A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010

Horrorphile

follow this blog

1040 followers

3571 daily readers

rank of 1

E-mail Subscription

Receive an e-mail notification of new posts on this site:

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

May 17th 2010 23:57

We’re walking down a well-trodden path now: the re-imagining of a cult classic movie, of which the horror flick has become the biggest victim. What can I say, that I haven’t already said? Yes, there have been a couple of exceptions to the rule. If a movie wasn’t as convincing as it should have been due to production value limitations, or poor acting; if the movie was considerably lacking in one or more important elements, then, yes, perhaps a remake would do the original justice. But to simply re-do a movie because you can ...?

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) Rooney Mara

Rooney Mara as Nancy

Zack Snyder’s re-envisioning of Dawn of the Dead (2004) was an improvement on Romero’s original. I know a lot of diehard zombie/Romero fans will beg to differ, and as much as I like his Dawn of the Dead (1978) for its apocalyptic vision, I think Snyder’s is a more visceral, more convincing movie. On the other hand Rob Zombie’s two Halloween re-imaginings are travesties, and did nothing for the quasi-supernatural mythology of Michael Myers.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) Kyle Gallner

Kyle Gallner as Quentin

Supertrash producer Michael Bay and his Platinum Dunes company have already delivered us the utterly unremarkable remake of Friday the 13th (2009) that did sweet fuck all in bringing the unstoppable malevolence of Jason Voorhees back to the frontline of horror villains. Now he plants his Midas touch on another icon of evil: Freddy Krueger … and turns him to stone. A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) is slick, referential, with photogenic teens (although old photos dated 1986 indicate they’d now all be 20, yet still at high school), numerous dream shocks, a couple of gore set-pieces (but nothing to get excited about), and Jackie Earle Haley playing his second pedophile in less than five years.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) Katie Cassidy

Katie Cassidy as Kris

Of course a large proportion of the movie-going audience seeing this re-imagining (producers are loathe to call them “remakes”, since there’s a stigma associated with the word) weren’t even born when Wes Craven’s novel and impressively nightmare was first released twenty-six years ago. Craven’s movie was low-budget, but used a lot of ingenuity. Freddy Krueger, played by Robert Englund, possessed a genuinely bizarre and frightening presence, with a deliciously wicked sense of humour - not that the movie was a comedy - but by latter sequels he had became an annoying parody of himself, and with Wes Craven's New Nightmare (1994) the entire series had degenerated into a dreadful diatribe of smugness.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) Jackie Earle Haley

Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy Krueger

Jackie Earle Haley’s portrayal of Krueger is quite different. He’s altogether more grotesque; the burn scars that cover his face are more realistic, and combined with Haley’s rodent-like features make for a most hideous visage. He’s less mischievous in his evil intent, but strangely less menacing, only more unctuous and disgusting.

Kris a la Johnny Depp's demise

Screenwriters Wesley Strick and Eric Heisserer have changed Freddy Krueger's history, now presenting him as a pedophile. In the original he was simply a child killer. Oddly though the word “pedophile” is never once mentioned, not even the words “child molester”, as if the filmmakers are treating the subject matter with kid gloves. There’s real darkness, yet the edges are blurred. There are heinous polaroids that cement Krueger’s guilt, but they are not even glimpsed at. The audience is presented with a ghastly truth, but the true darkness is skimmed over. I despise that kind of cowardness in the horror genre.

Peek-a-boo!

This is director Samuel Bayer’s first feature. He’s made a career of directing music videos. Surprise, surprise. He throws in two or three direct lifts from the original movie; The demonic outline of Freddy pushing the fabric of a bedroom wall out over sleeping teenager Kris (Katie Cassidy), Freddy’s bladed glove appearing between the legs of Nancy (Rooney Mara … sorry, Rooney?!) as she momentarily slumbers in a sudsy bath, and the movie’s final moment which, although I was anticipating, was the movie's most satisfying shock set-piece. Not surprising the sequel is already in pre-production (I wonder if the homoerotic undertones of the original sequel will be removed?)

A Nightmare on Elm Street Freddy Krueger

I’ll admit this Nightmare on Elm Street could have been a lot worse. The acting is adequate, although little to no empathy is generated for any of the characters, there’s one or two effective horror moments, such as when Nancy runs down her hallway which turns to thick, viscous blood, engulfing her, and she falls through her ceiling in a bursting bubble of blood, but when compared to the original, the whole productionon seems pointless, especially considering how palpable and creepy Wes Craven’s original was, and made on the smell of an oily Hollywood rag.

Here's the teaser trailer:

198

Vote

subscribe to this blog

follow this blog on Orble

start your own blog

[ Link ]

Posted By: Bryn - Category: movie reviews

Related Posts:

Relate This Post

[ Previous - Curious Stories, Crooked Symbols ]

[ Next - Julia ]

Comments

14 Comments. [ Add A Comment ]

Comment by Anonymous

May 18th 2010 00:50

Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead was awful... I didn't like 300 either.

Comment by Bryn

May 18th 2010 02:29

Horrorphile

Anon, what didn't you like about Snyder's Dawn? I didn't much care for 300 (or Watchmen either), although I liked the depiction of the Persians, and the Oracle.

Comment by Deni

May 18th 2010 03:06

Abstract Magick
Cinema Herald

Nightmare on Elm Street was awful. I was just so bored watching this movie. I think I would have been more into it if I cared about the characters even a little bit. There was just no development at all. Everything started too soon!

I didn't care for "Watchmen" but I loved "300". I got sick and tired of people complaining that Persian were depicted as inhuman monsters. They completely missed the point that the movie was told from the point of view of the Spartans...and that's how the Spartans would describe their enemies. People usually exaggerate the description of their enemies.

Comment by Bryn

May 18th 2010 04:53

Horrorphile

Deni, I went into Nightmare with low expectations, and I knew it couldn't be worse than Rob Zombie's Halloween remakes. I agree that the characters generated little to no empathy, but the performances were okay.
I loved the look and vibe of the Persians in 300, in fact, I wanted a whole feature just on them!

Comment by Matt Shea

May 18th 2010 05:38

If I'm honest, I've been waiting for you to see this Bryn, just so you could pull it apart like I suspected it deserved. This sort of stuff is so depressing - are we really that short on original ideas? And a remake of a sequel? Talk about squaring together two of the most artistically invalid tricks of modern Hollywood.

Comment by Bryn

May 18th 2010 08:01

Horrorphile

Matt ... Zombie has already done the sequel remake with Halloween II, possibly one of the worst movies of the year. I'm sure there's a sequel remake of Friday the 13th - Part 2 in production, and I wonder when Damien: Omen II gets under way?
Then of course there's The Thing remake-cum-prequel ... and we're still waiting for Hellraiser to be remade, and once that is, then we'll get Hellbound: Hellraiser II on the go. Oh, and of course there's the remake of The Evil Dead being made, so there'll be Evil Dead 2 to follow ... ad nauseum.

Comment by JohnDoe

May 18th 2010 23:55

Film & TV on DVD

About par for the course, ha?

i do love Jackie's work, may eventually check it out to satisfy the completest in me.

Comment by Bryn

May 19th 2010 03:15

Horrorphile

Jackie is given very little to work with here. A couple of scenes without tons of makeup (or was that CGI?).

Comment by Jason King

May 20th 2010 06:17

Sydney Table
Salty Popcorn
Total Randomness

I can now read your review and comment. Just watched it and put my review up - what a shitfight disappointment. Hailey was boring - I missed Englund and sat there wishing him onscreen.

Comment by Bryn

May 20th 2010 23:48

Horrorphile

Jason, read yours and commented. I didn't miss Englund, only 'cos he played Freddy way past his use-by date. Brilliant as Freddy in the original of course. I thought the remake had a few moments, but overall it was too cowardly a horror movie. The director and screenwriters should have taken the baton and ran hard. Instead they dabbled and toyed and gingerly extrapolated. Ho-bloody-hum. What other classics will get the mediocrity treatment I wonder??

Comment by Deni

May 21st 2010 16:11

Abstract Magick
Cinema Herald

Bryn - have you read the premise for the remake of "Poltergeist"? Granted "Poltergeist" is not the typical horror film but it is a classic ghost story - even thought it wasn't very scary - it had some elements of the "spooky" and I'm absolutely appalled at what they are going to do with it.

Comment by Bryn

May 22nd 2010 04:19

Horrorphile

Deni, actually I think I had heard of a remake in the works. It's hard keeping up with all the remake productions ... I leave all that for sites like UHM and Bloody-Disgusting.
On the contrary I think Poltergeist is a very typical horror movie, certainly from Hollywood, but it's also a very well-made one too. Not sure how recently you watched it for the first time. But it was instrumental in turning me into a horrorphile (see my Orble profile). I saw it when it was first released back in 1982, and it scared the pants off me. I had to babysit a house with a friend and we were too frightened to go to bed. Ha! Obviously it was a PG rated horror, and for audiences now, de-sensitized, it probably doesn't pack the same punch, but it holds a dear place in my dark heart.
So what are they doing to it that you find so appalling? I'll have to look into it I guess.

Comment by Deni

May 22nd 2010 11:24

Abstract Magick
Cinema Herald

Hey Bryn,

When I first saw it, it definitely scared me. I recently saw it again and it has definitely lost it's 'zing' and of course it would, it's almost 30 years old. But I still pay homage to it by calling it a "classic ghost story".

In the remake, it's predictable and uninspiring. After ghosts take the Hayes family's youngest daughter from their house, built on an ancient holy site, to an alternate dimension, the family fights to bring her back with the help of accomplished researcher fo the paranormal.

I don't know about you but I find nothing spooky about an "alternate" dimension. To me, when you have too much information on your antagonist, they become less of a threat or less spooky. The reason why hauntings are so scary is because it's the unknown.

But still I guess it's all in the delivery. Anyhow, my apologies for changing the subject.

Comment by Bryn

May 23rd 2010 01:31

Horrorphile

The original still had the daughter going to some other side, but it was never revealed just where or what that was. And you're right, the mystery added nightmarish depth.
I remember the sequel had a ghastly sequence where the father got drunk on tequila and swallowed a demonic tequila worm!

[ Previous - Curious Stories, Crooked Symbols ]

[ Next - Julia ]