOME. And more AWESOME: Rain Ocampo is back in the series. Michelle Rodriguez, man!

Only question now is: where do I get my ticket?

Scream 4 – Still standing!

Scream 4 (2011) by Wes Craven

(I will not reveal who is behind the mask, you have to find that out for yourself.)

The first time I heard about Scream 4, I was actually excited. And that is surprising because generally I think that enough is enough already, leave well enough alone, stop while you’re ahead. In other words, sequels don’t give me the thrills. Why is Scream different? Well, for once it’s part of the horror genre and for me that means: there are no rules. I came to the genre at the age of ten (when I read my first Stephen King novel), but didn’t know that I was actually beginning to love a genre. I thought, I just liked that author… so I discovered pretty late that I loved horror movies and Scream was one of the reasons I did. I never watched a Scream-movie at the movies only on dvd, so this was also an opportunity to have the Scream-experience.

I confess that I did not expect much of this movie. I was excited, yes, but I knew it could go either way: awesome or horrible, and the many possibilities in-between. I was not disappointed, though. I liked it. It was like meeting an old friend after a decade has gone by and you find out that you could still talk to one another for hours on end and even if you were never to meet again, the meeting was not for nothing.

 So, Sidney Prescott is back in Woodsboro, and so is Ghost Face. A lot of people get killed, film theory gets another chapter, and we wonder for roughly 111 minutes who is behind the mask – and where Dewey’s pronounced limp has gone.

This is the first time I realized how many female characters inhabit the Scream-series (I might write a blog post just about that but I think I would have to watch the other movies again before I do) and especially this installment. Of course, we have Neve Campbell and Courtney Cox reprising their roles of the classic trilogy. But then we have Emma Roberts, Hayden Panettiere, Marley Shelton, and Alison Brie. And they are great in their respective roles (though none is as absolutely awesome as Hayden Panettiere as Kirby… and I think Kirby is gay, I don’t care that she almost made out with a Culkin, she was drunk… what, other girls get drunk and kiss girls, she gets drunk and kisses guys, I think that says it all, also she so checked out Sidney!).

I was also thrilled to see Neve Campbell and Courtney Cox again. Of course, Courtney Cox is doing that rather annoying sitcom (surprisingly enough I am not talking about Friends, though I would have used the same terminology for it), but who’s honestly watching that? But what has Neve Campbell been up to since “The Company”? (Nothing worth mentioning, unfortunatelty, I just looked it up.)

You can say now that I am easily pleased and maybe I am, but I am a nostalgic person. And seeing a franchise revived without it being totally ruined is pleasing to me. And I love how Ghost Face always gets smacked around by everyone. I have just read that there are talks about Scream 5 and I already know that I will be totally there, even if just for the fun of having made film theory made cool.

Red Riding Hood – she’s not little anymore

Red Riding Hood (2011) by Catherine Hardwicke

That’s what I watched last night and am not even sure why (my movie habits are out of control these days probably because I am waiting for “Scream 4” – which opens today, finally). The trailer looked okay and I am always interested in how old legends/myths/fairy tales are being reproduced in out time and age. I guess that is a good reason.

What almost kept me from watching this was “From the director of Twilight.” I watched it, I didn’t like it. On the other hand, had the poster said “From the director of Thirteen” it would have been another story entirely and Catherine Hardwicke has made both these movies.

The original story has been changed: the wolf is now a werewolf and it terrorizes a whole village. The village in which Valerie (Amanda Seyfried) lives with her parents (Billy Burke, Virginia Madsen) and sister. Said sister is promptly the first victim in the movie. Valerie is devastated and the village people set out to kill the wolf. They kill something, too, unfortunately it is not the werewolf they had aimed for but just a common wolf. They are informed of this by Father Solomon (Gary Oldman), a self-proclaimed expert who has killed a werewolf who then turned out to have been his wife. He has come to the village to help but turns out to be a despotic nuisance who spreads paranoia among the villagers and finally claims that Valerie is a witch because she can talk to the wolf. The wolf wants Valerie to come with him, which narrows the suspects down to Val’s two suitors – the man she loves, Peter (Shiloh Fernandez), and the man she is supposed to marry, Henry (Max Irons).

Solomon sets a trap but things get jumbled and he is bitten by the beast which leads to his death as one of his men kills him, using the same reasoning Solomon has used as he killed the man’s brother, “A man bitten is a man cursed.”

Valerie meanwhile sets out to her grandmother’s (Julie Christie) to find out who the real beast is and kills him in the end. Only, her love is bitten by the werewolf in the final battle and becomes a werewolf. So, no happy ending.

The movie looked a little like The Brothers Grimm meets Twilight but that is not necessarily a bad thing since they are visually quite interesting. Unfortunately, the story did not make it into that realm since Hardwicke gave away the identity of the werewolf too early, at least if you’re observant you find out quite easily. The references to the old fairy tale are amusing and the changes thought through quite well. Yet, what remains of the fairy tale is the partriarchal narrative of men’s angst of female sexuality and thus Valerie remains a virgin. Marriage does not turn out to be all it promised and the killing is set into motion by infidelity. I came out of the movie a little confused and a little disappointed because on the surface it is a good movie, if you look closer the story is quite disturbing in it’s old-fashioned views and thus reminded me of the whole Twilight-franchise. It values the same hidden messages: no sex before marriage, man is beast, woman best remains a virgin, blah blah. I know that this is classic fairy tale narrative but we live in the year 2011. Would it have hurt to put in a little self-empowerment for women? Would it have hurt to not put in any lesbian titillation – that was as that totally out of place AND character? And would it have hurt to integrate people of color and not have them pose as “the other”?

There’s no doubt the movie has some good acting in it. Especially Julie Christie as grandmother is fantastic – a little new age but at that time and place with the underlying promise of witchcraft. Unfortunately, that does not make the underlying messages any less dangerous and old-fashioned.

Back to tv: Lost

A couple of days ago I had an inkling to go and watch a show I had never watched before – or only little of. I rented the first cd of both Lost and True Blood and must say, I liked Lost better – despite the fact that True Blood has the better accents (or maybe it is just one accent but it is just the best accent ever). So, I now watched 20 eps of Lost and I like it though I am not sure what to make of it.

When the show came out (when was that? I have to look it up.), it must have been 2005 in Germany, I was a little curious but I think they showed it on an incredibly stupid day at an incredibly stupid time and on an incredibly stupid network because I never really watched it. Maybe I missed the beginning and whenever I caught glimpses of it, I didn’t know what was going on and just changed channels again. Well, it seems I have too much time on my hands these days (despite the papers I should be writing) and I am watching it from the beginning – on dvd.

And I like it. It’s not Xena, mind you, nor Buffy (although I must say, I like the official photos of the cast much better than those of Buffy, what an exotic location can do…) but it has elements of action, and fantasy, and weird what-would-you-bring-to-a-deserted-island-thematic. I mean, this island is paradise, right? Yet, it is also hell… no way around it, and on top of that there is something big that is going to kill everyone eventually, and polar bears, and dogs running around without a leash, it’s a nightmare.

Oh, but for the views, and by views I mean: how hot is Kate?! Evangeline Lilly is incredibly hot (though sometimes when they just show her face you wonder how old – and by old I mean young – she is; close up she looks  like a little girl, might be the freckles…). Actually it is almost rediculous how many beautiful people were on that plane. Of course, friends that been to California have told me that the women there are incredibly hot, but I didn’t know that they all flew in from Australia.

The above picture already indicates on what I am waiting for now: Michelle Rodriguez. Had she been on that show from the beginning I would have watched it from the beginning. I have to check out imdb.com to see when she’ll be on. Useless to say, I like her – every lesbian with a pulse does. And not just because she is hot, but because she’s a really good actress. And let’s face it, I got a thing for tough women (another reason to also like Kate…).

(Is that Kate and Jack playing Twister?)

Oh, for the plot: it is interesting and it can get you hooked. But I am always more into characters… and there’s a lot of that. I like how the stories of the main players are told in flashbacks, how they all seemed to be destined to be on the plane that crashed, how their lives crossed without them realizing it (Hurly owned the box company Locke worked for, on the tv in Japan at Sun and Jin’s you see Hurly being interviewed about his lottery win and so on).

The show is also strangely interwoven into a topic that interests me at the moment: queerness in heteronormative environments (or maybe it is hyper-heteronormative environments). We have still to discover a queer character on the show but that the microcosm of the island is heteronormative is clear… and not just from the fact that they named the bodies they found in the caves Adam and Eve… the love/hate-triangle of Kate, Jack and Sawyer… Sayid and Shannon… Shannon and Boone (though that seems a little incestuous, and I am wondering if incestuous relationships can be considered queer)… John Locke might be gay, or maybe he is just really into male bonding…

Anyway, I like Lost and I will keep watching – at least for now.

Natalie Portman IS the Black Swan

Black Swan (2010) by Darren Aronofsky

When I watched V for Vendetta late last year I was quite amazed at how good Natalie Portman was in it. Not because she was good but how good. I was never a fan of hers but I always regarded her as a talented actress. Well, V for Vendetta convinced me that there was more than talent but Black Swan

Every now and then (but probably not that often) you watch a performance by an actress that just blows you away. Even an hour after leaving the theater you feel drugged and dazed and confused. Such a performance I saw in Black Swan by Natalie Portman. It was amazing, it was catching, it was sad and heart-wrenching, stunning, and, yes, sexy.

I’m still over-whelmed to tell the truth. From the first moment Natalie Portman appeared on screen she was like a force I could not look away from. And it was not just her. The female cast seemed to take their cues from her and showed amazing performances. Mila Kunis, Barbara Hershey, Winona Ryder, they were all brilliant. But Natalie Portman was breathtaking.

You might wonder if I did not think Vincent Cassel was good as well but honestly I did not even see him. Maybe that is because I think women are the better actors per se, or maybe I just ignore men per se, I don’t know but this movie was made by the women in it not by Vincent Cassel.

And I also don’t want to talk about the story because I would have to unearth some of the raw clichés that inhabit the movie and the fact that it bows to heteronormative standards in the end. And I don’t want to do that. It would make me cherish the movie less and nothing should lessen the joy, the enjoyment, the amusement, the horror I felt watching this movie. It was truly a pleasure.

And if you ask me what it’s about I’d say: A woman who admires another woman, wants to be like her, wants to be her, wants to be with her. Not necessarily in that order and you are never sure which woman is which and what the others have to do with it… it’s complicated and gripping and frightening.

It is almost comical how glad I am these days to see Winona Ryder again. I could almost imagine watching The Dilemma. Almost.

Well, the Oscars are coming up and, of course, there was no way around Natalie Portman and her performance and I hope everyone in the Academy will vote for her. I bow to Ms. Portman.

Halloween Galore: A Nightmare on Elm Street

A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) by Wes Craven

I don’t know if you knew but I L.O.V.E. horror movies – that is horror stories. Ever since I started reading Stephen King’s IT (it was the German version back then) for the first time when I was ten I simply am fascinated, enchanted, hypnotized and amused by horror stories.

So, what better to do on Halloween than watching a classic (well, not in the I-am-watching-a-silent-horror-movie-way, more in the I-am-impressed-with-how-Wes-Craven-reinvented-horror-movies-during-the-80s-way classic)? I went for A Nightmare on Elm Street since it was the only movie from that time that the vid shop had – the vid shop in my hometown is a really good one, they usually have all the wonderfully disturbing 80s nostalgia I can watch but my guess is that there is not a one horror fan among the guys (it is only guys) who work there so it is mainly remakes of the good ones….

I have watched it before (I remember my sister obsessing over Johnny Depp when he was on 21 Jump Street and her forcing me to watch it as side-effect of this obsession since she was too much of a coward to watch it alone) but didn’t remember much of it. What is always the most fascinating is the back-story: where does the monster/human turned serial-killer come from? What’s his (and let’s face it, it is usually a HE) story?

And, of course, it makes perfect sense that Fred Krueger comes back to haunt the dreams of the kids of the people who have killed him. I guess, I should have inserted a spoiler warning but, honestly, has anyone not seen this movie? Or at least the remake?

I am usually not against remakes of horror movies. The original The Texas Chainsaw Messacre, for example, was forbidden in Germany until after the remake got released on DVD. So I went to watch the remake. Still, when I read about the remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street some time back I thought: Without Robert Englund? You must be joking!

I guess there are some actors we will always link to a certain role they played and the role back to that actor/actress. I haven’t seen that many original horror movies from the 80s because I didn’t know back when that I loved horror stories (I only found out these last five years when all the remakes emerged and I watched them all, that I may be a little twisted that way).

I am pretty much hooked on horror… and if only for the reason that most horror movies make better comedies than movies advertised as comedies…