Change Your Image
stormcatcher-2
Reviews
Man of Steel (2013)
Lots of boom, lots of zoom - but could've used more plot
Poor Superman. Given that he's arguably the most powerful superhero in the D.C. universe, you'd think that his mythos would abound with all kinds of fascinating stories.
There's just one problem: when you're dealing with a guy who can do damn near anything, it's really tricky to come up with compelling stories that are equally worthy of his involvement.
***WARNING, SPOILERS BELOW***
The story, such as it is, takes a good portion of the main plot from "Superman II". We get to see a lot of creative re-imaginings on what Krypton was like, about Clark's past, and how Lois Lane comes into his life and discovers his civilian identity. It's both obvious and brilliant that she is able to do this simply by utilizing her journalist sensibilities, and yet,the romantic chemistry between the pair seems barely touched on at best, and forced at worst.
But mostly, this is supposed to be a summer blockbuster - which means plenty of action scenes and a whole lotta CGI-fueled explosions. And that, this movie has in spades. General Zod sends some of his toughest soldiers and futuristic weapons against Superman before squaring off against him himself, so there's a lot of fighting, and a lot of property damage.
Then there's MORE fighting, and more explosions, and more property damage.
Then there's some MORE. And after that...well, you get the idea.
By the time the movie was a little over halfway over, I was actually starting to roll my eyes every time Zod or Supes punched each other through a building or through something that then spontaneously exploded. It actually felt a lot like watching "Independence Day", only without the freaky aliens. If someone spliced in a few frames from a "Call of Duty" game, I'm not sure I would've noticed.
Granted - it's not a total disaster (that would be the Green Lantern movie).
Henry Cavill does a great job with the role; he manages to bring a bit of an earnest loner element to the part that makes him likable, even if he doesn't have a lot of story to work with. And he looks great in the suit, and the suit itself looks terrific; it's amazing what NOT wearing your underwear on the outside of your pants can do.
Amy Adams also does a decent job as Lois. She does the best she can with the screen time she gets, and it's interesting to see her struggle internally with the knowledge she gains about who Superman really is, and what she should do with it.
Diane Lane and Kevin Costner are fine as Martha and Jonathan Kent - and I have to admit, the story behind Jonathan's passing this time around caught me by surprise.
I'm old enough to have seen the original Christopher Reeve movie versions of the character, and they focused far more on the Clark Kent persona and the more vulnerable aspects of that side of his life, sometimes with humor that was borderline cheesy. And while I don't miss the corny side of that, I couldn't help but feel like something was missing, this time around. I kept wondering if a better story was hiding somewhere underneath all those explosions. It's almost like Lois Lane, Perry White, Jonathan and Martha Kent, and General Zod are all in the movie because they're SUPPOSED to be, but...not necessarily because they want to be.
Ultimately, though, the folks at D.C. have some catching up to do, if they want their hero films to compete against Marvel's properties. It's perfectly okay to give a hero a darker, edgier, grittier spin, but you shouldn't leave out the FUN. These are superheroes we're talking about, after all.
Here's hoping that they'll get the Flash right, at least.
The Final Destination (2009)
Ugh, what a mess
I got a kick out of the first three films in this series if for no other reason than they had plenty of tense moments and some really wince-inducing death scenes.
This one just seemed tepid right out of the gate. There's way too much CGI in the death scenes, and some of them are just downright ridiculous - and the "coincidental accident" factor, while abused to not-quite-intolerable levels in the previous three films, was taken way over the top in this one. The acting was anemic, the plot implausible even beyond the core concept, and if I'd had to suspend my disbelief any more than I did, I think I would fade out of existence.
And in spite of the rapid pace and action sequences, there just seemed to be something lazy about the production values with the whole thing. It was apparently made mostly for the 3-D experience, and since I didn't see it in the theater...that might have added a lot of extra impact, but given how bored I was watching this in 2-D, I'm guessing even 3-D effects couldn't have helped THAT much.
My biggest complaint, though, was probably with the characters, themselves. Not a single character in this film is memorable or provides a personality that you can sympathize with; they're about as generic as they can possibly get, and you barely even blink when they die. If literally tossing a mannequin made up to look like the character into a death trap would net you the same emotional impact as seeing the actual character meet their demise on-screen, it's time to hang it up.
I haven't seen part 5 yet, and although I hear that it's better than this one, it really wouldn't take much.
Pushing Daisies (2007)
Fanciful and fun, but not for everyone
If you're familiar with Bryan Fuller's work ("Wonderfalls", "Dead Like Me", and probably the only decent bits of "Heroes", which was otherwise less than stellar), you'll probably like this. It has many of his usual tropes: strong-minded female characters (although this time around, he main character is male), at least one female character with a male nickname, dark humor, and an element of the paranormal.
Be warned, though: more so than any other series he's worked on, this one purposefully goes over the top with its style. Justifiably described as a "forensic fairytale", the colors are vibrant and lush, the names and places whimsical, and the humor dry and offbeat - with the occasional bonus of a musical number courtesy of Kristin Chenowith, as Olive.
In the end, maybe that's why "Pushing Daisies" didn't make it. In spite of the dark humor and semi-morbid subject matter, there's a much bigger sense of hopefulness and joy at work here, and under that candy-coated exterior, a surprising amount of depth. But you have to be willing to look for it a little - so if you have a short attention span or are otherwise fairly cynical and enjoy things like watching other people fail, you'll hate this series. Go watch one of the many horrible and formulaic reality TV shows that are unfortunately still out there.
Luckily, the rest of us can buy this show on DVD and bask in its exuberance anytime we want. It's pie, all right. And it's absolutely delicious.
Trick 'r Treat (2007)
A fun indie that will hopefully become a Halloween classic
After seeing all the negative reviews here, I had to post my review actually siding with the majority, for once. Don't believe the haters. If you loved and miss old-school campy schlock horror fun-fests of the eighties and before, like both "Creepshow" movies, "Tales from the Crypt", "Twilight Zone: the Movie" and similar films, then you should enjoy this one.
As many people here have pointed out, the four tales in this movie are interwoven with crossover narratives and coincidental points much like in "Pulp Fiction". The new "rules" for Halloween, apparently, are:
1. Never blow out your jack-o-lantern before Halloween night is over
2. Always give out treats
3. Always wear a costume
4. Always check your candy
If you follow the rules, you'll be fine. If you don't...
Be warned, though, as atmospheric and fun as this film can be, it doesn't rely on heaping amounts of gore (thank goodness) - and it isn't afraid to be QUITE politically incorrect, to the point of really getting in your face about it. Children are menaced, some female characters are portrayed in an overtly slutty manner, and when there is violence, it's...well, violent. And while this all may seem pretty easy to assume when it comes to a horror film, it bears repeating probably because that's the factor that has probably caused so many people to dislike it. It doesn't try to appease the gorehounds, but it's definitely not a kid's movie...and by going its own way, it runs the risk of alienating the people who ordinarily claim to love horror movies the most.
And that's a shame, because this is a fun, intelligent (yes, I.Q. and horror CAN co-exist), well-written movie that deserves its acclaim, and if there were more movies like it, the genre wouldn't suck so bad. And when you think about it, isn't an indie movie supposed to set itself apart from the rest of the crowd by being different?
I also adored the fact that many scenes went overboard on the Halloween props. Some reviewers found it garish, I found it charming. It's obvious from start to finish that the writer for this movie LOVES Halloween, and all the fun and scares that should go along with it.
I hate unnecessary revamps, sequels, and prequels more than most people, and I would *love* to see a follow-up to this one, as long as it's written and produced by the same team. And if anyone wonders why this movie was delayed for two years before it went straight to DVD, it's probably because that the folks at Warner Brothers didn't think that enough people would "get" it, and because it's not directly derivative of any pre-existing franchise, they figured that no one would be interested. If you rent the film and enjoy it, prove them wrong by buying a copy and watching it with your friends. It might become a new Halloween tradition for you.
The Cabin in the Woods (2011)
Don't be shocked!
I have to admit, the reviews I've read here about this movie surprised me a hell of a lot more than the movie itself did. It really makes me wonder what most of these folks were expecting.
Joss Whedon himself said that the movie is "an angry love/hate letter to the horror movie genre", if I quoted that right - and that's exactly what it is. It's not without its share of humor, but make no mistake - it's very bleak and cynical. It's almost like Joss and Drew Goddard are actually admitting that there's nothing new in the horror genre anymore, and coming from the guys who made "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" such a fun TV series, it's a bit of a bitter pill to swallow. But then again...given how often he's had his TV series canceled before they really get out of the gate ("Firefly", "Dollhouse"), I really can't blame the man for wanting to vent a little. I kind of wish this bit of film vitriol had been more memorable, but if it refreshes him enough to keep him creating, then I'm all for it.
There's blood. Plenty of it. There's also some boob-age. So all you gorehounds and permanent prepubescents out there that are really to blame for most horror movies in the last two decades sucking so bad, you're getting what you want. Quit complaining.
There's also a heaping helping of CGI, which both helped and detracted from the second half of the picture.
Also, for those of you who hail from outside the United States, a fair warning: there's an almost painfully Western mentality to the humor, here, which might not agree with your sensibilities. And I don't mean that as an insult; I'm just saying that the humor might not make as much sense if you're not willing to see it with an upside-down-Hollywood kind of viewpoint.
Still...if you like Joss Whedon's work at all, this is well worth a rental, at least. Any of the reviewers here that claim that it's the worst movie they've ever seen don't know what they're talking about. If they like horror movies, then they've seen MUCH worse, already. I know I have. And there's enough of the Scooby-Doo formula at work here to be almost comforting.
Shock Treatment (1981)
Darker than "Rocky Horror", but just as much fun
The biggest problem with "Shock Treatment" is that at its core, it is a much, much deeper and somewhat darker film than "Rocky Horror". RHPS is more of a flat-out comedy, but "Shock Treatment" is very much a dark comedy. You have to think a little bit to "get" what the movie is pushing to you, and you'll probably have to watch it more than once before it'll all really make sense, and that's not something that most people are willing to do.
It also doesn't help the fact that Brad and Janet, while technically still the same characters from RHPS, are played by different people - and that Richard O'Brien, Patricia Quinn, and Little Nell are playing completely different characters. Again, this confuses the heck out of most people, and it generally ruins the movie for them.
And that's a shame - because once you get under the surface of this movie, it's really quite ahead of its time. How many movies from the 70's and 80's can you think of that "prophesied" the coming of reality TV as a widely-accepted form of entertainment nearly two decades beforehand? And how likely do you think it would be that a married couple today might be willing to turn to video-administered pop psychology, a studio audience, and some very fake celebrities to try to find the answers to save their troubled marriages? "Shock Treatment" hits very close to home - maybe a little TOO close. I don't think too many people will argue that we live in some seriously dark times, and this movie takes that theme and runs with it.
The only major sore spot I had with the film was that I thought the plot thread between Brad and Farley Flavors was a little forced and contrived - but given that Richard O'Brien had to drastically re-write the script because Tim Curry, Barry Bostwick, and Susan Sarandon chose not to take part, he did the best he could with the crew he did have, and I think it could have been much worse. No studio writer today could have written themselves out of such a corner, that's for sure. Plus, it's great fun to see Barrie Humphries hamming it up as Bert Schnick (quite the silly change from his stint as Dame Edna Everage), and a subtle cameo of Rik Mayall before "The Young Ones".
And oddly enough, I find the music for "Shock Treatment" to be far more enjoyable and catchy than the tunes from RHPS. I know, I know, how can anyone NOT love "Time Warp", "Sweet Transvestite", etc.? Well, it's not that I hate them...I've just heard them only about a million times apiece, and even with the audience participation, they get stale after awhile. But there's something infectious about the tunes here; every time I hear or read yet another story about some stupid celebrity marriage that's going down the tubes, I get the urge to hum "Bitchin' in the Kitchen". When I think about my small hometown, I start singing "Denton" under my breath. Hearing Brad and Farley verbally slug it out in "Duel Duet" is both sad and hilarious, and though it's very short, I think that Jessica Harper, as Janet, singing "In My Own Way" is one of the most bittersweet situational songs I've ever heard, as she questions her decisions about Brad and their marriage, and vows to try to see things through to the end. If you ever saw "Phantom of the Paradise", you'll be familiar with Jessica's singing voice - the gal can belt out a tune.
There are thousands of RHPS fans out there that will avoid this movie like the plague because they think it will taint everything about the original that they hold so dear to their hearts. And that's fine. They are two very, very different films, and "Shock Treatment" is not meant to be a late-night audience participation kind of gig.
But if you can see this one with an open mind, I really encourage you to give it a viewing. It's definitely more fun than the individual sum of its parts.
ParaNorman (2012)
A fun zombie romp that may or may not be right for your kids
After reading some of the other reviews here, I'm surprised to hear that some parents have objected to the content of this movie.
Yes, it's got zombies in it, and yes, the zombies come after Norman and his friends. I think at least two of the trailers mention something about a witch's ghost and her curse, so if by some miracle you missed out on the fact that there are zombies and heavy supernatural elements in this thing, well...I dunno what to tell you. Maybe next time, try watching the trailer with your eyes open and the wax plugs out of your ears.
But if you get all that and you're still uncertain, here's the ultimate proof (and what I'll try to make as this review's only spoiler):
**SPOILER ALERT** **SPOILER ALERT** **SPOILER ALERT**
There is NO TRUE GORE in this film.
**SPOILER ALERT** **SPOILER ALERT** **SPOILER ALERT**
Seriously. None. There ARE some scenes where the zombies lose body parts, and the one scene of a zombie chewing on an (obviously fake) brain takes place on a TV screen within the movie that is *playing* a zombie movie. But there are NO displays of spurting, flowing blood, and no scenes in which the zombies actively kill any of the townspeople in this film. So if you are dumb enough to pay to see the movie and then leave before it's even halfway done with your kids in tow, then you shouldn't post a review on this film, because you didn't truly see all of it. The most key elements in the movie come into play closer to the end, and you have to stay put for all the puzzle pieces to fall into place.
Now, granted...that's not to say that there aren't any scary moments here. Norman and his friends are put into potentially serious danger many times, and part of the witch's back-story - especially when you find out who she really was - was, I thought, rather unsettling. I think on the whole, the biggest theme in "ParaNorman" is fear. How it can hold you back from doing things you need or want to do, how it can affect who you let into your life (or not), and how much damage it can cause when it takes hold so strongly that people lose control of their better judgment.
So the answer of if this movie is right for your children or not really ultimately depends on one thing: how well you know your kids.
Do even campy horror movies with zombies or monsters in them frighten your children? Do they react in tears if a friend jumps out at them from a hiding spot and yells "Boo"? Are they uncomfortable with ghost stories or anything involving the undead? Then chances are, this film will scare the crap out of them. Keep them well away.
But if your kids aren't put off by themes of the supernatural and the undead, and if they like being scared, and if they're mature enough not to be rattled by themes about death and the supernatural...then they'll probably enjoy this. If they're under ten and insist that they can handle it, but you as the parent still aren't sure...save yourself a possible headache. Take them out to do something else or see something else, and if they still want to see the movie when it comes out on disc, then rent it. Having them see it at home with you in a well-lit house during the daytime might help them weather the scares a little better.
Fair warning, though, if your kids are *difficult* to scare, then they might even be bored, especially if they were *hoping* to see some gore. This isn't a splatter film, and the mileage it gets with your kids may vary. There was only one family in the theater when I saw this, and even during some of the creepier chase scenes, two of the kids acted downright restless out of tedium.
It's not a perfect movie; some of the moral themes in it are themes that so many kid's movies hopelessly overuse: "Always be yourself." "Don't let fear change you." "Use your gifts wisely, lest you become the thing you fight against." "Don't judge a book by its cover."
Luckily, the film makes up for this by tweaking some of these tropes just a little, and makes for a few surprises along the way. It's great to see Neil, the bullied fat kid, stay relentlessly cheerful and upbeat in spite of it all, and challenge Norman's tendency to insist on being the misunderstood loner. And it's hard not to like Norman; he deals with his "gift" as best he can, and though it makes his life difficult, you never really hear him whine about it. The methods used to stave off the witch's curse at first don't seem to make a lot of sense, unless you stick with the movie till the ending. And if you're a horror movie fan, you should see this just to check out Norman's room, which is a love letter to the pulpy, cheesy zombie movies of yesteryear.
LAIKA studios did well with "Coraline", and they did well with this film. The stop-motion work is very well done, and the environments portrayed in the film are just colorful and skewed enough to let you know that you are watching a horror-fantasy, and I think this one might become a new Halloween-time favorite.
Fright Night (2011)
I think that vampire may be wearing dentures
I hate most remakes and revamps (or in this case, a re-vamp...sorry, Jerry), but in this case, I can actually understand why Hollywood decided to cash in, given how wildly popular all things vampire are right now (and ye GODS, will I ever be glad when this trend ends). And given that the chief writer on this was Marti Noxon, one of Joss Whedon's staff writers on "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" - it treads the genre well enough.
That being said, I'll chime in with the majority of the older folk here who preferred the original. And while Marti and her staff manage to throw in one or two surprises into the film, this didn't seem as fun as it did the first time around.
***POTENTIAL SPOILERS POSSIBLE, READ FURTHER AT YOUR OWN RISK***
Probably my biggest issue with the film is that most of the main characters aren't quite as sympathetic as they were in the original. Rather than being a bit of a geek, the Charlie Brewster in this film is slowly ingratiating himself to the "in" crowd at his school (mostly thanks to his hot girlfriend), and in the process, he's fairly dismissive to his former friends - so when his pal "Evil" Ed expresses concern about a mutual friend of theirs disappearing, and several missing persons from their class in general, Charlie accuses him of being overly dramatic and paranoid - and when Ed claims that a vampire is the reason, Charlie thinks he's downright crazy. It takes Jerry testing the boundaries of Charlie's knowledge about vampires and putting Charlie's mother and girlfriend at risk before Charlie starts to believe the truth, and by then, you pretty much want to smack him up for being so stubborn in the first place.
As Peter Vincent, David Tennant is a good deal more shallow and boorish than Roddy McDowall was in the role - and the sarcastic banter between him and his live-in...girlfriend? Wife?...is downright annoying. There doesn't seem to be any real reason for him to assist Charlie in his vampire hunt at first, and when the film DOES explain his change of heart later, it's almost a bit too coincidental. Still...it's fun to listen to the banter between him and Charlie, and the movie most certainly would have been far more dull without him.
Colin Ferrell has sex appeal as Jerry, in a sleazy sort of way...and although he's definitely menacing, he also came across to me as desperate. Plus, I found it a little hard to believe that someone could blow up someone else's house, and you never saw a single fire engine or cop car show up, even after twenty minutes or so. Geez, it's the desert, but it's not the North Pole. And I miss the cheesy-yet-creepy atmosphere of the original Jerry Dandridge's house. That place LOOKED haunted, and while it definitely stood out in the neighborhood of more atypical homes, it fit its owner well. In this movie, Colin's place could have been sponsored by IKEA. It kind of defeats the purpose of having a home that blends in with the others around it if you're going to send your neighbor a statement of disapproval by blowing up HIS house, don't you think?
There are a few unexpected surprises that the writers throw our way, but they're far too few and far-between. The scene where Charlie must try to rescue a female neighbor that Jerry is holding prisoner to feed off of is impressively tense, as is the final showdown between Jerry, Peter, and Charlie under Jerry's house. It really makes me wonder what Marti and her team might have accomplished if they had taken even more liberties with the original script.
This is also a remake that suffers from overdone CGI. Especially when it comes to horror films, pretty pixels don't make for convincing scares. I think anyone who has seen the more recent remake of John Carpenter's take on "The Thing" can attest to that. And speaking of...John's movie itself was a remake, and a perfect example of taking the plot of the original in an entirely new and unexpected direction. (Take a note, Hollywood. That's how a remake SHOULD be done.)
If you liked the original movie and got a kick out of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", this one is definitely worth a rental, but I don't see this one becoming a cult classic anytime soon.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)
Definitely not your father's version of "Planet of the Apes"....
...and that's not a bad thing.
I haven't watched all the original "Apes" movies, but I enjoyed the ones I did see as pure sci-fi camp and fun with actors in hokey rubber masks.
This is definitely a different take on how the original franchise might have began, and it's amazing not only just how far CGI effects have come in recent years, but how potent an emotional punch that the technique can pull off if used the right way. I don't think I've ever had a motion-capture character ever get to me the way Ceasar did, and this is from someone who's had little faith in the technology outside of most of Pixar's stuff.
The cast does a wonderful job; James Franco is excellent as a scientist who is torn between helping his company discover a potential cure for a debilitating disease and protecting a test subject who becomes a part of his family. John Lithgow proves that he can do drama every bit as well as he can do comedy (but then, I'm probably one of the few people on these boards old enough to remember his stern but credible performance as a preacher and concerned father in the original "Footloose").
Be warned, though: there's no camp factor, here - this movie is NOT typical light and fluffy summer fare. It is somber, it is unsettling, and there are depictions of animal cruelty that will potentially upset small children, so if they're easily spooked, send them in to see the newest "Winnie the Pooh" movie instead (which, from what I've heard from other parents and some kids, is actually quite a heartwarming film).
Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver deserve serious props for the writing on this. It takes a lot to make me buy into a reboot film, and even more to make me HOPE that there will be sequels - and this one does.
Quite possibly one of the best films of the 2011 summer season.
Scream 4 (2011)
Did I see the same movie as everyone else?
Wow. All the glowing reviews of this one honestly makes me wonder if I was watching the same movie. I enjoyed the first two "Scream" movies very much (not so much, part 3), but after hearing of a fourth sequel well over a decade after the original premiered, I kind of wondered if even the wonder duo of Kevin Williamson and Wes Craven could pull it off.
**PLEASE NOTE: SPOILERS FOLLOW. Stop reading here if you plan on seeing the film.**
The short answer is...they didn't, really. There's only so much you can do with a meta-franchise, and this one's finally run out of steam.
And to be fair, I'm really not sure what Williamson could have done to give the script more punch, short of maybe making one of the original three survivors (Gayle, Dewey, or Sydney) the killer - this would have been a risky move, as most fans of the series really like these characters. So ultimately, Kevin went with the safer route; namely, he made one of the least likely characters one of the killers - and while I won't spoil the killer's motive for killing, I WILL tell you that my mouth dropped open when I heard it, and I literally said out loud, "You have GOT to be kidding me." It was that lame.
It didn't help that several other parts of the film seemed to have content that Kevin Williamson pulled out of thin air strictly for filler. At one point, while discussing the so called "new" rules of horror movies, one of the cinema geeks makes the offhand comment that about the only way you can survive a horror movie...is to be gay.
Uhh...Excuse me? Not to clutch at straws here, but does ANYONE remember the last time you saw a horror movie with a gay character in it that either wasn't the killer, outright, or that was put in the movie for anything other than comedy relief? Me, neither. And it doesn't help the fact that one of these cinema geeks proclaims to be gay when he's trying to convince GhostFace not to kill him (and of course, GhostFace kills him anyway). Uh...wow. Given that he's gay IRL, that's a heck of a way to pay tribute to your gay fans out there, Kev.
Overall pacing for the movie was pretty bad. The opening scene was decent, the mini-teaser following it just kind of made me blink in confusion, and nearly every murder in the film just kind of made me roll my eyes. Jump-out scares have never really done it for me, and none of the ones in this sequel even made me flinch. Even the gore was unbalanced. I'm not a gore-hound, but a certain amount of blood in a horror movie is to be expected - and most of the deaths were fairly light on the blood with the exception of one, and in her case, there was enough of the red stuff caked all over her room to suffice for three bodies.
That's not to say that every moment in this movie reeked; it was really nice to see Gayle, Sydney, and Dewey together again, although there really wasn't a whole lot for them to do. Also, it was kind of odd to see relatives that Sydney had never talked about before showing up in this installment. The newer and younger additions to the cast did fine, although none of them really stood out to me personality-wise except perhaps Hayden Pennettiere, who made Kirby a likable and sympathetic character (although why she'd go for creepy looking Charlie is beyond me).
It was also nice to see Woodsboro again, although if I were Sydney, I'm not sure I'd want to go back, given what transpired before. Some bad memories simply hit too close to home, especially when they INVOLVE home.
Overall, I suspect that the people who will like this movie the most will be the folks who haven't seen the first three films, or who enjoyed them so much that there's really no way this one would lower their expectations. And if that's the case, more power to you.
Personally, I'm kind of hoping that this'll be the last nail in the coffin of this franchise - and that's not me trying to be witty; I just think it'd be the merciful thing to do, both for the fans, and the characters.
EDIT: I actually didn't realize until recently that some of the script got re-written by an apparent hack before the final cut of the film, so I might actually be blaming Kevin Williamson for poor dialogue that might not have been his fault (re: the "gay" line). Kruger, I think his last name is? Whoever he is...he deserves to have the OTHER Krueger (as in, Freddy) track him down and go berserk on his ass with those glove knives of his for butchering the script so badly. If I'd had known that before I went to see the film while it was in theaters, I wouldn't have bothered.
I mean...if the director and producers had so little faith in the writing ability of the guy whose script for the first movie made it such a success, what does that tell you about what they must think about their audience?