Red Eye

[Remo D]

I figure I'll get a "not a horror film" backlash for posting this here, but when you've got Wes Craven directing a "thriller" that eventually involves a madman with a knife, a distorted voice, and other comfortably conventional elements, then I think it's worth bringing up.

And when Wes Craven comes up with something this thoroughly entertaining in the same year that gave us CURSED, then that's MORE than worth bringing up.

I've been reading some more Craven-bashing lately--some people are mad at him for "selling out" once again and refusing to discuss (let alone revisit) LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT and THE HILLS HAVE EYES. Except... didn't he already DO those (and others) and EARN his stripes? Okay, the rest of the world took longer to get sick of the SCREAM business than we did, but should all that be on his shoulders exclusively? I might as well get steamed at Larry Cohen for writing PHONE BOOTH and CELLULAR instead of making a fourth IT'S ALIVE film.

Rest assured, Rachel McAdams and Cillian Murphy are top-drawer terrific in RED EYE. Some of it may be hokey, but it works as a thriller and I can't imagine anyone feeling that it either betrays the formula or skimps on the goodies.

For all the misery I endured from Craven and Williamson earlier this year, here's all the proof you need that we're still dealing with a fine director who only needs to avoid certain screenwriters for now...

[PECKER{*x*}WOOD]

The thing that bugs me about Wes Craven is that he has a brain and doesn't use it. I don't know why he feels forced to do horror, I'd rather see him do other things. I'm sure if he tried a little harder he could get what he wants, all he has to do is look for smaller projects. Red Eye is a good first step, but we all know he can do better.

[Latte Thunder]

The thing that bugs me about Wes Craven is that he has a brain and doesn't use it. I don't know why he feels forced to do horror, I'd rather see him do other things. I'm sure if he tried a little harder he could get what he wants, all he has to do is look for smaller projects. Red Eye is a good first step, but we all know he can do better.

I'm sure it's a matter of studio politics when it comes to Wes Craven. It's so easy to be pigeonholed when you're a recognized genre director and particularly so in Craven's case since he's so closely identified with the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise. I'm sure he'd have a much harder time shifting gears in the studio system than someone like Tobe Hooper or George Romero. They're both so closely identified with their own flagship movies, but Nightmare and Craven were so god damn huge in the 80's that it's got to be a tough legacy to outrun. Making Scream and giving the genre a huge kick in the ass in the 90's didn't help that hole he's in, either.

He can try to branch out and try different scripts all he likes, but a studio is only going to gamble a budget on him if he's working in a genre he's proven himself in. I think the days of risk taking in Hollywood are long, long gone.