"A Nightmare on Elm Street" (2010) Talkback (Spoilers)

[Spider-Man]

Never Sleep Again.

http://shocktillyoudrop.com/nextraimages/Nightmare-poster2.jpg

"Why are you screaming? I haven't even cut you yet." - Freddy Krueger

Release Date: April 30, 2010
Studio: New Line Cinema (Warner Bros.)
Director: Samuel Bayer
Starring: Jackie Earle Haley, Rooney Mara, Kyle Gallner, Thomas Dekker, Kellan Lutz, Katie Cassidy, Connie Britton

Plot Summary: Nancy, Kris, Quentin, Jesse and Dean all live on Elm Street. At night, they're all having the same dream--of the same man, wearing a tattered red and green striped sweater, a beaten fedora half-concealing a disfigured face and a gardener's glove with knives for fingers. And they're all hearing the same frightening voice...

One by one, he terrorizes them within the curved walls of their dreams, where the rules are his, and the only way out is to wake up.

But when one of their number dies a violent death, they soon realize that what happens in their dreams happens for real, and the only way to stay alive is to stay awake. Turning to each other, the four surviving friends try to uncover how they became part of this dark fairytale, hunted by this dark man. Functioning on little to no sleep, they struggle to understand why them, why now, and what their parents aren't telling them.

Buried in their past is a debt that has just come due, and to save themselves, they will have to plunge themselves into the mind of the most twisted nightmare of all... Freddy Krueger.

Comments?

[Tapout]

I saw it with my brother this afternoon. We were enjoying it until the end where something happened to cause us to do nothing but giggle and quote Pulp Fiction lines, much to the annoyance of everyone around us.

[AvatarBlues]

I find it sad to say, but I walked out not even half way through. First time I've ever walked out on a movie. I fell kind of bad:crying: but I just didn't care for the film:shrug:

[Hanshotfirst113]

So, other than to cash in on a presold name, does this remake have any other reason for existing? Let me answer that for you: no. Thank you Michael Bay. Wes Craven's original is, to be sure, not a perfect film. It's edges are jagged, with some rather hammy acting and Craven's flat, obvious dialogue. But it had something this movie patently does not: a point. The film's themes (you know, what a movie is about other than special effects and making money) were intriguing, dealing with themes of memory and sexual repression, the evils behind small town facades, the lies parents tell, and the dangers of buries secrets, all in the guise of a standard slasher movie. An overachieving B-film, the kind that Hollywood simply doesn't make anymore. former English teacher Craven was witty and literate, lacing his film with intriguing concepts and literary and cinematic references to the likes of William Shakespeare and Luis Bunuel (Two people I'd bet Michael Bay has at best a negligible knowledge and understanding of).

Jackie-Earl Haley, who walked away with Watchmen under the nose of his castmates, does what he can with the thankless revision. I finally understand why Halloween fans were upset at the humanization of Michael Meyers: Freddy Krueger's essence with his ability to function as a sort of Jungian archetype, and the broad strokes the first film painted with all played into this. That's what happens when you're raised on literature and books rather than music videos, I suppose. Here, given a prehistory, Kreuger mercifully isn't transformed into the "sympathetic" character, but the attempts to give him a backstory make him less scary. Michael Meyers was the boogeyman. Why? After almost a decade pf arguing with Carpenter fans who were clearly smarter than I was, I finally understand exactly why: it doesn't matter. Likewise, Freddy was a force of pure evil, and he killed the children of the parents who killed him. That was all that was really necessary. But Haley (back in full one-liner mode, make no mistake, and buried in makeup that looks like someone stuck Little Ceaser's on his face) ultimate conveys none of Robert Englund's elegant, almost charismatic menace, or his status as a sort of malevolent extension of the sins of the parents and the evil that festers in lies, repression, and deceit. Hayley's just mean and evil, which ultimately works up to a point, but diminishes the character by giving him character.

Music video vet Sam Bayer (I'd make some joke about Bay and his suffixed brethren, but quite frankly, I'm too tired) has none of Craven's ambient, spooky skill. Whereas Craven, drawing cinematically from the likes of Bunuel and perhaps Lynch captured the warped, fractured elasticity of dreams, Bayer takes an intriguing albiet illogical idea-dreaming while you're awake-and does manage to make some interesting choices (highlights: Freddy scratching the boiler cutting back the falling supermarket items, and Argento-esque "snowy bedroom" sequence), but these are generally few and far between, largely mildly inspired moments in an otherwise boring film. But his wild lighting style and wham-bam energy betray what could have been far more interesting and multilayered fusion of dreams and reality, especially in a medium as visual as cinema. Awash in the same sickly green the most of the Bay-produced Platinum Dunes remakes are, there are scant traces of any actual imagination on display, mostly cheap copies of the far better original shots and uninspired shock scenes shot with no sense of suspense, style, or energy. It ultimately gives the film the effect of simply trotting out Freddy when it thinks the audience is getting bored, rather than the "don't fall asleep" suspense that seems oh so obvious. If you start "micro-nappig," then ultimately, it's not so much suspense as shock. Too often, the movie opts for obvious jump scares and joy buzzer noises, making you jump out of your seat, but never worming its way under your skin or into your head. The sense of what made Freddy scary in the first place was that he ruled the dream realm, and was something evil and otherworldly. Here, he's just a slasher who jumps into the film every few minutes. Ultimately, by giving him as much freedom as they do, Freddy becomes less threatening, rather than someone you desperately attempt to wake up to escape from. Freddy shows up not because any sort of logic within the story allows it, but simply because, well, the screenwriters want him to sometimes because everyone else is so desperately boring.

Most disappointing is the action-packed and gore-soaked climax, a bloody action set piece that is ultimate just that: an action scene where eventually the bad guy is defeated. Even at 95 minutes, the movie feels too long, dragging its feet to take the characters to a preschool where an obvious plot point awaits in the basement. It's a more technically accomplished picture than it's predecessor, but a more soulless one. Simply effects repeated from the original (Freddy coming out of the wall, originally done simply using Spandex, and a bloody Tina throw around in a once scary, but now almost comical sequence, and Tina's appearance in a body bag) worked better in their two-and-a-half decade old incarnations because of the simple inventions on display. The new film isn't perhaps meritless. The film's two leads do their best with their paper-thin characterizations, making them possible to root for and not completely stupid, and as such attempt to give the film an emotional core it sorely lacks. Likewise, it's a competently made film in terms of its construction, editing, production design, and photography, and even if it's central storyline is blatantly obvious, it's effective enough to keep me mildly interested until the film runs out of steam around two-thirds of the way in. It works as a decent, throwaway slasher film, and is a mindless enough way to kill a few hours with a certain cheesy sense of fun. It's a well-crafted film, but a soulless one. Whereas Craven's original (and its woefully underappreciated true sequel New Nightmare) had universal truths and genuine terror at its dark heart, the only thing at the truly rotten heart of the new film is a loud, ringing cash till. Ka-ching.

[DarthGonzo]

Han, any chance you can fix that GIGANTIC wall of text and break it up a little bit? I'd love to read what you just wrote but I'm having a hard time.

[Robin2099]

Well as always, I;ll break up my review into the pro's and con's. SPOILERS ABOUND.



Pros:

-Jackie Earle Haley: I thought JEH did an outstanding job as Freddy. His portrayal was very brutal and thankfully nothing like Englund's. Which I appreciated since I didn't want to see another actor just imitating Robert for 2 hours.

-Some of the dream sequences were rather cool, including a scene with snow that was very Argento esque. I also liked the blood hallway, and the dream in the school.

-Freddy's characterization: I liked the fact that they actually made Freddy a child molester in this one, and thought the scene where we see Nancy looking at pictures of Freddy molesting her(which we don't see) made him more vile and disgusting. The fact that he had a connection to all the kids was also a nice touch instead of him trying to screw with the parents.

Cons:

-The rest of the cast: Oh boy. I don't think we will be getting any Johnny Depps out of this one. With the exception of Clancy Brown, the other actors are just horrible. The guy who plays Nancy's boyfriend is the worse looking like he's gonna cry the whole movie.

-CGI Blood: Sigh. That should need no further explanation.

-Recapped scenes: The worst scenes dream wise were the ones that were put in as tributes to the original, the worst being Kris' death, which was meant to recreate Tina's death from the original. It almost felt like a "well we have to have it in here" type of throwaway scene.

-Freddy is overused in this, but to a certain extent I don't mind it. It would have been nice for him to be in the dark more, but with how iconic he is it makes sense to put him in as much as possible.

-Lack of scares are abundant. Tension is traded for jump scares ad naseum and it eventually brings the movie down.

Overall I would rate this as 3 1/2 out of 5. It's not amazing, but it's a good time waster that has some interesting ideas in it, and I think it's one of the better PD remakes.

[Tobias]

It was mediocre at best. NuNancy was quite frankly boring and can't compare to Heather Langenkamp. I really wish Kris had been the leading lady because she was a lot more interesting. Rehashing the death scenes from the first movie didn't really work out either, because you quite frankly could see them coming from a mile away.

I hated wiping out Freddy's past as the Springwood Slasher. It was totally unneccesary and pretty much makes Freddy *too* soft when he should be, like a previous poster stated, a force of pure evil.

Here's hoping that if there's a sequel, they fix all the flaws this movie had.

I'm not holding high hopes for the Child's Play remake that's coming after this movie.

[Tapout]

I'm guessing that much like Rob Zombie's Halloween, I was able to enjoy this more because I've never seen any of the originals except Freddy vs Jason. The rehashing of the old stuff wasn't able to bother me because I haven't seen it before.

I also thought that, unlike Michael Myers, Freddy Kreuger was just a scumbag child abuser and wasn't supposed to be "pure evil." Haley was incredibly creepy as "live" Freddy which made those parts all the better.

[Mandi-chan]

I'm surprised by the negativity, I thought this would have been a bigger hit on these forums.

I love the original, despite it being years since I've seen it, and in all honesty...I loved this remake even more!

It didn't bastardize the source material like a lot of remakes tend to do, it wasn't turned into a mindless gore-fest like I was afraid it was going to do, it just rehashed the story and added in a couple of nods to the original.

I was happy with what I saw, and my co-workers who went with me (who saw the original when it was released in theaters when they were teenagers) loved it too. A couple of us felt it was, in some ways, better than the original.

[DisneyFan]

I give it 3 out of 5 stars. It was okay. It was a lot better then most remakes IMHO. I think that whoever played Freddy did a good job. Not Heath Ledger playing Joker good but I thought it was good. Definately can't hold a candle to the regular though.


It was mediocre at best. NuNancy was quite frankly boring and can't compare to Heather Langenkamp. I really wish Kris had been the leading lady because she was a lot more interesting. Rehashing the death scenes from the first movie didn't really work out either, because you quite frankly could see them coming from a mile away.

I hated wiping out Freddy's past as the Springwood Slasher. It was totally unneccesary and pretty much makes Freddy *too* soft when he should be, like a previous poster stated, a force of pure evil.

Here's hoping that if there's a sequel, they fix all the flaws this movie had.

I'm not holding high hopes for the Child's Play remake that's coming after this movie.

I think the Chucky remake might be good . At least Dourif Is back as the voice of Chucky

[email2003]

I haven't seen this movie yet but after reading you guys reviews, I think I rather stick with the originals. They still creep me out since I was a kid and even till today.

[ikey2]

Hmm, Well I think my wife did enjoy the movie a little more then me. The movie had many long boring parts, but overall I did enjoy it as much as i could. Since about 2 hours after I left I ended up in the ER for 6 hours. :sad:

[DisneyFan]

Long story short I don't blame this on Jackie. Not at all. Jackie did an amazing job as Freddy Kruegger. He did the best he could with the script and the movie that was made from the writers. If they make a sequel I really think it could be good if they keep Jackie and get better writers.

[Michael JJ]

I'm among those that are amazed at the negativity toward this movie. This is the first Elm Street that managed to really scare me. Maybe it was the fact that I saw Freddy's Dead first, but Engrund's Freddy was just too funny to be scary. Here, Kruger was downright monsterous. This Freddy was more like the boogeyman, always lurking in the shadows, cracking the occasional joke but still being menacing. I was on the edge of my seat.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to watch something fun so I can sleep tonight.

[Damien]

A decent remake. I hate to copy another poster's format, but it's the best way to organize my thoughts about this one.

Pros:

Not a shot-for-shot remake, but a re-telling with nods to the original, including certain kills and surprise endings.
Haley was awesome, very sinister. Even his humor was dark, which was refreshing after watching Englund play video games and call pizza with people meatballs "soul food".
The scene where Nancy is crawling backwards, Freddy walking towards her, flashing from pharmacy to boiler room and back again. Awesome.
Cons:

Nods to the original series that really didn't make sense in this movie. The jump-roping girls were past victims, the nursery rhyme something spawned as a cautionary tale for neighborhood kids. They had no place in this remake, because they were tied to a past this Freddy didn't have.
The fact that the rumors were false. I was disappointed to hear that he would be an innocent man, until the movie went in that direction. Then I understood. Unfortunately, they turned the tables again and said, "Nope, just kidding, he's bad." But bad in the same sense as a Lifetime afternoon movie: you start re-thinking pre-schools where a male is working. The movie turned into a weird PSA, and there was a good 20 minutes of genuine discomfort. He haunts them to make them remember? Very Lifetime. The movie goes from fun and scary to very icky and unsettling.
The fact that this Nancy didn't accomplish what the original Nancy did. This one had a friend, almost died, had to be Pulp Fictioned, etc. The interesting aspect of the original Nancy was that she was alone and had to use her courage and wits to battle Freddy. The new Nancy did, but she had a friend with her, and again, the "I have to face my molestor" view you have of her by then makes it more Lifetime than Nightmare. The point is that this Nancy was typical; the original was innovative.
Worth seeing? Yes. DVD purchase? Maybe. It wasn't awful.

[Itchy]

Here we go again with another Michael Bay raping. Texas Chainsaw massacre and Friday the 13th wasn't enough, he had to drag Freddy into the mud as well.
A dreary, unimaginative and loud remake with bland actors, bad writing and unappealing CGI effects.
The movie has a strong visual look but when it comes to acting and writing it falls flat. I kinda excepted that when Bay hired some nobody from MTV instead of a competent horror director.
Haley did a okay job to bad the new makeup made him look like a fish. While the makeup design Englund used wasn't entirely realistic it was at least menacing and creepy.

And now Bay is planning on remaking The Birds and The Monster Squad next. Jesus...

[Hanshotfirst113]

-CGI Blood: Sigh. That should need no further explanation.

I just don't get who ever thought that was a good idea. I've never seen it done particularly effectively.

[defunctzombie]

I just watched this and I didn't think it was that bad. I actually liked it more than Freddy vs. Jason. Sure the cast (besides Haley) could have been improved, but it was a good movie.

The annoying things: Freddy's makeup looked like an alien, the cast didn't seem high school age, and my niece keeps insisting that Nancy is a Bella clone. I also think this made Freddy look like a cuddly pedobear and less like a sadistic child molester.

The good things: The humor was appropriate. I liked the occasional quip, and they certainly did it better than the later films of the original series. I think some of the homage scenes were great, though the wall-emerge one was terrible. I'm very pleased that they pulled this film off without the nudity, I never liked it when horror movies just throw it in. The gore was on a good level, though overall the film was a little dark. If the contrast was upped a little it would look better. The ending was very cool, even though I don't like eye squick.

Haley was great. Like I said he looked like an alien, but he acted well. I liked the scenes before the burn integrated into the film, that was always something I thought should have been in the original.

I'm going to buy this once I save up a little. I have all the originals and I would rate this my second or third favorite overall.

[brickrrb2]

While Jason's Remake was spot on this was just disturbing, plus it was the original Freddy's sadistic sense of humor that made him funny and more evil

[Tobias]

I honestly don't think they had any solid plans for a franchise reboot beyond 'Freddy kills teens, that's all we need for this movie.'

I mean, granted the original didn't have a solid backstory in place for Freddy, but it had enough elements in place (being a child murderer pre-burning; The house/boiler room; the finding of the glove's hiding place; and so on) to build off of for future sequels.

This movie has literally nothing to build off of, unless they go back and rewrite Freddy's history to include him being a bigger monster than what was presented here, and maybe introducing his house, which played a major role in every movie.

This movie was too stand alone and I don't see how they can do future sequels with the crappiness of what we got in this film.

[defunctzombie]

If you ignore the potential for sequels, I still think it was a good movie.

[Soul]

I pretty much agree with everyone, the film was pretty mediocre yet any saving grace was Haley himself as Freddy.
Which you know, if there are any further films, just lets keep Haley, then get a better script, director, nightmare sequences, etc. :D

[Knightmare]

I picked it up on Blu Ray and while, I really enjoyed the movie and thought that Haley was excellent in his performance as Freddy, I do feel as though the movie could have been better. One thing that I really wish and is something that I've always wished for the Nightmare films is that I wish they'd be more physchological in nature. I mean Freddy can look into is victims subconious minds and can see their deepest fears and I'd love to see that played upon more and have Freddy use their own fears aganst them.

Another thing inparticular that I felt should have been in this movie is a social commentary on the decay of Neighborhoods, these days how many people really know their neighbors unlike when the original was made and most people were still on at least a last name basis.

[Michael24]

Just watched this last night, and I was less than impressed. A ho-hum remake that never comes close to capturing the suspense or creativity of Wes Craven's classic. The entire movie, I felt like it was just on the edge of working, but then it would fail to do anything. The original film's spunky and lively Nancy is redone as a spooky-looking loner type, played by an actress who seemed to have forgotten she was supposed to make her character come to life. She was also so poorly introduced that for the first act I was under the impression Nancy was a secondary character and another girl, who I found more interesting, was going to be the central character.

Casting Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy was a great move, but he's given virtually nothing to do. As a result, he fails to make much of an impact. Freddy's make-up design is also very lackluster and fails to be scary the way the original's was. Some fine camera work, but otherwise it has almost nothing else going for it. Not as awful as the Friday the 13th remake, but Platinum Dunes has still yet to live up to their Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake. 2/5

[Tobias]

. She was also so poorly introduced that for the first act I was under the impression Nancy was a secondary character and another girl, who I found more interesting, was going to be the central character.



It's weird, because I got the feeling that Katie Cassidy's character was going to the central character as well since she was built up in the first act WAY better than Nancy was.

The only thing in the movie that caught me offguard was the fact that Nancy's boyfriend actually survived.

[Goof Troop]

It's weird, because I got the feeling that Katie Cassidy's character was going to the central character as well since she was built up in the first act WAY better than Nancy was.

The only thing in the movie that caught me offguard was the fact that Nancy's boyfriend actually survived.

Didn't Wes Craven do the same kind of switcheroo with Nancy and Tina in the original?