- My first (of many) objections to a Nightmare On Elm Street reboot, from our very first thread.So it's finally come down to this. After 14 straight months of non-stop criticism on my part, the reboot of
A Nightmare On Elm Street has finally hit theaters, and it's time to see whether or not that criticism was unfounded. But first...a little reminiscing on my part.
April 30th, 2003. Amidst the hype for
Freddy Vs. Jason, it was on this day that I saw the original
A Nightmare On Elm Street for the very first time. I was instantly hooked. The concept was ingenious and skillfully pulled off with a relatively low budget. While numerous posters in this thread have called for a re-evaluation of the first film's status as a horror classic, I must strongly disagree. Sure, one could make the argument that the teems featured within the story are bland, stereotypical, and one dimensional...but wasn't that a staple of all slasher films from that era? Just because the typical masked, axe-wielding madman was replaced by the ghost of a child murderer with the ability to manipulate the dreams of his victims doesn't automatically mean that we need these deep, complex characters, especially if all but one are going to be killed off before the third act. No matter how much to try to dress it up and make it look all pretty for the audience, it's still a slasher film at heart. I'm not saying all slashers HAVE to be this way, but I find it to be a very weak excuse for this film's detractors.
With that being said, I find it to be somewhat of a coincidence that 7 years, to the day, after I saw and fell in love with the original for the first time, the franchise has fallen victim to the latest craze in Hollywood - the remake (or reboot, if you prefer). As shown at the beginning of this post, you can go back as far as our very first horror thread, and you'll find me railing against the concept of a
Nightmare on Elm Street remake. I'm not a fan of the ADD-riddled, highly stylized editing found in most of today's American horror films. I'm also not a fan of the extremely lame, pathetic attempts at providing these iconic characters with backstories they quite simply didn't need. And in the case of the character of Freddy Krueger, I simply cannot believe that anyone can perfect it the same way Robert Englund has. From the look, to the body language, to the voice, he not only perfected Wes Craven's original vision of the character, but improved it with his own nuances as well. I'm sure Jackie Earle Haley is a fine actor, but honestly, it doesn't matter who you stick in there. You could have DeNiro donning the glove and I still wouldn't be happy about it. You don't replace Stallone as Rambo, you don't replace Ford as Indiana Jones, and you quite simply don't replace Englund as Freddy Krueger. I've heard that Englund feels he's too old to play the part anymore. That's fine by me as a fan. But I don't know...it still feels too soon. I personally would have preferred they wait about 10 or 15 years to effectively eliminate Englund's portrayal from the public conscience. By rebooting the franchise and casting another actor in the role a mere 6 1/2 years after the character's last appearance, they're opening themselves up to a lot of negative criticism. But, by God, Platinum Dunes has sacked up and done something they knew wasn't going to be popular. For that much, they have my respect. I have been extremely vocal since the reboot was announced, so much that entire horror threads consisted mostly of long, drawn out rants from yours truly. Today, however, it's time for me to either man up and admit that I was wrong, or say four simple words - "I told you so." Which one will it be? Read on to find out.
I felt a mix of excitement and dread walking into the theater. There were only 7 people (including me) in the theater, which I'd say is pretty typical for a Saturday matinee in a small town. The moment was made even more awkward than before when the theater randomly tacked on (you could tell it wasn't on the print that was sent to them) a trailer for...
Toy Story 3? I'd love to know who made THAT call. Trailers for Pirahna 3D, Step Up 3D, Salt, and some DiCaprio movie I couldn't be bothered to look up the name for followed. Way to advertise to horror fans, guys - 5 trailers and only 1 of them for a horror movie, when your feature presentation is...a horror movie. Oh well, they rake in the big bucks and I don't, so what do I know?
The first image to grace the screen after the New Line and Platinum Dunes logo was an admittedly well-done montage that, while it was a little "jump cutty", still had kind of an Elm Street feel to it. And now, what better way to open up a NOES film than with a dream sequence? When asked about the idea of a reboot for the franchise, Robert Englund mentioned one advantage that I had to grudgingly agree with - modern technology. The whole idea of
A Nightmare On Elm Street, and the idea of this vengeful ghost manipulating his victim's dreams, had literally endless potential, which was only limited by the comparitively primitive technology of the 1980s. Today, however, we have absolutely mind-blowing new technology, and just imagine the possibilities of a Freddy dream with said technology. The sky's the limit, right? I
was hoping so.
The initial dream sequence turns out to be a false alarm, as our first would-be victim is startled awake. Alright, I can deal with that. I even marked out a little when the glove made its first appearance in said sequence. We learn, as he confides in his girlfriend, that he's been having these really terrible nightmares. So far, so good. His girlfriend tells him they're just dreams, they can't hurt him. Yup, still following the Nightmare formula to a tee. Mere moments later, he dozes off again, and Freddy appears (to him, anyway), forcing him to slit his throat. To his girlfriend, naturally, it appears as though he's doing it himself. Normally, I'd be annoyed with such a bland death in an Elm Street film, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say that being forced to kill oneself is intense psychological torture - a key ingredient to the NOES formula...though I really don't think a dinner knife could make that deep of an incision, no matter how much force was behind it. Ah well, that's what we have suspension of disbelief for.
The girlfriend of the deceased begins to have dreams of her own, and one fateful night, is comforted by her ex. This ultimately results in an exact duplicate of Tina's death from the original film, only, quite honestly...not as good. I'll leave it at that to avoid too many comparisons to the original series. Rod...err, I mean, Jesse, is on the run from the cops and manages to tell Nancy about what just happened. By the way, Nancy is supposed to be misunderstood and unpopular in this film. You'd never know it by observing her character, but that's apparently what we're supposed to get out of her listening to her iPod and making drawings. Err, uhhh....alright then. Anyway, Jesse gets captured by the cops, and eventually meets his end in prison as well. How, do you ask? Did they just create a carbon copy of Rod's death in the original, or did they do something new, creative, and exciting? Well, the answer is neither. We just see Freddy's glove burst through his chest and the other inmate freaking out. So, uh, guys...you are aware that you're doing
A Nightmare on Elm Street, right? You know, where the possibilities of exploiting a character's deepest and darkest fears are absolutely limitless? Just checking...
Now we get to the part that really, really annoyed me, and it did so without considering my reverence for the original franchise. We find out Freddy's backstory. You know, the one where he killed off the children of Elm Stree...oops, I'm sorry, wrong movie. You see, in this film, Freddy works at a preschool and molests the kiddies there. That's what leads the parents to torching him. Oh, and they also hinted at Freddy's possible innocence, which lead to me doing one of the biggest facepalms ever. It was at this point where I wondered why they even bothered calling it
A Nightmare On Elm Street. There is almost ZERO reference to Elm Street in and of itself throughout the entire film. It plays practically no role at all in the story, to the point where a more apt title for this film would have been
A Nightmare At Some Random Preschool. I guess that just doesn't have the same ring to it, huh?
But the idea of Krueger being a child molester instead of killer could have had some merit. Why? Look at the scene where the polaroids of the kids are discovered in the school, and Nancy's reaction. I think about the unabashed grief and mental trauma that a victim of childhood sexual abuse would go through upon finding out that information, and man, as f***ed up a subject as that is, it's something that the
Nightmare formula thrives on. Exploiting your deepest and darkest secrets and then using them to ultimately kill you, is what makes the character of Freddy Krueger such a sick, twisted son of a bitch. It feels like there was meant to be more to this backstory, and I would have loved to have seen Nancy's coping and coming to terms with it alongside Freddy's constant mind games. But unfortunately, this plot point is cut drastically short as we're rushed into the climax.
Before I get into the climax, do you still remember how much Fuller and Form went on and on about not wanting a wisecracking, joke spouting Freddy in this film, and how they wanted a dark, serious Freddy instead? I'm not going to quote it verbatim, but the "f*** you"/"I don't know, let's hang first" line before revealing Nancy's dead friends
hanging upside down? Yup, nothing screams dark and scary like that gem. Ah yes, there was also the blatant ripping off of the "How's this for a wet dream?" line from The Dream Master. Oh, what a howler that was. Especially when it's taken completely out of the context of the original scene where it was used as a suitable double entendre. I'm not sure if the PD crew were aware of this, but you can't just pluck random one liners from your favorite classic scenes without having them make SOME sense in the context of the current scene. Yes, we get it, Nancy just fell into a pool of brown slime. And that's where it ends, considering there was nothing even remotely sexual about this sequence, thus defeating the purpose of the double entendre associated with the scene and the film they stole it from. It would've been like randomly throwing "Welcome to prime time, bitch!" into the scene where the video blogger gets killed. It just doesn't work without proper context. Oh, and to finish off this mini-rant, nothing says dark and scary like ripping off a line from one of the most mainstream Elm Street films in the original series. Way to go guys, you really made your point.
Anyway, the climax features the whole "bring Freddy into the real world" concept, which should come as no surprise to anyone. It's a staple of the Elm Street series, so it didn't really bother me. What did bother me was how unbelievably short it was. After a short fight with Quentin (basically this film's version of Glen from the original, although he doesn't die in PD's seemingly new tradition of having a final guy AND girl...don't ask me), Freddy gets his glove hand hacked off by a paper cutting blade courtesy of Nancy. One horribly cheesy "final line" later (another new PD institution, it seems) Freddy ends up decapitated, and all is well as Nancy burns the abandoned pre-school to the ground. And as a final testament to the film's complete and total lack of originality, the original film's admittedly subpar ending is ripped off here as well.
Alright then, let's get to the pros and cons.
The Pros:- Time for me to eat my words, in one respect, at least. I felt Jackie Earle Haley did a great job with what he was given. There were small nods towards Robert Englund's interpretation, but he managed to make the character his own. It felt a bit vanilla at times, but I blame that more on the script than his acting ability. While I will always view Englund's interpretation as THE way for Freddy to be played, if we get two more films as rumored, I think I'll be able to tolerate this new take on the character.
- I mentioned this before the film came out, but I think the concept of "micronaps" occurring in extreme cases of insomnia to be a great touch to an already established formula. It adds a sense of uncertainty and keeps the audience on its toes. I only wish they had explored this a little more, because I think they have something there.
Jeez, is that really it for the pros? Ouch. Well, let's move on to the cons.
The Cons:- SNAP! BANG! BOOM! I swear this film had enough jump stingers to make a
Saw fan cringe. It's a cheap way to get "scares" out of the audience, and shows complete and total laziness on the part of the filmmakers.
- There was certainly a lot of dialogue, but I barely felt like I got to know ANY of the characters before they were offed. We were told that characters would be fleshed out more than they were in previous PD efforts, but if you ask me, they took a step back here. It's as though they wrote this great script with tons of character development for everyone, when suddenly the axe came down, leaving us with an awkward, stilted story that WANTS us to feel something for the victims, but isn't able to make that happen.
- I mentioned this earlier, and I want to revisit it. Guys, this is A NIGHTMARE ON F***ING ELM STREET. This is THE series where you can throw caution to the wind and do whatever the hell you want with your kills. You are allowed to do literally ANYTHING you want in these dream sequences, yet you guys went for either typical, run of the mill slasher deaths, or blatant rip-offs from the original. Man, what a MASSIVE, MASSIVE missed opportunity. And that was about the only hope I had for this thing, going in.
- Personal opinion, but the new twist of Freddy just being a child molester didn't really do it for me. I think we need to make a clear distinction between molestation and murder, because while my heart goes out to anyone who has suffered any form of sexual abuse at any point in their lifetime...you have to admit that murder is the ultimate act of atrocity that one can commit towards another human being. The fact that the parents would torch Freddy for the reasons in this film make them look just as sociopathic as he is.
In conclusion, I think PD really did try here, but due to a number of different factors, it fell short. The story was, at times, engaging and made me interested in where the story was headed. Unfortunately, these moments are few and far between. Beneath all the rubble was a really great film trying to break free, but it didn't quite work out. For a film that I spent over a year mercilessly tearing to shreds, my expectations were extremely low. It did manage to surpass them, though I don't know if that's saying much. I've been swaying back and forth between a 2 and 3 rating, but because my expectations were indeed surpassed, and it wasn't quite the trainwreck I expected, I think I'll be generous and award it a rating of 3/5.
*** / *****