Monday, May 31, 2010

"Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time"

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time - Directed by Mike Newell, written by Boaz Yakin, Doug Miro, Carlo Bernard, (screen story by Jordan Mechner), starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Gemma Arterton, and Ben Kingsley - Rated PG-13

Prince of Persia is just a bland mess of a film.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time
, the latest videogame adaptation, is not likely to change anyone’s mind regarding the videogame-as-movie genre. I actually enjoy a few of the hated videogame adaptations, but this film was just a bland experience. It’s not terrible, but it’s certainly not consistently entertaining.

Prince of Persia takes place in, you guessed it, ancient Persia. But don’t expect some kind of history lesson with this film, especially since the majority of the cast do not even resemble someone of Middle Eastern descent. This was an issue I had after seeing the first preview. I wondered why an American actor was portraying a Persian prince with a British accent. To be fair, said character, Dastan, is an orphan, so it’s feasible that he is not of Persian blood. But what about Gemma Arterton, Alfred Molina, and Ben Kingsley, all of whom are British? Sure, Kingsley played Gandhi, so why can’t he be Persian, too, but it would have been nice to have an actor or two of honest descent to add a bit of authenticity. This may be a petty argument for some, but I know that other people have a major issue with it.

The casting isn’t very realistic and I guess that’s okay because the story isn’t, either. I’ll spare you a lengthy summary. The main points are that a prince, not of royal blood (Jake Gyllenhaal), is framed for a murder. He sets off with the clever Princess Tamina. Along the way he realizes she is protecting a magical dagger that can turn back time (hence the sub-titular sand). Of course, the dagger is a part of an issue that threatens the entire world.

The story wasn’t fantastical enough for me, though. I haven’t played many of the Prince of Persia games, but the ones that I did play featured a more supernatural plot. The Prince was killing strange sand demons rather than regular soldiers and “hasansins.” I wanted to see more creatures, especially since the fight sequences in this film were serviceable at best.

The enemies are not the only game connection that I felt was lacking. The Prince of Persia games have always been about the Prince jumping from ledge to ledge and swinging around as he makes his way through complex architecture. This film features a few moments that showcase the Prince’s abilities, but it’s not part of the film’s focus.

The focus is on the relationship between Dastan and Tamina, which is unoriginal to say the least. It’s the standard adventure love story we’ve been getting for decades. Man is forced to drag woman along for a journey. They seem to hate each other and constantly bicker. Then, against all odds, they realize they love each other. Only this film can’t stick to the formula. There is an overload of “near kiss” scenes and the relationship jumps back and forth from humorous to serious too often and too quickly. I don’t mind the banter between these two, but it should be more focused. Have them crack wise at each for the first half of the film, but get a bit more serious near the end.

Perhaps the inconsistent relationship wouldn’t have been so noticeable if it hadn’t been for the inclusion of Alfred Molina. He is here purely as comedic relief and I didn’t find him funny at all. He’s a sheik who puts on ostrich races (what?) and also goes from funny to serious multiple times and it never seems natural. I heard others laughing at his every word, though. He just seemed out of place to me, constantly spouting anti-government dialogue that felt out of place.

Molina’s complaints about taxes added a modern feel that I thought weakened the film. It didn’t help that part of the plot dealt with an army attacking a city based on faulty information concerning weapons. Hmm, going to war in the Middle East on the assumption of a weapons stockpile? Sound familiar? That’s the problem. I didn’t go into Prince of Persia wanting to see some thinly veiled statement on the war in Iraq. It doesn’t add up that a film that features so much goofy comic relief would have such a serious undertone.

But it truly isn’t all terrible. The production value is great. Persia is created in a visually interesting way and all of the sets were impressive. The camerawork is interesting at moments, as well. The acting is fine. The plot actually has a decent payoff, mainly due to the sequences that feature the dagger. It’s a shame there weren’t more scenes that put the time travel to good use because it is an amusing concept. It’s just that none of these positive points make up for the negative. They just make the film bearable and, occasionally, slightly enjoyable.

The best part of the film, though, is Jake Gyllenhaal. His physical presence alone may be enough for the more obsessive fans (mostly ladies) out there. Regardless of whether or not you find him sexy, it would be hard to argue that he can’t carry a film. He usually plays more awkward, borderline nerdy characters. This film proves that he can play the normal hero. I’m not sure if that’s a good thing, though, since his best performances (Donnie Darko, Zodiac) are awkward, nerdy characters.

I wanted a more serious, supernatural action film that was more like the videogame. What I got was an action-comedy that provided merely decent action and, more often than not, annoying comedy. Maybe my expectations were messed up. If all you want from this film is a buffed up Gyllenhaal flirting with a princess, then you’ll come away pleased. If you expect more from this film, you’ll walk out of the theatre like me, saying, “Well, that kind of sucked.”

Saturday, May 22, 2010


MacGruber - Directed by Jorma Taccone, written by Will Forte, John Solomon, and Jorma Taccone, starring Will Forte, Kristen Wiig, Ryan Phillippe, and Val Kilmer - Rated R

MacGruber is perfectly stupid.

When I first heard about a movie based on the “MacGruber” sketches from “Saturday Night Live,” I was…skeptical. Don’t get me wrong, I love the sketches. The goofy take on an inept, troubled McGyver-type who ends up never saving the day is quite funny, but those sketches are about thirty seconds long. How does a thirty second joke translate into a ninety minute film? Surprisingly, quite well.

MacGruber works as a movie because it’s not just an overlong version of the sketch. The movie is really a parody of 80s action movies like the Rambo sequels. True, this has been done before (Hot Shots! Part Deux comes to mind), but never in such R-rated glory as this.

Yes, MacGruber is a bit dirty (when I saw it, two of the ten people in attendance walked out about thirty minutes in), but it’s all very goofy. There is gore and nudity, but I would call it stupid before I would call it offensive. But back to the parody aspect…

Your enjoyment of MacGruber is largely based on how schooled you are in the glory days of Stallone and Schwarzenegger. Sticking with the schooling theme, I consider myself a professor in the ways of the action heavies. Watching this film, I was reminded of elements of Predator, Cobra, and, well, anything else those two action stars made during that decade. This movie doesn’t necessarily make fun of those movies; it just exaggerates their elements to the point of hilarity. And if you’ve seen those movies, you know that exaggerating them is quite a feat.

So I dug the action references and the gross out stuff was just ridiculous enough to crack me up (though I don’t think I’ll ever look at celery the same way again), but that doesn’t completely make a comedy. The most important factor is the titular MacGruber. Thankfully, the more fleshed out thirty second character is quite funny. First off, he has the amusing look from the skits – mullet, tech vest, flannel – so he’s this walking 80s joke already. Add the character quirk of always having to remove his car’s tape deck (it’s a Blaupunkt!) and carry it around with him and that helps. Throw in the character trait of instantly offering sexual favors when things go wrong and it gets even funnier.

The character is great and Will Forte plays it perfectly. He handles the spoof aspect early on by constantly sporting the Stallone sneer during the first act. Then Forte hams up the screaming to the sky “dramatic” moments. And his smug, self-righteous delivery of idiotic lines is dead on.

The supporting cast works well, too. Kristen Wiig is amusing as MacGruber’s faithful sidekick. Val Kilmer seems to be having fun in the villain role, though the funniest aspect of his character is the dark story behind his rivalry with MacGruber. Powers Boothe channels Richard Crenna in the military leader role. But Ryan Phillippe is the most impressive and that is because he has the most important job in the film: he has to play it serious.

Phillippe plays Lt. Dixon Piper, who is the professional foil to the idiotic MacGruber. Movies like MacGruber, that aim to spoof, are only successful if there is at least one character who is taking everything deadly serious. If you don’t have that serious man, you have Will Forte cracking cheesy one-liners to Wiig for ninety minutes. Now, that would actually be slightly amusing, but it wouldn’t be truly funny. Phillippe is in there to say, “What are you talking about?” His reaction is the audience’s reaction and it makes everything MacGruber says much funnier than it has any right to be.

You may have noticed that I left out a plot summary on this one. That is completely intentional. Obviously, the plot is not important at all for this film. It’s a movie based on skit comedy, so it’s a film of moments, not a film of excellent narrative structure.

Those moments really made the film for me. There’s a strange side-plot in which MacGruber obsesses on getting revenge after being insulted by a passing motorist. He mutters the license plate number (KFBR392) like a mantra at first and it gets taken to the extreme later in the movie. It makes almost no sense but it had me rolling. Another moment would be the team-building montage in which MacGruber recruits a bunch of old mercenary buddies (all of them WWE wrestlers) and seals the deal with what I call the manclasp (a loud, manly clasp of the hands a la Predator). It reeks of the 80s and the result of it all is insanely funny. Oh, one final element that had me laughing…two words: throat ripping.

MacGruber is surprisingly funny and it gives me hope for future SNL movies (although I don’t think this one is going to make enough money to warrant future projects). Looking over this review I noticed that I make a lot of seemingly random references to the film that make almost no sense. I think that’s fitting for MacGruber, a film full of randomness. If some of the examples above just sounded stupid to you, you should skip this. If you find insane stupidity funny, then definitely get out and watch this. MacGruber is just dumb enough to be hilarious.

Sunday, May 16, 2010

"Robin Hood"

Robin Hood - Directed by Ridley Scott, written by Brian Helgeland, starring Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Mark Strong, William Hurt, and Max von Sydow - Rated PG-13

I'm quite the Ridley Scott fan, so I'm glad I didn't have to give this film a Commodus.

Do we really need a new movie about the legendary Robin Hood? It’s been done countless times, even to the point of parody (remember Robin Hood: Men in Tights?). Well, it turns out that Ridley Scott and screenwriter Brian Helgeland didn’t want to tell the same old story again, either. The previews for the film proclaim that this film is the story behind the legend, not the legend itself. That story, as it turns out, is extremely interesting and, more importantly, entertaining.

Robin Hood takes place at the turn of the 12th century. Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) is among the crusaders following King Richard the Lionheart (Danny Huston in an amusing, though short role) as he plunders his way through France on his way back to England. Robin is just a soldier, but fate throws him in the middle of a potential war between France and England.

This is not a movie about Robin hiding in the woods, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. This is the story of how he became that man. We get glimpses of his sense of honor; upholding a promise he made to a dying knight, helping a village keep their grain, etc. They are just that, though, glimpses. The full focus of Robin Hood is actually the situation that created the legend.

The political landscape concerns King John and his need to collect taxes from the barons. He lets loose Sir Godfrey (Mark Strong) to basically terrorize the countryside. But Godfrey is in cahoots with the king of France and he’s using French soldiers to collect the taxes and turn the barons against the king. The tax collection is the main thing, though. No one likes paying taxes, but people turn violent when taxes are demanded yet they have no representation in the government, or in this case almost no basic rights at all. So, yeah, Robin Hood is fighting a war on taxes. When put like that, this movie might sound boring, but I assure you, there’s some action.

Ridley Scott has proven himself time and time again when it comes to battlefield action. Robin Hood is further evidence that Scott knows what he is doing. People are comparing this film, unfairly, to another Scott film, Gladiator. Those looking for action on that level are going to be disappointed. The more apt comparison would be to Kingdom of Heaven, Scott’s 2005 crusades film. In fact, you could make the argument that this film is almost a sequel to that film since Richard the Lionheart appears at the end of the film on his way to his crusade. The main difference, and my only real issue with this film, is that Robin Hood is rated PG-13. This basically means that the blood is taken away from the battles. This may seem trivial to some, but I had an issue with it because it’s Ridley Scott. The guy paints a battle with beautiful splashes of blood. Take away that ingredient, and he’s left to make battle scenes where someone gets hit with a sword and just falls over.

The action is great, but there’s not an abundance of it. I was fine with that because I enjoy history and Scott created a great historical world for this film. Others might be bored by the scenes with Marshal (William Hurt) as he discusses political issues within the country. That stuff interests me, though.

Of course, it’s easy to maintain interest when the cast is good. First off, Crowe does a fine job as Robin. He doesn’t give an iconic performance or anything, but he handles the hero role well. Cate Blanchett holds her own as Marion, the strong willed protector of the village. Mark Strong is impressive as usual as Godfrey. It’s only a matter of time before he wins an Oscar.

It’s too bad this cast won’t be coming together for round two. I usually don’t clamor for sequels. I don’t have issues with them, but it seems like a movie is more substantial if it’s a standalone story. I would like to see another Robin Hood because the characters and the world are set up so effectively. The problem here is that if Ridley Scott made that movie, then it would go against the entire point of this film. This is Robin Hood’s origin story because that is a part of the legend that gets the least attention in the other films. I wasn’t interested in seeing the same old story again, but now that I’ve seen what Crowe and Scott have done with the origin, I wouldn’t mind seeing what they could do with the rest of the legend. But Ridley Scott doesn’t make sequels (the closest he has come so far is that he has signed on for an Alien prequel), so I’ll probably never see his version of it. That’s no big deal, though, because Robin Hood stands on its own quite well.

Sunday, May 9, 2010

"Iron Man 2"

Iron Man 2 - Directed by Jon Favreau, written by Justin Theroux, starring Robert Downey, Jr., Mickey Rourke, Sam Rockwell, Don Cheadle, and Gwyneth Paltrow - Rated PG-13

The Kurgan and Ivan Vanko might be distant relatives (although The Kurgan is a bit more awesome).

Iron Man was a bit of a surprise for me when it came out in 2008. I’ve always been more of an X-Men and Batman fan, so I went to check it out with fairly low expectations. When I walked out of the theatre I had become a fan of Tony Stark. The first movie had plenty of action, wit, and fun. Most importantly, Iron Man was a film that featured a near perfect performance from Robert Downey, Jr. and it was a film that didn’t take itself too seriously. I’m happy to say that all of the above applies to Iron Man 2.

The word “busy” would also apply to Iron Man 2. As with most superhero sequels, the kitchen sink approach is taken. This can hurt some films, but director (and co-star) Jon Favreau handles the multiple plot points well. Tony Stark is dealing with a lot of issues this time around. His homemade chest reactor contains an element that is killing him, he’s being hassled by the government to turn over his Iron Man suit, the Russian son of his dad’s former business partner is trying to kill him, Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) is hanging around talking about the Avengers, a weapons rival (Sam Rockwell) is making trouble, and he still has the same issues from the last film with Rhodey (Don Cheadle) and Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow). Sounds like a bit of a mess, doesn’t it?

It is actually very easy to follow, though. Things move quickly at first, with Tony constantly on the move and acting as reckless as ever. This is standard sequel stuff. The audience already knows the main characters, so no introductions are needed. What is needed is constant movement. That’s fine. I enjoy a quick paced film. But it’s nice when a movie slows down a bit, as well. The strange thing about Iron Man 2 is that it seems to be going 100 mph during the first half, then it drops down to a leisurely 30 mph, only to crank it back up by the end. I’m sure some people will claim that this film has “pacing issues,” but I actually enjoyed the speed of the film.

But who cares about pacing, right? This film is all about the characters and there are a lot of them. I won’t waste too much time talking about the returning cast, if you liked Downey, Jr. the first time, then you’ll like him again. Same goes for Paltrow. And Don Cheadle is a suitable replacement for Terrence Howard.

The newcomers really get to shine in this one. Mickey Rourke plays villain Ivan Vanko with a great understated menace, plus he looks cool. I know the whole walking away from an explosion and not looking at it has become a cliché, but I forgive the filmmakers for it because it just seems fitting for Mickey Rourke to walk towards the camera with flames erupting behind him. As for the understated menace, you can see it in every scene of dialogue with Vanko. You truly get the impression that he is capable of extreme violence at any moment

Sam Rockwell is also a great addition to the cast as weapons manufacturer Justin Hammer. His interactions with Downey, Jr. are amusing and his general showmanship throughout the movie is quite funny. Rockwell has been consistently impressive lately in films like The Assassination of Jesse James… and Moon. It’s good to see him in a high profile release like this because he deserves a larger audience.

Scarlett Johansson is another high profile addition to the cast as Tony’s suspicious new assistant. Let’s be realistic here, there’s no secret to her character. If you’ve seen any marketing, then you know that she is not just a helper; she’s actually a secret agent working with S.H.I.E.L.D. She gets an entertaining action sequence in the film but for the most part she seemed like an unnecessary addition to the cast, but it didn’t bother me all that much.

A much more interesting casting choice is John Slattery as Tony’s father, Howard, in archive footage. He basically gets to act like his character from “Mad Men.” It’s just something that fans of that show will find amusing. Another amusing choice is Garry Shandling as a senator trying to get Tony’s suit.

The abundance of characters doesn’t mean the film is lacking in action or comedy, there’s more of both this time around. Tony’s birthday party was quite funny and there’s an excellent in-joke for people aware of the other Marvel characters…I’ll give you a hint, it involves a shield. (Stick around after the credits for another crossover tease.) So expect to laugh quite a few times.

The action is even better this time around, as well. Ivan Vanko’s attack at the Monaco car race was flat out awesome and of course there are some great action scenes during the climax of the film.

When it comes to movies I feel that more, more, more usually means less quality. I’m glad to say that’s not the case with Iron Man 2. Yes, there is certainly a lot more to this film than the original, but it’s handled well and it makes for a good time at the movies. What else could you ask for?

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

"Survival of the Dead"

Survival of the Dead - Written and directed by George Romero, starring Alan Van Sprang, Kenneth Welsh, and Kathleen Munroe - Rated R (Available on Amazon On Demand)

I hope Romero makes a zombie movie in the future that warrants a Kurgan.

Survival of the Dead
is the latest zombie movie from the master himself, George Romero. Is it a masterful work, though? Unfortunately, no. Don't get me wrong, no one will ever top Romero. His original Dead trilogy will always be the gold standard. (For the record, I truly enjoyed Land of the Dead as well.) Then Diary of the Dead came out. It had some good ideas, but the man who brought Tom Savini into the movie world went with computer graphics. I couldn't believe it. I saw a blood splatter and it consisted of megabytes rather than corn syrup and red dye. That was my main problem with that film, but I had another: I felt that Romero had lost his ambition.

Look back to Day of the Dead (my personal favorite), the zombie Bub shows some kind of thought process and even wields a gun. Flash forward to his next film, Land, in which zombies show even more thought...they're borderline self-aware and it looked like Romero was heading towards a zombie revolution, in which the zombies were the stars and the world was devoid of regular humans. Is that a film I want to see? Not necessarily, but I think I'd take that over these last two efforts.

In Survival of the Dead, I feel that Romero is getting closer to his roots, but he's still missing something. He returns to the interesting experiments that were going on in Day, but he doesn't go all the way with it. And he's not shying away from the CG, though this film does look much better than Diary. Enough of this, though, how about a proper synopsis?

Survival is about an island off the coast of Delaware that is controlled by two warring Irish families. One man believes that a cure is possible; another thinks that all zombies should be wiped out. When I first saw the preview for this film I was very excited. It seemed to be a focused story with some possibly interesting plot points..."it seemed." The film gives us the setup on the island, but then it follows a renegade army crew (featured in Romero's last film, which makes this the closest thing to a sequel in the Dead series, which rubbed me the wrong way) as they eventually run across the exiled zombie killing fanatic from the island.

I was hoping that the film would take place entirely on the island. You had an interesting warring family plot set in a zombie world. But Romero spends too much time with the military types. I've seen his military types, I don't want a repeat. When the zombie killing fanatic (played with equal parts insanity and sincerity by Kenneth Walsh) is exiled from the island, the film is exiled as well. I wanted the entire film to take place on that island, where the true conflict existed. Instead, we're treated to a lengthy setup of the military types crossing paths with the fanatic and they finally (I don't think it's a SPOILER but just in case...) go back to the island. The trouble with that is the bulk of the film is that return journey that the audience sees coming a mile away.

Well, while the fanatic was gone, things went bad. People who weren't zombies before are zombies now and the non-zombie killing leader has turned into quite the zombie murderer. What I really wanted to see was how that all happened. What changed on the island? I don't know, but I wish I did. Do we, the audience, really need another zombie movie in which military types take out zombies by the dozens? We've seen it before and I expected more from Romero.

That's not to say the man has lost his knack for an inventive zombie kill. You still get some very ridiculous, and hilarious, death scenes. It's just that they aren't nearly as impressive when they are done digitally. If he did a fire extinguisher death scene (to spoil just one inventive kill) twenty years ago, there would've been an intricate practical effect to achieve it. Now, it's a click away and it turns from goofy-funny to goofy-stupid. Aside from a few weak moments like that, though, the CG is improved from Romero's last effort. But I still long for the corn syrup days.

Is Survival of the Dead a bad zombie movie, though? No, I don't think Romero can make a bad zombie film. Can he make a mediocre zombie film? Oh yeah. This may be a step in the right direction, evolution-wise, though. He does attempt to go back to experimentation (this time it's about trying to get zombies to eat non-human flesh) and it's interesting, but it isn't the focus of the movie. Romero needs to realize that the gore should be the pretty packaging (if practical), but the ideas of a good zombie film should be the focus. The ideas should be thought provoking. Give me corn syrup, sure, but more importantly, give me something to think about.

Sunday, May 2, 2010

"A Nightmare on Elm Street"

A Nightmare on Elm Street, Directed by Samuel Bayer, written by Wesley Strick and Eric Heisserer, starring Jackie Earle Haley, Rooney Mara, and Kyle Gallner - Rated R

It's sad, really, Clancy Brown (aka The Kurgan) was in this movie, but I have to give it a Nolte...what a shame.

Welcome to the party, Freddy. You’re the latest horror icon to get a bland, unnecessary remake. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think all remakes are terrible or pointless, but these horror remakes have to stop. These stories should either be continued or left dead. Don’t just start them over; that’s boring. Give me a sequel to Freddy Vs Jason before you just churn out some reboot. At least that film was aware of itself and fun. Unfortunately, I don’t see this stopping anytime soon. But I digress; let’s take a look at this crappy movie.

A Nightmare on Elm Street offers nothing new or interesting to the series. We’re treated to the origin story of Freddy again. Just in case you have never seen a Freddy movie, here’s the skinny: Freddy Krueger is a child molester (in the original he was a child murderer) who gets burned alive by a group of angry parents. He continues to torture their children from beyond the grave by attacking them in their dreams. Sounds like a weak revenge plan, but here’s the catch: if Freddy kills you in a dream, you die for real. That basic story has worked for years and I’m okay with it, but I wanted to see a few more interesting ideas at work.

The only aspect of the film of note is the casting of Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy. I thought Haley did a fine job here, even though he’s just using his Rorschach voice from Watchmen, but his presence doesn’t save this film.

What could have saved the film is director Samuel Bayer. The script was going to be basic, that’s just a given. Bayer, a veteran music video director, would have to do something with the camera or the dream sequences to spice things up. Sadly, he just followed the example of the script and kept things very basic.

What’s terribly frustrating about Bayer’s failure is the fact that this film mainly takes place in people’s dreams. That is ripe territory for inventive and visually impressive filmmaking. You’re basically free to do anything when dreams are the film’s landscape. But it’s the same old settings we’re used to. You have the school and the boiler room, that’s pretty much it. Those two settings are a requirement for an Elm Street movie, I understand, but they look almost identical to the old films. If this is a “reimagining,” then these filmmakers don’t have much of an imagination.

So the locales are the same, I can forgive that if the movie makes up for it with some inventive death scenes or blood is used more like paint and less like slop to be thrown at the audience. This film is only slightly acceptable in that department as well, though. There is a scene of two where the film succeeds, but for the most part the kills are sloppy and lame. If you’re remaking something, you should have the decency to create some interesting visuals.

But is it scary? That’s the point anyway, right? If you get frightened by jump scares (you know, when the camera moves around a character and the villain suddenly appears, accompanied with a shrieking violin sound cue), then this film might get to you. If you need atmosphere and a truly frightening villain, you’ll probably just end up bored.

The villain wasn’t frightening to me because I thought the make up for Freddy’s burnt face was weak. I couldn’t help but think of Gary Oldman’s disfigured character from 2001’s Hannibal. It just didn’t strike me as original and it certainly didn’t give me the creeps.

The movie is at best adequate on nearly every level, and to top it all off, it’s strangely made and quite stupid at times. I say it’s strangely made because the director leaves the camera going for about ten seconds too long in nearly every normal scene. The movie seemed to be in slow motion at times. It’s like they realized the script wasn’t long enough, so they shot filler to get the runtime up.

Now for the stupidity. Okay, you’re being hunted in your dreams, so you have to stay awake. What do the two leads decide to do? Go to the book store and read sleep deprivation books, of course! I don’t think reading about sleeping is the best way to stay awake. Plus, these characters aren’t sleep deprived, they are flat out narcoleptic. They fall asleep at the most ridiculous times, like while they are swimming (not joking, it happens). And here’s a tip for these kids: if you want to stay awake, don’t sit down! Just keep standing, walk around or something. At one point a girl, who is aware of the situation, mind you, decides to take a relaxing bath because that would never put you to sleep. Take a shower, lady! It’s a more active experience and will probably keep you awake.

I could go on and on but I’ve already started to rant about this one. I’m just upset about what has happened to icons like Freddy. Maybe I’m wrong, though, the kids at the showing I was at seemed to like it, so maybe they’ll be in my shoes in twenty years, ranting and raving when the next “reimagining” comes out in all its mediocre glory.