I am not sure if this poster is from the new A Nightmare on Elm Street. In a similar fashion, I really was not sure what I was watching when I saw the film.
I would like to say that the only reason I am reviewing this, as opposed to Puck, is because I just happen to have seen it first. Puck has given us an incredibly insightful and brilliant analysis of the original franchise thus far, and I am eager for the remaining installments. I also, having not had a computer for a while, have not contributed anything to the site as of late. So, with Puck’s approval, here is my review.
I will spare you a plot synopsis, as it is the same story. Freddy hunting and killing teenagers in their dreams as revenge. Between the 8 other movies that feature Freddy and Puck’s recent reviews, if you are not already familiar with the plot, I question your comprehension skills and you will not find this review helpful at all.
So, I guess the thing that bothered me the most about this movie, is trying to figure out what the hell the point of it was. Not the story, the movie specifically. It was some bizarre cross breed of re-imagining, remake, and reboot. All I know is that I kept re asking myself, “What the fuck?” during this thing. While the basic plot is the exact same as the original, there were many differences. There is a Nancy, but her last name is Holbrook rather than Thompson. Other than her and Freddy, no other characters were named the same. Oddly enough there was a Jesse, and as I neglected to notice while watching the movie, Puck pointed out that the main character in Nightmare 2 is named Jesse. Also, there was a character named Kris, perhaps a reference to Kristen in Nightmare 3. Also, Nancy worked at a diner, like Alice did in Nightmare 4. These facts alone can be used to argue that the remake category is out the window. However, the choice was made to include the some of the same scenes, some as they were in the original and some slightly altered. This really distracted me. I could not help comparing the movie to the original and asking myself why certain choices were made. For example, there is a scene in which Kris, who is closest to being the Tina character from the original, has a nightmare in class and wakes up screaming. This happened to Nancy in the original. Yet the rest of the events of the film that involve her, were more close to (if not the same as) the events that involved Tina in the original. What purpose did making that choice serve? Was it solely to be able to classify this as a re-imagining? I would say no, as this movie was not so much “imagined,” as it was “stolen” This was a really lazy re-whateveritwas. I would have preferred that they fully committed to something. Remake it scene by scene even, at least I would not be confused. I would have liked if they had completely different events happening, but say, left the bathtub scene in there (not because of nudity, jackass, there isn’t any in that scene) as an homage or something. I also think the fact the Freddy is dressed exactly the same also disqualifies this as a re-imagining. In my opinion, I think he looked more like an actual burn victim than Robert Englund did (no offense to him, he is and will always be the only Freddy as far as I am concerned. Also that would be a make up issue, not an acting issue). There were other things that I took issue with, such as the absence of Nancy’s father (but I guess technically that was not really Nancy, so that may be irrelevant) but I think I have made my point.
As far as the film outside of the pre-existing universe it was lifted from, I would say it was passable. Jack Earle Haley did a decent enough job. Freddy was quite mean, and even swore regularly in this one. He made some jokes, but was hardly the the stand up comedian that Freddy was in the later films of the franchise. No one else in the film was especially good, but the writing was not that particularly great. The only time I actually felt bad when someone died was not because I connected with them, but rather because of the brutality of their death. This film was quite gory. I was kind of hoping for that and was rewarded, but the suspense was sacrificed a little. That whole, “someone looking around, saying ‘Hello?’ then someone jumps out of some place” wears a little thin after the 10th time it happens. Besides the fact that it is not a new technique. The use of “micronaps” was a tad annoying in that respect as that is where a lot of this activity took place. I did like the way that Freddy’s origin was told, and that the kids all somehow knew each other, but they had to figure out how. That was executed pretty well I thought. Another thing I liked was that this was set in modern times but there was no emphasis on that. As opposed to say, Platinum Dunes’s (and New Line Cinema for that matter) other re-whateveritwas, Friday the 13th. That film was rampant with iPods, glowsticks and GPS devices, as if to scream, “Look at me! I am Friday the 13th, but 29 years later!” This one was not. The gadgets that were in this were all used minimally and simply as products of the time. Nothing really new here, just your typical slasher film. While it did not break any ground, on the whole, and again ignoring the original franchise, it was a popcorn movie at best.
I found it outright impossible not to compare this to the Wes Craven Nightmare. So much so, that it was distracting. If you have not seen the original, then you might like this. But I do not think it is possible to like them both. For if you like one, you will find the other inadequate (and by inadequate I mean “much like parts 2-Freddy vs Jason”).
Check out Puck’s rant on the movie here.
May 16th, 2010 at 2:26 pm
I like your review lol. I will have to disagree on some parts. Being that I saw the original Nightmare a bunch of times, I am aware of the pros and cons of that movie. To me, this movie made more sense in just about everything. The characters weren’t stupid (like one character from the original looking for her dog, walking from her house down an alleyway….not smart. Or the parents that, despite given real evidence, wouldn’t even try to cope with what “might” be happening with their children). This movie, the characters made choices that I think people would actually make in real life (if someone was hunting you in your dreams that is). I also, didn’t like the randomness for the sake of randomness in the first one (original nightmare). Like when freddy cuts his chest and worms fall out…WTF? Not present in the new one.
For the argument of “why make this film” I ask why not? I know a couple of reasons why I would starting with the ones in the above paragraph. I liked the way the film incorporated some original scenes into this new one. I felt like it was fan service and not because they were lazy. Then again, unlike most critics” I am not going to sit her and say I know for a fact what people were thinking. I am not all knowing. However, it didn’t strike me as being lazy. It makes since for Freddy to look similar, just like Jason has to have a hockey mask. If they don’t have something similar, then it would be just another horror flick. I liked the micro naps as it was (somewhat) believable and a cool effect.
As for not being scared, I chop that up to years of horror movies (with most of them being bad films). I don’t know, maybe its because I matured, but saying that Freddy is less scary because it makes since is crazy. As much as the floating heads of doom used to scare me when I was younger, they seem like a quick fix to explain how Freddy got his powers. Being totally random didn’t help at all.
I can’t fault the new nightmare on using scare techniques that have been around since….well almost forever. It is a horror movie after all. Again, I feel that most people (not you PBF) dislike this film because of some diehard fanboyism that’s held for the original movie. I love all of the nightmares (flaws and all) but this film is better. I can compare the first two (new and old) without being confused and without “looking” for comparisons that fail in the new one. It was almost like most of the critics were waiting for this movie to suck and when it didn’t, knocked it as a lazy attempt to get money. Yes they wanted money, but I think that criticism is just piss poor. Especially when the original was so poor itself!
May 16th, 2010 at 3:08 pm
Kenny!
You make some valid points, some of which I agree with and touched on in my review. For example, when I mentioned that as a movie by itself, original franchise notwithstanding, it is a passable film. Your points of characters making more believable choices and the absence of the randomness contribute to that. I think that “scary” and “gory” are 2 different things. There were some parts that “scared” me in the sense that I was startled and presented with a very horrific death in a few seconds time. The downfall of that device that I mentioned in the review is that after you see it a couple of times, you start looking for that to happen, and it loses it’s scare factor, and you are left with just the gore (and I liked the gore). The unfortunate part of this film being made is that there already is another one. Crap or not, I and millions of others liked it. They are remaking (or whatever)an iconic film, not Weekend at Bernie’s. So the confusion for me was, why was it so similar and yet so different? I am all for remakes. Imitation is the most sincerest form of flattery. However, why not make it all different? Why actually name a character Nancy? Why have the same scenes? If you are going to remake something, then remake it all. That’s why I found it lazy. If you are going to take artistic license and change part of the story, and almost all the characters, why not fully commit? In my opinion, you are almost forcing people to compare it with the first one. At the beginning of the movie, I was like, “Alright, this scene was not in the first film, so this will be different. Awesome.” Then they started inserting the same scenes and I was not sure why that choice was made. It’s easy to say, homage, but they homaged in every other scene. To me that is being lazy (or at the very least, not creative). The fact that it really wasn’t that bad of a movie in general is what pissed me off the most. Because it if had been a complete re-imagining or a complete remake, it would have been fine. Instead it, was a mix of the two.
May 16th, 2010 at 3:48 pm
I see your point and in that I can agree. I guess it just didn’t bother me that much to have the re-make or what ever different and the same lol. To me it was like we are going to re-make the movie and change the scenes that made no sense at all. Almost like this is what the original should have been. Which, I think was smart. I hope the next one is totally different and moves in the “this is a new series” type of way.
One film that I hated was the new Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I feel that that film was so different that it should have been called something else. Not to get off topic, but I can understand where you’re coming from more so with that film than the new nightmare.
Oddly enough I didn’t find anything scary or really gory (sep the hand through the chest scene) but then again it could be because of years of horror under my belt.
May 16th, 2010 at 4:50 pm
I would really like to see them “remake” part 2 into a logical, interesting sequel that actually fits in to the series. That would be great, and almost redeeming to me.
I agree with you on the Chocolate Factory remake. That was atrocious. They should not have even touched it in the first place.
May 16th, 2010 at 5:03 pm
Yea is was down right creepy how bad it was. I have mixed feelings about the Friday the 13th remake, Halloween remake, and Chainsaw massacre remake. They seem good in their own right and bad in others.