criterionforum.org

"I think there is something about the American dream, the sort of Disneyesque dream, if you will, of the beautifully trimmed front lawn, the white picket fence, mom and dad and their happy children, God-fearing and doing good whenever they can, and the flip side of it, the kind of anger and the sense of outrage that comes from discovering that that's not the truth of the matter, that gives American horror films, in some ways, kind of an additional rage."

The Last House on the Left (1972) - Region 1/A (MGM/Fox)
Angela, The Fireworks Woman (1975)
The Hills Have Eyes (1977) - Region 1/A (Image Entertainment)
Summer of Fear (1978) - Region 1 (Lionsgate)
Deadly Blessing (1981) - Region 1/A (Universal)
Swamp Thing (1982) - Region 1/A (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayor)
Invitation to Hell (1984) - Region 1 (Lionsgate)
A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984) - Region 1/A (New Line Cinema)
Chiller (1985) - Region 1 (Miracle Pictures)
The Hills Have Eyes Part II (1985) - Region 1/A (Kino)
Deadly Friend (1986) - Region 1 (Warner Brothers)
The Serpent and the Rainbow (1988) - Region 1 (Universal)
Shocker (1989) - Region 1 (Universal)
Night Visions (1990) - Region Unavailable Apparently (Metro-Goldwyn-Mayor)
The People Under The Stairs (1991) - Region 1/A (Universal)
Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994) - Region 1/A (New Line Cinema)
Vampire in Brooklyn (1995) - Region 1 (Paramount Pictures)
Scream (1996) - Region 1/A (Lionsgate)
Scream 2 (1997) - Region 1/A (Lionsgate)
Music of the Heart (1998) - Region 1 (Lionsgate)
Scream 3 (2000) - Region 1/A (Lionsgate)
Cursed (2005) - Region 1 (Lionsgate)
Red Eye (2005) - Region 1 (DreamWorks)
Paris, je t'aime (2006) - Region 1/A (First Look)
My Soul to Take (2010) - Region 1/A (Universal)
Scream 4 (2011) - Region 1/A (Anchor Bay/Starz)

Recommended Web Resources:
Official Site
Retirement: Scarier Than Freddy Krueger.

Books:
Fountain Society
Coming of Rage

Board Discussions:
the Horror List Discussion and Suggestions
Last House on the Left
the 1990s List Discussion and Suggestions (Vol 2)
Paris, je t'aime
Serious Horror Films
Twisted Terror Collection
Underrated
Video Nasties: the Definitive Guide

I'm disappointed no such thread has been made for him. If I were to compile a list of my favorite directors, he'd take the number one spot. Dude's one of my all time favorite directors.

Movie-Brat wrote:If I were to compile a list of my favorite directors, he'd take the number one spot. Dude's one of my all time favorite directors.

Well, which is it then?

Browsing this list I was shocked to realize I have seen thirteen Wes Craven films-- cue spooky music and thunder crashing. I liked a couple of those and disliked/hated far more than a couple of those, but that aside I think you're going to need to provide a better defense of him than ~"He's awesome" to do much convincing

swo17 wrote:

Movie-Brat wrote:If I were to compile a list of my favorite directors, he'd take the number one spot. Dude's one of my all time favorite directors.

Well, which is it then?

Haven't compiled said list yet. Just showing my support for Wes really. Of course, I should mention the original Nightmare on Elm Street is my all time favorite film.

domino harvey wrote:I liked a couple of those but I think you're going to need to provide a better defense of him than ~"He's awesome" to do much convincing

It's just that with something like Elm Street, he can tap into fears you prefer not think about like the thought of dying in your sleep. He doesn't shy away from some harsh moments like in The Last House on the Left. He didn't glorify the rape scene, he shows it for what it is; completely disturbing.

I'm with Domino on this one - aside from a handful of really strong films, Craven's probably the most blatant hack out of that generation of celebrated horror directors. That said, The Hills Have Eyes still holds up brilliantly, and A Nightmare On Elm Street's terrific premise sails it through a rather clunky execution.

I'm actually shocked that I have ONLY seen four movies by Craven: Last House on the Left, Nightmare on Elm Street, Scream and Scream 2.

I really didn't care for Last House. While the rape scenes were presented with the appropriate gravity (that's a rather cringe-inducing statement to make), I found the hillbilly humor to be a huge annoyance, and rather than provide relief from the grisly scenes, it did more to dilute those scenes' power. And while I am generally an apologist for less-than-stellar acting in low-budget movies, it was really hard to get past the amateurs who played the parents. They completely ruined the last act (on the left).

Like JamesF, I am intrigued by the ideas behind A Nightmare on Elm Street even if the film is often "clunky." The dream sequences and special effects are well done, and Heather Langenkamp's character is a strong, resourceful heroine.

On revisiting the Scream films last Halloween, I found them both enjoyable and am confident in calling Scream 2 one of my favorite horror movies. They still feel fresh, and unlike Last House they balance the horror and comedy in ways that truly complement each other. And while both movies take an ironic approach to the horror genre and raise some interesting points about the relationship between violence in the media and real-world violence, they do so with a self-deprecating sense of humor and without condemning the audience.

I'll second JamesF. The Hills Have Eyes is a very successful horror film. The crudeness of the filmmaking works in its favour rather than being something to overlook, lending the movie a rough, gritty feel that compliments the slow descent into savagery. It's also just fantastical enough to avoid the grimy unpleasantness of something like Last House. Plus it's hard to go wrong with that setting.

Both of Craven's Nightmare films suffer from the same feeling that the material is being underused. For a movie where the villain stalks people in their dreams, it's disappointing how often the original relies on victims being chased through generic locations like alleys, houses, and boiler rooms. I like to compare it to Hellraiser, a similarly low-budget film whose execution is often clumsy, but which nevertheless manages to exploit the full imaginative potential of its premise. I'm not a big fan of either movie, but I know which one is more impressive. As well, New Nightmare seemed like it ought to've been a post-modern moebius strip of a movie, but it just ended up being a self-aware monster flick. I want to like the movie on principle, but it does so little with so much.

As a genre director, I think he has had about the same hit-miss ratio as, say, Carpenter, even if his best works fall short of Carpenter's best. The meta approach of WES CRAVEN'S NEW NIGHTMARE (the most appropriate use of a director's name in the title that I can think of) elevated that sequel far above the sequels that came before. The SCREAM films are fun, even though we didn't really need four of them. His is an uneven canon to be sure; I think that the campy fun of THE SERPENT & THE RAINBOW (great Zakes Mokae performance!) and THE PEOPLE UNDER THE STAIRS is where his strength is as opposed to absolute drivel like VAMPIRE IN BROOKLYN or MUSIC FROM THE HEART.

The first Nightmare on Elm Street film has its moments (the bloody body bag sequence, the levitation) but I hardly ever see anyone acknowledge the horrible climactic battle which calls upon Langenkamp to go Home Alone on Freddy Krueger. Also, the Sender did dangerous dreams better before Nightmare and Bad Dreams did it better after.

Scream 2 and Scre4m are pretty clearly Craven's strongest films to my eyes-- the failed self-awareness of New Nightmare and Cursed are contrasted slightly in the overrated original Scream but the second and fourth entries really have a sense of play and looseness and have the added benefit of actually being clever. Scream 3 is god-awful though, and has no justification for existing (as evidenced by literally asking myself "Why does this even exist?" many many times while watching it).

Junk like Deadly Blessing and Deadly Friend are just lowest common denominator proto-Goosebumps, collections of nonsensical jump scares and confused at-best plotting-- though, full confession, I've used Deadly Friend's most notorious scene several times in high school English classes to illustrate the concept of poetic justice. There's nothing quite like seeing a class of twenty-plus teenagers lose their shit in response, and so to some degree I can see why Craven continued to get work despite not being particularly talented!

I would disagree with you inre: Carpenter vs. Craven, Roger. Obviously a lot of it will come down to personal preference as far as which movies of each guy a viewer enjoys, but I think Carpenter is much more of a filmmaker with consistent themes and deeper ideas running through his work than Craven is. Craven is really content just to entertain/scare the audience, whereas Carpenter's best work often has something to say about the (generally undesirable) condition of society. Just for one example look at a movie like They Live, which has far more going on under the surface than anything Craven's ever turned out.

While I wouldn't argue that Carpenter is on his level (although he does have more movies that for my money are purely "enjoyable" in the strict sense), I think he's more of a piece with Cronenberg than he is with Wes Craven and the rest of the horror filmmakers who emerged in the late mid- to late-seventies.

Anyway, Craven has made some good horror movies over the years, but I think his success rate is well below .500. Cursed is one of the very worst movies I've ever seen. Red Eye I thought was an interesting attempt by Craven to get out of his comfort zone somewhat and do more of a straight thriller and for the most part it works well, especially over the first 2/3, but the conclusion devolves into standard "horror villain chasing woman" fare. Also the Cillian Murphy character's name is a total groaner ("Jackson Rippner").

domino harvey wrote:Junk like Deadly Blessing and Deadly Friend are just lowest common denominator proto-Goosebumps, collections of nonsensical jump scares and confused at-best plotting-- though, full confession, I've used Deadly Friend's most notorious scene several times in high school English classes to illustrate the concept of poetic justice. There's nothing quite like seeing a class of twenty-plus teenagers lose their shit in response, and so to some degree I can see why Craven continued to get work despite not being particularly talented!

Interesting you used the latter since out of the films Craven made, he apparently hates that one.

More than he hates Hills Have Eyes 2?

Mr Sausage wrote:More than he hates Hills Have Eyes 2?

I think probably just as much actually.

Mr Sausage wrote:More than he hates Hills Have Eyes 2?

I prefer to think of that film as The Dog Has Eyes, Too.

Movie-Brat wrote:Interesting you used the latter since out of the films Craven made, he apparently hates that one.

I saw Deadly Friend a few times when I was in elementary/middle school and it always seemed like such a strange combination of horror, graphic violence, and teen film. I never knew what to make of it - the "emotional" element never fit with the gory horror - but it fascinated me. Around this same time, I was building my Starlog and Fangoria collections (I was that kid) and I remember finding articles about this film where Craven and the cast talked about how the first version of this film was a PG-rated science fiction thriller that emphasized on the love story, but after a bad test screening the film was ordered to be changed into a fast-paced R-rated horror movie with gore. I've never stopped wanting to see the original version.

There are some fairly extensive notes about Deadly Friend's troubled production history on the film's wikipedia entry.

Dylan wrote:I saw Deadly Friend a few times when I was in elementary/middle school and it always seemed like such a strange combination of horror, graphic violence, and teen film. I never knew what to make of it - the "emotional" element never fit with the gory horror - but it fascinated me. Around this same time, I was building my Starlog and Fangoria collections (I was that kid) and I remember finding articles about this film where Craven and the cast talked about how the first version of this film was a PG-rated science fiction thriller that emphasized on the love story, but after a bad test screening the film was ordered to be changed into a fast-paced R-rated horror movie with gore. I've never stopped wanting to see the original version.

That's why. Pretty sad the guy never got a chance to make the film he wanted. But interesting enough, that film and New Nightmare were my earliest introductions to his work.

That's why. Pretty sad Wes never got a chance to make the film he wanted.

Going by the wikipedia entry, it seems like Deadly Friend was originally much more of a Joe Dante kind of film before the Elm Street/slasher elements were forced upon it - there were a lot of scenes cut that centered on the sweetness the teens shared before the thriller element is introduced. That the casting is so perfect only hurts more because Craven probably did achieve what he set out to do before the cutting and re-shoots... I still recall the Dante-esque sweetness in the early parts of the film really coming out, making one wonder what Craven's career would've been like if this hadn't turned into a horror film.

For the record (since we're all setting it straight on here) I've seen 14 of his films. Some of his best work was on the '80s revival Twilight Zone series, among his episodes Shatterday, adapted from one of Harlan Ellison's best stories.

I'd like to think teenage boys tend to ruin a lot of potentially great films due to their participation in test screenings. And if we're going by that Wikipedia entry, apparently WB execs did not know what Craven worked before they hired him and after the test screenings, now they knew who he was?

And I know Craven wanted to branch out of the genre especially since due to a deal he made with the Weinsteins, he was able to make Music of the Heart. And as for myself, I saw 15 of his films. Some I saw on TV, others on VHS, DVD and Blu-Ray. And I saw three of his films in theaters; first it was Cursed, then it was My Soul to Take and then Scream 4.

misterjunior wrote:I would disagree with you inre: Carpenter vs. Craven, Roger. Obviously a lot of it will come down to personal preference as far as which movies of each guy a viewer enjoys, but I think Carpenter is much more of a filmmaker with consistent themes and deeper ideas running through his work than Craven is. Craven is really content just to entertain/scare the audience, whereas Carpenter's best work often has something to say about the (generally undesirable) condition of society. Just for one example look at a movie like They Live, which has far more going on under the surface than anything Craven's ever turned out.

Interesting, I kind of see Craven/Carpenter in the opposite way: Carpenter is really good at executing tightly structured genre pieces, but I've never really thought of him having anything particularly profound to say. I love They Live and definitely respect Carpenter for making such a blunt critique of capitalism during the Reagan era, but its "ideas" are painfully obvious. Not only are most of his great films Hawks remakes, but Carpenter's work as a whole is kind of like the old Hawks quote about making each movie have three good scenes and no bad ones. I really enjoy his work (disclaimer: I haven't seen anything past the mid 90s), but Carpenter never struck me as an "idea" director.

Craven, on the other hand, seems like a director who is always trying to say something about politics, dreams and fantasy, cinema, ect. but can hardly ever pull it off. I think Nightmare on Elm Street is his best idea, but even then the first couple of sequels took the concept to more interesting places that his original one. Craven is also like the opposite of the Hawks quote: his films (at least after LHOTL and Hills, which are fairly consistent, whatever you think of their quality) often have one or two brilliant scenes, usually dream-related, and a whole lot of bad ones.

Damn. Despite my criticisms of most of his work, his impact on the horror genre and film itself was undeniable.

Ditto. I have pretty mixed feelings about his filmography, but his movies really encouraged horror fans and mainstream audiences to look at the social, psychological, and political implications found in the genre. I intended to check out the new blu-ray of The People Under the Stairs (a childhood favorite) closer to Halloween, but this seems like a good opportunity to celebrate the man's legacy.

Red Eye, one of his last features, was downright Hitchcockian and an incredibly enjoyable way to spend an hour and a half. RIP.

Ribs wrote:Wes Craven

Very sad, I had no idea he had brain cancer. I've written on these boards before that A Nightmare on Elm Street is a film I find more interesting for its ideas than for its execution. From the few interviews I've seen, Craven seemed like a man of fascinating ideas who perhaps wasn't always able to realize them satisfyingly on screen. But I do greatly enjoy Scream and especially Scream 2, the latter being perhaps the best of the "hip," ironic slashers that came out in the late 90s - early 2000s.