Director Dive - Wes Craven

Welcome to Watch More Movies and today we are discussing one of the legendary filmmakers in the horror/thriller genre, Wes Craven. Scream 7 is out in theaters, and while I do explain why I won't be watching that anytime soon, I wanted to celebrate one of the architects of the franchise and one of the icons of the genre.

With this series, I hope to visit or revisit all of a filmmakers work and discuss either themes, stories throughout their filmography; or just discuss their work as a whole

Spotify
https://open.spotify.com/episode/4GfD...

Apple Podcasts
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...

Letterboxd 
https://boxd.it/rBkx

Instagram
@podwatchmovies

Bluesky
@watchmoremovies.bsky.social

#WatchMoreMoviesPodcast #WatchMoreMovies #watchmoremoviespod #scream #anightmareonelmstreet #ghostface #freddykreuger #wescraven #horror #horrormovie

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:21

Hello, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome back to Watch More Movies. I'm your host, Ricky. Thank you for sticking around. I know it's been a about a month or so now. Thank you for tuning in again to watch more movies. I'm gonna get straight into it. So this is a little bit outdated, obviously, since it came out last month, but as a whole, Scream has been a franchise that is incredibly meaningful to me. I watched the first four so many times I can't even count. I have a ghost face tattooed on my arm. I really love that last fifth and sixth one that Radio Silence directed. I thought they carried on the story while also taking risks, staying away from reboot or sequel tropes, but kept the focus on new characters that they had brought in. You can tell so much love was poured into those two movies from the franchise that Wes Craven helped build. I have not looked forward to the one that came out, Scream 7, just being plain and simple about it. I am gonna see it at some point out of curiosity, but this is the first one that I've had no excitement for, and to be honest, just have no interest in and would be fine just not watching it. But I think my curiosity will take over no matter what. I do not feel like wanting to give more attention than it deserves. I was really dismayed by the behind-the-scenes business that led to the firing of the lead actress of these new films, Melissa Barrera, and then Jenna Ortega leaving the franchise. I thought they brought new life into these movies and took the torch from the original, you know, Nev Campbell and um Courtney Cox and Dave Arquette and all of them. Radio Silence left to direct a original vampire movie, Abigail, which was really good. They brought on Christopher Landon to direct Scream 7, who also directed Happy Death Day 1 and 2, as well as Freaky, which I I enjoyed all of those three to different degrees. And I thought he was a really interesting choice. But he left shortly after, and they brought in the writer on the original film and the architect of the franchise as a whole, Kevin Williamson, to direct the movie. And then they decided to bring back the entire original cast, which included David Arquette, whose Dewey character was killed off in the fifth one, and I can only assume is being brought back either flashbacks or a retcon of five and six in order to give everyone the old Marvel treatment and bring everyone back and get people interested that way. Um following that, they also announced they were bringing back Matthew Lillard as Stu, and he's not being marketed to their credit. Um, but again, it just feels like such fan service for the sake of it, and it doesn't feel like bringing those characters back was ever earned. It just feels like they're just trying to get do anything they can to get back people and get people's attention on it. And I know for years people have theorized that Stu, Matthew Lillard's character, was alive, which I kind of like the idea of, but again, the way that they're doing it now just feels like they're just grasping at straws and are desperate to bring people in for it. And to their credit, to be honest, it's you know, it's the most successful scream of all time financially, so you can't really argue with them too much, but just on a creative level, I just haven't been loving the choices that I've seen them make. The last two films, five and six, seem to be willing to take risks, give legacy characters their send-off or a continuation and let it rest. But this new one just seems so corporatized and forced that on a creative level I can't get behind it. I'm really glad to see it's doing well financially, but and it's such a shame because I really wanted Radio Silence to finish their trilogy, but I'm okay with letting those two just breathe on their own and be their own two movies. Now, to not give any more explanation or attention to Scream 7, what I do want to talk about today is the grandmaster and architect of the franchise as a whole, Wes Craven. And obviously, like I said, Kevin Williamson was the the one behind the idea of it, but Wes Craven helped create what it's been and what it's become. Wes Craven, having directed other legendary horror hits besides Scream, which includes the completely original creation on his own of A Nightmare on Elm Street, which he directed the first installment and then the fourth, his career is very interesting. He started off with two big hits and then proceeded to direct either several direct-to-home video or made-for-tv movies, sort of in between all of his theatrical features, despite his theatrical features being consistently successful. Aside from one or two that are more or less in anthology parts, or in some or not full films, I will be touching on all of his full-length features that are theatrically released and some that aren't. I'll not go in depth on his direct-to-video or TV movies. They all kind of hold the same sentiment for me, and I'd feel redundant for talking about each one individually. Each of them have these ideas that he wants, you can tell he wants to explore or flesh out, but ultimately feel like how lots of studio slop feels today, where he feels constrained by entertainment factor or exposition-heavy dialogue, or just very easy storytelling. Or the violence and images he wants to show obviously would not pass for these kinds of releases. They have good premises or ideas, but ultimately don't feel like he was given enough free reign to really hammer out set pieces or ideas he had for them. Now, that whole sentiment I would say really applies to some of his specifically his features of Stranger in Our House, Swamp Thing, Invitation to Hell, Chiller, Night Visions. Although I do think Invitation to Hell, out of those was the more interesting of them, with a really cool final act that feels like he was able to play around a bit and have a lot of fun with. But now I do want to talk about his theatrical release films. His first debut full-length feature is The Last House on the Left from 1972. The Last House on the Left is about two young girls who go out on the town one night and in the hopes of scoring some drugs, meet a young man who is part of a group of convicts on the run. This is a really minimally violent film in Craven's filmography, practically speaking, but very, very, very nihilistic in its approach to humanity and the changing time period in the 70s when young people were becoming freer and honestly more trustworthy than today they would be. There are some really nauseating scenes in this movie, especially one in the woods with this group and the two girls. While equally as terrifying, it is just as emotionally heartbreaking. Craven has this knack here, and in many of his other films, to trap you into environments and settings that feel incredibly inescapable. He really does this well by using the settings around him and cornering you in and not letting go. The remake of this in the late 2000s took a different direction with the story, but Craven's ultimately has more to say and is a lot more interesting, and I really like when he gets into the zone and this sort of structure of his work. His second feature film is The Hills of Eyes from 1977. The Hills of Eyes follows a family traveling across the West Coast Desert on their way to California when they take a break and something immediately feels just off. There is a group of family, or group or a family in the hills of the desert that are cannibals, bent on picking this family off one by one. What takes a little bit to get into turns out really sadistic really quickly as this cannibal family terrorizes the traditional family, for lack of a better phrase, on ground level come nightfall. A terrorizing atmosphere day and night in this hellscape from moment to moment draws out this sense of dread with what feels with what these families' worst fears are. The remake of this one as well gave more of a story but less personality to these cannibal families, which ultimately to felt a little less interesting, but once again I feel like Craven has is a lot more interested in what this family says about America's Unknown and what ultimately causes such things. So The Hills of Eyes is another incredible film from Craven, and check out the original if you've already seen the remake. Next is 1981's Deadly Blessing, when a member of an extreme religious community dies in a mysterious accident, his wife is left to face those who may have sinister designs on her. While not as violent as some of his other work, the tension is there due to the fact that this religious cult is essentially always nearby and its presence is always lurking. Even when the widow is fearful and feeling unsafe in her home, so she invites two friends to stay with her in the meantime to feel safe, these members of the religious cult are always around and finding ways to just terrorize her. There is a shot here that you would instantly recognize from a future Wes Craven film, arguably the most iconic shot in his filmography, and one of the most, honestly, in horror history, ripped up ripped directly here from Deadly Blessing, and it's really cool to see where this originated from. I did not love the characters so much inherently and thought some of the religious cult aspects didn't always work. It felt like it could have gone a bit further in terms of higher ambitions. That's just my point of view, but there are a lot of good moments and some really cool stuff here to behold, so I would definitely recommend checking it out if you've gotten through some of his other bloodier and more violent work. Alright, 1984's The Hills Have Eyes Part 2. This is going to be very brief. This was not a good sequel to me at all. Possibly my least favorite Wes Craven film. The first one felt complete, and I never opposed Seagulls when the original feels quote unquote complete. But when you watch this one, it doesn't feel like anything about it felt original or unique, or even propelling this story or ideas even further. There aren't really any scares or creep factor like the original. Unfortunately, it did not even feel like Wes directed it, which is a shame because the first is so incredible. It's just a massive disappointment. I don't really want to talk too much about it, but that's the Hills of Ice Part 2. Alright, 1984's A Nightmare in Elm Street. Now, into what is arguably the most iconic franchise, at least recognizable, in horror movie history, it is Wes Craven's A Nightmare in Elm Street. I'm sure many of you, if not all of you, have seen it. At least this original. Freddie Cougar, now a now dead child serial killer, comes back to terrorize teens in their sleep, which is the only way he can connect or contact them. What Wes Craven does so well with this character and this film just perfectly in his best work is create a sense of this nail-biting tension, and then the jump scare comes but doesn't just halt the scene and give you a breath. It scares you, and then the incident that caused it continues and he doesn't stop with the violence. What makes Kruger so scary is that he's a villain that has no sense of pause or remorse, which a lot of them do, but with this one, he really plays with his food, so to speak, and you get so grossed out by the way he looks at his victims or he uses his knife fingers. Robert England's performance is really great as his character, and maybe the best single character creation of Wes Craven's career. Not to mention, but briefly, the performances in this one from all the actors are so good. They don't feel like caricatures in a horror movie, even if they are all stereotypes or archetypes. They feel like the real people in this time period and people going through these events, and while a bit, you know, sometimes feels like over the top because it's a movie from nearly 40 years ago, they all feel grounded in their own way, and that's what makes this and elevates this movie even further. 1986's Deadly Friend, Craven's follow-up to Nightmare on Elm Street is a story of a young genius prodigy who moves into a new neighborhood with his mother, who has created a robot that is AI intact and his own full creation as part of his education and research. I can see where Wes Craven really wanted to go here, and but inevitably the studio stepped in and kind of caused it to be a bit of a mess. Wes wanted to focus on the love story of the two main characters, but after the success of Nightmare and his other films, they wanted more action and violence, and it kind of falters because of that. It's not horrible, but not where he could have had the story go, and I feel like it would have really benefited from either being a full-on pseudo-horror story, but mostly love story, or just a full-on horror movie, which with less love interest side plots, and I feel like either one of those options would have really worked, so it just doesn't really work as a whole, but you know, I do appreciate what some of the stuff he does in this movie does. Alright. 1988's Serpent in the Rainbow was a real pleasant surprise for me. It follows a man who works for a pharmaceutical company that is sent to Haiti to study a voodoo drug that is used in religious practices that turn the patient to a living zombie. Not in the way you might be used to zombies, this was absolutely thrilling. Bill Mulman is really good here and works so well with Kraven's cheeky and serious simultaneous tones. The atmosphere works here as this eerie and unknowing presence that keeps you uneasy the entire time. Not a lot of films can do that. At the same time, saying a lot about the medical industry and how it turns profit, anything you know that might be good or will take these things from its people at any cost, no matter how much it affects the average person. And that's a tale as old as time, as as old as capitalism, so but again, it's it's so refreshing to see these things play out in these stories that have cultural relevance and just you know it are in the framework of horror movies. This sort of story and framework Craven executes here is really different from his usual haunting or slasher storytelling device, and was really refreshing to see him work on. I highly recommend Serpent in the Rainbow. It's definitely one of his most underrated. Alright, 1989's Shocker was another mixed bag for me from Wes Craven's filmography. It follows a young high school football player whose mother and sister are brutally murdered, and once the murderer is captured, faces the electric chair. But once he's put in it, his body dies and come back comes back via electricity. It is technically a horror comedy, but does not quite really hit that potential for me. For the first 30 minutes, I was really into it. The mysterio the mystery around the killer and how he terrorizes our lead character. But after that 30 or so minute mark, a tonal shift is really jarring and either becomes incredibly goofy but not funny, or incre incredibly serious, never fully committing to one or the other or successfully blending the two. I think I really would have liked it if I had just stuck to one of those tones, but both inconsistently clashing with each other just doesn't work for me. 1991's The People Under the Stairs follows a pair of b burglars who break into a house to steal some gold that they believe is in a rich white couple's home. What they find is that is that and something much more sinister. This is what I'd hope Shocker and some of his other tonally inconsistent consistent films to be, and I hoped they were. It is a horror comedy that blends the two while making shifts in certain scenes. You never feel anything pushing you around tonally and transitioning awkwardly from scene to scene. The scenes in which sinister aspects are discovered in this home are scary, and the scenes of characters bantering are generally genuinely funny. Even if even as they are trying to survive, their banter may feel a bit out of place in a if this happened to you kind of way, but never felt out of character for these people, and it worked for the story for me. While it is a thriller comedy more so than a horror comedy, it does not make the terrifying aspects any less terrifying. There's also a really on the nose but smart way to commentate on class and power dynamics within such. I really dug this one. I don't want to give too much away as to what's going on in the house, but I highly recommend you check it out. 1994's New Nightmare. Now, full disclosure, I have not seen all the Elm Street films. I have only seen the original a handful of times, and since he did not direct any of the films after the first until New Nightmare, I'm holding off on the rest. New Nightmare is definitely, by definition, a meta movie taking place as actress Heather Loggenkamp during the 10th anniversary of the original Elm Street film. When the studio wants to bring her back for another one, despite Kruger in the films being dead, Wes Craven is writing a new story that would bring the villain back whilst the story is coming together. The actress and her son are being terrorized by Freddy Kruger in real life in nearly the same ways that the new script is being written out. This is a absolutely a blast and a total surprise for me. I'm not a huge fan of Super Meta movies, at least nowadays, where everything is referenced or parodied to some extent. I hope if it wasn't your favorite or preference of Slasher, definitely give it a shot or another shot if you didn't like it the first time. It's really creative and a really smart movie. It felt like a good Scream before scream type of structure that works really well and feels like a good sort of audition for Scream in that meta way, but a lot more unsubtle or a lot less subtle than Scream would end up being. A lot more people should be giving it a second chance. 1995's Vampire in Brooklyn. While Wes has always had a blend of humor and horror mixed into his films, Vampire in Brooklyn feels like one of his true and true horror comedies. Now that isn't necessarily high praise, but it follows Eddie Murphy as a vampire who has been alive for thousands of years coming to Brooklyn to search for the daughter of someone he used to know. This one is another film of his that kinda just feels all over the place. While the blend wasn't the problem in this one, it was just the execution. The horror elements never felt super scary and the comedy really felt flat. The tonal, you know, blend was actually done well. And while the comedy horror, you know, quote unquote was done well, Angelo Bassett here gives a good performance, but it's super serious in contrast to the tonal you know collision that the rest of the film has. Eddie Murphy is also fine, but it just never felt like all three, Craven, Murphy, and Bassett had the same idea for what they wanted to do here, and it just kind of falls apart, you know, to its detriment. Now, this is the point where he has his arguably most iconic, recognizable, and most associated to the name Wes Craven franchise or films in his career. It is the Scream franchise. Now he isn't necessarily the creator. Writer Kevin Williamson was the one who invented Ghostface, the story, the characters. Wes was just signed on to direct it after initially declining their offer a few times. But more so than the creation of the world, Wes is responsible, in my opinion, for what it is today and what they've turned it into, minus the Scream Films Post 4, as he had passed away after the fourth one. Scream follows high school student Sidney Prescott and her friends, who, on the anniversary of her mother's murder, become the targets of a costumed serial killer. The Scream franchise has cemented itself as a staple in horror history, and it's mainly due to its commentary on the horror genre, horror history, and horror movies in general as a pop culture, you know, sentiment. I'm sure 90% of anyone listening has seen at least one of these movies, and most likely is the original. They are brutal, funny, smart in their commentary on the horror genre, usually reflecting to us how society views horror or true crime or you know just real life events and the numbness or glorification of these events, juxtaposed to how we treat people who go through these traumatic, you know, for lack of a better phrase, events like celebrities, or that they're entitled to things for entertainment. Of course, all across All seven movies, or at least six, I haven't seen seven yet. The original is the best. No matter how many times I've seen it, despite knowing who the killer is, it never feels dull, boring, and it always brings something new to the table that I've never never noticed before and have a much different different perspective on. That is the point of all these movies, right? They themselves follow a structure of their own, much like the movies and characters in here talk about themselves. There is always a mystery around the killer and who it is in approximation to Sydney's life. I think one through four have all worked in their own ways, while I think Scream 3's killer in theory was very interesting at its core. I do think it's the weakest of the four Wes Craven movies in Scream, even though it's still pretty good. But the second scream works much better, but maybe it's a less effective killer reveal. The fourth is really underappreciated for me. It catches up to modern day technology, not sort of outdated, but generally relevant, and gets a bit more intense in the kills. Now, here's a spoiler for scream 4 and 5, so if you haven't seen them yet, don't listen to it. But what I do love that 4 and 5 did is it took the idea of an obsessive fan or this incel-like archetype and applied it to the killer. Jill, Charlie, Richie, and Amber all have this obsessive and narcissistic tendency that you see in Phantom today, where they can improve what was before and they feel this entitledness to fame or the girl or their ego that shapes a lot of culture today, unfortunately. But it never victimizes them, fortunately, and ends up shattering their end goal. It's always a satisfying way to end those stories. And I really think that the Scream franchise, while it's so relevant and it's so prominent in pop culture, just feels like it's still somehow so ahead of its time and feels so fresh today. Even what, nearly 30 years later, this series gonna be the 30th anniversary, which is crazy to think about, but 30 years later, it doesn't feel any older than you know 2026 movie. So if you haven't seen all of them or if you haven't seen any of them somehow, watch all of the Scream films. I highly recommend them. They're my favorite in the West Cra Wes Craven lore. Now, after Scream 3, I believe it was after Scream 3, was 2005's Cursed. Cursed follows a brother and sister who one night after hitting an animal and run off the side of the road, get infected by this animal, and slowly turn into werewolves. This is really campy and feels like compared to Wes's other films, it knows it's campy and has fun with it. It doesn't ever feel like it takes stuff too seriously to its detriment. Wes has a ton of fun with his set pieces here, really playing up the tension that a werewolf movie might bring you, whether it be the lighting, newly discovered powers the characters find themselves having, or the grittier action in the latter half of the movie. I was really surprised, since I had no idea that young Jesse Isenberg played a main role in this movie. It's lots of fun you can tell he's having here. Aside from that surprise, there isn't much of a note with his performances in this movie. It's a campy werewolf, and the star is more so Wes Craven and the fun he has with it. I think a couple of characters get too much screen time and emphasis, kind of hampering down the flow a bit, and motivation of characters feel a bit too easy to try and make for a horror movie where there could have been something a touch more deeper than just surface level, but Curse was still a lot of fun, and I really had a lot of um I had no expectations, but was pleasantly surprised. Another one from 2005 that is an upper echelon of Weiss Craven movies for me personally, and it came out only I think later in the year after Cursed was 2005's Red Eye. It follows a hotel manager who is flying back home to Miami when she befriends a man on the same flight as her. That's all I want to say about the super tight-knit, incredibly fun thriller from Weiss Craven. There are kinds of films that I wish he got to do more of, where there isn't anything fantastical but grounded, a touch of camp, and very tense. Craven uses the semi-one location of the airplane for a majority of the runtime to its whole advantage. Every other passenger feels like they play an indirect part in the outcome of this hostage situation. While some moments or interactions feel a bit out there or unrealistic or bit goofy, most of the time it is, and it adds to the story continuing without ever sacrificing entertainment for it. Killian Murphy is amazing here. Playing a hair over the top, but it works so well with Kraven's style and blends so well into each other. Red Eye is definitely one of Kraven's best original films, and unfortunately, I wish he did get to make more of these kinds of tight-knit, grounded thrillers before he passed away, but it's definitely in the upper echelon of West Craven movies, so definitely check out Red Eye. Now, Scream 4 was Kraven's last, very last movie, but 2010's My Soul to Take was his last original film. It takes place 16 years after the brutal murder from a serial killer. Seven teenagers who share the same birthday are being terrorized to who this killer is. When the serial killer disappeared, legend has it, he swore to come back and murder them on their 16th birthdays. This one is a mixed bag for me. I love the concept, but there was something about this era of teenage horror films that all felt very cookie-cutter with its characters, jump scares, and how they all interacted or directed. All a bit over the top of the characterizations were at 110% over the top, that no one ever did feel real. The tension per Craven's genius is absolutely here, but it just feels like the script never lets never lets it feel super fleshed out or as smooth as it could be. I think that this was a really cool idea that just felt like it was a product of the time more than it was a product of Craven's time. Alright, that was definitely a giant jam-packed episode. Despite all my nitpicks or disinterests in the final product of some of Wes Craven's films, I do think he was and is one of the most signature filmmakers in horror American hist cinema. His ideas and themes are relevant even to this day. His suspense is second to none, and what he's accomplished in the slasher genre with two iconic franchises are nothing short of being worthy of all-time praise. And rest in peace to Wes Craven as today's horror he is sorely missed. That was another director dive for today. Thank you for tuning in. I'm probably going to be pacing these kinds of episodes out for a bit. I have an idea in a few months for one that I want to do, but they do take a bit of time to create and to kind of watch all of them beforehand, so I would expect the next one probably early to midsummer. You can follow the show on Instagram, Threads, Blue Sky, Catch All Last Episodes and Apple, Spotify, and YouTube. On the next episode, it may be next week or the week after, but it will be, I'm hoping, with it will be back soon to a regular schedule. So until next time, watch more movies.