In 1984, Wes Craven, who would go on to do movies such as "Scream", released "A Nightmare on Elm Street", inspired by the mysterious deaths of three teen boys from Vietnam, who died in their sleep after several disturbing nightmares shortly after relocating to the US. The movie was a smash hit, and several sequels were made. As well, a horror icon was born, the man with the knife gloves, Freddy Krueger (named after a childhood bully of Craven's). With such a successful movie series, a remake was bound to happen, and in fact did, getting made in 2010, directed by Samuel Bayer, who had previously only directed music videos, though he had been doing that for 18 years beforehand, and produced by Michael Bay, (in)famous for "Transformers" and "Pearl Harbor".
The remake's plot is, naturally, almost identical to the original's plot. Teenagers are dying in their sleep mysteriously, and are trying to find out why. Their investigation turns up the name of Freddy Krueger, a suspected child molester (in the remake, anyways. The original was a child killer), who was burned up in a fire about ten years prior. With the name, the main teens Nancy Holbrook (Patricia Rooney Mara of "The Social Network") and Quentin Smith (Kyle Gallner, who played Bart Allen in "Smallville") attempt to track down the man, as well as discover why none of the teens can remember knowing each other before high school, despite all going to the same preschool and elementary school.
The plot is fairly basic. However, it does move the story along at a nice, even pace, and the changes to the original, while not too drastic to seem like an entirely different movie, do serve to make it less like watching the original with different actors. For example, the movie uses scientific fact as a plot point. If the body tries to stay awake for too long, it will start taking "micro-naps", meaning that while you think you are still awake, you are, in fact, sleeping for brief periods of time (and I mean brief, as in around 5 minutes). The movie takes this into account, and actually plays it off by having Mr. Krueger be not only aware of the micro-naps, but planning for them. It's a nice little change for a slasher movie to actually bring a little science into it.
The acting, however, falls short of the original. While most of the teens do fairly well in their parts (especially the new Glenn, renamed Quentin), the main crux of the acting falls onto Jackie Earl Haley (Rorschach in "Watchmen") as Freddy Krueger. And for his first time in the role, he does a great job being a menacing figure, as well as portray the human Freddy quite well, even sympathetic, when necessary. However, while he is menacing, he just doesn't have the same dark, blackly humorous feel of Robert Englund in the role. Here, Freddy is menacing and threatening, but he's not as enjoyable to watch as he was in the original. There isn't as much charisma, I guess. JEH does do a commendable job, but overall, the remake just lacks the punch of the original's acting.
However, it does not hold back in the violence category. With 26 years comes looser ratings boards, and Freddy's here to play. This movie's opening kill is quick, pretty clever, and gruesome, and most of the rest of the movie continues on the streak. It may not have the dark humor that NOES is known for, but it plays on the dream world well. For example, did you know that there is 7 minute's difference between the time the heart stops pumping and the brain death of the victim? Well, even if that's total BS made up for the movie, Freddy knows it, and informs his victim of that fact...along with the fact that it leaves them with six more minutes of "play time". However, this works a bit to the film's disadvantage as well. While the original was much more psychological, with only one real stand-out gore moment, this one uses the gore as an attempt to bump up the fear factor. Not necessarily unappreciated, but still not really necessary, either.
On the subject of gore, the make-up in this movie is another letdown. While the burned face makeup may look more realistic, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, especially when compared to the original. The original's face made me a bit intimidated. This face? I laughed when I saw it, and when my viewing companion looked at me oddly, I told her why. It reminded me of Voldemort. When your makeup looks less "hunter of dreams" and more "unable to kill a fucking 14 year old wizard", you have failed to frighten. And failed badly. What was wrong with taking the Two-Face makeup and using it to cover Freddy's face? Other than that, the effects are fine. But when the steak is undercooked, you aren't going to be impressed by the impeccable potatoes.
The final part of the movie to scrutinize is the script. And honestly, it's not too bad. I know, it's a Michael Bay film, which means the script has to suck, right? Well, no. In fact, one of the two writers, Wesley Strick, who also wrote the original story elements, is an accomplished screenwriter in the horror genre, penning "Arachnaphobia" and the remake of "Cape Fear". And he shows his stuff here. Much of the character dialogue feels natural (well, as natural as any teenage dialogue sounds from the mouth of twentysomethings), and the lines by Freddy Krueger are, as mentioned in acting, quite menacing and threatening when necessary. While there isn't much depth to the script, it doesn't really need much depth, just enough to keep the story moving. And there, it succeeds, especially in developing the characters enough to make us care about them, unlike some recent movies. *flips off The Descent 2*
Overall, the movie is a lot better than I expected. Apparently, Michael Bay+music video director=not bad. However, when compared to the original, this one falls flat. The actors, especially the new Freddy, and the Freddy makeup, are dull spots to what could have been a really good remake. As it is, it's not bad. If you haven't seen the original, I'd recommend it over the remake. However, if you have seen the original, and want to see what it is like with a lot more gore and a bit more SCIENCE!, well, this movie is definitely watchable. It won't scare you like the original, but it's not Freddy's Dead.
As a note, please let me know what you think of this review? Like it? Tell me, so I can pump up my pathetic ego. Don't like it? Let me know what to fix in future reviews.
Wow, Rorschach's mask looks badass!
The remake's plot is, naturally, almost identical to the original's plot. Teenagers are dying in their sleep mysteriously, and are trying to find out why. Their investigation turns up the name of Freddy Krueger, a suspected child molester (in the remake, anyways. The original was a child killer), who was burned up in a fire about ten years prior. With the name, the main teens Nancy Holbrook (Patricia Rooney Mara of "The Social Network") and Quentin Smith (Kyle Gallner, who played Bart Allen in "Smallville") attempt to track down the man, as well as discover why none of the teens can remember knowing each other before high school, despite all going to the same preschool and elementary school.
The plot is fairly basic. However, it does move the story along at a nice, even pace, and the changes to the original, while not too drastic to seem like an entirely different movie, do serve to make it less like watching the original with different actors. For example, the movie uses scientific fact as a plot point. If the body tries to stay awake for too long, it will start taking "micro-naps", meaning that while you think you are still awake, you are, in fact, sleeping for brief periods of time (and I mean brief, as in around 5 minutes). The movie takes this into account, and actually plays it off by having Mr. Krueger be not only aware of the micro-naps, but planning for them. It's a nice little change for a slasher movie to actually bring a little science into it.
Yeah, no phallic imagery there.
The acting, however, falls short of the original. While most of the teens do fairly well in their parts (especially the new Glenn, renamed Quentin), the main crux of the acting falls onto Jackie Earl Haley (Rorschach in "Watchmen") as Freddy Krueger. And for his first time in the role, he does a great job being a menacing figure, as well as portray the human Freddy quite well, even sympathetic, when necessary. However, while he is menacing, he just doesn't have the same dark, blackly humorous feel of Robert Englund in the role. Here, Freddy is menacing and threatening, but he's not as enjoyable to watch as he was in the original. There isn't as much charisma, I guess. JEH does do a commendable job, but overall, the remake just lacks the punch of the original's acting.
However, it does not hold back in the violence category. With 26 years comes looser ratings boards, and Freddy's here to play. This movie's opening kill is quick, pretty clever, and gruesome, and most of the rest of the movie continues on the streak. It may not have the dark humor that NOES is known for, but it plays on the dream world well. For example, did you know that there is 7 minute's difference between the time the heart stops pumping and the brain death of the victim? Well, even if that's total BS made up for the movie, Freddy knows it, and informs his victim of that fact...along with the fact that it leaves them with six more minutes of "play time". However, this works a bit to the film's disadvantage as well. While the original was much more psychological, with only one real stand-out gore moment, this one uses the gore as an attempt to bump up the fear factor. Not necessarily unappreciated, but still not really necessary, either.
Hey, kids! It's Voldemort! *applause*
On the subject of gore, the make-up in this movie is another letdown. While the burned face makeup may look more realistic, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, especially when compared to the original. The original's face made me a bit intimidated. This face? I laughed when I saw it, and when my viewing companion looked at me oddly, I told her why. It reminded me of Voldemort. When your makeup looks less "hunter of dreams" and more "unable to kill a fucking 14 year old wizard", you have failed to frighten. And failed badly. What was wrong with taking the Two-Face makeup and using it to cover Freddy's face? Other than that, the effects are fine. But when the steak is undercooked, you aren't going to be impressed by the impeccable potatoes.
The final part of the movie to scrutinize is the script. And honestly, it's not too bad. I know, it's a Michael Bay film, which means the script has to suck, right? Well, no. In fact, one of the two writers, Wesley Strick, who also wrote the original story elements, is an accomplished screenwriter in the horror genre, penning "Arachnaphobia" and the remake of "Cape Fear". And he shows his stuff here. Much of the character dialogue feels natural (well, as natural as any teenage dialogue sounds from the mouth of twentysomethings), and the lines by Freddy Krueger are, as mentioned in acting, quite menacing and threatening when necessary. While there isn't much depth to the script, it doesn't really need much depth, just enough to keep the story moving. And there, it succeeds, especially in developing the characters enough to make us care about them, unlike some recent movies. *flips off The Descent 2*
One, two, Freddy's coming for you...
Overall, the movie is a lot better than I expected. Apparently, Michael Bay+music video director=not bad. However, when compared to the original, this one falls flat. The actors, especially the new Freddy, and the Freddy makeup, are dull spots to what could have been a really good remake. As it is, it's not bad. If you haven't seen the original, I'd recommend it over the remake. However, if you have seen the original, and want to see what it is like with a lot more gore and a bit more SCIENCE!, well, this movie is definitely watchable. It won't scare you like the original, but it's not Freddy's Dead.
Fuck that movie. Dream demons my ass.
As a note, please let me know what you think of this review? Like it? Tell me, so I can pump up my pathetic ego. Don't like it? Let me know what to fix in future reviews.
