Movie Hype
New Releases, Oscar-Winners and Obscure Movies!

And this ruined the franchise? Before 2,4,5, & 6? riiiight.....

  • Jun 11, 2011
Rating:
+3

In the town of Springwood, teenagers are suffering from nightmares and they're doing everything possible to keep from falling asleep. They all mention a terrifying looking man pursuing them in their dreams with murderous intentions. After several of them end up dead, Nancy (Rooney Mara) and Quentin (Kyle Gallner) come to believe that this man has the ability to kill them in their dreams. In addition, he also has something to do with their childhood past. Together, they attempt to put a stop to him before they also end up dead.-summary

I wasn't the least bit surprised when the rumors of a remake on A Nightmare on Elm Street(NOES) began to circulate. It only made sense to give a reboot to the most popular of the big three slasher icons. Jason and Michael Myers already received their makeover. So why not Freddy? I seriously doubted that the character or the franchise could have been damaged anymore than what it already was. My suspicion was indeed correct, because A Nightmare on Elm Street directed by Sam Bayer is nowhere near as bad as most of the series. Unfortunately, it doesn't take many steps to be much better either.

After finishing this movie I actually laughed. I laughed because I immediately thought about the folks who said that this remake alone ruined the entire franchise. I mean really? How? Personally, I thought the series was long dead the second it became a parody of itself, by venturing into the territory of a dark comedy which began during NOES's 3 & 4, and it only continued to get worst from there. The sinister demon who terrorized teenagers in their dreams became a joke. Eventually, Wes Craven, the originator of the story, returned the franchise to its dark roots with the under-appreciated and under-rated New Nightmare. Which for its bad luck was released too late to save the franchise. However, this remake returns the franchise to its dark origin but it has its issues too, because the writers appeared not to truly understand anything in regards to the NOES mythos. On top of that, they also appeared to be unsure where to take it.

First off, the acting for the most part really isn't much to speak about. The characters are pretty bland with little to no emotional range, and as a result, I found myself not caring for any of them. This is especially noticeable with the characters of Nancy and Quinten, in which the latter was more painful to watch at times. On the other hand, Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy Krueger is the reason to give this a watch. He brought a vile and sinister side to the character that has been lost for a long time. Freddy once again felt scary(at first), and appeared to be out for vengeance by mentally torturing his victims before polishing them off. But that isn't all though, Haley seems to be the right fit with the voice and the way he handles the bladed glove. I don't think he's better than Robert Englund as of yet, but he makes a good Freddy Krueger.

For everything the film does right, there are several goof ups that leads to the films downfall. It seems as if the writers were unsure of how to handle Freddy's character and the movie. In the case of Freddy, the character seemed to be going very well in the beginning. He was mysterious, evil, but most importantly, he was able to be taken seriously. His dialogue was somewhat limited, and when he spoke, he was disturbing and able to provoke chills, but for some reason, the writers decided to add in a few cheap one-liners that tore him apart.

The screenplay was also dealt a blow. The movie reused certain scenes and dialogue from at least two of the movies, which came off completely bland. The invisible slash death which is actually reused here from the original stands out. Although the death is still brutal, the symbolism from the original did not carry over. Therefore, instead of watching a work of art at play, we're limited to only moving pictures. Even one of the quotes, in this case the wet dream line, is taken out of context. If I learned anything new about this movie, it's that there's actually filmmakers out there who watch and love films, but clearly don't get what they watch. This remake reminds me of My Bloody Valentine 3D with how bad the point was missed.

The film was standard slasher fare with a mild bit of suspense, and characters running around into plot related elements. But the scares aren't handled right at all. Should the fright factor be compared with a boxer, then it would be a lousy one, because the scares are too telegraphed. Someone who hasn't seen the original will catch them all.

The special effects at times is worked really well into the dream segments. I really did enjoy the use of lighting and colors. While during another segment, the effects were easily trumped by the 1984 original which really came as a shock. The new look for Freddy appealed to me immediately though, he really does look like a person who was horribly burned. The make up artist earned their money with the job. The kills are fairly decent and the gore is moderate, there's nothing over the top here, and because of that, I'm pretty sure gore hounds will not care for the death scenes.

I really thought the movie was going to be worse. Instead, it was better than what I heard, and it's far better than most of the horror remakes I seen. One of the main problems here is that the movie feels schizophrenic. Bayer should've began dark and ended dark. It almost seems as if he tried to please everyone, and in the case of Freddy Krueger it just doesn't work. In regards to him you have two choices, serious or not serious. I would prefer them taking the serious path, since this is how the character was meant to be in the first place. I recommend this movie to fans of the franchise without a doubt. If you enjoyed the original or not, come into this with an opened mind and try to watch it as its own.

The DVD also has a special feature called Freddy Krueger Reborn; This is a short documentary with the production staff and several of the actors. They speak on certain elements of the film and what they think of it. I mainly enjoyed Haley though. He sounded the most enthusiastic about it. The movie is 95 minutes.

Pros:
-New Freddy is pretty good, has the soul of the original...

Cons:
- ... but not for very long, predictable scares, weak acting

What did you think of this review?

Helpful
6
Thought-Provoking
6
Fun to Read
6
Well-Organized
6
Post a Comment
June 11, 2011
"nowhere near as bad as most of the series. Unfortunately, it doesn't take many steps to be much better either" - that is one of the best ways to word it man, I felt the same way. It was good and not the horrible film many thought it would be but it didn't try to go above and beyond. Basically the same thing for The Jason remake. That is the one thing people can not say about the Halloween remake, no matter if people loved or hated it at least Rob Zombie tried to do ore with it.
June 11, 2011
The biggest mistake was trying to appeal to two audiences; the serious horror fan, you know. the one who prefers the darker and more sinister version of Freddy. And the ones who claim to be horror fans, you know. the one who must laugh when Freddy is just plain acting stupid. This movie is further proof that today's film makers and horror fans have very little idea on what makes a real horror movie. Why anyone would come into a horror movie, about a horribly burned man with a bladed glove seeking revenge on those who killed him, with intentions on searching for comedy and laughing is beyond me. The average horror fan has always been puzzling to me.
June 11, 2011
So well said, I always wondered why they took the comedic route more and more with Freddy when the first proved to be so good. Don't get me wrong I love a good horror/comedy but only when it is done right. Not that I hate any of the Freddy flicks but the comedy stuff should have only went so far.
June 11, 2011
I can't stand horror comedy for many reasons. But there are things were it was pulled off in a subtle manner. Return of the Living Dead comes to mind. It had a dark comedy edge that just blended in and never felt forced. Then you have the second movie where they forced all of the comedy and it ended up being an epic piece of shit in my book. Freddy is one of those rare characters, in retrospect, it just doesn't work. I thought comedy Freddy was awesome... when I was TWELVE. But he's clearly at his best when his dark and sinister. There's a reason why the original is hailed as the best. And it damn sure isn't because of the comedy. This movie had the right tools, but it didn't have the right mechanics wielding those tools. In truth, since it is a remake and everyone is still hanging off of Englunds nutsack by their teeth, this movie never had a chance. If you don't believe me, just read some of these reviews and the obsession with Johnny Depp. If it wasn't because he was a mega star today, I doubt his role would have even be remembered outside the bed death.
June 11, 2011
I don't disagree with you man Freddy is that man when his dark side is showing for sure, and I can't agree enough with the Depp thing. To be honest I don't know what they were expecting him to be in this flick, a parent? As for the Englund thing I at first was kinda let down when I heard the news but I liked the new Freddy, he was creepy, I am not one to hate on something new like so many others. As for the horror comedy even though I know you are no fan [to each his own] I am a huge fan of the Evil Dead films, and of course classics like Shaun of the Dead, Dead Alive, and of course Return of the Living Dead.
 
June 11, 2011
excellent and level-headed review! I agree with what you've said about NEW NIGHTMARE and while I didn't like this film (I thought the music-video like execution of the effects was too much and the characterization was just lame) I do have to admit that it was better than the sequels in the franchise. I need to re-watch this one day...
June 11, 2011
I sat through it twice, and I'm convinced that many folks wanted to hate it before it even dropped. I have seen some stupid reasons why folks hate the flick ie; because Johnny Depp wasn't in it and because Haley is shorter than England. What kind of stupid shit is that? Pee Wee Gaskins was about 5'2", and he was a mean piece of work. If there was ever a reason for the death penalty, it was definitely him. There was one review last night I didn't even bother to rate, because I stopped somewhere in the lousy intro.
 
1
More A Nightmare on Elm Street (201... reviews
review by . March 23, 2011
posted in Movie Hype
* out of ****     The remake of "A Nightmare on Elm Street" is a mad failure of a horror film; a horror movie trying to seduce us through visuals that aren't even the creation of the director or the writer (or even the visual effects designer), as well as that ever-so generic feeling of horror. Yes, I know that this remake isn't the first, of many, to suck. But since "A Nightmare on Elm Street" was originally a good movie, with all its surrealism and intelligent ideas, I would …
review by . May 01, 2010
posted in Movie Hype
Whenever I Want To, All I Have To Do is...Drreeaaamm...Dream...Dream....Dream....
   ...of a world with NO Remakes. Hurm....Hurm...      The original “Nightmare on Elm Street” was a film experienced that broadened the scope of “Slasher” films. Wes Craven managed to bring an imaginative twist to the 80’s slasher fare that “Friday the 13th” or “Halloween” could not match; “Nightmare” brought forth a deformed, burned entity that preys on his victims when they are most vulnerable--while …
review by . November 12, 2010
posted in Movie Hype
FEELS LIKE A MURDER MYSTERY MORE SO THAN HORROR
      A NIGHTMARE ON ELM ST.      Remakes are a crazy thing because no matter what people will have certain expectations for it, even if they don't mean to. In this day and age remakes are becoming the norm while originality is becoming a thing of the past, kinda. Don't get me wrong I like remakes for the most part because I believe that they help to showcase something that once was off to a new generation. But the end results are mostly negative with …
review by . June 24, 2010
posted in Movie Hype
Please Tell Me It's Only A Dream
I'll admit that Wes Craven's ANOES was perhaps one of the most influential, if not innovative scripts of the eighties. In light of that, it's almost impossible to believe that any sequels or needless remakes could ever recapture that charm in it's entirety. Nevertheless, I've seen virtually every sequel ever made & even had a razor glove as a kid which I bought from Toy R Us. Naturally, it would only make sense that I'd manage to find a way of seeing the remake in opening …
review by . June 11, 2011
posted in Movie Hype
I'm honestly not sure why they bothered to make this movie.      It's not that this new take of Wes Craven's classic Nightmare on Elm Street is bad. It's well-made, polished and dark and gleaming, and has some truly memorable scenes. There's a scene in a supermarket, flickering in and out of dreams, that I found particularly effective and well-done.      But here's the thing - it's not very engaging, it's not very funny, and …
review by . March 25, 2011
posted in Movie Hype
If asked to describe the man of your dreams, what would you say?  Would you call him "dreamy" or any other cliche term? Although this particular man has been known by many since the '80s to be associated with dreams, I bet only a few if any would think of him in this context.  In fact, Freddy would probably be the last person you'd name, however after this weekend he will be the one man in everyone's dreams.      From the opening scene and straight …
review by . October 14, 2010
posted in Movie Hype
While there's really no reason to remake Wes Craven's cult original, I wondered what 20 years and a pile of mediocre sequels would breathe into the franchise and, of course, who would play Freddy. Following in the footsteps of Robert Englund is no small feat but Jackie Earle Haley (of Watchmen fame) was a great casting decision, and carries out the sadomasochistic teen-slashing quite convincingly. He does this despite the script so kudos for making something out of nothing.      …
review by . May 03, 2010
   In 1984 Wes Craven introduced us to a little character named Freddy Kruger, a true boogeyman.  This film introduced us to a new type of slasher featuring one of the scariest villians ever created, pretty much jump started Johnny Depp's acting career and spawned 8 sequels.  This is one of the best horror movies ever made and when I heard that a re-make was being made I was really disappointed as I feared it would suffer the fate of well...all horror remakes and end up being …
review by . December 03, 2010
posted in Movie Hype
There's no doubt that if you're looking for a film to give you some jolts, you won't do wrong renting this piece. On the other hand, if you're more selective, there are other adventures that are more worthwhile. I've never actually seen the 1984 classic, which gives me all the advantages and disadvantages that come with seeing only the remake. This dream sequence slasher film is done effectively enough by Jackie Earle Haley in the title role, but the mayhem gets tiresome with …
review by . August 07, 2010
posted in Movie Hype
A midget Freddy and
Nightmare on Elm Street reboot was terrible.  I didn't care for the cheap scares, the bad acting, the terrible writing and the plain Jane actresses.  When the women wear less make-up than the guys, somethings wrong.  I wished the made a sequel to the series a la Predators instead of this ill advised remake for the "Twilight" crowd.  The use of twenty something teenagers is starting to bother me.  The new Freddy was real laughable and not scary at all.  …
About the reviewer

Ranked #5
Serious gamer and hardcore comic reader.      Currently in my Nintendo Wii U:                  Currently … more
Consider the Source

Use Trust Points to see how much you can rely on this review.

You
Madpenguin
Your ratings:
rate more to improve this
About this movie

Wiki

Michael Bay (Transformers,Pearl Harbor) produced this remake of Wes Craven's 1985 horror classicA Nightmare on Elm Street, which means updated shocks, computer-driven special effects, and a brand-new Freddy Krueger, this time played by Oscar nominee Jackie Earle Haley. Unfortunately, it also means a mechanical, largely scare-free carbon of the original film--the same fate suffered by Bay's remakes ofThe Texas Chainsaw MassacreandFriday the 13th. Director Samuel Bayer, best known for helming videos for Nirvana and Green Day, does well by the film's visuals, which hew toward stylized doominess, but the film itself limps from set piece to set piece, with the ones borrowed directly from Craven's original scoring the most impact. What's left are a group of dull teens on the run from Haley's Freddy, who proves unsettling, if not the dynamo that Robert Englund was in the previous franchise entries. Speaking of which, the picture ends on a note that suggests a follow-up is imminent, though some more inspiration is clearly needed if Bay'sNightmareintends to have the longevity of the first series.--Paul Gaita

"


Nightmare on Elm Street
 is a reboot of the popular Freddy Krueger franchise from the eighties and nineties.  Jackie Earle Haley (Watchmen) will take on the razor glove as the new Freddy.  It is scheduled for release on April 30th 2010.

A Nightmare on Elm Street is a 2010 American slasher film directed by Samuel Bayer, ...
view wiki

Details

Director: Samuel Bayer
Genre: Horror
Release Date: April 10th 2010
MPAA Rating: R
Screen Writer: Wes Craven
DVD Release Date: October 5, 2010
Runtime: 95 minutes
Studio: Platinum Dunes, New Line Cinema
First to Review
© 2013 Lunch.com, LLC All Rights Reserved
Lunch.com - Relevant reviews by real people.
Movie Hype is part of the Lunch.com Network - Get this on your site
()
This is you!
Ranked #
Last login
Member since
reviews
comments
ratings
questions
compliments
lists