Unfortunately the next film he would make would be another made for TV movie. It would star Paul Sorvino and Michael Beck and it would be called Chiller. The unfortunate thing about this film is not that it was made for TV but that I can't find it on DVD or Blu-ray. If I wanted to watch and review this film I would have to buy a heavily edited and poorly transfered unofficial version of this film and that is just not going to happen. So instead I will skip ahead to his next film and hopefully one day (if it ever gets released) I will come back to Chiller.
So the film after that would be Deadly Friend. What the hell is Deadly Friend? you may be asking. I too asked that question, full metal reader, I too was inquisitive. Deadly Friend is the first film directed by Craven to hit theaters since A Nightmare on Elm Street. It is also a film that has over the years become more and more obscure and hard to find. Until I started craving Craven I had no idea this film existed. It is also the last of the unknown Craven films and the last that I know nothing about.
When I say I know nothing about this film, I literally mean nothing. I know Wes Craven directed it and I know the title. That's it. I know nothing else; the plot; the cast; if it's good or not; if it's gory, it it's fun or if it's boring; if it's well reviewed. It all remains a mystery to me but thankfully not for very much longer.
I can't wait to watch this film. The next few minutes just can't come fast enough. There seems to be so many positives to watching it. One, like I said, is that I know nothing about it. Two, that it follows the amazing A Nightmare on Elm Street. Three, that the title is fairly close to Deadly Blessing (which was a decent film on its own) so maybe it's a sequel to that one?
Even though A Nightmare on Elm Street was as great as it was, Craven's track record as a director is really split evenly down the middle. Of the eight films that have come before Deadly Friend only four are worth recommending and only one is a consistently well made and overall good movie. If I was to average his score so far he would be sitting at just over 59% which is not a very high score. That doesn't leave much hope for a film that has all but disappeared since it was first released.
Yet I said the same thing about Deadly Blessing and that turned out better than almost every other film. And when I I look at what Craven has done in the future I see some very good films coming up (well at least two). How good most of the rest of his films will be is anybody's guess but it does look promising. Phase two of Craven's career kicked off with a bang with his last film but it is still to early to tell if, in 2013, he is either the master of horror cinema that many people claim him to be or an overrated director that made two or three better than average films.
To find out we must continue on this journey and so it's time now to (metaphorically) put down the pen, step away from the desk and get comfortable on the couch. It is finally time for Deadly Friend...
Review:
Breakdown:
Craven does an alright job of directing this film. It's well put together, well shot, well staged and all the other stuff that goes with a director doing his job. But at the same time, it is just okay. There is nothing flashy, nothing creative and nothing that sticks out here. He could of worked on making the story better and he could of maybe tried a little harder to make a better picture. An adequate job, but that's about it.
Craven does an alright job of directing this film. It's well put together, well shot, well staged and all the other stuff that goes with a director doing his job. But at the same time, it is just okay. There is nothing flashy, nothing creative and nothing that sticks out here. He could of worked on making the story better and he could of maybe tried a little harder to make a better picture. An adequate job, but that's about it.
Directing: 5 out of 10
If I never saw this film again, I would be a happy man. I can honestly say that once you've seen this movie once you never ever have to see it again. In fact, I'll go one step further and say once you have seen the trailer then you have seen enough. It's so boring, it's overlong and it's stupid. A repeat viewing of Deadly Friend without a doubt would be torture.
Re-playability: 0 out of 10
The first half of the movie is Short Circuit with an evil twist. The second half is Frankenstein meets Day of the Dead meets Re-Animator. The two halves don't work at all together and all four films I just mentioned are a hell of a lot better than this turd of a movie. There is one original kill, if completely absurd and I suppose mixing together those four films is somewhat original in and of itself but otherwise, meh is all I have to say.
Originality: 2 out of 10
There is a slight overuse of the exterior locations as well as a set-up of a laboratory that never gets used, but otherwise the sets and locations are decent and serve the movie well. The special effects, for 1986, are pretty good at parts and pretty bad at other parts. The gore looks real enough and the robot looks convincing in a totally cheesy 80's way. When a character dies by losing their head you can see the arm or head under the dress moving around. And the final scenes special effects are poor and make no sense.
Production Design (Special Effects/Sets/Locations): 6 out of 10
The make-up on Kirsty Swanson is pretty lame. It looks like bad eye shadow and way to much blush (I think those are the right terms). The blood though looks good and convincing and the rest of the make-up I can't really complain about. Oh, but then there are the costumes. I don't know what it is about most mid-80's films but man do they go overboard with the costumes. They look way to 80's and the bikers that make an appearance are just embarrassing. 80's costumes have a time and a place but when they make you laugh instead of being engrossed in a film, you know the costume designer went overboard.
Costumes and Make-Up: 4 out of 10
Deadly Friend starts off about a robot that could be evil. Somewhere about half way through it switches to a mad scientist/love story/zombie film. It doesn't make a lick of sense and is structurally jarring. Then there are so many scenes of stupidity, with each one being worse than the last, that even the unintentional laughter ceases to exist. Don't get me started on the dialogue either. While not all bad, there are some serious groan inducing lines that pop up every so often from start to finish.
Script: 1 out of 10
While there is nothing exceptional about the cinematography, there is nothing specifically bad about it either. There are moments of slow motion cheese that could be done better and the camera work is decent with some nice, if not overly creative, movements. The lighting looks good with some dark shadows and creates a nice scary mood which would work in a film that was actually scary. This film isn't scary and thus the lighting is good but ineffective.
Cinematography: 6 out of 10
Deadly Friend is just over 90 minutes but feels like three hours. It is so long and boring and really could of and should of been cut down to less than 80 minutes. It drags and drags and drags. It's not only the editor's fault that this happens but it is one of the symptoms. The cuts work well in the film, with no jarring shots compiled on top of one another but otherwise it seems as if the editor read the script and followed it to the letter, putting no effort into creating a film that would feel and be enjoyable.
Editing: 3 out of 10
Craven pulls a fun and decent performance our of his lead actor Matthew Labyorteaux. He's chraming and does a good job in the lead. I racked my brain as to where I recognized him and IMDB was kind enough to tell me that he was a main actor in Little House on the Prairie. There are other familiar faces here including Anne Ramsey, who is always great and Kirsty Swanson who later became Buffy, The Vampire Slayer. Her performance is rather good at the beginning but very hokey at the end. Overall, the acting is good enough but nothing really stands out as a particularly good performance. Okay, Anne Ramsey does, but she really plays the same thing in everything, doesn't she?
Acting: 6 out of 10
There are moments where the music is rather good. If the movie wasn't as laughably stupid as it was then the music would even come off as scary at these parts. But it never does due to the lack of scares the film actually holds. Then there are parts where the music is overly cheesy and sappy and would seems more like TV movie of the week music than something that would appear in a feature film. Overall the music isn't too bad, it's just a pity that it is set to the images of Deadly Friend.
Music: 5 out of 10
Combined Total: 38%
***ALERT: THE REST OF THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SERIOUS SPOILERS: ALERT***
***ALERT: THE REST OF THIS REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SERIOUS SPOILERS: ALERT***
Afterthoughts:
Wow! I can't believe how bad a film that was. In my Beforethoughts I was saying how I was actually excited to watch Deadly Friend. Man was I wrong. Horror movies don't get much worse than this. I look at my rating of this film and I see 38% in big glaring numbers. 38% looks to me to be to high but based on my system there really is nothing I could do to drop that number down. After all, the cinematography wasn't bad, the music was okay and for their time the special effects were half decent.
This is by far the second worst thing that Craven has done so far. It ranks just behind Swamp Thing as the lowest of the low but at least this one had better production values. Craven has never really proven himself as a great director and Deadly Friend sure isn't going to change things. So why is it so bad? Let's begin with the story.
A guy breaks into a car to steal a purse. Before he can take said purse a robot arm grabs him and starts to choke him to death. The owners of the car return just in time to save the thief. It turns out that the arm is connected to a robot named BB built by boy genius Paul (Matthew Labyorteaux). Something isn't right about BB. As it gets smarter it seems to get eviler. Paul meets a girl named Sam (Kristy Swanson) and together with a friend and BB they get up to all kinds of trouble.
Then BB gets shot and destroyed in a ridiculously stupid sequence. I was expecting him to be rebuilt, stronger and better and even more evil. Rather, he is all but forgotten. Instead Sam is killed by her father and Paul steals her body from the morgue and implants it with BB's brain chip. You with me so far? Sam becomes zombie like and goes on a murderous rampage killing all that stood in her and BB's way of happiness.
That's the story, that's how it goes and not only does it get progressively worse as it moves along but it becomes very very boring. From about 30 minutes in I knew I was in trouble and I would say that for the next hour I must of looked at my watch at least ten times. It dragged and dragged and dragged. I couldn't wait for this film to end and when it finally did I was baffled as to what I had just seen.
How did the man who made A Nightmare on Elm Street follow that film with trite like this. That film was so clever and original and unique. This one made no sense and only got stupider the closer it got to its ending. The first stupid moment is the idea of BB being just another guy playing basketball, riding down the street, having fun. The next stupid part comes when BB is shot and killed in an overly dramatic and almost funny it's so bad way. Next, and even stupider, is when Paul convinces his friend to steal and help reanimate Sam's body because he owes him for BB's death. Sounds plausible doesn't it. Then Sam is resurrected and walks around with claw hands and spouting BB sayings. She throws a basketball at somebody and that somebody explodes. Yes. That's right, somebody explodes from a basketball being thrown at them. Then Sam is shot down and killed by the police. As we wait for her to rise again Paul rushes into the morgue to steal her body again. Boy genius my ass! She wakes up at this point and starts to strangle him. He struggles and her skin starts to come off revealing a more humanoid version of BB underneath. What? How the hell does that make sense? End credits roll.
So Deadly Friend is boring and Deadly Friend is stupid and Deadly Friend is a film that has zero scares in it. Zero, none, nada, zilch, zippo. That's not good for a horror movie. This is as bad as they come and along with how Swamp Thing made me feel, I have now become hesitant and somewhat reluctant to continue on with my watching of all things Craven. To be a good director, one worthy of praise and accolades and legendary status one must make, at least, a few very good movies, a few good movies and is allowed a fair share of bad ones. He is also allowed a stinker or two and Craven has reached his limit. One good film doth not a good director make.
Sure he handles actors and editors and cinematographers better than he did in phase one of his career but to pick a stupid movie like this to make after a classic like A Nightmare on Elm Street is just pure foolishness. To be fair, Deadly Friend must of been in production before A Nightmare on Elm Street was released or at the very least before it had become the big hit that it was. So I will give Craven some slack and some credit there. He must of signed on to direct this drivel for the pay check, sometime before he entered phase two of his career.
Besides A Nightmare on Elm Street, I can't yet see the big deal about Craven. After nine films, one of them is a classic and three of them are good enough to recommend but that leaves five that aren't worthy of that recommendation. Two of those five are so bad it hurt me to watch them, to think about them and to write about them. I can't believe I was looking forward to Deadly Friend and after watching it it has done the opposite of what A Nightmare on Elm Street did. Where that film made me excited to watch the next set of films, this one has brought me back to that hesitant and nervous feeling I had after Swamp Thing.
There are 13 films left in Craven's catalogue. Please let there be more than two good entries. I'm pleading here. I don't think I can do 11 bad films. I really don't. I can't and I won't. Hopefully with his next film, Craven will kick the second phase of his career into high gear. Hopefully. I have hope. I do. I really, really do.
Afterthoughts:
Wow! I can't believe how bad a film that was. In my Beforethoughts I was saying how I was actually excited to watch Deadly Friend. Man was I wrong. Horror movies don't get much worse than this. I look at my rating of this film and I see 38% in big glaring numbers. 38% looks to me to be to high but based on my system there really is nothing I could do to drop that number down. After all, the cinematography wasn't bad, the music was okay and for their time the special effects were half decent.
This is by far the second worst thing that Craven has done so far. It ranks just behind Swamp Thing as the lowest of the low but at least this one had better production values. Craven has never really proven himself as a great director and Deadly Friend sure isn't going to change things. So why is it so bad? Let's begin with the story.
A guy breaks into a car to steal a purse. Before he can take said purse a robot arm grabs him and starts to choke him to death. The owners of the car return just in time to save the thief. It turns out that the arm is connected to a robot named BB built by boy genius Paul (Matthew Labyorteaux). Something isn't right about BB. As it gets smarter it seems to get eviler. Paul meets a girl named Sam (Kristy Swanson) and together with a friend and BB they get up to all kinds of trouble.
Then BB gets shot and destroyed in a ridiculously stupid sequence. I was expecting him to be rebuilt, stronger and better and even more evil. Rather, he is all but forgotten. Instead Sam is killed by her father and Paul steals her body from the morgue and implants it with BB's brain chip. You with me so far? Sam becomes zombie like and goes on a murderous rampage killing all that stood in her and BB's way of happiness.
That's the story, that's how it goes and not only does it get progressively worse as it moves along but it becomes very very boring. From about 30 minutes in I knew I was in trouble and I would say that for the next hour I must of looked at my watch at least ten times. It dragged and dragged and dragged. I couldn't wait for this film to end and when it finally did I was baffled as to what I had just seen.
How did the man who made A Nightmare on Elm Street follow that film with trite like this. That film was so clever and original and unique. This one made no sense and only got stupider the closer it got to its ending. The first stupid moment is the idea of BB being just another guy playing basketball, riding down the street, having fun. The next stupid part comes when BB is shot and killed in an overly dramatic and almost funny it's so bad way. Next, and even stupider, is when Paul convinces his friend to steal and help reanimate Sam's body because he owes him for BB's death. Sounds plausible doesn't it. Then Sam is resurrected and walks around with claw hands and spouting BB sayings. She throws a basketball at somebody and that somebody explodes. Yes. That's right, somebody explodes from a basketball being thrown at them. Then Sam is shot down and killed by the police. As we wait for her to rise again Paul rushes into the morgue to steal her body again. Boy genius my ass! She wakes up at this point and starts to strangle him. He struggles and her skin starts to come off revealing a more humanoid version of BB underneath. What? How the hell does that make sense? End credits roll.
So Deadly Friend is boring and Deadly Friend is stupid and Deadly Friend is a film that has zero scares in it. Zero, none, nada, zilch, zippo. That's not good for a horror movie. This is as bad as they come and along with how Swamp Thing made me feel, I have now become hesitant and somewhat reluctant to continue on with my watching of all things Craven. To be a good director, one worthy of praise and accolades and legendary status one must make, at least, a few very good movies, a few good movies and is allowed a fair share of bad ones. He is also allowed a stinker or two and Craven has reached his limit. One good film doth not a good director make.
Sure he handles actors and editors and cinematographers better than he did in phase one of his career but to pick a stupid movie like this to make after a classic like A Nightmare on Elm Street is just pure foolishness. To be fair, Deadly Friend must of been in production before A Nightmare on Elm Street was released or at the very least before it had become the big hit that it was. So I will give Craven some slack and some credit there. He must of signed on to direct this drivel for the pay check, sometime before he entered phase two of his career.
Besides A Nightmare on Elm Street, I can't yet see the big deal about Craven. After nine films, one of them is a classic and three of them are good enough to recommend but that leaves five that aren't worthy of that recommendation. Two of those five are so bad it hurt me to watch them, to think about them and to write about them. I can't believe I was looking forward to Deadly Friend and after watching it it has done the opposite of what A Nightmare on Elm Street did. Where that film made me excited to watch the next set of films, this one has brought me back to that hesitant and nervous feeling I had after Swamp Thing.
There are 13 films left in Craven's catalogue. Please let there be more than two good entries. I'm pleading here. I don't think I can do 11 bad films. I really don't. I can't and I won't. Hopefully with his next film, Craven will kick the second phase of his career into high gear. Hopefully. I have hope. I do. I really, really do.
No comments:
Post a Comment