TR reviews horror franchises: "Nightmare"

[Lick Ness Monster]

A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET
1984
Director: Wes Craven

As cheesy as a lot of this movie seems now, you have to commend Wes Craven for a number of reasons. He had just come off "Swamp Thing", a fairly studio-oriented movie with a large budget, and was assumed to be someone who had made it in Hollywood. And after this breakthrough success, he wanted nothing more than to do a horror film based on (1) his own screenplay, and (2) a story based on a series of newspaper articles about people who had killer nightmares and died the next day.
So, in essence, everyone at the studio thought he was crazy. But Robert Shaye saw the potential, and the rest is history.
And this is a great film. It was quite revolutionary for the time period, not revolving around a lone slasher but a horror story on a much larger landscape (and indeed, what landscape is larger than the land of our own imaginations?). And while Craven had some fairly large plans in his screenplay that couldn't be realized because of the film's budget, he shows great ingenuity in crafting some of the various horror sequences on low-scale means (the long "Freddy-arms", the rotating bedroom in the Johnny Depp-gets-eaten-by-his-bed sequence).
And unlike a lot of horror films, the characters in this film are somewhat believable and memorable (to the point where two of them would return for "Nightmare 3"). The struggles of Nancy and her family are struggles that a lot of homes go through, but put them in this story, and it's actually quite captivating.
And then there's the main man...Freddy himself. Freddy would not become a jokester until later in the series, but you've got to admire Robert Englund. The man is a BRILLIANT actor, and while in this movie his dialogue is mainly limited to him saying his own name occasionally, his body language and menace projected as this iconic character is astounding. Wes Craven himself feels that this is the only movie that Freddy is truly scary in - he's a silent stalker rather than a prankster, a spectral, contemporary boogeyman threatening the lives of our protagonistic teens.
And while the final sequences in this movie are thoroughly illogical (including the hilarious blow-up-doll-pulled-through-a-door-window), this movie is innately memorable and on the list of my top ten horror films of all time.

**** / ****

[plushtar]

The first is a great stand alone film and actually still holds up as scary. The other ones have their moments, yet are quickly eclipsed by the original. It also had the perfect atmosphere of making us question whether anything is real or is it all a dream.

[Maidpool w/ Cleaning Action]

This was one of the best Horror movies of it's era in my opinion.

And Thomas I see your still changing those Avatars and Sigs.

[Lick Ness Monster]

agentdeadpool said:

This was one of the best Horror movies of it's era in my opinion.

And Thomas I see your still changing those Avatars and Sigs.

Avatars and sigs get old for me quickly, but now I'm just changing them to reflect whatever franchise I'm reviewing.

[Maidpool w/ Cleaning Action]

thomasrigby said:

agentdeadpool said:

This was one of the best Horror movies of it's era in my opinion.

And Thomas I see your still changing those Avatars and Sigs.

Avatars and sigs get old for me quickly, but now I'm just changing them to reflect whatever franchise I'm reviewing.

I like the themes. It works.

[Jiren]

I love The first "Elm street"

[Deleted]

"This is God"

That's my favorite line in the entire series.

[-Lithium-]

I liked Nightmare and everything, but whats up with everyone saying Freddys such a cool guy? Didnt he like molest kids or something? I cant remember, do know he killed kids though...

[plushtar]

ravenm said:

I liked Nightmare and everything, but whats up with everyone saying Freddys such a cool guy? Didnt he like molest kids or something? I cant remember, do know he killed kids though...

I always thought it came from New Line turning him into a marketing project in the sequels. Starting with part 3, he lost his evil and became a joker.

[Captain Wonderful]

I love Freddy in Part 2, how he's decidedly darker and more evil.

"Hey, man, we just wanna help you."
"HELP YOURSELF, f***ER *slash*"

[Maidpool w/ Cleaning Action]

ravenm said:

I liked Nightmare and everything, but whats up with everyone saying Freddys such a cool guy? Didnt he like molest kids or something? I cant remember, do know he killed kids though...

He's the only child molester/killer people will cheer for!

[rra]

But didn't New Line force Craven to make it be in the first film that Freddy was just a child killer and not a child molester?*

Anyway, liked the first movie, and enjoyed the 3rd movie, but the rest....well, they virtually became vehicles for Robert Englund and his one-liners. He became like the Stallone/Schwarzenegger of the horror genre back in the 80s/90s.

*=What's the difference anyway?

[plushtar]

Depending on what English dialect you speak, the word "molest" means different things. In older dialects, molest = harm of any kind. In modern American English, molest has come to take on a sexual meaning.

And yes, Craven wanted a child molester.

[erisi236]

I ask you, does this look like the face of a child molester to you?

[Lick Ness Monster]

A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 2: FREDDY'S REVENGE
1985
Director: Jack Sholder

I first saw "A Nightmare on Elm Street" when I was in eighth grade. Needless to say, it was an awesome experience, and is actually THE movie that is responsible for my horror obsession today. So it comes as no surprise that I was very hyped to see "Nightmare on Elm Street 2."
And while I didn't find it to be as woefully bisbegotten as many fans do, I certainly see the complaints. The central character in the film (Jesse, as played by Mark Patton) is not a very strong central figure, much more of a victim than any of the female heroines in the rest of the series. While this is an interesting change, it certainly doesn't leave much in the way of suspense for the film - we never, ever believe that this Jesse character is any sort of legitimate challenge to Freddy, so why bother?
Second, the movie suffers from a decided lack of Freddy himself. When he's on screen, the movie is top notch, as Robert Englund turns in an even better performance than he delivered in the first film, including the first hints of the famous/infamous (depending on your outlook) "Freddy humor" that would become the hallmark of the series as it goes on. The "You are all my children now!" line is fantastic and iconic.
Overall, however, the movie just feels like "Nightmare-1 lite." So there's a new family in the Elm Street house - the Walsh's, only this bunch is nowhere near as well-acted or likable as the Thompsons in the first film (including Clu Gulagher - don't ask). The supposed scary sequences in this film are, for the most part, very lame and uninspired. Who, pray tell, thought that basketballs that bounce by themselves (gasp!), exploding birds, and melting records were scary? Unfortunately, this crap takes up about a third of this movie's running time - leaving us with a whole lot of tedium.
I wouldn't be doing this movie credit if I didn't mention the prevailing theory of a whole lot of reviewers out there in the hinterlands regarding Jesse Walsh's supposed homosexuality. While I could write my own essay on this matter, I'm essentially with Matt of X-Entertainment all the way in this matter - hey, if that's what they were actually going for in the film, more power to them, and actually the movie becomes A LOT more interesting if you keep that little theory in mind while watching the movie. However, I believe that there is no real social or sexual commentary in this film - basically, people are just looking for something in a film where really NOTHING happens.
While the film does have its moments (the best being, in order, Freddy's takeover of the pool party and Jesse's hilarious girly shrieks as he wakes up from his nightmares), overall, this is just a poorly plotted, nonscary, and truly one of the most bizarre (seriously, what the *frick* was up with those dogs with Freddy faces?) horror films of all time.

* 1/2 / ****

[rra]

erisi236 said:

I ask you, does this look like the face of a child molester to you?

Looks like a typecasted actor to me.

[Lick Ness Monster]

rra said:

Looks like a typecasted actor to me.

Englund is an UNBELIEVABLY underrated actor. In my book, he's right up there with Christopher Walken on the character-actor list.

[Bobeddy]

I saw Nightmare 3 when I was like 11 or 12.

And that bit where Freddy rips the guy's veins out and walks him like a marrionette freaked me majorily out for ages!

[Lick Ness Monster]

bobeddy said:

I saw Nightmare 3 when I was like 11 or 12.

And that bit where Freddy rips the guy's veins out and walks him like a marrionette freaked me majorily out for ages!

In the original script by Wes Craven (which is available online), that sequence was a father walking his son across the street...smack dab into a passing car. I just think it's interesting that another writer can come along something like that and vastly improve upon it - that marionette death is something to behold.

[Lick Ness Monster]

A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 3: DREAM WARRIORS
1987
Director: Chuck Russell

Ahhh...now we're talking. For those of you who have been following my little series of reviews, I'll just lead off this one with this statement: this is the best movie I have reviewed so far. I'll go even higher than that - this is one of the best horror films EVER, period, and #2 on my list of the top ten horror flicks of all time.
People, THIS is how you do a sequel. Assuming that you completely disregard "Nightmare 2" (and, let's face it, you should), this is everything that anyone would ever want as a follow-up to the phenomenal, original "Nightmare on Elm Street" - it expands on the themes of that film, all the while introducing some captivating new characters and themes that would last for the rest of the series.
First of all, I was a teenager when I first saw this film, and a big part of the reason why I loved it so much actually is the human element in it. The human element is generally the worst part of the horror film, but the supporting cast in this film is fantastic. So you've got a group of scared teenagers in a psych ward being chased by Freddy - but what are they like? They're all multidimensional, complicated characters - and yes, by the end of this movie, you actually CARE about them and are genuinely hurt when one of them is offed (particularly Will, the suicidal nerd who has lost the use of his legs, and Taryn, a recovering drug addict).
And this film severely ratcheted up Freddy's role in the franchise. Instead of the bit player he was in the first two films, here director Russell (and writers Frank Darabont and Wes Craven) realize the true potential of the character, launching him to the forefront with creative, inventive murder scenes, the first hints of diabolical wit, and genuine menace in the form of his newfound abilities to morph and terrify. The writers also struck gold with the character Kristen (Patricia Arquette in her big-screen debut), and her ability to pull the other teenagers into her dreams, creating a virtual battleground between the survivors and the ultimate menace - Freddy. This was the first horror movie on a truly epic scale, a story involving many characters taking on a manevolent, evil force - and it all flows so seamlessly, the final Russell/Darabont script being masterful in execution.
I love the way this movie is put together - I love the setup for the eventual payoff and comeuppance of Freddy (the Sister Mary Helena ghost character and the burial storyline involving Freddy's body). I love the returning characters from the original film - contrary to most, I love Heather Langenkamp's portrayal of the iconic Nancy Thompson in this film, and feel she truly conveys the desperation and heroism of such a virtuous character. And John Saxon is riveting as the downtrodden, drunk father - who ultimately meets his comeuppance for his long ago sins, of course...
This movie is everything horror movies, and movies in general, should be. It's entertaining, it has a great story, we hold an actual emotional investment in each of the characters, and a truly thrilling final thirty minutes - and some big-budget special effects to boot. In my mind, there is only one horror film greater than this.

**** / ****