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 night if not sometime before. I somehow would like to believe that watching the final product last nite was nothing more than just a really bad dream. That would be a fortunate thing.
Sadly, I haven't really been thrilled with a Freddy Krueger movie in literally years. The sequels were, in most cases, barely anymore than a parody of the original which I absolutely loved as a kid. For some reason, Krueger simply wasn't scary nor frightening anymore once we learned what he was & the general information about how he operates in the grand scheme of things. The whole sinister atmosphere in the first entry was definitely lost in the midst of every writer and director wanting to cash in on it's success with the inevitable potboiler sequels. At best, the vast majority of the ANOES sequels range from mildly to moderately entertaining yet we watched them all numerous times as kids.
So what's the deal with the remake? I can't help but feel the whole revision is nothing more than an attempt to garner this generation's appeal as Hollywood assumes that no teenager in our their right mind could be so clever as to uncover the archives of horror's golden years by visiting their local video stores. How presumptuous. This generation obviously has a lot more resources than mine did as the remake will show you. Teenagers now have cell phones & the Internet readily available so there is no earthly reason why they shouldn't be able to find access to the films I loved & grew up with. Hollywood evidently feels that kids today are too lazy, however, & would prefer a rehash or remix if you will of yesterday's wonders. Maybe they are right as teenagers flocked to the remake on opening night in an almost imposing flux.
Needless to say, ANOES will likely appeal to those teens who have thoroughly enjoyed much of the crap that has been thrown in our faces like bad food during a cafeteria food fight. Teens who adored The Grudge, The Ring, & Stay Awake will absolutely love this.
Don't get me wrong. Jackie Earl Haley is a marvelous actor as he proved himself worthy of much admiration in Little Children & recently Watchmen. I, myself, thought he'd make a splendid Krueger even if the film itself was nothing to write home about. I will give Haley the benefit of the doubt. I think he could've pulled it off but I can't place the entire blame on him as the script really doesn't give him much to work with at all. Had the make-up job & script been tweaked a bit more, there may have been some possibilities as Haley surely would've been able to give the audience more of what they loved about Freddy from the get go.
Having said that, there are scenes in the re-make that everyone will fondly recall. Of course, there's the infamous bath scene where Nancy falls asleep & we get to see Krueger's finger claws spontaneously rise through the bubble bath filled water. Kris is attacked in her sleep by Fred & is slung all around her bedroom while the ex-boyfriend watches in near shock before seeing her get cut four ways from Sunday. Lastly, there's the murder in jail scene although Krueger makes this one look more like internal homicide rather than suicide. This is all fine & well I suppose but these scenes alone can't really give our film the solid foundation it desperately needs.
ANOES does, in fact, borrow heavily from virtually every film in the long-running series. Hardcore fans like myself can easily spot dialog used in years gone by & even character names which appear in the first three entries. It's almost fair to say we could accuse the writers here of copying & pasting material or just trying to grant the old school fans a greatest hits package although I don't believe this was their intention. I am still sticking with my theory that the film is catering to the younger set who don't know Freddy even though much of the good material used is, indeed, recycled material at best.
This time around, we are unsure if Freddy was truly a filthy child molester for at least half of the film and we even question whether or not he ever murdered anyone before the parents of Elm Street took it upon themselves to roast him. In fact, there was very little concrete evidence of any crimes committed & Krueger never had to stand trial. This was a clever approach & I'll give the writers a kudos for at least trying to bring something new to the table. Although most of us probably have never sympathized with Krueger, there is a brief moment where viewers almost feel tad sorry for him though that moment is quickly abolished when we witness his heinous acts through the film.
My biggest complaint has to be the casting of Rooney Mara who will never be Nancy Thompson & I sincerely hope someone else will be granted the role next time around. Unlike Heather Langenkamp, this child can't seem to get her lines right & barely speaks above a whisper for the duration of the film. For 3/4 or more of the film, I kept wanting to scream at her in hopes she'd actually speak as her mumbling was getting on my last nerve. She does belt out one or two screams near the end but I didn't even care by that time. Katie Cassidy, however, does an ok job as does Kellan Lutz but unfortunately both are killed off pretty early in the film.
Sadly, I can't recommend this film. I wouldn't purchase it on DVD & it's doubtful I'll have the desire to rent it somewhere down the road. What a disappointment!
* 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 … more
...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 … more
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 … more
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 … more
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 … more
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 … more
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. … more
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 … more
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 … more
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. … more
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, ...