Off to see Nightmare on Elm Street (the '10 edition)!

Tony J Case

Effects Supervisor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2002
Messages
2,736
Well, despite it being a remake (and almost certainly guaranteed to suck) I'm off to go indulge in the new Nightmare on Elm Street flick. Wish me luck (in that I don't wind up slitting my wrists by the end of the night!)

Be back in a couple of hours to report on how good (or bad) it is!
 

Cory S.

Supporting Actor
Joined
Sep 7, 2004
Messages
996
So sue me, I actually liked this thing. It's easily Platinum Dunes best remake. It's easily the third best in the series behind the original and New Nightmare. But, technically, it's not a remake. It's definitely a re-imaging. By changing the narrative of Freddy's backstory and how he relates to the kids, it's a different animal than Craven's. Quite frankly, I never bought how the parents got away with murder after Freddy's trial in the original film. In this film, they give a plausible reason why they COULD get away with it.

The biggest problem I think people who are fans of the original are going to have is Nancy. She's just plain different. But, they give a reason as to why she's off...and in fact why some of the kids in this film are slightly off. But, she man's up at the very end of the climax. She's proactive in the film but very different from Langenkamp's version.

Haley's Krueger is the same but different...in a sense that he's very, very pissed off in this film. More than anything, he basically wears the kids down in this film, through the dreams, until they're completely helpless. And then, he strikes. There's a hint of humanity to his Krueger that's just skewed. But, he's intense.

The reviews from fans, critics, and online critics alike have been brutal but I just don't see it. I guess it all comes down to how much you think the original film is a classic because, personally, there's really no debate about the sequels. They're not really good at all no matter how much you love Englund (except New Nightmare).

I've always loved the ideas and Englund's performance in the original film more than the film itself. I think this is why I can accept this version of it. It's different. But, it does return Freddy to a much more menancing version of the monster.
 

WillG

Lead Actor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
6,889
I'm going to check it out tonight, but yeah, the reviews I have read today are not very encouraging. And IIRC when the F13 remake came out, it actually got some moderately good reviews, but I found it to be a bit dissapointing. I even saw Zombie's Halloween II in the theater because even that seemed to get some moderely good reviews in some of the papers I read that day. So the fact that this is getting torn apart is now bumming me out.
 

TravisR

Studio Mogul
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
35,053
Location
The basement of the FBI building
I just saw it and it was pretty bad. Yet except for Dream Warriors and New Nightmare, this movie is as 'good' or better than all the other sequels. Despite that, the hardcore fans will probably have a stroke and say this is the worst movie ever made.

To look at the positives, I liked that they made the dreams more dream-like. I like that they spent more time with the Chris character (Tina in the original) so it would look like she was the heroine. Jackie Earle Haley does as good of a job as anyone who isn't named Robert Englund could do with Freddy and the new Freddy makeup looks pretty good since it resembles a real burn victim. Also, there's still a few jokes for Freddy but Haley delivers them in a creepy way rather than like a one liner.
 

Cory S.

Supporting Actor
Joined
Sep 7, 2004
Messages
996
Travis,

They already have. Personally, I just like this back story to Freddy better here than the original. It makes more sense...except for the one department that none of the films have really explained. And that's how Freddy got the powers to be this dream stalker. I was hoping that this film would clear that up, but it didn't. Sadly, if it doesn't make any money, there won't be a sequel to possibly clear it up.

The pedophile angle plays better than the child murderer angle ever did.
 

Michael Elliott

Lead Actor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Messages
7,652
Location
KY
Real Name
Michael Elliott
Nightmare on Elm Street, A (2010)

Samuel Bayer

One, two another dumb teenagers turn dead teenagers movie is here. The latest remake from Platinum Dunes has Freddy Krueger (Jackie Earle Haley) stalking a new group of teenagers whose parents turned him into the burnt freak that he is. Okay, I'm not against remakes and will admit that I enjoyed some of this companies previous remakes like FRIDAY THE 13TH and THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE but while those had at least a little imagination, this thing here is a complete mess from start to finish and manages to be the worst film in the NIGHTMARE franchise. I'm really not sure where to start but I guess we can begin with the obvious bad screenplay. The screenplay never seems to know if it wants to be a serious horror movie or if it just wants to be lazy and copy what we saw in the first film. We get a couple death scenes and a few more situations that are copied from the original movie but they're so watered down and tame here that they're almost laughable. Another problem is Freddy himself because they start off showing him as the "scary" guy but then during the final fifteen-minutes they turn him into "joke" Freddy with some very dumb one-liners (including one from NIGHTMARE 4). The acting really isn't much better as most of it goes beyond bad and turns rather annoying. The screenplay doesn't do the actors any real service as they're all very dumb characters constantly doing dumb things. Just check out how incredibly stupid all of the parents are. There are countless logic problems with the back story they give the kids, their parents and Freddy but I must admit that the only real highlight of the film comes when we see the flashbacks as to what Freddy did. Speaking of Freddy, I don't mind change considering the original one seemed to change from film to film but there's nothing good about him here. He's no scary. He's not funny. He's pretty much nothing. The character is all over the board on what he's trying to be that it was really shocking to see how poorly he was written. I personally didn't care for the make up as he looked more like an alien but the clothes and glove are all fine. The biggest problem however is the incredibly awful voice deepener that made me smile every time I heard it. The way they distorted the voice to make him sound more like a demon was an awful choice and I can't believe in post-production no one stood up and said this here was ruining the movie. It's meant to be scary but it had me laughing a couple times. Laughter isn't what you want when watching something you're suppose to be afraid of. As for Haley, a fine actor but he doesn't get to show anything here as the character is just too poorly written and the voice thing certainly doesn't do him any good. I must admit that I got frustrated with this movie around the ten-minute mark as it was obvious there wasn't too much thought going into the film. This is yet another example of a current horror film that doesn't want to scare you with atmosphere but instead it just wants loud sounds coming from the speakers to make you jump. The first "loud bang" from the speakers will make anyone jump because your ears aren't ready for the noise. After that you just become numb to it and you're left with countless dumb things jumping out loudly. What happened to building atmosphere? In the end, remakes aren't evil but bad remakes are and this here manages to be a really bad one and easily the worst film to feature Freddy.
 

TravisR

Studio Mogul
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
35,053
Location
The basement of the FBI building
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott

Another problem is Freddy himself because they start off showing him as the "scary" guy but then during the final fifteen-minutes they turn him into "joke" Freddy with some very dumb one-liners (including one from NIGHTMARE 4).
I said it in my previous post but I think Haley salvaged the jokes they gave him by delivering them in a more threatening way than Robert Englund would have. I love Englund but when he would make jokes as Freddy, he would almost break the fourth wall or deliver them like he was waiting for a rimshot after the line.

You must have really hated it if you think it's worse than Nightmare 2. I certainly didn't love the remake but every time I see Nightmare 2, I'm just amazed and fascinated by how bad and weird it is and I didn't think the remake was anywhere near as bad as that.


One thing that bothered about this movie was that Nancy was basically a supporting character until the last 15 minutes of the movie. It was like she was just a sidekick for Kyle Gallner's character until he got sidelined by Freddy and then suddenly the movie is her story.
 

Michael Elliott

Lead Actor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Messages
7,652
Location
KY
Real Name
Michael Elliott
I recently went through the sequels in the TRACK thread but NIGHTMARE 2 is so bad that it's almost pure camp in the same way an Ed Wood movie is. There's just so much dumb stuff going on that it was mildly entertaining as a train wreck. This here was a train wreck as well but I didn't find any of it entertaining.

My rankings would be:

New Nightmare (a underrated gem)
1 (classic)
3 (strong for the era it was made)
4 (nice direction, weak story)
2 (worthless unless you like campy stuff)
6 (worthless)
5 (a few neat ideas poorly executed)
2010 (copies stuff from previous films without adding anything worthwhile)

After the first three the rest are pretty useless, although 4 has some nice directing. I've never been a big fan of Freddy and I'm very pro-remake so I was expecting more from him here. In truth though, I could go the rest of my life without watching the remake and 4-6. I could see myself watching 2 again at some point just for how bad it is.
SPOILERS FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T SEEN IT YET

I've been reading about the movie the past few minutes and it appears the current screenplay was pretty much taken from four others and thrown together, which might explain various things that are brought up but never really handled (like the video cam guy). I thought an interesting twist in the film is when we learn that Freddy might have been an innocent man. To me this was the first bit of life to the movie and things picked up because this was an interesting idea but it was pretty much killed ten-minutes later. I think it would have been interesting to learn he was innocent and his revenge was built around that.

The screaming match between Nancy and her mom (You're lying! No I'm not. Liar! Am not! Am too!) was just so bad that I really can't believe no one cut it. Even Rod's death should have been caught on camera and the police should have known something else was going on. Another scene that didn't work was the opening, which like the F13 remake, tried to get the film off to a big, rousing bang but instead fell flat on its face.
 

Cory S.

Supporting Actor
Joined
Sep 7, 2004
Messages
996
Travis,

I think the reason Nancy feels that way is because of her relationship with Krueger. She's repressed because, ultimately, as Freddy stated she was his number one. What happened to her goes deeper than the others. That's why I bought into her manning up once she sees the pictures of herself....
 

Tony J Case

Effects Supervisor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2002
Messages
2,736
Well, I'm back!

It was an interesting evening, since while the movie was pretty "Meh" (I'll get to that in a second), I found my new favorite theater! Imagine - going to the movies isn't a pain anymore! There's a small independent place that set up shop in one of the old 9 Theater Megaplexes that went out of business. Instead of just a movie, its a movie theater that offers restaurant operations serving food, beer and wine before and during the show. They is REAL butter on their popcorn, they serve some pretty good grub, they don't run ads in front of your movie (save for the trailers) and they have old vintage posters all over the place! And they say stright up at the beginning of the movie (via title card) "Turn off your phones. If you talk during the movie, we WILL throw you out"

That's not paraphrased. That's more or less the language they used.

It's a bar, so 21 and over only, meaning no stupid ass kids chattering away during the show. No dumb ass parents bringing their 8 year olds to a slasher flick! It was a dream come true!

Anyway, enough of the venue! The movie was. . . well, pretty good. Not fantastic like the original one (or New Nightmare), but not the bottom of the Elm Street barrel. It was weird getting used to a Freddy with a different prosthetic , looking like an actual burn victim than just Robert England with makeup. I liked that the film was mostly original. While there were bits of retread from the first, it was enough of it's own man to stand on it's own.

It was kind of tough seeing the new Freddy since Robert England was SO iconic in the roll. Aside from Chris Reeves and Superman, I cant think of an actor who has so embodied a roll like that. But the new guy was pretty good. And I did enjoy the Dark Freddy instead Wacky Freddy - so that was a plus (all the way up to the last reel or so).

So yeah - it was neither feast nor famine. Not the best, far from the worst.
 

WillG

Lead Actor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2003
Messages
6,889
To me, it seemed, I guess, no better or worse that some of the lesser sequels. My take was that the movie was just.........dull. As usual, the characters were a problem. None of them seemed to have any spark. They made Nancy a cliched dowdy art student or whatever (the same kind of character "Not Another Teen Movie" was making fun of) at one point she was wearing a wool hat and she was almost literally Meg Griffin (also, what was up with that penis like drawing that kept popping up in different places in the movie, did anyone else notice that?). I found that the Tina surrogate character looked remarkably like Jenna Jameson and was showing an odd amount of cleavage at a funeral.

As for Freddy, there wasn't much of an impression made either. Haley, I'm sure did what he could with the underwritten role, but you only see him in pretty quick glimpses for most of the film which isn't a bad thing in most cases, but I think Freddy is kind of a movie monster that we need to kind of get to know on some level so I would have liked to see some lengthier scenes with him.


I thought an interesting twist in the film is when we learn that Freddy might have been an innocent man
I remember some people saying when the trailers were first released "I hope they don't make it that Freddy was innocent, that would suck" but from what I understand that idea was based loosely on a real life incident involving a wave of child molestation claims where some children were manipulated into falsifying testimony to convict certain people. I believe this was going on while they were making the original Nightmare and it was why they changed Freddy into a child murderer instead of molester as they didn't want to seem like they were exploiting the incident.
 

MattFini

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
607
It's an awful film, through and through.

The dreams are bland and unimaginative, with everything looking like Silent Hill.

The filmmakers thrust Freddy at us the second everybody goes to sleep, so there's no suspense or tension in waiting for him to show up.

Freddy's make-up is pathetic ... he looks like a scorched hamster ... and JEH does absolutely nothing with the part.

The fact that everyone dreams about a boiler room makes no sense since, in this version, Freddy didn't take the kids there. And the micro naps ... they add nothing to the mythology. Instead, they're a pathetic excuse for jump scares.

Whether or not this is any better or worse than the sequels is irrelevant. The filmmakers had an opportunity to reinvent Freddy and this retelling of Wes Craven's masterpiece is is nothing but another quick cash-in from a company that's gotten REALLY good at making a few bucks.

But, as a restart of a classic franchise? Forget about it ... this one stinks.
 

TravisR

Studio Mogul
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
35,053
Location
The basement of the FBI building
Originally Posted by MattFini

Whether or not this is any better or worse than the sequels is irrelevant.
In the sense that every movie should stand on its own, I guess so but I don't think it's an entirely irrelevant point. If someone thinks the bulk of the sequels are good movies, I can't imagine how they think the remake is that much worse than parts 2, 5 and 6. To me, those movies are terrible and the remake is just bad.
 

Michael Elliott

Lead Actor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Messages
7,652
Location
KY
Real Name
Michael Elliott
On the commentary track for part 1 Craven says they originally had him as a child molester but changed it for obvious reasons. The first time in the original series that he's called a molester is in part 3 in a brief newspaper headline.

In another thread it was mentioned that everyone was tired of remakes but I see this one pulled in about $16 million yesterday alone.
 

MattFini

Supporting Actor
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
607
Originally Posted by TravisR



In the sense that every movie should stand on its own, I guess so but I don't think it's an entirely irrelevant point. If someone thinks the bulk of the sequels are good movies, I can't imagine how they think the remake is that much worse than parts 2, 5 and 6. To me, those movies are terrible and the remake is just bad.
I can't agree about part 2. I love that film.

Actually watched 5 for the first time since the early 90s and ended up digging that one, too.

6, on the other hand, is total filth. Just like the remake.
 

Inspector Hammer!

Executive Producer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 15, 1999
Messages
11,063
Location
Houston, Texas
Real Name
John Williamson
I was actually very pleasantly surprised by this film, as a huge fan of the original I feared the worst going in but walked out fairly pleased at what Platinum Dunes turned in this time.

They seemed to genuinely care about giving us something good this time and remained faithful to Wes Craven's film, giving us just enough new material that allowed it to go it's own way.

Jackie Earl Haley did what I had hoped, he made Freddy dark, sick and twisted again, something he hasn't been since Elm Street 3 (I don't count New Nightmare because it wasn't Freddy but rather a demon impersonating him), he took Krueger back to his roots which was a breath of fresh air from the clown he turned into in the later sequels.

BTW, loved the new make-up, by going the real burn victim look it made me uncomfortable looking him in the face which I just enjoyed immensely.

The choice to turn him from a child killer to a pedophile was a good move IMO and it worked on two fronts, by involving both the adults AND the kids this time everyone had a stake in this sick story, the parents for killing him and the children for telling on him.

It also worked to make us care for these kids which I did, seeing them as children humanized them and I didn't want to see bad things happen to them.

All in all this was probably the best remake PD has done so far, it's not better than the original, no, but it's different and a more than passable slasher film. At the very least it's worlds better than the Friday the 13th reboot and both of Rob Zombie's Halloween films, of course one would have to work really God damned hard to make a worst film than Zombie's Halloween 2, the most unpleasant film I've ever seen.
 

TravisR

Studio Mogul
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
35,053
Location
The basement of the FBI building
Originally Posted by Inspector Hammer!

The choice to turn him from a child killer to a pedophile...
As far as I'm concerned, Freddy has been always a pedophile. I know it's not stated specifically in the original (or probably even the sequels) but I can fill in the horrible blank of what happens between when Freddy kidnapped a kid and when he eventually kills the kid.
 

Michael Elliott

Lead Actor
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Messages
7,652
Location
KY
Real Name
Michael Elliott
The film seems to be getting mostly panned but with the *box office you'd think we'd get a sequel at some point. It would be nice if Craven would return and do his original script/idea from part 3. It might have been too dark for the 80s but it would probably work very well today. He might be too pissed over this film to return to do another but perhaps someone could use his idea and run with it.


*I guess the box office might not matter since apparently F13 2 isn't going to happen.
 

Forum Sponsors

Forum statistics

Threads
344,156
Messages
4,701,965
Members
141,183
Latest member
singhjabar